The Attack in Nice - Think Rationally not Emotionally

Read this on my new website: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/07/15/the-attack-in-nice-think-rationally-not-emotionally/

﷽

The truck attack in Nice will no doubt be linked to "Islamic Extremism" in the first 24 hours before the truth is actually revealed. Let's be clear, the attack is horrific and in no way affirmed by Islam or the Muslims - but leaving emotion to the side we must understand the outcomes of such attacks and the similar ones leading up to this.

If you follow the media trend on such attacks you will see that within the first 24 hours of the attack, the attackers identity will be revealed as a Muslim and that he most likely has links to ISIS or another terrorist/militia group. The government will announce their commitment to fighting terrorism and in effect get the public opinion on their side for further military action in the Middle East. However, the following hours after the first 24 hours you will find that the attackers true identity will be revealed, usually a deranged psychopath that would be easily misled or goaded into doing such attacks. You will find that the official narrative is weak and contradictions begin to appear from the over exaggerated initial reports. But it's too late, by this time the entire world has linked this attack to Islam and Muslims, and 99% of the population have switched off the news and moved onto more "important" matters in their life. The 1% that haven't are you, the one reading this article right now. That 1% doesn't really matter now as they have no power or voice.

This was the case with the San Bernardino shooting, the Orlando nightclub shooting, and now this one and many others before.

We understand that these attacks most likely were carried out, putting conspiracy theories aside. And even if they didn't happen it doesn't make the outcome null and void because the whole world believed it to have happened in the way the media has portrayed. What we have to understand is the outcome of such attacks.

1. It sways public opinion against Islam and Muslims further isolating them.
2. It supports the idea of further military intervention by European States, through NATO, of the Muslim world.
3. It amplifies the voice of those on the far right, i'm sure Marie Le Pen is loving this.
4. It endorses the idea of an 'extremist watchlist' which has been an issue of contention in many countries that say it is against ones freedoms. This attacker was known by the police but not on the official 'watchlist' so therefore he "wasn't tracked".

Finally, let us also remember the millions that have died through the wars that the Western nations committed and the Muslims dying in Kashmir right now as we speak that have no voice or media attention, and the Muslims in Burma that are persecuted to the point of extinction, and the 14,000 Muslims arrested in Bangladesh just because they oppose the government.

There are many Muslims dying right now due to their involvement in our lands and will continue to die until we wake up and do something to help.

#DontBeFooled

Iraq Invasion - Stopping Saddam or Stopping the Islamic Revival?

Read this on my new website: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/07/08/iraq-invasion-stopping-saddam-or-stopping-the-islamic-revival/

﷽

We will without doubt be hearing how the Iraq Invasion in 2003 was a failure and mismanagement by Tony Blair now that the Chilcot Report has affirmed what we already knew was an unfounded case for WMD's. However, this article will give you an entirely different narrative to what you may find on the mainstream news channels and papers.

The Iraq Invasion was a failure only in terms of establishing Iraq as the model democratic nation in the Middle East for the rest of the nearby Muslim countries to follow suit, and this was undoubtedly "Plan A" for Iraq under the Greater Middle East Initiative of 2004. However, this does not mean there was not a "Plan B". In fact when John Kerry mentioned Plan B for Syria he was not only speaking of Syria but rather a Plan B in moving towards Plan A, democratisation and secularisation of the Middle East.

The Islamic sentiment during the latter years of Saddam's reign was strong and this is evident from the fact that he used this sentiment a number of times, whether that be falsely claiming that he is a descendent of the Prophet ﷺ or filling his speeches with references to the Qur'an. The only reason one would feel obliged to ride the Islamic wave would be due to the fact the people held Islam as more than just a mere religion. Especially when we know that the Ba'ath party was not born on religious grounds but on a secular one.

If Saddam had stepped down without a fight and left U.S. and Britain to install a new leader, they would have undeniably had to replace him with a leader that called for Islam. This is due to the fact the peoples thoughts and emotions were leaning towards Islam at this time.

This is definitely apparent when we look at the way in which Saddam held to power. He used government money to promote mandatory Qur'an studies in school. He built training centres for Imams including Saddam University of Islamic Studies. Radio stations were being dedicated to airing Qur'anic lessons and alcohol banned in restaurants. Ba'ath party members were made to take courses in Qur'an and Saddam was being shown in prayer in the media. There was a rise in mosque attendance and more women began to dress more modestly - especially  considering the fact that Baghdad was the most secular of all the surrounding areas before. With all of these actions he felt that the population would support him from any incoming foreign invasion or occupation.

Plan B is in fact the steps preceding Plan A. Plan B is to engulf the Middle East in bloody sectarian conflict whereby a Muslim is recognised based on their affiliations to a certain sect (Shia, Sunni) rather than their religion. It is to partition the Middle East with more than just a mere line in the sand, but rather a deep bloody scar that will not heal with time.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that:

“what we’re seeing here in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one." 

They wish for a New Middle East that will not see Islam as its solution because Islam will be seen as something barbaric and unable to govern, as is the case with post-Iraq ISIS.  They wish to show that political parties that have any connection to Islam are simply incapable of handling the power and with one fell swoop can be destroyed.

It is through destruction and chaos that the West will start to prop-up and fund secular democratic groups as an alternative to the mayhem that they have endured. They hope that the majority would seek stability and safety rather than revolutions and uprisings.

It was not a failure for the West in Iraq but a pre-requisite to entering the Middle East, inserting their influence and averting the Islamic revival which would unmistakably challenge their dominance at a world stage.

The Chilcot Inquiry will later be seen as a waste of public money and a way to appease the mass that were against the war from the very beginning. They wish to pull the wool over the peoples eyes, so that the real motive is left unrevealed. It is surely easier to lay the blame on one individual rather than the ideology itself.

Your Provision (Rizq) in Life is from Allah... not the EU

For latest posts visit my new website and subscribe! http://kamkashem.com

﷽

I apologise for the lateness of this advice. However I pray that it is still beneficial for those who wish to reflect.

I was surprised by the amount of Muslims that voted in the EU Referendum without really thinking it through. The emotion and commotion that came with the vote didn't help much either.

The common phrase I heard from Muslims throughout the day was that "this is going to affect our future or our children's future" or that "it's beneficial for us to stay in Europe" and even the odd "vote out because the migrants will take our jobs" which was funny coming from an immigrant Bangladeshi that has just received his shiny new British passport.

It is an emotional topic and one that really needs to be tackled at the most basic level. Let's go right down to ground zero, we believe that the Qur'an is the undisputed and unmatched word of the Creator. Correct? If we don't - then anything you read after this is nonsense to you and I suggest you pick up the Qur'an and re-assess your belief.

Allah (swt) tells us in the Qur'an that sovereignty belongs to Him and Him alone. He (swt) also tells us that we must judge by what He has revealed.

And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away - then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient. TMQ 5:49

It becomes evident that voting for a man-made constitution i.e. U.K, to be a part of another man-made constitution i.e. EU, is clearly forbidden and maybe seen as ascribing partners to the Almighty (swt). If we are to elevate man to such a status alongside Allah as sovereign, we are treading dangerous territory.

This leads one to conclude that if we are not allowed to vote for such a thing, do we sit back and do nothing while the future of our children and ourselves is in the hands of the rest of the country?

To address this question properly, the most important point is to understand where our sustenance and provision really comes from. Do we believe that it is due to our own actions that we provide food, shelter and comfort to ourselves and our families? As Muslims we must know that Allah (swt) is the sole Sustainer (Ar-Razzaq).

And We have provided therein means of living, for you and for those whom you provide not [moving (living) creatures, cattle, beasts, and other animals]. TMQ 15:20

We ask you not for provision; We provide for you, and the [best] outcome is for [those of] righteousness. TMQ 20:132

Yes - it is correct that man must carry out the actions to earn his provision (Rizq) however the outcome is always from Allah (swt).

Umar bin Al-Khattab narrated that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

"If you were to rely upon Allah with the required reliance, then He would provide for you just as a bird is provided for, it goes out in the morning empty, and returns full." at-Tirmidhi Vol. 4, Book 10, Hadith 2344

We can learn from this ahadith that the bird actively sought it's provision with reliance upon Allah (swt) and returned full only through Allah's (swt) unlimited mercy. The same way we must carry out the action of working and believe the outcome was from Allah (swt).

If it isn't clear enough to us that our provision is from Allah (swt) then let us look at another example of the saying of our beloved Prophet ﷺ.

Anas reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:

When you go to bed, say:" Praise is due to Allah Who fed us, provided us drink, sufficed us and provided us with shelter, for many a people there is none to suffice and none to provide shelter." Sahih Muslim Book 48, Hadith 87

Now that we have covered that voting for such a thing is forbidden and that our sustenance is solely from Allah (swt) and not in the hands of some super Euro state that keeps the pound stable. We need to discuss the solution. We are right in....
Read Full Article at http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/06/25/your-provision-rizq-in-life-is-from-allah-not-the-eu/

Is this the end of the American Civilization?

Testing the waters

An interesting debate has developed over the past couple of years. This debate argues that we are moving from a unipolar world whereby America, the sole undisputed world superpower, are losing its dominance in various parts of the world. They argue that other nations with ambitions to compete on a global scale are now testing the waters and standing up to this cut-throat hegemonic power, that is the U.S.

"Will the coming world order be the American universal empire?... The coming world order will mark the last phase in a historical transition and cap the revolutionary epoch of this century. The mission of the American people is to bury the nation states, lead their beheaved [sic] peoples into larger unions, and overawe with its might the would-be saboteurs of the new order who have nothing to offer mankind but a putrefying ideology and brute force. It is likely that the accomplishment of this mission will exhaust the energies of America and that, then, the historical center of gravity will shift to another people. But  this will matter little, for the opening of new horizons which we now faintly glimpse will usher in a new stage in human history... For the next 50 years or so, the future belongs to America." - U.S. Diplomat and Political Scientist Robert Strausz-Hupé (1957) 

 This U.S. political scientist made an accurate estimate of how the power will slowly begin to wane for the Americans fifty years on from the 1950's which brings us where we are today, although we can safely say that the power has not shifted away from them yet.

What is a unipolar world?

Unipolarity is the distribution of power whereby one nation or state exercises its influence in a economic, cultural, militaristic and political way unattested by any other state. This type of independent influence is something mankind has never seen before. A state that has access to the entire globe through its tactical capability, economic dominance and cultural indoctrination has never existed in the realm of life to this scale. The Roman Empire, nor the Islamic State had ever reached this level of total domination across the entire globe in so many aspects of life. However, the age of conflicts that we see today are signs of declining influence through the decreasing rate of expansion, class conflicts within their own society, imperialist wars and irrationality. 

The discussion of multipolarity has arisen in recent times, especially after the Middle East and North African uprisings. The 'vassals' of the American empire have begun to rebel and are increasingly formulating their own foreign policy. These 'vassals', such as those that have been incumbent upon IMF or other American imposed sanctions have turned to rival centres of power such as Moscow and Beijing for economic and political assistance. The U.S. National Intelligence Council in a report titled Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World professes that by 2025, "the international system will be a global multipolar one with gaps in national power."

Martin Jacques wrote in his work When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order that although China's global pre-eminence are economic, eventually China's political and cultural influence will be even greater and Mearsheimer in 2005 concurs that the "United States and China are likely to engage in an intense security competition with considerable potential for war." It can be noted that America's pivot to Asia, the Department of Defence announced plans to move 60% of its naval forces to the Pacific, which is by far one of its biggest military and strategic escalation after the Cold War. It is clear the American's are fighting a battle on many fronts, with the resurgence of the Islamic ideology being at the forefront, and astoundingly the intellectuals fail to identify it or write about it.

Buck-passing Policy of the U.S.

Mearsheimer (2001) mentions in his book titled The Tragedy of Great Power Politics that "buck-passing is a threatened great power's main alternative to balancing... to get another state to bear the burden of deterring or possibly fighting an aggressor while it remains on the sidelines". Which has been the policy for the U.S. Administration under Barrack Obama. It is a real sign of weakness of ones ideology, that it cannot express its culture freely without it causing internal problems for its own society. A state that is killing itself from within.

The Seven Stages of a Civilizations Rise and Fall

Carrol Quigley in 1961 published a book that studied the stages that all civilizations go through before its final decay and invasion. He concluded that there are seven stages, namely; mixture, gestation, expansion, age of conflicts, universal empire, decay and invasion. We can study where the American Empire currently stands in terms of these stages. 

The first stage of "mixture" is where all civilizations begin with a mixture of two or more cultures. "Such mixture of cultures is very common; in fact, it occurs at the boundaries of all cultures to some extent. But such casual cultural mixture is of little significance unless there comes into existence in the zone of mixture a new culture, arising from the mixture but different from the constituent parts. The process is a little like the way in which a mixture of chemicals sometimes produces a new compound different from the mixing chemicals. In the case we are discussing, the new compound is a new society with a new culture. The contributing societies may be civilizations or merely producing societies Such mixture of cultures is very common; in fact, it occurs at the boundaries of all cultures to some extent. But such casual cultural mixture is of little significance unless there comes into existence in the zone of mixture a new culture, arising from the mixture but different from the constituent parts. In the case we are discussing, the new compound is a new society with a new culture. The contributing societies may be civilizations or merely producing societies (agricultural or pastoral) or merely parasitic societies (with hunting or fishing). Of the millions of cases of such cultural mixture that are occurring all the time, only rarely does there appear a new society. And even more rarely does this new society become organized in such a way that it is a producing society with an instrument of expansion. In the rare case where this occurs, we have the first stage of a new civilization. The fact that there have been no more than two dozen civilizations in almost ten thousand years of cultural mixture of producing societies will indicate how rare this occurrence is." It is clear that the American civilization began in the 17th century but was not at this stage, an empire at a global scale.

The second stage, called the "gestation" stage is, by definition, a period in which "nothing sensational happens, it is not an easy period to discern in the prehistoric evidence. If we assume that the first agriculturalists came into Mesopotamia about 6000 B.C., we might postulate a period of mixture for about a thousand years and a period of gestation about half as long." One can argue that during this period the society is growing and the relationships amongst them are becoming common, whether that be remnants from a previous culture or a brand new one. One can conclude this gestation period lasted at most 50-100 years but ended definitely before the 19th century.

The third stage being the Age of Expansion, and in this period "some of the most significant advances in human history were either made or adapted to large-scale. This is quite clearly the period America went through in the 19th century. The industrial production doubled and the economy grew rapidly. All due to the fact the Europeans economies were exhausted in World War I. The age of mass production had arrived allowing the Americans to make full effect of it sooner than others.

The fourth stage, namely the Age of Conflicts, has been defined by Quigley "as extending from the date when the rate of expansion begins to decline to the period when one political unit establishes a universal empire by conquering the entire area of the civilization. In the earlier part of this period the whole core of the civilization may be conquered by one or more preliminary empires." Quigley goes on to state certain characteristics of the Age of Conflicts to be "(1) decreasing rate of expansion, (2) imperialist wars, (3) class conflicts, and (4) irrationality." During this Age of Conflicts, which one can safely assume was between 1900 up until the 1980's at the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Communist ideology. The class conflicts had caused many internal issues for America and its peoples but they would argue that this was a form of evolution, leading up to a more pure form of liberalism.

The fifth stage is the Universal Empire and as a result of the imperialist wars in the Age of Conflicts, the number of political units in the civilization is reduced to one. This can be seen at both a local level and a national level. Internal feuds and civil wars are quelled while other civilizations that are existent in the world are dominated.

When a universal empire is established in a civilization, the society enters upon a “golden age.” At least this is what it seems to the periods that follow it. Such a golden age is a period of peace and of relative prosperity. Peace arises from the absence of any competing political unity within the area of the civilization itself, and from the remoteness or even absence of struggles with other societies outside. Prosperity arises from the ending of internal belligerent destruction, the reduction of internal trade barriers, the establishment of a common system of weights, measures, and coinage, and from the extensive government spending associated with the establishment of a universal empire. But this appearance of prosperity is deceptive. Little real economic expansion is possible because no real instrument of expansion exists. 

The golden age is really the glow of over ripeness, and soon decline begins. When it becomes evident, we pass from Stage 5 of the Universal Empire to Stage 6 of Decay. One finds it difficult to put a finger on when this golden age actually transpired for the Americans, but one could argue that the day George W. Bush announced the "Global World Order". However this Universal Empire we can quite clearly see is dwindling, is it entering the penultimate stage of decay?

The sixth stage as already mentioned is the Stage of Decay. Quigley's explanation of the Stage of Decay can explain the situation of America and its peoples clearly. 

The Stage of Decay is a period of acute economic depression, declining standards of living, civil wars between the various vested interests, and growing illiteracy. The society grows weaker and weaker. Vain efforts are made to stop the wastage by legislation. But the decline continues. The religious, intellectual, social, and political levels of the society begin to lose the allegiance of the masses of the people on a large scale. New religious movements begin to sweep over the society. There is a growing reluctance to fight for the society or even to support it by paying taxes.

It is possible to break down these factors and apply them to America and the American people. In terms of the acute economic depression, America has suffered an astonishing 47 recessions since the 1790's, but if we are to look at all the recent recessions after the "Great Depression of 1929", they were all but a few due to economic policies or financial crises. 

In terms of the declining standards of living, America was turning towards a "knowledge society", meaning that it wished to pursue a 'post-industrial' society that instead of capital investment in productive activity in plant and equipment, its main feature was the creation of a "knowledge society," with a focus on technical dynamics and menial industrial labour was better suited to developing countries. However the truth of the matter is the vast majority of Americans have worked harder and longer hours. Wal-Mart, America's largest employer, pays less than a third of the level of wages and benefits auto-workers received. Also, under 'Obamacare' the health care in America has suffered a great deal which further proves the decline in the standards of living. 

In terms of illiteracy in the United States, a recent study conducted in April 2015 by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy states that 32 million adults in the U.S. cannot read, and that is 14% of the population. It goes on to state that the illiteracy levels have not improved for the last ten years, showcasing that illiteracy is not improving. One can state that if the people of America are not progressing, they are declining. 

The final stage of the rise and fall of a civilization is the Stage of Invasion which we can safely say has not occurred up until now. 

The most important point that many authors, political scientists and politicians fail to mention is that the Islamic revival of the Muslims in the world today, do not have a state mechanism, yet they provide the biggest challenge for all the actors in the world today. It is not de-industrialisation that causes a civilization to dwindle and die but rather it is the idea of those people that must be destroyed. The Islamic Empire was abolished in 1924 however the ideology remained in the hearts of the 200 million that lived in the world at the time and to this very day. These authors and political scientists write books upon books of the swaying influence, and how India or China or Germany will take the reign as the global superpower, yet these nations they state are struggling against the rise of Islam. It is either naivety or academic ignorance or outright propaganda that they fail to point the finger on the Muslims to be the next civilization that will unseat the rest of them. The only civilization that does not fit into the seven stages is the Islamic civilization that has remained since the demise of its state mechanism. 

However I leave it to the reader to decide whether the American civilization has either cemented itself firmly to survive for many more decades or whether they are fighting a losing battle. 

Written by Kam Kashem

Robert Strausz-Hupé (1957) - "The Balance of Tomorrow" Obris: A Quarterly Journal of World Affairs Volume 1, Number 1.
Zbigniew Brzezinski and John J. Mearsheimer, "Clash of the Titans" Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2005, 146
Mearsheimer (2001) - "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics"
Carrol Quigley (1961) - "The Evolutions of Civilizations"
Christopher L. Brennan (2015) - "Fall of the Arab Spring from Revolution to Destruction"

Equilibrium Warfare in Syria - U.S. using ISIS as the sectarian spearhead and Russia as the equalizer

In 2015 a document by the U.S. Department of Intelligence (DIA) was leaked with some astonishing details that were not redacted. You don't want to go away without knowing this!

It starts off with the general situation in Iraq and Syria and explains that they are both heading in the sectarian direction, failing to mention this to be a negative aspect of the war. We will conclude at the end of this article whether or not the U.S. seek a sectarian war or not.



Interestingly, this report was drafted in 2012 and released in 2015, way before Russia's involvement in the Syrian crises. At the time of Russia's involvement we heard many American diplomats and opposition politicians bombarding the media with this narrative that Russia are stealing America's thunder and Obama is incapable in his policies in Syria. A lot of people saw this role of Russia in Syria contrary to what America wanted and this narrative is still played out today. The report actually documents that Russia will be involved in this conflict and will side with the Assad regime - they knew this from the very beginning it was planned, drafted and agreed upon.



You can clearly read from that, that the U.S. require an equilibrium in Syria and from the very onset they knew that the Russians were only there to kill off the opposition that the West, Gulf and Turkey have been supporting to maintain an equal playing ground. If the U.S. sought to resolve the Syrian crises then surely it would solve its issues with Russia, China and Iran to stop them from supporting the regime, right?

Who are the opposition you ask? Well from the media we know that the West are supporting the Free Syrian Army and anyone linked to the Syrian National Coalition however it clearly denotes in this document that without the work of AQI (now known as ISIS), they could not play a pivotal role in uniting the Sunni Muslims under the sectarian card to fight the dissenters who they call the Jibha al-Ruwafidh (Forefront of the Shiites)



It goes on to say that the flow of fighters and ammunition comes through the border between Iraq/Syria and it depends on AQI (now ISIS) as it has major pockets and bases on both sides. This spells out that without ISIS, the West could not support the opposition against Assad or keep the equilibrium going to destroy the infrastructure, people and livelihoods of Syria and Iraq.



It mentions that the future holds a safe haven for the Syrian regime, i.e. Assad and the Alawi's. This is reaffirmed by the recent plans drawn up by RAND and the Brookings Institute explaining the greater plan for a federalized Syria into three regions.



Now the key for the next point is in the wording. The U.S. have maintained that they want a peaceful solution to the Syrian crises and they'll take every opportunity to demean Russia's actions in Syria, but make a note of the wording on this next point in the document.



Did you spot it?

Try again....



That's right the development of a proxy war WITH SUPPORT from Russia, China and Iran. This proxy war is undoubtedly and undeniably a proxy war that doesn't see the Americans, Russians, Chinese or even Europeans losing their lives. It is the MUSLIMS who are being targeted and it is the Muslims who are losing their lives for a war that is not even their own.

The report finally goes onto 'prophesies' if I may use that term loosely, that the opposition which the West support will use Iraq as a launch pad and safe haven for the Salafists, i.e. ISIS - whom they fully support and whom without the equilibrium could not be sustained without marring their own faces and sending in their own troops as was the case in the Iraq war.

And just to top all of this off they kindly mention that 'if the situation unravels' in the West's favour there is a 'possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist principality' - and what is the form of interpretation of Islam ISIS are following? ... how convenient.. it's Salafist.



Finally it decides to redact the part about facilitating the terrorist organisations into entering the Iraqi arena.



If this section were to take the angle that other powers out of America's control were facilitating the terrorist elements to enter the Iraqi arena then it surely wouldn't have redacted this part out. It leads one to believe that this section was in fact talking about how the West can renew the facilitation of rounding up the Jihadi organisations from around the world and push them into Iraq. Exactly what ISIS are doing today with many groups pledging their allegiances to them and flocking to join their ranks.

Now if you still believe ISIS are not their to serve the agenda of the West, then you're truly and utterly naive. This is a sectarian war headed by the U.S with its allies Russia, Iran and China to bring the Muslims to their knees and destroy whatever they have left in their capability, i.e. nuclear, manpower or resources and ultimately their religion that binds them.

Thank you for reading this, share this widely with others.

Jazakamullah Khairan

U.S. think-tank CSIS spells out to policy-makers the battle between Islam and Kufr

A recent article published by Anthony H. Cordesman of CSIS emphasises the battle of hearts and minds between the West and the Muslims.

It suggests that the struggle will continue for decades and that "No responsible political figure in the United States or the West can deny these realities. It is also time that our political leaders were honest about the struggle against Islamic extremism and terrorism. It is an ideological battle..." 

We should not take the term 'ideological battle' lightly. In order to defeat an ideology you must ensure those holding the belief, concepts and values of that ideology to abandon it for another, as was the case with Communism. This term alone should stun the believer as it is a clear message that the West will not relent until we have abandoned all that we stand for - Allah and His Messenger, may the peace and blessings be upon him.

It may seem from the apparent that the battle against Islam is happening in the Muslim world alone however the battle cannot be won abroad if it is not expelled from within. The report mentions that:

The core battle will not be fought outside the Islamic world. The United States, Europe, Asian states, and Russia are all on the periphery of the core battle. Defeating terrorism and extremism requires reform and replacing frustration and failed governance with leadership and hope. Moderate Muslim clerics and Muslim governments must demonstrate their legitimacy and defeat extremism at the ideological level.

Using the excuse of terrorism and extremism they are attempting to replace the already corrupt governments in place in the Muslim world with leaders that can push democracy and secularism, something quite clearly planned since the Greater Middle East Initiative in 2004. A Muslim government only holds legitimacy in the West's eyes if She defeats extremism at the ideological level - a clear indication that there is no room for a truly Islamic government or system as the term extremism to the West are those who believe in the Sharia of Allah and the Caliphate.

But, unless the West recognizes the need to keep moderate Muslim states as critical partners in the fight against terrorism and extremism, it will remain a target and risks some extremist movement taking over a state or states that have a Muslim majority.

Does the writer not mean to say 'another' extremist movement to take over a state? It shows that they do not find ISIS to be a credible threat, just a pretext used to further their agenda and they worry that a real Caliphate may rise with a Muslim majority backing it.

The article highlights the fact that the Muslim population will increase rapidly by 2050, over 70%. Pew Research documented the growth over a 10 year period and found the trends to be quite alarming for the West.



The report goes on to state that:

The United States, the West, and other areas outside the Islamic world cannot approach Islam as if it was somehow going to become secular, separate church and state, or Islamic fundamentalism – as distinguished violent from Islamic extremism – was going to disappear.

They accept the fact that Islam itself would not become secular, but instead it is the Muslim rulers and governments ruling over the Muslims who shall be secular in their governing.

In conclusion, many signs of distress are appearing on the once smug face of Capitalism and those who head it. It is our duty not to succumb to their plots and plans and continue on the correct path.

The BDS Movement - a cunning trick on the believers and an excuse for the disbelievers

It seems that every other day someone else jumps onto the bandwagon of boycotting 'Israel' with the aim of deterring it from its plans of total annihilation in Palestine so that it may expand and consume its human and material resources.

We must not be overtaken by emotion and follow devoid of any forethought. Allah (swt) says: "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know." (2:216)

It may seem as if the BDS movement is a movement defending Muslims and Al-Aqsa, however Allah (swt) is telling us that there are certain things that may seem from appearance that they are good but in fact they are bad. 

We should already know that every problem man faces in life, Allah (swt) has given its solution via the beloved Messenger of Allah (saw). The issue of Palestine, the Muslims and Al-Aqsa is an issue for the entire Ummah. Therefore we should seek the solution from Islam, and this solution is the permanent solution. 

We can quite clearly see that the Muslims in Palestine do not have the capability to remove the occupation and therefore the responsibility is placed on the surrounding Muslims, a duty of sufficiency. However the barrier to such liberation is the lack of unity, the grip of the despot leaders , the scarcity of understanding and ultimately the absence of an Imam (Caliph) to lead the Ummah.

The BDS movement creates a false sense of relief for the Ummah, and inaction from international powers and organisations. The facts show us that it is the Americans and the Zionists within congress are those who break-even the balances of 'Israel'. Every year the aid is increased to cover any lack of finance for the previous year and the money spent on destroying the Muslims in Palestine.  

In the summary of U.S Aid to Israel by the Congressional Research Service it states:

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $124.3 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance 

It goes on to state a number of other agreements that see 'Israel' receiving aid which the BDS movement could only dream of reaching its numbers. The annual FMF (Foreign Military Finance) is now increasing by 1 billion dollars.

Israeli media sources have said that the United States and Israel have held “preliminary” discussions over future military assistance with Israel seeking between $4.2 billion and $4.5 billion in annual FMF. 

Is this increase in aid for 'Israel' worth it for the Americans? Well of course! Why you ask?

• It nullifies nations from seeking justice on behalf of the Palestinians through international law.
• Allows the politicians in 'Israel' to stoke up hatred between the 'Zionists and the others', creating an "us and them" mentality, to push through draconian laws and further slaughter of Palestinian Muslims in cold blood without warrant or accountability.
• Gives the Zionist congress in America further reason to increase their support for the illegal entity, and thus bankrolling any new military development for defending their 'homeland'.
• Allows the U.S. to test out its latest advancements in military technology against the Muslims who are unarmed and unequipped. 

The longer we stay idle on this oppression and seek justice from other than Islam, the humiliation will continue and our noses will be rubbed in the dirt on the Day of Judgement while those who have been martyred in Jerusalem, West Bank, Gaza and all over, shall get the justice they deserve, Paradise. 

“We were the most humiliated people on earth and Allah gave us honour through Islam. If we ever seek honour through anything else, Allah will humiliate us again.” Umar ibn al Khattab (ra).

Turkey swings to the West and the Muslims lose hope in Islam

Just a decade ago Turkey had met the set of democracy and governance-related requirements as a candidate for the European Union. Their economy was booming and their policy of keeping peace with neighbours allowed them to trade with ease and efficiency. They were setting themselves as a model democracy for the Middle East and the Muslims.

However, there has been a growing call by the Muslims across the globe for Islam to be implemented politically and not just spiritually. In order to preserve the progress Turkey had made, She had to listen to these wishes in a way that would not send liberal democracy a death sentence.

Thus began the brandishing of the Holy Qur'an by Erdogan in order to quell the thirst of the Muslims. It included the introduction of interest-free banking and tougher laws on religious marriages and adultery.

However this move to a more 'Islamic'-coated democracy, which is far from Islam, has introduced other domestic issues which were kept quiet a decade ago. The once quiet neighbour policy of the Turkish government to an aggressive stance that heavily includes themselves in the Syria and Iraq quagmire as well as the forerunner in the refugee crises, has brought about terrorist attacks and a struggling economy that has now broken ties with Russia that supplied 60% of its countries energy after the downing of the Russian jet.

What has this new turn in Turkish politics achieved?

1. When the Muslims lose their high standard of living, it'll bring doubts into many that Islam cannot play any role in politics, even though currently this form of picking and choosing from Islam does not make a secular state into an Islamic state. 
2. The Muslims have experienced gradualism under the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and now a democracy led by 'Islamists' - both which have failed them domestically, in order to make the Muslims lose hope in Islam as a political ideology.
3. Turkey will fall into the arms of both the EU and the U.S. which will force it to abandon the little Islam it has in governance in return for a booming economy and strong alliance once again. 

The longer the AKP use a heavy hand on the Kurds the faster its popularity will diminish, allowing for the opposition to ride the waves of secular democracy devoid of any religious laws to take the front seat and affirm that Islam cannot achieve the basic needs of the people. No wonder Erdogan had sought to take a higher role that will make him immune to the coming changes? 

This also leads one to believe that this U.S and Russia antipathy towards each other, is but a farcical to delude and deceive their own masses in order to effectuate change. 

The U.S. has achieved more than it has bargained for with this new direction by Turkey. The abandonment of the Chinese missile deal and the reconciliation with 'Israel', as well as the improved cooperation with NATO means there will be closely aligned agenda on Syria and Iraq with the U.S. 

It will be interesting to see how the AKP fare domestically after this huge swing to the West for Turkey. 

The "Islamic" Military Alliance by Abu Usaid

Observers of the research released by the US strategic centres can perceive clearly the policies America pursues in our lands. They have determined that in order to prevent the rise of an "Islamic State", or in case the current regimes failed, the US should move away from the "soft power" and the "idealist approach"  and resort to "hard power" and "realpolitik". As for the "Jihadi" movements, it is imperative to deal with them according to the following steps: they should be contained and recruited; and if the containment failed, it is imperative to provide their opponents with "Indirect Military Support" then resort to "Indirect Military Intervention" against them and then resort to "Keeping Them Out."  

If the Muslims wished to engage in a struggle against their enemies in order to achieve liberation and revival, they ought to perceive the doctrine of the enemies, their plans and their adopted styles and means of execution. Capitalism is the doctrine upon which Western thought is built and expediency is the viewpoint towards life and the criterion that determines their behaviour, and colonialism, in all its forms, is the method through which they acquire the benefits, repel the detriments and achieve their interests. Their strategy towards the Muslims involves eroding the political feature of Islam from the life of the Muslims and confining it to the rituals which does not influence ruling matters, especially in respect of the Ummah's relationship with other nations and peoples. Once the Ummah has accepted the doctrine of separating religion from life, even with her own acknowledgment and approval, her mentality will be hijacked, her volition will be forfeited  and her intellectual compass will be deviated; she will then think like her enemies do, accept what they decide and head to wherever they want. As for the styles and means, these are numerous and they vary according to the conditions and situations and they include direct and indirect "hard power" as we mentioned earlier, or "soft power" which includes the diplomatic activities and the generating of influence through agents, rulers, armies, media, judiciary, scholars and movements.   

These issues are among the most important political concepts the Muslims should acquire in order to perceive the political activities of their enemies. Hence, we may through such activities pass judgement on the political situation in the "Arab Spring" countries. In Syria, the American political activities towards the armed movements are still at the stage of recruiting some of them and attempting to contain the others; all the movements are recruited to fight the Syrian regime with the backing of America's agents in the Gulf and Turkey. However, some of the movements are yet to be contained and some of their members are yet to be tamed into accepting the post-Assad phase.

Hence, the categorising process took place at the Riyadh conference in order to implement the strategies of "Containment", "Indirect Military Support", "Indirect Military Intervention" and "Keeping Them Out". The decision to establish the "Islamic Military Alliance" to combat terror after the Riyadh conference has come to epitomise the American strategy of "Indirect Military Intervention" to isolate and keep  the opponents out. The task of this alliance will include areas in Syria, Iraq and Libya. As for Yemen, the situation is different on the ground since al-Houthi group is undertaking the role of servant for the American plan to fragment Yemen, while the Saudi military machine works towards maintaining an equilibrium among the Yemeni warring factions and preventing the fireball from reaching Saudi Arabia. If the alliance were compelled to intervene in Yemen against the Houthis, it would merely be to tame them and keep them under control rather than to destroy them.

Establishing  a military alliance with an "Islamic" flavour will undoubtedly justify the rejection of the undesirable foreign military interventions in the future, such as the Russian intervention. America managed to drag Russia into the Syrian quagmire and implicate her with the Muslims, so that her belligerence may turn into anger and resentment among the Islamic constituent of 25 million in Russia, thus weakening the coherence of the Russian Federation and threatening its existence.

The "Islamic" military alliance is also set to end or scale down the military services offered by Europe who always seeks a slice of the oil pie in return; France and Britain had demanded a third of the oil and building contracts before the military operation against the Gaddafi regime in Libya started. Those who think that the prospective  "Islamic" alliance will be in the interest of the Muslims are woolgathering because most of the Arab states have open and covert ties and treaties with the "Israeli" entity and are involved in military alliances with the world powers which means that such an alliance would target the Muslims rather than their enemies.

The "Islamic" alliance aims also to sidestep the Russian military campaign that has affected the efficacy of the aerial military campaign led by the US. There may also be an American plan to curtail the role of Daesh in Syria and Iraq through the "Islamic" alliance in order to nullify the pretexts of the Russian military campaign upon which Putin is relying to sustain his popularity inside Russia. Furthermore, the intervention of the alliance would dampen the aspirations of Iran in Syria and Iraq and prevent Hezbollah from achieving political gains to consolidate its domestic influence and increase its stake in the Lebanese regime.

"And if they had intended to march out, certainly, they would have made some preparation for it, but Allah was averse to their being sent forth, so He made them lag behind, and it was said (to them), "Sit you among those who sit (at home)." [9-46]

"Had they marched out with you, they would have added to you nothing except disorder, and they would have hurried about in your midst (spreading corruption) and sowing sedition among you, and there are some among you who would have listened to them. And Allah is the All-Knower of the evildoers." [9-47]

"Say: "Nothing shall ever happen to us except what Allah has ordained for us. He is our Lord And in Allah let the believers put their trust." [9-51]

"They swear by Allah that they are truly of you while they are not of you, but they are a people who are afraid." [9-56]

16 December 2015

Abu Usaid

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/550734741751596

The Jihadis - A Pawn for the West

A recent confab took place in Saudi Arabia which included "opposition" leaders from the factions fighting in Syria, namely Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam, both affiliated to Al-Nusra Front who are a designated foreign terrorist organisation according to America - Saudi's greatest ally.

After great strides made in Syria against Assad it was about time that they'd be put back into their place by America's "enemy" Russia - but what has this achieved?

1) Allows the West to negotiate with the "rebels" temporarily until a deal is struck
a) Then wipes them out after claiming they have sided with Al Qaeda - similar to how most of the Jihadi factions were used and abused in the past after they've aided in the West's plans.

2) It forces the many factions on the ground to compromise the political solution for Syria

a) Giving up the Sharia in return for a liberal democratic form of governance, contrary to what most of the factions call for.

3) Preserves the face of America as it is the 'Russian Bear' that is delivering the blows while America are the peacemakers that will inevitably be the leader in coming to a political solution. 

a) At the same time it weakens the Russians, pulling them in to a battle that they'll never be able to come out of without a dent, both domestically and internationally. 

b) Creates a wedge between Russia and Turkey that will affect Russia moreso than Turkey due to its high dependency on trade after the sanctions with the European states. 

As for the Jihadi's, well... better luck next time. Sincere intentions, but the wrong method. However the sympathy shouldn't be with them but rather the millions of innocent Muslims that will die due to their carelessness and inability to stick to the Prophetic method of bringing Islam back as a State. 

May Allah make us one of those who persevere in the correct manner and in the manner that won't be detrimental to the Ummah of Muhammad (sallalahu alayhi wasallam)

Kam Kashem

Where are the Muslim Brotherhood Taking the Ummah of Mohammed (saw)? - By Abu Usaid

The Muslim Brotherhood have sold Syria for a trifling worldly gain after they had forsaken Islam in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan. For a Muslim to sacrifice his wealth and his life to establish a state in which he is commanded to disbelieve is beyond comprehension. "They wish to refer legislation to Taghut, while they were commanded to reject it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray." [4-60]
The deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria, Mohammad Farouk Tayfour, who attended the Riyadh meeting yesterday, said in an exclusive interview with al-Arabiya.net: "The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria  have never viewed the revolution as a secular or religious issue." He added: "The revolution is a nationalist issue that excludes no one." He also confirmed the openness of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria to dealing with the West and the US by saying: "We have our special method and we have a similar vision to that of the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia and the Congregation for Reform in Yemen." In respect of the notion of Khilafah and the group's opinion on it in Syria, he explained that "the specifics and the conclusive evidences on the issue of ruling in Islam are limited." And on the Muslim Brotherhood's relationship with al-Nusrah Front, he said: "We have made great strides in terms of deepening the principle of centrism and moderation but we are yet to reach an agreement on their willingness to sever their ties with al-Qaeda." 

No one disputes the fact that the notion of "nationalism", from which Dr Tayfour is departing, is built upon the doctrine of separating religion from life and it removes the barriers and boundaries between Islam and Kufr; otherwise how could one reconcile between the exigencies of nationalism which legitimises the accession of a citizen to power irrespective of his religion and the prohibition of a non-Muslim assuming power? Allah (swt) says:"And never will Allah give the unbelievers a way over the believers." [4-141] Ibnul-Arabi said: "Indeed Allah (swt) does not allow the Kuffar a way over the believers in Shari'ah; and if it were to materialise, it would be contrary to Shari'ah." Allah (swt) says: "O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you." [4-59] This proves in a conclusive manner that authority belongs to the Muslims because the address in the ayah is to the Muslims and Allah's (swt) saying "from among you" denotes that the supreme authority belongs exclusively to the Muslims; Allah (swt) has also forbidden us from obeying the Kuffar by saying:"O you who believe if you pay heed to those who are bent on denying the truth, they will cause you to turn back on your heels and you will be the losers." [3-149]

Another ayah denoting the prohibition of the Kafir's authority over the Muslim is Allah's (swt) saying: "O you who believe do not take the Kuffar as allies in preference to the believers". [4-144] Al-Qurtubi said about this: "This means do not take as your confidential and close staff from among them." It is also reported on the authority of Ubadah Ibnul-Samit that he said: "The Prophet (ﷺ) called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam..... to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah." Qadi Ayyadh said: "If he were to commit Kufr or to change the Shari'ah or concoct an innovation, he would deviate from the authority and his obedience would be nullified; and the Muslims would have to stand up to him and remove him, and establish a fair Imam if they could; and if this were to only occur to a group, they ought to undertake the removal of the Kafir."

Hence, how does the concept of nationalism and the criterion of citizenship that Tayfour is calling for tally with the Islamic system he has been commanded to establish?

These evidences are sufficient to demolish the foundation upon which the thought of Dr Tayfour is built and they are binding on every member and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood movement to return to the Book of Allah (swt) and act according to it before calling the masses to it. The movement should refrain from deceiving people with the slogan of "Allah is our aspiration and the Qur'an is our constitution" because they stand the farthest from it; and Allah (swt) says: "O you who believe why do you say one thing and do another? Most loathsome in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do." [61-2,3] 

If the decision maker in the Syrian file has assigned to the Muslim Brotherhood the task of dissuading al-Nusrah Front from pursuing armed struggle and of luring them into the camp of "moderation and centrism" instead, they should then refrain from trumpeting the slogan of "Jihad is our way" and tinkering with the Ummah's objective. 

Dr Tayfour says the Muslim Brotherhood has never viewed the revolution as either a "secular or a religious" issue; so what is their issue then? Does he want to justify his acceptance of the state's secularity or does he want us to understand that dealing with the issue through religion would cast a shadow over the victory that descends from the White House? If the plane of the struggle against the regime were not an issue of Islam and Kufr, how would we then describe the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the revolution?  Was it a cheap functional reaction to the American exigencies to shape the Middle East? Or was it an exploitation of Islam to solidify secularism and secure its embracing among the masses? Or was it meant to deviate the direction of the Muslims and curtail their aspiration to achieve liberation and revival?

The statements of Dr Tayfour about the conclusive evidences on the legitimate Khilafah being limited indicates very clearly that the Muslim Brotherhood have washed their hands of the Ummah's central issue and submitted to the volition of the colonialist Kafir West regarding the regime they intend to establish on the ruins of Bashar Assad's regime. Tayfour is attempting to belittle the issue of the Khilafah and propagate the secularist state to the masses in Syria under the pretext that the "conclusive" evidences for al-Khilafah are limited. By disowning the Khilafah system, Tayfour is also attempting to provide support for the outcome of the Riyadh meeting and to dissipate the Western fears of the Islamic trait sported by the "opposition" movements, thus aping the American viewpoint towards Islam. He is also attempting to nullify the Russian arguments and justifications for rejecting the "Islamic" movements and present his group to the West as being a match to their foster child Erdoğan as a guardian of secularism.  

Hence, the call of the Muslim Brotherhood through Dr Tayfour contradicts the conclusive texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, violates the volition of the Muslims, squanders their dignity and their sacrifices and gives a way to the Kuffar over the Muslims. No sincere Muslim should accept or support such a call.

"O you who believe do not betray Allah and the Messenger and do not knowingly betray the trust that has been reposed in you." [8-27]

13 December 2015  

by Abu Usaid

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/549926258499111

Beyond the Rome Conference on the Libyan Crisis - by Abu Usaid

The Rome conference on the Libyan crisis aims at fragmenting the General National Congress and replacing it with an entity that would lend legitimacy to the Western military intervention to strike the opponents under the guise of fighting terrorism. It also aims to ensure the expansion of the movements affiliated to the West into the power vacuum and besiege or isolate their rivals to prevent them from influencing the design of the forthcoming regime. Daesh has become the "secret code" for activating all the political files and for imposing the foreign agendas in the region. During the Rome conference US Secretary of State John Kerry announced: "We cannot allow the status quo in Libya to continue. It is dangerous for the viability of Libya, it is dangerous for Libyans, and now, because of the increase of the presence of Daesh [Isis] purposefully migrating there, it is dangerous for everyone.... reaffirm support for a new Government of National Accord....So we say that those who persist in trying to disrupt the agreement will pay a price for their actions.... to address the problem of security – security in Tripoli to bring the government, which must be based at the end of the day in Tripoli..."  The way was paved for these statements in the previous week by circulating the rumour that the ISIS leader al-Baghdadi had moved to Libya and by hyping up the activities of the organisation in Sirte and Ajdabiya. The fragmentation became evident among the ranks of the General National Congress when Misrata and the forces of Fajr Libya backed the outcomes of the Tunis meeting and the Rome conference in addition to  when the forces of the General National Congress differed over who would represent it in signing the agreement of al-Sukhayrat in a few days. The General National Congress are most probably conspiring to effectuate the agreement since the difference over their representative is inconsequential, especially that they had agreed on forming a government of national unity.t Furthermore, the struggle between the Libyan  political forces is not ideological but rather based on partisan interests, and because most of the influential movements on the ground are linked to foreign agendas executed through the US agents in the gulf and Libya's neighbouring countries.

The main problem of the masses in the region is their inability to view the solution to their problems outside the frameworks imposed by the world order, though it has been the cause of their crisis and misery and though it only takes into account the interests of the influential powers. Instead of taking the international interests into account when thinking about her system in her quality as an Ummah with a message who does not wish to harm other nations, the Ummah is working towards establishing a system and solving her problems according to the exigencies of the other nations' interests under the pretext of her inability to confront the world order and the major powers. In fact, the powerlessness of the Ummah stems from her thinking rather than her reality. She is capable of achieving liberation and revival more than any other nation because she possesses the doctrinal and material forces. She is the only nation capable of leading the world, muzzling capitalism and achieving justice and happiness in the world if she perceived her mission in life and what her message necessitates in terms of sacrifices.   

This Ummah will not achieve liberation until she perceives that Allah (swt) has not created her for the objective generated by the capitalist ideology that has halted her productive way of thinking and her will to achieve liberation. The Ummah will not recover her volition until she is prepared to endure boycott, blockade, hunger and deprivation like the Messenger of Allah (saw) and his noble Sahaba (ra) did; they accepted the challenge and their weakness and poverty produced power and prosperity, and they ruled the world with their good-hearted Shari'ah. The history of our Ummah is rich with parables for those who wish to take heed.
 
"And unto everyone who is conscious of Allah, He grants a way out and provides for him in a manner beyond all expectation; and for everyone who places his trust in Allah, He alone is enough. Indeed Allah always attains to His purpose and indeed, unto everything has Allah appointed its term and measure."

14 December 2015

By Abu Usaid

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/550077131817357

The Western Lie of Terrorism by Abu Usaid

Terrorism is a lie which the West concocted, believed it, lived its episodes and built its policies towards the Muslims upon its basis. The Muslims swallowed the bait, accused themselves, disowned their religion and punished themselves for a crime they never committed; they even agreed with their enemies to slay and dissect the victim and reward the perpetrators. They capitulated to reality and became the major player in concretising it despite what it carries in terms of Kufr and misery. They handed their leadership over to the preachers of "renouncing Islam for the sake of Islam"; those whose thoughts agree with the allegations, values and systems of the West.

How could they ever achieve victory while they admit they are the perpetrator and their enemy is the victim? How could they ever carry the message of Allah (swt) to guide humanity while they believe that their religion is one of terrorism? How could they ever despair from the Da'awah of Allah (swt) who says:

"Hence, place your trust in Allah; for behold, what you believe in is the self-evident truth. But indeed you cannot make the dead hear and you cannot make the deaf hear this call when they turn their backs on you and go away. Just as you cannot lead the blind of heart out of their error; none can you make hear save such as those who believe in our Ayat and thus surrender themselves unto Us." 27-79,80,81]

15 December 2015   

By Abu Usaid

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/550122795146124?fref=nf&pnref=story

The Debauched 'Scholars'

The so-called scholars from among the "moderates and centrists" always hasten to defend every single wrong perpetrated by the collaborating rulers in service of their masters in the White House and deem it in the interests of the Muslims. Why don't they declare that betrayal and collaboration are part of the rules of Islam and that the continuance of Kufr, the misery and decline of the Ummah is the goodness and the mercy that Allah (swt) has promised the believers, that the Shari'ah is corruptive, thus it is imperative to snub it and that Jihad is a crime whose perpetrator must be annihilated?

There is none lowlier and more debauched than the forces of religious shadiness that justify the collaboration of the rulers against their masses.

16 December 2015

by Abu Usaid 

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/550341341790936?fref=nf

It is the West who ill-treat the minorities

Thousands of Muslims flee from Christian militias in the Central African Republic and this has been going on for many years now yet you won't hear anything on the world media about it. A media blackout, just like they did on the Rohingyan Muslims and many other Muslim minorities being subject to such violence.

However they don't waste any time to talk about how ISIS are treating minorities and linking their behaviour to Islam, even though we all know it is contrary to Islam and Sharia.

The Muslims were being attacked mentally and verbally in the West, and now we're being attacked physically due to hate crime and 'Islamaphobia'. We are also the minority in these Western nations, so why doesn't one ask how the West treats its minorities?

Forget the minorities, our majority Muslim countries are being obliterated by both East and West on a daily basis.

"Israel" continue to kill our brothers, sisters and children while the U.S, Russia and Europe do the same in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen etc.

So the next time they accuse Islam of ill-treating minorities, you'll have enough examples to turn the table on them. It is getting more and more clear that ISIS serves a great purpose for the West, and that is to redefine Islam so that we abandon it completely...

Wahhabism, Al Saud and ISIS – the Unholy Trinity

This article by Catherine Shakdam starts off brilliantly but tapers off towards the modernist approach rather than stick to its original point of Islam being perfect - and implementing Islam based on its core sources such as Quran, Sunnah, Ijma' and Qiyaas. 

However it is still worth blogging the points that are true from this piece of writing. If you wish to read the full article you'll find the link at the bottom. 

Key Points:

Although ISIS has certainly been sold as an Islamic movement, everything it professes and teaches stands against Islam and its teachings. This divide actually goes beyond Islam’s great schism – which schism it needs to be noted remains part of this myth Saudi Arabia has been so eager on selling the world.

If indeed religious disagreements have occurred over the centuries and if Muslims have in truth fought and argue over the legitimacy, legality and religious superiority of their schools of thoughts and judicial principles, scholars did so in the knowledge and express belief that while men are flawed, Islam is perfect.

Islam’s disagreements came about out from a desire to walk better on God’s path, not to obliterate people with an implacable and merciless truth.

Looking back at the long line of prophets, from Adam to Noah, Ibrahim, Jesus, Yehia and Mohammed (PBUT), all shared in the Oneness which is God’s ultimate command, God’s boundless mercy onto His creation and His injunction of peace. And if those holy messengers came at different times and places in our history, the essence of their message has been as permanent and immovable as God’s will. From Adam’s first cries of remorse and calls for forgiveness, to Prophet Mohammed’s last breath, God’s message onto us has always been Islam, as Islam means submission. In truth, the only real freedom which was ever given to us is that to submit body and soul to The Creator of All things.

Islam did not start at Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), rather it was reborn with him and through him; a last call before the sunset, a last mercy and guidance for us to follow – or not – a last ray of hope before evil can get its fill and the last chapter of our fate written down.

Islam was on the first day as it will be on the last day – it is us which have called it many things in our need to possess and label the divine. It is us again which have strayed and plotted, coveted and perverted to serve very earthly ambitions.

Wahhabism is no more than an engineered perversion, a division, an abomination which has but spread like a cancer onto the Islamic world and now threatens to destroy all religions.

Wahhabism and its legions: Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram and all the rest of it, are but the manifestation of a reactionary atheist movement which seeks the death of all faiths.

Wahhabism is not of Islam and Islam will never be of Wahhabism – it is a folly to conceive that Islam would ever sanction murder, looting and atrocious barbarism. Islam opposes despotism, injustice, infamy , deceits, greed, extremism, asceticism – everything which is not balanced and good, fair and merciful, kind and compassionate.

If anything, Wahhabism is the very negation of Islam. As many have called it before – Islam is not Wahhabism. Wahhabism is merely the misguided expression of one man’s political ambition – Mohammed Abdel Wahhab, a man who was recruited by Empire Britain to erode at the fabric of Islam and crack the unity of its ummah (community).

As Wahhabism began its land and mind grab in Hijaz – now known as Saudi Arabia – one family, Al Saud saw in this violent and reactionary school of thought a grand opportunity to claim and retain power. This unholy alliance has blotted the skies of Arabia for centuries, darkening the horizon with its miasm.

Wahhabism has now given birth to a monstrous abomination – extreme radicalism; a beast which has sprung and fed from Salafis and Wahhabis poison, fueled by the billions of Al Saud’s petrodollars; a weapon exploited by neo-imperialists to justify military interventions in those wealthiest corners of the world.

But though those powers which thought themselves cunning by weaving a network of fear around the world to better assert and enslave are losing control over their brain-child, ISIS and its sisters in hate and fury, as they all have gone nuclear, no longer bound by the chains their fathers shackled them with.

ISIS’s obscene savagery epitomises the violence which is inherent and central to Wahhabism and Salafism, its other deviance. And though the world knows now the source of all terror, no power has yet dared speak against it, instead the world has chosen to hate its designated victim – Islam.

In July 2013, the European Parliament identified Wahhabism as the main source of global terrorism, and yet the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, condemning ISIS in the strongest terms, has insisted that “the ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism do not belong to Islam in any way”. But then again the Grand Mufti might remain oblivious to the history of Wahhabism or what Wahhabism actually professes.

Wahhabism 101

During the 18th century, revivalist movements sprang up in many parts of the Islamic world as the Muslim imperial powers began to lose control of peripheral territories. In the west at this time, governments were beginning to separate church from state, but this secular ideal was a radical innovation: as revolutionary as the commercial economy that Europe was concurrently devising. No other culture regarded religion as a purely private activity, separate from such worldly pursuits as politics, so for Muslims the political fragmentation of society was also a religious problem. Because the Quran had given Muslims a sacred mission – to build a just economy in which everybody is treated with equity and respect – the political well-being of the ummah was always a matter of sacred import. If the poor were oppressed, the vulnerable exploited or state institutions corrupt, Muslims were obliged to make every effort to put society back on track.

If 18th-century reformers were convinced that should Muslims ever regain lost power and prestige, they would have to return to the fundamentals of their faith, ensuring that God – rather than materialism or worldly ambition – dominated the political order, Wahhabism would come to pervert such desires.

There was nothing militant about this “fundamentalism”; not yet, rather, it was a grassroots attempt to reorient society and did not involve jihad.

Only, if the idea of going back to the root of Islam at a time when society had strayed from the path was indeed laudable, Wahhabism would work to betray such ideal by twisting on its head Islam’s most sacred pillars, perverting Islamic law and the interpretation of its scriptures to serve the mighty and enslave the weak.

Under Wahhabism’s interpretation of Islam, women reverted to being objectified. Those many great women Islam saw rise under the strict protection of the Quran, those models Muslim women came to look up to and aspire to become – Maryam, Khadija, Fatma, Zaynab, Mohammed Abdel Wahhab would have had locked up in chains in their home.

When Islam gave women their rightful place within society, Wahhabism denied them everything.

And for those of you who continue to live under the premise that Islam is profoundly unfair against women, do remember it is not Islam but rather men’s interpretation of it which is the source of your ire.

Islam secured women’ status according to God’s will. Islam poses both men and women o a equal footing in terms of their faith – it is only in their duties and responsibilities which they differ, not worthiness. Islam calls on men to provide for women and offer them security, both financial and physical. Under Islam women are free to marry, divorce and work. Under Islam women cannot be bought, bartered or oppressed. Under Islam women enjoy more freedom than most western women have been given. It is society which has denied them those rights, not Islam. Read the Quran and you will see!

Like Martin Luther, Abdel Wahhab claimed he wanted to return to the earliest teachings of Islam and eject all later medieval accretions. To achieve such ambitions he opposed Sufism and Shia Islam, labelling them as heretical innovations (bidah) as both opposed tyranny in faith. He went on to urge all Muslims to reject the learned exegesis developed over the centuries by the ulema (scholars) and interpret the texts for themselves, or rather under his guidance.

This naturally incensed the clergy and threatened local rulers, who believed that interfering with these popular devotions would cause social unrest. Eventually, however, Wahhab found a patron in Mohammed Ibn Saud, a chieftain of Najd who adopted his ideas. Ibn Saud quickly used Wahhabism to support his military campaigns for plunder and territory, insisting such violence was all in the name of the greater good.

To this day Al Saud’s house is following in such bloody footsteps.

Although the scriptures were so central to Abdel Wahhab’s ideology, by insisting that his version of Islam alone had validity, he distorted the Quranic message in the most violent way. The Quran firmly states that “There must be no coercion in matters of faith” (2:256).
First appeared:http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/14/wahhabism-al-saud-and-isis-the-unholy-trinity/

First appeared:http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/14/wahhabism-al-saud-and-isis-the-unholy-trinity/

After Wahhab’s death, Wahhabism became more violent, an instrument of state terror. As Al Saud sought to establish an independent kingdom, Abd al-Aziz Ibn Muhammad, Ibn Saud’s son and successor, used takfir to justify the wholesale slaughter of resistant populations. In 1801, his army sacked the holy Shia city of Karbala in what is now Iraq, plundered the tomb of Imam Hussain, and slaughtered thousands of Shias, including women and children; in 1803, in fear and panic, the holy city of Mecca surrendered to the Saudi leader.

Little do we remember the sacking of the holy city of Medina, when Al Saud’s legions ransacked mosques, schools and homes. Al Saud’s army murdered hundreds of men, women and children, deaf to their screams. As imams pleaded for the most sacred relics of Islam to be protected, Al Saud’s men pillaged and looted, setting fire to Medina’s library. Al Saud made an example out of Medina, the very city which proved so welcoming to Islam. On the ground which saw rise the first mosque of Islam, Al Saud soaked the earth red with blood.

Where the footsteps of the last Prophet of God still echoed, Al Saud filled the air with ghastly cries of horrors.

But such terror has been erased from history books. Such tale of blood and savage betrayals have been swallowed whole by Al Saud as this house attempted to re-write history and claim lineage to the house of the prophet.

http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/14/wahhabism-al-saud-and-isis-the-unholy-trinity/
First appeared:http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/14/wahhabism-al-saud-and-isis-the-unholy-trinity/