No announcement yet.

beyond sep 11th

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    beyond sep 11th

    Beyond September 11th

    The Role of Muslims in the West

    Since Bush arrogantly proclaimed, Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists, Muslims in the West have been compelled to make a stark choice - either to accept the phoney foundations of Bushs crusade or alternatively to be labelled as the enemy.
    The aftermath of September 11th has brought the brutal bombing of Afghanistan, the detention of Muslims at Guantanamo Bay, the formation of US bases in Central Asia, the green light for Sharon to crush the Muslims in Palestine, the training of government militias in Philippines, the preparation for war with Iraq, and the work to eradicate Islam as a political force in the world.
    In the West, there have been widespread arrests and the internment of thousands of Muslims, the negative media portrayal of Islam, the rise of far-right immigration policies, the procurement of Western friendly Muslim activists and the policy to integrate the Muslims into Western society.
    With the spotlight falling on Muslims and Islam, Muslims need to answer some fundamental questions. Questions such as, How should we view the West? Can we live in the West maintaining our Islam? What should we accept from the West and what should we reject? How do we channel our feelings towards the global Islamic Ummah? How do we present a true picture of Islam?
    The reality of Western culture is plain for all to see. Capitalism overshadows our lives, promising to bring the fruits of a great civilisation, but in reality eroding the very core values of Islam.
    The West is characterised by emptiness, escapism and the breakdown of society. In Britain one in twenty women has been raped, child abuse is out of control and drug abuse and crime have become runaway statistics. What is our duty towards this?
    In order to map out a clear path for Muslims in the West, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain will embark upon a national campaign explaining the true Role of Muslims in the West.
    For further information about this campaign, contact 0870 745 5639

    inshallah there will be confrence on this isue LONDON-ARENA-DOCKLANDS.UK 11AM 8PM.
    SO if all the gupis can come down and u will learn soild concepts

    Aslaam'u alaikum,

    U have made some very good points above, thank you for sharing this information with us, Inshallah i'm sure there will be a good outcome.

    Jazakallah Khair.
    Waslaam'u alaikum.


      You say about what is happening in the West but how meny rapes happen in Islamic countries.
      Most rapes that occur happen within the family .and from what I can see at least an equal number of cases of rape and child abuse goes on in Islamic countries but in Islamic countries it is covered up.
      Ive been on Islamic sites and when a women has wanted to discuss marriage problems in one case I remember a women who's husband was getting another wife and it was breaking her heart.
      she was told by all the other women to shut up because to talk about such things was against Islam ,and if she submitted to it she would be rewarded in the afterlife and her husband would have to pay for being a bad husband then.
      I can imagine what they would think if she wanted to discuss some other form of abuse that was happening in her family .
      I wonder why it is that Muslims want to live in the west if its so bad and if Islam is such a great religion why it is that Muslims are the worse educated poorest people on earth.
      a few days ago in a thread someone was saying about Spain that it had once been captured by the Arabs
      did you know that the GDP of Spain is bigger than every Arab country put together and thats taking into account oil revenues.
      that everytime you've had a country trying to follow the Islamic model its been an economic disaster.
      at the moment there are 300,000 prostitutes in Tehran that's in one city so how meny are there in the country.
      and now you want to bring this failed model that has destroyed the countries that you've left and inflict it on me and my country


        Mr Jon.....

        No one is inflicting anything on you and UR country.... you can stay right where you are.... with your backwards thinking mind!!!!
        It is ppl like you that the western can indoctrinate into their way of thinking!

        If islam is such a bad religion, why is it that it has the largest number of followers, most being women!?!?

        Ask yourself that before u go shooting off with one point of view!!!!!!

        All religions have their share of good and bad ppl and Islam is not exception, so using the above example is not feasible!


          Originally posted by jonny2mad:

          did you know that the GDP of Spain is bigger than every Arab country put together and thats taking into account oil revenues.
          If we are looking at Muslim countries - not all Muslims live in Arab countries by the way - then Indonesia alone (the country with the largest Muslim population) has a GDP that is comparable to Spain.

          But a more realistic comparison would be to look at GDP per capita since a per capita figure will give us the total value of all goods and services produced annually within a country based on the number of people that live in that country. Using standard GDP, as you did, it would be unfair to compare a country like Spain which has a population of around 40 million with say Yemen which has a population of just 18 million. Naturally, under such circumstances one would expect Spain to produce more.

          However, Spain's per capita GDP is around $18,000 (year 2000 figures), beaten convincingly by a modest country like the United Arab Emirates that has a per capita figure of $23,000. In other words, the 2.5 million people living in the Emirates (80% Sunni Muslim) produce more per person than the 40 million inhabitants of Spain. Makes you think doesn't it!

          Muslims are the worse educated poorest people on earth
          I couldn't help but notice that you kept spelling "many" as "meny" in your post. You did it at least twice. Did you notice that? Sorry for pointing that out, being the poor, uneducated Muslim that i am.

          at the moment there are 300,000 prostitutes in Tehran that's in one city so how meny are there in the country.
          You sound jealous!


          [This message has been edited by Iqbal1089 (edited August 10, 2002).]


            No IM not jealous that one of the countries that has applied Islam the most seems to be going the way of Thailand its kind of sad.
            I just dont understand why a Muslim would want to go and live in America or even Europe where their taxes are going to support Israel,
            when they could go and live in Saudi or Sudan or Afghanistan wouldn't it make more sense to try to build up those Islamic countries than be corrupted by our evil democracies.
            I mean you dont believe in democracy so why live in one or is it that you guys are just fake.


              Originally posted by jonny2mad:
              No IM not jealous that one of the countries that has applied Islam the most seems to be going the way of Thailand its kind of sad.
              I just dont understand why a Muslim would want to go and live in America or even Europe where their taxes are going to support Israel,
              when they could go and live in Saudi or Sudan or Afghanistan wouldn't it make more sense to try to build up those Islamic countries than be corrupted by our evil democracies.
              I mean you dont believe in democracy so why live in one or is it that you guys are just fake.

              Jhony if u kindly quote one countrie that dose not implemnet democracie & comminesm.
              and secondly a countrie wich implements the whole islamic ruling system?

              p.S dont say saudi,or afghanistan cuz i know for sure they dont rule by islam.
              Or if u cant wait for the answer just scroll down.

              At this presnt point in all the world democracy is implemnted prdomintly and second affter that it is comminism.

              and as for islam its not implemented any were in the world today.

              [This message has been edited by clubber lang (edited August 10, 2002).]

              [This message has been edited by clubber lang (edited August 10, 2002).]


                Jhony do u think that if islam was beening implemented anywere today id be here waisting my time with u. i think not id be on the batlle field spilling kaffir blood.
                an hope to die shaied.

                [This message has been edited by clubber lang (edited August 10, 2002).]



                  Jhony here is some more info for u

                  Did Islam fail in Afghanistan?

                  It has now been more than a few months since the US overturned the Taliban from the status of ruling over 95% of Afghanistan. Many slurs have been levelled against the ability of Islam to confront 21st Century problems which the world faces today, the lie that the establishment of Islam on a state level means economic and technological backwardness as well as poverty have been aired. In view of this embarks upon a series of articles which answer the question 'Did Islam fail in Afghanistan?', in order that the confidence in Islam's system of organising the manifest problems which confront the world can be engendered.


                  The US has used the killing of its own citizens on September 11 to achieve in terms of its foreign policy objectives results which prior to this event remained as mere thoughts in the minds of strategists and policy makers alike. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, The US has sought to shape the world in its own image, ruthlessly engaging internationally in order to vanquish the only serious threat which exists to its unrivalled and arrogant domination of the worlds affairs. As time has progressed the yearning for Islam by the Islamic Ummah has grown and the US, Britain and their allies have attempted through their agents to suppress this latent energy, to borrow a term she is the sleeping giant. This giant will inevitably awaken when the gap between the Aqeeda (basis of Islam) and life is bridged, this can only occur by the resurrection of Allahs (Subhanahu Wa taala) final message, through the establishment of the Khilafah.

                  Within this emerging climate the Leading nation needs to engage with its future enemy and smother it in its cradle. In a like manner to Firawn (Pharaoh of Egypt) who ordered that all infant males be killed. Acting upon a prophecy which foretold that a male child from the Banu Israeel would destroy his power and seat of arrogance. The US and her surrogates are utilising different styles to achieve the same objective. One of these tools is propaganda; the US spreads the lie that she alone carries the only viable system to address the lives and problems of the world. In order to build this illusion she has to convince everyone or a significant number of the inadequacies of every other system. The styles in this campaign are important only so far as to get this message across, but the importance lay in her ability to convince, and the ideas and slogans she uses to get across her message.

                  The lie that Islam is unfit for complex problems of the 21st Century

                  After September 11th all manner of personalities and non-entities emerged on the world stage to announce the superiority of Western Civilisation and the failure of every other, the most arrogant pointed to what they termed the failure of Islam and attacked those who wanted to bring any semblance of its system back. The key proponents of this was James Rubin, the former assistant secretary of state under Clinton. He wrote in an article in the Independent on Sunday:

                  We must send a clear and simple message to the Muslim world. If Osama bin Laden's vision were achieved, all of the Islamic world would look like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Do you really want to live in Bin Laden Land, a Stone Age Islamic caliphate with no rights, no economy and no future? [The Independent on Sunday 14 October 2001]

                  The picture he painted of an Islamic Khilafah State was one of backwardness, economic stagnation, where the people would be subjugated through force to stop them from rebelling.

                  General Parvez Musharraf said something similar when he mocked those who call for the complete implementation of Islam:

                  Do we want Pakistan to become a theocratic state? Do we believe that religious education alone is enough for governance or do we want Pakistan to emerge as a progressive and dynamic Islamic welfare state?

                  Musharraf was arguing that Islam has not got the ability to practically solve problems, in a sense pointing to Afghanistan as the failed project. His call for a progressive and dynamic Islamic Welfare state meant nothing other than applying Kufr and using Islamic slogans to justify it.

                  The propaganda attacks came thick and fast. The pitiful propagandists wheeled out Cherie Booth (The Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blairs wife) and Laura Bush, who both argued that the covering of Women was a violation of basic universal Human Rights, with this the propaganda machine stepped up a gear, but there were many smaller attempts, some involving Scholars with Muslim names who went to great lengths to re-shape the picture of Islam in the mould designated by the West. The attacks against Islam were cushioned with words of praise of the Islamic way of life in such a condescending way as to attempt to hide their true position, although this was clear to all those who possessed the ability to observe the reality of their statements and actions, thus revealing their true venom against Islam and Muslims.

                  We must extract an important point from this which deserves scrutinising. This propaganda war does not care for humanitarian values or notions of Justice, interests are at the heart of the matter. Therefore the presence of the Taliban in Afghanistan as rulers of the majority of Afghanistan was not important as long as they could be worked with, when the US realised that there was no way it could achieve its vaunted Pipeline from the plentiful energy reserve of the Caspian through Afghanistan due to the intransigence of the Taliban, they had to be removed. They refused to allow the Taliban to take the vacant Afghan seat at the UN and refused to officially recognise it. The US now arrogantly stands tall and proclaims that its way of life has triumphed. It is easy to react to the attack on the perceived failure of the Islamic system by diluting Islam and conforming to western labels of extremist and fundamentalist. What needs to be done and what I seek to clarify is where the Taliban went wrong in their application of Islam, so as to illustrate for those working to bring back the Islamic Khilafah and those who support this work the framework of the Islamic ruling system from the Quran and Sunnah.

                  The Deen is Nasihah

                  Tamim ad-Dari related that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said, "The deen is nasiha (good advice/sincere conduct). The deen is nasiha. The deen is nasiha." They (the Sahabah) asked, "To whom, Messenger of Allah?" He said, "To Allah and His Book and His Messenger and the Imams of the Muslims and the common people."

                  Therefore what follows is sincere advice to the Taliban and the Muslims in general. This article will cover the following.

                  The shape of the state in Islam, which the Kitab and the Sunnah have expounded upon in a precise manner.
                  The importance of political awareness
                  Tribalism is not the road to unity
                  How the Taliban could have galvanised this Ummah for the true solution
                  The future lessons for the Islamic Khilafah and how it will tackle similar problems.
                  The Islamic State of Afghanistan?

                  One of the most frequent questions we have been asked at is whether the Taliban had established the Islamic Khilafah, a state for all of the Muslims. This is the key to reviewing what happened in Afghanistan. The answer is the Taliban did not establish the Islamic Khilafah, and they never claimed that they had, rather this was always claimed of them.

                  A delegation from Hizb ut-Tahrir approached the Taliban Ambassador in Islamabad, one of the members of that delegation asked: We have been working for a long time to re-establish the Khilafah and it is not permissible to have two Khilafah states in the Ummah. Therefore, do you consider your state to be the Khilafah so that we may give the bayah (Pledge of Allegiance given to a Khaleefah) to you? In addition, if matters were to occur in Uzbekistan, maybe we, Hizb ut-Tahrir, can take the authority in Uzbekistan and merge it with you to establish the Khilafah. So, is your state the Khilafah? He answered: No, we are an Islamic Imara (emirate). The Emirate of Afghanistan and we do not invite Islamic movements to give us the bayah. We do not invite our neighbouring Muslim states to give us the bayah. He continued to say: Representatives from Chechnya approached us and they wanted to give us the bayah. The Amir (of Afghanistan), Mullah Mohammad Umar said to them: You go and establish an Emirate in your country we will help you if we can and you help us if you can but your land is an Emirate and we are an Emirate. He also said: The time of Khilafah has ended because the Khilafah is for only 30 years upon the saying of Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam).

                  After which a discussion occurred, the member of the delegation answered by saying, Yes, there is this Hadith, but this is not the place for us to demand to make it for only 30 years, nor is it a place to agree to make it for 30 years. It is not allowed to have many states in the Ummah and all the Imams (ridhwan Allah alaihim) are in agreement with what came in the ahadith of the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam). The delegation left the ambassador with a book which Hizb ut-Tahrir has published called The Khilafah and parted with the words this was our opinion and if we see that you announce your state as the Khilafah we will work to give you the bayah and work for the rest of the Muslims to give you the bayah. We may be able to merge other countries with yours to give you the bayah to become the Khilafah. The ambassador replied the Ulama of Afghanistan have come to a consensus that the Khilafah is a thing of the past.

                  The reality following this visit did not change to the extent that the Imara of Afghanistan became the Khilafah.

                  The Khilafah

                  It is vital for us to be clear on what the Khilafah is; this has been explained in numerous Ayaat, Ahadith and the Ijma of the Sahaba (consensus of the companions). It is the ruling system of any nation which determines the shape of their state, and this is all the more important for Muslims as Allah (Subhanahu Wa taala) has commanded that his laws must be implemented within any state which counts itself as Islamic.

                  The Quran and Ahadith have clarified that the basis of the state needs to be Islamic.

                  Allah (Subhanahu Wa taala) links the judging by Islam with the essence of Iman, thus linking inextricably the iman with the action of judging/ruling.

                  But no, by Your Lord, they can have no (real) faith until they make you judge in all disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest submission. [TMQ 4:65]

                  And He (Subhanahu Wa taala) says:

                  And rule between them by that which Allah has revealed [TMQ 5:49]

                  Allah (Subhanahu Wa taala) says:

                  And those who do not rule by that which Allah has revealed are the disbelievers [TMQ 5:44]

                  The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said:

                  Any action which is not according to our matter (Deen) is rejected.

                  All of these Ayaat indicate that all of the Islamic states legislations, whether the constitution or laws have to be restricted to what emanates from the Islamic Aqeeda in the form of divine laws. In other words, it is restricted to that which has been revealed by Allah (Subhanahu Wa taala) of rules in the Book and the Sunnah, and in whatever the Book and the Sunnah directed to of analogy (Qiyas) and general consensus of the companions (Ijmaa as Sahabah).

                  This is because the speech of the Legislator came related to the actions of the humans (Ibad), and obliged the people to restrict themselves to it in all their actions, thus the organisation of actions comes from Allah (Subhanahu Wa taala). The Islamic Shariah came in relation to all the actions of people, and all their relationships, whether the relationship was with Allah, with themselves, or with others. So there is no place in Islam for the people to put forward rules and laws for the state in organising their relationships, because they are restricted to the Ahkam Shariah.

                  The Khilafah is the general leadership over all the Muslims, in the whole world, whose responsibility it is to implement the laws of Islam, and to convey the Islamic Message to the whole world. The Sahih Ahadith have labelled the state which restricts itself to the laws of Allah (Subhanahu Wa taala) as the Khilafah or the Imamah, both of these terms have been mentioned in the Ahadith of the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) and they both carry the same meaning, it is important to be clear that the shape of the Islamic state is determined solely by the divine evidences. Therefore any word can be used as a name for the state as long as it does not contradict with the meaning of the Islamic state such as Islamic Democracy or Islamic Republic, Islamic federation etc. Therefore the meaning has to be adhered to by establishing all the rules of Islam comprehensively and engaging with other nations in order to convey the message of Islam through invitation and Jihad.

                  This is a brief description from the Islamic evidences which lays down the basis of the Islamic State which the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) and the Sahabah (Radiallahu Anhuma) established in Medina. So many Ahadith have made clear that the Muslims must be united behind one Khaleefah who implements the rule of Allah (Subhanahu Wa taala). So numerous are the evidences that no one can deny that we can establish a state for a nation or a tribe. The reality of Afghanistan under the Taliban was that the yearning for Islam existed, as it does throughout the whole world, but some key ingredients were missing which will Insha Allah be elaborated upon throughout the rest of these articles.

                  The Next article will Insha Allah clarify the link between the reason for the existence of the state and the vital need for political awareness, which was found wanting in the Imara of Afghanistan.

                  Wait theres more!!


                    Did Islam Fail in Afghanistan Part Two

                    The Importance of Political Awareness

                    In the second of this series of articles, we look at the vital importance of political awareness, something which was lacking in the foreign policy decisions of the Taliban.

                    This Islamic Ummah has been commanded to carry on the work of the Prophets, since the finality of the Messengership (risala) of Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam), there are no new prophets, but the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) has said:

                    "there is no prophet after me. There will be Khulafaa and they will number many" [Narrated by Muslim on the authority of Abu Hurayrah]

                    These Khulafaa have been charged with continuing the mission of Prophethood, which was to spread the guidance, call to the worship of Allah exclusively (Tawheed). Once the Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) established the Islamic state in Medina after which he began to call nations to Islam through sending delegations of invitation to Islam.

                    It was reported in the Hadith of Sulayman ibn Burayda on the authority of his father who said: "Whenever the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) appointed an Ameer to head an army or an expedition, he would command him to fear Allah and be good to those who are with him; then he (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) would say:

                    ǡ ǡ ... : ɡ . ...

                    Raid in the Name of Allah! Fight whoever disbelieved in Allah! Raid but do not abuse, do not betray, do not maim or mutilate and do not kill any newborn. If you encounter your enemies, the Mushrikeen, call them to observe three qualities or dispositions, and whichever of these they accept then accept it from them, and do not fight them. Call them to Islam, and if they accepted it, do accept this from them and refrain from fighting them..." He (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) went on: "If they refused, ask them to pay the Jizya, and if they accepted this, then take it from them and refrain from fighting them, and if they refused, seek the help of Allah and fight them" [narrated by Muslim]

                    Therefore the messenger had commanded that the invitation to Islam be given before the fight, if they refused to accept Islam as their Deen, they should be invited to live under the system of Islam and pay the Jizya, and if they yet refuse, those who stand as obstacles to the implementation of Islam must be fought. In order to have even gotten to this situation, the Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) and the Sahaba (Radiallahu Anhum) had to undertake political manoeuvres in order to create a global environment where Islam could flourish, this meant creating stability in the lands surrounding Medina, forming treaties and alliances, sending delegations to different leaders as well as sending armed contingents to open up new lands. Islam was able to spread far and wide as a result.

                    Abu Dawood narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik who related that The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:

                    ... ...

                    "...and the Jihad is continuous from the moment Allah has sent me till the last person of my Ummah fights against the Dajjal; neither the oppression of the oppressor, nor the justice of the just (ruler) will abolish it....."

                    This is the eternal method to propagate Islam and its system; it is the fixed method to remove the physical barriers that halt the progression of Islam to the world. Therefore no one has the authority to abolish or abrogate something which is the peak of Islam.

                    In short the Political Awareness is obliged upon a state whose very existence is due to the command of Allah (Subhanahu Wa taala) for his deen (religion/ideology) to prevail over all other deens.

                    Let us look at how the Taliban fared in this regard.

                    The Talibans external relations

                    The Imara of Afghanistan was recognised by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and the US was initially quite open about its relations with the Taliban. The relationship between the Muslim countries is currently an abnormal one, the closest analogy to describe this irrational relationship would be if hundreds of Muslims were to converge to a Masjid for Salatul Jumuah, the Adhaan (call to Salah) having been called and following the Khutbah and the Iqama everyone were to pray individually. Similarly the relationship between the Muslim countries is an illegitimate and abnormal one as there is no place for nation-states within Islam. For a Muslim country to flaunt its Islamic credentials and then establish an Emirate for the Afghans and call for the recognition of other Muslim countries is one which Islam prohibits. Leadership from the point of view of Islam is singular and not collective; the existence of multiple leaders over the affairs of this Ummah is a disease which Allah (Subhanahu Wa taala) and his Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) prohibits.

                    The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said:

                    It is not allowed for three persons (to be) without appointing one of them as an Ameer. [Ahmed narrated on the Authority of Abdullah bin Amru]

                    The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said:

                    If three people went out on a journey, let them appoint one of them as an Ameer. [Abu Dawood narrated on the authority of Abi Said]

                    He (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) also said:

                    If there are three persons in a journey, let them appoint one (Ahad) of them as an Ameer. [Al-Bazzaar narrated from the tradition of Umar b. Al-Khattab]

                    All these traditions state that the Ameer should be one, as understood from the wording without appointing one of them as an Ameer, let them appoint one of them as an Ameer and let them appoint one (Ahad) of them as an Ameer.

                    These Ahadith indicate the Shariah rule which states that there can only be one Ameer over one matter, this is denoted by the use of the term ahad which means one, the opposite of whose meaning (Mafhoom al-Mukhalafah) is that it is not allowed to have more than one Ameer. With regards to the Khaleefah, the leader for all the Muslims, the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) has said:

                    When an oath of allegiance (Baiah) has been taken for two Khulafaa, kill the latter of them. [Narrated by Muslim on the Authority of Abi Said al-Khudri]

                    This Hadith provides a Sharii permission to kill anyone who presents himself as Khaleefah once one already exists. Therefore how can it be that there exist many rulers over us implementing other than that which Allah (Subhanahu Wa taala) has revealed. It was also the case that the Taliban and Iran mobilised their forces across the Afghan border to fight each other in September 1998 over the killing of Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-Sharif. Had the Taliban publicly called for the Iranian Islamic people to unify with it based on Islam and vocalised their brotherhood, pointing to the plans of enemy states such as US, Britain, Russia, India, Israel, China etc imagine the impact this would have had. Even if the Batil Iranian Republican regime had spurned the call to unification, it would have exposed it throughout the world and amongst the Muslims of Iran, had this been followed by a call for unification for all the Muslims throughout the world, the Muslims would have risen up to remove their rulers and joined Afghanistan. Unfortunately this comes back to the nature of the system established within Afghanistan, which was one not fully compliant with Islam.

                    When Syed Rahmatullah Hashimi (Senior Advisor to Mullah 'Umar, Afghanistan) was asked on March 10, 2001 at a Lecture he gave at the University of Southern California What is Afghanistans priority in regards to establishing an Islamic state for all Muslims, not just for Afghans?

                    He answered: We have our first headache in Afghanistan, and thats a big headache. We have a full-time job there. If we were worked 24 hours a day, we will hardly ever be able to re-construct an Islamic system in our own country. And we have no intention of going beyond our borders, and neither can we. So, all these people who exist in other countries, or their policies, they have nothing to do with us. We are only concerned about Afghanistan. And please do not try to make assumptions.

                    I agree with him that the establishment of a stable Afghanistan was a full time job, and a hard one at that, but Islam requires that this action of building is done in conformity with Islam. Surely a country like Afghanistan which is land locked, having very little in terms of resources and torn by war for decades should have united with the other Muslims under one Khilafah, in that way the Hadith of the Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) would have become a reality:

                    The Ummah are one Ummah, their land is one, and their war is one.

                    It was pitiful when Afghanistan faced an earthquake and then famine, and the response of the Muslim countries was pitiful, the small handouts that were given were analogous to the sympathy that someone gives a stray cat, sympathy without any real commitment. If the Muslims were one then the same response which Amr ibn al-as gave to Khaleefah Umar bin al-Khattab when asked to send food to alleviate the famine in Medina would have been repeated. Amr Ibn al-as was the Waali (governor) of Egypt and its inhabitants viewed the caravans of food leaving Egypt as though they were providing food for members of their families. And when the Taliban were attacked by the US and abandoned by Pakistan, Saudi, Qatar and all of the Muslim countries, the most that could have been expected of the Ummah was sympathy because their relationship though from Islam manifested solely in reading about their trial in newspapers, on Al-Jazeera as concerned bystanders rather than angered participants because the state that was about to be destroyed was an Afghani state, if they had attacked the Khilafah, the reaction would have been different as the entire Muslim world would have fought against the US, as that state would have belonged to them. Everyone fights to protect the seizure and destruction of that which belongs to them. Similar to the reaction of the Muslims of India to the destruction of the Khilafah in 1924, although the state had been in decline for centuries and a lot of the Islamic lands had been occupied by the colonialists, the Muslims there and indeed in other parts of the Islamic lands were distraught and even began movements for the restoration of the Khilafah because although they had taken the existence of such a state for granted they perceived its vital link to Islam. This was something which was vitally missing from the rule of the Taliban and how they were viewed by the rest of the Muslim world, as a result of the fact that the Emirate of Afghanistan was for the Afghanis and not the entire Islamic Ummah.

                    In similar light was the relationship that it had with Pakistan which was used by the US as a conduit to establish a government that would be stable enough to provide safe passage for a US oil pipeline.

                    The untamed bear

                    It is common knowledge that American Imperialism is the custodian of global capitalism. Safeguarding the interests of this menace that has crossed national boundaries in search of greener pastures around the world...their entire history is a testimony to the fact that they have no permanent foes and friends, jumping into the fray whenever the environment is found to be entirely conducive but running for cover whenever the stakes are high. These fair-weather friends, notwithstanding the spurious and opportunistic war-time promises of standing through thick and thin to their allies, have an impeccable record of not even looking back to inquire about these allies at the time of their misery. One should not be bewildered, therefore, to find their allies left in the lurch licking their wounds with the American `master' enjoying the scene from a safe distance These mercenaries of global capitalism also wanted to gain access to the mostly untapped natural resources of Central Asia.

                    The statement above is a good description of US aims throughout the world, yet it is even more surprising that this statement came from Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan. This is an illustration of the political naivety of the International situation on the part of the Taliban. The US is an untamed bear which befriends if you can even call it that other nations or peoples in order to secure an interest, whether that be a strategic, economic or military goal, once the bear has had its fill or realises that the object of its desire is beyond its reach it will either retreat, or if that interest were to be viewed as too important, she will quickly remove the obstacle which stands in her way to realising it.

                    It is therefore a folly to ever believe that anyone can tame the beast in order to become its friend and ally, especially when the US is protecting its energy interests.

                    There are two main areas which illustrate the lack of political awareness linked to the rules of Islam which were exhibited by the Taliban

                    Link to Oil Companies and the US oil interests.

                    Search for recognition and UN membership.

                    The USs energetic policy

                    Indeed it was Lord Palmerston (Englands Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and later Prime Minister) who insisted that:

                    "We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

                    The interest which the US pursued (and continues to chase after) in Afghanistan was the utilisation of a yet untapped oil resource in the Caspian Sea. The US wanted to clear the way for the proposed oil pipeline through the preferred route which would extend through Afghanistan.

                    The importance of the Caspian region in terms of potential reserves to rival the middle-east was too tempting an offer for the US to miss. The Current Vice-President, Dick Cheney underlined the importance of this region in 1998 whilst addressing a group of oil executives, he said:

                    "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."

                    The Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, which acts as the voice of the major U.S. oil companies, called the Caspian region, "the area of greatest resource potential outside of the Middle East."

                    The problem was how it could be piped from its source in the Caspian (Central Asia) to the markets where they were needed. John J Maresca (Vice-President, International Relations UNOCAL Corporation) presented this problem to the House Committee on International relations (subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, February 12 1998) he made clear to the committee, there were many risks involved in all potential avenues for the pipeline, Iran was out of the question due the ban on US companies establishing trading deals with Iran due to the Helms-Burton Act. John Maresca, taking all this into account stated:

                    There are few, if any, other areas of the world where there can be such a dramatic increase in the supply of oil and gas to the world market. The solution seems simple: build a "new" Silk Road. Implementing this solution, however, is far from simple. The risks are high, but so are the rewards.

                    Barry Lane, a UNOCAL spokesman was more open about the options that they had referring to the choice between Iran and Afghanistan, he said there was by the process of elimination one option, And the U.S. sanctions against doing business with Iran left us only one option, by this he meant that the Central Asia to Southern Afghanistan route could be by default the only viable route.

                    The US believed she could use the Taliban in order to create the stability they yearned after. For example in 1997 a US diplomat told the writer Ahmed Rashid "the Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco [the former US oil consortium in Saudi Arabia] pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Shariah law. We can live with that."

                    As long as they could achieve stability nothing else mattered. Yet this plan for stability pre-dated this.

                    In 1996 US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Raphel on a visit to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia, called on all parties to reach a political solution to end the continuing conflict. We are also concerned that economic opportunities here will be missed, if political stability cannot be restored, she told the media.

                    Between 1994 to 1997 attempts were made to achieve support for the UNOCAL pipeline.

                    In March 1996, a prominent US senator Hank Brown, a keen supporter of the UNOCAL project, visited Kabul and other Afghan cities. He met with the Taliban and invited them to send a delegation to a UNOCAL-funded conference on Afghanistan in the US. In the same month, the US applied pressure on the Pakistani government to cancel its agreements with the Argentinean company Bridas and back the Americas boys (UNOCAL).

                    On September 27, 1996 in a move which shocked the Afghan opposition and indeed much of the world, the Taliban captured the Afghan capital, Kabul. After a few days the US State Department responded by announcing they would send an envoy to meet with the Taliban to determine the shape of relations.

                    When asked about the Talibans human rights record, State Department spokesman Glyn Davies said the US saw "nothing objectionable" in their strict application of Shariah as there was "an indication ... that they intend to respect the rights of all their citizens." Upon hearing of the capture of Afghanistan's former Communist president, Najibullah, his castration and his hanging a White House spokesman called the action "regrettable." After a few days the US State Department condemned the killing.

                    A U.S. official told the Los Angeles Times in October of the same year, "We're not choosing. These people walked into Kabul, and they are no more or less legitimate than those sitting there last week."

                    The Taliban held a news conference after their takeover of Kabul where a representative claimed the movement desired "friendly and good" relations with the United States and would fervently crack down on the illegal drug trade, and would not export Islam beyond its borders.

                    It was then that the plan to establish fertile ground for the pipeline began to reveal itself; the US was calling for now calling for a 'broad based coalition government'.

                    The US began to work to achieve this objective, yet the Taliban refused. They refused to participate in a Loya Jirga with their opponents, Julie Sirrs, a former US Department of Defense Intelligence Agency official who specialised in Afghanistan said much later, "There were some bad signs from pretty early on ... that I think were just ignored because we had larger geopolitical reasons that we wanted to believe that they would be a good group."

                    The US knew that the ISI supported the Talibans quick entry into dominance in Afghanistan and the US supported this as indicated by statements from the December 1996 report on Afghanistan from the Congressional Research Service (a department of the Library of Congress which acts as a source of information for the US legislature) declared, "[t]he United States is unwilling to isolate [the] Taliban because Pakistan, on which the United States has consistently relied to protect U.S. interests in Afghanistan, supports the group."

                    UNOCAL was the preferred hope of the Clinton administration and the latter would do all it could to ensure that it prevailed in the great new game for oil. UNOCAL hired a set of impressive and high profile consultants, amongst which included Robert Oakley, a former ambassador to Pakistan; Zilmay Khalilzad, recently appointed by President George W. Bush to act as adviser on Southwest Asia on the National Security Council and envoy to Karzais Afganistan; and Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. There have also been unsubstantiated claims that UNOCAL was privy to regular briefings by the CIA.

                    UNOCAL officials lobbied the US government to aid it to establish a secure position on the ground for a pipeline.

                    In November 1997 Madeleine Albright, during a visit to Pakistan, called the regime's treatment of women "despicable" and condemned "their general lack of respect for human dignity." This was not a u-turn in US foreign policy but in part a reaction to the Womens lobby, an indication of public appeasement of domestic opinion, whilst maintaining discussions and dialogue.

                    This is further proved by Karl Inderfurth, who succeeded Robin Raphel in July 1997, and was quoted by the Washington Post on 12 January 1998, as saying: "We do believe they (the Taliban) can modify their behaviour and take into account certain international standards with respect to women's rights to education and employment."

                    Richard Mackenzie in The New Republic magazine highlighted the importance of the Taliban for the US who believed it could mould them into a force for stability and moderation, but in essence a puppet it could toy with and tie into its manipulative web of control just as it had done to the other Muslim countries.

                    "What probably made the most difference to U.S. policymakers [in welcoming the arrival of the Taliban], though, was the Taliban's commitment to a particular commercial enterprise. The Taliban had promised to permit construction of giant gas and oil pipelines from Central Asia, down through Afghanistan, to Pakistan. The main contender for that work was an American-Saudi coalition of Unocal and Delta oil companies....It took a while for many in the West to catch on, but inside Afghanistan the key players were already well-aware of the pipeline's importance--and its potential effect on policy. In 1996, during a conversation in Kabul not long before the Taliban reached the capital, Ahmed Shah Massoud asked me about Unocal, its motives, its methods, and its ties to the U.S. government. When the Taliban finally reached the gates of Kabul, it was well-financed and well-equipped--and it could count upon the acquiescence of the United States.... ['The succession: the price of neglecting Afghanistan', Richard Mackenzie. The New Republic, Sept 14, 1998 v219 n11-12 p23]

                    The Saudis were part of this plan and its collaboration with UNOCAL through its Delta-Nimir oil company, Nimir Petroleum had more than the funds needed to execute ambitious projects such as the UNOCAL pipeline since it was dominated by the bin-Mahfouz family which owned the National Commercial Bank whose patrons were high ranking members of the Saudi royal family. Delta-Nimir was already a major investor with Unocal in the oilfields of Azerbaijan, and had close links to Crown Prince Abdullah, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia.

                    The US government was backing UNOCAL aggressively as Bridas had made agreement with some Central Asia leaders to be the preferred company to build lucrative pipelines, but the US helped to destroy a lot of these agreements and the US Ambassador to Pakistan forced Bhuttos government to openly come out in favour of UNOCAL whilst ceasing any contacts with Bridas, the Argentinean Oil company, her administration duly complied.

                    By mid-1996 it was difficult to view Robin Raphel as anything other than UNOCALs marketing spokesman since she was voicing the Clinton administrations full backing to its pipeline bid, she said in 1996 on one of two trips to Islamabad, that "We worked hard to make all the Afghan factions understand the potential, because the Unocal pipeline offered development opportunities that no aid program nor any Afghan government could" (Washington Post, 11/5/01).

                    The situation did change in August 1998, following the bombings of the US Embassies in Africa. UNOCAL withdrew from the project to build a pipeline,. It has since September 11 gone to painstaking lengths to convey its reason for pulling out of the Centgas consortium as a direct result of the bombing and the retaliatory strikes against the Taliban by the US. Firstly Clinton used the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan as a means of diverting attention away from the investigation into his lies about the Lewinsky Affair and the consequent investigation by Ken Starr, it was not a reflection of the administrations anger towards the Talibans relationship with Osama bin Laden, otherwise the strike would have been more devastating and achieved tangible results such as what has been achieved after September 11 in the ousting of the Taliban. The truth of the matter is that contacts with the Taliban continued after this, and UNOCAL had not in anyway been pressurised to cease the proposed pipeline, the decision was as a result of good old fashioned economic concerns over the price of oil. UNOCAL announced that it was closing three of its four offices in the four Casian republics where it operated, it had only a month earlier pulled out from another consortium which was due to initiate a $2.9 billion pipeline to ship natural gas from Turkmenistan to Turkey, if instability was their main concern, nothing had changed in this regard to the Central Asian Republics.

                    The New York Times reported on 4 December 1998 that UNOCAL had made clear they had withdrawn because the venture was no longer economically viable due to the fact that the price of oil had plummeted to $12 a barrel, the previous price of oil had been $24 a barrel, thus highlighting the gamble it would have been for UNOCAL which had counted itself in to the venture based upon the higher projected price. Since Bridas the only potential competitor had been frozen out, there was no chance that in the interim period which saw a downturn in world oil prices it would re-enter the race for oil.

                    UNOCAL and its government backers went to great lengths to convince the Taliban to accept the pipeline and create stability on the ground which could only materialise if it was within an environment of a broad based government, such proposals were aired as early as 1996 by officials such as Robin Raphel. Therefore like Iran, the US believed it could use a series of carrot and stick initiatives. The Carrots were indeed quite bizarre, which included a visit of a Taliban delegation to Houston, Texas in December 1997 in which they were housed in a five-star hotel, taken to the Zoo and visited the Nasa Space Center, they were also invited to Dinner at Marty Millers (Vice President, UNOCAL) House. At the same time a Taliban delegation was in Buenos Aires being courted by UNOCALs rival, Bridas.

                    In February 1997, a delegation of Taliban leaders had flown to the UNOCAL headquarters at Sugarland, Texas, for a whirlwind of corporate hospitality, one of many which UNOCAL hosted.

                    The Carrots kept coming as UNOCAL donated $900,000 to the Centre of Afghanistan Studies at the University of Omaha, Nebraska. The Centre set up a training and humanitarian aid programme for the Afghans, opening a school in Kandahar, which began to train some 400 Afghan teachers, electricians, carpenters and pipe-fitters to help UNOCAL to lay the pipeline.

                    In the Cent-Gas Consortium, UNOCAL held a 70 per cent stake, Saudi oil company Delta-Nimir 15 per cent, Russia's state-owned gas company Gazprom 10 per cent and the Turkmen state-owned company Turk-menrosgaz 5 per cent. In October 1997, after Gazporm left the Cent-Gas, the consortium was expanded, with UNOCAL's share reduced to 54.11 per cent, Delta 15 per cent, Turk-menrosgaz 7 per cent, Indonesia Petroleum (Japan) 7.22 per cent, CIECO Trans-Asia Gas Ltd (Japan) 7.22 per cent, Crescent Group (Pakistan) 3.89 per cent and Hyundai Ltd (South Korea) 5.56 per cent.

                    As recently as July 2001, Christina Rocca, the US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, met the Taliban officials in Islamabad and announced $43 million in food and shelter aid, bringing to $124 million the US contribution to the Internally Displaced Persons project in 2001 alone. This money was given straight to the Taliban without them having to account for how it was spent. The renewed US contacts with the Taliban, including a visit by seven US officials to Kabul in late April 2001 preceded by another visit by three US officials earlier in that month, this was all conducted even though Afghanistan fell under the stringent sanctions by Washington and the UN Security Council. But more tellingly was a reaction to Dana Rohrabacher, a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, who requested access to official US documents related to US relations with the Taliban, after two years of repeated requests, the State Department relented, handing over one thousand documents which covered the period after 1996, which was the year the Taliban had taken Kabul. The documents of interest were those related to US relations with the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Pakistani government with regards to backing the Taliban, they are under embargo to this date.

                    The US-Taliban relations was a complex one, which meant that the US became impatient with their stance, not necessarily in terms of failing to hand over Osama bin Laden, but more its unwillingness to share power to reach a broad-based government, the Clinton administration had been fighting for this and the Bush administration followed suit. A recent book by two French authors with links to French intelligence has made some far reaching allegations. The book Bin Laden, la verite interdite (Bin Laden, the forbidden truth), that was released recently, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie said that at a meeting between US officials and Taliban representatives, the latter were told:

                    "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."It consolidates documents released by the State department which indicate a series of missions of Shuttle diplomacy by the Bush administration since it came to power, the state department line was that these meetings were convened to agree the handing over of bin Laden, but was in effect seeking the agreement of the Taliban for a broad based government which would encompass Ahmed Shah Masood, Abdul-Rashid Dostam, Ismail Khan as well as other leaders of the United Front (Northern Alliance).

                    It is claimed by the authors that the last meeting between the Taliban and the US was conducted in August 2001, Christina Rocca, undersecretary for South Asian affairs for the US government met with Abdul Salaam Zaeef, the Taliban Ambassador to Afghanistan in Islamabad.

                    The book continues to describe that frequent meetings took place under the Six plus 2 forum of Central Asian countries, including Russia and the US, they claim that on some occasions Taliban officials were present.

                    Niaz Naik, former Pakistani minister for foreign affairs was interviewed both on French television and also by the BBC, he emphasised that the bone of contention during a Six plus 2 meeting in a Berlin hotel in mid-July was "the formation of a government of national unity. He was very clear in the options which the Taliban were presented with, if the Taliban had accepted this coalition, they would have immediately received international economic aid. And the pipelines from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would have come."

                    The meeting was attended by senior Americans, Russians, Iranians and Pakistanis, on the American side was Tom Simons, a former US ambassador to Pakistan, Karl Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary of state for south Asian affairs, and Lee Coldren, who headed the office of Pakistan, Afghan and Bangladesh affairs in the state department until 1997.

                    Naik also claimed that Tom Simons issued a stern ultimatum which impressed upon him the significance of this meeting, and that the days of negotiation had ended, Naik quotes Simons as having said, in case the Taliban does not behave and in case Pakistan also doesn't help us to influence the Taliban, then the United States would be left with no option but to take an overt action against Afghanistan," He said that following these threats "I told the Pakistani government, who informed the Taliban via our foreign office and the Taliban ambassador here."

                    The Taliban was invited to this meeting, but refused to send a representative, Dr Abdullah Abdullah, the Northern Alliance's foreign minister did attend.

                    In a cagey statement to the Guardian newspaper on September 22 2001, Mr Coldren confirmed the broad outline of the American position at the Berlin meeting. "I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action." The three former US diplomats "based our discussion on hearsay from US officials", he said. It was not an agenda item at the meeting but was mentioned just in passing".

                    Surely a threat of war as the consequences for refusing US demands would be memorable enough for such high level delegates to remember. What this does show is that the US had lost all patience and such a view is reinforced by Bushs no negotiation statements following September 11, most diplomats are in agreement that even if they had handed bin Laden over (which Mullah Omar refused to do) the removal of the Taliban was still a sub-objective of the US stability plan for the Caspian oil pipeline.

                    It was more than politically nave for the Taliban to enter into a protracted engagement with the US believing she would act in the interests of the Muslims, her history has shown that she does not allow for any group of people to threaten her interests, she follows the Machiavellian principle of the ends justifies the means as her mission statement in life, vigorously pursuing her objectives. She does not follow principles of Justice and fair play rather these red herrings are intertwined within her wider marketing and disinformation campaign which she presents to the world. Her relationship with the Muslims countries was also based upon an abnormal relationship, a mutual recognition of interests with the US as its conductor.

                    George Kennan the Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. State Department after the Second World War illustrated this when he said:

                    "To maintain this position of disparity (U.S. economic-military supremacy)... we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming.... We should cease to talk about vague and... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standard and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.... The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."


                    [This message has been edited by clubber lang (edited August 10, 2002).]


                      you just seem to want to kill people kafras are human too.
                      I dont want to kill muslims but I am straight with people I think mohammed was a phoney.
                      but that isnt the big thing its the fact that islam teaches people to kill anyone that wants to leave .
                      Even in europe there have been murders of muslims that have left islam ,there have even been murders of women that have broken islamic dress code
                      and if you are open about leaveing or state publically that you think islam is fake you are seting yourself up to be killed .
                      why would god need some thug to murder people who wanted to leave his religion .
                      and why would such a thug go to heaven when a good man like gandi who never killed anyone but is a kafra is to go to hell .


                        Originally posted by jonny2mad:

                        I mean you dont believe in democracy so why live in one or is it that you guys are just fake.
                        Since when did the USA or UK implement democracy? Both Bush and Blair were voted in following a minority win. In other words, more voters didn't want them in power as compared to those that did. And yet they are ruling their respective countries. Is that how democracy works!? At the last general election in the UK only 59% of the electorate even bothered to turn out to vote - the lowest figure ever recorded - despite so many government initiatives to try and encourage people. Such poor turnouts are the strongest indication of just how much people really value democracy.



                          personally I support proportional representation so Im not going to defend either america or britian in this .
                          and I suppose most people in the uk or america dont realise how lucky they are. until some one like the nazis or some people that want to conquer the world and impose some 7th century religous dictatorship come along .
                          do you tell all your neighbours your plans for the world Im sure they would be interested .


                            Jony - There is no Islam being implemented currently in any land.
                            Prostitution is rife in many Muslim countries i agree. This is not due to the Muslim women having promiscuous personalities but is due to the fact that the distribution of wealth by the unislamic rulers and the influx of global companies is leaving the average Muslim without enough money to run a family. Prostitution is by no means correct but is a symptom of a corrupt system.
                            You can quote to me that people were bad during the times of Islam. I will agree with you that there will always be people and that is why Islam is equipped with a punishment system because it acknowledges that there will be people who do wrong actions.
                            The simple point on why a kafir would go to hell is because he has missed the point of life. Life is a test and is to worship the creator who created you and to do good deeds. Some may do good deeds but these don't matter if you don't acknowledge the one that created you.
                            And one can say i worship him in a different way. If Allah prescribes a certain method of worship then it is false to worship other than his method such as paganism.
                            That is why gandhi if a kafir would go to hell.


                              Originally posted by jonny2mad:
                              personally I support proportional representation so Im not going to defend either america or britian in this.
                              Well, earlier you started by saying:

                              "I mean you dont believe in democracy so why live in one or is it that you guys are just fake." (jonny2mad)

                              And now you've just shown that you don't even believe in democracy yourself - so who is the fake? Do you always defeat your own arguments so quickly?


                              [This message has been edited by Iqbal1089 (edited August 10, 2002).]