Pages

Saturday 25 December 2010

Do Muslims Want Democracy and Theocracy?



(*NB: We apologies for the inappropriate women dress code of the presenter of the above Video)

Cutting across diverse Muslim countries, social classes, and gender differences, answers to our questions reveal a complex and surprising reality. Substantial majorities in nearly all nations surveyed (95% in Burkina Faso, 94% in Egypt, 93% in Iran, and 90% in Indonesia) say that if drafting a constitution for a new country, they would guarantee freedom of speech, defined as "allowing all citizens to express their opinion on the political, social, and economic issues of the day."
However, while acknowledging and admiring many aspects of Western democracy, those surveyed do not favor wholesale adoption of Western models of democracy. Many appear to want their own democratic model that incorporates Sharia -- and not one that is simply dependent on Western values. Actually, few respondents associate "adopting Western values" with Muslim political and economic progress. Abuses in the name of Sharia have not led to wholesale rejection of it.
In our data, the emphasis that those in substantially Muslim countries give to a new model of government -- one that is democratic yet embraces religious values -- helps to explain why majorities in most countries, with the exception of a handful of nations, want Sharia as at least "a" source of legislation.
  • In only a few countries did a majority say that Sharia should have no role in society; yet in most countries, only a minority want Sharia as "the only source" of law. In Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, majorities want Sharia as the "only source" of legislation.
  • Most surprising is the absence of systemic differences in many countries between males and females in their support for Sharia as the only source of legislation. For example, in Jordan, 54% of men and 55% of women want Sharia as the only source of legislation. In Egypt, the percentages are 70% of men and 62% of women; in Iran, 12% of men and 14% of women; and in Indonesia, 14% of men and 14% of women.
Ironically, we don't have to look far from home to find a significant number of people who want religion as a source of law. In the United States, a 2006 Gallup Poll indicates that a majority of Americans want the Bible as a source of legislation.
  • Forty-six percent of Americans say that the Bible should be "a" source, and 9% believe it should be the "only" source of legislation.
  • Perhaps even more surprising, 42% of Americans want religious leaders to have a direct role in writing a constitution, while 55% want them to play no role at all. These numbers are almost identical to those in Iran.
Based on the largest and most in-depth study of its kind, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think presents the remarkable findings of the Gallup Poll of the Muslim world, the first ever data-based analysis of the points of view of more than 90% of the global Muslim community, spanning more than 35 nations.(Abudhabi Gallup)
Home             Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link) 

Monday 11 October 2010

The Truth about Democracy; Bettany Hughes

1/2
Bettany Hughes digs beneath the surface of Golden Age Athens to explore the bloody but exhilarating truth about the world's first democracy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlVtuUJUN2k&feature=related


2/2
Democracy - written for "The Telegraph"


The word democracy has become ubiquitous. It is used to justify everything from regime change to the use of parking meters. The internet is drenched with talk of e-democracy, open democracy, local democracy, consensus democracy, liberal democracy, illiberal democracy.

If this is going to become one of the most exploited words on the planet, we need to be clear, and honest, about what we mean when we use it. Democracy is too potent and exciting an idea to be trifled with.
We take the term from ancient Athens, but Athenian democracy, the product of an age remembered as egalitarian, free and high-minded, bore almost no resemblance to ours.

From the harbour at Piraeus, Athenian oarsmen rowed out to claim new territories in the name of DEMOKRATIA, democracy. They were not always welcome. Famously at Melos all men were slaughtered, all women and children enslaved when the island preferred to “put our trust in our gods, to try to save ourselves” and preserve their 700-year-old liberty rather than accept Athenian-style democracy.

When the Assembly voted to exterminate anti-democratic rivals in Mytilene, a triereme was dispatched, bristling with arms. But overnight the democrats dreamt the brutality of their decision. They sent a second ship, its oarsmen fed figs and fortified wine, high-energy food so that they could cover the distance in time to reverse the decision. Little surprise, then, that when recording the ‘free cities’ in league with Athens, there is sometimes a slip of the stonemason’s chisel: instead of ‘our allies’ on inscriptions, the Athenians can refer to ‘the cities that we rule.’

None of these details diminishes the Athenian achievement. But they do nuance it. We love Golden Ages. It comforts us to think that in a distant time and place mankind achieved some kind of perfection – a utopia we can replicate. As a society we want to remember that long ago, democracy, liberty and freedom of speech were created as touchstones for civilisation. We uphold them as pure and robust entities. But we owe it to ourselves to recognise the realpolitik.

First off, Athenian democracy was an evolutionary dead-end. Athenian direct democracy was transparent, face to face. Every adult Athenian citizen was a politician; he could propose motions, vote in the assembly – rule and be ruled in turn. Kratos meant hold or grip, and the Ancient Athenian would have been under no illusion that he had a real, direct grasp on power. 6000 citizens at a time could fit onto the bare rock of the Pnyx, where they voted on how they should run their own lives. There was no notion of individual liberty – all was enacted for to koinon, the commonality. I remember listening to an American on Radio 4, shouting that in a democracy of course kids had the right to buy cans of spray paint and do what they liked with them. Athenians would have hooted: the babbling of a maniac.

The democratic club in Athens was also very small.  It was only Athenian men over eighteen who could vote, no foreigners, and eventually – following reforms by Pericles - only those whose parents had both been born in the city. Athenian women were less than second class citizens –  Aristotle considers them dog-like, deformed, sub-standard. They were thought to pollute. Female bodies were porous: evil could come oozing from open orifices, their mouths and eyes. And for this reason they were kept not only covered, but veiled. The first hard evidence we have of the use of the full face veil, comes from Athens.

What London and Washington do share with Ancient Athens across a gap of 2,500 years is a firm belief in the power of words (Ancient Athens was littered with inscribed stone stele, all showing the workings of the democracy. The art of rhetoric was eagerly snapped up – at a price – from traveling sophists) plus a passionate relationship with one word in particular. As time went on, DEMOKRATIA was worshipped as a goddess. In Athens’ Agora Museum you can still see her, carved on a stone stele, crowning the people with a wreath. Prominent Athenian families name their sons Demokrates.

There are other similarities between then and now; a delight in litigation. Athens could expect to hear over 40 cases a week by anything up to 6000 jurors all told; the Agora – the market – was central to the health of the fledgling democracy (and it is because Athens was so wealthy that we’ve remembered her, there have been other democratic experiments through time, but the Athenians had the good grace to leave us shed-loads of sculptures, monuments, inscriptions and drama – this is democracy at its most beautiful, its most charismatic, its noisiest) ; we have whips in the House of Commons POSSIBLY because through the streets of Athens slaves, with ropes dipped in red-paint, would tickle the reluctant up to the Pnyx to vote on foreign and domestic affairs. Our adversarial political process is also pre-echoed by the Greek belief in argument and counter-argument. Athenian society was deeply competitive. The word for competition agon, gives us 'agony'.

The Athenians, like us, were fascinated by this thing democracy, and wanted to find deeper tap-roots for their new political system, fantasising, as we do, that the origins of the way they were stretched back over the millennia to the ‘Age of Heroes’. They invented myths about their local superhero Theseus. He was, they said, the world’s first democrat.

Yet as an ideology, Athenian democracy’s horizons were narrow. The rule of the people emerged through chance, not design, it was a tentative, fluctuating system that existed before a word was dreamt up to nominate the unusual situation. I have no doubt that the Athenians of the 5th century would be slack-jawed to learn that DEMOS KRATIA was being marketed around the globe. Liberty, democracy and freedom of speech were established as means in Athens, not as ends in themselves.

In 5th century Greece those who preferred a private to a publicly-aware life were categorised ‘idiotes’. Idiots indeed. Equally idiotic to peddle  chimerical, chameleon promises of  ‘democracy’. The rule, or grip of the whole people is not a panacea, it cannot be identikitted out across the globe, it is to important, too strong to be commodified. Liberty, equality, freedom of speech, human rights, the greater good, universal suffrage: all the finest goals. True democracy, the absolute rule of the people, is not universally or necessarily the finest way to achieve them. Remember, when the Ancient Greeks imagined Demokratia a goddess they did not abstract her. She was made her incarnate. The Athenians knew that the gods and goddesses walked the earth. They ate they drank, they made love, they argued. When they made democracy divine, they also admitted that she was particular and flawed.

Remember too the men of Athens, fired up by their solidarity, voting to go to war, to slaughter ‘barbarians’ and fellow-Greeks alike. When we talk of bringing ‘democracy’ to the world, we must be careful what we wish for. (The Telegraph)



Tuesday 21 September 2010

Khilafah & Democracy OR Khilafah (VS) Democracy

NB: by Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri (Plus*) (Plus*:  The holy quran says;...the man was created weak..4:28) 




The content below this video;

There is a misconception in the minds of Muslim youth that there should be only one khalifah, a single leader of the Islamic ummah.

This is in fact a misinterpretation of the Holy Prophets (saw) hadith. This hadith applies to any situation in which a group of Muslims unite and appoint a leader, as the Holy Prophet (saw) said, even if there are only three people, one of them should be appointed as leader. What this hadith means, therefore, is that if a number of Muslims unite and agree on a leader and make a bayat of obedience to the head of that grouping, regardless of its size, if any of them were then to rebel against that leader and claim to be Amir that rebellion would amount to treason. It does not mean that, in the whole world, it is not permissible to have two Islamic leaders. That only applied at the time of al-Khulafa ar-Rashideen;
it was only then that only one khalifah was permissible

This is the context in which the Holy Prophet (saw) said what he said and understanding it in any other way is wrong. There is no hadith stating there should be only one Amir in the whole world from the east to the west and that there cannot be two. The Holy Prophet (saw) never said this. His philosophy was establishment of Imarah wherever one is. Even if there are only three people, they should appoint an Amir and work under him. Given that the Holy Prophet (saw) allowed his ummah to establish Imarah when there are only three people how could it possibly be that the whole ummah of Islam with a population of 1.25 billion should be limited to one Amir? 
The basic objective of an Islamic government is to administer justice, keep the peace, provide the basic necessities of the population and defend the state. In a situation where Muslims are living all over the world, thousands and thousands of miles away from one another, separated by oceans, the ummah is no longer a rudimentary system of village and tribal communities so how is it possible for one authority to keep control? Effective control cannot be established; law and order cannot be maintained; the basic needs and necessities cannot be provided; the basic rights and duties of the state cannot be fulfilled. In the present circumstances a single man could not oversee all these things and would be unable to fulfil the duties incumbent on a Muslim ruler. It is inconceivable that Islam and the Holy Prophet (saw) would say that there should only be one Amir for the whole world. The truth is that the Holy Prophet (saw) not only allowed a plurality of Amirs but also recommended every three people to establish Imarah when they travelled. In this way there can in fact be hundreds of Amirs. The basic premise is for Muslims to live under the system of Imarah in a state of taah (obedience to authority) and to live disciplined lives. It is clear that there should be an Amir in every Muslim territory to establish unity

READ COMPLETE BOOK ON THIS TOPIC
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25419892/Th...


Home           Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)      

Saturday 21 August 2010

Democracy in Crisis

What started as an experiment in Athens over two thousand years ago eventually pervaded every continent and every land. Democracy, Democracy, Democracy is the repeated call that bellows from the four corners of the globe. It is the established order in a chaotic and unstable world, where every critic of democracy is viewed with heretical suspicion. For every political problem, we are told, lies a democratic solution. For every civilization, for every country for every tribe, for every time - goes the mantra - democracy is the claimed answer to all our ills. In the poetic words of a RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women in Afghanistan) activist, democracy will cure all wounds and bring a dawn of freedom.

O’ freedom sun, Thrust in darkness, Democracy will cure the wounds, Which emerge from your blood-stained soil. O’ saddened nation, Fight your antagonists. Take revenge for your martyrs, On the enemy of democracy and woman. We shall bring through knowledge, Through blood and smoke We shall bring the dawn of freedom, The morn of democracy. Meena’s flag on the shoulders of women Who will sing she is our pride O’ People, arise Fight the enemies of democracy In revenge for the blood of your beloved martyrs. And as a message for your fighters.

Yet recent events conform to a remark by John Adams, the second President of the United States. “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Adams’ remarks were true then and are fast becoming true now, especially in the Western world, the heart of the democracy’s home turf.

Corruption, incompetence, growing debt and a feeling that politics just doesn’t work for the ordinary man is now prevalent in most if not all major democratic countries.

Moreover, since 9-11, democracy has slaughtered so many sacred cows, plunged to ever-deeper moral lows and increasingly become what it was, theoretically, supposed to oppose: corrupt, paranoid and tyrannical rule.

Yet before we get into a detailed discussion around the merits and demerits of democracy, it is important to define precisely what we mean by the word democracy – for it means many things to many people.
Some use the term in a linguistic sense: to characterise consultative behaviour. A company boss is considered democratic if he or she consults their team on a regular basis, in contrast to those who are considered dictators when they bark orders and expect to be followed. Others refer to any type of election - from the school council to high political office – as democratic.

Also, liberal secular societies do not have a monopoly on claiming democracy as their own. Many communist countries during the Cold War era described themselves as democratic republics; and even Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had Presidential elections. But those for whom free and fair elections are the key characteristic of a democracy would not give democratic legitimacy to those held in communist states or in dictatorships, where only one party exists.

Others view democracy as more than just elections - that democracies should be characterised by other values and institutions. That alongside regular elections there must be liberal values, a functioning legislative chamber, a vibrant opposition, a free media, civil society and an independent judiciary.

For some, especially from the libertarian viewpoint, democracy should not be equated with liberalism; the latter considered to be the end goal, whilst the former needing to be limited in order to avoid a nation becoming illiberal through the passing of authoritarian legislation. That is why many would describe the United States as a republic rather than a democracy.

For the purposes of this pamphlet, we have defined democracy as the political system that institutionalises legislative sovereignty - in either the people directly - or in their elected representatives.

This pamphlet seeks to address the democratic system as articulated and implemented in most of the well developed and emerging democracies in the world today. Another key assumption we make is that we believe that democracy cannot be separated from secularism. Though many have argued that religion and democracy are compatible, this may be right in the private arena but

cannot be the case in the public space – where either religion or democracy can enjoy primacy, but never both at the same time. Religions inherently believe that laws and values are the product of divine revelation without human involvement whereas democracy is about subjecting everything to human scrutiny and passing laws by numerical majorities.

This short pamphlet is divided into three chapters. The first chapter seeks to present the theoretical weaknesses of secular democracy and articulate a deeper critique of the core pillars that underpin the secular democratic model. The second uses brief case studies of secular democracy in practice to illustrate the theoretical weaknesses highlighted earlier - the United

States, United Kingdom and India - as well as an emerging secular democracy in Afghanistan. We will illustrate the growing gap between the rhetoric and reality in these democratic states. In the last section we use a Q and A format to present a summary of the Islamic Caliphate system. Though no one is suggesting that is an imminent alternative for non-Muslim countries, the same

cannot be said in for the Muslim world, where the Caliphate has tried and trusted solutions and certainly a practical alternative. Of course, human implementation within the Caliphate will not be perfect in any way, but for those who believe that the sources for its legislation emanate from a divine entity (whose existence Muslims should rationally prove as a precursor) that fully understands the huge complexity of life and the nature of human beings; something human beings on their own could never comprehend. Islamic principles are by their nature less subject to personal whim, constant change, political expediency or public fickleness while at the same time remaining flexible enough through the process of Ijtihad to deal with new emerging realities.

Home       Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

Thursday 6 May 2010

A Book on Democracy in Crisis

Introductory video;

Part 01



Part 02



Part 03






What started as an experiment in Athens over two thousand years ago eventually pervaded every continent and every land. Democracy, Democracy, Democracy is the repeated call that bellows from the four corners of the globe. It is the established order in a chaotic and unstable world, where every critic of democracy is viewed with heretical suspicion. For every political problem, we are told, lies a democratic solution. For every civilization, for every country for every tribe, for every time - goes the mantra - democracy is the claimed answer to all our ills. In the poetic words of a RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women in Afghanistan) activist, democracy will cure all wounds and bring a dawn of freedom.

O’ freedom sun, Thrust in darkness, Democracy will cure the wounds, Which emerge from your blood-stained soil. O’ saddened nation, Fight your antagonists. Take revenge for your martyrs, On the enemy of democracy and woman. We shall bring through knowledge, Through blood and smoke We shall bring the dawn of freedom, The morn of democracy. Meena’s flag on the shoulders of women Who will sing she is our pride O’ People, arise Fight the enemies of democracy In revenge for the blood of your beloved martyrs. And as a message for your fighters.

Yet recent events conform to a remark by John Adams, the second President of the United States. “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Adams’ remarks were true then and are fast becoming true now, especially in the Western world, the heart of the democracy’s home turf.

Corruption, incompetence, growing debt and a feeling that politics just doesn’t work for the ordinary man is now prevalent in most if not all major democratic countries.

Moreover, since 9-11, democracy has slaughtered so many sacred cows, plunged to ever-deeper moral lows and increasingly become what it was, theoretically, supposed to oppose: corrupt, paranoid and tyrannical rule.

Yet before we get into a detailed discussion around the merits and demerits of democracy, it is important to define precisely what we mean by the word democracy – for it means many things to many people.

Some use the term in a linguistic sense: to characterise consultative behaviour. A company boss is considered democratic if he or she consults their team on a regular basis, in contrast to those who are considered dictators when they bark orders and expect to be followed. Others refer to any type of election - from the school council to high political office – as democratic.

Also, liberal secular societies do not have a monopoly on claiming democracy as their own. Many communist countries during the Cold War era described themselves as democratic republics; and even Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had Presidential elections. But those for whom free and fair elections are the key characteristic of a democracy would not give democratic legitimacy to those held in communist states or in dictatorships, where only one party exists.

Others view democracy as more than just elections - that democracies should be characterised by other values and institutions. That alongside regular elections there must be liberal values, a functioning legislative chamber, a vibrant opposition, a free media, civil society and an independent judiciary.

For some, especially from the libertarian viewpoint, democracy should not be equated with liberalism; the latter considered to be the end goal, whilst the former needing to be limited in order to avoid a nation becoming illiberal through the passing of authoritarian legislation. That is why many would describe the United States as a republic rather than a democracy.

For the purposes of this pamphlet, we have defined democracy as the political system that institutionalises legislative sovereignty - in either the people directly - or in their elected representatives.

This pamphlet seeks to address the democratic system as articulated and implemented in most of the well developed and emerging democracies in the world today. Another key assumption we make is that we believe that democracy cannot be separated from secularism. Though many have argued that religion and democracy are compatible, this may be right in the private arena but

cannot be the case in the public space – where either religion or democracy can enjoy primacy, but never both at the same time. Religions inherently believe that laws and values are the product of divine revelation without human involvement whereas democracy is about subjecting everything to human scrutiny and passing laws by numerical majorities.

This short pamphlet is divided into three chapters. The first chapter seeks to present the theoretical weaknesses of secular democracy and articulate a deeper critique of the core pillars that underpin the secular democratic model. The second uses brief case studies of secular democracy in practice to illustrate the theoretical weaknesses highlighted earlier - the United

States, United Kingdom and India - as well as an emerging secular democracy in Afghanistan. We will illustrate the growing gap between the rhetoric and reality in these democratic states. In the last section we use a Q and A format to present a summary of the Islamic Caliphate system. Though no one is suggesting that is an imminent alternative for non-Muslim countries, the same

cannot be said in for the Muslim world, where the Caliphate has tried and trusted solutions and certainly a practical alternative. Of course, human implementation within the Caliphate will not be perfect in any way, but for those who believe that the sources for its legislation emanate from a divine entity (whose existence Muslims should rationally prove as a precursor) that fully understands the huge complexity of life and the nature of human beings; something human beings on their own could never comprehend. Islamic principles are by their nature less subject to personal whim, constant change, political expediency or public fickleness while at the same time remaining flexible enough through the process of Ijtihad to deal with new emerging realities. (SourceDownload Booklet PDF) Ends/

Saturday 1 May 2010

Downloading Democracy; Bloggers in the Gulf

POLITICAL ACTIVITY ON THE INTERNET differs from one country to another and from one region to another, where the form and intensity of that activity are tied to the technological culture of its society, the extent of the action and interaction of the political forces in it, and the degree of government control over the Internet.

Political activity appears on the Internet through various web applications which exhibit a unique communicative nature making them tools that can be employed politically. Some people use e-mail to send messages with political content to an infinite number of people without cost, while others use chat rooms for the purpose of engaging in discussion about political events with others and trying to influence them. Many individuals and organizations create personal websites to distribute information serving their political interests. Many also create blogs, which is a recent and widely spreading phenomenon that allows individuals to write and post articles online about anything of their choosing, including political entries.

What interests us here is the appearance of a significant amount of political activity on the Internet in the Arab Gulf states, where that activity varies according to the goals, organizational structure, and the extent of influence on the political arena by contributors – not to mention different mechanisms, means and applications through which political activity is carried out. Online discussion forums are considered one of the most important web applications – especially in the Gulf – that can be employed politically, because they exhibit several distinctive features that help moderators and users achieve political goals. Discussion forums provide the opportunity for dialogue about political issues and events. Read more>>>

Thursday 8 April 2010

ISLAM (VS or AND) DEMOCRACY By, Dawwah Works

NB: Can mandmade kufr Democracy be Islam...?

Islam & Democracy by Abdur-Raheem Green (Plus*)

NB: Is Secular Demorcracy Kufr OR Is Secular Democracy Islam..?



NB: Abdur-Raheem Green (Plus*); The holy quran says;.....the man was created weak....(4:28)

Ends/

Monday 5 April 2010

Democracy Debates: PJ Says there is no problems in Accepting 'Manmade Secular-Kufr Democracy'

Please See ONLINEPJ

Our observation on ‘PJ's Paradox, Dilemma and Confusion in Islam (Political Affairs & Ruling system)’; by M. R. Mohamed, the Minority Political Thinker of Sri Lanka , will be uploaded soon in these sits.

Saturday 3 April 2010

UK Election 2010; Our Strength is in Islam and Unity

NB:



The UK general elections are looming and there is increasing discussion within the Muslim community regarding the issue of voting.

As Muslims, we are obliged to look at voting, like any other issue, from an Islamic perspective.

Voting is to elect an individual to do an action on your behalf - such as voting for a man to become a ruler over a country. But the key question is: what is it that you are voting for him to do?

Voting for a man who would rule, judge or do actions that are approved by the Islamic Shariah – such as we saw at the time of the Khilafah Rashidah – is permissible – and indeed desirable.

However, in the forthcoming UK-parliamentary elections Muslims are being told to vote for people who would be part of lawmakers in Britain’s secular political system, whose root and branch is built upon man’s sovereignty, rather than that of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. This would clearly be haram as He سبحانه وتعالى says:

إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلاَّ لِلّهِ
“The rule rests with Allah alone” [Translated Meaning Quran Surah Yusuf 12:40] and

وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
Whosoever rules by other than what Allah hath revealed: such are disbelievers.” [Translated Meaning Quran Surah Maidah 5:44]

Muslims are being told to vote for parties with policies such as the legalisation of bloodshed and occupation of Muslim lands (as we saw with Iraq and Afghanistan); the creation of oppressive anti-terror laws; the permission of riba and economic exploitation, gambling, alcohol; and who all support. A vote for these parties would be an endorsement of policies that clearly contradict Islam.

How should the Muslim community participate in politics in this country?

The Muslim community in Britain is troubled by problems that should concern every Muslim and for which we must find real solutions. These include:

• The propaganda and media attacks on Islam and its values

• Concerns for our children’s welfare, especially when raising them in a society plagued by drugs, alcohol, sexual promiscuity and family breakdown.

• The killing of Muslims in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere - and occupation of these lands

• Anti-terror laws that unjustly target Muslims

Our community’s strength lies in being united in solving these problems. Unity of this community would mean strength economically and politically. By contrast secular party politics creates fitna, division and weakness. So, calling the community to join the Labour party, Conservative party or Liberal Democrats (or any others) would divide our community along party lines, creating bitterness and discord.

Our community’s strength lies in self reliance. The record of this community, over decades, speaks for itself: Hundreds of masajid, madrasahs and Islamic schools have largely been built by the community’s money and effort without help from the state.

These institutions need to remain free from the interference from the government and political parties who want to westernise the Muslim community. The government’s ‘Prevent’ strategy [agreed in principle by the other main parties] uses the excuse of ‘extremism’ to try to take control of our mosques and madrassahs, and change our understanding of Islam so that our children and future generations adopt the ‘free’ way of life.

Our community must voice our opposition – in a strong and united manner - to the policies which lead to the killing of Muslims in Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and elsewhere and the occupation of these lands; and support the global work for an Islamic Khilafah state that will liberate these lands and end the killing and oppression. We cannot rely on the secular parties who endorsed these colonial and murderous policies in the Middle East, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Our community must, as a fundamental priority, ensure that we secure our values and hold onto our Deen strongly in the face of all the negativity about Islam in the media and society in general.

We can only counter the lies and misconceptions about Islam and carry the correct message of Islam to the wider society if we keep Islam at the top of our agenda and focus our energies in this direction, rather than trying to curry favour with the corrupt Westminster politicians, who simply court Muslims for their own selfish desire to achieve power.

Holding on to our values

The aim of encouraging Muslim participation in the secular politics of Westminster is to see us endorse this kufr political system (based on man making laws), its values and policies, which have caused occupation and bloodshed, as well as leading to the misery of ‘Broken Britain’ today.

Yet Islam has its own unique politics and values built upon the sovereignty of Allah سبحانه وتعالى and not manmade systems that are the cause of misery in the world. If Muslims surrendered to these calls to assimilate into the system we would inevitably lose our distinct Islamic values.

The recent attacks by Jim Fitzpatrick MP and journalist Andrew Gilligan on the Islamic Forum Europe proved, if proof was needed, that the secular system and secular parties want Muslims to abandon policies based on Islam and adopt the secular values of the parties. The hopeless track record of the current Muslim MPs is clear proof of how they must abandon our communities and Islamic values to remain within those parties. The path of voting for, and participating in, these secular parties will no doubt bring harm rather than any good to our community.

We call upon the Muslim community to hold fast to Islamic values and follow a political path based upon Islam and unity of the Muslim community - enjoining the good and forbidding the munkar – and resist the false promises of influence in this kufr system at the price of losing our deen. It is Islam alone that gives this community dignity and ‘izzah and if we lose that, no amount of political activity could ever deliver meaningful results.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:
وَلَا تَرْكَنُوا إِلَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا فَتَمَسَّكُمُ النَّارُ وَمَا لَكُم مِّن دُونِ اللَّـهِ مِنْ أَوْلِيَاءَ ثُمَّ لَا تُنصَرُونَ
"And do not incline to those who do wrong, or the Fire will seize you; and you have no protectors other than Allah, nor shall you be helped.” [Translated Meaning Quran Surah Hud 11:113]

HTB

Wednesday 24 March 2010

Democracy Debates

Indeed the British legacy of the Capitalist system, its judiciary and democracy, all are Kufr


Date: 26th Rabee’ Assani 1430 AH No: PR09016

21st Apr. 2009 CE

PRESS STATEMENT

Indeed the British legacy of the Capitalist system, its judiciary and democracy, all are Kufr

Democracy is kufr because the right to legislate belongs to man instead of the Creator

There is absolutely no doubt that democracy, the British legacy of the Capitalist system and its judiciary is based on kufr while calling towards it and ruling by it is absolutely haram. The basis of democracy is neither election nor consultation rather it is the delegation of sovereignty and the right to legislate to humans. Thus, it is not surprising that in spite of having clear commands in Shari’ah, Riba is still lawful in Pakistan, not covering in public is not a crime and supporting America in killing Muslims is perfectly legitimate. All this were made possible because the 342 gods sitting in the parliament didn’t ordain these acts as “haram”. According to the constitution of Pakistan, in order to implement the shari’ah in the current democratic setup, first of all the commands of Allah (SWT) and His messenger (saaw) are sent to the parliament in the shape of an application for which various terminologies of the like of “Shari’ah Bill” are coined. As a follow up, 342 lawgivers debate and scrutinize as to what benefit or harm these laws of Allah may bring to the people. And in the end they even go to the extent of contempt of voting upon the laws of Allah (SWT). If one is luck enough, this “bill” is “graced” to become the law of the land by the sovereign permission of these gods. Hadood Ordinance Bill went through the same procedure and when its purpose expired it was changed according to their wishes by using the same democratic method. Is this the status of Shari’ah? Were the Islamic laws in the era of the Khulafah ar-Rashideen also hostage to the majority opinion? Definitely not!! Qur’an explicitly condemns those who give their personal opinions in matters in which Allah and His messenger have already judged; let alone to debate over them or to conduct vote for its acceptance or rejection. Allah (SWT) says in the Qur’an:

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلاَ مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمْ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ وَمَنْ يَعْصِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلاَلاً مُبِينًا (الأحزاب: 36)

“It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, He is indeed on a clearly wrong path.” [TMQ 31:36

In order to make democracy acceptable in the Muslim lands, the imperialist presented it in the garb of Shura (consultation) and elections so that the Muslims may accept it thinking it to be in accordance with Islam. Whilst the reality is that democracy is not just electing a ruler or having Shura (consultation) rather it is installing man as the legislator instead of Allah (SWT). This is why an elected ruler who even takes shura (consultation) but doesn’t act upon the majority opinion is never considered a democratic ruler. Hence it is proven that the real basis of democracy is lawmaking based on the majority opinion and this very aspect being contradictory to Islam makes democracy kufr. Islam gives us the system of Khilafah wherein the Khaleefah implements Islamic laws without the need of any permission or authorization from the Ahl ash-Shura (Majlis al-Ummah); similarly he himself does not have the right to legislate. In the Khilafah the Khaleefah is also elected by the people and he consults the representatives of the Ummah in order to run the day-to-day affairs of the country however there is absolutely no voting with regards to decision making for the implementation of Shari’ah. As long as we continue to make the majority approval a binding condition for the implementation of Shari’ah, the goal for the implementation of Islam will continue to be a mirage. The need of the hour is that we uproot this hurdle of democracy so that implementation of Islam is made possible.

As for the current capitalist system, which is the legacy of the British Raj, it is absolutely kufr. What could be a stronger evidence than this that today un-Islamic taxes such as the GST and the Income Tax are sucking people’s blood; obscenity and vulgarity are being spread under the guise of ‘freedom of expression’; foreign companies are plundering the resources of Pakistan under the name of privatization of public assets; judicial system under the Government of India Act 1935 is committing gross injustice upon the people and above all, man has enthroned himself in place of the Creator as the lawgiver.

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been struggling for the last 55 years against dictatorship as well as democracy and for the establishment of the Khilafah. We demand from the people of power present in the Ummah to pay heed to the Ummah’s desire to live under Islam and practically take part in establishing the Khilafah by providing support and Nusrah to Hizb ut-Tahrir. We also demand that the Ullema and the Islamic parties should openly declare democracy as being kufr without any fear of blame so that the confusion present in the Ummah regarding this very issue may be redressed.


Naveed Butt
The Official Spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Pakistan

Democracy Debates

Democracy Haram, Democracy Shirk

Democracy is the political framework of the Capitalist thought, i.e. the ruling system that the Capitalist states and their like implement.Democracy, for those who embrace it, means that people rule themselves by themselves with the systems that they choose. Oftentimes, Capitalists refer to their system as "The Democratic System", but such a connotation is incorrect for more than one reason:Democracy was not innovated by the Capitalists but had been preceded by the Greeks. Moreover, they were not the only ones who implemented it; the Marxist-Socialists claimed that they were democrats and they consistently pretended that they implemented democracy.


The most important element of democracy is that it makes the human being and not the Creator as the legislator, which is logical for those who call for the detachment of religion from life because this detachment means to transfer the right to legislate from the Creator to the human being. The Capitalists, in this issue did not discuss whether the Creator has obliged man to follow a certain law and implement it in his life, nor did they even examine this issue at all, rather they appointed man as the legislator without any discussion.

For Muslims to adopt democracy means to disbelieve in all - may Allah _ forbid - the decisive and conclusive Evidences,among which are many Qur'anic verses which oblige them to follow the law of Allah _ and to reject any other law. Moreover, these erses consider any one of them who does not follow or mplement the law of Allah _ as either a Kaafir, a Zalim, or a Fasiq,

"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are non-believers (Kaafiroon)." [TMQ AL-Ma'idah: 44]

"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are oppressors (zalimoon)." [TMQ AL-Ma'idah: 45]

"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are transgressors (fasiqoon)." [TMQ AL-Ma'idah: 47]

Thus, whoever does not rule by whatever Allah _ has revealed, denying Allah _'s right to legislate, as is the case with those who believe in democracy, is a Kaafir according to the explicit words of the Qur'an, because by doing so he is rejecting those decisive verses,and denying a conclusive text makes a person a Kaafir as the Muslim Fuqaha' agreed unanimously.

The Kaafiroon and their agents who rule the Muslim countries, as well as all those who call for democracy who are counted from among the Muslims, whether they are individuals or movements, realise that the basis for democracy is the rejection of the law of Allah _ and putting man in the place of the Creator. For this reason, they do not present democracy from this perspective, but instead claim that democracy means people ruling themselves by themselves, with equality and justice prevailing among the people, and the accountability of the ruler guaranteed.Although democracy explicitly implies the rejection of the laws of Allah and following the law of His _ creation, the advocates of democracy intentionally avoid addressing the issue of rejecting the law of Allah.

The remaining claims of democracy have no actual reality, the claim that people rule themselves by themselves is a major fallacy. In all Capitalist Democratic societies, people do not rule themselves by themselves, because this is a fanciful idea. In reality, people are ruled by a certain group of influential people, such as the prominent Capitalists in the United States and the aristocrats in England, which are two of the most deeply-rooted Capitalist Democratic countries. These influential groups in the Capitalist countries hold the necessary means to bring whoever they want into the government and legislative assemblies (parliaments) so that the laws which are passed and those charged with their implementation would be serving their interests.

Regarding what is claimed about equality, justice,and accountability of the rulers, these are all theoretical, without any compatibility with reality. It is enough for one to look to America, the leader of the democratic world, to find that equality, justice, and accountability are all selective, enjoyed and practiced by those who have a particular colour, religion, race, or financial wealth.The suffering faced by the blacks, Indians, those of Latin and Asian origins, those who are not Protestant, and those who are not from Western European backgrounds is evidence enough that what is claimed of democracy is - despite some exceptional cases - merely theory.Consequently, it is not allowed for a Muslim to accept democracy, because it is Kufr and gives man what is entitled exclusively for the Creator. It is obligatory upon every Muslim to reject it and to challenge all those who propagate it.

Source: http://neocarvi.blogspot.com/2007/04/democracy-haram-democracy-shirk.html

Tuesday 23 March 2010

Ex-ministers ‘cash for influence’: How Democracy Corrupts....?

The latest storm to hit Westminster, after the MPs expenses scandal, is the revelation that several former cabinet ministers were allegedly trying to sell their knowledge of government workings to the highest business bidders and claims they would even use their influence to approach former colleagues in government in order to influence policy.


Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon have all been suspended following reports in the Sunday Times and a Channel 4 Dispatches programme over claims they were prepared to influence policy for cash. Undercover reporters filming the former ministers uncovered the full arrogance of the ministers for hire. At the same time Hundreds of breaches of parliamentary rules by MPs who accepted free overseas trips from foreign governments was uncovered by a BBC investigation.

However, this behaviour is not new. In the mid 1990’s the Conservative Party was dogged by similar allegations of cash for questions.

These allegations come after other recent revelations that Tony Blair reportedly took £1m fee from the Kuwait’s ruling family and may have profited from advising an oil firm that struck an oil deal in Iraq.

Again, this is nothing new. After leaving office, many Conservative and Labour ex-ministers received lucrative directorships in companies that are profiting from government contracts.

People always say never mix religion and politics but the western cocktail of money and politics has caused huge problems in personal behaviour, in society’s values and in global peace and security.

The Islamic system takes the money out of politics. The democratic electoral circus that comes around every four or five years positively encourages the growth of money in politics forcing politicians to either raise tawdry amounts of money for re-election or maximise their own wealth before they get booted out.

The Islamic system though not immune from the temptations on offer, seeks to actively detach both finance and the interests of corporations from politics.

Whereas capitalism and democracies are fused at the hip in the west, so creating a class of politicians who are either personally corrupt or beholden to a corporate class, no such influence is permitted in an Islamic political model where strong restrictions surrounding relationships and influence are in force.

The Islamic economic system is also the complete antithesis to the capitalist economy, putting the problems of the ordinary man above big business.

A Khilafah state is the only vehicle to establish this Islamic political system and today provides a unique opportunity to show that there is a better way to manage politics. The Muslim world, when it implemented Islam in its politics, was a giant in global affairs, led in science, prosperity, healthcare and helped Europe emerge from its dark ages.
 
Source: HTB

Saturday 20 March 2010

Sinhalese government initiates to construct Sinhala rule in the East – Sambanthan allege


Tamil National Alliance has alleged that the Mahinda Government is attempting to eliminate all the Tamil representations in the Eastern province and trying to construct Sinhala rule. Alliance Leader R.Sambanthan stated, such attempt will be defeated by Tamil National Alliance was stated by him at a peoples meeting at Jaffna. He said presently Tamil political representation is much dearth in the eastern province, hence the Tamil National Alliance, require more seats in the north, for which there is much necessity.
In the meantime, the peoples meeting which was held on last Wednesday in Jaffna, about 500 to 600 persons were assembled. This clearly establishes, the respect, which the northern people had towards the Tamil National Alliance is getting fading away, is according to Political observers.

This is also the reason for the splits occurred within the Tamil National Alliance party and the failure to establish their accurate policy was stated. Further the TNA is functioning individually by trusting the migrated people, is the present accusations against them.

Source: lankasrinews
Sri Lanka’s Minorities tragedy: Some Flash Back

Friday 12 March 2010

US and UK association in torture frequent, widespread and from multiple sources

Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of British intelligence service MI5, admitted US authorities tortured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in order to gain a confession. Manningham-Buller, who headed MI5 between 2002-2007, was speaking and answering questions after delivering a lecture in the House of Lords.

She revealed that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush "all watched 24" – the fictional US TV drama that popularised the ticking bomb theory. This theory hypothesised an imminent terrorist attack that could be averted only by gaining information from a suspect in custody, providing justification for torturing the suspect if necessary.

Manningham-Buller’s admission is further embarrassment for the British government and its intelligence services which have been resolute in denying any involvement in torture. On 10th February 2010 Britain’s highest judges ruled against the British government in the case of Binyam Muhammed.

Manningham-Buller is also reported to have said, "It wasn't actually until after I retired that I read that, in fact, he [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] had been waterboarded 160 times.” The fact that she now denies knowing about mistreatment of detainees was mocked by some who reminded her that all she needed to do was read the daily newspapers during her tenure in office.

Accounts, and not just allegations, of US and British involvement in torture are now frequent, widespread and from multiple sources, including intelligence staff. However, why has it taken Manningham-Buller so many years to speak out about the torture? Moreover, why is the British government and intelligence services threatening and coercing authorities against raising claims of torture?

Furthermore, revelations that key former US administration officials - Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush - supported the use of torture based on a TV drama is a damning indictment against the values of human rights these very same individuals professed to further in invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

Muslim lands have been invaded and occupied in the name of spreading freedom and democracy. However, these same values have been so readily and routinely violated through torture and pointless deaths of many thousands. Now, the US and British governments are attempting to cover the failure of their compromised values in an attempt to hide the truth about their disastrous foreign policy.

It is beyond belief that western politicians still claim - with a straight face - the values of freedom and democracy as non-negotiable!

Source: HTB
Ends/

Tuesday 9 March 2010

Iraq: What has Democracy Delivered?


IT is absurd that while the Chilcot Inquiry questions Britain’s political class about the very justification for the invasion of Iraq the very same western colonists are eagerly promoting parliamentary elections in the country to justify their disastrous occupation.


The vote in 2005 established democracy, the big prize of invasion. Today’s parliamentary vote has some 6000 candidates fighting for 325 parliamentary seats.

As Iraqi politicians urge the people to vote again – what good has western backed democracy delivered in Iraq? This is the reality of Iraq toady!

 Lack of basic human security remains the main concern for the people

 Bomb blasts still litter the country

 Corrupt politicians are endemic

 Ethnic tensions divide the country now split along provincial lines

 Sectarianism partitions local and regional communities

 Unemployment remains amongst the highest in the Middle East

 Whilst amongst the most oil rich countries in the world Iraq continues to suffer from fuel shortages

 Basic utility infrastructure – clean water, electricity, gas, - remains elusive for most people

Seven years after the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein all that’s changed is a corrupt one man system nurtured by the west has been replaced by a so-called multi party political system which has festered ethnic and sectarian interests with western backed politicians and political alliances.

Democracy after about 200 years of application in Britain has perhaps never been at the low ebb as it is today. Yet it is astonishing that it is being sold to the Muslim world as the political solution to emulate.

It is heart wrenching to see Baghdad today when it is compared to Baghdad - the one-time capital of the Islamic state - with its rich and cultured history. Only when the Muslim world returns to the Caliphate system will it be able to repeat its successful history under the unified rule of Islam.

Source: HTB
Ends/