I dont think it looks to do what is right because that would contradict its own values that oblige it to support its own interests irrespective of the consequences it has to others. CAPITALISTIC nations follow this principle, hence you have problems in the first place.

I agree with much of your analysis but the reason that we are in this mess is due to a number of reasons and western colonilastion is one of the main ones. Much of the problems we have today stem from what the west did and DOES in our lands. The divison is down to them supporting entities in our lands to cause division based on nationlism, the west supoorted those that called aggainst rebellion e.g. the likes of Saud. The ummah neglected her duty in accounting its rulers but it was not due to love of this life.

The Ummah does not crave wealth it does crave being united though. If it craved wealth it would have exploited the lands it conquerred and ruled. As to unity it is welll known the plots of the colonialists, britain and france that they worked by supporting their agents to divide the Muslims on nationlistic grounds e.g. Kemal AtaTurk, Saud, Qaid e Azam etc...

First of all we do not know how long it could take, victory is from Allah and he (swt) will grant as he wills. This could be tommorrow or the next milennia. But wee know that Allah (swt) says in the Quran, oh you who believe do righteos deed and you will be granted surety on the earth –i.e. you will be given khilafah. This has two aspects to it we work and have tawakkul in Allah (swt). The paralells are clear to see from the Method of the Prophet (saw) they were bieng persecuted Sumayah (the first martyr of Islam) Bilal etc…but the prophet (saw) continued on his method by culture the sahaba, create the public opinion for Islam (dawah) and seek the support of the tribes that could offer the rulership. These are the practical steps that the prophet (saw) took to work towards the state and finally Allah (swt) gave the victory – and surely Allah (swt) is all powerful and is capable of making anything happen – this is the tawakkul – work and faith. Like I said as Muslims we have many problems, starvation, occupation, rape, persecution, oppression, poverty etc… how are you going to solve these problems not one of them but all of them? The only solution is Khilafah, it is the duty of the Khaleef to protect the Muslims and provide for them. This is the practical solution of from Islam. Hizb ut Tahrir works explicity to the method of the prophet (saw): - It cultures its Shabab with the concepts to challenge the corrupt thoughts (kufr) in society. As the Prophet (saw) did with the Sahaba in the House of Arqam - It works with the Ummah to highhlight the plots of the Kufr and to show Islam as the correct Ideological alternaitve to Capitalism and how Islam can solve all problems. As the prohet (saw) showed the corrputenss on the Quraish way of life by challenging there cheating in the market place (economic) burying of daugthers (social) inequality (politcial). Creating the public opinion for Islam - It works in the Muslim lands to get the material support (nasr) from the Muslim military in order to establish Khilafah and resuem the Islamic way of life. The Prophet (saw) went to many tribes to ask them to give him the authority, e.g. Taif, eventually Madinah gave the authority. The prohet (saw) was one man and in 13 years established a state, today we are an Ummah of 1.6 billion. This is the only solution to our problems, it is radical but then when Islam first came it was seen as radical we as Muslims need to stop looking to the west for the solution but rather the Islamic soltiuon.

The Khartoum government and the American Government - but then we know which one controls which

I disagree

The reality is that the Israeli problem will not be solved until the peole that rule us rule with the Quran and Sunnah. As can be seen by the 50 odd years of complete failiure.

Islam is complete way of life - for every problem it has a solution. Khilafah being the solution is not becuase i say it is, rather this is what Islam says. You cannot acknowledge that Khilafah is the solution but then look for something else in the meantime, there is one solution anything else is not a solution. For nearly a century many so called solutions have been put forward and have resulted in disaster, why because they are not solutions derived from the Quran and Sunnah. Nobody talks about what should we do in the meantime when these "solutions" are put forward. Yet when islam is shown as the solution the people start to become pragmatic. 50 years they have tried to implement democracy in Pakistan, people had the patience then. As to what we can do in the meantime, again Islam goiverns this, it is not for us to decide. There is a concept in Islam called sbar and tawakkul, as painful as it is this is what is rquired whilst working for the return of Al Khilafah - patience and trust in Allah (swt). As to saying that peace with Israel, this is haram, would it even stop the Israelis, which Muslims are we gfoing to decide that cannot have homes and which can? Unfortunately the People rush to the solutions pushed by the kufr but when Islam comes with the true solution excuses are made left right and centre. I just want to highlight the inadequacies of western solutions compared with those from Islam. Im not saying that lets not discuss the failiure of these but lets see these solutions for what they are - useless.

The situation in the Darfur region of Sudan has become the new focus of the western world, with reports of an estimated one million people being displaced and ten thousand being killed. There has been pressure largely driven by the international community, and America in particular, to act in order to prevent a catastrophe. US House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California recently stated, "We must act now to avoid more slaughter and avoid a repetition of the genocide in Rwanda 10 years ago. This is a crisis, an emergency. We have the legal obligation under international law to act.†Donald Payne, Democratic representative from New Jersey, told a press conference, "We urge the Secretary of State, Colin Powell to support an immediate intervention to stop the killing. If we fail to act a million people could die before the end of the year.†The Americans have laid the blame for the events in the Darfur squarely at the doorstep of the Sudanese government, whom it claims are sponsoring militias known as the ‘Janjaweed’ to rampage and kill people. President Bush recently stated, "They [sudanese government] must stop Janjaweed violence, they must provide access to humanitarian relief for the people who suffer," he said in a speech in Washington. Such an outcry from the US and western governments would seem to imply that the situation in Sudan was its own making and not through outside interference. However the situation is far from that, and the Americans have been actively stoking the flames for many years. A brief examination of Sudan shows that the South of the country has much of the natural resources and this is where the US has been trying to secure its influence, and has used a number of policies to achieve these aims. The Americans have for many years actively funded a terrorist rebel militia, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), to fight against the Sudanese government and also to spread disenchantment in the South against the Northern government. This group has been committed untold atrocities throughout Sudan both against government troops as well as civilians, Muslim and Christian. It was under President Clinton that these terrorist militias were given the financial backing to rise up against the Sudanese governments and this policy has been maintained by the Bush administration. In October 1999 Madeline Albright the then Secretary of State met with the terrorist leader of the SPLA, John Garang. When Madeline Albright met Garang she extended the hand of American friendship and committed to providing huge amounts of “humanitarian aidâ€. This charitable venture was a means to channel vast quantities of money towards the terrorist cause of the SPLA, which at that point had a flagging military fund. The Economist magazine described the SPLA as “little more than an armed gang of Dinkas… killing, looting and raping. Its indifference, almost animosity, towards the people it was supposed to be ‘liberating’ was all too clear.†[The Economist, March 1998] The Sunday Times revealed that the Clinton administration was supporting the terrorist SPLA in order to “… destabilize the government of Sudan... More than $20m of military equipment, including radios, uniforms and tents will be shipped to Eritrea, Ethiopia and Uganda in the next few weeks. Although the equipment is earmarked for the armed forces of those countries, much of it will be passed on to the SPLA, which is preparing an offensive against the government in Khartoum.†[The Sunday Times, 17th November 1996]. Such blatant support and funding by America for a terrorist movement was completely ignored by the western governments, even though it was being reported widely. The SPLA were freely waging tyranny by destroying mosques, tearing up of copies of the Qur’an as they did in Tawreet and targeting the centres for the memorization of the Noble Qur’an in Hamshkureeb. They organised the bombing of Muslims during Fajr prayer and chose the 27th Rajab, the day of Israa and Mi’raj, as the time of heightened aggression. Yet amidst all this butchery and oppression, they constantly repeat the mantra that they are being oppressed due to the application of the laws of Islam, even though it is clear that such laws are not applied. They have declared that they will continue to fight until the Sudanese government abolishes the Islamic laws. All of this confirms the extent of their hidden hatred and their blatant hostility towards Islam and the Muslims. It also confirms these terrorist rebels are working in a crusader war against Islam, not only to kill Muslims but also to prevent the application of Islam. The Americans have sponsored this terrorist movement in order to separate Sudan into two separate entities, the North and South, along ethnic and religious lines. This colonialist plan of divide and conquer has been a recurring style used by the western colonialists to facilitate their hegemony over the Muslim world. This policy has been used for many hundreds of years, and was a means to destroy the Islamic Khilafah through the funding and supporting of autonomous entities within the state, that were encouraged to rebel and separate. An example of this was the rebellion of ibn Saud with the help of the British, which led to the establishment of the Saudi regime in the land that was known as Hijaz – a wilayah of the Islamic Khilafah. More recent examples show the creation of Kashmir as a conflict zone, and the recent and ongoing attempts to carve up Iraq into three states; Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Such political manoeuvres have resulted in more than fifty ineffective entities in the Muslim world, where previously only one had existed. The sponsorship of terrorists is actually quite a normal state of affairs for the American regime. They were able to hire a terrorist militia in the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, which were used to fight and remove the Taliban. This occurred despite the wide spread atrocities being committed by the Northern Alliance. The Guardian backed up this analogy by comparing the events in Sudan with US actions in South America, “Welcome to the 1980s. Long live Ronald Reagan. Remember the scenario - a rebel group being trained and armed by the CIA to topple a sovereign government, cross-border incursions from secluded camps, and the whole de-stabilization exercise backed by international sanctions and a massive propaganda campaign. It sounds like Nicaragua or Angola circa 1984. In fact it’s Sudan 1998.†[The Guardian, 1 May 1998] However, the government in Sudan is not without blame, rather, they have been complicit in the plans of the Americans. They have taken political actions which have led to the SPLA being granted political weight and clout, and have also agreed plans that would see Sudan split into two. The Sudanese governments oppression in Darfur, which they continue even today, is giving licence and credibility for international intervention. With such international focus growing, it will only be a matter of time when foreign troops move in, and Sudan is formally split into two. Such is the complicated and devious nature of the America’s political games. They stoke the fires of death and destruction, often when the enemy is no more than a puppet, in order to bring about a climate for political change, which they then fashion by their own hands under the guise of ‘humanitarian intervention’. The time has come for the Muslims to realize the true aims of the western world and the puppet regimes that preside over the Muslims on behalf of the West. The Muslim world must act to prevent its lands from being split ever further into oblivion, to the point that it poses no threat or resistance to any force on earth. The Muslims must realise that the secular political institutions that have been forced upon the Muslim lands, work only to serve the western aims. It is by calling for the implementation of the Islamic political system, and through Islamic politics, that Muslims have a future that will lead to the undoing of the ‘divide and conquer’ policies of the West. The Prophet Muhammed (saw) indicated the importance and obligation of maintaining political unity in the Islamic world, مَنْ أتاكم وأمرÙÙƒÙÙ… جميعٌ على رجل واحد يريد أن يشقّ عصاكم،أو ÙŠÙÙرّق جماعتكم Ùاقتلوه “Whoever comes to you, while your affairs are united under one man, and wishes to break your unity then kill him.†The Muslim world can only have a voice and a future by uniting under one Islamic political system, the Islamic Khilafah.

Who or What is to blame for Iraq? "My son was just a bit of meat to them, just a number. They don't care about him; all they're worried about is the next election. This is not our war, my son has died in their war over oil and they haven't even taken up the trouble of picking up the phone and say they're sorry for our loss." This was the view of another mother who lost her child in the continuing occupation of Iraq and she clearly wanted to highlight the nepotism of the Government in firstly going to war on the true premise of securing its own economic interests. Then for highlighting the significance of her loss to a government who sees such losses as irrelevant as long as it is able to secure its economic interests. This is by no means an isolated incident as it is just another example of how capitalist nations view their citizens as economic commodities where the greater the value a person can generate the more important his needs are to the government. Translated this to the population means that the majority of the populations are ignored because they contribute little to the economic prosperity of the country compared to the big multi national companies. This clearly illustrates the capitalist framework where the corporate entities are given unprecedented support and priority over the majority of the people because the government’s wishes to maintain the profitability of the corporations that naturally support it with donations to keep it in office. Corporate Government The interest of Corporations are supported by the western governments and this close relationship is not surprising considering many officials are closely aligned to the multi billion pound corporations: The post Iraq war reconstruction contracts show the startling reality of corporate America and its intricate links with the Bush Government. Bechtel Group Inc and Halliburton Co were major contributors to the Bush election campaign, which in total raised nearly $200 million for the whole election campaign. These donations were duly rewarded with the biggest reconstruction contracts going to these corporations. The capital construction contract alone gives Bechtel funding of up to $680 million over 18 months subject to Congress’ approval. To further highlight the involvement of government we can see that the Bechtel Group has made a number of friends in Washington over the years. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, once Bechtel’s president, now serves on the company’s board of directors. USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios, who oversees the bidding process for post-war contracts, once headed the Boston-area “Big Dig†construction project, for which Bechtel was the primary contractor. Halliburton Co of which Kellogg, Brown & Root are a subsidiary received the main contract to fight oil well fires and reconstruct oil fields in Iraq. The open-ended contract, which has no specified time or dollar limit, was given to the company without a bidding process. Adding weight to the view of Charles Bremer of the American Textile Manufacturing Institute whom highlighted the power of corporate America when he stated that “you don’t tell Wall-Mart your price. Wall-Mart tells you†clearly Halliburton have built on this philosophy and taken it to a new extreme. Halliburton also has a number of ties to Washington with current Vice President, Dick Cheney, heading the company for five years before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000. Lawrence Eagleburger, former US secretary of state under President George H. W. Bush, sits on the company's board. Not to be outdone the President and Security advisor Condoleza Rice also have deep corporate links. Britain is also not immune to the Corporate interest the Hinduja brother affair in Britain highlighted once again the influence businessman are able to buy from governments. The Hinduja brothers were able to get the Former Northern Ireland minister to allegedly personally involve himself in getting the brothers passports. This was on the back drop of the wealthy brothers donating to the Millennium Dome project of which Peter Mandelson was once responsible for. Bernie Ecclestone caused the Labour government significant embarrassment when it was revealed he had donated £1 million to it, this was in the context that the government had exempted his Formula 1 motor sport from the tobacco advertising ban. Mr Ecclestone clearly felt that his money would by him a favorable policy from the government, which it had with the sport being exempted from the ban. Looking at the wider context of the whole issue it is clear the government ignored the overwhelming health considerations of millions of its citizens where only recently another study revealed that passive smoking increases the possibility of coronary heart disease by up to 60%. The masses were ignored for the billion pound motor industry and its key manufacturers. The recent acceptance of Colonel Gaddafi and Libya into the international arena despite decades of classing the dictator a supporter of terrorism and his history of oppression were simply ignored so that Shell could sign an oil contract to utilize the natural resources of the country. To further illustrate that the West does not restrict its interests to its own borders is seen by the exportation of western ideals. It is able to strengthen its grip on the resources of other nations through its own subcontractors as in the case of the recently installed Prime Minister of Iraq Iyyad Allawi who is a former CIA spy. Who has made it clear that he will not appose any commands from the West. These are more recent examples but history is clearly littered with corporate interests overtaking humanity such as in 1954 the U.S. sponsored a reactionary revolt which overthrew the progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala after land owned by the U.S.-owned United Fruit Company was nationalized. A reign of terror was unleashed against revolutionaries, nationalists and progressive activists Ignoring the Electorate and supporting the Corporations The West champions its democratic values yet it is clear that the only democracy it acts on is that which allows the corporations to purchase its policies irrespective of environmental and social considerations these may have. The West champions the accountability of its governance yet it clearly ignores the views of the very people it is supposed to represent. As evidenced by it ignoring the 1 million people that marched against the Iraq war. It ignored the fuel protestors in 2000 and will in September raise the duty on fuel once again despite mass opposition. We see the annual protest from the public sector workers be they be fireman, nurses, teachers and doctors who provide critical services to the population yet have to strike to make the government pay attention to it. Even then it is only able to demand pay increase in line with inflation. This is in stark contrast to its acceptance of corporate interests and lobbies as we can see that it rarely accuses itself or the directors of these corporations of inflation busting salary increases and obscene bonus schemes. “Collateral Damage†The western governments are not discreet in the value they place on human life as evidenced by comments from senior figures “There’s enough work for everyone to have a role. But the leading role initially, of cause, has to be the coalition, necessarily,†Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State told reporters recently. The role of the occupying forces was further confirmed by US security adviser Condoleezza Rice who said that it was “natural†for the US-led coalition to have a “leading role†in the reconstruction process, having sacrificed “life and blood†to liberate Iraq. Clearly the loss of life is justified through the economic interests that have been secured. More than 850 US troops have been killed since the start of the war on March 19, 2003, just over 700 of them since US President George W. Bush declared the end of major hostilities on May 1, 2003. Making the post-combat phase of the war by far the bloodiest US engagement since the Indochina conflict. In addition more than 5,134 troops were wounded through June 16, 4,593 of them since the official end of combat. Nearly two- thirds of the wounded, according to the report, received injuries serious enough to prevent them from returning to duty. The toll among Iraqis has been far more dramatic, as of June 16, it is estimated that between 9,436 and 11,317 civilians have been killed as a direct result of the US invasion and ensuing occupation, while an estimated 40,000 Iraqis have been injured. This loss of life however is merely classed as ‘collateral damage’ and is seen as a price worth paying. Moreover, these figures do not take account of the long-run health impacts of the estimated 1,100 to 2,200 tons of ordnance made from depleted uranium (DU), which many scientists blamed for illnesses among US soldiers in the first Gulf War and a seven- fold increase in child birth defects in southern Iraq since 1991. Nor do they account for the psychological impact of both the war and the skyrocketing violence, including murders, rapes, and kidnapping, that followed the invasion and that now keeps many Iraqi children from attending school and requires many women to stay off the streets at night. School attendance is reportedly running below pre-war levels, while Iraq's hospitals and health systems have been overwhelmed by a combination of lack of supplies. We can see that the West places little importance on the welfare of the Muslims of Iraq as it has failed to live up to the promises of rebuilding and expanding Iraq's infrastructure, the country is still not producing as much electricity or as much oil on a sustained basis as it was just before the war. This nepotism is blamed on profiteering by big US companies like Halliburton that captured virtually all of the reconstruction contracts despite the much greater experience of Iraqi firms. Truth It is clear that mother of the dead soldier was correct in her estimations of the overriding economic interest that the West places at the forefront of its policies irrespective of the human cost involved. Day by day soldiers and civilians are being killed and are deemed necessary sacrifices for the sake of corporate interests and profit margins. Not content with this utter disregard of human life, the Western governments are again able to price the economic commodity of life. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) revealed that so far $14,000 (£7,600) has been paid in official compensation for incidents including deaths in military custody as well as shootings during demonstrations. It also admits paying "charitable donations" of $24,350 to families up to 13 March this year. The price of life is worth no more than a car. The state department has taken $184m earmarked for critical drinking water projects and moved it to the budget for the lavish new US embassy in Saddam Hussein's former palace. The embassy from which the real sovereignty of Iraq will operate, bringing the cost to just short of $1bn for the embassy, Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, said he might have to "rob from Peter in my fiefdom to pay Paul". The reality is that he is robbing Iraq's people, who, according to a recent study by the consumer group Public Citizen, are facing "massive outbreaks of cholera, diarrhea, nausea and kidney stones" from drinking contaminated water. These examples are not restricted to Iraq as can also be seen in the response of America to the AIDS epidemic which has been likened by the US Surgeon General to the plague, which decimated Europe in the Middle Ages. Last year alone, there were approximately 5 million new cases of AIDS in the world adding to an existing 42 million cases. 3.5 million of these cases arose from Sub-Sahara Africa itself showing the extent to which this part of the world is particularly vulnerable to the life-threatening virus. The vulnerability in this part of the world is largely due to the abstract poverty and the subsequent lack of basic healthcare provision. As a result, there is a lack of access to the Patented Antiretroviral drugs that can be used to slow down the symptoms of AIDS. The essence of the debate rests around the desire of Western pharmaceutical companies to retain their patented drug products whilst millions of people are denied access to these medicines. The American government has been at the forefront of protecting its corporate patents irrespective of the human cost involved. Conclusion “Ideology is ideology, but in the US government, political theory goes hand-in-hand with big business. The world isn’t just watching the spread of a political philosophy in Iraq, it is watching a conquest by and for US big business as well.†- Neil McKay, a columnist in the Sunday Herald The hypocritical stance that the West takes towards Muslim nations shows again how it is able to serve its own interests. For instance, Saudi Arabia is one of the most strategic allies of the US in the region. It has no constitution to speak of, no political parties and is run by a single royal family that brooks no dissent. However since it spends billions of dollars on military purchases and provides military installations to further the dominating reach of the US in the region it is valuable to US interests. There is more evidence further afield from the Middle East in Pakistan where a dictator became a president overnight when he allied himself to the US war against Islam or in the Central Asian countries like Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan where brutal governments suppress the population using US funds. There are those that may say that it is just these governments that have given to rise to such inhumanity yet upon further investigation it is clear that the problem is the underpinning philosophy that these nations apply and that is of Capitalism. The end results of the application of this philosophy are seen from the words of its founder: Adam Smith, has shaped the western model of economy and politics through his famous 1776 book called 'The wealth of nations'. Smith asserted that individuals pursuing economically "selfish" goals are organized "as if by an invisible hand" into a self-regulating economy that benefits everyone despite this not being the intention of those seeking their self gain. He furthermore attacked those who think of others before themselves as not leading to the greater good, in fact leading to greater bad than good according to this invisible hand theory. He states, "…by pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it." This economic interest is not a temporary measure as highlighted by the fact that $15bn which were initially marked for immediate reconstruction is now being rolled out over five years. Clearly so that new American Ambassador John Negroponte can use it as leverage against any future government. With $15bn to be spent any future government will be powerless to refuse US demands for military bases and economic reforms. The capitalist thought encourages the serving of corporate interests irrespective of the cost to the wider community. It is this very ideal that West is intending to impose on the Muslims of Iraq and naturally this will create many more problems. The capitalist doctrine of Bush and Blair has no regard for human life – be it Muslim or non-Muslim. Life is an expendable commodity if it gets in the way of profits. It is clear the corporations that control government policy underpin the interests of the West, it is these very corporations that have dictated this foreign policy of these nations and its exploitation of other nations. It is these very interests the West is trying to achieve in Iraq despite the ‘collateral damage’ it causes. The solution for Iraq must be the complete withdrawal of occupation forces and allowing the Muslims of Iraq to decide their own political destiny.

The solution that i work towards, as well as solving this particular problem solves all problems the Muslims face. Name a problem and i will explain how it exists due to the absence of Islam on a state level. As to What our dispute is with Israel? It kills our Muslim brothers and sisters, it has occupied Muslim land. DOes not matter if you are a Muslim in Pakistan, Britain, America we are one Ummah and if one part of this Ummah is hurting all of it hurts. If our brothers and sisters are being persecuted then we have a responsibilty to them. The solution to Israel is Jihad and this will not be waged until we have a sincere leader that rules with the kitab of Allah and the sunnah of his messenger.

The West is very creative when it comes to its attack on Islam, the following are a number of styles used, this is by no means all of them: - Physical Occupation - Imposition of Dictators - Promoting Integratinsists - Desigining the Education curricular for the muslims - Anti Terrorism/religious intolerance Laws - Encouraging Nationalism/Secularism

"How do you think this "war" will pan out and what will be the resulting positives/negatives?" This war leads us to the inevitable Clash of Civilisations of Capitalism and Islam. As can be seen in recent history when two ideologies existed in a state level capacity (Communism). "Do you think they'll resort to winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim people in order to win this war? Or, will they attempt to turn every Muslim country into another Turkey?" Capitalism is an ideology that exploits it has no possiblility of winning hearts and minds, look at there own society and the endemic problems. Its own people are not happy but it is that they are not shown the alterntive of Islam to solve their problems. They will do whatever is neccessary. "How moderate are the moderates and how extreme are the extremist?" Both terms are given to us by the West - if you accept there way of life then you are a moderate, if you dont then you are extreme. Even if as with Hizb ut Tahrir its method is purely intelectual and not violence. "How does this affect your party’s plan for a Khilafa? What will be your message in reply?" This attack on Islam has been ongoing, they (the West) worked with their agents (Kemal Attaturk, Saud) to destroy the Khilafah in the first place. Our work and that of the Muslims is continuos upon strictly adhereing to the method of the Prophet (saw) to bring about change through establishing AL Khilafah.

Defining the enemy: The real enemy is not terror, it's an ideology David Brooks WASHINGTON When foreign policy wonks go to bed, they dream of being X. They dream of writing the all-encompassing, epoch-defining essay, the way George Kennan did during the cold war under the pseudonym X. Careers have been spent racing to be X. But in our own time, the 9/11 commission has come closer than anybody else. After spending 360 pages describing a widespread intelligence failure, the commissioners step back in their report and redefine the nature of America's predicament. We Americans are not in the middle of a war on terror, they note. We're not facing an axis of evil. Instead, we are in the midst of an ideological conflict. We are facing, the report notes, a loose confederation of people who believe in a perverted stream of Islam that stretches from Ibn Taimaya to Sayyid Qutb. Terrorism is just the means they use to win converts to their cause. It seems like a small distinction - emphasizing ideology instead of terror - but it makes all the difference, because if you don't define your problem correctly, you can't contemplate a strategy for victory. When you see that our enemies are primarily an intellectual movement, not a terrorist army, you see why they are in no hurry. With their extensive indoctrination infrastructure of madrasas and mosques, they're still building strength, laying the groundwork for decades of struggle. Their time horizon can be totally different from our own. As an ideological movement rather than a national or military one, they can play by different rules. There is no territory they must protect. They never have to win a battle but can instead profit in the realm of public opinion from the glorious martyrdom entailed in their defeats. We think the struggle is fought on the ground, but they know the struggle is really fought on satellite TV, and they are far more sophisticated than we are in using it. The 9/11 commission report argues that we have to fight this war on two fronts. We have to use intelligence, military, financial and diplomatic capacities to fight Al Qaeda. That's where most of the media attention is focused. But the bigger fight is with a hostile belief system that can't be reasoned with but can only be "destroyed or utterly isolated." The commissioners don't say it, but the implication is clear. We've had an investigation into our intelligence failures; we now need a commission to analyze our intellectual failures. Simply put, the unapologetic defenders of America often lack the expertise they need. And scholars who really know the Islamic world are often blind to its pathologies. They are so obsessed with the sins of the West, they are incapable of grappling with threats to the West. We also need to mount our own ideological counteroffensive. The commissioners recommend that the United States should be much more critical of autocratic regimes, even friendly ones, simply to demonstrate our principles. They suggest we set up a fund to build secondary schools across Muslim states, and admit many more students into our own. If you are a philanthropist, here is how you can contribute: We need to set up the sort of intellectual mobilization we had during the cold war, with modern equivalents of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to give an international platform to modernist Muslims and to introduce them to Western intellectuals. Most of all, we need to see that the landscape of reality is altered. In the past, we've fought ideological movements that took control of states. Our foreign policy apparatus is geared toward relations with states: negotiating with states, confronting states. Now we are faced with a belief system that is inimical to the state system, and aims at theological rule and the restoration of the caliphate. We'll need a new set of institutions to grapple with this reality, and a new training method to understand people who are uninterested in national self-interest, traditionally defined. Last week, I met with a leading military officer stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, whose observations dovetailed remarkably with the 9/11 commissioners. He said the experience of the last few years is misleading; only 10 percent of our efforts from now on will be military. The rest will be ideological. He observed that we are in the fight against Islamic extremism now where we were in the fight against communism in 1880. We've got a long struggle ahead, but at least we're beginning to understand it. Source: NYT

Iraq sets up committee to impose restrictions on news reporting By Nicolas Pelham in Baghdad Iyad Allawi, Iraq's prime minister, has established a media committee to impose restrictions on print and broadcast media, a government official announced yesterday. The step underlines an aggressive new attitude towards press freedoms, in spite of US efforts to nurture independent media. Ibrahim Janabi, appointed to head the new Higher Media Commission, told the FT the restrictions - known as "red lines" - had yet to be finalised, but would include unwarranted criticism of the prime minister. He singled out last Friday's sermon by Moqtada al-Sadr, a firebrand Shia cleric, who mocked Mr Allawi as America's "tail". Outlets that broadcast the sermon could be banned, he said. The formation of Mr Janabi's committee appears to mark a step back from Washington's democratic vision for postwar Iraq. Before last month's handover of sovereignty, US officials boasted that Iraq enjoyed the Arab world's least regulated media. One of Paul Bremer's first acts as US administrator was to abolish the information ministry, prompting a profusion of non-government newspapers, radio stations and television stations to emerge. Mr Janabi said his committee would soon relocate to the old information ministry building, which is undergoing refurbishment. Many of the old information ministry's 5,000 former employees have welcomed Mr Janabi's commission as a first step to regaining their jobs axed by Mr Bremer. One of Mr Janabi's first decisions was to extend payment of their salaries to last month. But Mr Janabi sought to damp fears that he was reviving the old pre-war information ministry, which controlled all media outlets in Iraq before the US-led invasion. He said he would not introduce minders for foreign journalists, but there would be a voluntary registration process. The measures come amid growing government nervousness that Arab satellite channels are giving publicity to Iraq's rebel groups. Yesterday Iraq's foreign minister, Hosheyr Zebari, denounced the Arabic satellite channel, al-Jazeera, which has broadcast video recordings it received from insurgents. "In a difficult security situation, we need to fight the terrorists by all means, and one of the main means is the media. We need them all to co-operate, even the private sector. It's for national security," said Mr Janabi, a former Iraqi intelligence officer who for a decade served as Mr Allawi's eyes and ears in neighbouring Jordan, but has never worked as a journalist. "The red lines must be very clear. Whenever we find someone endangering national security, we will give notes to our legal committee that they are breaking the rules," he said. Noting that al-Jazeera broadcast part of Mr Sadr's anti-Allawi sermon, he warned: "If they do it again, we will give them two weeks to correct the policy, and after that we will tell them sorry we need to close your office." He also said that an independent media and communication committee established by Mr Bremer to regulate the broadcast media would continue to operate, although subject to his higher commission's advice. The coalition-appointed board of governors for the state broadcaster, Iraqia, was also being absorbed into his committee, Mr Janabi said, although under pressure from London and Washington final arrangements have yet to be ironed out. Harris, the American contractor chosen by the Coalition Provisional Authority to run Iraqia, could also lose its $96m (€79m, £52m) annual contract, if its broadcasts wavered from "the targets we want", said Mr Janabi. A current affairs editor at Iraqia, who requested anonymity, criticised the move: "I am afraid we will now be a channel controlled by the state," he said, "all the signs are they want to use this as their mouthpiece." Opposition politicians also attacked the new body, saying that Mr Allawi had established committees for oil and security, as well as the media, in a bid to get total control of the state machinery. Allies of Mr Allawi, however, pointed to his decision last week to reverse a US-led coalition ban on Mr Sadr's newspaper, al-Hauza, as evidence of his commitment to press freedom. Source: FT.com

WASHINGTON: Pakistani banking and investment expatriate tycoons in America – many of them said to be friends of Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz from his banking days - are donating generously to Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry, sources told Daily Times on Sunday. Sources said that at a recent fund-raiser for John Kerry in New York, Pakistani donors outmatched Indian donors by giving more than half a million dollars. Observers say this is seen as a bid to maintain goodwill for Pakistan in the Democratic Party just in case President Bush is defeated in the November polls. A certain Pakistani official in Washington is reported to have rushed to Boston on Saturday, July 24 and called a meeting of Pakistani-American delegates to the Democratic Party Convention as it gets underway on Monday. A communication sent by this gentleman to these delegates said that he would be attending the Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts on invitation from the National Democratic Institute (NDI). He said he was traveling to Boston on Saturday and suggested that Pakistani-American delegates meet him on the sidelines of the convention. The Pakistani ethnic media in New York has carried reports of the South Asian fund-raiser at which the Pakistani donors were allegedly told to be present in large numbers and donate generously to John Kerry. Weekly Pakistan Post reported that almost 20 senior Citibank executives and officials were present at the fund-raiser, including some Pakistani Americans who had never attended any community function in the past. It has also been reported that Dr Bunyad and Shama Haider, a New Jersey couple close to PPP leader Benazir Bhutto, are also actively organising fund-raising events for Mr Kerry. According to Pakistan Post, participants and donors at the Kerry fund-raiser included Mayer Lakhani, a Wall Street investor, Omar Amanat, a businessman, Kashif Zafar, a senior official at Stanley Morgan and M Shaharyar, senior vice president of Citibank. Besides these “financial bigwigs,†the event was attended by over 15 Citibank executives. Some of the Pakistani-American donors gave over $50,000 each, while one of them contributed $100,000. Some gave over $25,000. Normally, US citizens are allowed to donate $1,000 each in one year but businesses are allowed to donate more. The total tally was over $500,000 and was more than what the Indians put together at the same fundraiser. The Kerry campaign left the event richer by about a million dollars. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-7-2004_pg1_2

Having an Islamic governemnt as well as being what the people want is an obligation from Islam. What you also have to realise that as well as Islam providing a solution to problems it also provides the method for implementing this solution. So Yes we need an Islamic state, and ISlam lays out how we establish this state - the Prophet (saw) established the state in medinah following a clear methodology and that is what is for us to follow. Islam provides for the means and the objectives and does not leave man to use his own limited mind. Read the Prophet (saw) seerah and you will see a clear plan of action.

Not going to happen with the current rulers we have.

Human rights lawyer says total of 257 political prisoners will be freed in stages under presidential amnesty. DAMASCUS - Syria has freed a group of political prisoners held for years, including three former air force officers condemned in the 1980s for an attempted coup, a human rights lawyer said on Tuesday. One of the longest-serving political prisoners, Imad Shiha, a member of the Arab Communist organisation, should also be freed soon after being held for nearly 30 years, Anwar Bunni said. The human rights lawyer said a total of 257 political prisoners will be freed in stages, in a process that started last Saturday under a presidential amnesty. Among them are about 100 Kurds who were arrested after clashes with security forces in northeast Syria in March in which Kurdish leaders said some 40 people were killed. An official toll put the number of dead at 25. The trouble broke out at a football match in Qamishli, 600 kilometres (375 miles) north of Damascus, when Arab tribesmen taunted Kurds with slogans against Iraqi Kurdish leaders and brandished portraits of deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Syria's Kurdish population is estimated to total 1.5 million, and most live in the north near the Iraqi border. Bunni said that besides the former air force officers - Mohammed Rafiq Hammami, Bashar Ashi and Mahmud Kiki - "dozens of political detainees have been released" since Saturday, particularly those affiliated, or close, to the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Hizb al-Tahrir (Freedom Party), both of which are banned. Human rights groups have persistently called for the release of political prisoners and the abolition of Syria's emergency law, in place since 1963.

Islamic Economics Picture it. In the not-too-distant future, the US economy is teetering after decades of debt accumulation. Paper transactions and excess consumption carry on relentlessly despite the growing depletion of real capital. Speculation spirals out of control just as banks start calling back their credit. Policymakers disregard financial prudence in their pursuit of Pax Americana. And then a worldwide plague or a terrorist attack provides the tipping point for total economic collapse. What then? Will economists have learned any lessons? To answer this, we might begin by examining the ethics of capitalism. Or rather the lack thereof. Capitalism is famous for being free of moral considerations. To neo-liberal economic guru Milton Friedman, the expectation that business bears any “social responsibilities is a fundamentally subversive doctrine.†Capital’s only expectation is to increase profits. As a result, we operate in an economy where business administration students are taught that “greed is good,†competition is stressed over solidarity, and the poor are left largely to fend for themselves. In light of this moral vacuity, it doesn’t come as a surprise that the world’s rich have rigged the global economic game in their favor. People in the north sit back and enjoy their treasures while their southern neighbors struggle to survive. Even ostensibly well-intentioned efforts to alleviate global poverty like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (imf) manage to make things worse. Since the establishment of these financial institutions 60 years ago, the income gap between the first and third world has widened, and today 1.5 billion people live on an income of less than $1 a day. The people of Argentina know all about the dark side of World Bank/imf prescriptions. They don’t need to imagine what an economic collapse might look like. In 2002, after years of following directives to deregulate markets, reduce public spending, and liberalize trade, Argentina found itself in a financial mess. A country that had been trumpeted as a great success found itself reeling as austerity measures caught up, investors got scared, profits fled the country, and the national debt-load mushroomed. Argentinians watched helplessly as their banks were closed and their savings evaporated. World Bank prescriptions elsewhere have been equally devastating. Under Structural Adjustment Programs (saps), developing countries have been required to devalue their currencies, slash their civil services, privatize state assets, and remove price controls and import tariffs designed to protect local industries. In a country like Zambia, the effects have been so overwhelmingly negative that many people are convinced sap stands for “Satani ali pano†(Satan in our midst). Thanks to the World Bank, young children often can’t attend public school because fees are required, purchasing power has taken a nosedive thanks to the devaluation of the currency, and curable diseases are left untreated because of depleted health services. The policies have literally killed people. Even the bank is conscious of the dark cloud hovering over its saps and has changed their name to Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. The irony of course is that rich countries force poor ones to open up their markets and liberalize their trade policies but don’t adhere to their own exhortations. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is the $300 billion doled out in farm subsidies every year by the EU and the US. With so many third world inhabitants engaged in subsistence farming, the elimination of agricultural protectionism would do wonders for southern economies. Can such a corrupted economic system be redeemed? The World Trade Organization has chided the US for its cotton subsidies, and Americans may eventually be forced to abide by their free trade rhetoric, but such minor corrections will do little to improve the long-term prospects for global economic justice. Any real effort to address third world poverty will require a sweeping economic paradigm shift. And a cataclysmic collapse might be the only way to bring that about. But what if, up from the ashes, a new economy infused with a moral compass emerged? The growing discipline of Islamic economics hints at the potential to hardwire an economy with ethical considerations. For centuries, Muslims have blended economic principles with religious law, known as sharia. In the past few decades, this synthesis has evolved into a formal system of Islamic economics. Under this arrangement, the basic framework of the economy is left up to the market, but it is also organized around ethical investment rules that prohibit putting money into companies that profit from alcohol, gambling, tobacco, weapons or pork-related products. Islamic economics also mandate participatory arrangements between capital and labor and a ban on interest. This rule stems from the understanding that since Allah determines the failure of a financial venture, the borrower should not be the sole bearer of the cost. As formalized Islamic economics has gained adherents, Islamic financial institutions (ifis) have enjoyed enormous growth rates. IFIS engage in real economic activity – as opposed to passive speculation – and make money work as capital, not debt. Even though Islamic banks are beholden to principles of social responsibility that make them less profit-driven than western interest-based banks, they have proven to be quite lucrative. There is even an International Islamic Financial Market charged with c*****ng the course for about 200 Islamic banks and financial institutions around the world. And the principles of Islamic economics don’t just apply to banks. Sharia insurance firms are also gaining popularity. Concepts like ‘no interest’ might seem fanciful to western skeptics, but an economy with a moral code could provide a refreshing relief for the world’s poor. Unfortunately, it might take an economic collapse to make it happen. But once we’ve dusted ourselves off and begun to rebuild, there will be no place for neo-classical financial thinking. Thankfully our Muslim brethren will be ready to provide us with the tools for an alternative system. - Nicholas Klassen http://adbusters.org/magazine/54/articles/islamic_economics.html

Mohammed ElBaradei the UN’s nuclear watchdog reopened the nuclear debate in the Muslim world with his visit to Israel where he met Ariel Sharon and raised the issue of a nuclear free Middle East. This initiative as well as raising a number issues has to be seen in the context of the underlying objective it aims to achieve and that is of accepting Israel as a legitimate state and its right to exist. "The prime minister this morning affirmed to me that Israel's policy [is] that in the context of peace, establishment of peace in the Middle East, Israel will be looking for establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East," Mr ElBaradei said. The UN official is keen to convince the Israelis that the best way to avoid further nuclear proliferation in the region is for all governments to join in a collective ban on nuclear weapons. The reality is that Israel possesses nuclear weapons as does the western world yet the clear pressure has been on the Muslim world to disarm. The Muslim world has been coerced into signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with Iran currently insisting its nuclear program is peaceful but has been subjected to intense scrutiny from the atomic agency because of US-led allegations that it is secretly trying to build nuclear weapons. Israel has never signed the treaty, and is the only Middle Eastern state that has not done so. Israel has produced as many as 200 nuclear weapons on the basis of disclosures from nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu to a British newspaper in 1986 - making Israel the world's fifth biggest nuclear power. Recent United States intelligence assessments put the arsenal at around 80 missiles. Israel has gained long-range delivery systems such as missiles, submarines and warplanes, according to analysts citing satellite images. Some experts believe Israel also has "tactical" nuclear arms - mine-sized bombs. However Israel has not been forced into signing the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which means the International Atomic Energy Agency does not have the power to inspect Israeli nuclear facilities. This clearly highlights the lax attitude the West and the UN have towards Israel in comparison to the Muslim world. Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu says the International Atomic Energy Agency is failing to adequately investigate Israel's nuclear program. Vanunu made the remarks to the Washington Times in relation to Mohamed ElBaradei’s visit to Israel. The former nuclear technician complained ElBaradei made no effort to get in touch with him even though the media has widely reported his whereabouts in East Jerusalem. In contrast the Muslim world has faced many pressures for it to disarm and to prevent it from arming. These pressures have included threats of military action, actual military action (Iraq), sanctions and isolation. President Bush imposed economic sanctions on Syria banning U.S. exports to Syria and freezes assets of Syrians involved in building its military capability. The sanctions also tighten restrictions on arms-related and dual-use exports and prohibited Syrian aircraft from flying to or from the United States. President Bush stated that he would impose additional sanctions unless Syria stopped pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, withdrew from Lebanon and began cooperating fully with international efforts to stabilize Iraq. Far from reducing stockpiles of arms and WMDs, a call to which the US enforces on the Muslim world through treaties such as the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the US has boldly continued to develop and strengthen its own weapons inventory, with the aim of maintaining its position as the worlds most powerful nuclear force. President Bush unveiled his latest budget plans stating, 'We will continue to provide whatever it takes to defend our country by fully supporting our military.' His budget proposals for 2005 saw a request for more funding from Congress - a 7 per cent increase on last year's total which now surpasses the $400bn mark. Furthermore the Western interests are clearly served by having a dominant ally in the Middle East hence we see the hypocritical stance taken with Israel. Israel is in violation of more than 60 U.N. resolutions, and that excludes the ones that the US didn't veto, it has prevented the United Nations from imposing even the mildest sanctions on Israel to force it to comply with international law. It was unacceptable for Iraq to occupy Kuwait, but it is necessary for Israel to occupy parts of Syria, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Even its one time part occupation of Egypt and a slice of Lebanon were acceptable. The Western states support of Israel is in many forms and adds strength to its desire to become an established recognized state. The West aids Israel Politically, Militarily, Economically and through its recognition of it. Politically the West through its statements supports Israeli interests as stated by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said a nuclear weapons-free Middle East would be possible only when the threat to Israel from Arab and Islamic countries was gone. "Then we can put a great deal more pressure on Israel to abandon its undoubted nuclear weapons programme, which has been there ... for defensive purposes," Straw said. In April 2004 at a joint press conference with the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, President Bush blessed Sharon's disengagement plan by describing it "unrealistic" and therefore allowing Israel to keep West Bank settlements and that the five biggest settlements on the Palestinian side of the 1967 border would remain in Israeli hands. America through its military agreements and aid provides Israel with Furthermore the US has recently provided the Israeli air force with the first two of a hundred US built F-161 jets, a new generation of war plane which will soon make up the backbone of the Israeli fleet. Experts say this ultra sophisticated development of the battle tested F16 has an increased range of 1500 km without needing in-flight refueling, allowing it to reach anywhere in the Middle East. The jets are part of a two billion dollar US military aid package to Israel. With the addition of another 230 Fighting Falcons, Israel will command the second largest F-16 fleet in the world behind the US. Israel relies on America to maintain its economy, with a population of only 5.8 million people, Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, and that Israel’s aid plus U.S. aid to Egypt for keeping the peace with Israel has, for many years, consumed more than half of the U.S. bi-lateral foreign aid budget world-wide. The Western support of Israel is unparalleled which was only further shown by the World Court on Friday that 14 of its 15 judges ruled that Israel's West Bank barrier breached international law. Judge Thomas Buergenthal of the United States was the only judge to vote against the court's ruling that the construction of the barrier on occupied Palestinian territory breached international law. This support of Israel allows it to act as it wishes in the region as America does on the World stage; Israel is able to do the same in the Middle East. It is this strategic aspect of Israel that supports America’s interest making this relationship so beneficial to colonial America. The principle reason however for disarmament is to accept Israel as a legitimate state and its right to exist. This is unacceptable to the Muslims because it is Muslim land that has been stolen and the only legitimacy is that it is returned to the Muslims. Israel argues that its military infrastructure is required due to the threat it perceives from the Muslim world and if this threat did not exist then it would disarm. Which means that if it’s guaranteed right to exist, and acceptance by all is achieved it will give up the weapons it does not need, if the Muslims are all bound to it as well. This will leave the Israelis none the worse, since they are accepted and continue to be protected and favored by the western world. The Muslims however remain weak, and bound to their weakness in the shadow of the western world which seeks to grow ever more powerful. Thus Muslim countries therefore should clearly reject this call to disarm and rather develop and advance their military capabilities. This reality however will not happen as the Muslim world is led by puppet rulers and dictators that take their orders from the West; they will clearly gladly accept Israel as President Musharraf of Pakistan stated "The debate should be serious. There should be no emotionalism of the extremists. What is our dispute with Israel? We should think." (on the possibility of recognising Israel). 'O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists, etc.) as friends, showing affection towards them' [TMQ 60: 1]. 'So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds' [TMQ 47:35]. The reality is clear for all to see and that is that the Muslims do not have a sincere leader that looks after their affairs, this is apparent when we see that Kashmir and Palestine conflicts have gone on for 50 years without a clear solution. The Ummah needs a sincere leader that holds fast to the truth, implements Islam and allows its dignity to be returned. “Indeed, the Imam is a shield, behind whom you fight, and are protected”.

So are you waiting or working for it or both?

Sheikh Al-Qardawi has caused uproar in the UK over his visit to the country this week. The Tabloid newspapers and MP’s have been vocal against the government for allowing the visit, this primarily due to the Islamic view on martyr bombings he restated in an interview. Labour MP Louise Ellman said it would be "an outrage" to let him visit, and create "enormous security problems". The MP accused Dr Al-Qardawi of encouraging women and children to be suicide bombers and seeking the destruction of Israel. Mrs Ellman is calling for his speeches to be monitored. Home Secretary David Blunkett said "We will certainly monitor what he has got to say and what he has got to do," Mr Blunkett further added that if the cleric was shown to be dangerous, he would attempt to ban him. This whole incident raises a number of issues that the West continues to fail with due to the incorrect ideology it applies and propagates, the clearest example being of freedom of speech. This mantra of the West that they pride themselves in shows there biggest contradiction because this incident shows the fundamental disagreements it adherents have to it. This incident highlights freedom of speech is nothing but a contradiction in terms and as with their ideology it is complete false. It is important however that the Muslims are not distracted from a number of issues that have been ignored in the sensationalism of Sheikh Qardawi’s explanation on martyrs. This factor is none other than looking into the event that Sheikh Qardawi presided over and that was the 13th session of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, on the face of it this seems to be a commendable occasion and project that should be supported but when the reality of this venture is exposed it is clear that is nothing but an attempt to dilute Islam and make it palatable to western tastes. This event and the organisers of it have a clear objective for the Muslims in the West and that is Integration and this is to be achieved by reinterpreting Islam – this is also more commonly know as the Fiqh (Islamic Law/Jurisprudence) of Minorities. Sheikh Qardawi, Tariq Ramadan and Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani are key proponents of this corrupt Fiqh. President Ahmed Sheikh, President of the Muslim Association of Britain, welcoming the guests on behalf of the Association, spoke of the "great and urgent need for a clear voice to represent Muslims, a voice to present a balanced stance on issues that face them", particularly for Muslims in Europe "in the face of new situations and challenges calling for new interpretations and a new jurisprudence". The proponents of this corrupt Fiqh clearly do not hide the fact they propose the reinterpretation of Islam so that it can be accommodated within the Capitalistic system and therefore acceptable to the West, an example taken from the book that refutes this corrupted Fiqh; The Fiqh of Minorities – A New Fiqh to Subvert Islam clearly highlight its corrupted thought: “A questioner asks, "Is it forbidden (haram) for a Muslim woman to be married to a non Muslim, and what should one do?" For example, the issue of the marriage of Muslim women to a disbeliever. It is clear from the ayah of the Quran that it is not lawful for Muslim women to be married to disbelievers: لاَ هُنَّ حِلٌّ لَهُمْ وَلاَ هُمْ يَحِلُّونَ لَهُنَّ “They are not lawful for the disbelievers, nor are the disbelievers lawful for them” [TMQ Al-Mumtahinah: 10]. This ayah holds one single meaning – that such marriage is considered null and void and holds no value whatsoever. But according to “Minority Fiqh” this answer, needs to be “reworked” by another “reworked” question. So as Taha Jabir al-Alwani mentions: “However according to the “Fiqh of Minorities,” in this particular case the circumstances are as follows: The woman has just converted to Islam and she has a husband and two young kids. The husband is very supportive but is not at this time interested in converting. The woman was told immediately after converting that she had to divorce her husband of 20 years. Within these circumstances the question should have been: Is it worse for a Muslim woman to be married to a non-Muslim husband or for her to leave the religion? The answer is that leaving the religion is much worse, therefore, it is acceptable for her to continue with her marriage and she is responsible before Allah on Judgment Day” [document entitled “Muqadimah fii Fiqh al ‘Aqalliyyat” by Dr Taha Jabir Al-Alwani] Ken Livingstone who also was present at this gathering also understood what this corrupt Fiqh is intending when he stated that he was pleased at the "enormous contribution made by British Muslims, who have reconciled their beliefs and their positive integration, to the mutual benefit of society". Islam is not a belief that can be reconciled with a belief system that is morally and ethically repugnant as clearly the West is yet this is the purpose of the new corrupt Fiqh. Ahmed Sheikh highlights this when he states that this is a "unique opportunity for the new generation to benefit from the wisdom of the two civilisations: Islamic scholarship as symbolised by Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi and the presence of moderate open voices such as that of the Mayor of London, both open to the other and willing to co-operate to achieve the common good, and thus the new generation may benefit from the two civilisations and be of benefit to both". The Kufr have become more open in their plans to destroy Islam and unfortunately some Muslims have reacted incorrectly in defending it by trying to reinterpret it, which will only achieve what the Kufr wish. This clearly is a time where the Muslims must be at the forefront of the defence and propagation of Islam in its unadulterated fashion that Islam requires. This requires the Muslims to build their intellectual and Islamic political strength so that they can clearly challenge the plans of the Kufr with the intellectually correct Ideology of Islam as a complete alternative to their decadent ideology of Capitalism that manifests itself with many contradictions that are not a feature of Islam.

Excellent analysis by Qutb but as to the writers point on: "Consider the woman in Afghanistan or Iran who is required to wear the veil. There is no real modesty in this, because the woman is being compelled. Compulsion cannot produce virtue; it can only produce the outward semblance of virtue". Incorrect.

You can now see what we are up against - The only solution to build the intellectual and poltical strength of the muslims so that they can see clearly the kafirs plans.