Islamic Unity

The Hussein-McMahon Correspondance

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 08:03:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:45:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:50:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 06:35:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:36:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:55:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 15:03:00 +0000

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

The Hijaab and the Nikaab

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:24:00 +0000

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

So they want to ban the nikaab in Britain. I was impressed at how much the government managed to turn the majority of the British people against the Muslims as the opinion pro-banning seems to be strong and wide spread throughout the country - even though they obviously have no argument to support their opinion. The arguments they gave are probably the most pathetic excuses I have ever heard, but then what is the reason why some elements are against the nikaab in the first place? First of all, the nikaab is not the problem. Growing a beard and having long hair would cover almost as much of the face as the nikaab would, what if I left my house dressed like Zorro? Would I then be a subject of media spotlight and world incrimination? When was covering your face in public a crime? I can understand if it was in a bank but to ban it everywhere?

Anyhow, this is not the point of this article. I wish to say something on what several Muslims said in reply to the latest attack on Islam. Several Muslims justified the veil by saying it stops rape. I would just like to ask; where did you get that from?

Dressing modestly was ordained upon us by Allah and for women this means the veil infront of a non-mahram. If any reason was given by Allah as to why women should wear a veil, then please inform me as I am ignorant of it. If Allah or his prophet (pbuh) said it is to stop rape, then please tell me where and inshallah I will learn. Until that time comes, I have an advice for my brothers and sisters; don't start justifing Islamic law as a fact from your own minds. Say you believe it could be for so and so, or in your personal experience so and so. Ofcourse all the ahkaam Allah revealed has a reason, and the veil is no exception. The veil would indeed help men control their lust, but that is only for a self-respecting normal man. A man who has no problem with the idea of himself raping a woman would rape when he has the opportunity whether he saw her face or not. Personally, I see that the most important achievement the veil created was that it created an environment where women are no longer treated according to their looks. Unlike the West, the individuals in such society would not be concerned first and formost on their looks. People would not spend millions, nay, billions of dollars on makeup, fashion, surgery, and research to make yourself look younger or more seductive. The veil made an environment where women who are born not as beautiful to be treated equally as a woman who Allah blessed with beauty.

There was a program on TV called the Apprentice where a millionair boss would have two teams divided by gender (ie, one team made up of about 5 women and another made up of 5 men) carrying out a job and the boss will then decide who did the best. In the end, as people get fired, only one will remain and get to be employed in that boss's company. I only watched a few episodes but in every single episode the issue of women having an advantage and "using the sex card" came up. There is obviously an issue between human nature and female sexuality. And this is obviously eliminated by the hijaab and Allah knows human nature better than anyone else.

But they then say that although indeed the normal veil is obligatory in Islam, the nikaab is not. Well this argument could be used if the normal veil itself was not under attack. As we know, it is also banned in specific areas in several countries. However I have to ask; is the nikaab indeed not fard?

As we said earlier, every hukum has a reason and Allah raised us from being like the rest of the animals by giving us a brain to reason with. Ofcourse, if Allah (swt) said we should wear a veil, then we wear it without question. Even more, if Allah said we do something that we think is of no reason, we still would do it because we trust Allah to know more. But after we do what is obligatory upon us we could start and reason with it. If we, as Muslims agree that the veil is an obligation and it has to do with sexuality, lust and the male/female relationship, then we agree that there is a reason for this veil. Now the fard veil only shows the face and hands; but my question is, what if the sister was blessed with great beauty? Do we not use our brain that Allah has blessed us with and reason? Do we not think; the veil is not carrying out its purpose? That a woman with such beauty would require a nikaab so that she fulfills the purpose of the hukum? I am not a mufti so I wont come up and say that the nikaab is fard. It is not fard on the sisters, but I believe that when a sister realises that although she wears the normal veil and yet still her face is radiant with beauty, she should of her own will put on the nikaab and may Allah reward her. I stress; no one has the right to force it on her as not even the prophet (pbuh) did so. Even in an Islamic country, only the normal veil will be inforced and the nikaab should not be imposed on anyone.

wallahu aalam. Again I ask my brothers and sisters, if I said anything wrong then please correct me.

wassalam

Ramadan Kareem!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 08:44:00 +0000

bismillah
assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh
May Allah reward us for our struggle and give us victory, peace and happiness in this blessed month. May this month mark the begining of a new change ya rab! May Allah give us patience and provide for all those who are fasting for his pleasure, our lord and sustainer our guide; helper of the needy. We are all poor beggars infront of Allah and this month inshallah he will look down at our sorry state and finally give us his victory. May Allah bless us in our homes and our work and our knowledge and recieve us in his mercy in janaa. ameen

ربي أعن الإسلام و المسلمين و أنصر المجاهدين و أرفع راية الدين نحن عبادك ما علينا إلا طاعتك و ما لنا سواك يا رب المستضعفين يا أرحم الراحمين يا الله
أمين
أمين
أمين

Islam is the Solution

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:04:00 +0000

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

We all know that the main and final aim of the Imperialist West in this "war on terror" is summed up in a few words, securing resources and strategic positions. This is a fact we all know and understand. It does not come from some 'gene' in the Western man but comes from an ideological basis of the governing system, so it is quite understandable and expected. However, what is it they are trying to achieve to reach that goal? In other words, what are they trying to do in the Muslim world with all this war? How are they going to leave it? One of the theories that a brother told me about is as follows.

We know that the Muslim world as we know it today has been shaped by the colonialists after the first and second world wars. This is a fact no one denies, not even the West. We know that they did this to secure the newly discovered seas of oil wells in the Middle East. They placed puppets and allies to rule the Muslims after their spies and agents (mainly Mustapha Kemal the pig) managed to overthrow the Uthmani Caliph, our Sultan Abdul Hamid II. They wanted to remove the unity of the Muslims and so they planted in our ancestors hearts the seeds of nationalism which the prophet (pbuh) warned us off calling us to "leave it for it is rotten".

Today what has happened in the early 1900s, although is still with us to a degree, is obviously falling apart and the Muslims are feeling the pain of other Muslims wherever they may be and whoever they are. Not only that, but Muslims even are begining to see Islam as an alternative and a solution to the political problems they face - which is a huge step forward.

Nearly two-thirds of candidates elected to the new Iraqi parliament in December 2005 won on platforms that explicitly called for a greater role for Islam in politics. In Egypt's parliamentary elections in December 2005, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood won 88 seats, 20 percent of the 444 elected seats. The group had fielded only about 150 candidates as part of a tacit agreement with the government that allowed Brotherhood candidates to campaign openly, winning 60 percent of the seats it contested. In January of this year Hamas won a stunning victory with 56 percent of the seats. And the trend is not even recent, going back to 2002 in Morocco, the new Justice and Development Party, took 42 of the 325 seats in the parliamentary elections of 2002. - New Civilization Summer 2006 issue

I would also like to add, hesitantly, the Justice and Development party of Turkey which is an Islamic party forced into claiming secularism by the tyrannical Turkish army. The Justice and Development party in 2004 won 44% of the votes. A less modern example would be the last fair elections to have occured in Algeria where the Islamic FIS won almost 50% of the votes in the first round of parliamentary elections in 1992 before the secular army (just as in Turkey) refused to allow Islam to be established and thus cancelled the whole elections.

And yet, not a single country is actually ruled by Islamic law due to the simple fact that the elections are pointless and will never change anything. The only thing the elections show is the will of the people and it is becoming more obvious to the US and Europe that the will of the Muslims is becoming more and more towards Islam. What they have planted in the hearts of the Muslims during the final years of the Ottoman Caliphate is slowly dieing out and the threat of the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah to finally bring justice to the world and punish the oppressors is becoming a certainty and a reality that they even mentioned in their own reports claiming themselves that within 20 years the re-emergence of the Caliphate is a great possibility. The Russian/Chinese/Indian reports claim that it is possible to emerge within 5 years in Central Asia unless proper steps are taken to stop it.

These are facts and the question now is, what are the enemies of Islam planning? Well the brother who I was speaking to told me what he believed to be the aim of the West. If the Caliphate re-emerges tomorrow in some Muslim country then it will have the backing of the majority of the Muslims and it will start be able to defend itself almost immediately with the current weapons and arsenals that that country possesses. However, take Iraq for an example. Before the invasion, if Saddam was ousted and Islam was established (something that is becoming more possible to happen as the days pass in other Muslim countries) the Caliph would have within his control the infrastructure that Saddam had. The weapons, the armies, the roads, the factories and the industries. Now, however, after the invasion of the US and Europe, if Islam is indeed established in Iraq, the Caliph would have nothing but a broken ruined country with civil tensions.

The old plans of planting nationalism in the hearts of the Muslims was exposed and is finally dead and wont work anymore. The dictators that they support and fund are becoming more of an embarrassment everyday and their fall is also certain to come. Democracy? The US saw what happened when Democracy was implemented in Muslim lands, the votes all went for establishing Shariah! So what other option does the West have to avoid having to deal with the Caliphate yet again? Well, make it a weak Caliphate since stopping it seams to be impossible without eradicating every single Muslim! Turn the Muslim world into a battlefield of civil wars, steal, fire and blood.

That's what he believed to be going on. To me, it made sense but I still don't know for sure. I heard somewhere else that the US plans to re-divide the Middle-East (among other changes, the establishment of Kurdistan for example). So I honestly don't know what to think.

Anyway, all of these are speculations and all of these are dreams the West have. The Caliphate will be re-established and like in the past, even if we start from the sands of the desert we will be able to take on Rome and Russia if we have to - we have the greatest ally anyone could ask for, Allah (swt).

wassalam

Arab Racism

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:52:00 +0000

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

A few days ago I was with an Arab brother who while talking mentioned something that showed he has a slight dislike of black people. This came to me as no surprise as I am an Arab and I know how alot of Arabs think. However, I decided to not let this one go without the proper verbal beating it deserved. He told me he agrees that all people are the same, however people from central and South Africa never did have any historic achievements and have always been a backwards people whilst the rest of the world at least had a period where they achieved something.

First and foremost there is nothing in the Quraan and Sunnah that says there are any distinctions between white people and black people. On the contrary, in the prophet's last sermon he (pbuh) said;
""All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white (person) has no superiority over a black (person) nor a black has any superiority over a white except by piety and good action."

Also Allah (swt) said:
"And mankind is naught but a single nation."
Holy Quran 2:213

Although this should be enough to silence any Muslim's racist seed, I will not stop there to make you realise how silly that idea is.

I was told that the black people didn't achieve anything throughout history. Although that point is wrong in itself, the Central and South Africans had several great empires, let me ask just for the sake of argument; why is that? Is it because of a gene in the black people that makes them unsuccessful? If so, then that would directly imply that white people, who did achieve something in history (although that is wrong in itself and I will get to that later) have a gene that makes them successful. But are we?? Let us look at the Europeans. When did they achieve anything in the past? You have two periods where the Europeans actually achieved something, in the ancient times under the Roman Empire and the Greek Empire and the more modern times after the Reneissance and the removal of the tyranical Church. Let's take this step by step. First of all in ancient history the one thing that the Romans and the Greeks had in common is that they had (to a degree) a democratic system in place, and they achieved something with that. The rest of Europe? The rest of Europe were a bunch of barbarian nomad nobodies. The Saxons? The Celts? The Goths? The Vikings? What did the rest of Europe do? Absolutly nothing! And then we have the Reniessance. It was a period, again, when relative freedom after the oppression of the Church was gradually being given to the people. It was a time when the leadership and the governing body of the Church are removed and replaced by a more lenient and independant leadership. In both cases we see the effect of the governing body on the achievements the people are bringing forth.

Now the Arabs, what were they before Islam? They were a bunch of warring desert tribes half of which were controled by the Romans and the other half by the Persians. After Islam came, nay, after Islam was implemented, the Arabs united and fought and conquered both their previous masters, the Romans and the Persians. It is when Islam ruled them that they actually became of any significance and it is the day that Islamic rule left them that they went back to becoming several warring tribes ruled by foreign masters, be that the US, France or Britain.

I say it alot and I will say it again. The people are a reflection of the governing body. If a certain people were not achieving then it is not because they were created a lowly creature. That is not only incredibly stupid, but also a great haraam. All people are the same as we are all the children of Adam and Eve.

If a certain people were not achieving, ask yourself "why?" Are they not humans like the rest of us? If you claim that they do not achieve because of their colour or any biological matter, then you are claiming that it is a genetic matter. If so, then why aren't the rest of humanity failing as well? And if it is indeed genetic, then how come we succeed at times and fail at other times? The most obvious example are the Arabs who succeeded at one point of their history and the rest was utter garbage. It does not make sense, it is absolutly silly, and most importantly it is haraam! And if the white people have a "gene of success", then why aren't all white people successful? Take Western Europe and Eastern Europe. The only thing I can think of is that Western Europe has a more democratic governmant than the East. And if today the Eastern Europeans are growing, it is because they finally let go of the shackles of Communism. Again, back to the same point; the governing body!

wassalam

Sabrun Jamil's Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:31:00 +0000

bismillah
assalamu alaikum
I have been going through sister Sabrun Jamil's blog for a few days and I have to say it is quite a wonderful peice of work! mashallah tabarakallah you can see how much patience she puts for each entry with all the colours and font sizes. What saddens me is that I don't seem to see alot of brothers and sisters posting in her blog any comments. I do wish you would take a couple of minutes from your blog surfing time and visit hers and I'm certain you would get attached just as I have.

here is the link

enjoy!

wassalam

Sunnies and Shiaa

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:04:00 +0000

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

There has been alot of talk on the question of whether ahlul Sunnah are allowed to support or work with Shiaas or whether Shiaas are even Muslims at all. So here is my view on the matter and inshallah if I was wrong, may Allah correct me and guide us all.

First of all, what are Shiaas? You can compare Shiaas in Islam to Protestants in Christianity. There is no one group called Shiaas, their are several groups with different beliefs and practices. So in other words, we cannot come up and say Shiaas do this and that. What Shiaas? Are all Shiaas the same? The main discourse and the first seeds of divisions between what we today call "sunnies" and "shias" only began to exist from one base point and that who is to rule the Muslims after the death of the prophet (pbuh). According to the shiaas it should be from ahlul bait and according to the sunnies he should be chosen by the Muslims. This is where the problem started but even yet, there was no such thing at the time called "shiaas". I might be wrong, but I think it was not until the death of Hussain that the word was used, I am certain however, it did not exist at the time of Ali (ra). And to put the record straight, even the Sunnies agree that Ali (ra) should have remained in power and what Mu'awiyah did was wrong (except for a book I have which I am still to read). What was even worse was what happened with Hussain on Ashura by Mu'awiyah's son Yazid whom not even the "Sunnies" liked. And I quote the word "sunnies" because as I said earlier, there were no such thing as "shiaas" at the time of Hussain.

So the main divide between the Sunnies and the Shiaas is not ideological, but political. That is in the initial stage ofcourse. Several year later, ideological differences in aqeedah developed which is what is forcing ahlul sunnah to question how much of Muslims the Shiaas really are.

Now this point should be seriously kept in mind. The difference between Shiaas and Sunnies initially is political. Political differences does not constitute kufr as kufr will only come from aqeedah. Now keeping that in mind, we can then look at the Shiaas which we know of today. Indeed there are differences in aqeedah, but for a fact, not all Shiaas hold the same aqeedah, they do however, all hold the same basis which is the political differences they still hold against ahlul Sunnah. As for their aqeedah, there are shiaas who most obviously believe in things that will constitute kufr as far as ahlul sunnah are concerened, but I do know for a fact that there are other Shiaas which really hold as much a difference in aqeedah with the sunnies as the different schools of thought within ahlul Sunnah hold between each other.

Now that is the first point. Second point is, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that they are kufaar indeed. So what? Do we take the sword and fight them with blood for that? Muslims have always had an obligation upon themselves to protect the oppressed people no matter their faith. Unless the Shiaas as a people are fighting ahlul sunnah with the sword, then we really have no right to fight them or to bring out silly fatwas saying that we should not support them when they are being attacked. Remember what our beloved prophet (pbuh) did for the tribe of Banu Khuza. Our duty is towards the oppressed be they Muslims or not.

Third point; when did you hear Hizbullah attack ahlulsunnah? Until now, I have only seen ahlul Sunnah attacking Hizbullah and bringing out fatwas against them. Where exactly is Hizbullah oppressing, attacking or even insulting ahlul Sunnah. Don't bring me what some Shiaas say about Abu Baker and the wives of the prophet (pbuh). I already know it and whoever says those things are obviously kufaar. But they are neither murtadeen for them to be executed (the murtaad should be a person who used to believe in the true Islam and then made kufr. Shiaas today are taught their beliefs for generations and thus the penalty is no longer applicable as far as the shariah is concerned), nor is what they say the worst thing that people say against ahlul Sunnah. Is not the insult against Allah worse than that on Abu Baker and the wives of the prophet (pbuh)? Then what do you make of the lies the Christians and Jews make of God? of the trinity and the rest of the yaddah yaddah they make up? But that still only constitutes that we should try and give them Islam and not wage military war on them as a people (waging war on kufr governments that attack Islam and the Muslims is another matter). In the case of Hizbullah, assuming they are kufaar, our war is still against the same enemy and having them as allies in war is not haraam. What evidence is there that we are not allowed to fight alongside a kafir when we have a common enemy? It is a fact that Christians fought alongside Muslims of their own free will when the European Crusaders invaded Jerusalem. Salahuldeen al Ayoubi himself had Christians in his army. The prophet (pbuh) himself had non-Muslim allies, namely Banu Khuza which I mentioned above.

There is an article which I read several months ago in the New Civilisation magazine inshallah I will try and find an online version to paste it here, if not I will re-type it again. It is quite worth the read even though it might be a little long.

wassalam

The Demonstration in London

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:04:00 +0000

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

I just came back from a demonstration in support of Lebanon and Palestine and mashallah alot of brothers and sisters have come. It was great except for a single incident which I will speak of later on in this entry.

First we had several speakers who gave speeches in support of defending your home from Israeli aggresion and then the march started while shouting slogans (which really could have been alot better to say the truth) and holding banners and flags. I have seen people from the street who came in and joined us in our march which is very heart warming. Considering that the march took place in Edgware Road (an area with alot of Muslims (mainly Arabs)) there were people who are interested. Another good happening was the coming of a few Rabbies who were exteremely opposed to Zionism and Israel. One of them even told me that him and his parents left Israel and will only return with a Palestinian passport and never with a Zionist one. What is even more is that apperently they claim that they would be more than happy to live under Islamic rule where particularly under the Uthmani khilafah, the Jews really flourished.

Now for the bad event that happened. Before the march began, during the talks, a brother came up and started shouting at us saying to the speaker (who was clean shaven) "grow your beard first and then start talking about the khilafah"! This was ofcourse one thing among other obsenities he said that are not even worth mentioning. He honestly ruined my day. Your beard is a sunnah and not a fard and it is between you and Allah. Is it good to have a beard? Certainly, anything from the sunnah is good. But would it save the people of Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Kashmir, Chechenia and Somalia? Unless your beard grows bread, bullets or money, then no. So exactly how is your beard related to your work to establish Islamic rule is beyond me. This is even more insulting considering that that very speaker that the brother was shouting at has recently come back from Egypt after spending four years in Egyptian prisons for working for the khilafah there. I wish to know what this bearded brother did for this ummah other than spend his time attacking our party (I was told that this is not the first time he tried to ruin one of the party's activities). What is more was that he wasn't satisfied with shouting (which is quite useless as only the people around him were able to hear him (the speakers obviously used microphones to talk), the brother decided to jump onto the stage and take hold of the microphone from the speaker. Even in the end when we were doing dua'a, he didn't stop and make dua'a to our brothers and sisters being attacked in the Muslim world, he continued to shout and call us kufaar and munafikeen! If it wasn't for our stewards and workers who stood in his path and held him back he would have ruined it for all of us and probably even physically attacked our Egyptian speaker. Nobody was interested in him, even the non-hizbie brothers who didn't agree with us and yet support us as brothers working for a noble cause said that what he was doing is disgusting. Subhaan Allah, may Allah guide him.

The following are photos I took of the demonstration with my mobile phone (I appologise for the quality).

The rude loud-mouthed self proclaimed "salafi" brother who called us kufaar:

The flag of Kashmir while we were listening to the speakers:

Jews against Zionism coming to the march uninvited but very welcomed:

One of the speakers from Hizbullah:

The march began dividing the people into different sections each section headed by a coffin with the raya over it.

Policemen almost every ten steps of the march:

The ending of the march at Regents Park Mosque with two flags of Kashmir:

wassalamu alaikum

Cartoon: Muhammad al Fatih

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:47:00 +0000

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

I am certain my brother A will be very glad to hear that sister Sabrun Jamil has posted a beautiful cartoon on the life of Khaleefah Muhammad al Fatih (may Allah have mercy on him) who opened Constantinople for Islam and the Muslims.

Here it is. Mashallah, there should be more of these cartoons around inshallah.

wassalam

Sheep Wolves and Hunters - a comment by brother A

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 06:46:00 +0000

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

In the Video Islamia topic, brother A wrote an interesting comment based on his very own experience in his farm (mashallah, I've always dreamt of owning a farm with animals). It uses the symbolism of the sheep in his farm with the state the Muslims are in today. The effect of when the guardian dogs don't do their job properly and the large threat from all around the farm from mountain lions to coyotes. He really paints a realistic picture of the Muslims so it's really worth a read.

wassalam
*****

"I don’t' know if “the submitters” can ever be "hunters of the wolves" without having instead become like the wolves; predators ourselves, preparing ourselves for the fires and suffering of Hell. Rather, Allah is the only hunter of the wolves. Eventually we will, ench’allah, work together to put systems in place to secure our continual protection from “predators” and the protection of those living among us. Additionally, we will then, ench’allah, be able to put an end to their world domination forcing them to retreat into their own lands and learn how to support themselves.

This year I wintered nearly 150 sheep in the presence of multiple mountain lions and coyote packs. My pastures are surrounded on 2 sides by miles of wild forest. Earlier in my experience with keeping sheep in the area I arrived to find that a cougar (mountain lion) had come in the night and killed 6 large animals and wounded 2 one of which later died and the other of which took months to heal. Later, on two separate occasions, sheep were killed by coyotes, one had twin lambs in its belly.

The peoples of the world are the prey in our time and there is no protection for any. Those who work with the system fare materially better and suffer less physically. However, their allegiance, apathy, and ignorance sustain the predatory machine of Western society as it destroys civilization and every remnant of civilized society.

Sheep, by their very nature are vulnerable to predators. They, however, are so very committed to unity, that they are easily protected by a livestock guardian.

I decided to keep livestock guardian dogs with my sheep. The sheep did not except the dogs however, and the dogs did not grow attached to the sheep. One dog later started to kill and eat sheep. This dog was taken up the mountain with the third sheep it killed, slaughtered and disposed of with the sheep. The other dog followed people instead of staying with the sheep, leaving them unprotected. She was sold to a family as a pet. In the meantime, while this was happening, I found a Turkish akbash pup that had been with sheep from birth. I took her to the barn in the winter just before lambs were born and placed her with the sheep at 8 weeks of age. She never left their side and grew up sleeping with the lambs in the bosom of a mother ewe. She grew up and protected the sheep from every predator and continues to do so. She never leaves the sheep and the sheep are never harmed by the predators that live all around their pastures. Predators have been pushed back into the forests and must provide for themselves from the forest, not from my fields and sheep.

Sheep are not dumb, but are extremely committed to unity by their very nature and their existence is molded around seeking after and producing good and useful things (wool, milk, lambs). They do not naturally have the ability to protect themselves well and when they are forced to they do not prosper, so they employ either a shepherd or a guardian dog or both. When they are forced to defend themselves, they are not very effective, become infertile in unable to produce lambs, and produce useless brittle wools. In essence the meaning for their existence is lost.

Civilized Muslim society is like a flock of sheep going about the pursuit of good society, worship of God, and the pursuit of sustenance and knowledge. For protection faithful soldiers and military would be maintained, which may or may not be Muslims but must always have been from the very bosom of the society from an early age. God intends people to be like a flock of sheep, committed to unity and the pursuit of profitable things. Out of this come the beauty of un-perverted civilization including every form of achievement in both the arts and the sciences and prosperity under the wing of God and in submission to him in every aspect of life. This can be seen in the history of the Caliphate.

To get to this point, I suppose we must all fight, first with prayers, proactive reason and decisive strategies to clear back the confusion and propaganda that entangles and disorients the ummah.

Then the time will come to move for the dissolution of the governments that never fostered civilized society in Muslim lands. I suppose this will have to be done through multitudes of courageous people but very little in the way of weaponry. Such is our inevitable situation. Western governments are attempting to arm governments around the world to be able to overcome the onslaught of mass protest and demonstration. They continually support the election of leaders who will fight even their own people to maintain governance according to Western standards. In addition the “War on Terror” serves as a cover for combating the masses in every form in which they might arise. They are the wolves and we are the sheep. However, when the sheep are desperate and see where they need to go, they go there even if it means trampling over the top of the wolves to get there. America and the other G8 nations are trying to see that all Western leaning governments have the arms and crowd control technology to be able to turn us back. I don’t believe they do or ever will.

Hunting wolves is a diversion and a distraction. Muslims fight those who fight against them, until they retreat or are destroyed, and then, they build civilization and employ military from their own peoples to protect from outside threats. Our world is filled with distractions and misconceptions, but if we wanted we could all rise up right now establish the Caliphate and change the world completely in short order. All the periphery battles are not achieving this aim. Now is the time to prepare the seedbed of unified and disciplined revolution across the Muslim world clearly aimed at achieving a unified self rule on the tenants of our deen, referred to as Kilafah. Preparing the seed bed is to lift the head of our Muslim brothers and sisters in their destitution and shame, give them hope and rekindle the fire of Islam and Islamic dignity in their hearts."

Video Islamia

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:23:00 +0000

bismillah
assalamu alaikum

I have started a video blog where I would be posting Islamic documentaries there. I have a large collection on my hard-drive so expect alot of documentaries inshallah.

wassalam

Age of Disorder

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:16:00 +0000

bismillah
A documentary (among the many documentaries that I will upload soon inshallah) made by the Islamic Liberation Party that shows the true nature of Capitalism, Communism and Nationalism and finally shows why Islam is the only ideology that was put to guide man according to his nature.

This documentary is divided into five parts, I hope you enjoy it!

The Great Game in Somalia

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:17:00 +0000

bismillah
assalamu ala man itaba3al huddaa

Abu Ismael has posted a very interesting article about Somalia in his blog. Somalia really shows a miniature version of what is really happening in the whole world. The Western countries in reality do not get along, afterall, each one is after his own benefit. The colonial wars are still being fought and England, France, US, Russia and other Western countries are still fighting each other to gain more control over resources and strategic positions. All this is under the table, ontop of which they claim the war is against terrorists and Islamists.

wassalam

Ya Khilafah Ya Shahadah

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:17:00 +0000

Revolution without bullets or ballots
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - From the shores of the Caspian Sea to the Bay of Bengal, there are violent reactionaries in the Muslim world who will kill and get killed, but beyond these fanatics there exists a real hardcore silently swaying the hearts and minds of many in the Muslim world.

Their religion is not obvious from their demeanor or the cut of their clothes, yet it is embedded in the very core of their hearts, and is the driving force behind all their actions.

They are an overwhelming emerging force, and even though they have been widely banned, they don't believe in retaliation. They have made a hub in Pakistan, where they outnumber many large religious parties, yet they remain difficult to pinpoint as they are political, but have been forced underground. They are the largest single movement in the Islamic world, the Liberation Party - Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT).

In in the mid-1990s, a large conference was held in London, where the topic was the revival of a caliphate in the Muslim world for the "implementation of pure Islamic doctrine", as is the goal of the HT. The conference was attended by delegates from around the world, and a key question was to determine an ideal place for the Islamic revolution. Many agreed on Pakistan, a land of valiant Muslim tribes that have traditionally responded enthusiastically to Islamic issues. And strategically, the country is well situated to embrace the Asian sub-continent and Central Asia - where initially the caliphate will be created.

Subsequently, hundreds of HT members, British but of Pakistani origin, many of them students at the London School of Economics and other centers of excellence, packed their bags and departed for Pakistan. By 2000, the HT had established itself in all urban centers of the country, but within three years it was banned. All police stations were given strict instructions to round up any person who claimed an association with the HT.

Hundreds of HT members were rounded up, and may reports of torture emerged. Of those produced in court, the only charges that were made to stick were those related to being a member of the HT.

This correspondent has spoken to senior Pakistani officials on the reason for the HT being banned, but none of them appears to have a clue - especially as the HT does not espouse violence or militancy.

HT members have even been encouraged by the authorities to change the name of the organization, as most other banned outfits do so that they can carry on with their activities, but the HT has refused to do so.

Pakistan, especially as a leading ally in the US "war on terror", has been urged by international intelligence agencies to continue cracking down on the HT. President General Pervez Musharraf has visited the United Kingdom and publicly advised parents to beware of the HT and keep their children away from its influence.

Read the rest of the article here.

Those Who Believe and those Who Don't

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:43:00 +0000

bismillah
assalamu 3ala man itaba3al hudaa

Recently, several times I have been forced into positions where people are questioning my relationship (or the lack of) with non-Muslims. So in this post, inshallah I will try and clear my position on the matter once and for all.

First of all, we are all humans and all humans are the children of Adam and Adam was made of clay. These are basic Islamic teachings and I will in no way go against it inshallah. But do I see all humans as equals? No. Physically we are all the same more or less, there is no division in that matter. To judge our differences through our physical appearances is just foolish. The question on equality should always be directed towards the mentality. For those who claim we should in no way divide people at all, I ask, do you see Osama bin Laden as an equal to Gandhi? Bush as an equal to a prophet of Allah (wasstaghfurullah)? Certainly not, mentally we are all different and dividing humans within our thought will exist whether we like it or not. Do we divide people by "the good" and "the bad"? In such case who determines what is good and what is bad? Good and bad is subjective as to who's eyes you are looking from. To some bin Laden is a hero, to some Hitler is a hero, I can safely say that not everyone agrees. Are they all human? Certainly they are, but that does not make everyone equal. It is our thought which divides us, our mentality. This is not restricted to me, but to everyone whether they claim it or not. The very fact that we are human means we have an opinion and the very fact that we have an opinion creates differences and through those differences we are indeed dividing people in our minds.

So the issue of dividing people is neither strange nor new nor isn't even something to frown upon really. The more important question is; on what basis would you divide people? Generally everyone divides people on "good" and "bad" and everyone has his own definition on what is good and what is bad. Nationalists divide people based on nationalities. Racists divide people based on race. Communists divide people based on class. I am a Muslim and I don't see any sense in dividing people by where they were born, or what color skin they have or how wealthy they are. If we are going to divide people, I see more sense dividing them based on their level of thought. As a Muslim I try my best to base my way of thinking on what Allah and his prophet (pbuh) said.

The prophet (pbuh) said: "Surely, human beings from the time of Adam up to now are the same as the teeth of a comb are, and there is no superiority for the Arab over non-Arab or for the red race over the black race except for piety."

Allah says in surat al Hujraat verse 13;
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَى وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌ

The above verse says that Allah created humans into nations and tribes so that we get to know one another and the best of us are the most pious. Therefore, as a Muslim, I will base my division on what Allah and his prophet (pbuh) said, piety.

However, what does that mean to me? Am I going to go around with a stick beating non-Muslims? The above verse clearly says that that is not what Allah wants us to do, he wants us to know one another and not to fight. If a non-Muslim wants to talk about football, a movie, or ask for advice or an honest question, I am more than happy to assist. However, entering into political or religious discussion is a different story.

First of all politics. It's great the sympathy alot of people in the West show towards the Palestinians and Iraqis. However I wish to put my Muslim brothers and sisters attention, that this sympathy was always given towards the refugees, the people who lost their homes, children, widows, etc. It is quite rare to see sympathy towards the resistance, be that in Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir, Chechnya or Afghanistan. Leave that as it may, although it is nice to have that sympathy, let us be certain that this will not solve any of our problems. I have discussed what our problem is and my blog clearly shows the solution.

As for religion, no Muslim can deny that Islam was sent to the whole of mankind and thus it is an obligation upon the Muslims to bring Islam to the non-Muslims. However there is a point that should be learned first. Although indeed preaching to non-Muslims is an obligation, and I would like to stress the point that I have never said otherwise, it must be noted that there are also other obligations on the Muslims. As much as it is wrong not to preach Islam, it is also wrong to ignore all your other obligations. Something alot of Muslims tend to forget. I would like to also talk about prioritizing.

In Islam, when a man dies he is to be buried as soon as possible (after the Islamic rites are done ofcourse). However, when the prophet (pbuh) died, there are three different stories as to when he was buried. Some say he was buried the next day, others (and most reliable sources say) he was buried after two days and others say he was not buried for three days. Is it an obligation to bury the dead? As far as my understanding (and correct me if I was wrong) it certainly is. The reason why the prophet (pbuh) was not buried immediately was due to one fact and one fact only, there were more important issues the sahabaa were concerned with. The issue of who is to succeed the prophet (pbuh), who is to lead the Muslims after his death. It's an issue of prioritizing.

We agree that as an ummah, we have a major problem and that it can only be solved by the Muslims . All what I am saying is that when you are sitting there discussing for hours with a non-Muslim on why Islam is right, you could be sitting discussing with a Muslim on why he should be working to solve our problems. Which is more important? And mind you, that if the Caliphate is re-established it will bring to Islam more people within a year than you could possibly bring within ten years.

wassalam

The Solution

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:57:00 +0000

bismillah

I have written another article that is to follow The Problem article. This one is, The Solution.

The Problem

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:12:00 +0000

bismillah
I have been invited to become a member in the Muslim Unity blog and have posted my second post over there which I think is worth giving a mention here.

wassalam

Edit: I made changes to the post and decided to post it here;

The Problem

So we want to know what is the solution to our problems as the ummah of Muhammad (pbuh). First, we should know what our problems are and then from that we need to know what their source is. Fix that source and you solve our problems.

We all know that we have many problems, we have the problem of starvation within our community, the problem of unemployment, the problem of illiteracy, etc. Different people would priorities our problems differently. For example, I have spoken to people who believed that our most important problem is that we have no Islamic education. I have spoken to people who believed that our most important problem is that we are not united. I have spoken to people who believed that our most important problem is poverty. Personally, I don't believe that any of these are true, but I will not argue about it because it doesn't matter at all. As I said before, we have alot of problems and to solve them we will have to fix the source, fix that source and you solve your most important problem and all others as well. Think of a plant that grew in your garden and you want to get rid of. If you cut its branches or even its stem, it might disappear or remain out of sight for a while, but it will indeed return as long as the roots are still intact. Cut a branch off, it will grow back again. Until you remove the plant from the roots, you have not solved anything truly.

More realistically, I will use the well known group; the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Ikhwaan al Muslimeen. The Ikhwaan are well known for establishing schools, hospitals, charity organizations and trying to take care of the Muslim community. This is all good, but does it solve anything? If you feed a man today, he will get hungry tomorrow. Cure his illness, he will come back tomorrow with another. Teach him Islam, you still have more than a billion Muslims in the world alot of who don't even live in Muslim countries. The question we should ask ourselves before we start doing anything is, 'why?' Why is it that the Muslims of Niger are starving when there are markets selling food right there in their country itself? Why is it that today the Nile isn't producing any food when during the Islamic caliphate, Egypt was called the bread-basket because it produced enough food to feed the whole of North Africa? Why is it that our children require charity organization for them to learn their own deen, their Islamic aqeedah, the most important thing they could possibly learn? Well to answer these questions, let us look at another scenario. Imagine now a factory with a manager. This manager is lazy and completely useless. No, not only is he useless, he is also a burden on the company as he steals from its profits and damages its machinery. So you, the owner of this factory (if you had the mentality of the Ikhwaan) decide that you cannot remain like this forever, so what you do is that YOU yourself begin doing the manager's job while keeping that very incompetent manager in his office. You clean, you fix, you make the transactions, you make the schedules and attend meetings, you do absolutely everything. The manager breaks something from here, you fix it from there, he steals from here, you try and work harder to make more profit to cover what he stole. Does it make sense? No. Is it what's happening? Indeed it is.

A government is the body that has the ability and the authority to govern the people and controls the public and foreign policy of the state as a whole. So if people are not being educated, you don't start building schools, you go account the manager who should be educating the people, the government. If people are starving in a land known to be rich, then the problem is with distribution of food and resources or the use of the lands, both of which are in the hands of the government. Whatever the problem you think that is the most vital to our ummah, the answer will always lead to one and one source only. The government. It is the responsible body that represents and whose duty is to protect and promote the people it is governing. The prophet (pbuh) said that we are all shepherds responsible of our cattle. The ruling regime, likewise, is a shepherd responsible for its people. Any problem the people face as a WHOLE majority, then the source will most likely be straight from the party responsible of the people; the government.

Another way to look at it is to ask yourself, "what if?" What if the governments in the Muslim world were abiding by the Shariah and ruled as Allah would want them to rule. Would we still have the same problems we are facing today? I am not saying that magically everything will be solved overnight if the right system replaces today's corrupt ones, everything requires work and patience and Islam is no exception. Allah will neither cure our problems while we sleep nor will working for one aspect of Islam (prayer and other private worships) achieve everything (political hegemony of the deen) without its relative work.

It is the governments duty to govern the people. It is the sole purpose of the government to do so and if it is not doing so then it has failed. In such a case, the only option is to fire it and employ another one that can achieve something.

"Onward Christian Soldier"

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:18:00 +0000

bismillah

Sexually Harassed Soldier is Arrested After Refusing to Redeploy to Iraq.

If you came to me a couple of years ago with this story, I would felt really sad for Suzanne Swift. Today, I honestly lost all symaphy for Western soldiers. Try as I might, I cannot force myself to pitty them anymore. What really saddens me is that, if this is how they treat their own soldiers, then can you imagine how they're treating the Iraqis? It burns me especially when I think of what they could be doing to the Iraqi women.

Allah willed that picture of Abu Ghuraib should leak out, but how do we know that if it didn't leak out the US government (which certainly did know about it before the pictures came out) would have taken measures to stop what's going on there? How do we know that this is not happening in other jails in Iraq? How do we know that this is not happening in Guantanamo or Afganistan? Again and again and again we're seeing proofs after proofs at how immoral the Western armies are, the very armies in control of Iraq and Afganistan.

What makes me glad, however, is that such an army will never be able to last. Such a regime will never last. Such a system will never last. Alhamdullilah for Islam, indeed it was sent as a mercy to mankind.

Taqiuddin al-Nabhani

noreply@blogger.com (Abdul Rahman Hilmi) — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:25:00 +0000

Taqiuddin al-Nabhani

Background

His full name is Sheikh Muhammad Taqiuddin bin (son of) Ibrahim, bin (son of) Mustafah, bin (son of) Ismail, bin (son of) Yusuf al-Nabhani. He belonged to the ancient Arab tribe of Bani Nabhan, from North Palestine. He was born in the village of Ijzim, within the district of Haifa, in 1909. While his father was also a scholar of Islamic jurisprudence, and accordingly worked as a lecturer in Islamic Law or Shariah, his mother mastered the Islamic sciences and was also an Islamic scholar. She had been taught by her father, the famous Ottoman poet, Islamic scholar, and Islamic judge Sheikh Yusuf an-Nabhani, who was appointed as judge at different Shariah courts in Jenin, Constantinople, Mosul, Latakia, Jerusalem and Beirut. The Islamic surroundings in which Taqiuddin grew up in, contributed to the consolidation of his personality, so he was able to memorise wholly & rehearse the entire Qur'an by heart at 12 years of age. Through his grand-father, he was introduced into the then relatively sound world of politics of the Ottoman Khilafah. His grandfather Sheikh Yusuf an-Nabhani was known to have strong ties with high ranking state personalities in Istanbul, Iraq, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon.

Education

The sagacity and intelligence he was able to show during Islamic study circles held by his grandfather, convinced the latter, that the exposed capacity should be promoted by all means. Instead of accomplishing his secondary Shariah legal education in Haifa, al-Nabhani headed for Cairo, where in 1928 he boldly enrolled at both the al-Azhar University and the Dar-ul-Ulum college of Cairo at the same time. He graduated from both, according to the traditional education curriculum, in 1932, obtaining the Universal Shariah Diploma, with excellent records. At al-Azhar he attended different extra-curricula circles, held by famous scholars such as Sheikh al-Akhdar Hussein, where he showed capacity during debates and discussions.

Career

On his return to Palestine he worked as a teacher from 1932 to 1938, but because he abhorred the corruption in this field at that time, he shifted to the judiciary. In his eyes, education and all the hereto related curricula were laid down by Western colonialist nations, and were therefore corrupt. Judiciary, he felt was a safer haven, as it rested in its entirety on Islamic jurisprudence and the Ottoman Islamic laws were still applied. He applied to the high court in Palestine, which, consequently appointed him in different judicial areas in Bisan, Tiberias and later Haifa. He also held the position of a legal Assessor from 1940 to 1945. From this date until the Jews overran Palestine in 1948 he held a very high position at the court of Haifa. The exodus from Palestine which followed, took him to Syria, nevertheless, a short while later he was summoned back to Jerusalem at the time not occupied by Israel, where he was appointed as Shariah judge or Qadi in the Court of Appeal, where he remained until 1951. He stepped down in 1951 and went to Amman, where he held numerous lecturer posts at the faculty of Islamic Sciences.

Thought

Philosophy and theology

Nabhani in his books 'Thought' and 'System of Islam' placed heavy emphasis on discussing modes and models of the psychology behind human thought, and concepts. He defined the thought process, and how it reaches the status of conviction or concepts. He discussed the internal working of thoughts, convictions, and concepts in shaping the Nafs or emotions and sentiments. Delving into the internal workings of how people reach conclusions & the psychology behind the process derives itself from Taqiuddin al-Nabhani's roots in non-Ascetic legalistic Sufism from his first teacher and maternal grandfather Yusuf al-Nabhani.

Al-Nabhani's definitions of thought have been used in the study of Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, and information processing research discussed in the Addison-Wesley published book "Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine (Systems Programming Series)" and used in London South Bank University's information systems department.

After many philosophical discussions on the nature of thoughts and emotions, Nabhani concludes that the only way to bring about change is via discussion, refutation, and revival of the relevant thoughts and emotions. It is from this philosophical basis that he argued that force does not work to change peoples' ideas. He also argued that a decline in the Muslims' thought, emotions and concepts led to their decline & the eventual destruction of the Khilafah. He believed the first major step towards decline in the Muslims was confusion about, and dealing with new foreign ideas, mainly Greek, persian & eastern philosophy. He argued the Islamic World didn't know how to tackle & contextualise these ideas because they became insular, and complacent of preserving & keeping relevant their own Islamic thoughts or philosophy to a world in flux. The heavy emphasis on pinpointing, defining and changing peoples thoughts, convictions, or emotions, via stronger thoughts, diagnosis, and refutation of the process an individual uses to reach their particular 'incorrect' view, is the method of Hizb ut-Tahrir's argumentation on almost every issue.

Faith vs. rational belief

Nabhani claimed Islam is founded on rational belief not blind faith, being very similar to Ghazali's Kalam Argument. Although both Nabhani and Ghazali argued that after belief (Aqeeda) is established; divine laws in the Quran are beyond question due to the 'mind' of god being beyond human comprehension. Nabhani loosely affirmed rationalism (not that of the mutazilah) but argued that it can establish belief in a God just like Ghazali and Ghazali's teacher al-Juwayni in his book [4], contrary to the common western notion of rationalism. He tried to outline materialist arguments and axioms to prove that one unlimited creator of the universe, god (Allah in Arabic) can be proven by rational deduction. He believed that the dependancy of, and limited physical nature of every tangible thing within human perception point ultimately to an unlimited creater that is beyond need and dependancy, an Absolute Infinite.

Politics

The political activities of Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani started very early. Before establishing Hizb ut-Tahrir he had no organised political activity, save for the period in his teens and twenties he had spent with the famous mujahid Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, whom he helped lay down plans for the well known revolutionary upheavals against British colonial rule, and against plans to set up the state of Israel for Jews. He also mixed with the Muslim Brotherhood, and exchanged views with Sayyid Qutb. Many of his early al-Azhar colleagues later bore witness to his tireless activity in attending political and Islamic study circles. They also praised his contribution to numerous political discussions during which he did not abstain from criticising the internal circumstances, which he believed had led to the political and intellectual downfall of both the Muslims and the Islamic Caliphate. In addition, he used to urge the Ulema at al-Azhar to give up the adopted lassitude vis-à-vis the Ummah and her affairs and appealed to them to seek the best way for revival.

On his return to Palestine, he became more and more aware of the Westernisation of the Islamic Ummah by colonial powers such as Britain and France. The loss of Palestine in 1948 together with the failure of a coup attempt by Abdullah al-Tall in Jordan to which al-Nabhani had been party convinced him that only a structured and deep intellectual work could bring the nation back to its glory and strength. Consequently he began preparations relating to the Party structure, literature and the like, as early as 1949 while he was still a judge at al-Quds. In his first written work, which appeared in January 1950 under the title Inqadh Filastin (Saving Palestine), he showed how deeply rooted Islam had been in Palestine since the seventh century. He also analysed the main cause for the set backs which had befallen the Arabs which, as he said, was due to nothing but the fact that the Ummah had resigned and submitted itself to the greedy colonial powers. In August 1950 he sent a long letter, published later as a book entitled Risalat al-Arab "The Message of the Arabs", to the members of the Culture Summit of the Arab League in Alexandria, Egypt. In his exposition of the matter, he stressed upon the point that the true and real message of the Arabs is Islam, on whose basis alone the intellectual, and hence, political revival of the Ummah could be achieved. As no reaction was forthcoming by the Summit members to this letter, Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani was now convinced, more than at any time before, that establishing a political party was essential.

Encyclopedia quote

In the "Encyclopedia Of The Palestinians" by Michael. R. Fischbach, it says,

Born in Izjim, a village south of HAIFA, Taqyy al-Din al-Nabhani studied at al-Azhar University and Dar al-Uum in Egypt, after which he returned to Palestine and held administrative positions in the Islamic court system in Haifa, Hebron! Jaffa, and Jerusalem. Called by the title al-Shaykh, a religious scholar, he was later appointed as a judge in the Islamic courts of Baysan, Hebron, Ramla, and Lydda before fleeing Palestine for Beirut in 1948. Nabhani soon returned to the WEST BANK, where he served as an Islamic court judge in Jerusalem and a teacher in the Islamic College in Amman. He had joined the Muslim Brotherhood while in Egypt and was active in the movement on returning to Palestine. He also maintained ties with the Palestinian leader AL-HAJJ AMIN AL-HUSAYNI during the PALESTINE MANDATE. During the period of Jordanian rule in the West Bank, however, Nabhani grew critical of the Brotherhood's close links with the Jordanian regime because of its pro-Western leanings. In November 1952, Nabhani broke with the Brotherhood and established the Liberation Party in Jerusalem. Nabhani left Palestine for Syria in 1953 and moved to Lebanon in 1959. He died and was buried in Beirut in 1979.

Hizb ut-Tahrir

While employed at the Ibrahimiyya School al-Nabhani contacted numerous individuals and personalities such as his colleagues As'ad and Rajab Bayyud Tamimi and Abdul Qadeem Zallum and other about the formation of a political party.

By the end of 1952, and early 1953, the whole matter was put into practice and Hizb ut-Tahrir was established in al-Quds Jerusalem. Taqiuddin an-Nabhani together with Dawud Hamdan, Ghanim Abduh, Munir Shuqayr and Dr. Adil al-Nablusi in accordance with the until then practiced Ottoman Law of Societies, sent a notice to the governor of Jerusalem and the Jordanian government, informing the authorities about the establishment of the Party. The Jordanian government however, reacted instantly, and issued a decree banning the Party, and declaring its activities illegal. Hizb ut-Tahrir, nevertheless, ignored this action and continued with its work in al-Quds, al-Khalil, Nablus and other towns and villages. Harsh reactions were to follow by the government against the Party members, and these continue until this day.

Consequently the "Preaching and Guiding Law" was issued in 1954, with the objective of banning Party members from giving talks in mosques. Despite harsh repression, the Party has been able to grow immensely, stretching its work throughout the Muslim world, and even reaching remote parts of the globe like Aceh.

After al-Nabhani left Jordan for a short trip to Damascus and Beirut sometime in 1955 the Jordanian government passed an edict effectively barring al-Nabhani ever returning to the kingdom. Consequently al-Nabhani re-located to Damascus and later Beirut from where he led the party.

During 1973 whilst on a trip to Iraq, al-Nabhani was imprisoned by Iraqi security services and severely tortured. He was spared only due to the Iraqi security services misidentifying him as a scribe of the party and not its leader. His release was secured soon after however, upon the intervention of a prominent Lebanese personality to whom al-Nabhani was related by marriage.

Death

Due to the continuous harassment and persecution by the Jordanian government al-Nabhani was forced into giving up his role in public life. He was not seen again in public until his death due to fear of assassination. Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani died in Beirut on 20 December 1977, and was buried at the al-Auza'i cemetery.

Books

Saving Palestine - 1950
The Message of the Arabs - 1950
The System for Society - 1950
The System of Islam - 1953
The Ruling System in Islam - 1953
The Economic System in Islam - 1953
The Social System in Islam -1953
The Party Structure -1953
The Concepts of Hizb ut-Tahrir - 1953
The Islamic State - 1953
The Islamic Personality (in three volumes) - 1960
Political Concepts of Hizb ut-Tahrir - 1969
Political View of Hizb ut-Tahrir - 1972
Introduction to the Constitution or the Reasons That Make it Obligatory - 1963
The Khilafah - 1967
Presence of Mind - 1976
A Burning Call to the Muslims from Hizb ut-Tahrir - 1965
Thinking - 1973
The Jurisprudence of Prayer

Although the names of others appear as the author, it is widely thought al-Nabhani is also the author of the following:

The Rules of Evidence - 1963
How the Khilafah was Destroyed - 1962
The Penal Code - 1965
The Ideal Economic Policy - 1963
Refutation of Marxist Socialism - 1963
Islamic Thought - 1958