The following is a translation of an Arabic Q&A from the official website of Hizb ut-Tahrir:
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answer to Question
Question: American officials have in the past often repeated that Musharraf is an asset for the United States of America in preserving their interests and strengthening & consolidating their stronghold in the region and that he was the US’s crucial ally in occupation of Afghanistan etc… then yesterday, 18th August 2008 C.E the same United States abandoned him leaving no option for him but to resign. How did it come to that? Does it suggest a political confrontation with the British where they succeeded in dislodging Musharraf? And finally, who is likely to replace him as President of the republic?
Answer: Answer: Yes, indeed Musharraf was an asset to the US and an asset which was true to its salt. He gave his services to the US in Afghanistan and the entire region; in fact it will not be an exaggeration to say America could not have occupied Afghanistan without the services of Musharraf despite the Muslims who resisted occupation and were fought under the so-called ‘War on Terror’ and it was Musharraf who arrested a number of Muslims who fought the occupation.
While all of these are true, but it must be noted that Musharraf had of late, especially during the last year or so, had failed to pursue the American agenda. His failure was both, due to his weakened position among the people, the army and the parliament. This was a result of his excessive crimes against the Muslims specially the killings in the Swat tribal region, the Lal Masjid massacre, his shameful zeal and enthusiasm in nurturing the US and his readily offering his services not only against the concepts and sensitivities of Muslims, but also against their emotions.
Musharraf’s failures were expressed by certain American officials who said that as a result of his weakened position among the people and the army, he failed to perform as required by America. Among these statements, the one expressed by Davis McCarnon, the commander of the US forces in Afghanistan who told the American news network CNN on 7th August, 2008: “Do I believe that thee is a kind of connivance from the Pakistani intelligence? Yes, I believe so?” He added “We have observed an increasing number of foreign fighters in south eastern Afghanistan in the last year or so and we are waiting for the Pakistani authorities to move against them and deny them safe havens.”
The New York Times had reported that Steve Caps, the second in command at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) travelled to Islamabad to demand explanation from the Pakistani authorities and confront them with evidence of Pakistani intelligence connivance with the rebel network led by Jalaluddin Haqqani.
The newspaper stressed: “The Americans have intercepted communications that establish what appears to be involvement of Pakistani intelligence elements in the attack on Indian embassy in Kabul which killed 60 persons.
Thus it became clear to the US that Musharraf’s weakened position among the masses and in the government itself does not render him to perform his duties as it wishes despite Musharraf’s efforts and sacrifices in service to America.
So the United States determined that Musharraf has played his role and that he must be replaced to demonstrate to the Pakistani people that they are now safe from dictator Musharraf and then secure US interests and safeguard its influence as well as continue to fight Muslims in the name of fighting terrorism… i.e. repeat a Musharraf-like character similar to him when he was in power!
It must be mentioned that Musharraf’s removal (resignation) yesterday was not simply a matter of one day; rather it culminated gradually over four important milestones whereby he lost his sheen and shine until he announced his resignation finally on 18th August, 2008 C.E.
These important milestones are:
The First milestone: was when the US reached an understanding with the British whereby Benazir Bhutto, the PPP leader was rehabilitated and was returned from her exile in England. This US-British understanding encompassed two main matters:
First: The PPP will not object to Musharraf’s re-election as the President of Pakistan.
Second: The PPP will share power with Musharraf such that she will be the prime minister with authority and power.
Which imply that America realized that it will not be possible for Musharraf to continue in power except with the support of the secular Peoples Party because of Musharraf’s excesses, killing of Muslims and their hate & anger for him. Thus America regarded this understanding with the British as a way to salvage Musharraf’s authority even if was an impaired one.
It must be mentioned that the Peoples Party itself is a coalition and not a structured party as such, i.e. it does not have any defined concepts which its members subscribe to, rather it is a coalition of persons who share certain interests and relations. Therefore it can easily be penetrated and this became obvious to America since the PPP during the time of Benazir’s father was supported and nurtured by it, but the British managed to win over the effective leadership during Benazir’s years of exile in England.
Thus the US understanding with the British which brought in Benazir to Pakistan was the first milestone whereby Musharraf’s powers were impaired.
The Second milestone: This was when the US allowed Nawaz Shareef to return to Pakistan. Indeed Nawaz is America’s man but he had earned the US’s wrath when he failed to prevent the Pakistani army from occupying the Kargil heights in India during the Vajpayee led BJP rule.
It is known that America worked hard for years to earn loyalty of the BJP after long years of pro=British Congress rule in India.
The United States had been assisting Vajpayee politically, economically and even militarily to consolidate its rule and the Kargil occupation came as a big jolt to the BJP popularity.
Therefore the US was behind Musharraf’s coup which overthrew Nawaz Shareef with whom America remained angry and strained and also did not permit him to return.
However after Benazir’s ‘assassination’, there was a surge in PPP popularity and America was scared that it may garner majority votes in the elections and then may not honour the understanding that US has with the British and assume all power and authority alone thereby restoring British influence.
Hence it allowed Nawaz Shareef to return to Pakistan and take its share of votes and cut the PPP to size so that the PPP and Nawaz Shareef’s parties share majority votes.
This was the second stage and it was clear from Nawaz’s return that ground is being prepared for a post-Musharraf era.
The Third milestone: this was when the US forced Musharraf to give up the army command to enable general elections. It was this army command which gave Musharraf the authority and strength whenever he faced any confrontation with whether the people or the parliament.
The Fourth milestone: The current Prime Minister Reza Gilani’s recent visit to the United States, his long conversation with Bush and his return to Pakistan to initiate the process for Musharraf’s ouster.
Indeed an observer who keenly followed this meeting will note that Gilani subjugated to the US while America ensured that the PPP would support the candidature of the US sponsored nominee for the post of the republic’s president. This by its nature would secure the position of Nawaz Shareef’s party.
As a result of this visit, the US gave its green signal to the coalition government to start the impeachment process against Musharraf after having secured Gilani and PPP’s commitment to support the US’s nominee for the president’s post. This was meant to ensure that the PPP does not create hurdles for the American nominee to become the President.
In fact Gilani, as the British agent may have agreed to support the US nominee reflecting the British policy of not openly opposing the United States, but it is more likely that the US may have promised him a more prominent position in the new dispensation and he may have moved closer to the Americans.
Despite this reversal, Britain is not expected to sit quiet on this missed opportunity to share power in Pakistan after its understanding reached with the US, therefore it is likely to work with the leaders of other pro-British parties to create problems in the next president’s election unless it is given effective say in the matters as provided in its understating with the US.
Though Britain does not eye a complete command over matters in Pakistan, it will not miss an opportunity that comes it way either, therefore the elections for the president’s post that will be faced with serious hurdles until there is a fresh dialogue to reach another understanding between the US and Britain.
Irrespective of the name of the presidential nominee, it is the US which will play the effective role in the elections, and there are three possible scenarios:
The First Scenario: The candidate may be Reza Gilani; this may happen if the US is convinced of his real loyalty. The US will not like to see him toeing like the British who publicly support the US position but work behind the scenes to thwart American designs. If the United States is convinced, Gilani will be lucky. But this will mean placating the British who will not easily digest this and may create hurdles in his path among the PPP leadership.
The Second Scenario: The nominee may be from Nawaz Shareef’s party, but this will have to be from among the leadership and Shareef himself since although he is pro-America, but his image among the people is relatively tainted. Moreover the US has not fully forgotten the Kargil confrontation, hence it will not rely on nominating Shareef except if his party does not come up with a strong nominee, which is when the US will accept Nawaz’s candidature.
The Third Scenario: If both of the above possibilities fail to materialise, America may have to take recourse to the army again, since Kiyani, the army commander was elevated to head the army by Musharraf with US approval. The United States will not waste any means to politicise the armed forces to comply with the strange American democracy!
To conclude, we would say that if these agents only remember the fate of their predecessors in the colonialised countries who were thrown out like the kernel and the agent looses all his worldly privileges also just as he had already lost his religion by virtue of being the Kuffar’s agent and by his treachery to the Ummah.
If only these agents considered their fate, they could at least save their worldly privileges by being close and loyal to their people than their colonialist masters, but they think not.
18th Sha’ban, 1429 A.H
19th August, 2008 C.E
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Q&A: Military coup in Mauritania & Russia's war in Georgia
The following is a translation of an Arabic Q&A from the website of the Ameer of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Sheikh Ata Abu Rashta.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answers to Questions
Question 1: On 6th of August, 2008, a military coup was announced in Mauritania staged by the army led by the chief of the Republican Guard, General Mohammed Abdul Azeez against the President of the Republic Sayyid Mohammed al Sheikh Abdullah and his Prime Minister Yahya Ahmad al Waqif. This coup took place 16 months after the elections facilitated by the army in March 2007, which itself were less than 2 years after the 2005 military coup which dethroned Waleed al Ta’e and the army assumed authority under the leadership of Colonel Ali Mohammed Faal who honoured his commintment to transfer power to an elected government. What is the reality of this latest coup and what prompted it?
Answer: In 1920 the colonialist France occupied the Muslims in Mauritania after a fierce resistance and declared Mauritania as a French colony. Then in 1946, they declared it as an overseas protectorate state under the French suzerainty and the imperialist colonialists remained there until 1960 when they allowed a formal independence but retained control over authority, contituted an army based on their creed and trained officers in their culture. Thus a series of military coups were staged begining with the 1978 coup against the first French-appointed president Mukhtar Dadah. Until now five successful coups have taken place in Mauritania apart from nine failed attempts during the last thirty years.
The latest coup staged by General Mohammed Abdul Azeez follows a decree by the deposed president Sayyid Mohammed al Sheikh Abdullah dismissing the general as the commander of the Republican Guard as well as the chief of staff al Ghazawani and the commander of the police. It may be recalled that it was the deposed president who had promoted the three colonel officers to the rank of generals, which means that either he approved of them or was under their pressure or perhaps he was trying to placate them by means of these promotions and earn their loyalties, which is more probable.
However it was surprising to see the deposed president take a complete U-turn and dismiss the army leadership in such a hurry and with such ease! Note that the three generals were in command and he was a newly elected president coming to office for his first term and moreover he was the first elected president! It appears that he presumed and counted on support both locally and oversees because of the democratic process and he also supposedly under estimated that France would instigate or encourage the military officers prompting them to stage the coup. The president appears to have counted heavily on US support for him.
In the first French reaction to the coup in Mauritania, as expressed by the French foreign office spokesman Roman Nadal said that his ministry was in constant touch with the French Embassy in Nouakchott and was monitoring the situation in coordination with all their allies. He added that it was a little premature to make further comments on the situation. France was the first foreign country to make the announcemnt about the coup having taken place in Mauritania and its Ambassador was the first to have been received by the coup leader. This itself suggests that France was aware of the chain of events there. It was reported in the media that France knew about the coup at least two hours before hand.
As for the US reaction expressed by the State department spokesman, it condemned the coup, demanded that all countries rebuke the event and also welcomed the European Commission and the Organisation of African Unity‘s condemnations. The US State department spokesman further demanded that the eleceted president Sayyid Mohammed al Sheikh Abdullahand his Prime Minister Yahya Ahmad al Waqif be released and the elected government be reistated forthwith. He also announced immedeate suspension of all US aid to Maritania other than humanitarian assistance.
But just one day after the coup, France in her capacity as the current president of the EU issued a statement saying that the EU condemns the coup staged by General Mohammed Abdul Azeez in Mauritania. It is apparent that this rather belated condemnation came not from France but from the EU which reflects the policy of supporting elections and democracy at the ideological level and which is at variance with the stance of the individual nations. Further, this condemnation comes in the wake of the US demand that all countries rebuke the events in Mauritania. Offcourse, Europe could not have openly supported the coup which would contradict with its policy of fostering democracies.
The British on their part did not issue reaction nor was the coup covered in its press and media at all, which indicates that Britain was not upset with the coup. It neither condemned it not sipported it nor even comented on it either ways. This was a clever maneauvre designed to insulate Britain from being embarrassed by supporting the coup and appearing aniti-democracy!
The present Mauritanian coup took place after a dispute between the army and the Republic’s president and his government. The army had asked the parliamentary & Senate members of the ruling party known for short as the Justice party to resign from their party. As as result, 48 members of the ruling party resigned on 5th August, 2008 C.E and consequently, the president dismissed the army command including the coup leader General Mohammed Abdul Azeez. The army command responded to their dismissal and rejected to decree dismissing them and declared it to be invalid immedeately afterwards. The coup leader General Mohammed Abdul Azeez said in a statement today 9th August, 2008 C.E that the coup was in response to the failures of the deposed president. As for the spokesman of the deposed presidency Abdullah Mama Duba said: ‘‘The armed forces thought of the president as pliable, but it turned out to be otherwise, and when the president tried to forge a majority in alliance with other parties, the armed forces moved in with their weapons“.
The parliamentary crisis began on 30th June, 2008 C.E when the members accused the government of failures and demanded that it had lost confidence and hence its removal. On 1st July, 2008, htere were reports to the effect that France was behind the members move and that it was not satisfied with the performance of the government and the president as well as their policies. The reports cited certain points including its disapproval of the release of some Muslim prisoners held in prisons who were trying to form what it said was a `Islamist` party. This, according to the reports suggested that the president had religious inclinations since he erected amosque in the Presidential palace premises. The reports further said that it suggested that the president was sensitive to relations with the Jewish entity and wanted to hold a referendum on the issue and sever relations with the Jewish state. The reports further accused the president of allowing increased American presence in Mauritania and considered him as its leading agent.
To conclude, based on the fore going, it may be said that France did not approve of the political attitude of the deposed president and this disapproval of France encouraged the military officers to stage the coup against him, while the US approved of his anti-French and pro-American policies aimed at increasing the US presence in Mauritania as a first step to erase the French influence and replacing it with US hold. The president decided to extricate of the army’s authority, brought in officers whom he could work with and removed officers loyal to France.
Question 2: What prompted Georgia to initiate attack on South Ossettia? Did it not anticipate a stong reaction from Russia? Where would this war lead to?
Answer: It is clear that the US has fanned the flames of war in Georgia because it was Georgia armed forces that launched the attack on South Ossetia and it is unlikely that Georgia would embark on a attack of such magnitude with the US green signal.
Therefore the Georgian assault was pre-planned and surprised Russia and it may well be the begining of a long-drawn war in the Caucasus with the Georgians and Ossetians fuelling it primarily. Russia on its part will not remain a silent spectator because if it does so, it stands to lose its hegemony in the region. It will also not give away sovereignty especially over South Ossetia to Georgia since an overwhelming majority of the regions 70,000 inhabitants are either Russians or are pro-Russia and hold Russian passports. These inhabitants regard their territory as a natural extention of the Northern Ossetia which is in Russia.
Georgians too will not easily give up South Ossetia because it is a part of their territory according to the official and international maps, on the other hand it intends to take revenge from the Ossetians who defeated the Georgians in the 1992 war and separated from it with the Russian backing and are a separate entity for the last 16 years. It is more likely that the war may spill over into the Abkhazian region which is even bigger than South Ossetia both in terms of geographical area and population which separated from Georgia in the same year.
The initial US statements in the aftermath of the attack clearly suggest that it supports Georgia in its venture. The US State Department spokesman Gonsalves Ghalighou said:“We are in touch with senior officials in Georgia and Russia“. He added,“We call upon Moscow to use pressure on the authorities in charge in Southern Ossetia to cease fire“. Here he regards the separatists‘ leadesrship as the de facto leadership, in another statement a US adminstration official said that“the solution to the South Ossetian conflict must focus upon unity of the Georgian territories“, in reference to uniting the southern Ossetian region with Georgia.
As for Russia, after the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, it has warned that its reaction on the issue would be to separate southern Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia and their independence. Some observers see Georgi’s entry into the NATO linked to the solution to the southern Ossetian and the Abkhazian conflict. The Georgian President Saakshivli appears to be in a hurry to join the NATO alliance and has therefore ventured this attack being assured of American support to prevent Russia from interfering in his country’s internal affairs and to develop his country to the levels enjoyed by the Baltic countries like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia which are completely free from any Russian interference. However, it is unlikely that Russia and Georgia will reach a final settlement, especially the Gerogians have waited long for a solution. The Russians on the other hand consider the issue as their regional one and do not imagine giving up on the separatists. Therefore most solution appears to be a soldiers‘ respite cease fire and not a final solution.
Indeed the United States is likely to be primary beneficiary and has nothing to lose, because this conflict is likely to remain atleast for the time being a thorn in the Russian flesh draining much of its energies and engaging it for a long time at the cost of other issues.
10th Sha’ban, 1429 A.H
9th August, 2008 C.E
Arabic Source
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answers to Questions
Question 1: On 6th of August, 2008, a military coup was announced in Mauritania staged by the army led by the chief of the Republican Guard, General Mohammed Abdul Azeez against the President of the Republic Sayyid Mohammed al Sheikh Abdullah and his Prime Minister Yahya Ahmad al Waqif. This coup took place 16 months after the elections facilitated by the army in March 2007, which itself were less than 2 years after the 2005 military coup which dethroned Waleed al Ta’e and the army assumed authority under the leadership of Colonel Ali Mohammed Faal who honoured his commintment to transfer power to an elected government. What is the reality of this latest coup and what prompted it?
Answer: In 1920 the colonialist France occupied the Muslims in Mauritania after a fierce resistance and declared Mauritania as a French colony. Then in 1946, they declared it as an overseas protectorate state under the French suzerainty and the imperialist colonialists remained there until 1960 when they allowed a formal independence but retained control over authority, contituted an army based on their creed and trained officers in their culture. Thus a series of military coups were staged begining with the 1978 coup against the first French-appointed president Mukhtar Dadah. Until now five successful coups have taken place in Mauritania apart from nine failed attempts during the last thirty years.
The latest coup staged by General Mohammed Abdul Azeez follows a decree by the deposed president Sayyid Mohammed al Sheikh Abdullah dismissing the general as the commander of the Republican Guard as well as the chief of staff al Ghazawani and the commander of the police. It may be recalled that it was the deposed president who had promoted the three colonel officers to the rank of generals, which means that either he approved of them or was under their pressure or perhaps he was trying to placate them by means of these promotions and earn their loyalties, which is more probable.
However it was surprising to see the deposed president take a complete U-turn and dismiss the army leadership in such a hurry and with such ease! Note that the three generals were in command and he was a newly elected president coming to office for his first term and moreover he was the first elected president! It appears that he presumed and counted on support both locally and oversees because of the democratic process and he also supposedly under estimated that France would instigate or encourage the military officers prompting them to stage the coup. The president appears to have counted heavily on US support for him.
In the first French reaction to the coup in Mauritania, as expressed by the French foreign office spokesman Roman Nadal said that his ministry was in constant touch with the French Embassy in Nouakchott and was monitoring the situation in coordination with all their allies. He added that it was a little premature to make further comments on the situation. France was the first foreign country to make the announcemnt about the coup having taken place in Mauritania and its Ambassador was the first to have been received by the coup leader. This itself suggests that France was aware of the chain of events there. It was reported in the media that France knew about the coup at least two hours before hand.
As for the US reaction expressed by the State department spokesman, it condemned the coup, demanded that all countries rebuke the event and also welcomed the European Commission and the Organisation of African Unity‘s condemnations. The US State department spokesman further demanded that the eleceted president Sayyid Mohammed al Sheikh Abdullahand his Prime Minister Yahya Ahmad al Waqif be released and the elected government be reistated forthwith. He also announced immedeate suspension of all US aid to Maritania other than humanitarian assistance.
But just one day after the coup, France in her capacity as the current president of the EU issued a statement saying that the EU condemns the coup staged by General Mohammed Abdul Azeez in Mauritania. It is apparent that this rather belated condemnation came not from France but from the EU which reflects the policy of supporting elections and democracy at the ideological level and which is at variance with the stance of the individual nations. Further, this condemnation comes in the wake of the US demand that all countries rebuke the events in Mauritania. Offcourse, Europe could not have openly supported the coup which would contradict with its policy of fostering democracies.
The British on their part did not issue reaction nor was the coup covered in its press and media at all, which indicates that Britain was not upset with the coup. It neither condemned it not sipported it nor even comented on it either ways. This was a clever maneauvre designed to insulate Britain from being embarrassed by supporting the coup and appearing aniti-democracy!
The present Mauritanian coup took place after a dispute between the army and the Republic’s president and his government. The army had asked the parliamentary & Senate members of the ruling party known for short as the Justice party to resign from their party. As as result, 48 members of the ruling party resigned on 5th August, 2008 C.E and consequently, the president dismissed the army command including the coup leader General Mohammed Abdul Azeez. The army command responded to their dismissal and rejected to decree dismissing them and declared it to be invalid immedeately afterwards. The coup leader General Mohammed Abdul Azeez said in a statement today 9th August, 2008 C.E that the coup was in response to the failures of the deposed president. As for the spokesman of the deposed presidency Abdullah Mama Duba said: ‘‘The armed forces thought of the president as pliable, but it turned out to be otherwise, and when the president tried to forge a majority in alliance with other parties, the armed forces moved in with their weapons“.
The parliamentary crisis began on 30th June, 2008 C.E when the members accused the government of failures and demanded that it had lost confidence and hence its removal. On 1st July, 2008, htere were reports to the effect that France was behind the members move and that it was not satisfied with the performance of the government and the president as well as their policies. The reports cited certain points including its disapproval of the release of some Muslim prisoners held in prisons who were trying to form what it said was a `Islamist` party. This, according to the reports suggested that the president had religious inclinations since he erected amosque in the Presidential palace premises. The reports further said that it suggested that the president was sensitive to relations with the Jewish entity and wanted to hold a referendum on the issue and sever relations with the Jewish state. The reports further accused the president of allowing increased American presence in Mauritania and considered him as its leading agent.
To conclude, based on the fore going, it may be said that France did not approve of the political attitude of the deposed president and this disapproval of France encouraged the military officers to stage the coup against him, while the US approved of his anti-French and pro-American policies aimed at increasing the US presence in Mauritania as a first step to erase the French influence and replacing it with US hold. The president decided to extricate of the army’s authority, brought in officers whom he could work with and removed officers loyal to France.
Question 2: What prompted Georgia to initiate attack on South Ossettia? Did it not anticipate a stong reaction from Russia? Where would this war lead to?
Answer: It is clear that the US has fanned the flames of war in Georgia because it was Georgia armed forces that launched the attack on South Ossetia and it is unlikely that Georgia would embark on a attack of such magnitude with the US green signal.
Therefore the Georgian assault was pre-planned and surprised Russia and it may well be the begining of a long-drawn war in the Caucasus with the Georgians and Ossetians fuelling it primarily. Russia on its part will not remain a silent spectator because if it does so, it stands to lose its hegemony in the region. It will also not give away sovereignty especially over South Ossetia to Georgia since an overwhelming majority of the regions 70,000 inhabitants are either Russians or are pro-Russia and hold Russian passports. These inhabitants regard their territory as a natural extention of the Northern Ossetia which is in Russia.
Georgians too will not easily give up South Ossetia because it is a part of their territory according to the official and international maps, on the other hand it intends to take revenge from the Ossetians who defeated the Georgians in the 1992 war and separated from it with the Russian backing and are a separate entity for the last 16 years. It is more likely that the war may spill over into the Abkhazian region which is even bigger than South Ossetia both in terms of geographical area and population which separated from Georgia in the same year.
The initial US statements in the aftermath of the attack clearly suggest that it supports Georgia in its venture. The US State Department spokesman Gonsalves Ghalighou said:“We are in touch with senior officials in Georgia and Russia“. He added,“We call upon Moscow to use pressure on the authorities in charge in Southern Ossetia to cease fire“. Here he regards the separatists‘ leadesrship as the de facto leadership, in another statement a US adminstration official said that“the solution to the South Ossetian conflict must focus upon unity of the Georgian territories“, in reference to uniting the southern Ossetian region with Georgia.
As for Russia, after the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, it has warned that its reaction on the issue would be to separate southern Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia and their independence. Some observers see Georgi’s entry into the NATO linked to the solution to the southern Ossetian and the Abkhazian conflict. The Georgian President Saakshivli appears to be in a hurry to join the NATO alliance and has therefore ventured this attack being assured of American support to prevent Russia from interfering in his country’s internal affairs and to develop his country to the levels enjoyed by the Baltic countries like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia which are completely free from any Russian interference. However, it is unlikely that Russia and Georgia will reach a final settlement, especially the Gerogians have waited long for a solution. The Russians on the other hand consider the issue as their regional one and do not imagine giving up on the separatists. Therefore most solution appears to be a soldiers‘ respite cease fire and not a final solution.
Indeed the United States is likely to be primary beneficiary and has nothing to lose, because this conflict is likely to remain atleast for the time being a thorn in the Russian flesh draining much of its energies and engaging it for a long time at the cost of other issues.
10th Sha’ban, 1429 A.H
9th August, 2008 C.E
Arabic Source
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The Issue of Kashmir
The following is the translation of a chapter from an Arabic booklet entitled 'Political Issues - Occupied Muslim Lands' issued by Hizb ut-Tahrir in 2004. This chapter is especially relavent due to the current crisis in occupied Kashmir.
KASHMIR
India conducts its wild campaign against Kashmir, while repeating the rhetoric of terrorism and terrorists, so as to place a thick cloud on the issue. It wants some people to think that Kashmir is one of the Hindus properties, and it is supposed to be under their rule in the first place. The reply of Muslims in Kashmir to the aggression of India against them is, in their view, considered rebellion against the Indian state, which has the right of destroying them. Thus, they want to give a false portrayal of the issue. In reality, Kashmir is an Islamic land; rather the whole of India is an Islamic land, which Muslims conquered and enlightened after it lived in darkness. The authority of Islam continued in it till the middle of 19th century when Britain aggressed against India and committed massacres and violations against humans and nature.
In reality Kashmir is an Islamic land, which Muslims conquered and Islam entered in it towards the end of the first Hijri century. This came within the conquests of Sind and Hind at the hands of the Muslim General, Muhammad al-Qasim, which started in 94 AH (712AC). Islam then spread in it and the remaining parts of the Indian subcontinent in the time of the Abbasid Khaleefah, al-Mu’ tasim, 218-225 AH (833-839 AC). The authority of Islam continued in it and the whole subcontinent, which is known today as India, Pakistan, Kashmir and Bangladesh was part of it.
British invaded the Indian subcontinent in 1819, where it was faced with strong resistance from the Muslims. The war continued with alternate success between the Islamic authority in the subcontinent and invading Britain with the help of some kufr forces of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others. Britain could not achieve stability and control over it except after 27 years of vigorous wars with the Muslims, ie in 1846.
Britain managed after that to extend its authority over the region, and she divided it into three parts: she directly ruled one of these parts, which represents 55% of the subcontinent, and Muslims are majority in it. It ruled the other part through governors of provinces that include Hindus and Muslims. These governors were appointed over 565 provinces of autonomy. The third part, which is Kashmir, it leased to a Hindu feudalist for 100 years, in accordance with a lease contract signed in (Amristar), and became known later on in the name of Amritsar agreement. This agreement covers the period between 1846 and 1946.
Thus, Kashmir, the Islamic land came to be governed by Hindus in accordance with the mentioned lease agreement.
Kashmir is about 217,935 sq. km., surrounded by Pakistan, India, China and Afghanistan. Its population is 12 million; 85% of them are Muslims, while the remaining 15% are of the other sects, like Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. The Muslim conquerors called Kashmir the ceiling of the world or the garden of Allah on earth because of its good climate, abundant forests and sources and the existence in it of the highest (Himalayan) mountain peaks in the world. Kashmir is a country that is rich with its waters and rivers, for it has the rivers of Sind, Jhelum and Chenab. Most of its land is above the sea level by about 1200 m. It is crossed by the famous Silk Road, and it is the only link between China and Pakistan. In 1983, sapphire and ruby were discovered in it, a matter that increased India’s obstinacy in the occupation and constant domination over Kashmir.
This is the Kashmir that was occupied by Britain, the criminal and belligerent state. It usurped from its Muslim population and rented it to a tyrant Hindu who was an enemy to its people. They come now to say that Kashmir is property of state of India, and that the Muslims resistance against them is considered terrorism and aggression. The Hindu Maharaja who governed Kashmir in accordance with the lease contract made with the English had used all types of tyranny and torture against Muslims to the point that one of his ministers resigned because of the horrible crimes committed by the rule of the Maharaja against the people of Kashmir. That minister declared the people of Kashmir are herded like cattle, and they are oppressed and suppressed without being listened by any official. He added that the government in Kashmir is completely isolated from the people. This is what the enemy say; so what about the reality itself?
The Hindu rule in Kashmir used to defile the Muslims sanctities such as the Glorious Quran and the mosques as it happened in 1931, when one of the Hindu security officers defiled the Glorious Quran that led to the breakout of the Muslims uprising there. The Muslims of Kashmir are known for their resolve and determination in truth. One of their wonderful marks of their firmness is the incident of 13/7/1931, which Muslims of Kashmir compare with the battle of Mu’tah. On that day, many Muslims of Kashmir met to announce their solidarity with a person called Abdul Qadir Khan who gave a speech in the Friday prayer against the decisions of the Hindu king, which were hostile to Muslims. A Hindu security officer stopped him from giving the speech and he was then thrown in the prison. During the solidarity meeting they held in the prison yard, the time of noon (zuhr) prayer came, so one of them read the azan (call for prayer). The Hindu security forces shot at him immediately and killed him. Another man stood up and continued in reading the azan, but he was shot and killed. His companions stood up to continue reading the azan one after the other till 22 people were killed in this incident before the whole azan was read.
Though the agreement expired, the Hindu ruling continued by the support of the English, sometimes openly and sometimes secretly. In 1947 the English divided the Indian subcontinent, apart from Kashmir, into two states: India and Pakistan, in accordance with the population. However, the Hindu governor of Kashmir joined India against the will of the Muslim population. It is worth mentioning that when Britain divided the Indian subcontinent between India and Pakistan, the British ministerial mission confirmed in its memorandum dated in 12/5/1946, which was directed to the governors of the 565 Indian provinces, that they have to abide by the wishes of their people regarding the decision of their provinces unification with one of the two states, India and Pakistan.
However, the unification of three provinces to Pakistan had been obstructed, which were Hyderabad, Jonagra and Kashmir. The reason of this obstruction was that the governors of provinces of Hyderabad and Jonagra were Muslims, while the majority of their population were Hindu, so they were annexed to India. However, the majority of Kashmir population were Muslims and its governor was Hindu, yet it was annexed to India as well. The bias of the English towards the Hindus was the factor that enabled India to annex the three provinces, particularly Kashmir, to it. This led to many wars between India and the Hindu ruling from one side, and Pakistan and Muslims of Kashmir from another side. Thus, India occupied two thirds of Kashmir (65%), while another part (30%) remained with the Pakistani side; China took over (5%) of Kashmir. This is the current situation of Kashmir.
At the beginning of the war, in 13/8/1948, the first resolution regarding Kashmir was issued by the Security Council, which decided ceasefire and formation of International Observation Force for the sake of the assurance of continuous ceasefire.
This was followed by another resolution for the withdrawal of the Indian and Pakistani forces from Kashmir in preparation to conducting a referendum, in which the people of Kashmir decide their final future. In 5/1/1949 India and Pakistan accepted the resolution, however India rejected to withdraw. Then Jawaharlal Nehru decided in 1956 to annex the part of Kashmir controlled by the Indian army to India, and he hoisted the Indian flag on top of the government offices, and considered it an indivisible part of India.
In 14/2/1957 another resolution was issued by the Security Council that confirmed the necessity of the withdrawal of the Indian forces from the province. However, as usual, it ignored the resolution, in collusion with Britain. Then it started to study the styles and means that were used by the tyrants to attack Islam and Muslims, and to seduce them from their deen, so as to use these styles and means in Kashmir.
Therefore, it sent in 1965 a delegation of experts to Spain so as to study the way Muslims were eliminated in Andalusia after the fall of Granada. India entrusted also its ambassador in Moscow to study the styles of eliminating the Islamic character used by the old Soviet Union against the Islamic presence there. Then the Indian authorities increased its cooperation with the Jewish state after it recognised it and accepted its seizure of Palestine, and started to study the Jews plans they used in their massacres against Muslims. Their declarations have revealed this cooperation.
Benyameen Shan, a member in the previous government of Shamir said: “India and Israel face a common danger, which is the Islamic fundamentalism in Palestine and Kashmir. We understood how to deal with the Arabs and Muslims, and in turn we are going to provide India with our experience in this field”.
India persisted on using different styles in Kashmir so as to create generations detached from their deen, or ignorant of the proper understanding of their Islam. This is because it believed it could remove Islam from Kashmir after some years. However, the results were far from what they wished. Muslims increase their attachment to Islam, and their loyalty to Islam strengthens after every vicious attack the Indian authorities wage against Muslims, whether the attack was through oppression, torture or any other devious styles of distortion and delusion.
India committed massacres in Kashmir in 1989 that resulted in the murder of 25 thousand shahid; then it followed these with other massacres in the following years. The broadcast of the committee of Kashmiri Muslims relief announced based on statistics obtained from UN sources, India media, International Media agencies and from Kashmiri sources that the Indian authorities in Kashmir committed, since January 1990 till December 1998, the following crimes:
- 63,275 martyrs were murdered with gunshots.
- 775 people of politicians, ulema and imams of mosques were eliminated.
- 3,370 martyrs were tortured to death.
- 81,161 people are locked in prisons without hearing in court.
This is in addition to incidents of violation of honour and sanctities, wounded and lost, which count in hundreds of thousands. The reports of International organisation are full of atrocities committed by India in Kashmir, like the report of International Amnesty issued in 6/2/1999.
This is a part of the oppression and torture committed by the Indian authorities in Kashmir. As regards the other styles of distortion and deception, the authorities embarked on discontinuation of teaching the Glorious Quran and Arabic language in the state schools, besides introducing the Hindi language as compulsory language. Then they used the media for carrying out intensive campaigns against the Islamic values of family and women dress. This was in addition to promotion of alcohol in Kashmir and the laws of mixed marriage between Muslims and Hindus, followed by the implementation of birth control plan through using surgical operations to the point that the province of Kashmir known of its Muslim majority had won the highest medal in birth control.
This is the Kashmir that suffered and still suffers of the barbaric activities committed by the Indian army and police against Muslims there. Its issue looks more similar to that of Palestine. Hindus occupied Kashmir at the same period Jews occupied Palestine and established a state for them there. The rulers of Pakistan have neglected Kashmir in terms of its protection and liberation the same way the Arab rulers surrounding Palestine did to Palestine.
Pakistan for a long period, from 1947, the year of division (of Indian subcontinent) and independence (of Pakistan), till 2003, called for the implementation of the international resolutions and granting the people of Kashmir their right of self determination. However, India continued to reject these resolutions the same Israel does. Then a change happened in the position of Pakistan at the beginning of 2004, where Pakistan abandoned the negotiations based on international resolutions and the right of self-determination, and accepted instead bilateral negotiations with India with need of internationalising the issue. It further accepted to give up Pakistan’s conditions related to Kashmir’ s right of self-determination.
The reason behind the loss of Kashmir and abandoning the defence of its Muslims do not come from the weakness of Muslims in Pakistan. This is because they are capable to regain it from India easily. It is rather due to the fact that rulers of Pakistan are agents to America, which made them give to India continuous concessions regarding Kashmir. General Ayub Khan waged a war in 1965 because of Kashmir, but he surrendered to India three rivers that were Pakistan’ s share. As regards to Yahya Khan and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, they lost in 1971 East Pakistan that became Bangladesh. At the time of Zia ul Haq, the Indians occupied the mounts of Siachen. At the time of Nawaz Sharif, the mujahidoon and the Pakistani army were deprived of keeping Kargil heights in 1999 after Muslims were about to realize victory. However, in compliance with US orders, Nawaz Sharif gave his orders to the army and the fighters to withdraw. This was in support of Vajpayee, the Indian prime minister at that time, creating a heroic popularity for him before his opponents of the Congress party, on the account of Muslims blood.
Ultimately, in the time of Pervez Musharraf for the first time, giving the people of Kashmir the right of self determination and their liberation from the authority of the Indians have been abandoned. The issue of Kashmir has been seriously submitted for discussion since Musharraf’s visit to America and his reception by Bush in Camp David in 24/6/2003, for that visit was a turning point regarding the political and military action towards Kashmir. Not a single ruler in Pakistan dared in the past to speak about a solution for Kashmir through negotiation with India, in order to divide it. It was rather quite clear in every political proposal about it before that all of Kashmir, which includes Azad Kashmir that is with Pakistan, and Jammu Kashmir that is with India, becomes all of it independent from India. India used to reject that and considered Jammu and Kashmir are part of it, as it came in the declaration of Nehru in 1956.
Musharraf explicitly announced in that visit his approval on a Road Map to solve the issue of Kashmir, on the same model of Middle East. He added about his readiness to give important concessions for reaching a permanent solution about Kashmir. This proposal of concessions was given during discussions with American (congress) representatives in Washington in 26/6/2003, during that visit. He added by announcing that he will stand on the face of the Muslim ‘extremists’ , i.e. the jihadi groups in Kashmir.
So, Pervez Musharraf called, in 11/8/2003 for negotiations to solve the disputes with India. The statements of Musharraf that emphasised his commitment to discussions with New Delhi came one day after a statement given by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Indian prime minister, calling for the necessity of stopping the bloodshed between the two countries.
The news agency of Reuters reported in 17/12/2003, after an interview with Musharraf, “that he is ready to be brave and flexible regarding the peace efforts between the two nuclear neighbours. Musharraf displayed in the interview flexibility regarding Kashmir. He said that if we wanted to solve this problem, then the two sides need to speak to each other with flexibility, disregarding the declared positions and meeting in the midway” .
After that Musharraf went on issuing laws, one after the other, for preventing and harassing any opposition from the Muslims to the occupation of Kashmir by India. At the end he met Vajpayee in 5/1/2004, where the practical foundations for negotiation with India regarding Kashmir were laid down.
The close positions in negotiation between the two countries started to appear. Lal Krishna Advani, the Indian deputy prime minister said in 12/3/2004 that his country, “is ready to take and give, in attempt to conclude peace with Pakistan regarding the area of Kashmir” under dispute.
Then Vajpayee said on Friday 18/4/2004, within a rare proposal to Pakistan, that dialogue is the only way to bring peace to Kashmir. Jamali rushed to welcome this call, saying that this represents ‘a positive development’ . Zafarullah Kahn Jamali, the Pakistani prime minister, welcomed the proposal for holding talks regarding Kashmir, which was presented by the Indian Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
Jamali informed the media correspondents in Islamabad, saying: “The position of Pakistan is still as it was. However, once the negotiations started.......there will be flexibility from both sides” .
India and Pakistan had resumed in 16/2/2004 the dialogue that was disrupted between them when the tension reached its climax two and a half year before. The delegates of the two countries conducted talks in Islamabad for the purpose of drawing an agenda and framework for negotiations, which will hopefully lead to settle the dispute between them over Kashmir, as being the main point in the dossier of differences. The US endeavoured since some time to improve its relations with India. This came after the breakdown of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the nineties. After America completed the stage of containing China at that period, it started the stage of reducing (cut the size of) China. Since India has traditional enmity with China, besides it also has huge human resources and military capabilities, it was the best candidate to play this role. America understood the value of India for this role. It actually tried since the Independence of India in 1947 to have the influence in it. However, the English and The Congress party prevented that. Through a significant development, America enhanced the level of her attempts in 1990, where she sent Robert Gates, one of the CIA officials, to India, but her attempts did not produce the desired success except after the advent of her agent, Vajpayee, in 1998. There was a talk inside the American circles about central or leading states in the various regions of the world, where the USA would promote them to lead the regions they exist in; and she recommended India to lead the region of South Asia.
Since the issue of Kashmir was a burden for India, and it was like a thorn in its side, America endeavoured to remove that pain from the side of India, so that its complete attention will be focused on its disengagement as a rival for China in the region. This is also to prevent the hot issue of Kashmir from having influence on the American war in Afghanistan.
Therefore, once the two states of India and Pakistan became under the influence of America, she endeavoured to create mutual understanding between them over Kashmir. She also changed her original view regarding the solution of the problem. She wanted at the beginning to internationalise the issue, but she now urges the both sides to solve it bilaterally. The current view of America regarding this solution is to divide Kashmir, where the liberated part of Kashmir will go to Pakistan, while that part which is under the authority of India will go to India. The parts of Kashmir occupied by India, which are of Muslim majority, will be given some form of autonomy, but stay under the authority of Indian government. Despite that Musharraf and Vajpayee (before the last Indian elections) were under the control of America, however there are some obstacles before this division plan, which are represented in some elements in the Pakistani, army and some Hindu hard liners. The events of September 11 2001, allowed America to confront these obstacles head on. America’s strategy was to force Pakistan to make several compromises over Kashmir. Consequently Pakistan made several concessions, which ultimately strengthened Vajpayee’s position amongst the hard liners.
The concessions consisted of withdrawing support to the jihadi groups, closing down training camps, decreasing Pakistani troops from the LOC (Line of Control), and abandoning any support for the Kashmiri Muslims. Finally, the situation reached the point that Pervez Musharraf, the eminent agent of America and the prime enemy of Muslims in the region, announced in his visit to America, as we mentioned above, about his approval of a Road Map to solve the issue of Kashmir, on the same model of the Road Map of the Middle East. This map would lead to direct negotiations with India regarding the study of the American solution. He said he would confront the Extremist Muslims, ie the jihadi groups in Kashmir and the Islamic parties and organisations in Pakistan.
America hoped these concessions would increase the popularity of Vajpayee and his party in the sight of the Indian electoral, particularly it used to support Vajpayee militarily and to prevent Pakistan from owning developed weapons (such as postponing the handover of the fighters deal despite Pakistan had paid its price) .It also entered into a treaty of strategic partnership, so that Vajpayee appears before the Indian Public as the cause of their military superiority over their opponent, Pakistan.
She also supported Vajpayee economically to create economic revival. She did all of that because it saw the strong support of the Congress party, and that BJP has a coalition that cannot stand before the Congress without support.
However the vulnerable spot of BJP came from this support, particularly the economic one. This is because USA gave plentiful economic support, discharged funds to the government of BJP and pushed it to adopt the (privatisation). This policy created huge companies and economic revival according to the capitalist model, i.e. more concentration of the wealth. This policy however does not suit a country in which poverty prevails. Therefore, rich people, finance companies and factories increased in the cities, but the poor increased in poverty, particularly in the countryside and villages.
Another factor was added, which is the deep-rooted nature of the Congress party, and its political shrewdness that follows the British style. So, it challenged the hard line position of the religious BJP through displaying the secularism of the Congress, which is not taking side with any particular religion. It also attacked the capitalist nature of privatisation through displaying the Congress leftist face, by calling for creation of projects, which the state takes charge of them and thus creates jobs for the labours and the poor. The Congress party then focused on the position of BJP regarding Kashmir, where it showed its weakness before Pakistan. This is because the Congress party does not accept occupied Kashmir to be subject of negotiation, since Nehru annexed it by a declaration in 1956, and considered it an indivisible part of India.
Thus, the results of the general elections in 10/5/2004 came as a loss to the ruling party of BJP and victory to the Congress party that supports Britain. This led to blowing up of America’ s plan to solve the dispute over Kashmir through creation rapprochement between the two states. The loss of (BJP) had levelled a blow to the wider plan of America, which is putting India in the face of the growing power of China.
The victory of the Congress means India would strengthen its hold on Kashmir more than (BJP), as it came to surface after its victory. On 09/05/04 India’ s now national security adviser JN Dixit said, “We will have a firmer policy on Kashmir …There cannot be any territorial alienation of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. There can be marginal adjustment along the Line of Control in Kashmir.” On 23/05/04, India’s External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh said that the bedrock of India’s relations with Pakistan was the 1972 Shimla Agreement and subsequent agreements and declarations between the two countries. On 24/05/04, Musharraf responded to Natwar’ s remarks and said, “If he (Natwar Singh) means that there will be no movement or a status quo decision, well I beg to totally differ with him. That is not the solution. If the Line of Control is to be made permanent and that is all, this is not the solution. If he means we will go by the Shimla agreement, then I don't agree with him.”
Despite that the Congress party explained it wants friendly relations with America, as Natwar Singh said, “it is in our interest, it is in their interest and the interest of the world community that relations between India and the US should be on a steady course and not episodic". However the security, defence and policy agenda paper written by Congress for its 2004 Manifesto states: “ Sadly a great country like India has been reduced to having a subordinate relationship with the USA where the USA takes India for granted. This is the result of the BJP/NDA Government’s willingness to adjust the US priorities and policies without giving due attention to India’s own vital foreign policy and national security interests…
The Congress will give the policy of non-alignment a new direction keeping in view political and economic changes that are taking place in our region and elsewhere.’ The Manifesto also calls for India’s foreign policy to be built on Nehru’s vision thus indicating a return to a pro-British foreign policy. It states ‘The most important task of the Congress would be to retain for India freedom of options in conducting its foreign relations…This is the essence of India’s foreign policy
on which Jawaharlal Nehru built a national consensus, a consensus that has been eroded during the tenure of the BJP-led NDA government.’
All of this means that America will now have to reconsider her position with India. The option of using Pakistan to foment a new Kashmiri uprising to weaken the Congress party and her coalition partners may seem attractive in the short term. But given the strong feelings for the return of Islam and it peak, jihad, amongst the Muslims of Pakistan and Musharraf’s precarious position, it is unlikely that the US will risk such a policy. Worse for America, is that the congress party has begun to restructure the armed forces, which enjoyed warm relations with the US military. Congress has already initiated a purge of pro-American officers. No doubt this will weaken America’ s ability to gain influence inside the armed forces. Hence this leaves America with little option but to wait. Most likely it will be after the US elections before there is any firm movement on putting together a new policy for India. Under no circumstance America will easily abandon India after she penetrated it during the whole period of Vajpayee government. Thus, the issue of Kashmir will remain in the hands of the unbelievers, where they will shove it around according to their interests and influence.
How can we then put an end to these treacheries of Pakistan rulers against the mujahideen and Muslims of Kashmir?
The answer to this question is confined in the active work of the Muslims of Pakistan to throw away the government of Musharraf and establish an Islamic state in Pakistan that stands up for reclaiming Kashmir by jihad and by force. It also continues the struggle with India till it restores the entire of the Indian subcontinent to the authority of Islam as it was before for a long time. This is not impossible with the presence of strong iman, resolution and determination to continue this course except till the Muslims realise and aim in liberating their country from the filth of the Hindus. This is feasible, because Pakistan has a huge military force and nuclear power, which it can hint to it for liberating Kashmir, which the diplomatic means failed to achieve through a period of more than half a century.
O Muslims:
Indeed Kashmir is an Islamic land, as well as the entire of India. As the Islamic Khilafah had conquered it in the first hijri century, it can bring back again the authority of Islam to Kashmir and the entire Indian subcontinent. It can as well remove the oppression, tyranny and barbaric practices of the Hindus and their followers against Muslims. The Muslims in the subcontinent are capable to do so.
Pakistan alone is capable to do so when a sincere ruler, a righteous khaleefah that governs it by the law of Allah, leads it and fights with it against the enemies of Allah. Pakistan has the resources necessary for the Khilafah rashidah that will regain the might of Muslims and deliver them from the disasters that fall on them day and night, not at the hands of the unbelievers only, but also at the hands of the puppet rulers, who squander the vigour of the army in fighting their own Muslim brothers everywhere, so as to protect the interests of America and India.
O people of Pakistan; you are capable to ignite again the torch of goodness, raise high
the banner of Khilafah, the banner of la ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadun Rasulullah.
وَلَيَنْصُرَنَّ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَنْصُرُهُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَقَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ
“Verily Allah will help those who help Him. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.” [TMQ 22:40]
KASHMIR
India conducts its wild campaign against Kashmir, while repeating the rhetoric of terrorism and terrorists, so as to place a thick cloud on the issue. It wants some people to think that Kashmir is one of the Hindus properties, and it is supposed to be under their rule in the first place. The reply of Muslims in Kashmir to the aggression of India against them is, in their view, considered rebellion against the Indian state, which has the right of destroying them. Thus, they want to give a false portrayal of the issue. In reality, Kashmir is an Islamic land; rather the whole of India is an Islamic land, which Muslims conquered and enlightened after it lived in darkness. The authority of Islam continued in it till the middle of 19th century when Britain aggressed against India and committed massacres and violations against humans and nature.
In reality Kashmir is an Islamic land, which Muslims conquered and Islam entered in it towards the end of the first Hijri century. This came within the conquests of Sind and Hind at the hands of the Muslim General, Muhammad al-Qasim, which started in 94 AH (712AC). Islam then spread in it and the remaining parts of the Indian subcontinent in the time of the Abbasid Khaleefah, al-Mu’ tasim, 218-225 AH (833-839 AC). The authority of Islam continued in it and the whole subcontinent, which is known today as India, Pakistan, Kashmir and Bangladesh was part of it.
British invaded the Indian subcontinent in 1819, where it was faced with strong resistance from the Muslims. The war continued with alternate success between the Islamic authority in the subcontinent and invading Britain with the help of some kufr forces of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others. Britain could not achieve stability and control over it except after 27 years of vigorous wars with the Muslims, ie in 1846.
Britain managed after that to extend its authority over the region, and she divided it into three parts: she directly ruled one of these parts, which represents 55% of the subcontinent, and Muslims are majority in it. It ruled the other part through governors of provinces that include Hindus and Muslims. These governors were appointed over 565 provinces of autonomy. The third part, which is Kashmir, it leased to a Hindu feudalist for 100 years, in accordance with a lease contract signed in (Amristar), and became known later on in the name of Amritsar agreement. This agreement covers the period between 1846 and 1946.
Thus, Kashmir, the Islamic land came to be governed by Hindus in accordance with the mentioned lease agreement.
Kashmir is about 217,935 sq. km., surrounded by Pakistan, India, China and Afghanistan. Its population is 12 million; 85% of them are Muslims, while the remaining 15% are of the other sects, like Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. The Muslim conquerors called Kashmir the ceiling of the world or the garden of Allah on earth because of its good climate, abundant forests and sources and the existence in it of the highest (Himalayan) mountain peaks in the world. Kashmir is a country that is rich with its waters and rivers, for it has the rivers of Sind, Jhelum and Chenab. Most of its land is above the sea level by about 1200 m. It is crossed by the famous Silk Road, and it is the only link between China and Pakistan. In 1983, sapphire and ruby were discovered in it, a matter that increased India’s obstinacy in the occupation and constant domination over Kashmir.
This is the Kashmir that was occupied by Britain, the criminal and belligerent state. It usurped from its Muslim population and rented it to a tyrant Hindu who was an enemy to its people. They come now to say that Kashmir is property of state of India, and that the Muslims resistance against them is considered terrorism and aggression. The Hindu Maharaja who governed Kashmir in accordance with the lease contract made with the English had used all types of tyranny and torture against Muslims to the point that one of his ministers resigned because of the horrible crimes committed by the rule of the Maharaja against the people of Kashmir. That minister declared the people of Kashmir are herded like cattle, and they are oppressed and suppressed without being listened by any official. He added that the government in Kashmir is completely isolated from the people. This is what the enemy say; so what about the reality itself?
The Hindu rule in Kashmir used to defile the Muslims sanctities such as the Glorious Quran and the mosques as it happened in 1931, when one of the Hindu security officers defiled the Glorious Quran that led to the breakout of the Muslims uprising there. The Muslims of Kashmir are known for their resolve and determination in truth. One of their wonderful marks of their firmness is the incident of 13/7/1931, which Muslims of Kashmir compare with the battle of Mu’tah. On that day, many Muslims of Kashmir met to announce their solidarity with a person called Abdul Qadir Khan who gave a speech in the Friday prayer against the decisions of the Hindu king, which were hostile to Muslims. A Hindu security officer stopped him from giving the speech and he was then thrown in the prison. During the solidarity meeting they held in the prison yard, the time of noon (zuhr) prayer came, so one of them read the azan (call for prayer). The Hindu security forces shot at him immediately and killed him. Another man stood up and continued in reading the azan, but he was shot and killed. His companions stood up to continue reading the azan one after the other till 22 people were killed in this incident before the whole azan was read.
Though the agreement expired, the Hindu ruling continued by the support of the English, sometimes openly and sometimes secretly. In 1947 the English divided the Indian subcontinent, apart from Kashmir, into two states: India and Pakistan, in accordance with the population. However, the Hindu governor of Kashmir joined India against the will of the Muslim population. It is worth mentioning that when Britain divided the Indian subcontinent between India and Pakistan, the British ministerial mission confirmed in its memorandum dated in 12/5/1946, which was directed to the governors of the 565 Indian provinces, that they have to abide by the wishes of their people regarding the decision of their provinces unification with one of the two states, India and Pakistan.
However, the unification of three provinces to Pakistan had been obstructed, which were Hyderabad, Jonagra and Kashmir. The reason of this obstruction was that the governors of provinces of Hyderabad and Jonagra were Muslims, while the majority of their population were Hindu, so they were annexed to India. However, the majority of Kashmir population were Muslims and its governor was Hindu, yet it was annexed to India as well. The bias of the English towards the Hindus was the factor that enabled India to annex the three provinces, particularly Kashmir, to it. This led to many wars between India and the Hindu ruling from one side, and Pakistan and Muslims of Kashmir from another side. Thus, India occupied two thirds of Kashmir (65%), while another part (30%) remained with the Pakistani side; China took over (5%) of Kashmir. This is the current situation of Kashmir.
At the beginning of the war, in 13/8/1948, the first resolution regarding Kashmir was issued by the Security Council, which decided ceasefire and formation of International Observation Force for the sake of the assurance of continuous ceasefire.
This was followed by another resolution for the withdrawal of the Indian and Pakistani forces from Kashmir in preparation to conducting a referendum, in which the people of Kashmir decide their final future. In 5/1/1949 India and Pakistan accepted the resolution, however India rejected to withdraw. Then Jawaharlal Nehru decided in 1956 to annex the part of Kashmir controlled by the Indian army to India, and he hoisted the Indian flag on top of the government offices, and considered it an indivisible part of India.
In 14/2/1957 another resolution was issued by the Security Council that confirmed the necessity of the withdrawal of the Indian forces from the province. However, as usual, it ignored the resolution, in collusion with Britain. Then it started to study the styles and means that were used by the tyrants to attack Islam and Muslims, and to seduce them from their deen, so as to use these styles and means in Kashmir.
Therefore, it sent in 1965 a delegation of experts to Spain so as to study the way Muslims were eliminated in Andalusia after the fall of Granada. India entrusted also its ambassador in Moscow to study the styles of eliminating the Islamic character used by the old Soviet Union against the Islamic presence there. Then the Indian authorities increased its cooperation with the Jewish state after it recognised it and accepted its seizure of Palestine, and started to study the Jews plans they used in their massacres against Muslims. Their declarations have revealed this cooperation.
Benyameen Shan, a member in the previous government of Shamir said: “India and Israel face a common danger, which is the Islamic fundamentalism in Palestine and Kashmir. We understood how to deal with the Arabs and Muslims, and in turn we are going to provide India with our experience in this field”.
India persisted on using different styles in Kashmir so as to create generations detached from their deen, or ignorant of the proper understanding of their Islam. This is because it believed it could remove Islam from Kashmir after some years. However, the results were far from what they wished. Muslims increase their attachment to Islam, and their loyalty to Islam strengthens after every vicious attack the Indian authorities wage against Muslims, whether the attack was through oppression, torture or any other devious styles of distortion and delusion.
India committed massacres in Kashmir in 1989 that resulted in the murder of 25 thousand shahid; then it followed these with other massacres in the following years. The broadcast of the committee of Kashmiri Muslims relief announced based on statistics obtained from UN sources, India media, International Media agencies and from Kashmiri sources that the Indian authorities in Kashmir committed, since January 1990 till December 1998, the following crimes:
- 63,275 martyrs were murdered with gunshots.
- 775 people of politicians, ulema and imams of mosques were eliminated.
- 3,370 martyrs were tortured to death.
- 81,161 people are locked in prisons without hearing in court.
This is in addition to incidents of violation of honour and sanctities, wounded and lost, which count in hundreds of thousands. The reports of International organisation are full of atrocities committed by India in Kashmir, like the report of International Amnesty issued in 6/2/1999.
This is a part of the oppression and torture committed by the Indian authorities in Kashmir. As regards the other styles of distortion and deception, the authorities embarked on discontinuation of teaching the Glorious Quran and Arabic language in the state schools, besides introducing the Hindi language as compulsory language. Then they used the media for carrying out intensive campaigns against the Islamic values of family and women dress. This was in addition to promotion of alcohol in Kashmir and the laws of mixed marriage between Muslims and Hindus, followed by the implementation of birth control plan through using surgical operations to the point that the province of Kashmir known of its Muslim majority had won the highest medal in birth control.
This is the Kashmir that suffered and still suffers of the barbaric activities committed by the Indian army and police against Muslims there. Its issue looks more similar to that of Palestine. Hindus occupied Kashmir at the same period Jews occupied Palestine and established a state for them there. The rulers of Pakistan have neglected Kashmir in terms of its protection and liberation the same way the Arab rulers surrounding Palestine did to Palestine.
Pakistan for a long period, from 1947, the year of division (of Indian subcontinent) and independence (of Pakistan), till 2003, called for the implementation of the international resolutions and granting the people of Kashmir their right of self determination. However, India continued to reject these resolutions the same Israel does. Then a change happened in the position of Pakistan at the beginning of 2004, where Pakistan abandoned the negotiations based on international resolutions and the right of self-determination, and accepted instead bilateral negotiations with India with need of internationalising the issue. It further accepted to give up Pakistan’s conditions related to Kashmir’ s right of self-determination.
The reason behind the loss of Kashmir and abandoning the defence of its Muslims do not come from the weakness of Muslims in Pakistan. This is because they are capable to regain it from India easily. It is rather due to the fact that rulers of Pakistan are agents to America, which made them give to India continuous concessions regarding Kashmir. General Ayub Khan waged a war in 1965 because of Kashmir, but he surrendered to India three rivers that were Pakistan’ s share. As regards to Yahya Khan and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, they lost in 1971 East Pakistan that became Bangladesh. At the time of Zia ul Haq, the Indians occupied the mounts of Siachen. At the time of Nawaz Sharif, the mujahidoon and the Pakistani army were deprived of keeping Kargil heights in 1999 after Muslims were about to realize victory. However, in compliance with US orders, Nawaz Sharif gave his orders to the army and the fighters to withdraw. This was in support of Vajpayee, the Indian prime minister at that time, creating a heroic popularity for him before his opponents of the Congress party, on the account of Muslims blood.
Ultimately, in the time of Pervez Musharraf for the first time, giving the people of Kashmir the right of self determination and their liberation from the authority of the Indians have been abandoned. The issue of Kashmir has been seriously submitted for discussion since Musharraf’s visit to America and his reception by Bush in Camp David in 24/6/2003, for that visit was a turning point regarding the political and military action towards Kashmir. Not a single ruler in Pakistan dared in the past to speak about a solution for Kashmir through negotiation with India, in order to divide it. It was rather quite clear in every political proposal about it before that all of Kashmir, which includes Azad Kashmir that is with Pakistan, and Jammu Kashmir that is with India, becomes all of it independent from India. India used to reject that and considered Jammu and Kashmir are part of it, as it came in the declaration of Nehru in 1956.
Musharraf explicitly announced in that visit his approval on a Road Map to solve the issue of Kashmir, on the same model of Middle East. He added about his readiness to give important concessions for reaching a permanent solution about Kashmir. This proposal of concessions was given during discussions with American (congress) representatives in Washington in 26/6/2003, during that visit. He added by announcing that he will stand on the face of the Muslim ‘extremists’ , i.e. the jihadi groups in Kashmir.
So, Pervez Musharraf called, in 11/8/2003 for negotiations to solve the disputes with India. The statements of Musharraf that emphasised his commitment to discussions with New Delhi came one day after a statement given by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Indian prime minister, calling for the necessity of stopping the bloodshed between the two countries.
The news agency of Reuters reported in 17/12/2003, after an interview with Musharraf, “that he is ready to be brave and flexible regarding the peace efforts between the two nuclear neighbours. Musharraf displayed in the interview flexibility regarding Kashmir. He said that if we wanted to solve this problem, then the two sides need to speak to each other with flexibility, disregarding the declared positions and meeting in the midway” .
After that Musharraf went on issuing laws, one after the other, for preventing and harassing any opposition from the Muslims to the occupation of Kashmir by India. At the end he met Vajpayee in 5/1/2004, where the practical foundations for negotiation with India regarding Kashmir were laid down.
The close positions in negotiation between the two countries started to appear. Lal Krishna Advani, the Indian deputy prime minister said in 12/3/2004 that his country, “is ready to take and give, in attempt to conclude peace with Pakistan regarding the area of Kashmir” under dispute.
Then Vajpayee said on Friday 18/4/2004, within a rare proposal to Pakistan, that dialogue is the only way to bring peace to Kashmir. Jamali rushed to welcome this call, saying that this represents ‘a positive development’ . Zafarullah Kahn Jamali, the Pakistani prime minister, welcomed the proposal for holding talks regarding Kashmir, which was presented by the Indian Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
Jamali informed the media correspondents in Islamabad, saying: “The position of Pakistan is still as it was. However, once the negotiations started.......there will be flexibility from both sides” .
India and Pakistan had resumed in 16/2/2004 the dialogue that was disrupted between them when the tension reached its climax two and a half year before. The delegates of the two countries conducted talks in Islamabad for the purpose of drawing an agenda and framework for negotiations, which will hopefully lead to settle the dispute between them over Kashmir, as being the main point in the dossier of differences. The US endeavoured since some time to improve its relations with India. This came after the breakdown of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the nineties. After America completed the stage of containing China at that period, it started the stage of reducing (cut the size of) China. Since India has traditional enmity with China, besides it also has huge human resources and military capabilities, it was the best candidate to play this role. America understood the value of India for this role. It actually tried since the Independence of India in 1947 to have the influence in it. However, the English and The Congress party prevented that. Through a significant development, America enhanced the level of her attempts in 1990, where she sent Robert Gates, one of the CIA officials, to India, but her attempts did not produce the desired success except after the advent of her agent, Vajpayee, in 1998. There was a talk inside the American circles about central or leading states in the various regions of the world, where the USA would promote them to lead the regions they exist in; and she recommended India to lead the region of South Asia.
Since the issue of Kashmir was a burden for India, and it was like a thorn in its side, America endeavoured to remove that pain from the side of India, so that its complete attention will be focused on its disengagement as a rival for China in the region. This is also to prevent the hot issue of Kashmir from having influence on the American war in Afghanistan.
Therefore, once the two states of India and Pakistan became under the influence of America, she endeavoured to create mutual understanding between them over Kashmir. She also changed her original view regarding the solution of the problem. She wanted at the beginning to internationalise the issue, but she now urges the both sides to solve it bilaterally. The current view of America regarding this solution is to divide Kashmir, where the liberated part of Kashmir will go to Pakistan, while that part which is under the authority of India will go to India. The parts of Kashmir occupied by India, which are of Muslim majority, will be given some form of autonomy, but stay under the authority of Indian government. Despite that Musharraf and Vajpayee (before the last Indian elections) were under the control of America, however there are some obstacles before this division plan, which are represented in some elements in the Pakistani, army and some Hindu hard liners. The events of September 11 2001, allowed America to confront these obstacles head on. America’s strategy was to force Pakistan to make several compromises over Kashmir. Consequently Pakistan made several concessions, which ultimately strengthened Vajpayee’s position amongst the hard liners.
The concessions consisted of withdrawing support to the jihadi groups, closing down training camps, decreasing Pakistani troops from the LOC (Line of Control), and abandoning any support for the Kashmiri Muslims. Finally, the situation reached the point that Pervez Musharraf, the eminent agent of America and the prime enemy of Muslims in the region, announced in his visit to America, as we mentioned above, about his approval of a Road Map to solve the issue of Kashmir, on the same model of the Road Map of the Middle East. This map would lead to direct negotiations with India regarding the study of the American solution. He said he would confront the Extremist Muslims, ie the jihadi groups in Kashmir and the Islamic parties and organisations in Pakistan.
America hoped these concessions would increase the popularity of Vajpayee and his party in the sight of the Indian electoral, particularly it used to support Vajpayee militarily and to prevent Pakistan from owning developed weapons (such as postponing the handover of the fighters deal despite Pakistan had paid its price) .It also entered into a treaty of strategic partnership, so that Vajpayee appears before the Indian Public as the cause of their military superiority over their opponent, Pakistan.
She also supported Vajpayee economically to create economic revival. She did all of that because it saw the strong support of the Congress party, and that BJP has a coalition that cannot stand before the Congress without support.
However the vulnerable spot of BJP came from this support, particularly the economic one. This is because USA gave plentiful economic support, discharged funds to the government of BJP and pushed it to adopt the (privatisation). This policy created huge companies and economic revival according to the capitalist model, i.e. more concentration of the wealth. This policy however does not suit a country in which poverty prevails. Therefore, rich people, finance companies and factories increased in the cities, but the poor increased in poverty, particularly in the countryside and villages.
Another factor was added, which is the deep-rooted nature of the Congress party, and its political shrewdness that follows the British style. So, it challenged the hard line position of the religious BJP through displaying the secularism of the Congress, which is not taking side with any particular religion. It also attacked the capitalist nature of privatisation through displaying the Congress leftist face, by calling for creation of projects, which the state takes charge of them and thus creates jobs for the labours and the poor. The Congress party then focused on the position of BJP regarding Kashmir, where it showed its weakness before Pakistan. This is because the Congress party does not accept occupied Kashmir to be subject of negotiation, since Nehru annexed it by a declaration in 1956, and considered it an indivisible part of India.
Thus, the results of the general elections in 10/5/2004 came as a loss to the ruling party of BJP and victory to the Congress party that supports Britain. This led to blowing up of America’ s plan to solve the dispute over Kashmir through creation rapprochement between the two states. The loss of (BJP) had levelled a blow to the wider plan of America, which is putting India in the face of the growing power of China.
The victory of the Congress means India would strengthen its hold on Kashmir more than (BJP), as it came to surface after its victory. On 09/05/04 India’ s now national security adviser JN Dixit said, “We will have a firmer policy on Kashmir …There cannot be any territorial alienation of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. There can be marginal adjustment along the Line of Control in Kashmir.” On 23/05/04, India’s External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh said that the bedrock of India’s relations with Pakistan was the 1972 Shimla Agreement and subsequent agreements and declarations between the two countries. On 24/05/04, Musharraf responded to Natwar’ s remarks and said, “If he (Natwar Singh) means that there will be no movement or a status quo decision, well I beg to totally differ with him. That is not the solution. If the Line of Control is to be made permanent and that is all, this is not the solution. If he means we will go by the Shimla agreement, then I don't agree with him.”
Despite that the Congress party explained it wants friendly relations with America, as Natwar Singh said, “it is in our interest, it is in their interest and the interest of the world community that relations between India and the US should be on a steady course and not episodic". However the security, defence and policy agenda paper written by Congress for its 2004 Manifesto states: “ Sadly a great country like India has been reduced to having a subordinate relationship with the USA where the USA takes India for granted. This is the result of the BJP/NDA Government’s willingness to adjust the US priorities and policies without giving due attention to India’s own vital foreign policy and national security interests…
The Congress will give the policy of non-alignment a new direction keeping in view political and economic changes that are taking place in our region and elsewhere.’ The Manifesto also calls for India’s foreign policy to be built on Nehru’s vision thus indicating a return to a pro-British foreign policy. It states ‘The most important task of the Congress would be to retain for India freedom of options in conducting its foreign relations…This is the essence of India’s foreign policy
on which Jawaharlal Nehru built a national consensus, a consensus that has been eroded during the tenure of the BJP-led NDA government.’
All of this means that America will now have to reconsider her position with India. The option of using Pakistan to foment a new Kashmiri uprising to weaken the Congress party and her coalition partners may seem attractive in the short term. But given the strong feelings for the return of Islam and it peak, jihad, amongst the Muslims of Pakistan and Musharraf’s precarious position, it is unlikely that the US will risk such a policy. Worse for America, is that the congress party has begun to restructure the armed forces, which enjoyed warm relations with the US military. Congress has already initiated a purge of pro-American officers. No doubt this will weaken America’ s ability to gain influence inside the armed forces. Hence this leaves America with little option but to wait. Most likely it will be after the US elections before there is any firm movement on putting together a new policy for India. Under no circumstance America will easily abandon India after she penetrated it during the whole period of Vajpayee government. Thus, the issue of Kashmir will remain in the hands of the unbelievers, where they will shove it around according to their interests and influence.
How can we then put an end to these treacheries of Pakistan rulers against the mujahideen and Muslims of Kashmir?
The answer to this question is confined in the active work of the Muslims of Pakistan to throw away the government of Musharraf and establish an Islamic state in Pakistan that stands up for reclaiming Kashmir by jihad and by force. It also continues the struggle with India till it restores the entire of the Indian subcontinent to the authority of Islam as it was before for a long time. This is not impossible with the presence of strong iman, resolution and determination to continue this course except till the Muslims realise and aim in liberating their country from the filth of the Hindus. This is feasible, because Pakistan has a huge military force and nuclear power, which it can hint to it for liberating Kashmir, which the diplomatic means failed to achieve through a period of more than half a century.
O Muslims:
Indeed Kashmir is an Islamic land, as well as the entire of India. As the Islamic Khilafah had conquered it in the first hijri century, it can bring back again the authority of Islam to Kashmir and the entire Indian subcontinent. It can as well remove the oppression, tyranny and barbaric practices of the Hindus and their followers against Muslims. The Muslims in the subcontinent are capable to do so.
Pakistan alone is capable to do so when a sincere ruler, a righteous khaleefah that governs it by the law of Allah, leads it and fights with it against the enemies of Allah. Pakistan has the resources necessary for the Khilafah rashidah that will regain the might of Muslims and deliver them from the disasters that fall on them day and night, not at the hands of the unbelievers only, but also at the hands of the puppet rulers, who squander the vigour of the army in fighting their own Muslim brothers everywhere, so as to protect the interests of America and India.
O people of Pakistan; you are capable to ignite again the torch of goodness, raise high
the banner of Khilafah, the banner of la ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadun Rasulullah.
وَلَيَنْصُرَنَّ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَنْصُرُهُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَقَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ
“Verily Allah will help those who help Him. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.” [TMQ 22:40]
Monday, August 25, 2008
Views on the news 20/08/08
UN warns UK about its treatment of Muslims
Recently, the UN told Britain to treat its Muslim population better. UN’s nine-member human rights committee, composed of legal experts, said it was concerned "negative public attitudes towards Muslim members of society" continued to be allowed in Britain.
It recommended the Government "should take energetic measures to eliminated this phenomenon and ensure that authors of such acts of discrimination on the basis of religion are adequately deterred and sanctioned." For so long, the West has proudly proclaimed the mantle of ‘justice’, but the course it has adopted after September 11 has rapidly diminished this claim. So much so, that its imperialist tool the UN is telling Britain —one of its founding members— to change its behaviour. This is another evidence that Western governments and not Muslims that are responsible for the destruction of western civilization.
Musharraf’s resignation: Good riddance but what’s next for Pakistan
On 18/8/2008 America’s foremost agent in the Muslim world, General Musharraf officially tendered his resignation. After 9 years of spilling Muslim blood the tyrant had finally lost American support for his rule and was quickly abandoned—like a used tissue. But his departure from political scene will not bring an end to America ’s war against Islam or American hegemony in Pakistan . On the contrary, those who seek to replace Musharraf— like Zardari and Shareef—remain awfully quiet on America ’s relentless bombing of the tribal areas. This is a clear indication that America ’s subjugation of Pakistan and its killing of Muslims will get worse. The only salvation for the people of Pakistan is to remove once and for all the decrepit system that produces such tyrants through the re-establishment of the Khilafah.
French suffer heavy losses in Afghanistan
On 18/8/2008 heavily armed resistance fighters mounted one of the biggest attacks in years on Western forces in Afghanistan and this resulted in the death of 10 French crusaders. The high casualties had clearly shaken France . French President Nicolas Sarkozy said,” In its fight against terrorism, France has just been struck severely…” Seth Jones, an analyst at the Washington-based RAND Corp., said the latest attacks "targeting U.S. and other NATO forces, and Afghan forces, have become larger and bolder, and they include direct, almost conventional-style attacks. In late 2006 and into 2007, there was a much greater reluctance among the Taliban and other groups to carry out these conventional-style attacks,” said Jones, who travels frequently to Afghanistan . The new operations indicate "they clearly believe they are winning now, and it's caused them to be a bit more audacious.” So if this is the damage inflicted by a handful of resistance fighters, then imagine what would happen if the armies of Iran and Pakistan aided their brothers in Afghanistan ?
America’s deal with Poland draws Russian fury
On 20/8/2008 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed a missile defense deal with Poland and predicted that future presidents would not undo the controversial program.
"I believe that the administrations of the future will recognize both the threat that we face and the substantial commitment that our allies have now taken for missile defense," she told a Polish journalist. The deal was stalled until Russia 's military advance into Georgia on Aug. 8. The invasion strengthened Polish public support for the deal. It was less than 50% for many months, but is now more than 60%, a Polish poll showed. Under the agreement, the United States will build and operate 10 interceptor missiles in Poland . Russian officials believe that the plan is the first step in the construction of a huge interceptor system that could neutralize Russia 's vast missile force, leaving it vulnerable to a first-strike nuclear attack. Last week a Russian general said that by approving the deal Poland was opening itself to a potential Russian nuclear attack
20/08/2008
Recently, the UN told Britain to treat its Muslim population better. UN’s nine-member human rights committee, composed of legal experts, said it was concerned "negative public attitudes towards Muslim members of society" continued to be allowed in Britain.
It recommended the Government "should take energetic measures to eliminated this phenomenon and ensure that authors of such acts of discrimination on the basis of religion are adequately deterred and sanctioned." For so long, the West has proudly proclaimed the mantle of ‘justice’, but the course it has adopted after September 11 has rapidly diminished this claim. So much so, that its imperialist tool the UN is telling Britain —one of its founding members— to change its behaviour. This is another evidence that Western governments and not Muslims that are responsible for the destruction of western civilization.
Musharraf’s resignation: Good riddance but what’s next for Pakistan
On 18/8/2008 America’s foremost agent in the Muslim world, General Musharraf officially tendered his resignation. After 9 years of spilling Muslim blood the tyrant had finally lost American support for his rule and was quickly abandoned—like a used tissue. But his departure from political scene will not bring an end to America ’s war against Islam or American hegemony in Pakistan . On the contrary, those who seek to replace Musharraf— like Zardari and Shareef—remain awfully quiet on America ’s relentless bombing of the tribal areas. This is a clear indication that America ’s subjugation of Pakistan and its killing of Muslims will get worse. The only salvation for the people of Pakistan is to remove once and for all the decrepit system that produces such tyrants through the re-establishment of the Khilafah.
French suffer heavy losses in Afghanistan
On 18/8/2008 heavily armed resistance fighters mounted one of the biggest attacks in years on Western forces in Afghanistan and this resulted in the death of 10 French crusaders. The high casualties had clearly shaken France . French President Nicolas Sarkozy said,” In its fight against terrorism, France has just been struck severely…” Seth Jones, an analyst at the Washington-based RAND Corp., said the latest attacks "targeting U.S. and other NATO forces, and Afghan forces, have become larger and bolder, and they include direct, almost conventional-style attacks. In late 2006 and into 2007, there was a much greater reluctance among the Taliban and other groups to carry out these conventional-style attacks,” said Jones, who travels frequently to Afghanistan . The new operations indicate "they clearly believe they are winning now, and it's caused them to be a bit more audacious.” So if this is the damage inflicted by a handful of resistance fighters, then imagine what would happen if the armies of Iran and Pakistan aided their brothers in Afghanistan ?
America’s deal with Poland draws Russian fury
On 20/8/2008 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed a missile defense deal with Poland and predicted that future presidents would not undo the controversial program.
"I believe that the administrations of the future will recognize both the threat that we face and the substantial commitment that our allies have now taken for missile defense," she told a Polish journalist. The deal was stalled until Russia 's military advance into Georgia on Aug. 8. The invasion strengthened Polish public support for the deal. It was less than 50% for many months, but is now more than 60%, a Polish poll showed. Under the agreement, the United States will build and operate 10 interceptor missiles in Poland . Russian officials believe that the plan is the first step in the construction of a huge interceptor system that could neutralize Russia 's vast missile force, leaving it vulnerable to a first-strike nuclear attack. Last week a Russian general said that by approving the deal Poland was opening itself to a potential Russian nuclear attack
20/08/2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Ramadhan Articles
As the blessed month of Ramadhan approaches it is time again for us to refresh our understanding of the various ahkam (rules), concepts and history related to this month. The following are links to articles related to the various aspects of Ramadhan and Eid:
The obligation of beginning of Ramadhan when the moon is sighted in any country
Ramadhan & moon sighting according to Classical scholars
Deobandi & Barelvi original Fatawa - obligatory to follow sighting of Muslim from any land for Ramadhan & Eid
Audio: The Fiqh of Determining Ramadhan & Eid
Should we be 'Ramadhan Muslims'?
Ramadhan - Month of the Quran & its affect upon us
Ramadhan Timeline
Comparisons from the Battle of Ain Jaloot
A to Z of Ramadhan
Ramadhan: Past & present
Tafsir of verses on Ramadhan & Fasting - Part 1
Tafsir of verses on Ramadhan & Fasting - Part 2
Make Ramadhan the month of victory again
Eid: Time to Reflect
What did you do on Eid?
Post Ramadhan worship
The obligation of beginning of Ramadhan when the moon is sighted in any country
Ramadhan & moon sighting according to Classical scholars
Deobandi & Barelvi original Fatawa - obligatory to follow sighting of Muslim from any land for Ramadhan & Eid
Audio: The Fiqh of Determining Ramadhan & Eid
Should we be 'Ramadhan Muslims'?
Ramadhan - Month of the Quran & its affect upon us
Ramadhan Timeline
Comparisons from the Battle of Ain Jaloot
A to Z of Ramadhan
Ramadhan: Past & present
Tafsir of verses on Ramadhan & Fasting - Part 1
Tafsir of verses on Ramadhan & Fasting - Part 2
Make Ramadhan the month of victory again
Eid: Time to Reflect
What did you do on Eid?
Post Ramadhan worship
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Views on the news - 14/08/08
West continues to insult Muslims
On 9/8/2008 the BBC reported that plans to release a novel entitled ‘The Jewel of Medina’ about the messenger (saw) of Allah and his wife A'isha were scrapped by US publishers Random House. The publication was not halted because of some deep regret that the material is offensive to Muslims; rather the safety of the author Sherry Jones was the primary concern for the publisher Random House to stop the publication. The West habitually produces offensive materials aimed at insulting Muslims and attacking Islam. These assaults are then justified under the banners of ‘freedom’,’ liberty’, ‘tolerance’ and other pathetic values or excuses. Allah Says: ‘Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse’. Nevertheless, what has really contributed to the venom spewed by the West against Islam are the spineless rulers of the Muslim world. Rather than removing money from Western banks or cutting off the oil supplies—which is well within their grasp—they are happy to issue empty words. The only way for Muslims to prevent such vitriolic material is the re-establish the Khilafah. Only the Khilafah can protect the Islamic creed and the honour of the messenger (saw) and his house hold.
Russia ’s takes full advantage of Georgia ’s attack on South Ossetia
Last week, Georgia spurred on by the US attacked South Ossetia in bid to retake the enclave from Russia’s sphere of influence. Russia responded by not only ousting Georgian forces from South Ossetia, but also repositioned its troops in the breakaway region of Abkhazia and bombed major Georgian cities such as Poti, Gori and Tblisi. Russia has taken full advantage of Georgia’s belligerence and continues to spread its influence beyond the separatist regions.
Georgia ’s importance stems from its oil transit routes from the Caspian Sea to the West, as well as its close proximity to Russia . It is because of these factors that America has looked to offer Georgia permanent source of protection. In April 2008, the US advocated NATO membership for Georgia , but the Europeans balked at Russian objections. In July, the US conducted military exercises with Georgian troops and through Israel the Georgian army received weapons and armaments. Again Russia was deeply disturbed and complained vociferously. All of this indicates that irrespective of the ‘shaky’ ceasefire, Russia will not relent, unless America’s influence in Georgia is completely rolled back, and the country once again serves the interests of the Russian bear.
Abdullah’s visit to Iraq is aimed at legitimizing the crusader occupation
On 12/8/2008, King Abdullah of Jordan became the first leader of an Arab nation to visit Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Abdullah’s visit is culmination of a flurry of diplomatic activity by Arab states to legitimize America ’s occupation of Iraq . Some have reopened embassies; a few have pledged to uphold Iraq ’s security, whilst others have written off debt. This is in addition to the oil, air bases, water- ways, intelligence and other resources they have provided to America. Indeed! Were it not for these rulers, America would have struggled to avoid defeat. America only survives in Iraq because of its reliance on assets that belong wholly to the Muslim ummah.
Pakistan: All the leaders should be impeached & ejected from office
Recently the Pakistani government in collaboration with the opposition produced a charge sheet highlighting the crimes committed by Musharraf during his nine year tenure in office. The bitter irony here is that leaders pushing for the impeachment are also Pakistan ’s biggest crooks— crimes committed by Zardari and Nawaz are well known and documented. What makes the whole saga even more laughable is that the Zadari and his cronies are imploring the US —the biggest criminal of all— to pressurize Musharraf to step down or give official blessing for his impeachment. The people of Pakistan should not standby and watch this political farce unfold. Rather, they should work to remove all the corrupt leaders and their masters, the Western powers from Pakistan . This can only be achieved through the re-establishment of the Khilafah state which will not only clip the strings of the puppeteers and efface their influence throughout Pakistan , but also punish the puppet rulers who have only caused misery and havoc.
Riots in Kashmir trouble India
On 12/8/2008 the Indian security forces shot dead 12 Muslims in Kashmir. Lately, Kashmir has been gripped by the largest demonstration since the uprising first started in the late eighties. The protests centre on Kashmir’s Muslim population strongly objecting to attempts by the Indian government to give Kashmiri land to Hindu pilgrims. Initially, the Indian government gave in to Muslim demands, but changed its decision when BJP stoked the flames of resentment amongst Hindus. With general elections fast approaching next year, the ruling Congress party is looking to reconnect with disenfranchised Hindu voters and Muslims in Kashmir are paying the price. The problems of Kashmir can only be solved by Muslims in the sub-continent (Pakistan , India and Bangladesh ) who number circa 450million returning the region back to the rule Islam. When Islam ruled sub-continent Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Christians lived in relative harmony.
The slaughter of Muslims in Philippines catches UN’s attention
At last the UN has expressed concerns at the appalling atrocities committed by the Philippines government against its Muslim population in the South. In its report, it noted that 130,000 civilians (Muslims and Christians) have been displaced in the past few days.
But does it really matter. Is anyone listening? For well over a decade now the government has been fighting Muslims whose only crime is that they want autonomy to live under Shariah.
14 August 2008
On 9/8/2008 the BBC reported that plans to release a novel entitled ‘The Jewel of Medina’ about the messenger (saw) of Allah and his wife A'isha were scrapped by US publishers Random House. The publication was not halted because of some deep regret that the material is offensive to Muslims; rather the safety of the author Sherry Jones was the primary concern for the publisher Random House to stop the publication. The West habitually produces offensive materials aimed at insulting Muslims and attacking Islam. These assaults are then justified under the banners of ‘freedom’,’ liberty’, ‘tolerance’ and other pathetic values or excuses. Allah Says: ‘Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse’. Nevertheless, what has really contributed to the venom spewed by the West against Islam are the spineless rulers of the Muslim world. Rather than removing money from Western banks or cutting off the oil supplies—which is well within their grasp—they are happy to issue empty words. The only way for Muslims to prevent such vitriolic material is the re-establish the Khilafah. Only the Khilafah can protect the Islamic creed and the honour of the messenger (saw) and his house hold.
Russia ’s takes full advantage of Georgia ’s attack on South Ossetia
Last week, Georgia spurred on by the US attacked South Ossetia in bid to retake the enclave from Russia’s sphere of influence. Russia responded by not only ousting Georgian forces from South Ossetia, but also repositioned its troops in the breakaway region of Abkhazia and bombed major Georgian cities such as Poti, Gori and Tblisi. Russia has taken full advantage of Georgia’s belligerence and continues to spread its influence beyond the separatist regions.
Georgia ’s importance stems from its oil transit routes from the Caspian Sea to the West, as well as its close proximity to Russia . It is because of these factors that America has looked to offer Georgia permanent source of protection. In April 2008, the US advocated NATO membership for Georgia , but the Europeans balked at Russian objections. In July, the US conducted military exercises with Georgian troops and through Israel the Georgian army received weapons and armaments. Again Russia was deeply disturbed and complained vociferously. All of this indicates that irrespective of the ‘shaky’ ceasefire, Russia will not relent, unless America’s influence in Georgia is completely rolled back, and the country once again serves the interests of the Russian bear.
Abdullah’s visit to Iraq is aimed at legitimizing the crusader occupation
On 12/8/2008, King Abdullah of Jordan became the first leader of an Arab nation to visit Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Abdullah’s visit is culmination of a flurry of diplomatic activity by Arab states to legitimize America ’s occupation of Iraq . Some have reopened embassies; a few have pledged to uphold Iraq ’s security, whilst others have written off debt. This is in addition to the oil, air bases, water- ways, intelligence and other resources they have provided to America. Indeed! Were it not for these rulers, America would have struggled to avoid defeat. America only survives in Iraq because of its reliance on assets that belong wholly to the Muslim ummah.
Pakistan: All the leaders should be impeached & ejected from office
Recently the Pakistani government in collaboration with the opposition produced a charge sheet highlighting the crimes committed by Musharraf during his nine year tenure in office. The bitter irony here is that leaders pushing for the impeachment are also Pakistan ’s biggest crooks— crimes committed by Zardari and Nawaz are well known and documented. What makes the whole saga even more laughable is that the Zadari and his cronies are imploring the US —the biggest criminal of all— to pressurize Musharraf to step down or give official blessing for his impeachment. The people of Pakistan should not standby and watch this political farce unfold. Rather, they should work to remove all the corrupt leaders and their masters, the Western powers from Pakistan . This can only be achieved through the re-establishment of the Khilafah state which will not only clip the strings of the puppeteers and efface their influence throughout Pakistan , but also punish the puppet rulers who have only caused misery and havoc.
Riots in Kashmir trouble India
On 12/8/2008 the Indian security forces shot dead 12 Muslims in Kashmir. Lately, Kashmir has been gripped by the largest demonstration since the uprising first started in the late eighties. The protests centre on Kashmir’s Muslim population strongly objecting to attempts by the Indian government to give Kashmiri land to Hindu pilgrims. Initially, the Indian government gave in to Muslim demands, but changed its decision when BJP stoked the flames of resentment amongst Hindus. With general elections fast approaching next year, the ruling Congress party is looking to reconnect with disenfranchised Hindu voters and Muslims in Kashmir are paying the price. The problems of Kashmir can only be solved by Muslims in the sub-continent (Pakistan , India and Bangladesh ) who number circa 450million returning the region back to the rule Islam. When Islam ruled sub-continent Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Christians lived in relative harmony.
The slaughter of Muslims in Philippines catches UN’s attention
At last the UN has expressed concerns at the appalling atrocities committed by the Philippines government against its Muslim population in the South. In its report, it noted that 130,000 civilians (Muslims and Christians) have been displaced in the past few days.
But does it really matter. Is anyone listening? For well over a decade now the government has been fighting Muslims whose only crime is that they want autonomy to live under Shariah.
14 August 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
Interview with a Da'wa carrier from Iraq
Sheikh Abu Abdullah Al-Kurdi is a Professor of Shariah at one of the universities in Iraq. He has been an active da’wa carrier with Hizb ut-Tahrir for the past 20 years. The Sheikh holds many academic degrees in the Islamic Sciences and also the traditional Ijaza's (permissions).
The following is a translation of the Arabic interview.
Note: Q = Question, A= Answer.
The following is a translation of the Arabic interview.
Note: Q = Question, A= Answer.
Q. Can you throw some light on the work for the re-establishment of Khilafah in Iraq?
A. The people of
Day after day the work of colonialists is becoming slow and failing since they don't have nay agent who is able to convince the ummah about freedom and democracy.
Q. In this situation of occupation does the government harm the workers of the Khilafah?
A. As I said all the people in
Q. Some people say that the work for the Khilafah is by few people only. Are there other people who are working for Khilafah?
A. First of all we need to understand one thing. This thought of Khilafah is not the thought of Hizb ut-Tahrir only rather it is accepted by all the ulema in the past and in the modern times. No person ever negated its existence except Asam the mutazili and in recent times Ali Abdul Raziq from al-Azhar in Egypt and this issue is an issue of the complete ummah and HT follows this path.
Q. Do you have ulema working for Khilafah in Iraq?
A. The first alim who can be remembered was Sheikh Abdul-Aziz al-Badri who was killed by the oppressive baathist regime and he was also from the shabab of Hizb ut-Tahrir. And many from the ulema and shabab are working for the reestablishing of the Khilafah
Q. There were many ulema and shabab working for Khilafah who were killed by the Iraqi regime. Do you know happen to know some of these shabab ?
Ans. Saddam hussain was an oppressive ruler who ruled the country with an iron fist and imposed the socialist system on them. He believed in Arab nationalism and rallied people behind the same emblem. He killed many ulema who were working for the reestablishment of the Khilafah as I told you the first one from them was Sheikh Abdul Aziz Badri (may allah be pleased with him) and Sheikh Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr. And my sheikh who cultured me in Hizb ut-Tahrir was killed in 1990. He was known as Anwar from
Q. To what we know there is a constant struggle between the shias and sunnis. Is it true?
A. The Shias and sunnis and Arabs and non Arabs lived together all through the Khilafah until the agents of the British colonialists started infiltrating the Muslim ummah and corrupting their thoughts. One of the famous ones of them who also wrote some books was Hempher. As he writes in his book that there aim was to divide the people but they were not successful and this land has remained united from the days of the 20th revolution till date. Then after the destruction of Saddam's regime came the new colonialist powers which is the American colonialism.
Allah says:
وَيَمْكُرُونَ وَيَمْكُرُ اللَّهُ وَاللَّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ
“They plot and plan, Allah too plans and Allah is the best of planners”. [TMQ 8:30]
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Views on the news - 7/8/08
Britain launches new initiatives to suppress Muslims
After discovering that their existing policies have failed to subdue the Islamization of the Muslim community, the British government has embarked on a new initiative which is to cost £12.5m. This consists of providing money to Muslims to fund projects which aim to "undermine extremist ideology", and also to establish a board of Islamic theologians to debate issues affecting Muslims in the UK . The government is also exploring ways to promote moderate Muslims and isolate extremists. British Minister Hazel Blears said, “I think if you have got groups that are actively promoting violent extremism, groups that are on record as saying Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, justifying suicide bombing, then I don't think it is right for ministers to be engaging with them, sharing platforms and giving them credibility.” Allah reminds us “Fain would they extinguish Allah's light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).”
Hamdan: Imprisoned, interrogated, tortured, humiliated, and now guilty
On 6/8/2008 A US military jury at Guantanamo Bay convicted Osama Bin Laden's former driver of supporting terrorism. The Bush administration hailed the decision and described it as a fair trial. The bitter irony is that the verdict does more to malign America ’s image in the world, than reverse its decline. For someone to be imprisoned for 7 years, brutality tortured, sexually humiliated, denied access to dues process and then subsequently tried by a military court can only be described as the hallmark of totalitarian regimes. To treat other prisoners at Guantanamo in a similar fashion only cements America’s status before the world as a totalitarian state determined to spread the tentacles of its tyranny both at home and abroad.
China inflates Muslim terrorism concerns to clampdown on foreign agitation
Lately, China has made a lot of noise about the so called terrorist threats emanating from provinces that have large Muslim populations. For instance after the bomb attack on Chinese policemen in the Muslim city of Kashgar, the Chinese government exploited the situation to not only brutally suppress Chinese Muslims, especially the Uighurs, but also strengthened police presence in Beijing and other Olympic venues to thwart Western inspired protests. China is extremely worried about Western efforts to foment agitation of its minorities against the state during the course of the Olympic Games.
Britain struck a secret deal with the Mehdi Army to hurt America
This week the English newspaper the Times reported that a secret pact with the Mehdi Army kept British forces on the sidelines, as American and Iraqi forces fought battles with Sadr’s militia. Both American and Iraqi officers have accused Britain of initially standing back because of a secret deal with the militias last year. According to BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner, by the time Britain handed over Basra Palace to the Iraqi Army in September 2007, the deal was done. Under the deal's termsno British soldier could enter Basra without the permission of Mr Browne. The English stance is nothing new and it reflects a growing trend in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world of a covert struggle between Britain and America for the control of the ummah resources. On the authority of Thawbaan, the messenger (saw) of Allah said, “The People will soon summon one another to attack you as people when eating invite others to share their food.” Someone asked, “Will that be because of our small numbers at that time?” He replied, “No, you will be numerous at that time: but you will be froth and scum like that carried down by a torrent (of water), and Allah will take the fear of you from the breasts (hearts) of your enemy and cast al-wahn into your hearts.” Someone asked, “O Messenger of Allah, what is al-wahn?” He replied, “Love of the world and dislike of death.” [An authentic hadith recorded by Abu Dawud and Ahmad]
After ISI is destroyed what’s next for Pakistan?
On 6/8/2008 The Pentagon admitted that it was working with the government of Pakistan to contain the ISI. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said,” With regards to the Pakistani intelligence services, I think that’s been historically an issue in that country…there are signs that it remains so. And … our two governments are working to deal with those problems.” Several US papers have also reported that the US is pressurizing Pakistan to purge ISI of Islamists and limit its role in domestic and international matters. This spells disaster not only for the ISI but for all of the armed forces of Pakistan . This is because the ISI is composed of officers who are drawn from the army, navy and air force on 2 year assignments. Purging ISI of Islamists will inevitably lead America to expand its programme of substantially weakening the majority of Pakistan ’s armed forces and bringing closer the prospects of India controlling Pakistan .
7/8/2008
After discovering that their existing policies have failed to subdue the Islamization of the Muslim community, the British government has embarked on a new initiative which is to cost £12.5m. This consists of providing money to Muslims to fund projects which aim to "undermine extremist ideology", and also to establish a board of Islamic theologians to debate issues affecting Muslims in the UK . The government is also exploring ways to promote moderate Muslims and isolate extremists. British Minister Hazel Blears said, “I think if you have got groups that are actively promoting violent extremism, groups that are on record as saying Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, justifying suicide bombing, then I don't think it is right for ministers to be engaging with them, sharing platforms and giving them credibility.” Allah reminds us “Fain would they extinguish Allah's light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).”
Hamdan: Imprisoned, interrogated, tortured, humiliated, and now guilty
On 6/8/2008 A US military jury at Guantanamo Bay convicted Osama Bin Laden's former driver of supporting terrorism. The Bush administration hailed the decision and described it as a fair trial. The bitter irony is that the verdict does more to malign America ’s image in the world, than reverse its decline. For someone to be imprisoned for 7 years, brutality tortured, sexually humiliated, denied access to dues process and then subsequently tried by a military court can only be described as the hallmark of totalitarian regimes. To treat other prisoners at Guantanamo in a similar fashion only cements America’s status before the world as a totalitarian state determined to spread the tentacles of its tyranny both at home and abroad.
China inflates Muslim terrorism concerns to clampdown on foreign agitation
Lately, China has made a lot of noise about the so called terrorist threats emanating from provinces that have large Muslim populations. For instance after the bomb attack on Chinese policemen in the Muslim city of Kashgar, the Chinese government exploited the situation to not only brutally suppress Chinese Muslims, especially the Uighurs, but also strengthened police presence in Beijing and other Olympic venues to thwart Western inspired protests. China is extremely worried about Western efforts to foment agitation of its minorities against the state during the course of the Olympic Games.
Britain struck a secret deal with the Mehdi Army to hurt America
This week the English newspaper the Times reported that a secret pact with the Mehdi Army kept British forces on the sidelines, as American and Iraqi forces fought battles with Sadr’s militia. Both American and Iraqi officers have accused Britain of initially standing back because of a secret deal with the militias last year. According to BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner, by the time Britain handed over Basra Palace to the Iraqi Army in September 2007, the deal was done. Under the deal's termsno British soldier could enter Basra without the permission of Mr Browne. The English stance is nothing new and it reflects a growing trend in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world of a covert struggle between Britain and America for the control of the ummah resources. On the authority of Thawbaan, the messenger (saw) of Allah said, “The People will soon summon one another to attack you as people when eating invite others to share their food.” Someone asked, “Will that be because of our small numbers at that time?” He replied, “No, you will be numerous at that time: but you will be froth and scum like that carried down by a torrent (of water), and Allah will take the fear of you from the breasts (hearts) of your enemy and cast al-wahn into your hearts.” Someone asked, “O Messenger of Allah, what is al-wahn?” He replied, “Love of the world and dislike of death.” [An authentic hadith recorded by Abu Dawud and Ahmad]
After ISI is destroyed what’s next for Pakistan?
On 6/8/2008 The Pentagon admitted that it was working with the government of Pakistan to contain the ISI. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said,” With regards to the Pakistani intelligence services, I think that’s been historically an issue in that country…there are signs that it remains so. And … our two governments are working to deal with those problems.” Several US papers have also reported that the US is pressurizing Pakistan to purge ISI of Islamists and limit its role in domestic and international matters. This spells disaster not only for the ISI but for all of the armed forces of Pakistan . This is because the ISI is composed of officers who are drawn from the army, navy and air force on 2 year assignments. Purging ISI of Islamists will inevitably lead America to expand its programme of substantially weakening the majority of Pakistan ’s armed forces and bringing closer the prospects of India controlling Pakistan .
7/8/2008
The Imperial Criminal Circus (ICC) and the Muslim world
On 19/7/2008 Arab leaders met in Cairo to discuss how to thwart the International Criminal Court (ICC) from issuing an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. Algerian Foreign Minister Mourad Medelci told his Arab counterparts:” What the prosecutor of the court has done is a dangerous precedent.”
Encouraged by the EU, ICC’s involvement with Sudan started on 31 March 2005, when, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1593 that referred to the situation in Darfur . In February 2007 the ICC declared that two men — Sudanese humanitarian affairs minister Ahmad Muhammad Harun and Janjaweed militia leader Ali Kushayb — had been identified as key suspects in crimes against humanity. On 2 May 2007, the Court issued arrest warrants for the two men. However, Sudan maintained that the Court had no jurisdiction over this matter, and refused to hand over the suspects. On 14 July 2008, the ICC's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, asked the ICC for a warrant to arrest President Bashir. Moreno-Ocampo accuses Bashir killing 35,000 people outright and at least another 100,000 through slow death, and forced 2.5 million to flee their homes in Darfur . This is the first time that the ICC has served notice on a head of state.
The actions of the ICC demonstrate clearly how humanitarian concerns are being exploited by western powers to violate the sovereignty of a nation. Humanitarian intervention by western powers in the affairs of another state is not a new concept, but one which has evolved over a number of years and now enjoys the support of international law. This has dramatically changed the dynamics of the concept of nation state as envisioned by the Westphalia treaty of 1648, which stipulates that a nation’s sovereignty must be respected by other states. However, humanitarian intervention as practiced by the ICC is dictated by states that fund and support the court. EU is by far the ICC’s biggest donor and selectively controls application of the courts jurisdiction. For instance the ICC has not taken any action against Tony Blair and George Bush for violating international law, invading Iraq and committing genocide. Likewise, the ICC has not invoked any action against the heads of states belonging to Israel , India and Russia for perpetrating genocide in Palestine , Kashmir and Chechnya . Even when some of the rulers of the Muslim world commit genocide against their own people that blatantly falls within the scope of ICC’s jurisdiction, the West remains silent. For instance, western powers have turned a blind eye to Musharraf’s killing fields in Balochistan and the Federal Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Hence, ICC’s push to indict Bashir is politically driven by the West and is being used as a pretext to invade Sudan and occupy its rich oil reserves and other precious minerals.
Oh Muslims! Do you not see how the rulers are only interested in saving their own necks?Do you not see how West treats you? They prop up your leaders against your wishes and then use them to slaughter you and rob you of your wealth and honour. After these rulers have served their usefulness the West dismisses them like used tissues and appoints other tyrants over you. And yet cling to the vain hope that some how the ICC and similar institutions will safe you from the tyrants. Your only respite lies in the re-establishment of the Khilafah, which will not only seize the hands of the tyrants but also punish their masters. So hurry and redouble your efforts to establish the Khilafah for Allah says O you who believe! answer (the call of) Allah and His Apostle when he calls you to that which gives you life; and know that Allah intervenes between man and his heart, and that to Him you shall be gathered. (8:24)
Abid Mustafa
Encouraged by the EU, ICC’s involvement with Sudan started on 31 March 2005, when, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1593 that referred to the situation in Darfur . In February 2007 the ICC declared that two men — Sudanese humanitarian affairs minister Ahmad Muhammad Harun and Janjaweed militia leader Ali Kushayb — had been identified as key suspects in crimes against humanity. On 2 May 2007, the Court issued arrest warrants for the two men. However, Sudan maintained that the Court had no jurisdiction over this matter, and refused to hand over the suspects. On 14 July 2008, the ICC's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, asked the ICC for a warrant to arrest President Bashir. Moreno-Ocampo accuses Bashir killing 35,000 people outright and at least another 100,000 through slow death, and forced 2.5 million to flee their homes in Darfur . This is the first time that the ICC has served notice on a head of state.
The actions of the ICC demonstrate clearly how humanitarian concerns are being exploited by western powers to violate the sovereignty of a nation. Humanitarian intervention by western powers in the affairs of another state is not a new concept, but one which has evolved over a number of years and now enjoys the support of international law. This has dramatically changed the dynamics of the concept of nation state as envisioned by the Westphalia treaty of 1648, which stipulates that a nation’s sovereignty must be respected by other states. However, humanitarian intervention as practiced by the ICC is dictated by states that fund and support the court. EU is by far the ICC’s biggest donor and selectively controls application of the courts jurisdiction. For instance the ICC has not taken any action against Tony Blair and George Bush for violating international law, invading Iraq and committing genocide. Likewise, the ICC has not invoked any action against the heads of states belonging to Israel , India and Russia for perpetrating genocide in Palestine , Kashmir and Chechnya . Even when some of the rulers of the Muslim world commit genocide against their own people that blatantly falls within the scope of ICC’s jurisdiction, the West remains silent. For instance, western powers have turned a blind eye to Musharraf’s killing fields in Balochistan and the Federal Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Hence, ICC’s push to indict Bashir is politically driven by the West and is being used as a pretext to invade Sudan and occupy its rich oil reserves and other precious minerals.
Oh Muslims! Do you not see how the rulers are only interested in saving their own necks?Do you not see how West treats you? They prop up your leaders against your wishes and then use them to slaughter you and rob you of your wealth and honour. After these rulers have served their usefulness the West dismisses them like used tissues and appoints other tyrants over you. And yet cling to the vain hope that some how the ICC and similar institutions will safe you from the tyrants. Your only respite lies in the re-establishment of the Khilafah, which will not only seize the hands of the tyrants but also punish their masters. So hurry and redouble your efforts to establish the Khilafah for Allah says O you who believe! answer (the call of) Allah and His Apostle when he calls you to that which gives you life; and know that Allah intervenes between man and his heart, and that to Him you shall be gathered. (8:24)
Abid Mustafa
Letter from Hizb ut-Tahrir to the Rulers in the Muslim world
The following is a translation from the original letter in Arabic.
Arabic Source: Latest Al-Waie Magazine
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
From Hizb ut Tahrir
To the Rulers, the Kings, Heads of State and Chiefs….In the Muslim World, over the Pacific Ocean from Indonesia in the East, to the Atlantic Coast in the West.
All praise be to Allah (swt), His Messenger (saw), his family and those loyal to him,
And so:
As you are well aware that for a long time we have not sent delegations nor corresponded with you demanding your support for establishing the Khilafah ar Rashidah State, this was because we have been witnessing with our own ears and eyes that you have abandoned the Khilafah behind your backs and you are violating the authentic evidences of the Sharee’ah derived from the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) which make it incumbent to work in order to establish the Khilafah . Not only that, but because every Muslim is required to have the bai’ah to the Khaleefah upon his neck, the authentic evidences have clearly rendered the death of the person who neglects the work to establish the Khilafah as the ‘death in ignorance’ or death of Jahiliyyah,. This is supported by the Hadeeth narrated in the Saheeh Muslim on the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Omar (r.a) that the Prophet (saw) said:
« ومن مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية»
And whosoever dies without having a Bai’ah upon his neck (i.e without a system of Bai’ah existing), he dies the death of Jahiliyyah.
This Hadeeth underscores the importance of the work to establish Khilafah and points to the magnitude of criminal negligence of the one who ignores his duty to strive for the cause.
This pertained to a Muslim from among the people in his individual capacity.
But so far as the rulers are concerned, the crime is far more grave and the punishment even more severe. Such rulers who do not rule by what Allah (swt) has revealed, who do not declare the establishment of Khilafah State, the ruler who is engaged in whatever Allah has forbidden, who befriends the Kuffar and showers them with his affection and compassion while seeking recognition, honour and pride from them, such rulers have been promised severe punishment by Allah.
The ruler who does not rule by whatever has been revealed by Allah, indeed stands to deny Islam and Quranic Ayaat have termed him with kufr, Allah says:
} ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون {
“And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Kâfirûn” [TMQ al Mai’dah: 044]
On the other hand, the ruler who also does not rule by what ever Allah has revealed, but at the same time does not refute Islam, is described in the following Ayaat as wrongdoer and oppressor, Allah says:
ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الظالمون{
“And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Zâlimûn” [TMQ al Mai’dah: 045]
} ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الفاسقون {
“And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Fâsiqûn” [TMQ al Mai’dah: 047]
Yet another ruler who indulges in Allah’s prohibitions, befriends the Kuffar enemies of Islam and showers his affection on them in order to seek their approval and honour from them, such a ruler is categorised along with Munafiqeen (hypocrites) who await the severest of punishments. Allah says:
} يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تتخذوا عدوي وعدوكم أولياء تلقون إليهم بالمودة وقد كفروا بما جاءكم من الحق {
“O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth” [TMQ al Mumtahina: 01]
} بشر المنافقين بأن لهم عذاباً أليماً الذين يتخذون الكافرين أولياء من دون المؤمنين أيبتغون عندهم العزة فإن العزة لله جميعاً {
"Give to the hypocrites the tidings that there is for them a painful torment. Those who take disbelievers for Auliyâ' (protectors or helpers or friends) instead of believers, do they seek honour, power and glory with them? Verily, then to Allâh belongs all honour, power and glory". [TMQ an-Nisaa’: 138,139]
In the light of these, and because such is your reality, as you are aware, we have had adopted such a stand regarding you and refrained from sending delegations to you nor urged you to support the formation of the Khilafah .
However, two facts have recently emerged which have further aggravated the reality and have prompted us to take up another stance, these prompting factors are:
The First: Muslims in general have responded tremendously to the call for Khilafah. Initially, the Muslims were gathering around the cause in tens and hundreds for seminars, sermons and conferences organized by the Hizb on the subject of Khilafah, whereas now they respond in thousands or even in hundreds of thousands or even more. This points to the fact that the Khilafah has become the vital issue on a functional level rather than merely an intellectual one.
Any thinking ruler, who contemplates on this issue and takes heed, would certainly not tread the course against tide of the Muslims rallying behind and overwhelmingly supporting the cause of Khilafah.
The Second: The new strategy for the Islamic region devised by the West and especially the United States foments unrest, encourages separatist tendencies and hostilities, wages wars and then engineers new agendas and planning for a variety of rulings systems such as federates, confederates or autonomous etc. and plant people designated as rulers who play their role. Thus such rulers, who have already lost their deen, now stand to lose this world as well because they do not rule by what Allah has revealed and because of their loyalty to the enemies of Islam.
A thinking who considers these facts will observe at least some lesson.
These two factors deeply influenced us to address this letter to you; do consider that in addressing this, we look upon you in three different categories:
The First Category: A state that is ruled by indigenous elements where our delegation can approach them, albeit with some difficulty. In such states, our delegations will carry the letter with them.
The Second Category: A state may be administered by indigenous elements but surrounded by persecuting security forces who are under orders to suppress the word of truth whether uttered by individuals or groups. To such category, this lettered will be reached by other means but not by a delegation.
The Third Category: A state ruled by non-indigenous elements and other rulers. It would be in vain to approach them…. We will be in no hurry send our communiqué to them.
These are the three categories in which we group you in addressing this communiqué.
Oh, the Rulers in the Muslims’ countries.
You may say what prompts the Hizb ut Tahrir to be so daringly adventurous so as to shut its door to us and address us without the protocol! Is it not scared of our brutal power? Do they not fear that their delegation may not return safely to them?
Well, we address you without the protocol because we do not like to encumber this letter with unnatural mannerisms and embellish it with flattery. As for not being aware of your brute power, well we do know it, the All-powerful has informed us:
} وإذا بطشتم بطشتم جبارين {
"And when you seize (somebody), seize you (him) as tyrants?” [TMQ as-Shu’ara: 130]
But at the same time, we also know the limitless and overwhelming strength:
} إن بطش ربك لشديد {
“Verily, (O Muhammad [sal-Allâhu 'alayhi wa sallam]) the Seizure (punishment) of your Lord is severe and painful.” [TMQ al-Burooj: 012]
As for we being scared of your brute force for our delegation, we are fully conscious that nothing wrong can befall us over and above what has been destined to by Allah (swt), He says:
}قل لن يصيبنا إلا ما كتب الله لنا هو مولانا وعلى الله فليتوكل المؤمنون {
“Say: "Nothing shall ever happen to us except what Allâh has ordained for us. He is our Maulâ (Lord, Helper and Protector)." And in Allâh let the believers put their trust.” [TMQ at Taubah: 051]
You may say that Hizb ut Tahrir is only interested in usurping power…
Well, we are concerned with reviving the Islamic way of life on earth by establishing the state of Khilafah ar Rashidah and it is this concern that warns us to respond positively to Allah’s commands and His Prophet (saw)’s orders. Our aim is not merely to occupy power; rather we aim to accomplish the command to establish the great Khilafah. This great command is not addressed to Hizb ut Tahrir alone, but it is upon every single Muslim individual and even more so for a ruler.
You may say that Hizb ut Tahrir’s attempts to from the Khilafah are merely a dream or even a mirage, or you may add that even assuming that Khilafah is established; the big powers will spell its doom and annihilate it!!
We would say to you that taking shelter under such comforting thoughts is the mirage, as for the Khilafah, Allah willing, it is a reality and this is corroborated by four facts:
The First Fact: Allah (swt) Himself has promised authority to those who believe in Him and accomplish good deeds like He had bestowed authority for those before, He (swt) says:
وعد الله الذين آمنوا منكم وعملوا الصالحات ليستخلفنهم في الأرض كما استخلف الذين من قبلهم وليمكنن لهم دينهم الذي ارتضى لهم وليبدلنهم من بعد خوفهم أمناً يعبدونني لا يشركون بي شيئاً ومن كفر بعد ذلك فأولئك هم الفاسقون {
“Allâh has promised those among you who believe and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the land, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practise their religion which He has chosen for them (i.e. Islâm). And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear (provided) they (believers) worship Me and do not associate anything (in worship) with Me. But whoever disbelieved after this, they are the Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient to Allâh).” [TMQ an-Noor: 055]
The Second Fact: The Prophet (saw) has given glad tidings of the return of Khilafah ar Rashidah on the method of the Prophethood after the period of forcible reigns that we are under. The Prophet (saw) says in an authentic hadeeth narrated in Musnad Ahmad on the authority of Huzifah bin al Yaman (r.a) that the Prophet (saw) said:
« تَكُونُ النُّبُوَّةُ فِيكُمْ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةٌ عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكًا عَاضًّا فَيَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَكُونَ ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكًا جَبْرِيَّةً فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ ثُمَّ سَكَتَ ».
“Prophethood will last with you for as long as Allah wants it to last. Then there will be Khilafah according to the Method of Prophethood, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then Allah will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be hereditary rule, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then Allah will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be an oppressive rule, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then Allah will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be a Khilafah according to the method of Prophethood.” Then he (saw) fell silent”
The Third Fact: The alive and vibrant Ummah has taken up the task of establishing the Khilafah and supporting the cause until the promise of Allah has been accomplished. And after its formation, the same Ummah will nurture and guard the Khilafah …From thereon, this Ummah will rapidly march to play its original role for which it was created, Allah (swt) says:
} كنتم خير أمةٍ أخرجت للناس تأمرون بالمعروف وتنهون عن المنكر وتؤمنون بالله{
“You (true believers in Islâmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad [sal-Allâhu 'alayhi wa sallam] and his Sunnah) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden), and you believe in Allâh.” [TMQ aal-‘Imran: 109]
The Fourth Fact: The Hizb is completely loyal & sincere to Allah (swt) and truthful to His Prophet (saw) treading its course, day in and day out until the promise of Allah and the glad tiding of His Prophet has been accomplished by it. In this path, the Hizb is not afraid of blame of the blamers nor weaken our resolve for this cause which will certain be a reality by the Will of Allah….. This is the reflection of the saying of the Prophet (saw) narrated in Saheeh Muslim on the authority of Thauban (r.a):
« لا تزال طائفة من أمتي ظاهرين على الحق لا يضرهم من خذلهم حتى يأتي أمر الله وهم كذلك... »
A party (Taifa) from my Ummah will be established upon the order of Allah, they will not be harmed by those who abandon them or differ with them, until the order of Allah comes and they are victorious over the people.
Each of these four facts are by themselves to conclude that the work to establish the Khilafah is not a mirage, imagine, we have the four on our side.
As far the threat of the super powers will annihilate the Khilafah when it is formed, simply comprehending the current reality buries this scare-mongering beneath the sand. Remember, the main leader of these big powers, the US and its allies are, despite their utmost efforts, unable to sustain their stay in ‘Iraq and Afghanistan in the face of resistance by Muslim people who do not even have a fraction of material power at their disposal compared to their enemies enormous and awesome might. It becomes even more serious when you consider that these resisting Muslims are not a state of any worthwhile reckoning either in terms of manpower or resources.
If these countries and their super power leader are unable to consolidate in ‘
إن تنصروا الله ينصركم ويثبت أقدامكم{
“O you who believe! If you help (in the cause of) Allâh, He will help you and make your foothold firm.” [TMQ Muhammad: 007]
} إنا لننصر رسلنا والذين آمنوا في الحياة الدنيا ويوم يقوم الأشهاد{
Verily, We will indeed make victorious Our Messengers and those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh – Islâmic Monotheism) in this world's life and on the Day when the witnesses will stand forth (i.e. Day of Resurrection)? [TMQ al Ghafir: 51]
The one who holds such views indeed ignores the hadeeth narrated by Muslim and Bukhari and neither heeds the historical realities nor realizes that the Islamic army can not be subdued, the Prophet says as narrated in Bukhari:
« نصرت بالرعب مسيرة شهر»
I was given the victory of my fears from the enemy even if they were one month away.
Then there is another factor we would like to add as to why the big powers have failed to sustain their stay in ‘
These rulers will not remain around when the Khilafah is established, and who would dare to confront the Khilafah when the Ummah will stand up to protect and support it?? These rulers will disappear from the scene either on their own or they will be forced to, and then the enemy will not find such traitors who open the doors of the Islamic countries without any hindrance.
The formation of the Khilafah is thus a reality by the will of Allah in the not very distant future and the stability of the Khilafah after its formation will be ensured by the will of Allah while the foundations of the countries that are the big powers of today will tremble.
To conclude, you may say and believe that Hizb thinks that you might most probably not respond, then why does it send its delegation or even write to us?
And we say, yes, you may say and believe so, but we have sent our delegates and this letter in compliance of the word of our Master, Allah, the All-powerful and mighty, who says:
} قالوا معذرةً إلى ربكم ولعلهم يتقون {
(The preachers) said: "In order to be free from guilt before your Lord (Allâh), and perhaps they may fear Allâh." [TMQ al-‘Araaf: 164]
You may take heed and remember the day of judgement, the day of reckoning where the All powerful will deliver justice, there will be no oppression on that day, and it will be either paradise or fire:
} فمن زحزح عن النار وأدخل الجنة فقد فاز{
“And whoever is removed away from the Fire and admitted to
We are writing to you so that you may take heed and realize that no matter what you do, it is inevitable that you will become part of sand, you will have to abandon your thrones and crowns, your wealth and riches and your lush garden, and you will have to fend for yourself then:
} كم تركوا من جنات وعيون* وزروع ومقام كريم* ونعمة كانوا فيها فاكهين* كذلك وأورثناها قوماً آخرين* فما بكت عليهم السماء والأرض وما كانوا منظرين{
“How many of gardens and springs that they [Fir'aun's (Pharaoh's) people] left behind, And green crops (fields) and goodly places, And comforts of life wherein they used to take delight! Thus (it was)! And We made other people inherit them (i.e. We made the Children of
We are writing to you so that you may take heed and become fearful and realise the enormity of the sins that encumber you: your have suspended the rule by Allah’s commands; you have neglected and abandoned Jihad in His (swt) path; surrendered your loyalties to the enemies of Allah; willfully lost several Muslim lands like Palestine, Kashmir, Cyprus, East Timor, dismemberment of Afghanistan, ‘Iraq, southern Sudan, the butcheries in Somalia and Chechnya… the list is endless. In all these sins, you have either been the perpetrators of the sin or you have opted to remain silent like the people of the graves. Yet, you neither repent nor take heed:
} أولا يرون أنهم يفتنون في كل عام مرة أو مرتين ثم لا يتوبون ولا هم يذَّكرون {
“See they not that they are put in trial once or twice every year (with different kinds of calamities, disease, famine)? Yet, they turn not in repentance, nor do they learn a lesson (from it).” [TMQ ay-Taubah: 126]
We are writing to you so that you may take heed and consider the two facts that prompted us to address you and you may answer this call positively. This may lessen the burden of your sins and on the day of judgement, your books of accounts become when neither the huge amount of wealth and riches, nor your progeny will be in a position to help, except the one who comes with a pure and clean heart.
If you respond positively to our letter titled: “Our Support to the Khilafah”, our delegation will listen to you and will revert back to you accordingly. In you are to respond positively to this letter and our delegation is not sent you, our office addresses are given below. If we receive your response, we will some up with our suitable response on the issue.
If on the other hand, you choose not to respond, you will indeed not be able to harm Allah in the least, and neither will be able to hinder the formation of the Khilafah as promised by Allah (swt) and as foretold by His Prophet (saw). By this you only reach your humiliation and depravity in both the worlds:
} وذلك هو الخسران المبين {
“That is the evident loss.” [TMQ al-Hajj: 011]
And by this, we have given the call to you and warned you… and accomplished our responsibility.
} والله غالب على أمره ولكن أكثر الناس لا يعلمون {
“And Allâh has full power and control over His Affairs, but most of men know not.” [TMQ Yousuf: 021]
The last ten days of Rajab, 1429 A.H
Hizb ut Tahrir
The Hizb’s Main website: http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
The Hizb’s Main Media Office:
http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/arabic/index.php/main/index
Arabic Source: Latest Al-Waie Magazine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)