Compromising the conscience: ‘Muslim’ secularists and Israeli aggression

 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is characterised with brutal occupation versus a wily but implaccable resistence. Yes, both sides think their right, but that doesn’t mean they are both equal? Though according to the director of ‘Interfaith Youth Core’,  Eboo Patel in the Washington Post, they are!

He unveils his radical idea of how we should be trying to come up with ’rules for a solution’, as opposed to ‘rules of the status quo’, when it comes to the conflict in the middle east between two sides who both think they’re right.  In history, both the Nazi’s and the allies thought they were right, were they both right? Perhaps  we should have been thinking in the way of creating ‘rules for solutions that acknowledge both sides points of view’ when it came to WW2??

The reality is, what justifies someone engaged in a conflict, is justice, but what does not justify someone, is nationalism. The Israelis are not just nationalists, they are ultra-nationalists. Fatah (aka Israel’s proxy) too are Nationalists. But the Palestinians (and Hamas) call for and desire justice.

I think we can see who is in the right here, and who is in the wrong.

We should not be surprised when ‘Muslim’ secularists like Eboo Patel suggest moral parity with people who believe that their heinous actions are justified by Nationalism, since the ‘Muslim’ Secularists too believe in Nationalism! How can they be a people who would ever call for real justice, when their politically expedient criteria for life makes them abhor anything that actually requires sacrifice, steadfastness and patience.

Thus when ‘Muslim’ secularists suggest ‘Rules for solutions’, in truth, they are more like Rules for selling-out…

N.B. Interestingly, ‘Muslim’ Secularists call anyone who dares to remain prinicipled and moral ‘well-meaning organizations’ who then are described as ‘dangerous and destabilizing to [our]community’ which after ‘peace is finally made with the other side, your first battle is going to be against them.’

So we should all  accomodate and make peace with the unjust, but fight and make war with the Just; all for the sake of peace- nice one ‘Muslim’ Secularists!…

It is also ironic that Mr Patel, remarked how:  ”I spent much of the weekend communicating with Muslim and Jewish leaders on the recent crisis in Gaza. Here was my basic question: “Have you reached out to leaders in the other community to find a solution to the conflict?” – though Mr Patel is a Secularist, he has used his faith-orientated organisation to attempt political forays into current affairs. Why can’t secularists just separate Religion from politics? You’d think we wouldn’t have to tell them…

Israel, Hamas and ‘Muslim’ Secularists pro-Zionist compromise solution

 

Israel is an illegitimate state. There are many who still live, who lived upon the land now infested with Zionists. Israel is the only cause of strife and problems in the region. The Palestinians, a people who still hold on to hope that justice can be done upon the earth, and their lands and old homes can be restored, yet sell-out ‘house negro’ Muslims condemn them for daring to keep their spirits unbroken in the face of the onslaught.

 

Hamas fired rockets into Israel after the ceasefire expired, yes – but why is it no one talks about the ceasefire condition that Israel broke, namely, the promised lifting of the strangulating blockade, imposed, I might add, right after Hamas won the elections and got into power. Liberal sellout ‘Muslims’ would condemn the victim for, whilst being strangled to a slow, painful and drawn out death, chose to hit their aggressor with a pinprick. All the while, the House Negro ‘Muslims’ excuse Israel for making a response which, though admittedly disproportionate, was not without ‘reason or cause’. If any intellectual and moral person was in charge of the Gazan people, and saw them slowly dying, suffering from malnutrition or insufficient medical aid, THEY TOO would sanction rocket fire. The is because the rocket fire was never intended to win any kind of military victory, for it is too small, unguided and meagre to achieve anything except media attention. And here we find the real reason behind Hamas’s rocket fire – it was done as an act of desperation, seeking to draw attention to the plight of the Palestinians.

 

Israel wants the Palestinians not just to ceasefire, but all to do the ultimate crime against a human beings soul…they want the Palestinians spirits to be broken. Just like the Native American Indians who have been relegated to dirt-patch reservations, where they regularly turn to alcoholism or gambling – the Israeli’s want the Palestinians to be herded into unimportant reserves, where they can languish and be forgotten. But Hamas has not only stuck to their non-negotiable demand for justice, but also, they are more democratic then almost all democracies in the world today – they cannot accept the existence of Israel, because their people will never accept the existence of Israel – and ironically, the Liberal ‘Muslims’ who are known for loving democracy more than their own Creator’s (Allah) fair judgement, want Hamas to be politically expedient, instead of morally principled – well done ‘Muslim’ Secularists, another own goal.

 

The Palestinians have been ignored, and the blockade continued to be enforced – with their options running out, and time running out, and Israel not willing to honour their agreements, there was only one recourse left to them – indeed, which moral person wouldn’t to the same if they were in Hamas’ position? The time now is not for talk of what the Palestinians terms of surrender should be, the discussion we should have, is how to renew our calls for the unity of the Muslim Ummah, awakening of our armies and the final dismantling of the illegitimate entity inhabiting Palestine. The time now brothers and sisters, is to establish what all our hearts and minds have been yearning for, for many decades – the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah and the return of an old, tried and tested solution to occupied Palestine – the Salahudeen peace process.

 

The end of Capitalism?

 

 

As the financial crisis that has engulfed the world gets worse free market ideologues are finding it more and more difficult to defend Capitalism. State intervention the ultimate taboo of the free market has become their best friend throughout the crisis. As each government bailout one after the other is unable to stem the panic selling of speculators, Capitalists are falling back on some fundamental arguments to protect and defend their way of life:

1. Although the market has the periodic crash, this is part and parcel of capitalism. It is needed to bring order back into the system. It remains the best way to distribute wealth and resources across the economy and there is no alternative.

2. Capitalism has a track record of generating huge wealth. In 2007 the world generated over $54 trillion, the most in humankind. The prosperity and progress the world has witnessed in the last two centuries is unheralded in history and is evidence of Capitalism’s superiority.

There is no alternative

Capitalism has always been presented as universal by its adherents. This in effect makes all other systems of government invalid as they do not agree with Capitalism. Whilst historically this argument has been used to refute all values which do not espouse freedom, the free market has on many occasions been justified in similar vain. The boom and bust phenomena is not some event decided by nature but a direct consequence of the aims Capitalism attempts to achieve with the economy.

Perpetual economic growth is something not sustainable and will always end with financial meltdown. The problem free market economies have to decide in each economy is what growth will be built upon. The last decade saw growth built upon real estate and financial services. Prior to that growth was built upon dot.com start-ups, and prior to that the technology bubble as well as the telecom boom. Historically there was growth built upon Dutch tulips and the discovery of Latin America’s riches. Over the last 100 years capitalist economies have developed various tools to aid growth especially the development of the financial markets. The problems lies in the fact once society has spent beyond its means their will be an inevitable scale back in spending and consumption. It’s here that usually western societies then face a slump.

The current meltdown followed a similar pattern. Growth was primarily driven by the real estate sector, aided by the banking sector that made loans easily available. At its height people were being lent money more then 10 times their income. Banks then securitised such loans to make even more money. Once a large number of people defaulted on their loans – who in affect had spent beyond their means, boom quickly turned into bust. Banks, investment banks, the financial markets, timber companies, furniture companies and construction companies all collapsed as they all drove the bubble.

Capitalism’s aim of perpetual economic growth is what causes the regular crash not time and nature. Whilst growth will change from Tulips to dotcom’s, disaster and crisis is part and parcel of Capitalism and its failure. The failure of government policies in all cases means a change and replacement of the failed policy. The government will never argue time and nature decided such a policy will fail and if governments persevere in implementing failed polices then in the long term such a policy will succeed – this is what free market ideologues are arguing for the free market.
The current crisis which has placed the deposits, savings, housing and pensions of all on the line, makes such an argument difficult to justify. This is when Capitalists fall back to their final justification for free markets and that is the wealth Capitalism generates and its supposed superiority.

Capitalism’s superiority

For the West, Capitalism is synonymous to progress itself. The path the West took to achieve such grand claims is called history and everything else is considered primitive and in need of a reformation. However, the place where such a claim begins is essentially where the problem lies.

The measure of progress for Capitalists is the amount of wealth generated by the world economy – Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The invention of technology and scientific discoveries are tools to make production and industry more efficient and give the economy the ability to pump more out of less. However what has driven science and technology? It is one thing to claim ones civilisation is superior however looking at the causes highlights how such superiority was achieved. Britain is considered the world’s first nation to industrialise and this was driven by the desire to colonise the world. Britain’s advantage on the oceans led to the development of new working patterns and institutional development. The accumulation of the colonised people’s raw materials led to a huge increase in Britain’s wealth.

The development of technology and most scientific breakthroughs have to a large extent been driven by wars and especially both the world wars. It was the US civil war that led to the development of Submarines. Whilst the need to win WW1 drove the development of railways, although railways existed well before the war huge advances were made in order to transport troops during the war. Through Operation Paperclip, which was the kidnapping of Nazi scientists and technology the United States embarked upon an ambitious program in rocketry. The developments in rocketry led to the space race, the development of ballistic missiles, satellites and primitive computers. Such innovations are what allowed the development of a number of consumer items which have become common household items. The combustion engine used in both cars and aeroplanes were a result of the mobility needed in WW1. Televisions, the modern radio etc., were developed from the need to miniaturize essential information on cockpit screens and communicate with fighter jet pilots. There are only a handful of inventions that took place outside the military and were not needed for war.

Capitalism may have driven wealth creation like never before, however, there a number of developments that it should also be certified with. The world economy maybe generating record wealth with liberal democracies driving this, but half of the world’s population will not have had enough food today as they earn less then $2 a day – 95% of the world lives on less then $10 a day. (World Bank Development indicators 2008). World poverty has accelerated under Capitalism. It was Europe that scrambled for resources around the world in the past, whereas today they have been replaced by the US. All that has changed from the 19th century is the gun has been replaced by the factory, slavery has been replaced by consumerism, armies have been replaced by the media and subsistence farming has been replaced by the financial markets.

Capitalism has also created the most indebted world in history, where individuals and nations have more debt than income. The fact that the world generated $54 trillion is irrelevant when most of this has been funded by debt. The Western world has become obsessed by consuming more then it really needs and most of this is funded by debt as most of the wealth generated is in the hands of a few. The USA, the world’s superpower, the world’s largest economy and for many a symbol of Capitalism’s success is drowning in a misery of debt, which the credit crunch crisis brought to the forefront. The US generated nearly $14 trillion in 2007, however the national debt – this is money the central and federal governments owe to the US public and the world through the bonds they have sold – stands at $9.7 trillion. US citizens have a huge appetite for imports and real estate and as a result consumer debt stands at $11.4 trillion. The debts of US companies amounts to $18.4 trillion. This makes the US indebted to the tune of just under $40 trillion – nearly 75% of what the world produces. 37 million Americans live below the poverty line. Capitalism’s continued endeavour of perpetual economic growth has drowned the world in money it does not have, which makes the prosperity, which liberals and secularists  insist on reminding us, rather irrelevant.

Muslim Life in Britain

 

For many Muslims across the world the 1.8 million Muslims in the UK represent a success story unmatched anywhere in the world where Muslim immigration has taken place. With over 1000 mosques, the adoption of halaal food across the nations institutes and high street chains, Muslim MP’s and a dozen Islamic schools, for many the Ummah in Britain has achieved more living in dar ul-Kufr than Muslims in the Islamic world. Muslim thinkers in the West such as Tariq Ramadhan and journalist Yasmine Ali Bai Brown have consistently asserted that the freedom to practice Islam afforded to the ummah in Britain is not available anywhere in the world even in the Muslim world.

 

 

History of British policy

After World War II the British Government advertised jobs in its former colonies. For Britain this was primarily the Indian sub-continent and the Caribbean. Based upon the notion that life would be good when they arrived in Britain many Muslims from Pakistan arrived on British shores throughout the 1950′s and 1960′s.

On arrival they faced a number of problems. With housing and employment major issues in post-war Britain, this led to immigrants to compete with others for resources. Many blacks from the Caribbean as well as Hindu’s and Sikhs from India also arrived on British shores at the same time in the hope for a better life. The biggest problem all immigrants faced was the fact that most native Britons viewed the newcomers in the light of an ingrained racism and racial tension escalated by far right groups that encouraged people to view their privileges as under threat.

Prejudice and racism was a serious problem in the UK and even though migrants wanted to be part of British society the outrageous racism they encountered pushed many into their own desperate ethnic enclaves. The situation left them isolated to the stage where it was felt they would soon become a point of social division, leading totally separate lives and the nation began to debate the issue.

The engrained racism led by the far right discriminated against those who didn’t share similar racial characteristics to them, so they called for stricter immigration controls and tighter policing on immigrant communities. Others, proud of Britain’s history instead pressed for migrants to commit to certain, core ideas and actually like them. The outcome of this was that immigrants had to be ‘integrated’ to prevent them segregating to live parallel lives in parallel societies and upsetting the solidity of society. France, Scandinavia as well as continental Europe all faced similar challenges of how to integrate immigrants into their ‘superior’ culture.

In Britain some accepted racism had to be fought and were prepared to help ease the transition of immigrants willing to adapt into citizens. They saw their part of the two-way bargain as fighting racism. With this in mind the focus in the 1960′s was two-fold: on the promotion of citizenship for newcomers, and also on immigration controls and a framework of legislation against racial discrimination to give immigrants a sense of belonging, to make them feel at home and facilitate integration. Integration in reality meant tolerance of immigrant culture as long as newcomers acceded to the common public identity and culture.

Hence in Britain just after Canada, minority culture was celebrated as ‘diversity’ with minority activities in private life tolerated as long as minorities accepted the hegemony of indigenous British culture and a common cultural framework built on core liberal values in public life. The assumption here was if some tolerance was shown to immigrants then they would partake in society and eventually see themselves as British and adopt British values which included support for the nation’s history, policies and all that it stood for.

 

Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism became British policy with the aim of integrating immigrants including Muslims. Multiculturalism as a concept recognised one’s group and would in fact become a defining factor in recognising people. Multiculturalism can be summed up as: “The recognition of groups by society and the celebration of their diversity in order to equalise relations between minorities and the dominant majority in the conviction that no way of life was correct and all were deserving of equal respect”.

This policy focused on equality for all and as a result many mosques were established, Halaal food was made available in high street fast food chains as well as many town centres. Islamic schools were also established, where an Islamic curriculum was offered to students. If Muslims were successful then it was felt they would adopt British culture, and as a result the permission for a number of Islamic institutes was seen as the means to achieve this.

 

9/11 and 7/7

The 1990′s brought the Muslim community more and more into conflict with the host population. Rather than moving closer to Britain’s culture, the ummah continued to adhere to Islam and in fact questioned British policies. A number of landmark events led to the politicisation of the Ummah in Britain, events such as the reaction to the publication of the Satanic Verses, the first Gulf war and Bosnia. Other conflicts such as those in Algeria, Chechnya, Dagestan, Kashmir and Gujarat increased activism while stoking tension. Then came the attacks on New York and Washington where Muslims found themselves unwittingly the minority group at the very centre of British politics.

As the ‘War on Terror’ was announced the perceived threat of Islamic extremism was given wide attention in public debate. This was epitomised by hostility towards, and suspicion of, Muslims.

When Muslims with British passports were found to be fighting with the Afghan Taliban against British forces a discussion began on the loyalty of Muslims who were also British citizens and who were now seen as a people apart with a vision very different to what Britain had. 9/11 and then 7/7 brought Muslim identity, values and loyalty into question and Muslim minorities all over Europe found themselves bearing the brunt of violence and victimisation as suspicion of them rose to disproportionate levels.

 

Hatred for Islam

The terrorists attacks in the US and Britain proved to many that the Muslim ummah rather than integrating and adopting Capitalism has in fact held onto Islam and has rejected Western values by not openly condemning the bombers. It was this scenario that led to the collapse of multiculturalism as a tool of integration and the re-emergence of policies which demanded immigrants to adopt and like British values and history. These gave many liberals the much needed legitimacy to openly attack and defame Islam.

Hence the shari’ah, Hijab, hudood and Khilafah all came to be attacked in public. When Shabina Begum won her case giving her the right to wear Jilbaab in school after being expelled, the hijab was attacked as backward and oppressive, even leading to some Muslims condemning Shabina Begum for going to court in the first place. British MP Jack Straw also played his part by writing an article for a local newspaper where he mentioned he felt intimidated when Muslims women came to his political surgery in their Niqabs. A national debate ensured where it was said fully covered women would be difficult to communicate with and hence Islamic rules have no place in Britain. This debate intensified when a number of Muslim teachers were removed from their teaching positions due to being fully covered.

Britain wasted no time in passing legislation to silence Muslim dissent at its actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The anti terror laws made supporting Muslim resistance movements in Iraq and Afghanistan or criticising British foreign policy as criminal offences.

 

Understanding British policy

Britain has always been a racist state which views itself superior to others. Britain has a long history of racism, from medieval times, through years of the slave trade to the modern day. An apartheid-like system existed in early Anglo-Saxon England, which prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage and wiped out a majority of original British genes in favour of Germanic ones. For all the talk of Britain being a place for people of all colours, race riots have been an all too common occurrence on the British horizon. There were race riots across the UK in 1919, with further riots by immigrant and minority populations in East London during the 1930s. In the 1980s, perceived societal racism, discrimination and poverty sparked riots in areas with substantial African-Caribbean populations.

Britain realised with significant immigrant population needed to rebuild Britain after WW2 it was necessary to deal with this racist attitude amongst the populace so they could be part of Britain post war reconstruction. Unlike France which required immigrants to actually like French culture and show loyalty before they received anything from the state, the French refused to accept Multiculturalism, but rather only recognised the individual with the states job of protecting individual rights. The Hijab ban in France was a result of a symbol which represented a group (Muslims) and was seen as an obstacle to integration.

However, Multiculturalism as a policy in Britain was only a means to an end, and in no way was the acceptance of diversity and an acceptance of Islam. For these reasons the British government today is handpicking who the imams should be in mosques, it wants the teaching of British history alongside Qur’an classes, it wants the Muslims to spy on those who practice Islam and wants open support of British foreign policy aims abroad – even against Muslims.

The so called success many Muslims attribute to the so called tolerant British has in fact handcuffed Muslims as the British government expects payback in the form of support for British foreign policy. Britain’s wants loyalty in return for privileges provided such as Islamic schools and mosques. All these so called pro-Islamic policies always had strings attached. It was very short sighted by many Muslims to think a colonial state like Britain actually liked Islam and Muslims.

It is Britain that leads the Islamic reformation debate across the world. Britain has poured money into overseas ventures and conferences inviting modernist thinkers across the world to develop policies to reform (change) Islam to a more compatible version.

 

Conclusion

Although the situation in Britain is difficult for Muslims one should actually view the situation through a different lens. That is the change in policy by Britain in directly attacking Islam means the ummah in Britain to her credit never integrated and abandon the deen but actually held onto it. The attack on Islam and Muslims in Britain is because Muslims refuse to abandon political Islam and support British policies around the world. The British government understands very well as the Qur’aysh did at the time of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم that political ideas always end with government. This is why the Khilafah is continually branded as totalitarian and dictatorial.

It was Britain that destroyed the Khilafah and created the state of Israel. There should be no doubt that any perceived policies which appear to be in favour of Muslims are in reality a precursor to something Britain would want to be repaid for. Since the 7/7 bombings Muslims in Britain are in no doubt that for all the so-called success they are praised for, in reality Britain expects loyalty in return for this.

Hence in reality there is no difference between all the nations in the West when it comes to Muslims. They all aim to integrate them (i.e. leave political Islam), they just differ in the means to achieve such aims.

Extremist ‘Muslim’ Moderates and Unreformed ‘Muslim’ Reformists

 

 

A Non-Muslim asked a ‘Muslim’ Secular Reformist: “What point is there to Islam if all it gives you is a means to justify the culture and practices of whichever era you are in?”

 

Indeed, the non-Muslim saw a truth that the ‘Muslim’ didn’t see, the truth is always universal. What good would it be for a non-Muslim to embrace Islam, if Islam contains the exact same beliefs and systems of life, as the non-Muslim’s culture?

 

 

This gives us cause to think whether ‘Islamic’ Reformation actually makes sense? What is better than Islam, that we should mould Islam into? Secular Democracy -with all its financial woes, and busts, and social injustices and spiritual bankruptcies? Or how about Communism, with all its communal repression and suppression of human individuality?

 

 

We should say no, in the absence of anything better, and as believers in absolute Truth (and not moral relativism), the Muslim Ummah has made a resounding move towards breaking off the shackles of Western imposed thoughts – and soon will break off the shackles of Western controlled tyrannical Western SECULAR regimes in the middle East. The call of the Ummah is to revival and not reformation!

 

 

‘Respondents express strong support for expanding the role of Islam in their societies. Large majorities in most countries—an average of 71 percent —agree with the goal of requiring “strict application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.” Pakistanis were the most enthusiastic with 79 percent agreeing.’

 

‘Muslim Public Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda’ Survey of four major Muslim countries by University of Maryland, obtainable at WorldPublicOpinion.org

 

 

Further more, “reformation” is a dangerous word to use, since it implies reforming Islam around the current situation (Western ‘ideals’ and way of life- i.e. Secularism) – rather than changing the situation around Islam and its ideals (i.e. the re-establishment of the Islamic system and way of life in the Muslim world – the Islamic Khilafah (Caliphate)).

 

 

Say (O Muhammad): “Shall I seek for Ruling/law making [HAKAMan] other than Allah? – when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail.” They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.

[Quran 6:114]

 

The Reformation of the Catholic Church was called for by Secularists under the banner of ‘Reforming Christianity’ and ‘need for new Bible Exegesis’ (Ijtihad) – thus they took the Bible verse “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” and re-interpreted it to ‘prove’ that Secularism didn’t contradict Christianity- thus they twisted the Bible to fit their ideas and politics and make them palatable to fellow Christians; much like some ‘Muslims’ are doing today. Islam doesn’t need a Reformation but rather a Revival - emphasising bringing the Islamic ideology (Deen) back to implementation in life and its affairs.

 

The key to Revival, is intellectually elevating the thinking of the Muslim world upon the Islamic basis and purifying it from foreign thoughts and ideas, while striving politically for the comprehensive implementation of Islam in all areas of life (i.e. a Islamic Khilafah), such that the true beauty and enlightened manner of Islam is appreciated and put on show for all humanity. Then Islam will be able to solve the multitude of problems facing not only the Muslims, but all humanity and use modern technology under the correct context and use of Ijtihad, that would develop science and technology at a much faster rate than that encountered in the west. And in a society based upon the Islamic purpose and use of Ijtihad- the world would truly witness a vibrant, enlightened and dynamic civilisation- just like it had in the past and will do again in the future soon inshallah. The Prophet (saw) said after three phases that the Muslims will face “…Then there will be Khilafah on the method of Prophethood.

The Economic System of Islam, the alternative system for humanity

How do we organise the distribution of resources amongst a society? How do we eliminate poverty? How do we ensure justice yet progress at the same time in a society?

This Video introduces a review of Capitalism and Communism’s approach to these problems and introduces the Islamic alternative and answer to the Human Economic Problem.

This it the Islamic Economic System.

Part 1: The irrational basis of Capitalism and Communism and the deficiencies in their systems.

Part 2: The elucidation of the Islamic system.

The blue-coats are coming!!

 

The objectives of the United states of America towards the Muslim world are well known, as was cited by the think tank that serves as the biggest adviser to the US government:

“The United States…would prefer an Islamic world that is compatible with the rest of [its global] system: democratic, economically viable, politically stable, socially progressive, and follows the rules and norms of international conduct” 

“Civil and Democratic Islam” – RAND corporation

Ironically, it is precisely the US that has failed to achieve economic viability of late, not to mention it soaring crime rates and international unilateral actions that have put paid to its reputation of being ‘socially progressive’ and ‘following the rules and norms of international conduct’. But the US, ever seeking to achieve its permanent interests over and above any notion of fulfilling ‘the will of the people’, has always looked towards the Muslim world as a source of fulfilling its interests. Interests of which, its client secular puppet regimes have been ever willing to sate. 

‘Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: “The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance.” Were you to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah’

(2:120 Quran)

But in order to continue to achieve its interests in the Middle East, the US requires Muslims to be pliant and amenable to its designs. So with the rise of Islam as a holistic counter-force to the US spearheaded plans for economic exploitation and cultural westernisation, has caused more and more Muslim wake up to the realisation that there exists a better way of life than the inhumane and failed system called secularism. Upon seeing the mass ideological rejection of its ideas of secularism and democracy throughout the Muslim world, America launched an ideological war on Islam under the banner of a ‘War on Terror’. Thus we have seen America engaged in large scale propaganda campaigns against holistic Islam via its media declaing it to be ‘Islamofascism’, while at the same time, encouraging the form of Islam it desires, with open arms, calling it ‘moderate Islam’. 

“the United States is involved in a war that is both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas, in which ultimate victory can only be won when ‘extremist’ ideologies are discredited in the eyes of their host populations and tacit supporters.” 

Quadrennial Defense Review Report

America, together with Britain, has been seeking to instigate changes to Muslim thought amongst the masses of Muslims. The US and Britain have sought to encourage a pacifist Islam that embraces Secularism, Rule by majority consented oligarchies (known as ‘Modern Democracies’) and the abandonment of the Shariah as anything but a spiritual code to be practiced in private. In order to achieve these aims, the US and Britain sought use of allies from amongst the Muslims in order to spread their intellectually bankrupt ideology. To facilitate this, their main strategy was to use money and material clout to seduce the Muslim minorities in the Western countries in order to promote an otherwise irrational belief-political system.

“United States [aims] to identify committed reformers to initiate a “Secular da’wa,” by which forces of moderation would be associated with tangible improvements in living conditions“

“Building Moderate Muslim Networks” – Report by the Rand Corporation

The Prophet said “I do not fear poverty among you, but I fear that wealth will become so abundant amongst you as it had been among previous nations. You will become so engrossed in it, like the people before you. It shall bring your downfall as it had bought down the downfall of those before you“

Following the widespread failure of British ‘Muslim’ secularists to entice any significant degree of support from the part of the Muslim Ummah living in Britain, small-time Secularist organisations like Radical Middle Way and The City Circle aim to make use of all those ‘Muslims’ that have been enamoured by the comfortable lifestyle of America, and have agreed to sell-out their religion in order to promote un-Islamic concepts of (oligarchcal) democracy, the free-market, British / American patriotism/nationalism and the Western conception of women’s ‘rights’ (aka the right to nudeness, lewdness and shrewdness).

“U.S. institutions and personalities played an important role in the network building effort during the Cold War, so do American Muslims have a potentially important role to play in building moderate Muslim networks and institutions. Therefore, American Muslims, with their cultural knowledge and family and social links to their home countries, could be a critical vector in the war of ideas within the Muslim world “ 

“Building Moderate Muslim Networks” -Report by the Rand Corporation

And now, these ‘Muslim’ secularists having freshly arrived from America and being funded to conduct a number of events such as:

‘Living the American Muslim dream’ The talk was on how Muslims should be so grateful for all the comforts we get in the West, how we should affilate ourselves with the country we live in, and how we should focus on our ‘community’ as our first priority [oh the bountiful gifts of nationalism! Where we must narrow our minds only to the concerns of our immediate 'community'- ed]).

‘Can Muslims trust Barack Obama?’  Presented by ‘Imam’ Johari Abdul-Malik, described as a ’Black-American Muslim Leader & Chair of Government Relations’ (quelle surprise! -Ed) of the Muslim Alliance of North America, of whom delivered a resounding YES to the talk’s titular question, ‘can Muslims trust Barack Obama?’. Johari also implored Muslims to trust democracy as a solution to all their problems.

‘Living Islam Out loud – The UK Tour’ was Talk in which one of the speakers, Aroosha Zoq Rana, is a ‘Muslim’ US state department employee! [well at least she is more obvious about who she works for! -ed]. The focus of the talk was the Western conception of womens rights, participation in democracy and the main speaker, Saleemah Abdul-Ghafur started the talk by saying “I am both an American and a Muslim and I hold those two identities to be of equal importance to me” [oh dear... -Ed]).

Then there’s Amina Wadud, who became infamous for leading a [inter]mixed congregation of men and women  in a church [! -Ed] in a Jumaah prayer in the US (whatever next?! Unisex wudhu and wusul facilities? – Ed).  She was recently ‘imported’ to perform the same thing in oxford, UK - unsurprisingly, the turn out was so abysimal, there was more journalists present there than actual attendee worshippers, of whom there were only 14! Seven men and seven women (perhaps afterwards they went out into the wilderness and founded their own colony – Ed).

These and many more American ‘Muslims’ have been specially ‘imported’ to give their ‘secular dawah’ to all and sundry among the peoples of the old world.  So protect your muhajiba women! Keep your children indoors! Hide your valuables and your Qurans! - the blue coats are coming….and they’re here in force!

 

‘And on the day when He shall gather them, and whatever they served besides Allah, He shall say: Was it you who led astray these My servants, or did they themselves go astray from the path?

They [those who were followed by a people who went astray] will say: “Glory to you! not meet was it for us that we should take for protectors others besides you: But Thou didst bestow on them and their fathers, good things (in life), until they forgot the Message: for they were a people (worthless and) lost.’

Quran 25:18

 

 

 

SecularismExposed.com

Can Muslims Participate in Democracy?

 

Is Democracy a rationally based system that solves the problem of how man can justly resolve his affairs? Does man know better what is good for him? Do the ‘Democratic’ leaders of the world, truly have confidence in the ‘public will’? Is Democracy truly representative? Is it able to truly prevent ruling by a privileged elite? Does it not contradict the Islamic principle of legislative soveriegnty belongs soley to God (Allah)? Can Muslims participate in such a system? 

 

Abdullah al Andalusi presents a discussion on all these questions outside the oldest founding place of Democracy- the houses of parliament.

 

 

Part 1 – The rational critique against Democracy

 

 

 

 

Part 2 – The Islamic objection to Democracy

 

 

——————————————————————————–

 

 

Can Muslims participate in Democratic elections?

‘Muslim’ Secularist Humour

“how many ‘Muslim’ secularists does it take to screw a light bulb?”…”just one, because they’re good at twisting things to fit into their agenda”

“What do you call 20 ‘Muslim’ secularists jumping off a cliff?… a good start – but the process should adapt to modern times…”

“Why did the ‘Muslim’ Secularist cross the road?….to begin a reformation of the traffic laws”

So a Secularist walks into a bar, bar tender turns to him and asks: “Why the long tongue?”

“How many secularists can you fit into a blender?…I dunno, but wouldn’t it be fun to find out?”

What’s the difference between a ‘Muslim’ Secularist’s patriotic duty to his host Western country and his belief & practice of Islam?….One is absolutely sacred to him, the other is just his religion

“Why can’t Satan purchase a Secularist’s soul?…because the RAND corporation will sue the Secularist for breach of contract”

What’s the difference between a non-Muslim and a ‘Muslim’ Secularist?…at least the non-Muslim admits when the West has faults.

What do you do to an audience after a talk by a Secularist?….wake them up, they’ve got homes to go to…

What thing does a ’Muslim’ Secularist want the most?….better euphemisms for the phrase “Abolish the sharia”

What does a Secularist and a demolition derby race, have in common?…They both start off ok, but then things get messy

Why won’t a ‘Muslim’ Secularist stop other Muslims from going to fight in Iraq/afghanistan?….because the British and American army are currently looking for recruits at the moment

Why won’t a secularist sell his grandmother?…because the RAND corporation don’t really have an equal opportunities employment program

A master sculptor invited his Secularist friend over to look at his sculptured master-pieces, “look at them, perfect aren’t they?”, the Secularist nodded his head in agreement, then the scupltor left to get some coffee.

Upon his return, he found all his sculptures hideously deformed and out of shape, and the Secularist had muddy clay all over his hands, when quizzed by the sculptor as to why he had done such a callous act, the secularist responded “I’m a post-modernist”

What’s the difference between a Muslim in a police station and a ‘Muslim’ Secularist in a Police station? One is suspected by the police, the other is having a suspicious relationship with the police.

What’s the difference between a ‘Muslim’ Secularist and a barbaric Viking from the medieval period?…nothing, they both act according to whatever is the culture of their times

 

Why wouldn’t a ‘Muslim’ Secularist say the Islamic shariah is perfect and universal for all times? Because he can’t say that Secularism and Islam can both be perfect at the same time…

 

Why do Reader’s Digest prefer recruiting ‘Muslim’ Secularists?…because they need people with experience at selectively abridging classical books

Why did the secularist cross a road with no walkway?…because he believed the traffic laws shouldn’t be taken literally, and only have a ’spiritual meaning’

 

The Sun newspaper (a trashy UK newspaper) opened up a competition for amateur spin doctors, ‘Muslim’ Secularists turned up at the entrance but were refused by the bouncer who said “sorry, no professionals”.

 

Whats the difference between a ‘Muslim’ Secularist and a Washing-Machine?…nothing, they both make dirty things look clean, and the process involves a lot of spinning…

A Muslim was reading a book on Islamic history, his ‘Muslim’ Secularist friend approached him and asked what he was reading, the Muslim replied “This book is about Islamic history, I am currently reading the section about the early Muslim munafiqs (hypocrites)”. “Is that so” the Secularist replied, what does it say about the hypocrites?”. “Well”, the Muslim replied, “it says that they were a people who, when Islam took over, they just adapted themselves to the current social norms they found themselves in, they questioned Islam when things were not beneficial to them, they sided with the enemies of the Muslims and blamed the Muslims for the aggression by these enemies, and lastly, they always sought a way out from doing their obligations by twisting the truth”. “Interesting” said the Secularist, “But I came today to speak to you about Secularism, as you know, it is the current international norm and we must adapt to Modern times. We must seek what would be of benefit to Muslims and avoid burdening ourselves with out of date laws. People say they hate the US and UK governments for their wars in Iraq , but we should not hate them, they have brought so much good to world, we should help them instead and prevent Muslims from opposing them, which is why they attack us in the first place. Of course we as Muslims have many obligations Islam has obliged upon us, but today’s world is a different context, so most of those obligations would no longer apply in their current forms”. “Interesting” replied the Muslim…

Neo-Cons, House slaves and Islam’s big three ‘problems’

 

 

Islam came to liberate mankind from the oppression it found itself in, being enslaved to man’s whims and desires and arbitrary systems of hierarchy. Despite the strength of the Islamic ideas, Muslims found that spreading the truth was no easy task as people did not necessarily follow something because it was true, but some people opt to follow something because it satisfies their current state of desires and wants. Such people are described in the Quran as being ‘Kuffar’ (Someone who rejects truth once it has become known to him – coming from the root meaning ‘someone who covers the truth’).

 

It was widely assumed that if someone embraces the truth or is born to a community of those who embrace the truth, they cannot be of those who reject the truth. This is, sadly, far from the reality of human beings. This is because if human beings are given the truth on a silver platter, of those that may accept the offering; there will be some that had only wanted the silver platter. Such people are especially a reality today in the Muslim world and of those who live in the Muslim diaspora in the west. This is because although at the moment the Islamic civilisation may hold the oil, but the West has, by hook or crook, gotten hold of the most of the world’s supply of ‘silver platters’. Predictably, falsehood can look just as good as truth if framed with the right silver – and no-ones knows this better than the ‘Muslim’ Secularist, whose palms have been crossed with Western silver more times than the customs export office at a Mexican seaport (Mexico being the worlds leading exporter of silver).

 

Thus we find that the ‘Muslim’ Secularists have become awed at Western material success (for as long as it continues to last anyways) and they look upon the Muslim world as backward and uncivilised. The fact that most ‘Muslim’ Secularists living in the West are from middleclass to upper class well-do-to backgrounds no doubt would probably account for their satisfaction with western society (the famous quote by Malcolm X about the ‘house slaves and field slaves’ immediately springs to mind). While their observations about the Muslim world are true up to a point, the error occurs when they blame ’traditional’ Islamic (read Orthodox) understandings of Islam for the conditions the Muslims currently face, even though their exists no country that currently implements Islam, and almost all countries are implement a form of Secularism (oh the irony).

 

The ‘Muslim’ Secularists assume that the reason for the West’s success was Secularism and ‘Freedom’ alone (a relative term in the West these days). They seem to fail to take into account the West’s long history of human exploitation, slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism, debt-trapping and wars for conquest over peoples who happen to have the (mis) fortune to be blessed with abundant resources. It is like saying that due to a thiefs rich and lavish house and property, his kleptomanic lifestlye must be an intellectually superior one due to its proven delivery of material progression to an individual!

 

The ‘Muslim’ Secularist’s love affair with all things western, led them to the only possible conclusion they would naturally have to enact – make all other Muslims see what they see. Furthermore, as an added incentive, their Western Secular ‘massa’s’ granted unto their pet ‘Muslims’ funding and promised them all the silver platters they could wish for! All they have to do was pursuade the Muslims masses that the West’s ideology is benign and morally superior to Islam, and that all they have to do is change the laws of Islam so that they could be successfully assimulated into Western culture and they would be welcomed into the international community with such wonderous rewards as more compound interests loans, one-sided oil contracts, and more pro-western fat-cat rulers – but all in the name of ‘development’ and ‘progress’.

 

However, three major things stick out to the ‘Muslim’ secularist. Islam contains a veritable shopping list of items that the West would find intolerably disagreeable and demand changing to conform to the Wests ‘ideal’ of human civilisation. The reformist dilemma is further compounded by Islamic textual evidences that, in very explicit terms, call for such liberally-unsavoury issues as public female modesty, capital punishment for the adulterer and the neo-con old chestnut of Islam’s punishment for ideological treason, referred to as ‘apostasy’ in the West. These are called Islam’s ‘big three’ unpalatable issues to Western Secularists – and you’re not a bona fide ‘Muslim’ Secularist unless you work to change all three.

 

Thus, Islam ordaining women to be covered up and not allowed to display their varying ‘assets’ or other items of their anatomy which the West considers should be part of their ‘free-expression’, is deeply frowned upon by Secular ideology, because after-all, women must all be nymphomaniac exhibitionists with nudist tendencies to such an extent, that to restrict them exposing themselves at whim would be the greatest oppression unto female kind, wouldn’t it? Note: sarcasm.

 

Then there’s the punishments for adultery which, according to the West, goes against a Man’s ’human right’ to cheat on his wife and kids with another woman (usually younger and prettier) even though it may break the bonds of family trust and togetherness. I mean, it goes against reason! – a liberal would argue, it should be all about choice, perhaps the offended wife should blame herself for not being nymph-like enough to compete with a women almost half her age, or perhaps it was her fault for getting old and unappealing in the first place and thus the Man should not be blamed for his wayward loin-led advances, or perhaps should I say; ‘mature and civilised adult choices’.

 

I guess the key argument of secularists is that freedom is the key to happiness, and how can we all be happy if we are not allowed the freedom to frustrate, compete with, cheat on, backstab and render unto ruinous misery; our fellow man – stands to reason doesn’t it? Again for the sarcasm-deaf (or American), note my sarcasm.

 

But last in our example of the shortlist of anti-secular elements of Islam- is the infamous law against apostasy. That Islamic Law, depicted by neo-con non-Muslim Secularists as a barbaric law that restricts freedom of thought and causes people to become in fear of using their full free expression and faculty of inquiry to delve into any issue no matter how unpalatable to wider society. One wonders whether the ‘holocaust denial’ laws and the glorification of terrorism laws also fall into this category? Especially so, since the definition of terrorism is so broad, that supporting Nelson Mandela’s fight for freedom, or the 4^th July American independence day celebrations could also probably be considered ‘an act of glorification of terrorism – whether it was committed in both past or present’.

But further to the matter, what should we do with someone that believes in the mass extermination of a part of the population of a country? (no, I’m not referring to Nick Griffin, head of the BNP). If we allow such individuals to undermine the civil cohesion of a society, there’s no telling what could happen next! (Actually there is a way, Nazi Germany being a potent lesson from history – and history, like the BBC, often being prone to repetition).

 

In Islam, the period before Islam consisted of tribal feuding, raiding, superstitious backward rituals and barbaric cultural values. Into this milieu, Islam came and fought against these social-political-intellectual realities and setup an advanced civilisation based upon the worship of God and the realisation of this purpose by man. The Arab society of Arabia became transformed from one of cruel ‘end justifies the means’ behaviour, to one of principle, justice, enlightened conduct and peaceful co-existence.

 

The previous period of barbarity became known as ‘the age of ignorance’ and was viewed with sheer terror and disgust by the newly-established enlightened Islamic society, desperate never to let society sink to such a level again. The difference between one social situation and the other was, of course, Islam. Thus if a person entered into Islam under false pretences’ with sound mind and able will, deigned leave Islam in order that Islam should be undermined, such a person was ordered to be executed in order to deter such activities that could undermine the intellectual basis for the entire system and disrupt the harmonious functioning of society such that it would regress back into ‘the age of ignorance’ - with devastating consequences.

 

If one could go back in time and execute Hitler before he destroyed the tolerant society of pre-Nazi Germany, wouldn’t one do it? If one could go back in time and prevent Mustapha Kemal’s rise to power and change the course of history such that the Muslim world was never broken up, but allowed to remain under Islamic unity and peace, wouldn’t one do it?

 

All that one would need to be convinced of that, is to see the Muslim world as it is now, during its current period of jahilliyah (age of ignorance). Today under the non-Islamic SECULAR regimes ruling the middle east, we witness mass killing, massacres, murderous tyrannical puppet leaders, starvation, malnutrition, lack of basic health care, abundance of superstition, backwardness and the return of socially regressive cultural practises. If it took the death of one person to prevent this, would not even the most peaceful and conscionable person in the world pick up a gun and execute the intellectually and socially recalcitrant individual himself?!

 

To save millions, wouldn’t anyone?…

 

It is these main three points that have become a chief target for neo-con propaganda saturation bombing, and they have issued strong attacks upon Islam around these issues. But such was their ‘Muslim’ secularists allies (i.e. lackeys) gusto to comply with the neo-con directives, even Malcolm X’s allegorical ‘house slaves’ would have felt that was one kiss too much upon the hindquarters of their pet-keeping neo-con patriarchs.

 

Thus we see ‘Muslim’ secularists the likes of Tariq Ramadan calling for a moratorium on the Islamic laws of Apostasy, and other secularists following suit upon the other issues that Islam indisputably stipulates. The secularists use a number of arguments from hadith denial, all the way to semantical devices that change the meaning of a well known Arabic word into something else entirely! The funny thing is, despite all these attempts by the ‘Muslim’ Secularists to justify their beliefs using twisted out-of-context Islamic sources or just plain arbitrary Western philosophy, in the end, like Secularism’s economic system - Capitalism, they are now emerging (intellectually) bankrupt.