History of colonialist intrigue in Sudan remains unabated Last week US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, announced a visit to Sudan and the Darfur region in particular. This was following on from the NATO summit in Turkey. Several western bodies have dubbed Darfur a flashpoint. However the saddening Sudanese situation should be understood in light of the US backing of the SPLA (Sudan People’s Liberation Army), coupled with the pressure placed on the Khartoum government. What also needs to be considered is the threat of US intervention and the plan to divide the country of Sudan on ‘ethnic’ lines. This spells a dire future for Sudan and the region as a whole. Following the blood letting in Iraq the US government seems all the more insistent on its hegemonic ambitions. Its propaganda programs are in motion, planting the seeds for either an invasion or a mighty application of pressure. All this designed to force the Sudanese government’s hand in what is popularly labelled the finalised negotiated settlement. This may more accurately be described as a US enforced final solution that is designed to place control over the land of Sudan with the US, courtesy of agents such as Garang. The Sudanese government are just as, if not more, culpable in this plan. Its actions have provided a pretext to America’s colonialist intent. It has agreed to the American demands and placed the SPLA on a false pedestal of credibility. This has allowed the pushing through of SPLA/US demands. What therefore is the future of Sudan and how can the nightmare vision laid down for it be averted? One of the principal elements of the treachery that the government of Sudan has agreed to be a part of is the complete acquiescence to America’s goals. America aims to deceive the world into believing that it dreams of a magnificent peace through a negotiated settlement. The recent past suggests she is consumed by a rampant desire to impose her will and achieve her post-911 objectives under the guise of fighting terrorism and security global stability. Vice-President Dick Cheney indicated as such when he pronounced that this war will not be completed in ‘our lifetime’, hence a perpetual pretext to intervene and interfere. Just as the world has come to know America’s intentions in Iraq were far from a charitable quest to remove a dictator and free a people. Rather it was a simple invasion and occupation. In a like manner her intentions in Sudan are far from altruistic. As early as 1999 the US revealed her intentions towards Sudan. Although she had plotted prior to this date, 1999 has become a watershed. In October 1999 Madeline Albright the then Secretary of State met with the insurgent John Garang, whose SPLA was engaged in waging a war to force the separation of the South from the North of Sudan. Sudan being the largest country in the continent of Africa naturally attracted the eyes of the world’s leading nation. The existence of its natural resources helped wet her appetite. When Madeline Albright met Garang she extended the hand of friendship and increased “humanitarian aid”. All but the politically illiterate knew this was directed to help the SPLA’s flagging military fund. Some analysts concluded America was aiming to bolster the SPLA’s position, thus making it more important than it actually was. An elevated position may force the hand of the Sudanese government. Albright assured the SPLA that the talks would be exclusively within the framework of talks sponsored by IGAD (the Inter-governmental Authority on Development), this framework which was backed by the Sudanese government accepted the premise of the SPLA which asserts that the conflict in Sudan is built around an ethnic conflict between the North and the South. This placed the SPLA aim of secession of the South from the North on the agenda from the beginning of negotataions. America had bombed Al-Shifa factory in Sudan in 1997 as a cover for Clinton’s stains, the factory was said to be producing chemical weapons and owned by Osama bin Laden, it actually produced human and animal medicines. She was not content with this aggression so she imposed sanctions on her under the claim that Sudan harbours terrorists. This claim was and is correct yet the real terrorists are the SPLA which vowed to make the South ungovernable in accordance with orders from the US. Bush sent former Senator and episcopal minister Reverend John Danforth to Sudan as his envoy. Mustafa Uthman, Sudan’s Foreign Minister immediately committed himself to complete cooperation with Danforth. By December 2001 Danforth had brought the Southern Rebels and the treacherous Sudanese regime together in Sweden. A ceasefire was agreed over the area known as the Nuba Mountains region which has been neglected by successive governments since 1920 and was initially sidelined by the Colonialists, this flared up into war and agression against the citizens of this region leading to the murder of thousands. However yet America has been instrumental in this as well as other conflicts throughout Sudan through its agents. Following on from this agreement US Colonel Cecil Giddens was appointed to police the ceasefire. Simultaneously Sudanese government troops were disproportionately withdrawn in favour of the rebels who America backs in its one-sided crusade. This allowed the US a pivotal position in re-drawing the map of Sudan and consolidated the IGAD framework which legitimised the rebels secessionist claims. This hidden American intervention was backed by all sides including the government despite the fact that everyone is aware of the precedent this sets for future intervention and invasion. Throughout the entire ‘negotiation’ (surrender) process, Garang made it clear that he was looking for a secular settlement that would wipe Islam from Sudan. Although Islam is not actually applied, except in a few minor instances. So, why do the opposition staunchly call towards a secular resolution? The answer lies in the established facts and they are that the SPLA do not possess a will detached from her sponsor the US. The US has been an avowed opponent of political Islam and has sought to discredit it at every juncture; she therefore hates Islam to the extent that it cannot even be raised as a slogan. This is not to say that the SPLA insurgents do not also believe this, as they seek a divided Sudan and therefore champion the patriotic call, yet it is important to understand this is the brainchild of the organ-grinder rather than the monkey. The plans achieved a pinnacle of deception in July 2002 when the two sides met in Machakos in Kenya, the government of Sudan claimed it would establish peace and maintain the unity of the people and territory of Sudan. Yet with everything that has the fingerprint of the kafir colonialist, the reality is far removed from what is touted as fact. The agreement allows the right to self-determination for the South within a period of six years from the agreement, this guarantees the division of Sudan. The Sudanese Presidential Special Envoy Dr Ghazi Salahuddin said following the signing of the Machakos Protocol was signed on Sudanese television, “What we have signed to today is the same thing that we refused in 1994. It is contrary to my own personal convictions but I only execute the state policy. There are new developments in the international arena.” This is because what was signed was to the letter of the American policy envisioned for Sudan and which did not change with successive administrations in spirit. The Machakos Protocol rewarded the criminal John Garang and the reprobate rebels of the SPLA, there is a background to this and this ought to be explored. Unlike what the media would have you believe, the Sudanese ‘civil’ war is not a new one. It began 34 years prior to the establishment of the government of the National Islamic Front (NIF). The US government far from acting as an honest broker has stoked the conflict to achieve the division of Sudan and the ready control over her resources. The SPLA was established in 1983 by John Garang with the intention of gaining independence through terrorist actions. Madeline Albright’s meeting with John Garang in 1998 confirmed publicly what many suspected in private that the US was funding the SPLA. The funding is reported to be channelled through proxy client regimes that neighbour Sudan including Uganda, Eritrea and Ethiopia. the Boston Globe reported on 8th December 1999 “To the peril of regional stability, the Clinton Administration has used northern Uganda as a military training ground for southern Sudanese rebels fighting the Muslim government of Khartoum.” The Sunday Times revealed that the Clinton administration “…has launched a covert campaign to destabilise 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 Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), which is preparing an offensive against the government in Khartoum.” [The Sunday Times, 17th November 1996]. The relationship between the US and the SPLA has been likened to that with the Contras in the 1980’s few commentators have allowed the similarity to pass, East Africa director of the National Security Council, John Prendegast, wrote: “The parallels to Central America in the 1980s are stark. The U.S. provided covert aid to the Contras and because of domestic public pressure urged numerous reforms on the Contras, especially in the area of human rights and institutional reform [although these pressures were undercut by a U.S. administration not serious about human rights].” The Guardian backed up the analogy in its own inimical way, “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-stabilisation exercise backed by international sanctions and a massive propaganda campaign. It sounds like Nicaragua or Angola circa 1984. In fact it’s Sudan 1998.” [Jonathan Steele, Guardian, 1 May 1998] The conflict in Sudan is blamed on its government, yet the SPLA and its imperial backers the US have singly sought to re-shape Sudan and pressure the government and at times threatening invasion to make the government relent. Foreign Policy in Focus Journal in November 2000 quoted Sudan Specialist Dan Connell who described the reality of the conflict and the toll it has taken upon the people of Sudan including the role of the colonial powers, “Some two million Sudanese - nearly 8% of the country’s population - have lost their lives to war or famine-related causes since 1983, when fighting resumed in Africa’s longest running civil war. Millions more have been displaced, many fleeing to neighboring states. Massive injections of U.S. and Soviet arms have kept the war raging between northern and southern Sudan for nearly a half-century.” The New York Times described the objective of Garang on 3rd March 1996, “ [Garang’s] explicit strategy was to render south Sudan ungovernable, and in that he succeeded. The South today is not only ungovernable but virtually uninhabitable.” And again on 6th December 1999, “[The SPLA] have behaved like an occupying army, killing, raping and pillaging.” The Economist 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 United Nations described an incident typical of SPLA conduct, the United Nations records that the SPLA attacked two villages in the southern region of Sudan, ultimately massacring 30 men, 53 women, and 127 children - a total of 210 villagers, “Eyewitnesses reported that some of the victims, mostly women, children and the elderly, were caught while trying to escape and killed with spears and pangas. M.N., a member of the World Food Programme relief committee at Panyajor, lost four of her five children (aged 8-15 years). The youngest child was thrown into the fire after being shot. D.K. witnessed three women with their babies being caught. Two of the women were shot and one was killed with a panga. Their babies were all killed with pangas. A total of 1,987 households were reported destroyed and looted and 3,500 cattle were taken.”[ ‘Situation of Human Rights in the Sudan’, UN Special Rapporteur Gaspar Biro, E/CN.4/1996/62, 20 February 1996.] East Africa director of the NSC John Prendergast, then a development aid consultant with extensive experience in Sudan, thus noted that the SPLA: “… was responsible for egregious human rights violations in the territory it controlled. If conventional human rights standards were applied to the SPLA as a government of the territory it controls (a status it confers on itself), non-humanitarian aid would have been prohibited by the U.S. Congress long ago on human rights grounds.” Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have recorded similar atrocities by the SPLA, yet most revealing is the fact the State Department has also recorded similar abuses in 1991, 1992 and 1993. Despite all this the US has strengthened its links with the SPLA revealing once more that the US slogan of Human Rights is upheld only insofar as it does not interfere with ‘business as usual’. The US has maintained the spotlight of abuse in a partial manner upon the Sudanese government alone. Yet a 1994 Human Rights Watch report catalogued 279 pages of abuse, 169 of which were devoted to Human Rights abuses enacted by the SPLA, the remainder was by the government. As for the claim that the famine in Sudan has been precipitated by the Sudanese regime, even Newsweek magazine dispelled this claim, “Aid workers blame much of the south’s recent anguish on one man: the mercurial Dinka warlord Kerubino Kuanyin Bol.” [Newsweek, 18th May 1998] CNN also reported, “Observers say much of the recent chaos has resulted from the actions of one man, Kerubino Kwanying Bol, a founding member of the rebel movement. He aided rebel forces in seige of three-government held towns, which sent people fleeing into the countryside.”[CNN, 10th April, 1998] Although this author can never be labelled an apologist for the Khartoum regime, nonetheless the government has been portrayed in a light which only goes to illustrate the US administration’s self-serving appetite for regime change in Sudan. In 1998 Philip J. Clark, the World Food Program (WFP) Representative in Sudan wrote publicly to thank the Sudanese government for its cooperation in helping the aid agencies to deliver food to the South. “Let me take this opportunity to thank the Government of Sudan for its co-operation in facilitating the efforts of the United Nations to meet the urgent food needs of thousands of people in Southern Sudan who require our help.”[ Phillip J. Clarke in a letter to the Sudanese government, 30 April 1998] By all accounts the food is flowing into the South, so why are so many people either dying or threatened by death as a result of hunger and malnutrition? The reality is that a lot of it is being siphoned off by the SPLA for themselves, The Agence France Presse (AFP) reported that: “Much of the relief going to more than a million famine victims in rebel-held areas of southern Sudan is ending up in the hands of the Sudan’s People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), relief workers said.” [Agence France Press, ‘Aid For Sudan Ending Up With SPLA: Relief Workers’, 21 July 1998] A London-based African Rights organization reports: “On the whole, SPLA commanders and officials of the Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Association (SRRA, its humanitarian wing), have seen relief flows as simple flows of material resources. The leadership has also used aid for diplomatic and propaganda purposes… A large proportion of their consumption was food aid. Sudanese who were in Itang during that period later reported they routinely saw trucks being re-loaded with food at the camp stores: at times on a daily basis. Often they were just going to the nearby training camps, but relief supplies were also sometimes sold, or used on military operations in Eastern Equatoria and Upper Nile. The SPLA ‘taxed’ the supplies for the refugees, reselling substantial amounts of food on the market and earning millions of Ethiopian Birr. This income was used to purchase vehicles and other equipment for the SPLA. Much relief was sold in Ethiopia: traded for cash, clothing, cattle and other items. By 1990, the Itang camp manager was even managing to raise enough revenue to buy vehicles for the SPLA, and was publicly commended by John Garang for doing so.” [ AR Report, Food and Power in Sudan, African Rights, London, 1997, p. 5, 7, 72-73, 76-77.] It has also been reported that the SPLA have shot down a humanitarian aid plane and tried to down even more this has led to a more cautious approach to aid deliveries, this is entirely the fault of the SPLA which has created this environment of fear and insecurity. This all brings us to the current reality in Sudan. This centres on Darfur in the West of the country where world attention has been placed on the deteriorating position. A recent press release from Hizb ut-Tahrir Sudan sets the entire mess into context, the then spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir Sudan who has since passed away wrote, The situation in Darfour is deteriorating and increasing in its evil and complexity day after day. Thousands of lives have perished, hundreds of villages have been burned down, and hundreds of thousands have been displaced without a bed or cover other than the earth and the sky. Some fled to Chad hoping to save themselves from the fire of Darfour where there is no sanctity for blood, honour or property in a country whose population is one-hundred percent Muslim. It was mentioned in the news that the government disapproved of the withdrawal of the human rights organisations from Darfour, requesting them to stay and look after the affairs of the citizens. The government, before anyone else, knows that these organisations work to spread the civil war and smuggle in weapons in food parcels and have contact with the centres of the rebellion as we saw happen with the United Nations plane which was impounded while transporting weapons and equipment to the rebels in Darfour and before that we saw the same thing with the Red Cross plane. [The Office of the Official Spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Sudan, ‘Ali Sa’eed ‘Ali (Abul-Hasan), 23 December 2003] The Press release succinctly identifies the recent for this recent conflict and it is important following this to realize that this is another pretext that the US government is using to advocate its hegemonic ambitions. The Spokesman highlights that the key to the enflaming of the Janjaweed Militias as well as the rotten situation vis a vis the civil war is the labeling of its people Arab and African as a means of division and inciting the various sections upon the patriotic basis. These labels have no place in the vocabulary of the Muslims but are modern constructs advocated by those with vested interests. The governments have done little to destroy this and the SPLA and the Janjaweed Militias base their actions on this rotten basis. Secondly the US and the colonialist nations seek to capitalize from the conflict as a means to threaten invasion. They are using this pretext - as they have used the claim that the Sudanese government harbours terrorists – in order to back the SPLA position and achieve the division of Sudan so that it may be more easily amenable to the US. One proof of the pretext is that America condemns the Sudanese government’s backing for the Janjaweed, but continues to fund and support the SPLA whose abuses have been referred to in part previously. The Sudanese government has since pledged to Kofi Annan and Colin Powell during their respective visits that they will work to disarm the Janjaweed militias and their brutal actions in Darfour. Yet the SPLA will not be disarmed, despite the fact that they are provoking much of the conflict with their secessionist calls. The situation in Darfour and throughout Sudan is a tragedy of epic proportions. The killings, rapes, displacement and the fear and hatred the people harbour towards each other is fed by the existent of the militias both Janjaweed and SPLA. They are in turn being fed by the propagation of the rotten patriotic sentiments upon which the militias and the government are based upon, and outside powers are fuelling this for their own despicable motives. The Patriotic call divides people upon the basis of race, land or tribe. It recognizes the difference between Arab and African based upon the superficialities of skin colour and language. How low can people stoop to the depths of such a shallow link where the decree of the creator of skin colour, familial heritage or land of birth which human beings had no say in are used as the basis for unification. Such a basis only leads to conflict and separation, random killing and depravity. What makes an Arab superior to an African or vice versa? There is nothing that intrinsically elevates or relegates either to a position of superiority or inferiority. What distinguishes humanity from animals are not matters which we possessed no choice over such as the colour of our skin or the family of our birth. What elevates humanity are the conscious decisions we make regarding the ideas we base our lives upon. What elevates us is grasping the choice to investigate the important questions relating to who controlled whether we would be born white, black or brown or shades in between, or born in Sudan or the Arabian penisular or into an affluent family or amongst a people living hand to mouth. When Islam graced the lives of an arrogant and tribalistic people it changed the prevalent outlook to one rooted in ideas. The idea that changed a people and brought unity between people possessing different skin colours and speaking a multitude of languages were brought together by the idea that the Creator made those differences and set a system to organize both the differences and the everyday matters that required a system for organizing. It set an objective arbiter that rejected patriotism and nationalism and sought to solve the problems of human beings as human beings as only a system from a Creator can do. Today Sudan requires this objective arbiter just like the Muslim and Non-Muslim world are in need of it to ward off the convulsions that are plaguing it as a result of elevating the systems of man over the creator. The government cannot provide this objective arbiter because it bases itself upon a separation of Islam from the rule of state. The rebels too have placed themselves in the position of proxies to America, and are blinded by their lust for power over the land and domination of the people, they too base themselves upon the divisive bond or patriotism. Both parties have forfeited any right to rule over Sudan, they have involved themselves in the killings and neither hold anything resembling an elevated principled position, they have disgraced the people and wronged themselves. Allah subhanahu wa ta’aala says æóáÇó ÊóÑúßóäõæÇú Åöáóì ÇáøóÐöíäó ÙóáóãõæÇú ÝóÊóãóÓøóßõãõ ÇáäøóÇÑõ æóãóÇ áóßõã ãøöä Ïõæäö Çááøåö ãöäú ÃóæúáöíóÇÁ Ëõãøó áÇó ÊõäÕóÑõæä "And incline not toward those who do wrong, lest the Fire should touch you, and you have no protectors other than Allah, nor you would then be helped" [TMQ 11: 113]. The Muslims must take back control away from the intervention of America and Britain in our lands, they do not seek anything but the exploitation of our resources and to act as barriers to the resumption of justice through the implementation of Islam He (Subhanahu Wa Ta'aala) said: æóÏøõæÇú ãóÇ ÚóäöÊøõãú ÞóÏú ÈóÏóÊö ÇáúÈóÛúÖóÇÁ ãöäú ÃóÝúæóÇåöåöãú æóãóÇ ÊõÎúÝöí ÕõÏõæÑõåõãú ÃóßúÈóÑõ ÞóÏú ÈóíøóäøóÇ áóßõãõ ÇáÂíóÇÊö Åöä ßõäÊõãú ÊóÚúÞöáõæäó "They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand" [TMQ 3: 118]. All parties must recognise that America and the colonialist powers are not upholders of freedom and justice, their promises are meant to deceive, can you not see that their deceptive nature has historic backing. They have shown emnity and friendship depending upon where their interests lay at any particular moment in time. Their enemies can be transformed into their friends and vice versa. He (Subhanahu Wa Ta'aala) said: íóÚöÏõåõãú æóíõãóäøöíåöãú æóãóÇ íóÚöÏõåõãõ ÇáÔøóíúØóÇäõ ÅöáÇøó ÛõÑõæÑðÇ "He (Shaitan) makes promises to them, and arouses in them false desires; and Shaitan's promises are nothing but deceptions" [TMQ 4: 120]. The only thing that stands in the way of America and her plans designed for the whole Islamic world is the Khilafah state on the way of the Prophethood. Let us strive with all our energies to establish it. We will please Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'aala) and live in dignity in the world and be from among the righteous in the Akhirah. He (Subhanahu Wa Ta'aala) says: æóíóæúãóÆöÐò íóÝúÑóÍõ ÇáúãõÄúãöäõæäó ÈöäóÕúÑö Çááøóåö íóäÕõÑõ ãóä íóÔóÇÁ æóåõæó ÇáúÚóÒöíÒõ ÇáÑøóÍöíã 'And on that Day, the believers will rejoice (at the victory given by Allah). With the help of Allah, He helps whom He wills, and He is the AllMighty, the Most Merciful' [TMQ 30: 4-5] Source: KCom Journal

Are you saying Hizb ut Tahrir is a Sect?

Jazakallah Khair for the correction. Can you answer the remaining points on how you extrapolated this ayat to a meaning without referring to other evidences that explain it. Especially in light of the seerah where the "change" was public opinion for the state to be established.

By Cheryl Benard Cheryl Benard is a senior political scientist at RAND. Rival versions of Islam are contending for spiritual and political dominance, with immense implications for the rest of the world. By understanding the ongoing ideological struggle within Islam and by distinguishing among the competing strains of Islamic thought, Western leaders can identify appropriate Islamic partners and work with them to discourage extremism and violence as well as to encourage democratization and development. The notion that the outside world should try to nurture a moderate, democratic version of Islam has been in circulation for decades but gained great urgency after Sept. 11, 2001. There is broad agreement that this is a constructive approach. Islam inspires a variety of ideologies and political actions, some of which are inimical to global stability. It therefore seems sensible to foster the strains within Islam that call for a more moderate, democratic, peaceful, and tolerant social order. It is no easy matter to transform a major world religion. If "nation-building" is a daunting task, "religionbuilding" is immeasurably more perilous and complex. Islam is neither a homogeneous entity nor a selfcontained system. Many extraneous issues and problems have become entangled with the religion. Many political actors in the Muslim world deliberately seek to "Islamize" the debate in a way that they think will further their goals. The current crisis in Islam has two main components: a failure to thrive on its own terms and a loss of connection to the global mainstream. The Islamic world has been marked by a long period of backwardness and comparative powerlessness. Many homegrown solutions—such as nationalism, pan-Arabism, Arab socialism, and Islamic revolution—have been attempted without success, leading to frustration and anger. Meanwhile, the Islamic world has both fallen out of step with contemporary global culture and moved increasingly to the margins of the global economy, creating an uncomfortable situation for both sides. Muslims disagree on what to do about the crisis, what has caused it, and what their societies ultimately should look like. For the West, the question is which ideology (or ideologies) to support; with what methods; and with what concrete, realistic goals in mind. An Ideological Spectrum There are essentially four ideological positions in the Muslim world today: fundamentalist, traditionalist, modernist, and secularist. Each group contains subgroups that blur the distinctions among the primary groups. It is important for Western leaders to understand the differences within groups as well as among groups. Fundamentalists reject democratic values and contemporary Western culture. They want an authoritarian, puritanical state to implement their extreme view of Islamic law and morality. They are willing to use innovation and modern technology. They do not shy away from violence. There are two strands of fundamentalism. One, grounded in theology and usually rooted in a religious establishment, belongs to the scriptural fundamentalists. This group includes most of the Iranian revolutionaries, the Saudi-based Wahhabis, and the Kaplan congregation of Turks. The radical fundamentalists, in contrast, are much less concerned with the literal substance of Islam, with which they take considerable liberties either deliberately or because of ignorance of orthodox Islamic doctrine. Al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and a large number of other Islamic radical movements and diffuse groups worldwide belong to this category. Traditionalists want a conservative society. They are suspicious of modernity, innovation, and change. They are also divided into two groups. The distinction is significant. The conservative traditionalists believe that Islamic law and tradition ought to be rigorously and literally followed. They see a role for the state and for the political authorities in encouraging or at least facilitating this. However, they do not generally favor violence and terrorism. They concentrate their efforts on the daily life of society. Their goal is to preserve orthodox norms and values and conservative behavior to the fullest extent possible. Their posture is one of resistance to change. The temptations and the pace of modern life are seen as posing major threats. The reformist traditionalists believe that Islam, to remain viable and attractive throughout the ages, must be prepared to make some concessions in the application of orthodoxy. They are prepared to discuss reforms and reinterpretations. Their posture is one of cautious adaptation to change, being flexible on the letter of the law to conserve the spirit of the law. Modernists want the Islamic world to become part of global modernity. They want to reform Islam to bring it into line with the modern age. They actively seek far-reaching changes to the current orthodox understanding and practice of Islam. They want to jettison the burdensome ballast of local and regional tradition that, over the centuries, has intertwined itself with Islam. They further believe in the historicity of Islam—that Islam as it was practiced in the days of the Prophet reflected eternal truths as well as historical circumstances that were appropriate to the time but are no longer valid. They believe that the essential core of Islamic belief not only will remain undamaged but will be strengthened by changes, even very substantial changes, that reflect changing times, social conditions, and historical circumstances. Their core values—the primacy of the individual conscience and of a community based on social responsibility, equality, and freedom—are easily compatible with modern democratic norms. Secularists want the Islamic world to accept a division of mosque and state in the manner of Western industrial democracies, with religion relegated to the private sphere. They further believe that religious customs must be in conformity with the law of the land and human rights. The Turkish Kemalists, who placed religion under the firm control of the state, represent the secularist model in Islam. These positions should be viewed as segments on a continuum, rather than divergent categories. There are no clear boundaries among them. Some traditionalists overlap with fundamentalists. The most modernist of the traditionalists are almost modernists. The most extreme modernists are similar to secularists. At the same time, the groups hold distinctly different positions on issues that have become contentious in the Islamic world today, including political and individual freedom, education, the status of women, criminal justice, the legitimacy of reform and change, and attitudes toward the West. An Agenda for Reform What the roiling ideological ferment requires from the West is both a firm commitment to fundamental Western values and a sequence of flexible postures suited to different Islamic contexts, populations, and countries. This approach could help to develop civil, democratic Islam while giving the West the versatility to deal appropriately with different settings. The following outline describes what such a strategy might look like. It rests on "five pillars of democracy" for the Islamic world. The pillars correspond to the postures that the West should take toward the four ideological groups and toward ordinary citizens in Muslim countries. 1. Support the modernists first, promoting their version of Islam by equipping them with a broad platform to articulate and to disseminate their views. It is tempting to choose the traditionalists as the primary agents for fostering democratic Islam, and this appears to be the course that the West is inclined to take. However, some very serious problems argue against taking such a course. Overendorsing the traditionalists could undermine the ongoing internal reform effort within Islam and hinder those—the modernists—whose values are genuinely compatible with our own. Of all the groups, the modernists are the most congenial to the values and spirit of modern democratic society. We need to advance their vision of Islam over that of the traditionalists. Modernism, not traditionalism, is what worked for the West. This included the necessity to depart from, modify, and selectively ignore elements of the original religious doctrine. The Old Testament is not different from the Koran in endorsing conduct and containing a number of rules and values that are unthinkable, not to mention illegal, in modern society. This does not pose a problem in the West, because few people today would insist that we should all be living in the exact literal manner of the Biblical patriarchs. Instead, we allow our vision of the true message of Judaism or Christianity to transcend the literal text, which we regard as history and legend. That is exactly the approach proposed by Islamic modernists. Secularists are also close to the West in terms of their values and policies. But some secularists are unacceptable to the West because of their reflexive anti- Americanism or other positions. The secularists also have trouble appealing to the traditional sectors of an Islamic audience. For these reasons, the modernists are the best partners for the West. Unfortunately, they are generally in a weaker position than the fundamentalists and traditionalists, lacking powerful backing, financial resources, an effective infrastructure, and a public platform. Therefore, Western leaders should support the modernists by these means: • Publish and distribute their works at subsidized cost. • Encourage them to write for mass audiences and for youth. • Introduce their views into the curriculum of Islamic education. • Make their religious opinions and judgments available to a mass audience to compete with the fundamentalists and traditionalists, who have web sites, publishing houses, schools, institutes, and many other vehicles for disseminating their views. • Position modernism and secularism as counterculture options for disaffected Islamic youth. • Use the media and educational curricula in suitable countries to foster an awareness of their pre-Islamic and non-Islamic histories and cultures. 2. Support the traditionalists enough to keep them viable against the fundamentalists (if and wherever those are the only choices). Among the traditionalists, the West should embolden those who are the relatively better match for modern civil society: the reformist traditionalists. The West should support the traditionalists against the fundamentalists in these ways: • Publicize traditionalist criticism of fundamentalist violence and extremism. • Encourage disagreements between traditionalists and fundamentalists. • Discourage alliances between traditionalists and fundamentalists. • Encourage cooperation between modernists and reformist traditionalists. • Where appropriate, educate the traditionalists to debate the fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are often rhetorically superior, while traditionalists practice a politically inarticulate "folk Islam." In places such as Central Asia, traditionalists may need to be trained in orthodox Islam to be able to stand their ground against fundamentalists. • Increase the presence and profile of modernists in traditionalist institutions. • Encourage the traditionalists who support the Hanafi school of Islamic law as a way to counter the conservative Wahhabi-supported Hanbali school of Islamic law. • Encourage the popularity and acceptance of Sufism, a traditionalist form of Islamic mysticism that represents an open, intellectual interpretation of Islam. 3. Oppose the fundamentalists energetically by striking at the vulnerabilities in their Islamic and ideological credentials. Expose things that neither the youthful idealists in their target audience nor the pious traditionalists can condone about the fundamentalists: their corruption, their brutality, their ignorance, the bias and manifest errors in their application of Islam, and their inability to lead and to govern. The West should fight the fundamentalists in these ways: • Challenge their interpretation of Islam, and expose their inaccuracies. • Reveal their linkages to illegal groups and activities. • Publicize the consequences of their violent acts. • Demonstrate their inability to develop their countries and communities in positive ways. • Target the messages to youth, pious traditionalists, Muslim minorities in the West, and women. • Portray violent extremists and terrorists accurately as disturbed and cowardly, not as heroes. • Encourage journalists to investigate corruption, hypocrisy, and immorality in fundamentalist and terrorist circles. • Encourage divisions among fundamentalists. One strategy holds great promise. Despite the success of radical fundamentalism in mobilizing discontented young people, especially young men, it has many features that should turn young people away. This major flaw in fundamentalist political strategy has not so far been exploited. Radical Islam does not value young lives very highly. By manipulating youthful idealism and their sense of drama and heroics, radical Islam turns young people into cannon fodder and suicide bombers. Madrassas (the fundamentalist schools) specifically educate boys to die young, to become martyrs. If Muslim youth ever begin to look at things through a generational lens, as Western youth did in the 1960s, they may begin to ask why most suicide bombers and martyrs are under the age of 30. You don’t have to be young to strap explosives onto yourself. If it’s such a wonderful thing to do, why aren’t older people doing it? 4. Support the secularists on a case-by-case basis. The West should encourage secularists to recognize fundamentalism as a common enemy and discourage secularist alliances with anti-U.S. forces. The West should also support the idea that religion and state can be separate in Islam, too, and that the separation will not endanger the faith but, in fact, can strengthen it. 5. Develop secular civic and cultural institutions and programs. Western organizations can help to develop independent civic organizations that can provide a space in the Islamic world for ordinary citizens to educate themselves about the political process and to articulate their views. Any strategy of this sort should be pursued with a wariness of the potential for backlash. The alignment of U.S. policymakers with particular Islamic positions could endanger or discredit the very groups and people the West is seeking to help. Partnerships that may seem appropriate in the short term, such as affiliations with conservative traditionalists, could provoke unintended consequences in the long term. To prevent this, the West needs to adhere consistently and faithfully to its core values of democracy, equality, individual freedom, and social responsibility. http://www.rand.org/publications/ra...04/pillars.html

"Allah does not change the condition of the people until they change what is in themselves" Clearly I will have to address on point at a time. The above quote is an incorrect translation, when you read the arabic it clearly mentions the kaum (nation). This by itself does not denote what change is required rather it is ambiguos and you need other evidences to specify it. Hence the seerah is used and we can see what is required for change is public opinion.

When he realized that the Sultan was hesitant to do what he asked of him, he threatened the Sultan by saying: "If you turn your back on Syria we will appoint a Sultan over it who can defend it and enjoy it at the time of peace". Do the Scholars of today do this?

The cost will be great…the effort will be immense…the public display will be colourful, shrouded in the colours of the star spangled banner…the activities will be diverse and fun-filled…the participation will be overwhelming with people from all backgrounds and cultures…and to round the day off, more than 16,000 men, women and children from throughout the United States will raise their right hands and become America’s newest citizens during special 4th of July naturalization ceremonies. Yes this is the celebration of US Independence Day. No doubt a rousing vitriolic and patriotic speech would have been composed for US President, George Bush, reminding the nation of American history and the pride and sacrifice that America today and her forefathers undertook for values of liberty, freedom and democracy. However such planning and expectation for 4th July will not hide from the American people a clear sense of unease, fear, insecurity and trepidation. Whilst the Department of Homeland Security is expected to issue terrorist plot warnings, Bush will talk up the US offensive dealing with international terrorism in order to safeguard America and the whole world. And suddenly the gloss is taken off all the celebrations and the inhibitions of the local American become apparent. Though 9/11 forced America to review and strengthen domestic security, the increasing spotlight and public awareness that has arisen about the very real ‘dark side’ of US foreign and domestic policy has made many Americans review their national pride and patriotism. Distinct communities in America, like the Hispanic and black communities ponder on the constant discrimination and wealth disparity that they still face. The so-called notion of the 'land of milk and honey' is now seen as the poison chalice. Other communities, like those from South America and Africa ponder on the economic and political destruction of the countries they left, at the hands of a vicious and materialistic American foreign policy and US multinationals that suck and exploit the local economy Other communities like those from the Arab world ponder over the destruction of the social foundation of their ‘mother’ countries, characterised by family break-ups, increased crime and moral fragmentation resulting from the influx of American ‘western’ culture that invades the lives of all through Hollywood, MTV, internet and the like. Other communities like those who left Afghanistan and Somalia to live in America ponder over the physical invasion of their countries, the blood of their people and the dishonouring of their women…by the US on the pretext of introducing freedom, democracy and stability to the country and region. Other communities like those from Iraq see the violation of their religion and the desecration of their religious symbols and buildings under the command of the US military. There are those communities like those from Palestine who ponder over the US protection, support and green light to inhumane and illegitimate states like Israel to occupy and force their family and people out of their lands. Finally all communities from the Muslim and third world ponder over the Independence Day that their own people celebrate and rejoice in, in their own lands and ponder whether this Independence is really a celebration of continued enslavement to America. As for the Muslim community, whether in America or around the world they see and have experienced all of the above and still continue to do so. Muslims therefore do not need to ponder about the answer to the last question, they already know the answer. 4th July is a truly accurate declaration of American Independence – but also the reminder of American hypocrisy, hegemony, corruption, materialism, immorality, abuse and enslavement of the rest of the world. Source: KCom Journal

"Allah does not change the condition of the people until they change what is in themselves" Reference please, because i believe this ayat mentions the word kaum in it and this means nation (therefore an incorrect translation). Furthermore there is no further detail from this ayat as to what to change, therfore we do not look at this ayat in isolation rather in relation to everything that also relates to this subject. Hence we see the Prophet (saw) establish a state - the condition he changed was public opinion becuase the majority of the citizens of the state at the time were Jews and Idol worshippers. Therefore when we use this it is clear that Allah (swt) states that the condition is public opinion. As to that you dont understand my posts, simple question, does society influence a way a person behaves? Claerly it does therefore you need to change society to influence people, this is achieved through the ruling system. This is what the prophet (saw) did and is our duty today. Sheikh ul Islam Ibn Taymiah states in his book Siyastul Sharia: "There is no tawheed nor obedience except when there is an imam"

Yes but where does this love of the worldly life come from, people are not born and then suddenly become materialistic. Rather they are bought up in an environment that influences them. Hence we know that the child is born on the pure fitrah yet will follow the fitrah of his parents - becuase he is influenced by his environment. One hadith does not explain everything, you have to look at the whole context and all that is related to it. e.g. there is a hadith that says half the deen is cleanliness and half is marriage - so somebody could just do these two things and say they have complete deen. I am not saying the article is wrong but rather it does not go deep enough. Islam is not a mystic religion it is very much based on reality and in this reality we know people are influenced by society. The Capitalist society's that we live in promote the satisfaction of the sensual desires and one form of this is materialism (love of this life) so of course i agree with the hadith and you can see with a bit more in depth look you can find the real problem. Love of this life is very much a symptom of a kufr society that at its root problem is Capitalism. People do not naturally become materialistic rather society encourages this instinct overly. It goes back to asking yourself why? why is something happening? why are people starving? is it because they have no imaan, because they have love for the world - no its because the government is not providing for them. Hence we can always go back to the root of the problem - the absence of Islam as a system. This issue of establish the state in you heart and then you will get a state, contradicts reality because you have to work towards it. The Prophet (saw) physically worked to establish the state and yes was only aboy to establish it when Allah (swt) gave the victory. This is our duty today work towards the state and have belief in Allah (swt) that he (swt) will grant us the victory.

The question then needs to be asked why have the Muslims foresaken their deen? Love of Worldy Life? But Why? Because they are ruled by Kufr. Yes i agree that a lot of the deen has been neglected and there is many innovations but you allways have to ask why? The Muslims are surrounded by Kufr, whereever they look so naturally what are they going to be doing? Kufr. If your whole society is kufr how are you going to change the people? Lets look at the example of the Prophet (saw), he (saw) was surrounded by kufr. This Kufr was so strong that the people of Mecca did not accept the message - in fact very few people accepted Islam. Yet people wanted change in Madinah so the Islamic state was established their and then we saw that through the implementation of Islam - Kufr was removed and people entered the fold of Islam on mass. As Allah (swt) states in Quran al Kareem: When Allahs succour and triumpth cometh and thou seest mankind entering the religion of Allah in troops... [surah An Nasr vs 1-3] This is a very brief yet to the point of what happened, i can clarify in more detail if anyone wishes. We have many problems but what you need to continually ask Why? Why? Why? only then will you come to the true root of the problem rather than the symptoms. It is this root that needs solving. This root is none other than the absence of Islam as a system implemented by a Khaleef over a state.

The article does not absolve the government but rather it makes it complicit with the US as to the massacre it is creating.

The whole Iraq affair has been littered with lies from the coalition and all parties interested in the strategic capability of Iraq. We have seen the pre war intelligence deceit, motives for war deceit, the Al Qaeda deceit, the sovereignty deceit and now we are seeing the reconstruction deceit. The American Government has promised at $18.4 billion for reconstruction in Iraq but the reality has been that the majority of it has yet to be spent. In addition to these funds are the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) – a fund established by the UN in May 2003 to collect Iraq's oil revenues. It had a total cash inflow, as of June 18, 2004, of over $20 billion, with almost $9 billion available for spending. The finance has clearly been available for reconstruction to begin in full earnest yet the following statistics attest to the fact that reconstruction has been neglected.  Only $3.2bn of the $18.4bn reconstruction budget has been spent.  Only $2.5bn has been used from the DFI. This was money that was supposed to be covered by the reconstruction budget.  Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated world-wide to rebuild Iraq has been spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations. Taking this into account shows that very little has been spent at all. When we further look into how the few monies that are spent are being spent highlight the deceit that the whole reconstruction rhetoric actually is.  According to Charles Adwan of Transparency International, quoted on US National Public Radio's Marketplace programme, "at least 20% of US spending in Iraq is lost to corruption".  Marie DeYoung audited accounts for Halliburton’s subsidiary KBR (responsible for some of the biggest reconstruction contracts). She claims there was no effort to hold down costs, she repeatedly complained to superiors of waste and fraud. The company's response, according to DeYoung was: "We can be as dumb and ****** as we want in the first year of a war, nobody’s going to care."  DeYoung produced documents detailing alleged waste even on routine services: $50,000 a month for soda, at $45 a case; $1 million a month to clean clothes — or $100 for each 15-pound bag of laundry.  The Coalition Provisional Authority’s inspector general issued three reports that highlighted serious management difficulties at the CPA. The reports found that the CPA wasted millions of dollars at a Hilton resort hotel in Kuwait because it didn't have guidelines for who could stay there, lost track of how many employees it had in Iraq and didn't track reconstruction projects funded by international donors to ensure they didn't duplicate U.S. projects.  Billions of dollars from the Iraqi oil revenues have been diverted to “a host of poorly planned projects,” according to Iraq Revenue Watch, a program of George Soros’s Open Society Institute. “The lack of planning and the huge funds on tap for cash give-aways and other highly discretionary programs have paved the way for corruption and waste,” the organisation wrote in June. The consequences of such deceit are immeasurable for the Muslims of Iraq where many of them are much worse now than prior to the war. According to calculations in the General Accounting Office report it offers a bleak assessment of Iraq after 14 months of U.S. military occupation. Among its findings and other reports:  In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces.  The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts.  The new Iraqi civil defence, police and overall security units are suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped.  Iraqi children perish for want of medicines and equipment in Iraq’s under-funded hospitals while U.S. Treasury officials have billions of dollars of Iraqi oil revenues stashed away in secondary “slush funds” and U.S. Treasury bills.  The Associated Press reported on June 4: “At Baghdad’s General Teaching Hospital for Children, children die each week from diarrhoea because of poor sanitation, shortages of medical equipment and poorly trained staff . . .. Even though improved medical care is a stated priority of U.S. occupation authorities, medicine is still costly and in short supply.”  The hospital’s sewage system has largely collapsed and is working at 10 to 20 percent of capacity. The hospital also lacks air conditioning.  Most hospital deaths—between 15 and 20 a month—are from secondary infection, mainly because of the unsanitary hospital conditions. It is also alleged that Iraq’s oil revenues have been mismanaged and that untold millions have been siphoned off into unregulated “slush funds.” This should not be surprising considering that reconstruction of Iraq is being handled by capitalist nations whose sole motivator are there own interests irrespective of the cost to humanity. What is clearly being seen in Iraq is mass corruption, misappropriation of wealth whilst the Muslims of Iraq are lying in a pitiful state. It is only when the Muslims of Iraq are able to decide their own political destiny without the presence of its occupiers and imposed puppet Government will the Muslims of Iraq be able to once again realise its glorious history of being the centre of the Islamic world when the seat of the Islamic Khilafah was in Baghdad. It was only then were the Muslims able to have their basic needs fully provided for, by rulers that understood the obligations it had to its citizens. It was in this very setting was found one of the greatest centres of learning and gave rise to the first hospitals and advances in all aspects of science and technology.

There have been clashes claimed to be between an Arab militia supported by the Sudanese army and rebels in Darfur that have killed at least 10,000 people and forced more than a million from their homes, according to UN estimates. The government in Khartoum has been held responsible for this and under this backdrop, there has been an increasing call for physical intervention within the US. Donald Payne, Democratic representative from New Jersey, told a pressconference, "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.” More forceful was the statement from House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California who 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.” Powell visited the region on Wednesday the 30th of June. Sudan is just another jigsaw piece in this US colonial drive. Such statements from within the US may not equate to actual military intentions, but put further pressure on the Sudanese leadership to succumb further to US control. The interest for the US, specifically in western Sudan, aside from the division of Muslim land and the further weakening of the Muslim Ummah’s body, is fuelled by the powerful capitalist lobbies and the recently discovered oil fields in western Sudan. It therefore comes as no surprise that the US have begun to train militia in neighbouring Chad at a cost of $600 million over 5 years to combat so-called cross border terrorism. All this compares well to the disinterest that the US took in intervening in Rwanda while the well documented genocide was occurring. Clearly the Sudanese government, who has conceded the South to the Southerners and has compromised all else at the behest of the US, just does not understand what else it needs to do to please the US. Such a situation sounds very similar to that of President Musharraf of Pakistan. Musharraf has effectively turned the Pakistani army into a US military unit under the command of the CIA/FBI, permitted his master to bomb Afghanistan and negotiate the denuclearisation of Pakistan. Yet even with the crumbs of being accorded the recent status of a 'major non-Nato ally' – the US appetite to enslave Pakistan and force further concessions remains. The leadership in Khartoum should well understood when Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’Allah) commands: “They will never be pleased with you, until you leave your Deen.” [2:120] And, “The disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies” [4:101] It seems that over the past few years where the US publicly tore-up and discarded books and statutes on international law and human rights in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan (such as the illegal US bombing of a pharmaceutical facility in Khartoum) – suddenly they have found these legal books again. Such is the nature of the US’s selective enforcement of international law and Human Rights – one wonders whether the international community will finally realise the futility of international law, raise a strong voice of condemnation and take action against the double standards that the US has applied to herself and ‘her allies’. Allies like Israel and Uzbekistan continue their physical onslaught against the Muslims in blatant contravention of international law and human rights, but with the blessing of the US. Clearly the ‘war on terrorism’ has provided the US a legitimate cover to justify its actions and pursuit of the world's resources and global strategic control and domination. Sudan may be next in line but it is not last in line. Source: KCom Journal

The irony, contradiction and hypocrisy were quite apparent as President Bush stood in Galatasary University, an outgrowth of the school founded by the Uthmani Islamic Khilafah in 1481 at the end of a two-day NATO meeting (29/06/04) and said, “"The future of freedom in the Islamic world will be determined by the citizens of Islamic nations, not by outsiders." This was the attempt of Bush and the western leaders, under the guise of NATO to gloss over the atrocities, deceit and trampling over Iraq and the increasing divide between the ‘west’ and the Islamic ummah by focusing on the western initiative of spreading democracy and freedom in the Middle East. The irony of the speech was the location of his speech. Turkey was the last seat of the Islamic Khilafah. It was the bastion where the pulpits and universities espoused the Islamic thoughts and values and the society lived in the security of the Islamic authority. It was the state that like its Islamic traditions and history represented a system that was the envy of the world where communities thrived within the Islamic values that dominated the social, economic and political life of the citizens. Therefore it is no surprise either that the leaders in the Uthmani Khilafah like Sultan Abdul Hameed valued Islam, her lands and her people and sought to protect them from the decadent kufr culture. So the irony is obvious as Bush made his speech. The leader of ‘western decadence’ with the blood of the Muslims of Afghanistan and Iraq still fresh on his hands delivered a speech about values and concepts that contradict Islam within a university that now espouses the secular western values. As for modern day Turkey it is characterized by leaderships that have secularized Islam, adopted closeness to the enemies of Islam and the Muslims. And for all its troubles, Turkey consistently turns to the west and its culture for recognition and acceptance, though it is this, which has enslaved and humiliated her. As for the contradiction of Bush’s speech about freedom being in the hands of citizens of the Islamic world and not by outsiders – it is undoubtedly clear to all that the leaderships in the Muslim world have been put there by the direct and ‘invisible’ hands of outsiders i.e. western governments, notably the US in recent history. This was all too evident not merely in Iraq with the recent swearing in and appointment of the ex-CIA man Iyad Allawi as Iraqi Prime Minister, but was also eloquently expressed at the meeting by another US lackey, current leader of Afghanistan, Mohammad Karzai, "I would like you to please hurry, as NATO, in Afghanistan. Come sooner than September. We see this presence as indivisible from a safe future." What Bush probably really meant about his view of a local religiously and culturally defined democracy and freedom is that these will be determined by the citizens in the Islamic world as long as: 1. they do not contradict the interests of the west (primarily the US) 2. they do not result in the re-emergence of an Islamic political will that drives for the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah 3. the US retain the right to veto any decision and interfere whenever it deems necessary. In respect to the hypocrisy of Bush’s speech, he remarked, "No democracy can allow religious people to impose their own view of perfection on others," However it was acceptable for the US to define and impose its perfect view upon other people, nations and states! The western drive of democracy and freedom in the Muslim world is not merely to redress the enmity that is felt by the people of that region but to discredit and discard political Islam into the throws of history. If there was even half a word of truth in Bush’s speech then it came when he said, "Some people in Muslim cultures identify democracy with the worst of Western popular culture and want no part of it." What he should have concluded is that democracy is the source of all the filth, moral degeneration, social disintegration and crass commercialism that proliferates the western world and…if the lands in the Muslim world adopt it, their suffering will increase from the current injection of western culture that already pollutes the Muslim landscape. It should be evident to the Muslims that the efforts of the western colonial powers to appease the Muslims and introduce democracy and freedom into the Muslim world in nothing more than what Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’Allah) reminds the Muslims of how they conspire and plot against Islam. “They plot and plan. And Allah also plots and plans. Indeed the Best of Planners is Allah” [8:8] Source: KCom Journal

The irony, contradiction and hypocrisy were quite apparent as President Bush stood in Galatasary University, an outgrowth of the school founded by the Uthmani Islamic Khilafah in 1481 at the end of a two-day NATO meeting (29/06/04) and said, “"The future of freedom in the Islamic world will be determined by the citizens of Islamic nations, not by outsiders." This was the attempt of Bush and the western leaders, under the guise of NATO to gloss over the atrocities, deceit and trampling over Iraq and the increasing divide between the ‘west’ and the Islamic ummah by focusing on the western initiative of spreading democracy and freedom in the Middle East. The irony of the speech was the location of his speech. Turkey was the last seat of the Islamic Khilafah. It was the bastion where the pulpits and universities espoused the Islamic thoughts and values and the society lived in the security of the Islamic authority. It was the state that like its Islamic traditions and history represented a system that was the envy of the world where communities thrived within the Islamic values that dominated the social, economic and political life of the citizens. Therefore it is no surprise either that the leaders in the Uthmani Khilafah like Sultan Abdul Hameed valued Islam, her lands and her people and sought to protect them from the decadent kufr culture. So the irony is obvious as Bush made his speech. The leader of ‘western decadence’ with the blood of the Muslims of Afghanistan and Iraq still fresh on his hands delivered a speech about values and concepts that contradict Islam within a university that now espouses the secular western values. As for modern day Turkey it is characterized by leaderships that have secularized Islam, adopted closeness to the enemies of Islam and the Muslims. And for all its troubles, Turkey consistently turns to the west and its culture for recognition and acceptance, though it is this, which has enslaved and humiliated her. As for the contradiction of Bush’s speech about freedom being in the hands of citizens of the Islamic world and not by outsiders – it is undoubtedly clear to all that the leaderships in the Muslim world have been put there by the direct and ‘invisible’ hands of outsiders i.e. western governments, notably the US in recent history. This was all too evident not merely in Iraq with the recent swearing in and appointment of the ex-CIA man Iyad Allawi as Iraqi Prime Minister, but was also eloquently expressed at the meeting by another US lackey, current leader of Afghanistan, Mohammad Karzai, "I would like you to please hurry, as NATO, in Afghanistan. Come sooner than September. We see this presence as indivisible from a safe future." What Bush probably really meant about his view of a local religiously and culturally defined democracy and freedom is that these will be determined by the citizens in the Islamic world as long as: 1. they do not contradict the interests of the west (primarily the US) 2. they do not result in the re-emergence of an Islamic political will that drives for the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah 3. the US retain the right to veto any decision and interfere whenever it deems necessary. In respect to the hypocrisy of Bush’s speech, he remarked, "No democracy can allow religious people to impose their own view of perfection on others," However it was acceptable for the US to define and impose its perfect view upon other people, nations and states! The western drive of democracy and freedom in the Muslim world is not merely to redress the enmity that is felt by the people of that region but to discredit and discard political Islam into the throws of history. If there was even half a word of truth in Bush’s speech then it came when he said, "Some people in Muslim cultures identify democracy with the worst of Western popular culture and want no part of it." What he should have concluded is that democracy is the source of all the filth, moral degeneration, social disintegration and crass commercialism that proliferates the western world and…if the lands in the Muslim world adopt it, their suffering will increase from the current injection of western culture that already pollutes the Muslim landscape. It should be evident to the Muslims that the efforts of the western colonial powers to appease the Muslims and introduce democracy and freedom into the Muslim world in nothing more than what Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’Allah) reminds the Muslims of how they conspire and plot against Islam. “They plot and plan. And Allah also plots and plans. Indeed the Best of Planners is Allah” [8:8] Source: KCom Journal

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) in the UK has been accused of "buying off" families of Iraqi civilians in whose deaths British troops have been involved by making them sign waivers in exchange for compensation payments and "charitable donations". Figures from the MoD last week reveal 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. The compensation payments are described as ad hoc payments to cover funeral expenses and help with hardship, but - as with official compensation - the recipient must sign a declaration accepting the money as "full and final settlement". Both types of payment come with an apology, but no admission of guilt or liability. An Amnesty official said the "going rate" for a death appeared to be about $1,400. But after the death of Baha Mousa, whose father is an Iraqi police colonel, the family was offered much more. "In the Baha Mousa case [a] British military official apologised and gave his father, Col Mousa, $3,000 and said he would make subsequent payments," said the official. "He then offered Col Mousa another 5,000, saying it would be the final payment. But Col Mousa refused to accept this. The military were hoping the family would not take it any further. The other people were only given $2,000 or $1,500. Col Mousa was offered $8,000 because his case got a lot of publicity and he is a senior police officer." Liberal Democrat Defence spokesman called the system "a buy-off" and "contrary to natural justice". Phil Shiner, a Birmingham lawyer bringing several cases against the MoD on behalf of Iraqi civilians, said: "There's an element [of buying people off] if you look at the efforts that were made with Col Mousa. When they offered him a lot more, they were definitely getting him to sign away his rights. They knew, it seems, that Mousa had them bang to rights, and they were trying to shut him up." Justice is just one of the many facet’s that the West sells to the world under its guise as the Worlds policeman, yet as with all its other facet’s these are redefined to suit its interests. Again we can see the double standards, hypocrisy and lies. If one was to compare these ‘compensation’ payments with those of the Lockerbie victims families where $2.7 billion was demanded for 270 families we can clearly see that the West views the Muslim life not even a millionth of its own citizens – hence the inhumane term ‘collateral damage’. The West clearly acts with its Ideology of Capitalism as the driver and it is clear that this ideology sees human beings as mere economic by products which have varying degrees of worth depending on the interests they serve. The Muslims of Iraq clearly have little economic worth hence the West is able to take advantage of the favourable exchange rate to add insult to the pittance that is given for ‘collateral damage’. This Justice exported by the West is seen through its other actions such as the indiscriminate targeting of civilians in its so called ‘war on terror’ that apparently relies on ‘significant intelligence’ and when this inevitably leads to the eradication of whole families they dismiss this loss of life as unfortunate. The West clearly will try every conceivable path possible to avoid blame and ensure justice is restricted to where its interests require it and handed out as its interests require it as seen in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and even in its own lands. The Muslims and humanity have only one hope and that is the Islamic Ideology that treats humans as humans and obliges that there basic needs are met whether this be a Muslim, Non Muslim, Doctor, Politician or the disabled. It is only the Islamic Khilafah that has guaranteed Justice throughout its history as attested to by the Jews and Christians that lived under its rule as equal citizens.

looking forward to it...

Attaturk finished off a state that was in serious decline - and we know that he was supported by the British to accomplish this. As to Democracy being the best system out there, this is false because this honour is reserved for the Islamic system - Al Khilafah. This system when it was applied bought tranquility to two thirds of the known world in the space of half a century, democracy cannot and will not be able to make this claim. Democracy is basically about imposing secular values on people and for Muslims this is not acceptable as Islam governs all spheres of life. Therefore to say democracy is not oppressive it is clearly false. We can see in Iraq where so called Democracy is being implemented this is the only option being given to the Muslims becuase they have been told that they cant have Islam.

and you didnt answer my questions on shirk

I cant post any private messages but you can email me at: s_bashir@yahoo.com If you can comment on the ahad narrations of Quran, it would be appreciated. i think this is the 5th time ive asked.

It seems that our discussion has been interupted by others who also seem to have issues with the 'salafi's'. I appreciate the limited time you have but i would appreciate you clarifying the positionon Ahad narrations of Quran and how they were not accepted. On a more related note on this thread, what category would ruling by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed? An interesting opinion i was made aware of the other day "there is no tawheed nor obedience except when there is an amir", what would your reply be to this?

You can make as many posts as you like but could you at least answer two very simple questions? all you need to do is be succint and to the point: 1) Refute the definition of Quran as agreed by scholars and why they say Mutawatir and not ahad. 2) Refute that Ahad narrated ayats were not accepted. Then we can address your points. I clearly addressed all your questions yet you havent. We can all make beatifully long posts but this is a specific issue and a simple answer will suffice. The point i wish to make is that ahad narrations were not accepted in the compilation of the Quran, why becuase they were not definate (even though it were sahaba narratign them) and the sahaba knew that they could not accept anything with potential doubt. Just answer the two interrelated points, then we can take the discussion from there.

“Brother, before i reply i would like to know if i Understand u correctly.... your saying, because the Sahaabs got others sahabas to verify the Ayats of Allah, so we can not accept Ahad Hadith in 'Aqeeda? Yes or no? and if u respond with yes....then i ask u what if i bring you a narration that a sahaba would narrate a Hadith from the messenger of Allah to another Sahaba and he would except it?” - What I am saying is that the collection involved disregarding ahad narrations, these were narrations that the SAHABA believed were part of the Quran, So by you definition you are saying that the sahaba should have accepted these narrations. After all they are definite and contain no doubt. Clearly the sahaba did not see it this way and therefore they only accepted that was certain. However through the collection they needed certainty therefore these ayats were rejected on this basis. From here it is deduced that if you cannot accept ahad narrations in the Quran how can you accept them in Aqeeda as both things must be definite. ”Second question brother, DIDnt the messenger of Allah send Mu'ad Ibn jaabal to Yemen....to call them to Islam...alone???? Or the three sahabs he send to the romans and persian....watch the film the message ....one sahab was send to each kingdom.... “ - Yes and this is the evidence that we use that ahad narrations must be used for hukm shari. Rejection here would mean muslims are sinful. ”Let me give you a definition: Mutaawirr-hadith narrated by more then one person Ahad hadith-- hadith narrated by two or less persons(do not contain doubts) “ - therefore you disagree with your original definition. ”third question: do u disagree imam Shafi'ee & imam Bukhari...?” - if they believed ahad narrations were part of aqeedah, then yes. The great imams were not infallible. Just as I follow imam hanafi in prayer because I believe his has the strongest opinion means that yes they have an opinion but I do not believe it to be correct. As imam shafi said, I believe my opinion is correct and yours incorrect, with the possibility of my opinion being incorrect and yours correct. ”forth question: do you believe with certainty that Isa the messenger of Allah (as) is coming back and that one day the Ummah will have a Khalifah...and i mean with certainty...100% ... is it part of your Aqeeda that one day the ummah will be led my a Khaalifah????” - I believe this is the case and it is one of the motivators for my work to reestablish the state. As to aqeedah, if they are ahad you know my position. ”please dont forget rule number #5, you agreed that u would answer my questions....and Allah & the audience is our witness.” - I believe I have, if you could provide me with the same courtesy, you have answered my question for a definition – which I take that there is absolutely no difference between ahad and mutawatir apart from number of narrations and therefore it si completely pointless to even differentiate. Do you agree because that is the reality of what you are saying. ”keep this in mind: The Rasul(saas) used to call some of his companions trusthwory...Like Abu Ubaydah....he was the truthsworthy of the this ummah....and another hadith that the best people in this planet after the Messengers are the companions......” - not disputing this, the sahaba have an elevated status and may Allah grant me their courage to carry out the work they did for this deen. However this did not stop Zaid bin Thabit not accepting the ahad narrations of Quran from them. Now if you can answer my questions: 1) According to you there is no point separating the hadith into ahad and mutawatir as it does not carry any consequence whatsoever and is merely for information as to number of narrators. 1) Refute the definition of Quran as agreed by scholars and why they say Mutawatir and not ahad. 2) Refute that Ahad narrated ayats were not accepted.

Im not going to make a tafseer of the ayat but how does it prove your point, Hazrat Abu Bakr held this view which is why he initially was against compiling it but then realised that he should. By your analogy they shouldnt have bothered. They still went throught the validation process and ahad narrations were not accepted. You fail to answer the points - 2 specific points at that: 1) Refute the definition of Quran as agreed by scholars and why they say Mutawatir. 2) Refute that Ahad narrated ayats were not accepted. And you still have not bought a definition on Ahad hadith.

The issue of not taking ahad hadith is clear becuase its definition is the opposite of Mutawatir - hence you cannot prove beyond certainty that there may not be errors in it. However we still believe in this its just that we do not take doubt into the Aqeedah. To illustrate my point, we can look at the definition of the Quran and its compilation: • 'It is the Arabic speech': Translations of Qur'an are NOT the Qur'an. Only the Arabic Qur'an is the real Qur'an as Allah says, the meaning of which is: '…this (the Qur'an) is a clear Arabic tongue."(16-103) • 'Revealed to Mohammad (pbuh)': Qur'an is only what was revealed to Mohammad (pbuh), the last Messenger (pbuh) of Allah. It excludes any other Arabic speech of Allah whether such Allah did or not. • 'In wording and meaning': This clause excludes Hadith Qudsi (discussed later) as they are speech of Allah in meaning only and not in wording. With regards to Hadith Qudsi, we do not say Allah said so and so rather we add the Prophet (pbuh) said that Allah said so and so. • 'Preserved in Mushaf': This Mushaf refers to the Mushaf of Uthman, the 3rd Caliph of Islam. This Mushaf contains 114 surahs starting with fatiha and ending with Nas. Since 4-5 Mushafs were prepared by Uthman, any one of these would fit the criteria of Qur'an. • 'Mutawatir transmissions': This clause excludes some qiraats which are ahad. Ahad transmissions refer to transmissions through a single chain of narrators, while mutawatir chains consist of several chains or isnad. This part also excludes shad qiraat as they have not been transmitted through mutawatir transmissions either. • 'Challenge to mankind to produced something similar to it': This points to the miraculous nature of Qur'an. This challenged was presented in the Qur'an in 17-88: Years passed yet nobody was able to meet the challenged. Later the challenge was eased asking for anyone to produce even 10 verses and finally the challenge was reduced to just one surah: • 'Speech of Allah': Al-Tahawi whose book Aqeedat-ul-Tahawiya is the most well-known book on Aqeedah, stated that Qur'an is the word of Allah. The codification of the Qur’an (i.e. into a ‘book form’) was done soon after the Battle of Yamama (11AH/633CE), after the Prophet’s death, during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. Many companions became martyrs at that battle and it was feared that unless a written copy of the entire revelation was produced, large parts of the Qur’an might be lost with the death of those who had memorized it. Therefore, at the suggestion of Umar to collect the Qur’an in the form of writing, Zaid ibn Thabit was requested by Abu Bakr to head a committee which would gather together the scattered recordings of the Qur’an and prepare a suhuf - loose sheets which bore the entire revelation on them [15]. To safeguard the compilation from errors, the committee accepted only material which had been written down in the presence of the Prophet (p) himself, and which could be verified by at least two reliable witnesses who had actually heard the Prophet (p) recite the passage in question [16]. Once completed and unanimously approved of by the Prophet’s Companions, these sheets were kept with the Caliph Abu Bakr (d. 13AH/634CE), then passed on to the Caliph Umar (13-23AH/634-644CE), and then Umar’s daughter and the Prophet’s widow, Hafsa [17]. [15] Sahih al-Bukhari Vol.6, Hadith Nos.201 & 509; Vol.9, Hadith No.301 [16] Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, Fath al-Bari, Vol.9, p.10-11 [17] Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, Hadith No.201 It is clear that the sahaba would not accept ahad narrations in the Quran because it would create doubt and this would not be allowed as it must be definate. Yet you want us take it into aqeedah.