The Hussein-McMahon Correspondance

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

What follows is a letter the British High Commissioner in Cairo sent to the Sherif of Mecca back in 1915. Through T.E. Lawrence (also foolishly known as "Lawrence of Arabia") the Arabs and the English settled an agreement in that they will fight against the Ottoman Caliphate alongside the UK for the promise (as will be seen in the following letter) that they will get all the Arab territories that were ruled by the Ottomans for an "Arab" Caliphate. As history later proves, the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Balfour Declaration both show that the British never intended to keep their promise and instead, after the war was over, they turned against the Arabs and divided it with France and Italy into colonies.


October 24, 1915.

I have received your letter of the 29th Shawal, 1333, with much pleasure and your expression of friendliness and sincerity have given me the greatest satisfaction.

I regret that you should have received from my last letter the impression that I regarded the question of limits and boundaries with coldness and hesitation; such was not the case, but it appeared to me that the time had not yet come when that question could be discussed in a conclusive manner.

I have realised, however, from your last letter that you regard this question as one of vital and urgent importance. I have, therefore, lost no time in informing the Government of Great Britain of the contents of your letter, and it is with great pleasure that I communicate to you on their behalf the following statement, which I am confident you will receive with satisfaction.

The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama.and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded.
With the above modification, and without prejudice to our existing treaties with Arab chiefs, we accept those limits.
As for those regions lying within those frontiers wherein Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interests of her ally, France, I am empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain to give the following assurances and make the following assurances and make the following reply to your letter:
(1) Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca.
(2) Great Britain will guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression and will recognise their inviolability.
(3) When the situation admits, Great Britain will give to the Arabs her advice and will assist them to establish what may appear to be the most suitable forms of government those various territories.
(4) On the other hand, it is understood that the Arabs have decided to seek the advice and guidance of Great Britain only, and that such European advisers and officials as may be required for the formation of a sound form of administration will be British.
(5) With regard to the vilayets of Bagdad and Basra, the Arabs will recognise that the established position and interests of Great Britain necessitate special administrative arrangements in order to secure these territories from foreign aggression to promote the welfare of the local populations and to safeguard our mutual economic interests.
I am convinced that this declaration will assure you beyond all possible doubt of the sympathy of Great Britain towards the aspirations of her friends the Arabs and will result in a firm and lasting alliance, the immediate results of which will be the expulsion of the Turks from the Arab countries and the freeing of the Arab peoples from the Turkish yoke, which for so many years has pressed heavily upon them.

I have confined myself in this letter to the more vital and important questions, and if there are any other matters dealt with in your letters which I have omitted to mention, we may discuss them at some convenient date in the future.

It was with very great relief and satisfaction that I heard of the safe arrival of the Holy Carpet and the accompanying offerings which, thanks to the clearness of your directions and the excellence of your arrangements, were landed without trouble or mishap in spite of the dangers and difficulties occasioned by the present sad war. May God soon bring a lasting peace and freedom of all peoples.

I am sending this letter by the hand of your trusted and excellent messenger, Sheikh Mohammed ibn Arif ibn Uraifan, and he will inform you of the various matters of interest, but of less vital importance, which I have not mentioned in this letter.



(Compliments).
(Signed): A. HENRY MCMAHON

Traditions

bismillah
assalamu alaiakum

So everyone agrees that Islam is a way of life. Infact, everyone will argue for how complete Islam is and how it answers everything. That's what our parents taught us, that's what we say when we argue with non-Muslims, that's what we hear in alot of nasheeds and poetry. That is what the prophet (saaws) said. Now how about we stop for a moment and ask ourselves if we actually follow what we preach. I do apologise as I too hate it when a Muslim with a voice starts having a go at the ummah and calls it incompetent, not practising and not deserving of him. I am not having a go at the Muslims over here as they are the greatest nation, have always been and never have went nor will go below that position no matter what some of the self-proclaimed salafis tell you. What I am going for here is a particular element that exists with some Muslims.

First, let us define tradition. Tradition is a practice or a belief that is passed down from generation to generation in a specific region. Traditions are usually followed for the simple argument that "it has always been followed". Now since we all believe that Islam is complete may I then ask, is there any need for following ANY traditions? The answer is simply no. However not all traditions are to be attacked. Traditions could simply manifest in a form of a physical personal matter or preference. For example food, clothing, architecture, etc. These things create a special character to a region and should be celebrated and loved as they show the humanity of a people. Obviously, these traditions would then have to be given the Islamic restrictions if the follower is a Muslim. For example in the food, it has to be halal. For the clothes, it has to cover the aura in both men and women. For the architecture, it should not include any idols. Neither Allah (swt) nor his prophet (saaws) every told us what to eat for dinner, but they did say that the meat should be halaal meat. Thus if the meat is not halaal then it is haraam in which case we steer clear of it. Matters which Islam did not give an opinion in (like what's for dinner) is called mubaah and thus we can make our own opinions on such things.

However, what if traditions deal with issues that are not mubaah and thus Allah or his prophet gave an opinion about already. And we all know that the opinions of Allah and the prophet (whom of which Allah said in the Quraan, does not speak of his own whim but it is all a revelation) are above all other opinions and thus invalidates everything else that clashes with them. Such traditions then become haraam. Since Islam only speaks for the benefit of mankind as a whole (and not only the ummah) this means that any traditions or opinions that conflict with Islam will certainly harm the people effected one way or another. For example the tradition of burying the daughter alive the Arabs used to have before Islam, or the three different ways women used to get married in before Islam came that saida Aisha told us about, etc. Islam came and abolished such acts as they go against Islamic law and thus hurt the individual AND the community.

Today, unfortunately, we are not free from such traditions in the Muslim world. Several families still hold to traditions that go against Islam and thus is forbidden to be held. What is the most common of these traditions that managed to survive usually revolves around the domination and the enforcement of this domination of man over women. I am specifically talking about marriage. Such traditions exist in the poorer parts of this ummah like in rural areas of Syria and Egypt or specific regions in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Ignorance is excusable in Islam. Thus if you are not aware and nobody taught you what is right and what is wrong, then you cannot be blamed. However, what is very sad, is that some of those followers of tradition actually know better. They know what is right and what is wrong and yet they are too weak in imaan to do what is right. An example (not of traditions but of people who knowingly choose the wrong option) is mothers who cannot bear listen to their son asking for shahadaa. They do know that a shaheed will enter firdous, the highest level in jannah. However they are too weak in imaan to bear thinking about it in dunya. This is an example of how the heart could be stronger than the mind and thus if the heart is not pure it could have negative effects on the mind. The mind logically knows what is right and what is wrong, but the heart follows whims and desires. It weeps and laughs and makes us all human.

May Allah make our imaan stronger, our hearts pure with your love and our mind knowledged in your deen ya rab al alameen. ameen. ameen. ameen.

Assalamu alaikum

Freemasons

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

I was just watching on the Sharjah channel a religious program called Safwatul Safwah. The sheikh giving the lecture is ٍٍSheikh Umar abdul Kaafi. Usually the lectures revolve around the Quraan and its tafsir and some other spiritual aspects of this deen. I watched several of his talks and mashallah he is quite good. Today, however, he decided to enter the field of politics.

He was speaking about the story of Moses and banu Israaeel. About halfway through the lecture he started talking about freemasonry and the Illuminati and the protocols and some other garbage about the great plan in the shadows to take over the world.

First of all I will not even try to show the idiocy of such a theory and I honestly don't care about the signs, the books and what leaked documents say. Whether such a theory is true or not is also none of my concern. I honestly do think the sheikh is a good scholar, but my request to him is to remain within the field of spirituality and I will whole heartidly listen to him. But once he entered politics he showed his complete incompetence and absolute ignorance in the state of the ummah.

There are Muslims in the Muslim world who cannot find food to put on their plates. Jobs are difficult to find and education is in the garbage, nay even the Islamic education is not taught to its full capacity. Go to any of those Muslims in the street and ask them how much do they see the effect of Freemasonry on their lives. In fact, did ANY of us saw any effect of freemasonry in our lives? The fact of the matter is, whether we "expose" Freemasonry or not it still wouldn't give food to the hungry man in the street. It still wouldn't give me the opportunity to have a decent education in my home country. The fact of the matter is, our problem is a problem within our society and could only be solved if we look within our own circles and solved it. If there is a party in the US that is trying to take over the world (for the past several hundred years may I add) then so be it. IF such a theory is infact true, what exactly are you going to do about it? What? What's the plan? Or are these people who believe in such conspiracies just looking for something to read and kill time in?

Once you find a method to feed the people, give them security and the ability to live by Islam, THEN we turn to such talk and see what we can do about it. But don't go to a starving nation and start yappering on about some evil shadowy organisation that is aiming for world domination when not only do you not tell us what we should do about it and how we could defeat it, but you also cannot tell us how IF we ever defeat it, could we change the sorry state the ummah is in!

Walaah nothing makes me angrier than Muslim scholars selling lies and ignorance. The prophet (pbuh) had a duwaa which said; "may Allah keep us away from ilmin laa yanf3 (useless knowledge).
Ameen

wassalam

Demonstration in London

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

Not much of a supporter of demonstrations myself, especially if the demonstration is towards the US embassy - completely pointless. I would have rather demonstrated at the Somali embassy instead, but what can you do. Alhamdullilah anyway, we do our best and the rest is on Allah.

National Demonstration to the US Embassy
The Re-invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Somalia

Saturday 20th January 2007
Convene 10am at Paddington Green (Nearest Tube Edgware Road)

Salafi

Bismillah alrahmaan al raheem

Assalamu alaikum
The following article is neither an attack nor a "exposing..." article. It is simply my view on a group of good brothers who I believe in my limited knowledge to be making an error. I love those brothers and I really do respect them just as I love anyone who loves the deen of Allah.

My minor grudge is with the self-proclaiming "salafi" brothers. Salafi brothers claim to be followers of the as-salaf as-saaleh. as-Salaf as-saaleh are the good Muslims who came after the tabieen who came after the sahabaa who lived during the time of the prophet (pbuh). The prophet (pbuh) taught Islam to the sahabaa and the sahabaa taught Islam to the tabe’een and the tabe’een taught Islam to the salaf.

First, I know of no example of one of the salaf as-saaleh to title himself with a name implying that he is a follower of the tabe’een - let alone a group of the salaf. Neither do I know of one of the tabe’een to proclaim himself with a title implying he is a follower of the sahabaa - let alone a group of the tabe’een.

There is no doubt that the tabe’een and the salaf as-saaleh were good Muslims who worked and lived for Islam. We all learn from them and their writings, however Islam is not based on their jurisprudence.

There are two wahees revealed to the prophet (pbuh) from Allah. The Quraan and the wisdom of the prophet (pbuh). The wisdom of the prophet (pbuh) is what we know as his sunnah. Allah said in the Quraan:
"Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire
It is naught but revelation that is revealed"
[Al Najm 3-4]

Islamic jurisprudence has two more sub-categories which are used although these subcategories are also based on the Quraan and the Sunnah. These are ijmaa al sahabaa and ijtihaad. ijmaa al sahabaa is what the sahabaa agreed upon. Some Muslims I meet claim that ijmaa is not only for the sahabaa, but the ijmaa of the Muslims. This is due to the hadith which states that the Muslims as a whole will never agree on kufr. Therefore what the great majority of Muslims agree on (their ijmaa) must be the truth. I see both views as valid. Ijtihaad is the study and research of the Quraan and the Sunnah to reach an Islamic verdict. Only mujtahids are qualified to carry out ijtihaad. The four main schools of sunni Islam are the ijtihaad of mujtahids (al Shafee, etc.). These are the only methods of retrieving Islamic verdicts. As for followers, there are three levels; the mujtahid, the mutabi'i and the a'ami (or muqalid). The mutabi'i is the person who has gained important and general knowledge on Islam but not enough to qualify him as a mujtahid. Thus a mutabi'i follows mujtahids on different issues after learning the daleels
(evidences) of that mujtahid in that particular issue. The a'ami is a Muslim who has no deep knowledge in Islamic jurisprudence and thus follows one mujtahid and trusts him on his ijtihaad without knowing the daleel.

This basically sums up how Islamic jurisprudence is reached in one paragraph. Nowhere in here does anything relate to people other than the prophet (pbuh) and the wahees that were revealed to him except those mujtahids who reach their ijtihaad through studying the revelations. Now if there are two levels of Muslim followers (excluding the Mujtahids), this means ALL the Muslims from ahlul Sunnah follow the ijtihaad of a mujtahid and ALL mujtahids reach their ijtihaad through the study of the two revelations. With that, there is absolutely no space for a group to come out, calling themselves SALAFIS and proclaiming to follow as-salaf as-saaleh differentiating themselves from other Muslims.

Lastly I would like to make one thing clear. I am in no way attacking the concept of creating groups. Joining a group which you agree with is important and good for the ummah and yourself as an individual Muslim. However the group should have a purpose that makes it unique from other groups otherwise it creates un-needed divisions. To create a group with no particular purpose, with no particular difference between it and other groups, with nothing that makes it a viable group except for the title they hold as it is of the same concept as the rest of the individuals within the ummah, is just creating divisions with absolutely no point. You can create a group to, say, free Palestine if you see the other groups working towards that aim are doing it incorrectly. You can create a group to teach the Muslims Islam if you see the other groups working towards that aim are doing it incorrectly. But to create a group which only has one claim and that is to be following the ijtihaad of mujtahids means that the rest of the ummah which does not proscribe to that group are not following the ijtihaad of mujtahids, which is not only
incorrect, but also a very dangerous concept to be carrying.

I know several good Muslim brothers who claim to be salafies. I also know alot of good Muslims brothers who refuse to proscribe themselves to such a concept and I see no difference between them and the "salafi" brothers. Not only does the "salafi" proclamation does not make any sense, but it also causes un-needed divisions between ahlul Sunnah.

Please correct me if I said anything wrong or if I have misunderstood anything.
wassalam

Filasteen فلسطين

Bismillahil rahmaanir raheem

The following article is written not as an advice, but as a warning to the Muslim ummah of their neglected duty towards Islam and themselves. First I will go through a quick refutation of all the excuses used to justify Zionism before I speak of the solution. This is because we cannot know what the solution is when there is doubt as to the legitimacy of the Zionist state.

Historical Homeland of the Jews
The claim that is being made is that Palestine has always been homeland of the Jewish people and thus they have an ancient claim to the land. Several of these people would tend to go as far as to say that it was their land until the Muslim invaders conquered it and threw them out.

Before I refute this claim, I would just like to state that the simple fact that a Zionist would actually use this as an excuse shows clear and obvious signs of desperation. It is absolutely pathetic for a group of people to lay claim to a land on the sole excuse that several thousands of generations ago, their ancestors used to live there. However, putting that aside, the claim is still inaccurate.

Firstly the people who lived in the land of Palestine were initially the Canaanites who weren't Jewish. They were invaded by the 12 Hebrew tribes who conquered the land and established the Kingdom of Israel. This Kingdom was later divided into two kingdoms; Judah and the Kingdom of Israel, both of which were soon afterwards destroyed by the Babylonians and Assyrians respectively (around 500 BC). By then, the Jews were exiled and Jerusalem destroyed. The Persians later conquered the land and permitted the Jews to return. Persian rule was then replaced by Greek rule and Greek rule was later replaced by Roman rule. It was not until around 600 AD that the Muslims took over the land from the Romans.

Land Promised to the Jews by God
I only need to say one point about this. Before the creation of Israel (and it is arguable that even to this very day) Jews are a minority in the region. So with all due respect, the majority of the population (Muslims) cannot even pretend to care what a God worshipped by a minority promised them.

The Jews Bought the Land
According to the official website of the Jewish National Fund the Jews purchased about 7% of the land of Palestine. The truth is, however, even this 7% is technically not "purchased" in its true meaning of the word since some of these lands were concessions made by the British during their mandate of Palestine in the 1930s.

And even, for the sake of argument, if we take the Zionists for their word and their claims that they purchased alot more lands from the Arabs, that still gives no one the right to establish a state. I own a house in a foreign country, do I have the right to establish my own state with laws and elections within that is completely independent of anyone else? Certainly not! But then they argue that the land was under the British mandate (which supported the creation of a Zionist state) and not under Arab or Turkish rule, thus technically no laws were broken. Well, this leads us to the next point.

The British Mandate
There once was a snake called Thomas Edward Lawrence and this snake spoke to the desert Arabs and made them lust for the forbidden fruit of Nationalism.
The First World War was fought between the Allies (mainly UK, France, US and Russia) against the Axis (mainly Germany, Austro-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottomans). The British employed their agent Lawrence to harvest a discomfort the Arabs were already feeling towards the Ottomans and make it erupt into a full scale war against the Ottomans to aid the British. This however only came at a promise made by the British very well known to the Arabs. The promise of an independent and united “Arab” Islamic state – as compared to the current “Turkish” state. This promise, which was made to the gullible, foolish and arrogant Sherif Hussein and later his son Faisal, was in return for an “Arab revolt” against the “Turks”. In reality what the British, together with the French, had in the form of reward towards the Arabs for their blood was nothing more than the division of the Arab states into more than a dozen states each colonized by a European mandate. What was also in store was the loss of Palestine and the ironic, yet fitting, coronation of Faisal as king of Iraq (after he was slapped out of Syria by the French) under the British national anthem!

So not only was the British mandate the result of back stabbing the Arabs after they helped the Allies win the First World War, but a second point could be seen. Resistance to the British mandate and later the Zionist state has not stopped since the Arabs realized that the Europeans betrayed them. It was ongoing and remains ongoing with the same determination, if not more, until this very day. We never stopped claiming for the land and kept on fighting for it. This alone symbolizes that the land is under occupation. The Red Indians of the New World fought for the Americas but failed and gradually gave up after they were almost completely annihilated. For a Red Indian to come today to reclaim his land is absurd. However if the Red Indians never stopped fighting for their land, then certainly they would still have a claim to this day and it would never sound so absurd as it does in today’s reality.

The Problem
So that was a very quick overview to give anyone a simple understanding as to why the very creation of the state of Israel was not only a mistake and a crime, but was also based on lies, betrayals and blood. Blood, mainly blood - a lot of blood and since the Arab revolt of 1916 until this very day the cost in blood for that mistake by the Muslims did not cease. The mistake that triggered all our woes of today, the very reason why we are currently in the lowly state that we are. The mistake of siding with a non-believer against our Caliph, however much the Caliph might be an oppressor. Never was a day under the Ottomans as horrible as we are today. Never were we in a lower state than we are today. Umar (ra) once said: “We are tribe whom Allah has given honour through Islam and the day we search for honour elsewhere, Allah will humiliate us.” And by Allah Umar spoke the truth.

So now back to the main topic of this essay; what is the solution? All of what I said was history and long gone. The important question is what is required of us at the present to correct our forefathers’ mistakes? Well, if we understand that the Israeli state has no right to exist under any law and most importantly, under Islamic Shariah law, then we understand that we cannot accept its existence on our soil. If the US wishes to give a state of its fifty states to the Zionists and let them establish Israel there, then hey, they have my blessings. But to come to a foreign country and give land away, or as someone once said; “one nation giving the land of another nation to a third nation”, is simply not acceptable. What is more this state is openly aggressive against the original inhabitants and without any shame continues to prosecute the Palestinians. For how long will there be stateless people on the borders of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan? When will their homes and lands return to them?

Our last caliph, Abdul Hamid II, replied to the Zionist movement when they attempted to contact him with the aim of purchasing land in Palestine saying what follows.

"Advise Dr. Herzl not to take any further steps in his project. I can not give away a handful of the soil of this land for it is not my own, it is for all the Islamic Nation. The Islamic Nation that fought Jihad for the sake of this land and they have watered it with their blood. The Jews may keep their money and millions. If the Islamic Khalifah State is one day destroyed then they will be able to take Palestine without a price! But while I am alive, I would rather push a sword into my body than see the land of Palestine cut and given away from the Islamic State. This is something that will not be, I will not start cutting our bodies while we are alive."

Thus the solution cannot be simpler. It certainly is not a two state solution whether on the current borders or the borders of any point in history. The solution is a one state solution where the rightful owner returns to his land. Now by no means am I attacking Jews or saying we should butcher them or throw them out of the country by force. My attack is not on Jews, but on Zionists. Zionism which aims to establish a non-Islamic state on Muslim soil is what is being attacked and it is this which should be eradicated. If non-Zionist Jews wishes to stay then they are welcomed to stay just like the Christians are. Zionist, be they Jews, Christians or even so-called Muslims, certainly have no home amongst us.

The Solution
So now we know what the correct solution is to the Palestinian problem, the next question would now be; how do we get there? Any sane man would agree that any nation under occupation has a right to resistance. This rule has been almost literally experienced by all major countries in the world. The simple fact is; civilians (people like you and me, with jobs, education, families, etc.) will only resist an occupation if they were prosecuted. Some nations welcome invaders, others fight but after a short while calm down due to the benefits they see coming of the change. Both examples are not new to Muslims who know the history of Islamic conquests. Those who resist an occupation for almost 80 years (like the Palestinians) are without doubt under severe oppression. And still yet all this weighs to nothing when compared with the hadith that says “he who gives away a hands-span of Muslim land will have its like in hell fire.” Therefore as Muslims, speaking of a two state solution or of any compromise less than returning the whole land to the rule of Islam is a grave error which should be corrected.

But is the solution for Palestine an armed resistance? My answer is no. Resistance to occupation is indeed a duty, however in the current state the Muslims are in it is not a solution. Muslims only need to look at their history to find the solution. The only time we were honoured as a people was under Islamic rule. The only time we were respected as a people was under Islamic rule. The only time we had security and freedom to worship Allah in the correct manner was under Islamic rule. Even in times when the Ottomans were extremely weak, they never stopped defending Islam. How can we forget their warning to attack France when a theater in Paris threatened to show a play that insulted the prophet (pbuh)? And today when they insult him what happens? What do our rulers do? A boycott done by the Muslims and a few violent demonstrations that led to the deaths of more than a dozen Muslims in several different Muslim countries? And what, by Allah, what came out of it? Several other newspapers published the cartoons in defiance! Respect us? Certainly not. Not today, not in the state we are in. Remember what Umar (raa) said; without Islam we will never have any honour. Islam here is not meant to be simply your five daily prayers, no. In another quote, Umar (raa) said; “there is no Islam without unity, no unity without leadership and no leadership without obedience.”

It is obvious that no group of people can be united without leadership. We are humans and we have different opinions in different matters according to our understanding. Take Muslims today for example, is there unity? We cannot even agree on when Ramadaan starts when it is just a matter of seeing a physical object in the sky. You would think that something so material and requires almost no personal judgments would be easy to reach an agreement on, yet subhaan Allah, it is as if this matter is a sign from Allah to show us how divided we are as a nation. Thus leadership is vital for there to be unity. The importance of leadership in Islam is further stressed by the prophet (pbuh) when he said “when three or more people travel they should elect one of them to be their amir (leader)” and leadership in Islam is clearly defined. Leadership of a group means that the group should obey their leader which thus implies that the leader gives orders. Therefore the duty of a leader is to give orders to his people in order to guide them to what is best for them. Now if we are talking about leadership in Islam, then we are talking about a leader that gives orders according to Islam. Now if leadership is meant to bring unity, then it is unsensical to have more than one leader for the Muslims since that only brings division. This again is further stressed by the prophet (pbuh) when he said “If the people begin giving baya (pledge of allegiance) to two people then kill the second one of them.” Therefore as far as the ummah as a whole is concerned, it can only have one amir and this amir should rule by Islam. This description fits only one title and we call it khaleefah (caliph).

Returning more directly to the issue of Palestine; what will solve the problem is nothing less than a caliph. A caliph not only implies a united Muslim world, but also implies the implementation of Allah’s deen on Muslim lands; leadership, unity and obedience. The prophet (pbuh) said: “Your leader is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they protect themselves.” Thus without this leader not only are we divided, but we have no shield to neither fight behind nor protect ourselves.

I will complete this article by a surah from the Quraan may it serve as a reminder to us all;

“And from among you there should be a party who invite to good and enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong, and these it is that shall be successful.”
[The Holy Quran 3:104]

The Third World War

bismillah
assalamullah ala al Muslimeen

Sometimes you hear things that would trigger certain reactions in your mind and you would start making comparisions here and there. I was in a discussion a couple of weeks ago and the following are the thoughts I came up with thinking about that discussion a few days later. To some this might be old news, to others inshallah it will be interesting.

First, let us go back to the Cold War. The Cold War was a war between two ideologies - two outlooks on life; Communism and Capitalism. In the world there are three main ideologies, Communism, Capitalism and Islam. These are the three main political systems that provide answers to different problems man face. Once that is understood we go to the second step of our discussion; McCarthyism.
Very very briefly; McCarthyism is a period during 1940s/50s where the US started a purge against Communists. It was a time Communism was spreading quite fast and making the USSR a serious competitor to Western Capitalist interests on the world stage. The Capitalist nations world wide set out to extradite and "expose" Communists within their midst. Freedom of speech? Not when it is for an ideology that threatens the ruling one.

Now let us look at Islam. We should keep in mind that Shariah law can only be inforced by a government. In other words, in a society where shariah is not inforced, individuals are still not allowed to carry out the laws of shariah of their own will and judgment. But assuming that there is an Islamic society, let's look at what the prophet (pbuh) said the hukum in such circumstances are;
The prophet (pbuh) said; “The blood of a Muslim who professes that there is no god but Allah and that I am His Messenger, is sacrosanct except in three cases: a married adulterer; a person who has killed another human being; and a person who has abandoned his religion, while splitting himself off from the community.”
In other words apostasy is punishable by death only when the individual who apostats threatens the community. Islam does give people the freedom to choose their religion, however it will not tolerate people who threaten the deen or the implementation of the shariah (the Islamic government).

But you might ask, "well there are Muslims AND Communists in the Capitalist world today. If it was an ideological war then why aren't they being purged?" First of all, Communism was defeated. Ever since the fall of the USSR, all those groups and parties that proclaim to be Communists are either not real Communists (just hippies who like the slogans of Communism) or are too weak to be of any threat. So they are tolerated so people will get the impression that there is a freedom of speech in the Capitalist world. As for the Muslims, this is an even easier one to answer. The Caliphate was abolished in 1924 and since then the Muslims went towards different ideologies, Nationalism, Nasserism, Socialism - all the -isms you can think of. During those periods, Islam was indeed not a threat whatsoever. However, can you honestly say today Islam and the Muslims are not getting under attack? Even the peaceful Muslims within Western communities are getting attacked and not only by individuals in the Western society, but by the media AND the governments as well! This is happening in a time when Islamic awareness is becoming much larger than ever in modern history. It certainly has not become a full-scale purge of Muslims, but it is quite clear that it is certainly going down that road. Personally I believe that the establishment of the Khilafah will be the trigger that will push the Western governments to purge their lands of Muslims. Personally, I would be happy when that day comes. Happy for the establishment of Allah's deen on Earth, and inshallah I will be at the gates welcoming Muslims thrown out of the West to their new homes under Allah's cool shade. What is happening today as far as the battles being fought between the West and the Muslims - be that Mujahideen or inocent civilians - is certainly a preliminary to the fullscale war between the West and Islam after the establishment of the Khilafah state.

wassalam