We are being challenged by Islam these years – globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy. “We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance.

Queen Margrethe II of Denmark
Daily Telegraph, U.K.
April 15, 2005.


TO THE ANTI-ISLAM alliance of neo-cons, Evangelicals, Christian-Zionists and capitalists, the ideology of Islam is the challenge to overcome. According to the principles of Islam, there is no basis for division among Muslims with respect to place of birth, ethnicity, culture, language, national boundaries or nationality. This ideology also nullifies the concept of nation-states as a major foundation for separation among Muslims. These modes and systems of identification are invalid because not only they would force Muslims to worship their respective states and their secular laws, but also because they would divide their interests. That is why the United States and its allies shiver to the core when Muslims refer to the concept of the Ummah and establishing an Islamic state or Khilafah.

In fact the concept of Ummah and Khilafah runs contrary to the totalitarian designs of the religiously motivated persons on the media, academia, political and military form of the war on Islam.

♠ Hegemony ♠
                           Just six days after the fall of Berlin Wall, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell presented a new strategy document to President Bush Senior, proposing that the US shift from countering Soviet attempts at world dominance to ensuring US world dominance. Bush accepted this plan in a public speech, with slight modifications, on August 2, 1990. The same day Iraq began invading Kuwait. In early 1992, Powell, counter to his usual public dove persona, told the United States Congress that the United States requires “sufficient power” to “deter any challenger from ever dreaming of challenging us on the world stage.” Powell clearly expressed his desires. He said, “I want to be the bully on the block.” Powell‘s early ideas of global hegemony were formalized by others in a February 18, 1992 policy document.  The then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney stated that part of the American mission described in the 46-page document was to convince “potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.” This strategy, called Pentagon‘s Defense Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999, was finally realized as policy when Bush Junior became president in 2001.

Zionist influence continued to play a role in this crusade for global dominance. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank, published a paper entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” The paper is not much different from other Israeli right-wing papers at the time, except the authors: the lead writer is Richard Perle, now chairman of the Defense Policy Board in the US, and very influential with President Bush. Several of the other authors now hold key positions in Washington. The paper advises the new, right-wing Israeli leader Binyamin Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism…” The first step was to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A war with Iraq would destabilize the entire Middle East, which would allow governments in Syria, Iran, Lebanon and other countries to be replaced. Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them,” the paper concludes.

These hegemonic designs made the totalitarian feel scared of anything that could challenge the status quo or which could become an alternative to the kind of order they had in mind for re-creating the world in their own image. Thus, any intentional or unintentional reference of effort in the direction of uniting Muslims is considered a serious threat. The recent statements from U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, President George W. Bush and British Home Secretary Charles Clarke reveal this deep-seated fear. Before we can move toward understanding the root cause of this fear, it is necessary to take a look at these three statements, which appeared within a week‘s time. On September 30, 2005, Rumsfeld said:

Those voters are demonstrating again today that there exists no conflict between Western values and Muslim values. What exists is a conflict within the Muslim faith—between majorities in every country who desire freedom, and a lethal minority intent on denying freedom to others and re-establishing a caliphate.

Rumsfeld has been constantly repeating this idea for quite some time, using the word “caliphate.” In an interview with Spiegel, he repeated the same theme on October 31, 2005,189 and specifically mentioned it in his briefing before the Department of Defense on November 1, 2005.190 On November 20, he said on CNN‘s Late Edition, “Think of that country being turned over to the Zarqawis, the people who behead people, the people who kill innocent men, women and children, the people who are determined to reestablish a caliphate around the world.”

Rumsfeld and his supporters continue to ignore this fact: Muslims have never before been bent on killing themselves and others to establish Khilafah. Throughout the bloodshed, these questions have remained unanswered: “Where were these Muslims before the United States invasion? Why didn‘t they try to establish Khilafah in Iraq when Saddam‘s government was falling?” Even if Saddam‘s regime was not on its last legs, according to Rumsfeld‘s assumption, more tyranny existed under Saddam Hussain than exists now. Yet Saddam‘s military power was a cap pistol compared to United States military power. Why did caliphate-lovers previously not express their determination?

● In an historic speech on October 6, 2005, Bush expressed the same fear when he discussed the objectives for the war in these words:

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it is called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus — and also against Muslims from other traditions, whom they regard as heretics.

● British Home Secretary Charles Clarke repeated the same fear of Khilafah on October 5, 2005:

What drive these people on are ideas. And unlike the liberation movements of the post World War II era in many parts of the world, these are not in pursuit of political ideas like national independence from colonial rule, or equality for all citizens without regard for race or creed, or freedom of expression without totalitarian repression. Such ambitions are, at least in principle, negotiable and in many cases have actually been negotiated. However there can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Shari’ah law; there can be no negotiation about the suppression of equality between the sexes; there can be no negotiation about the ending of free speech. These values are fundamental to our civilizations and are simply not up for negotiation.

Therefore, the only justification left for the United States invasions and occupation of Muslim countries is to save humanity from the curse of Khilafah. Is the United States realizing the “curse” of Khilafah now, after invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq under other pretexts? No, it is not. It has now become obvious that waging a war on Khilafah was the primary U.S. motive to demonize the Taliban and to engage in pre-9/11 planning for invading and occupying Afghanistan because their presence and policies were considered a threat to the world order envisioned by the totalitarians in the United States.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative think tank was formed in the spring of 1997 around the time of appearance of the Taliban on the scene. PNAC issued its statement of principles with the stated aims: “to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests,” to achieve “a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad,” “to increase defense spending significantly,” to challenge “regimes hostile to US interests and values,” and to “accept America‘s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” These principles matter because they were signed by a group which has now become “a rollcall of today‘s Bush inner circle.” According to ABC‘s Ted Koppel, PNAC‘s ideas have “been called a secret blueprint for US global domination.” To understand the motive of these totalitarians behind invading Afghanistan, what we need to understand is the basic concept of Islam, which the Western totalitarians are so strongly associating with terrorism and are attempting to prove as evil without letting people understand the reality of Islamic belief.

                        Khilafah does not appear in a vacuum without an ideological and spiritual background. Nor is its objective the creation of an empire that will rule the world for the sake of ruling. One has to understand the purpose of life in Islam to comprehend this religion‘s requirements for the collective life of Muslims. Islam means submission to Allah and His Will. Once a person submits himself or herself to Allah and comes into the fold of Islam, that individual is required to live in accordance with the way of life prescribed by the Qur‘an and Sunnah. From the Islamic perspective, any standard, law, value and way of life to which one submits and follows becomes his Deen (way of life).
That is why the Qur‘an has stressed: “Lo! The Deen with Allah is Islam” (Qur‘an 3:19). At another place in the Qur‘an, Allah has pointed out that with the establishment of Islam, He has rewarded the people completely: “This day have I perfected your Deen for you and completed My favor unto you and have chosen for you as Deen Al-Islam” (Qur‘an 5:3). The overall objective of collectively submitting to the Will of Allah is to establish a society and system of true justice on Earth. The current political establishments in Washington and allied capitals would consider such an idea to be a threat to their power.

To achieve worldly objectives, human beings have been submitting themselves to different powers and ideologies throughout human history. In the present age, most of humanity has submitted to the power and authority of the state and the ideology of the separation of power between church and state. In Islam, both religion and state are part of the Deen, and submission is allowed only to Allah and His Law. It means to different powers and ideologies throughout human history. In the present age, most of humanity has submitted to the power and authority of the state and the ideology of the separation of power between church and state. In Islam, both religion and state are part of the Deen, and submission is allowed only to Allah and His Law. It means that no sphere of life is free from living according to the Will and Law of Allah. Living according to any standard other than Allah is the greatest sin (Shirk, as it is called in Islam).

In the Muslim world today, all discussions on Shirk and Tawheed (the oneness and uniqueness of Allah) have been limited to religion. The concept of state has been left alone, as if Allah‘s Will, Law and Standards do not apply to the state at all and as if the state acts in a vacuum without any dealings with human beings for whose guidance the Qur‘an is revealed. That is why present-day Muslims consider someone bowing down before a statue as Shirk, no matter how much that person may insist that he or she believes in the oneness of Allah—the prerequisite for being a Muslim. However, at the same time, a majority of Muslims do not consider submitting themselves to laws, standards, systems and a way of life other than those prescribed by Allah as Shirk. This is because the self-proclaimed “moderate” Muslims in particular have diminished the concept of Deen in modern-day thinking. The overall thinking of Muslims is shaped in world where the secular European model or a public order (or state) has replaced the concept of Darul Islam. The secular model has taken sovereignty away from Allah and given to the State. And that is an act of Shirk!

Despite the fact that Muslims say that Islam is a way of life, there is hardly any reaction to the reality that the prevailing mode of life in the Muslim world is un-Islamic. Similarly, none of the Muslim states conducts its business purely in accordance with the Qur‘an and the Sunnah. State and public life are free of religion, but when it comes to religion itself, we witness extreme reactions. For example, any blasphemous remarks or physical desecration of the Qur‘an automatically receives a knee-jerk reaction from Muslims, such as the reaction to the publication of a cartoon of Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). The basic reason is that despite rejecting the concept of separation of church and state, this concept has still heavily influenced and affected Muslim mind. They have literally accepted this concept and find no problem living by it. Similarly, they think that the state is the ultimate form of human governance. In addition, even the best possible Muslim efforts at living according to Islam are limited to thinking inside the box of the nation-state system.                                                              

Ξ Nation States Ξ
                                 With the nation-state system, the world map is set in one style in which each state has the legal authority to make rules binding on its inhabitants. The relationship between government and religion varies from state to state. At the minimum, governments are not hostile to religion as was the case in the former Soviet Union. Most governments accept at least minimum respect for religion because of popular feelings and support for religious beliefs.

Similarly, efforts are underway to standardize and reduce cultural differences as much as possible. The speed of these changes varies from region to region, but the ultimate objective and direction are the same everywhere (except in the United States where Bush and company are establishing theocracy with no qualms). Not only is the separation of church and state globally established, but also religion—even in its limited and misunderstood form—is not considered the basis of human organization anywhere in the world. The single, authentic standard for human organization is state and nationality. Therefore, development of the human mind has taken place within the framework of nationhood since the introduction of the concept of nation-states. In fact, adding Islam before or after a country‘s title shows only ignorance about Islam as well as the concept of the modern state

Modern-day religious, political, military and intellectual crusaders are fully aware of the basic requirement that Muslims must live by Islam. In their view, verbal submission to Allah‘s Will by itself has no meaning. However, today‘s Muslim leaders in all walks of life are trained to adopt the principles of imperialist powers, which are focused on maintaining the existing state of affairs. Thus, for Muslims the problem of division, external interference and subjugation begins at home. In total contrast to common practice of limiting Islam to a few rituals, Islam is the basis, not only of the overall governing system, but also of human organization among Muslims at the local level. The only basis of social organization and collective identity for Muslims is no less, and no more, than the Deen of Islam. The concept of separation of church and state is contrary to the basic principles of Islam because it is a form of Shirk—the greatest sin in Islam. Separation of church and state means living by standards other than those revealed by Allah (Qur‘an 5:48-49, 6:89). The whole concept of separation of church and state is in opposition to the concept of Tawheed. The reason is simple: according to the Qur‘an, the only standard for human organization is Islam (Qur‘an 21:92 and 23:52-53). In Islam, the basis of system and organization is the Deen of Islam. The limit of this organization is the Ummah of Islam—the nation that fully believes in Allah‘s oneness (Milat-e-Tawheed), and applies that belief to practical situations in their everyday lives.

¤ Darul Islam ¤
                              The concept of Darul Islam (the home of Islam) is too broad to be accommodated within the modern concept of the state. It is impossible to have both at the same time. The ultimate form of organization of the Muslim Ummah is Khilafah, which is a complete negation of the concept of the state. That is why the mere mention of Khilafah forces the well-established major powers of the day into quick knee-jerk reactions. No matter how rudimentary and flawed were the attempts of the Taliban at establishing an Islamic Emirate, the modern-day religious crusaders were scared because this process of establishing an emirate was leading Muslim minds to many questions and clarifications.

The chain reaction of questions and answers as a result of the Taliban‘s actions could lead to an understanding of the Islamic concept and standard of human organization. A continuation of the Taliban government would have led to purification—not domination—of Islamic thought. This purification of thought in the Muslim world is the first step towards the establishment of an Islamic society, free of every kind of un-Islamic influence.

The fear of discussion, debate, and crystallization of Islamic thought among Muslims is evident from Patrick Buchanan‘s declaration of war on the Muslim world. Writing in his book, Where the Right Went Wrong, Buchanan makes a case for religious war in these terms:

“If a clash of civilizations is coming, the West is unchallenged in wealth and weaponry. Yet, wealth did not prevent the collapse of Europe‘s Empires, nor did awesome weaponry prevent the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Rome was mighty, Christianity weak. Christianity endured and prevailed. Rome fell. America‘s enemy then is not a state we can crush with sanctions or an enemy we can defeat with force of arms. The enemy is a cause, a movement, an idea.”


Accordingly, following this line of thinking, the Taliban were not a military threat. They did not challenge the United States. Even the Taliban had no clear thought-out strategies. They only had a strong determination and intention to make living by Islam possible despite claims to the contrary that the 21st century is not a time to fully live by Islam. This attitude was giving rise to a debate among Muslims and a movement in the direction of Taliban‘s stated intentions. The fear of discussion and debate on this issue is evident from British Home Secretary Charles Clarke statement, saying:

“There can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Shari’ah law; there can be no negotiation about the suppression of equality between the sexes; there can be no negotiation about the ending of free speech.”

Of course, there can be no negotiation with Rumsfeld and company on the issue of how the Muslims need to live their lives after they submit themselves to Allah. But Rumsfeld‘s repetition of “no negotiation” reflects the morbid dread of the purification of polluted Islamic thought as well as attempts at suppressing free speech when it comes to making the public understand the basic concepts of Islam. For example, it is a revolution in itself for Muslims to realize that there is no basis for classifying human beings on the basis of ethnic origin, language, place of birth and nationality. Allah does say, however, that He has made people into different tribes only for the sake of identification. The sin comes in treating others differently on the basis of these classifications and erecting the wall of nation-states between them, which pits one Muslim state against the other for worldly interests.

♥ Ummah ♥
                     Anyone who accepts Islam becomes part of the Ummah and is obliged to live by the Law and standards of Allah alone. Unless one leaves the fold of Islam, there is no compromise on this basic principle. But with this obligation, one is bestowed with some inalienable rights as well. Unlike Israel, where an estimated 300,000 immigrants are considered non-Jews by the rabbinate and the government, and face problems in getting citizenship, just coming to the fold of Islam is good enough for one to immediately become part of the Ummah and a citizen of the Islamic State/Emirate/Darul Islam regardless of the place of birth and ethnic origin.

♣ Islamic State ♣
Both Muslims and non-Muslims routinely call Muslim majority countries Islamic states. Muslims are made to believe that even if all Muslim countries are amalgamated into a single Islamic entity, it will still be comprised of land, population, rulers and the ruled. So what‘s the difference? Therefore, the Muslim mind has accepted the present divisions of territory into several Muslim countries as perfectly valid. Furthermore, some Muslims believe that if some “Islamic” articles are added to the constitutions of Muslim countries, this change will make these states Islamic. Others are of the opinion that there is no need for such additions to the constitutions. All these distinctions are part of the attempts to limit Islam by putting it into the box of “nation” and nation-states.

For nationalizing Islam and eliminating differences between a single Islamic entity (Darul Islam) and un-Islamic states, many countries with Muslim majorities have been attempting to model themselves on un-Islamic states for a long time. As a result, even well-known scholars and leaders of religious parties are confused about the difference between an Islamic and an un-Islamic state. They try their best to avoid discussion on the difference between a Muslim and Islamic entity. As a result, most Muslims are under the impression that if the majority of the population is Muslim and their “leaders” proclaim to be Muslim, the difference between an Islamic and an un-Islamic state is reduced to an Islamically permissible fraction. In fact, even if the division of Muslims into several states is perfectly valid, still it does not help Muslims become a single Ummah as required by the Qur‘anic injunctions.

Dictators, such as General Pervez Musharraf, feel proud to speak on the issue and tell the world that Muslims cannot live by Islam the way they lived under the Khilafah in the 7th century. He hardly realizes that the existing 57 Muslim states are no more than colonial encroachments on the ruins of an Islamic entity. These encroachments were erected only to make Muslims feel at home rather than to have them think about living as one Ummah. Ummah is the most dreaded word for those who harbor hatred for Islam. For Islamophobes, Muslims division in many nations and many states is not a problem at all. However, any thought of the emergence of a single Ummah on the part of Muslims becomes extremism and totalitarianism for Islamophobes. The reason is simple: In the absence of divided Muslims; in the absence of Muslim puppet kings, dictators and generals, the occupiers—along with their multinational corporations and IMF and World Bank—will have no way to carry out their policies of social, cultural and economic exploitation. Edward W. Said noted in 1996:

…[no wonder] that most Islamic countries today are too poverty-stricken, tyrannical and hopelessly inept militarily as well as scientifically to be much of a threat to anyone except their own citizens; and never mind that the most powerful of them — like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan — are totally within the US orbit. What matters to “experts” like Miller, Samuel Huntington, Martin Kramer, Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson and Barry Rubin, plus a whole battery of Israeli academics, is to make sure that the “threat” is kept before our eyes, the better to excoriate Islam for terror, despotism and violence, while assuring themselves profitable consultancies, frequent TV appearances and book contracts.


If there were an Ummah, it would be unimaginable that a part of the Islamic state would be reeling under foreign occupation, with the rest of the Ummah standing on the sidelines. Presently, there are 57 Muslim countries, with 57 policies and 57 Shirk-infested national anthems, divided interests and unclear strategies. The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Arab League are useless for the same reason. It hardly hurts the interests of any of these states if the United States is occupying Afghanistan and Iraq today, plans to invade Syria tomorrow, or attacks Iran the next day.

The United States has cut the body into pieces and feels free to attack any part of that body when it sees fit with no fear of any real opposition or resistance. Interestingly, many of the leading warlords, such as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, present Arabs different from Muslims. While referring to Muslims, they would write “Arabs and Muslims,” as if Arabs are not Muslims. The effect of such propaganda is extremely serious. Even those who are against occupation and oppression of Muslims around the world start speaking in the same language that confirms these divisions among Muslims.

·~ Sovereignty and Independence ~·
                                                                        The sovereignty and independence of Muslim nation-states are yet another big joke. On the one hand, school textbooks in these countries are filled with patriotic lessons, and national radio and television stations never stop blaring songs to deify the state and promote national chauvinism. On the other hand, however, these states are no more than mere puppets in the control of their colonial masters. Pakistan is a sad story, but a very important example in this regard. There are certain aspects, such as occupation of the country by the national army and being a nuclear power, that are worthy of attention. Pakistan has failed to use its military power to deter enemies and defend the country‘s much-vaunted sovereignty in a global order in which independence of Muslim states is hardly more than a joke.

For modern-day crusaders, sovereignty and independence of states mean nothing. Vittorio E. Parsi‘s, who teaches geopolitics at the Catholic University of Milan, presents the crusader‘s vision and support to the renewed alliance between the United States and Europe in his latest book L’alleanza inevitabile: Europa e Stati Uniti oltre l’Iraq (The Inevitable Alliance: Europe and the United States Beyond Iraq) published by Bocconi University in Milan (2003). To the author, “equality of all states” is an “untenable legal fiction.”

Giving one‘s life in defense of so-called sovereign Muslim states has no value or permission in Islam. These Muslim states give priority to defending the interests of the United States and its bullying allies over protecting the rights of their people at home and other oppressed Muslims abroad. In the context of suffering Muslims in Palestine and Kashmir, did General Musharraf not clearly tell his nation in a televised address on January 12, 2001, that we are not responsible for Muslims and Islam everywhere? His exact words in Urdu were: “Hum Koi Islam Ke Tekkadar to Naheen.” The use of this slang in the context of Palestine and other trouble spots throughout the world means that we are not solely responsible for defending Islam and Muslims in other places in the name of Islam.

◊ Nationalism ◊
                                Thus, the state and Ummah (Millat) are two extremes at the opposite ends of the spectrum. States limit Muslims to specific geographic boundaries and make them think about their internal affairs alone. In contrast, Ummah makes Muslims think globally about living by Islam as well as addressing problems and needs of all Muslims. However, in most Muslim countries these extremes—mulk-o-millat (state and Ummah)—are put together by the media and public in their daily routine and used as complementary or inseparable realities. State and Ummah are in total contrast to each other. However, their combination in daily speech shows Muslims‘ ignorance of the basic concepts behind these terminologies. This way, Muslim loyalties and patriotism have been divided. Ummah or Millat has been subordinated to each Muslim state. So is Islam. For some, their respective nations have become Millat for them.

As a result of nationalizing Islam in nation-states, Islam in every Muslim state requires loyalty to the government. Islam in Kuwait, for example, has the responsibility to save the Kuwaiti Sheikhs and support their policies. In Saudi Arabia, Islam requires support for the King. In every Muslim country, it is considered Islamic to save the state. There is an army of religious scholars in every state. When it comes to defending the rulers and state in the name of Islam, there is no dearth of Qur‘anic verses and Ahadiths to which reference is made. Things take a strange turn when the interests of Muslim states clash with each other. In that kind of case, Ijthihad in one state stands in total contrast to the Ijthihad of religious scholars in the other. Popular Ijthihad of religious leaders everywhere has to follow state policy because they are bound to look at the problem from the state‘s perspective. Thinking or working for Muslims‘ collective benefit has no place in Muslim thought or action today.

Every state has to put its interests at the forefront and give priority to addressing its own national problems. During the first Gulf War, for example, supporting American forces was absolute Kufr (disbelief) for Iraqi scholars; whereas for Saudis, inviting and hosting American troops were not only valid but also compulsory from their Islamic perspective. This is exactly how the architects of dividing the Muslim Ummah into nation-states wanted it to be. They could then favor one side and watch as Muslims fought against one another over who would be the lucky recipient of their good graces.

≠ Divide and Rule ≠
As a result of the Ummah’s division into several nation-states, Islam has had to remain under government protection. In return, it has to serve the government‘s agenda as if it were a slave. Muslims are trained to think in terms of their respective states before interpreting Islam. The recent barrage of French and American fatwas by local Muslims against “terrorism” is a telling sign of progress in this regard. A serious question in this regard is: If application of the same Qur‘anic injunctions starts changing at different places and times, how many different types of Islam would emerge with the passage of time? That is why secularists in Muslim countries argue that religion must be kept out of state affairs to avoid such confusion. Setting Islam aside is not so difficult. What is difficult for Muslims is to toss out Islam from their public life and still remain Muslims.

Therefore, the roots of present confusion in the Muslim world lie in the introduction of nation-states—not the “misinterpretation” of Islam. Western colonialists have erected state boundaries among Muslims to such an extent that Muslim masses and scholars can hardly overcome these barriers. With all their flag-waving and nationalistic slogans, Muslims can hardly see or recognize themselves as a single Ummah. These boundaries are as much ideological as they are psychological. To possess an Islamic perspective, it is imperative to set aside various national perspectives and all lessons of living and dying for the respective 57 Muslim states. Working for the cause of Islam, and working for the cause of a nation are poles apart.

~Ο~ Vortex ~Ο~
                            Swimming against the flow of the so-called national interest is almost impossible for any single individual or organization in the Muslim world. It is not only nerve-wracking and exhausting, but is also impossible. To the contrary, swimming with the flow of the so-called national interest is both convenient and satisfying. It gives one the opportunity to taste success. It is not that all Muslims are blind to the reality that there is no place for secular systems and nation-states in Islam. It is actually almost impossible to overcome the prevailing mindset and ignore the established national slogans and priorities against public views.

In Muslim countries, the masses can hardly think outside the box of the concept of nation-states. Anything other than the prevailing system and order seems like implausible ideas with no link to realities on the ground. Of course, some organizations have taken a stand on principles. The result, however, is obvious. The public in general, has lost interest in these organizations. In some cases, they had to give up and quit their stand on principles. Public acceptance and a stand on Islamic principles have become inversely proportional to one another: The more one takes a stand on Islamic principles, the less popular acceptance he or she receives. To put pressure on existing governments in Muslim states, selfless religious leaders have to understand the broader context of the challenge before Muslims. They also have to take masses into confidence. Without winning the hearts and minds of the public, it is impossible to make an impact on a national level.

Δ Media Δ
                  Unfortunately, public opinion is shaped by the media, school curriculums and other indoctrination centers, working day and night to promote the concept of nation and state since the inception of each Muslim state. Behind these institutions, there is only one mindset at work: Governments come and go, but the institutions that shape public opinion stay and work incessantly. The challenge before Muslims is to change public opinion. Putting pressure on governments as a result of popularity among the masses is not difficult. In fact, governments are not the real enemies. Even in the United States, presidents and Congress are mere puppets in the hands of the power behind the scene, which is never known to the general public. These are the real molders and shapers of public opinion.

Today, media, education systems and other sources of indoctrination act as a chain around the neck of all nations. Acceptable terminologies, such as public opinion, national interest, national needs, public emotions and public trends, are creations of the hands that rock the national cradles as well as rule the world.

In the Muslim world, both religious or political parties and other organizations always look for a niche in public opinion for their survival and growth. One has to be acceptable to public emotions and trends to prosper. Even writers, columnists and political observers cannot progress unless their views are in consonance with the so-called national interest and the established order. Lists of such patriotic slogans and phrases are so meticulously and intelligently crafted that irrespective of one‘s political or religious school of thought, everyone fits well in one or another category that directly or indirectly sustains the nation-state system. Further individual success in such an opportunities-lacking environment depends on one‘s ambitiousness, courage and level of struggle. The ultimate contribution to Islam and Ummah that a critic of the government can make remains naught.

So, the impact of much-vaunted public opinion on national security and national priorities is the beginning of a vast quagmire. One can stand up to a corrupt, repressive government, but it is hard for anyone to ignore the indoctrinated public opinion and the media. No matter how much one may curse the powers behind the scenes, public opinion and national priorities always remain locked in the iron grip of those powers. The masses live in denial of reality. This problem is not limited to Muslim states alone: According to Jacob Hornberger, the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation:

     Denying reality, the average American exclaims, ‘We live in the freest nation on earth. We can write letters to the editor and publish books.’ Suppose Egypt‘s pharaoh had decreed, ‘From this day forward, the slaves shall be permitted to complain openly about their condition and to write pleas to their taskmasters regarding their poor living conditions.‘ Would this have made the slaves free? …Johann von Goethe once wrote that ‗none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.‘ No words could more accurately capture the plight of the American people. Having been indoctrinated for so long in their government-approved schools, Americans rank among the most enslaved people in history. And their denial of reality does not free them. It simply produces a psychosis marked by high levels of alcohol and other drug addiction.

Ω Freedom Ω
                         Unfortunately, Muslims in most of the Muslim states cannot even claim to be as free as many Americans. Free people can say “no”. Free people can resist plunder of their resources. They can refuse unjust demands for their time and children. Slaves cannot. There is no freedom without the freedom to say “no”. If someone demands that you do something and you can say “no” and refuse to do it, then you are a free human being. If you can be forced to do something or surrender something that you do not wish to do, then you are a slave. No other tests need be applied. If you are in a Muslim state and your government cannot say “no” to an outside government, asking it to sacrifice your sons and daughters, you are a slave of the slave. This is exactly what a Muslim state, Pakistan, did after receiving Bush‘s “with us or against us” threat in 2001. Pakistan had no option but to justify its full-scale assistance both in Afghanistan and later in Pakistan in the mass murder of fellow Muslims and invasion of their homes in the name of national security.

A national agenda and priorities never allow one to take a stand on principles in a Muslim country. This problem further intensifies when the struggle is extended beyond national boundaries to address the cause of Ummah or international change. Of course, Ummah is not limited to one Muslim state alone. How can one think of facing the challenge of organizing a mass movement against the flow of 57 different national agendas and priorities, when it is so hard to take a stand on principles within a single Muslim state against the tide of established norms and mindset? One has to make many compromises on one Islamic principle simply to stay alive and keep moving within the national flow. The prevailing cluelessness among religious parties and Islamic movements about how to proceed is the result of facing the same dilemma of working for Islam and national interest at the same time.

≅ National Mainstream ≅
                                                  The challenge of staying in the national mainstream has become a curse for those who want to make living according to principles of Islam possible in society. For establishing Islam and also staying in the national mainstream, one has to water down his or her agenda according to the whims of puppets put in place for the modern-day colonialists. This is as true for a single individual, such as an analyst, as it is true for the religious parties and organizations. The moment one adds “unnecessary” items to his or her agenda, that individual is out of the national mainstream, which is equivalent to pronouncing death on that individual or organization. A serious discussion with leaders of national movements and religious parties would reveal a long list of problems they face. If one does not consider leadership of religious parties and movements as superhuman, one has no option but to accept their argument for being ineffective and clueless. One has to appreciate their courage, but it does not mean that one has to agree with their approach as well.

In short, if an individual or political party has to stay in the national mainstream, it would have to keep the load of its principles and ideology as light as possible. If it is concerned about its ideology and is not ready to compromise on it, it has to stay out of the national mainstream. Dr. Israr Ahmad, the founder of Tanzeem-e-Islami in Pakistan, is a living example of this phenomenon. He sacrificed staying in the mainstream for the core principles of Islam and paid the price with remaining on the sidelines: totally marginalized. One has to pick one of these options: staying in or out of the mainstream. We are well aware of the insurmountable hurdles faced by those who have opted to stay in the national mainstream, even if they do not talk about it.

∈∋ Ummah Vs National Mainstream ∈∋
The concept of Ummah and the national mainstream are totally incompatible. The problems faced by those who are struggling to establish Islam on the local or national level are an indicator of the bigger problems that a people will have to face if they challenge nation-states, national boundaries and national governments on the international level. Defeating such a challenge on the part of Muslims has now become the sole justification for the United States invasions and occupations of Muslim states. For example, no one has so far claimed that the resistance to the United States occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan is for the sake of establishing Khilafah. Yet, repeated statements of Bush and his fellow crusaders, intending to demonize the very concept of Khilafah, expose their intentions about launching these wars in the first place.

For Afghanistan, the United States had not even as much justification for launching a war of aggression as it had for invading Iraq. Without producing a single shred of evidence about the involvement of the Taliban or other alleged perpetrators, 9/11 was not good enough an excuse to overthrow the Taliban government and occupy Afghanistan. The real problem was that the Taliban, irrespective of their “misinterpretation of Islam” and “crimes against women,” were gradually moving towards establishing a society in which nationality, national interests, and the national agenda and priorities were gradually losing their influence on Muslim minds.

Any Muslim could go and live in Afghanistan for as long as he or she wished. Anyone could go and invest in Afghanistan without prior permission of the Taliban leadership. Social scientists were as keen in helping Afghanistan, as were nuclear scientists, business people, anthropologists, religious leaders and technical experts. Most importantly, an environment was leading to open thought and discussion about the application of Islamic principles in modern-day life. Regardless of the faulty application of those principles in some cases in the beginning, the system was gradually moving in the direction that could have given Muslims an idea about life in an Islamic society and model of governance. Many religious leaders in Pakistan had already accepted the broader approach of the Taliban. Input from religious scholars from abroad would have refined ways to implement the basic principles of Islam and pave the way to live according to Islam. That is why the global machinery that maintains the status quo churned into action against the Taliban quite early and did not stop until the job was done. That is the reason that Bush and company has now publicly declared their so-far hidden war on Khilafah. They have done so well before anyone stands up and demands an end to nation-states in the Muslim world.

The situation under the Taliban was not forcing religious scholars and leaders to remain in the national mainstream. In fact, there was no national mainstream in existence in Afghanistan. Religious scholars were not bound to worry about molding their opinion not only in favor of the “national interest” but also in favor of Washington‘s interest. For example, the visit of Akram Khan Durrani, the chief minister of the North West Frontier Province in Pakistan, to the Pentagon on July 12, 2005, to explain the content of a pro-Islam Hasba Bill, which would introduce a step towards implementation of Islamic way of life, is an excellent example in this regard. Durrani said that he “hopes the US will not oppose the Hasba bill.”

Religious scholars in Afghanistan were not obliged to appease policymakers or the United States government or seek approval from the Pentagon. They were part of the policymakers and legislature. They were not worried about the constant need for promotion on the national media. In other states, the apparent opportunities, which give religiously devoted people the illusion to be working for Islam, are actually resulting in the dumping of the energies of these people rather than channeling them in a positive direction. This was not the case in Afghanistan. The religious leadership in Afghanistan was not stuck in a quagmire.

Of course, the Taliban may not have been so farsighted. Yet there is no doubt that freedom with regard to discussion, deliberation and implementation of Islam was good enough to pave the way in the right direction. Challenge to the status quo of the established division of territory based on nation-states among Muslims was the most possible, yet an unintended consequence of the Taliban‘s approach. The Taliban‘s approach to international relations was more pragmatic than the approach of any of the other 57 Muslim states. For example, their approach to the issue of Chechnya was totally different from that of other Muslim states.

The Taliban‘s support to the victims of Russian aggression in Chechnya was one of the crimes of the Taliban government, according to the Taliban‘s opponents. The Taliban not only gave de jure recognition to the de facto Republic of Chechnya, but they also extended clear political support for the legitimate rights of the Chechen people. A foreign ministry spokesman in Kabul said on December 20, 1999:

“The Chechen question is the question of the whole world of Islam. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan considers the silence of the international community and, in particular, that of Islamic countries in reaction to the brutal reaction against the Muslim nation of Chechnya, as unkindness and ignoring the rights of the nation.”

The Taliban were supposed to be a bunch of rather uncouth and fanatical newcomers in the world of high diplomacy. Yet none of the other Muslim states had the same clarity of thought and the same political sophistication as shown by these madrassa-educated newcomers to the world of realpolitik. The Afghan deputy minister of foreign affairs, Mulla AbdurRahman Zahid, reminded Muslims of the world not to “keep silent about the cruelties, oppressions and crimes committed by the Russians and to support the legitimate rights of the Chechens because the colonialist powers are always striving to hinder the unity and solidarity of the Muslim Ummah.”

This was a crucial time in which the Taliban‘s minister emphasized:

“It is incumbent upon the Muslims of the world to strengthen their unity and their solidarity in the light of Islamic guidance against suppression and infringement upon the rights of the Muslims of the world. The Muslim Ummah is capable of resolving its problems itself, thanks to the economic and political potential at its disposal.”

The timing for such a comment and stand on the part of the Taliban was crucial because the world was totally silent in the face of a Muslim nation‘s extermination. In the first Chechen war, 1994-96, Russia killed 100,000 Chechen civilians, razed much of the small country, and, in an act of monumental terrorism, scattered 17 million anti-personnel land mines across the tiny nation. Russia was driven from Chechnya in 1996, but its hardliners and Communists vowed to exterminate the “Chechen bandits.”

The world started considering the Taliban as a threat because the rest of the Muslim world was well in line with the oppression of Muslims in Chechnya. For example, two weeks after the OIC delegation‘s visit, the Russian Information Agency (RIA) reported from Tehran:

Iran does not oppose the Russian campaign in Chechnya and supports Russia‘s territorial integrity, though it calls for a political solution to the conflict, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi told a news conference after meeting his Ukranian counterpart, Borys Tarasyuk, in Tehran. “Proliferation of any form of terrorism and religious extremism is unacceptable” the minister said.

This was the time when the United States was proposing sanctions on the Taliban and at the same time the administration of Bill Clinton was largely financing Russia‘s genocide in Chechnya. The United States supplied Russians with attack helicopters loaded with advanced night-vision devices “to combat terrorism,” said the White House. Clinton‘s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, had conceded: “Clearly Russia has the right to fight terrorism within its borders.” At a time when U.N. sanctions were imposed on Afghanistan for being under the “tyranny” of the Taliban, Clinton called for the “liberation” of Grozny by Russia.

This straightforward approach and stand on principles was considered as Talibanization. That is why the world had to face the chorus of “Talibanization of Pakistan” and other Muslim states in the Western media. The Taliban were unknowingly challenging the standards of Muslim organization in the world. Their standards were no more a person‘s place of birth, race or nationality. As long as one claimed to be Muslim, the secular standard of citizenship hardly mattered for the Taliban to forge strong bonds of brotherhood. They declared the Qur‘an as their constitution, which was the first step towards removing secular standards for human organization and governance. The Taliban were not focusing on changing the faces in power. They were changing the system and the whole approach to governance. Modern-day elections are nothing more than changing faces and gaining legitimacy to the established order. The big threat is when there are calls to change the system and not just the faces. Unlike Pakistan and other Muslim states, the Taliban not only achieved physical independence but also psychological and ideological independence to go about making such changes.

That is why the “stealth crusade” had to target Afghanistan. In the planning for doing so, it is not easy to point out just one group of the stakeholders in the prevailing international order. For example, from a close examination of the agenda of evangelical groups in the Muslim world, it appears that, as a whole, Christian fundamentalism is no longer just a religious mission. It has become part and parcel of the mainstream politics and foreign policies of the West. According to Yogindar Sikand, an analyst from India:

“As is widely believed, many evangelical groups working in the “Third World” are simply fronts for Western agencies and governments, helping to promote their vested interests and strategic goals. This is most readily apparent from the cozy relationship between Christian fundamentalists and the current Bush administration. Right-wing American Christian groups are known to be sources of immense financial support to Israel. They are also vociferous backers of America‘s imperialist designs on the Muslim world, seeing these as a divinely mandated crusade against the forces of “evil”. These Christian groups also served to promote American interests abroad. Several of them received generous funding from far-right American government lobbies, CIA front organizations, American big business and right-wing think tanks. Many missionaries were appointed as sources of vital information for the CIA, and were used to bolster American hegemony by indoctrination and spreading American propaganda.”


∇ Crux of the Matter ∇
To consolidate the fear of having Muslims live according to Islam, this mission against Islam is carried out on all fronts, particularly the media front. The Taliban happened to be just one target of this global struggle. Even thinkers such as Edward Said did not get it specifically right when he concluded that books, like Miller‘s The Islamic Threat, “are symptomatic because they are weapons in the contest to subordinate, beat down, compel and defeat any Arab or Muslim resistance to US-Israeli dominance.”

Unfortunately, it is not the matter of the United States and Israel alone. When it comes to a very different way of life and law, the Muslim world stands in total contrast to the rest of the world. All those who have a stake in the prevailing world order would do anything to not let Muslims live as an Ummah with their own way of life according to the Qur‘an, because this will put before humanity another model of social organization and governance: a step towards establishing a just order.

That is why Muslims who aspire and struggle to live by Islam are demonized as extremists, who want to work for the dominance of “political Islam.”

To further dehumanize a whole culture on the ground that it is (in Bernard Lewis‘s sneering phrase) “enraged at modernity” is to turn Muslims into the objects of a therapeutic, punitive attention, and close all doors to the possibility of even discussing whether living by Islam is really a threat to humanity. These Islamophobes took full advantage of the Taliban‘s rule by magnifying their shortcomings to the extent that Muslims can hardly muster enough courage to stand up and say they want to establish a society in which they can live by Islam, let alone demand unity of Muslim Ummah, and live under a single Islamic entity: Khilafah, Caliphate, Emirate, Islamic State or whatever one may call it.

Taken from – “Afghanistan : the genesis of the final crusade” by Abid Ullah Jan.


Quote  —  Posted: February 1, 2017 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Here we will establish the existence of this fear.

A prominent leader from South Asia, Mohammed Ali Johar, predicted in 1924:

“It is difficult to anticipate the exact effects the ―”abolition” of Khilafah will have on the minds of Muslims in India. I can safely affirm that it will prove a disaster both to Islam and to civilization. The suppression of the time honored institution which was, through out the Muslim world, regarded as a symbol of Islamic unity will cause the disintegration of Islam…., I fear that the removal of this ideal will drive the unadvanced and semi-civilized peoples…, into ranks of revolution and disorder.”

Eighty-one years later, we witness that the ―”civilized” world is busy in the noble cause of digging out Saddam‘s atrocities, but at the same time tries to burry deep Uzbek president, Islam Karimov‘s massacre of civilians in Andijan. The reason for such a silence is the justification which Islam Karimov put forward for his massacre and continued human rights violations in Uzbekistan. In Karimov‘s words, the victims ―wanted to establish Khilafah. Atrocities of similar, dictatorial regimes in many Muslims countries are acceptable to the ―civilized world because these are considered as secular bulwarks against Hizb ut Tahrir-like movements, whose main crime is the struggle for establishing Khilafah.

The so-called mainstream media and the architects of war at the political and religions levels, make everyone believe that the trouble started, at the earliest, around the Taliban‘s coming to power in Afghanistan. In fact, the global troubles have been attributed to Khilafah since its inception in the 7th century. Thirteen centuries later, when the British Empire abolished the remnants of Khilafah in 1924, it took a sigh of relief and considered it as the ultimate victory against Islam.


To the utter disappointment of Britain and its allies, the problem, nevertheless, remains. Khilafah still provides motivation to many actions and reactions; movements and counter-movements in the Muslim world. Consequently, the centuries old zeal of Islamophobes to abolish Khilafah is as much the root of all unacknowledged terrorism of the United States, Britain and their allies as the renewed zeal among Muslims to seek self-determination and real liberation from the colonial yoke. Although a majority may not be thinking in terms of establishing Khilafah, but it will be the natural consequence of true liberation and unified approach towards tackling the prevailing problems. That is why the totalitarian warlords in Washington and London are opposed to granting real independence to Muslim masses and spread the fear of ―”Caliphate”.

The major problem with Khilafah is the morbid dread it strikes in the hearts of those who are determined not to allow Muslims to become united, exercise their right to self-determination and live by the Qur‘an. The key to materializing these objectives lies in thwarting Muslim‘s organized struggle towards real liberation from the puppet regimes and uniting the divided world of Islam.

Just the thought of this struggle leads the Islamophobes into taking many pre-emptive measures, which, in turn, lead to grievances, reaction and counter measures on the part of Muslims.

The more time passes, the more people realize the importance of a central, independent authority for Muslims. Unlike all the now defunct revolutions of human history, the 7th century revolution in the heart of Arabia not only culminated in establishing a way of life but also setting guidelines for human governance, which are still valid today.

This realization of the need to have a central, independent authority for Muslims is directly proportional to the struggle on the part of the architects of war on Afghanistan who will never allow Muslims to take any steps that may lead to the establishment of an alternative model to the existing unjust socio-political and economic order.

The ―war on terrorism is a post 9/11 slogan. In fact, it is a summary title for all the anti-Islam efforts: from intellectual escapades to legal hurdles, wars, occupations, detentions, torture and criminalizing the concept of Khilafah. In this process, terrorism is used as a synonym of Khilafah.

One can notice this by carefully listening to the brief statements at the end of summits and conferences these days. It seems as if there is nothing going on in the world except terrorism. The crux of all messages is: We are committed, determined and stand as one against the evil of terrorism. We would not allow terrorists to win. They are against our values and way of life.

A realistic look forces one to ask: Where does the alleged “Muslim terrorism” stand in comparison to the mass killings, tortures, detentions, and exploitations carried out to deter Muslims from being organized and united. This proves that the war is actually on something other than the deceptively labeled terrorism. The first physical action of this war was the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

One month before 9/11, the New York Times reports that most Americans are made to believe that terrorism ―is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. The Americans are made ―“to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists and they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.”
Larry C. Johnson
, “nevertheless, concludes: ―None of these beliefs are based in fact.”

Johnson cites figures from the CIA reports. Accordingly, deaths from ―“international terrorism fell to 2,527 in the decade of 1900‘s from 4,833 in the 80‘s.” Compare the 2,527 deaths in the 90s due to acknowledged terrorism with the death of 1.8 million in Iraq during the same years due to unacknowledged terrorism of the United States, its allies and the United Nations. The United States and allies‘ terrorism remained unacknowledged because they justified it with lies about Iraq‘s Weapons of Mass Destruction. For example, compare the 4,833 deaths due to acknowledged Muslim terrorism with the one million deaths due to unacknowledged aggression of Iraq against Iran on the behest of the United States and its allies.

So, what is consuming the world: the acknowledged terrorism of Muslims or the unacknowledged terrorism of the United States and its allies? This brings us to the point that the endless tirades about Muslim terrorism are directed at holding Muslims from exercising their right to self-determination. Anything in the name of Khilafah in particular becomes part of the struggle towards this end and is instantly criminalized.

Many people believe these measures are part of the wider crackdowns for safety and security in the wake of 9/11. This, however, is not true. The reality is that anything in the name of Khilafah has been ridiculed and presented as a threat to safety since 1924 in particular. The reason: Islamophobes do not want to see real Khilafah re-emerge after their assuming in 1924 that they are done with the remnants of a symbolic Khilafah forever.

It is understandable that the enemies of Islam would go to any length, beyond these fear-mongering reports, to discredit the concept of Khilafah and deny them the right to self-determination. This includes staged terror attacks, lies for justifying invasions and occupation, and support to criminal regimes, which promise, in turn, not to let Muslims live by Islam. That is how the turmoil widens and the hopes for peace diminish with each passing day.

Taken from – “Afghanistan : the genesis of the final crusade” by Abid Ullah Jan.

Advises From The Quran.

When you voice an opinion, be just, even if it is against a relative. (6/152)

If you do not have complete knowledge about anything, better not say anything. You might think that speaking about something without full knowledge is a trivial matter. But it might have grave consequences. (24:15-16)

When you hear something malicious about someone, keep a favorable view about him/her until you attain full knowledge about the matter. Consider others innocent until they are proven guilty with solid and truthful evidence. (24:12-13)

Do not follow blindly any information of which you have no direct knowledge. (Using your faculties of perception and conception) you must verify it for yourself. In the Court of your Lord, you will be held accountable for your hearing, sight, and the faculty of reasoning. (17:36)

(Interpretations of meaning)

I am a woman & I am against feminism, because, today, our men are suffering because of the abuse of women. And this video is another attempt to show how innocent women are & how bad men are (which is a blatant lie). 

Boys do cry & this is something natural. They get upset, they have a heart, they feel. Instead of telling them “boys don’t cry”, we should try to know why are they crying, why are they upset.

Our beloved Prophet Muhammad (salallahu aleyhe wassalam) used to cry. We must treat men (father/brother/husband/son) nicely, we must treat them like human, we must talk to them when they are upset, and don’t make them feel that crying is something unnatural. They will stop crying in front of us, but will get mentally sick & can even get depressed.

I am sick of people talking about ONLY women’s rights. Today’s society have completely ignored men. I never see anything which shows the real face of women? how they treat men? how they abuse men?

We must stop this & we must stop taking men for granted.

Tragedy Of Today’s Male Society. 

”She can beat the shit out of a man because she is angry, but if he does, then he is women beater.”

If He takes beating from women, people say – he is beaten up by a woman, he is not a man.  (Kya aadmi hai ladki se maar khata hai).

If He beats her back, people say – He is a loser, he beats a woman.  (Kya aadmi hai ladki ko maarta hai).

And these kind of cunning video surfaces up regularly, this time blaming the parenting. And shame on these actresses who, for only a small amount of money promote such biased videos.

mystertHow did we come here? What was before this life, were we alive?  What will happen after death? Is death the end of our current physical life and body, including our mind? If this worldly life is a test, how is this test fair?

These are some of the questions that each & every human must ask him/herself. Below is a brief explanation on how do Muslims view life and death.

Allah says in Qur’an: “How can you disbelieve in Allah (God), Seeing that you were dead and He gave you life. Then He will give you death, then again will bring you to life and then unto Him you will return.” (2:28)

They will say: “Our Lord! You have made us to die twice, and You have given us life twice! Now we confess our sins, then is there any way to get out?” (40:11)

These verses show that, we were alive, then we died, then again we were given life (i.e this worldly life) and we will again die and then there will be another life.

Before the creation of the universe , Allah created the Souls & Angels. This is related to “Alam al-Amr (the World of Command)”.

After this from the material universe, that started with the big bang, our bodies were created. This is related to “Alam al Khalq (World of Creation).”

Alam al-Amr matters are with “Kun Fayaqoon” which means,  Allah says, “Be” & it happens, there is no time element involved in it. But in Alam al Khalq, time is involved.

So, the first phase was when all the souls were created, from Adam to the last human that will come on this earth, till the day of judgement. After creating these souls, Allah took a covenant from all of them.

Allah says in Qur’an”: “And (remember) when your Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their seed and made them testify as to themselves (saying): “Am I not your Lord!” They said: “Yes! We testify,” . Lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: “Verily, we were unaware of this.” Or lest you should say: “It was only our fathers aforetime who took others as partners in worship along with Allah, and we were (merely their) descendants after them; will You then destroy us because of the deeds of men who practiced falsehood!” (7:172-173)

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon Him) said: “It will be said to a man from the people of the Fire on the Day of Resurrection, `If you owned all that is on the earth, would you pay it as ransom!’ He will reply, `Yes.’ Allah will say, `I ordered you with what is less than that, when you were still in Adam’s loins, that is, associate none with Me (in worship). You insisted that you associate with Me (in worship).”

From the above verse & narration we can conclude that: “As there can be no agreement if both the parties are not conscious or are not in their senses, therefore, it shows that the agreement/covenant was done when humans were in their senses & were conscious, and all of us accepted that there is no God but One, Allah.”

As all the souls were present at that time, therefore when on the day of judgement the souls will be presented in front of Allah once again, then Allah will say: “And truly you have come unto Us alone, as We created you the FIRST time. You have left behind you all that which We had bestowed on you.” (Qur’an 6:94)

After this, all the souls were put to a state of death. That was the first death we faced. We were only souls & we had no material body at that time.

This shows that, in this world we have these two existences, our body and the soul and they are joined together. About, how are they joined, we don’t know.

The Prophet said: “Each of you is constituted in your mother’s womb for forty days as a nutfah, then it becomes an ‘alaqah for an equal period, then a mudghah for another equal period, then the angel is sent and he breathes the soul into it.”

One is our bestial existence which came from the earth & one is our spiritual existence. Till the time we are alive on this earth, our souls & material bodies stay attached & when we die, our material existence goes to where it came from – the earth, but our spiritual existence did not come from the earth & will not go into the earth, it came from Allah (God) & it will return to Allah. This will be our second death, and then we will be resurrected again on the day of judgement, as it is mentioned in Qur’an: “Our Lord! You have made us to die twice, and You have given us life twice!” (40:11)

After this second death, it will be our final eternal life, either in heaven or hell (based on our deeds). And after this (second death) there will be no way to get out. So, we all must live wisely in this world, we must try our best to search for truth with sincerity. This worldy life is just a test for the hereafter, 70-80 years & we will be gone. Heaven is peace & pleasure for eternity & Hell is torture for eternity. Choose wisely. 

This Is The Philosophy Of Life & Death In Islam. Qur’an surprises me whenever I study it, & i would like to invite all the readers to study Qur’an & understand its meaning.

The Qur’an is a dynamic and intrusive text that constantly seeks to engage with the inner dispositions of man. The Qur’an achieves this by asking profound questions concerning natural phenomena, life and the universe. However the Qur’an does not stop at addressing these themes, it also asks about man himself. Who is he? Where is he going? What is he? It eloquently asks the question “Do they not reflect within themselves?” (Hamza Tsortis)

“Islam is not a ‘religion’ in the sense this term is commonly understood. It is a system encompassing all fields of living. Islam means politics, economics, legisla­tion, science, humanism, health, psychology and sociol­ogy. It is a system which makes no discrimination on the basis of race, color, language or other external categories. Its appeal is to all mankind. It wants to reach the heart of every human being.” (Abd’ul Ala Maududi)

Allah Knows Best.


A revolution is considered an event which has a MAJOR impact on changing the political, economic or social structure of society – usually in a short space of time. The aims of revolutions are usually tied to an ideology.

Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is the greatest revolutionary in the history of the World.

“If we compare the Revolution of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon Him) with the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution it becomes evident that the French Revolution succeeded in changing only the political system and the Russian revolution changed only the economic system. But the Revolution of Holy Prophet changed everything….religion, belief, rituals, the political system, the economic system and the entire social fabric.” Dr Israr Ahmad.

The greatest need of Muslim Ummah today, is not wealth, government, fame, technology, education, democracy, but according to me, the most important need is, that Muslims understand the way of Muhammad, His way of bringing revolution. The only way of bringing revolution today is understanding & implementing the methodology of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him.

Steps Taken By Prophet Muhammad In Bringing Revolution.

1- Ideology.

Called people to believe in One God. He said: “Oh people, believe that there is no God but Allah & you will be successful” (at this point, he said nothing about His Prophet hood).

‘There is no deity worthy of worship except God’ this conviction creates a world view, a perspective and a unique behavior. It essential means that all actions – from having a shower to picking up litter from the floor – should be referred to the Creator. This establishes a constant awareness, mindfulness and consciousness of God in everything that the Muslim says or does.

This means that there will be no human sovereignty. No human is hakim (owner) of anything (meaning, negation of communism & capitalism). Ownership & sovereignty only belongs to Allah. Ownership for Allah & Caliphate for humans. Sovereignty for Allah & Trust for humans.

Humans need to be intellectually convinced. The Prophet was told to simply give the message and not worry whether people converted or not, therefore, there is no question in Islam of forcing your opinions on any one else, as the Qur’an tells us that there is “no compulsion in religion.”

He stood up against oppression & injustice & called people to unite under the flag of monotheism.


His message was, that, each & every human is equal on a social level. For example, a CEO & office tea boy have different posts & duties, but as humans they are equal. It was an end of racism. And to spread this message, He used all the means possible, at that time.

racism end

2- Organizing People.

Second step was to organize the people, who accepted His message & agreed to stand up against oppression & injustice. For this, He introduced the practice of taking pledge. Asked people to give Him pledge of allegiance on the following conditions:

We will listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we are active and at the time when we are tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and to be obedient to the ruler (but, we will say what we think is right, we won’t think that it is silly, we will say whatever our suggestions will be & the decision will be yours) 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.”

The Prophet did not have a need to take this pledge, as the companions believed in Him, but He introduced this system for the future, so that Muslims follow His way instead of the western ways.

3- Training People.

Third step was to train the people. It included the following things,

i- The idea of bringing a revolution must always be on the minds of people & the way of doing this is, studying the Qur’an, because studying it will keep reminding them about their goal.

ii- ‘No resistance’, not at any cost. Even if the enemy cuts you in pieces, don’t resist.

iii- Spending everything in the way of Allah.

iv- Strong belief in the hereafter. If your heart is attached to this world, you become weak.


4- Passive Resistance.

For 3 long years, the Prophet was attacked with hate speech. People called him mad, magician, poet etc. It hurted him, but He stayed patient & responded them by simply turning His face to someone else, but never got rude or harsh. And He told the same to His companions.


After 3 years when the enemy noticed that the Muslims are standing firm & more & more people are converting to Islam, they started physical persecution. They did not give them food to eat, the rich were imprisoned & the poor slaves were beaten in the worst ways, in the center of the streets, a woman companion was killed in front of her son, but none of the Muslims resisted.

As a result of this, sympathies of the people diverted towards the Muslims,  they realized that these people did nothing wrong, they only said, “we believe that there is no God but Allah & Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah”.

After this, when Abu Talib died, who was protecting the Prophet, the disbelievers decided to kill Him. At this point, the Prophet migrated to Madinah. Even in Madinah, he did not resist for 6 months but took some very important decisions.

i- Constructed the mosque. It was not only a mosque but also an institution, a place of worship, parliament, suggestion center & a government house.

ii -Second important decision that He took was, He made one immigrant (muhajir) brother of one Muslim from Madinah (ansaar).

iii- And third decision was that Muslim and Jewish clans signed a pact to protect each other, in case Madina gets attacked.

5- Active Resistance.

This is the most crucial step in the process of revolution. If it is not taken on the right time, all the efforts will be wasted.

After taking these decisions, The Prophet started the active resistance by sending small groups of people to block the ways from where the Quraish used to take their goods for trade,  in other words, ‘Economic blockade of Makkah’.  Also, the Prophet talked to the clans who supported Quraish & due to this, the political influence of Quraish was diminishing & of Prophet was increasing.  During all this time, there was no movement from the Quraish, this initiative was taken by the Prophet. (This is what some scolars of Islam lied about. To please the non believers, they invented this lie that the Prophet never initiated anything).

initiative 1

The war started when Muslims had a fight with one of the clans of Quraish & a Muslim man killed one of the non Muslim. The Prophet got angry at this, because He ordered his companions to not fight or kill anyone. But when this happened, the war started. And as all of this was done after a preparation of 6 years, as a result Muslims got successful & the greatest revolution on earth happened which changed everything – religion, belief, rituals, the political system, the economic system and the entire social fabric.”. It was an end of oppression, injustice, nationalism, racism & falsehood.

give freedom


Prophet (peace be upon Him) never sent anyone out of Makkah to spread the message of Islam for 10 years. He had money but still he did not send anyone to other Empires with His message. In the 10th year, He went to Tai’f, and called people to Islam. Later, when He came to Madinah, He worked only inside Arab.

When the treaty of Hudaibyah took place & Quraish recognized Muhammad and acknowledged him as a leader, it was only after this that He sent his people to other Empires, to call people towards Islam.

This is the essence of revolutionary process, that it does not spread in the initial stages,  like the missionary work & tableghi work, but the revolutionary process goes up in one direction & then spreads. Muhammad ‘s struggle was not of missionary type, it was revolutionary type.

And this is how the greatest revolution in history took place. If Muslims of today want to bring a revolution, ‘tabdeeli’ or inqilab’, the only way to accomplish this mission is by following the way of the Prophet (peace be upon Him) & rejecting the ways of the west & saying no to Democracy, Capitalism, etc.

This Video Must Go Viral…!!!

A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia.

The former employee also alleges that Mr. Prince (company’s owner) is motivated to engage in misconduct by two factors: First, “HE VIEWS HIMSELF AS A CHRISTIAN CRUSADER TASKED WITH ELIMINATING MUSLIMS AND THE ISLAMIC FAITH FROM THE GLOBE”, and that Prince’s companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.”

To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.

Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince’s executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to “lay Hajiis out on cardboard.” Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince’s employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as “ragheads” or “hajiis.”

This article appeared in the August 17, 2009 edition of The Nation.

Shirk- Associating partners with Allah is the gravest sin in Islam, about which Allah said: “I will forgive every sin except Shirk.”

Pharaoh committed this sin & claimed that he is God, he did not even associate any other person but himself. He made himself equal to Allah & this sin angers Allah the most but still Allah ordered Prophet Moses to go to Pharaoh & invite him to the worship of One God.

Allah said: “Go you and your brother with My Ayat (proofs, lessons, verses, evidences, signs, revelations, etc), and do not, you both, slacken and become weak in My Remembrance. Go, both of you, to Pharaoh, verily, he has transgressed all bounds in disbelief and disobedience and behaved as an arrogant and as a tyrant. And speak to him MILDLY, perhaps he may accept admonition or fear Allah.” (Qur’an 20:42-44)

Did Allah allow Prophet Moses to curse Pharaoh or abuse him? The answer is No. Even in this case when a human committed the worst sin, Allah ordered another human to speak to him in a kind & gentle manner. This clearly shows, that no human has the right to curse or abuse anyone, a Muslim or a Non Muslim. Even if the other person is mocking or talking ignorantly to a Muslim, he is not allowed to do the same in return.

But, today the attitude of Muslims is opposite to this. They curse & abuse not only non Muslims but even Muslims & then they think that Allah will forgive them & they will go to Paradise, just because they have a tag “Muslim” with them. But, they are just deceiving their own selves.

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him stated that a person said: “By Allah, Allah will not forgive so & so (person).” Thereupon Allah said: “Who is He who swears by Me & says that i will not forgive so & so? Listen, Verily I have forgiven so & so & nullified your deeds or as the Messenger peace be upon Him said.”

This narration teaches us the politeness needed by a Muslim towards Allah and that one should not involve himself in matters that are left for Allah to decide i.e. nobody can know who will go to Hell and who will enter Paradise.

Allah advises us in Qur’an:  “Invite (all) to the Way of your Rabb (Cherisher and Sustainer) with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for your Rabb (God) knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.” (16:125)

Not for you (O Muhammad) is the decision; whether He turns in mercy to (pardon) them or punishes them; verily, they are the wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 3:128) “Your duty is only to convey (the Message) and on Us (God) is the reckoning.” (Qur’an 13:40)

But what is the condition of Muslims today?

Few days back, I saw a video, in which an old Muslim man was offering Prayer very fast & incorrectly. Someone recorded the video & uploaded on Facebook with the title “Curse him & share”. 

Is this what Allah told Muslims to do? Instead of correcting him & trying to help him, they mocked & cursed him. Did Allah allow any human being to do so? We can clearly see from above Quranic verses that this is not the way of Islam. Muslims have to understand this, that, there is a difference between Allah judging humans & humans judging humans.

Humans can judge others based on their actions but not their hearts. For example, if someone is alcoholic, it is a Muslim’s duty to correct him & tell him that this wrong, but, he cannot say, ‘you drink, you will go to hell’. As Muslims, our duty is to correct people & call them towards the way of Allah, in the best possible manner, that is all. We have no right to curse or abuse anyone or to tell people that you will burn in Hell. This is what only Allah decides, because Allah knows what’s inside the hearts & we humans don’t.

Islam does not teach us to be quiet when there is Injustice and Falsehood. It is every Muslim’s religious obligation to forbid evil & call towards good. But it does not mean that Muslims are allowed to be rude or harsh, when it comes to conveying the message of Islam.

Allah says: “And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allaah (i.e. this Qur’aan), and be not divided among yourselves.” (Qur’an 3:103)

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as just witnesses; and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just, that is nearer to Taqwa (piety).”(Qur’an 5:8)


This is the message of Islam “Unity”, “Justice” & “Tolerance”. But sadly, today Muslims are the most intolerant & unjust people. They show zero tolerance. If anyone goes against their views, they start cursing & abusing them. This is the reason today Muslims are suffering all over the world. Muslims need to come back to the true message of Islam & unite.

If you are a supporter of one leader or scholar, don’t call the supporters of others, ‘dogs’, don’t curse them. Because the problem is not the person who is not supporting your favorite person, but you, the one who is cursing & abusing other Muslims & non Muslims.

Today, because of the rude & harsh attitude of Muslims, so many non Muslims hate Islam & they hate Muslims, because the first thing that Muslims tell them is “you are going to hell”. This is very sad, Muslims have left the book of Allah & they justify their wrongdoings by cherry picking verses from the Qur’an. They misuse Qur’an.

I invite you all,  to study the Qur’an & Narrations of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon Him) & then judge. This is a request, that please do not judge Islam by looking at Muslims. The basic message of Islam is to believe in only One Creator, & this is not only for Muslims, we all human beings are equal in the sight of Allah & even the Muslims who will disobey Allah, will be punished. No Muslim has a free pass to Paradise. There is no blind following in Islam & it is everyone’s (Muslims & Non Muslims) duty to study it.

Nowadays, you would find that TV stations, radio stations, broadcast Qur’an, because they know that people don’t understand it & they are not going to follow it. This is a problem that exists among us now.

Imam Ahmed narrates that the Messenger of Allah (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said regarding something: “That would happen when knowledge is lost.” One of the companions asked, “O Messenger of Allah (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam), how could knowledge be lost when we have studied the Quran, we are teaching it to our children and our children will teach it to theirs.” The Messenger of Allah (sal Allahu alaihi wasallam) said: “Woe to you! I thought you were one of the most learned men of Medinah. Can’t you see the Jews and Christians are not benefiting even though they have their scriptures (Torah and Injeel) right with them?”

SubhanAllah! As if He was talking about us.

So the Prophet said, a time will come when Qur’an will be with us, but we will not be benefiting from it. Qur’an is not something to be put on the highest shelf & to be decorated & covered. Infact, Abu Darda said: “When you start decorating your mosques and beautifying your Mushaf (i.e. The Quran – adorning it with jewellery, silver & gold, etc.), that will be the time when you will be destroyed.”

He said this, because this is an indication that you are favoring symbols over substance . ‘My mosque looks beautiful & the Qur’an is written by these gold & silver threads with velvet covering & it’s wonderful & we don’t even want to touch it & read it, because it looks so good. We don’t even open it to read it, because it’s so expensive & wonderful’. Abu Darda said, when this will happen, you will be destroyed.

At the time of Abu Darda, Qur’an was written on bones, on leaves, on leather. Qur’an for them was a collection of bones, leaves & pieces of leather. Today if some Muslim sees it, they would say, this is disrespect of Qur’an, you are writing it on bones, you are disrespecting Qur’an, because now the issue became ‘respect of Qur’an’. We respect it so much that we don’t touch it, don’t read & don’t follow it, we only respect it.

quran bone

We have lost track of what Qur’an should do for us, or how we should study the book of Allah. Allah said: “(This is) a Book (the Qur’an) which We have sent down to you, full of blessings that they may ponder over its Verses, and that men of understanding may remember.” (38:29)

We need to reflect on the verses of Qur’an (read, hear, interpret, review, implement & act on it, since Al Quran, is meant to guide ones’ life as a Muslim). Allah says: “Don’t they contemplate & meditate on the meanings of Quran or are the hearts locked.” 

Allah is not only asking us to recite the book but he is saying that we have to recite it with understanding.

How Did The Companions Of The Prophet Study Qur’an?

If you take the example of Ibn Umar, he says: “It took me 14 years to finish memorizing Surah Baqarah.”

Today, We memorize complete Qur’an in a few months. One may ask, how come it took Ibn Umar 14 years to learn only one chapter?

The reason is, the way the companions studied it was, that they took 10 verses & they would study them, they would study the imaan (aqeeda, creed, true meaning of La Ilaha Ilal lah), the ilm (knowledge) & the halal & haram (what is prohibited & allowed) in the verses, they would memorize the verses, & then they would move on the next verses. They would never move on the next verses until they have applied what they studied – until it becomes a life for them.

Allah says: “And We send down of the Qur’an that which is healing and mercy for the believers, but it does not increase the wrongdoers except in loss.”

Which means that the Qur’an draws some people closer & it draws some people further. If you want to benefit from it, it will benefit you, if you don’t, Allah will honor His book.

Messenger of Allah said: “There will be time, when there will be young people who will recite the Qur’an but it will not even go pass their throats.” Meaning they will take it as something being recited, they will not understand it. They might be doing it for monetary reasons, but then the book of Allah is not used.

Nowadays, it is used for opening a ceremony & closing a ceremony & that’s it. All of my life when I am living, Quran is sitting on my shelf & when I die, people will pull it out of the shelf & recite some verses on me, when I am already dead & then it will go back in the shelf. So, it comes out only in the celebrations & in the times of the death. When there is a marriage, they recite Surah Yaseen in the house & when someone dies they recite Surah Fatiha & that’s all what the book of Allah is used for. For marriage & death (and without even understanding it).

Subhan Allah! The book of Allah was a moving force behind the early Muslims. What made the companions different was Qur’an. Nothing else! It completely changed them from the people who were at the lowest levels & it made them the role models of humanity. It was ONLY Qur’an that was the power that turned them into the great nation. And it will do the same to us, only if we reflect on it’s verses (read, understand, and implement, since Al Quran, is meant to guide ones’ life as a Muslim).

~ Anwar Al Awlaki.

In democracy, the minorities are “forced” to accept the rules of the majority – Majority Rules.

One should keep in mind that the vast majority of mankind does not comprise of people who utilize their intellect and reasoning faculty. It would not be too far fetched to term such people as”two legged animals”. They follow their society’s conventional trends and simply mimic the behavior of those around them. They swim in the direction of the social current and tide of their time and only change their direction as the current changes. They never question as to who they are, where have they come from or where they are going?

So, how can democracy be a fair system when the majority are just sheep?


It is mentioned in Quran: “And if you obey most of those on the earth, they will mislead you far away from Allah’s path.”

The Creator of everything is telling us that most of the people of the earth, are misguided. They follow nothing but conjecture (a guess), and they do nothing but lie.

The rules are simple they lie t

This verse clearly shows that Democracy cannot be a fair system. Imagine, if the majority of the people are misguided & the sovereignty is given to them, what will be the result?? Infact, we all can see the results today. Democracy has given us nothing except wars, destruction & slavery. 


On the other hand, in Islamic Caliphate, the religious minorities have a right to have their separate legal system. They are free to choose, which courts they want to go to, whether the Muslim or their own court system & the rules of the majority do not apply to them.


Muslims are told that they have religious freedom in the west… But what religious freedom do they have? When, they are forced to accept a legal system that is not Islamic?

It is the issue of the numbers in the west while in the Muslim world whether the Christians were majority or minority in a community, they had their rights protected even if it was one person. Islam is very accommodating to the religious minorities, not only did they survived but they flourished. Christian Arabs flourished in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Palestine, Iraq & that’s why they still exist today. If the Muslim Caliphs wanted to wipe them out, they could have done it so easily because the Christians & the Jews had no power whatsoever to resist the will of the Caliphs, but they flourished.

And the Jews would run away from Christian land & go & seek refuge with the Muslims. They ran away from oppressive Europe, from the oppression of Romans & they sought refuge in Spain. And once Spain fell in capital hands, they left Spain & went to Istanbul to be under the watchful eye of the Caliph of Banu Uthman. They chose to be right left to the Caliph.

Al Ghazali says: “The religious freedom that was granted by Islam, has never seen any similar situation to it on any of the 5 continents. (and then he says something very important). A religion never had a monopoly over power & gave another religion freedom to exist except Islam.”

If we want to say that the west today is granting religious minorities freedom, that is because it is a secular system & not a religious system. Now the west is warning against theocracy & they have a right to be worried, because they have experienced it. When the west was living under theocracies, it had the religious wars, the accusations etc. But they are making the mistake by assuming that Islam is the same, because , “Islam Is An Exception.”

In Islam, Absolute Right For Legislation Is For None But Allah.”  A very very important thing for the Muslim Leader Is, “Don’t Follow Your Desires”. Our problem now with the Islamic work is that we always deal with others based on our desires. For example, If I have a certain problem with you, I continue with that problem & I try to justify it from an Islamic point of view. But this is not Islam that is instigating my dealing with you, it is my hatred towards you & then I am misusing Islam to fulfill it. This is not acceptable in Islam! We “have to” instigate our actions based on Islam & then we push our desires to follow the direction of the Sharia. Wherever Islam goes, that is where we put our desires. And this is Jihad (struggle) of the Nafs (self). You don’t do things according to what you want, you do things according to what Allah wants. You do it Allah’s way, not your way. This is no doubt a very difficult discipline  but a very important Jihad. The Jihad of your soul, to fight these internal conflicts that are going on in your heart, in order follow the law of Allah & to follow what Allah wants from you even if it against your own self & this is the meaning of the word Islam,Submitting Your Will To Allah Only“.

There can be only one condition where the rule of majority can be accepted and that can be explained with this example.

If you have a dinner at your place & you want to serve wine, but, you know that it has been declared prohibited by Allah, so there can be no way you serve it, its out of the question. Hence, you will than have to decide between orange juice, apple juice etc, & for this reason, you can go for what the majority says. Meaning the majority can rule but under the rules defined by Allah & His Messenger (peace be upon Him).

Giving the sovereignty to the majority means that if they say that, they want wine, you will have to serve it. Same is the case in Democracy.

Islamic law is fair, because there is no human sovereignty. Each & every individual have to follow the law of his/her Creator only. And this gives true freedom to everyone because any individual can correct a leader at any point of time. No injustice can be done, if the leader is unjust & he does something that goes against the law of the Creator, people are free to go against him, unlike today. Today, people are slaves of their governments. They do what they are ordered to, even if it is unfair & unjust. They are not allowed to question or say no & if they do, either they end up in jail or are killed.


Bernard Lewis presents some of his conclusions about Islamic culture, Shari’a Law, jihad, and the modern day phenomenon of terrorism in his text, Islam: The Religion and the People. He writes of jihad as a distinct “religious obligation”, but suggests that “it is a pity” that people engaging in terrorist activities are not more aware of their own religion:

“Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. … At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays.”

In Lewis’ view, the “by now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century” with “no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition.” He further comments that “the fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible” and that “generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century.”

Today, the west is brainwashing people by calling democracy a modern system & Islamic law an outdated, old system.  But very few are aware that…


In conclusion, we can say that the solution for today’s modern world  is the Islamic Sharia, the modern & new system, not the outdated & old, democracy, where people have to become slaves of some rich, greedy, unjust & dishonest people!!!

You Be The Judge!!!