[avavavava]

In the name of Allah.
Peace and blessings be upon the Prophet.

As salam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu.

Did you have an older sibling who used to beat you at almost every game of strategy? When I was a little child, my older brother and much older sister used to beat me at board games and games of strategy so much that it used to make me upset and cry and throw things, as little kids often do. They even conspired against me until I was out, then they would compete against each other.

For animals and Man, play often imitates life.
Lion cubs play at fighting, attacking, bringing down each other, even their parents give them live prey to play with. Until they are old enough to start hunting with their family.

As for Man, when one player controls the rules and knows and devices strategies which other players fall into, than that one player will win almost every time.

This is similar to our reality today.
The Muslim countries have submitted to democratic reforms which America and its global institutions encourage, under the false presumption that Muslims will somehoe bring about Islam. Thus, by engaging in the 'democratic process', Muslim countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sudan, Iraq, will gradually implement this or that ruling/hukm of Shariah, until most or all the ahkam are implemented, or most of the people will support its implementation.

However, the reality is quite at odds with this utopic and unsubstantiated plan which has no tie to Islam or the methodology of the Prophet (saaw) or his companions (rahm).

In recent history, America and Europe have set up obsticals to Muslim countries in particular who have attempted to use 'the democratic process'. When Algeria's FIS agitated for Islam, the secular nationalist led Algerian government allowed for open elections in 1991. The FIS won a majority of votes in the first round of elections, setting it up to bring forth Islam peacefully and through the democratic process.
However, America and Europe were aghast at any such matter occurring. In America, the phrase used to describe this was: one man, one vote, one time- which was to say Islam could not be allowed to come forth through democracy.

Thus, America instructed/supported the Algerian military's nullifying the election. The FIS, a coalition party, fractionalized into various groups. Among its militant wing were government operatives who advocated bloody massacres and uncontrollable violence. Thus, the Algerian military engaged in a full spectrum conflict to retain control:

1)present the official government position and its military operations with uniformed forces
2)undertake covert operations with both special forces and foreign mercenaries which no one knew about
3)engage in instigating violence among its infiltrated operatives so as to lead the opposition into violence that the people would not support.

All of this served to break the will of the Muslim people in favor for Islam.
As a result, a large number of Algerians today are repulsed at the idea of Islam simply because they associate it with the internal conflict and massacres during the civil war.

Sudan was led towards Islam by the National Islamic Front in the late 1980s which led to a coup by general Bashir. Bashir was said to be an ally of the NIF which sought to use the democratic process of the Sudanese republic to usher in Islam. Bashir, trained in Egyptian military academy and served under Egyptian commanders for a time, was keen to avoid the full implementation of an Islamic state, rather keeping the implementation of Islam within a nationalist republican framework, and according to limited degrees. But as Bashir catered to Western constructs (nationalism and republicanism), Western powers used their key assets against Khartoum: secessionist wars. Thus, America armed, trained, equipped the SPLA and Garang (trained in an American military academy) until the SPLA was strong enough to resist Khartoum and implement secularized treaties. The military conflict with the SPLA succeeded to absorb decades of Sudan's wealth, resources, attention, until Bashir capitulated to the Western demands against Islam more and more. Ultimately, Bashir agreed to the secession of southern Sudan, but claimed he would implement Islam afterwards. However, other forces began rebelling as well, including the Eritrean backed eastern Sudanese groups, the Western'Chadian backed Darfurian groups, etc. Meanwhile, Bashir has driven the NIF away from political power, agreed to various secular reforms, and yet Western pressure continues in the form of an ICC (international criminal court) indictment for war crimes.

Turkey also is an example of failure in using the democratic process for Islam.
The Turkey constitution empowers the military to function for national security independent of elected officials. Several times in Turkey's history, the people elected prime ministers who were advocates for Islam, only for the military to stage coups which removed the PM and his party and secured secularism. Adnan Menderes and Erbakan were famous prime ministers elected to office who support Islam to various degrees, but both were overthrown by the military.


Many more examples abound. And in various countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangledesh, Malaysia, Western powers have set up obsticals, conflicts, and opponents to the resumption of Islam in life to the point that adherence to the 'democratic process' proves to be a recipe, a plan for failure. Egypt recently had an election which positioned the Muslim Brotherhood to dominate the parliement, but the SCAF which runs the country has declared they will have final editorial power over the constitution.
To no surprise, SCAF'S "final say" over the Egyptian people's constitution sounds exactly like US Secretary of Defense's Donald Rumsfeld's declaration of "final say" over the Iraqi constitution too.

Surprised? Or not surprised?

And Tunisia's secular liberal political establishment which has served Europe for decades was recently granted overwhelming control by An Nahda party over the ministry of defense. Why did An Nahda, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, grant authority of the military to secularists? Because the Western powers demanded it.

(And an Nahda party in Tunisia, the NIF in Sudan, the FIS in Algeria, Erbakan in Turkey were all Muslim Brotherhood affiliates).

As well, The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has openly stated they do not want to bring forth an Islamic state, they will adhere to the secular constitution.

At what point do we realize that the "game" is fixed, that the strategies are designed against us as long as we adhere to THEIR game?

And behind the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy is the gradualism approach of piecemeal picking and choosing hukm, like they were fruit at a fruit stand. Which fruit is too green to pick today?
It is not the auspice of Man to decide a matter which Allah and His Messenger (saaw) have already decided upon.
the Sovereignty belongs to Allah.

The Sovereignty, Command, Hukm belongs to Allah, not Man.

Not even the Prophet (saaw) decided to withhold a hukm or revelation for some issue he percieved in his mind. Rather, he implemented upon receiving it. And the sahaba (rah) complied accordingly- they did not hide belief in a hukm like the Muslim Brotherhood hides belief in an Islamic state.

Rather, what has happened is the Muslim Brotherhood has violated many aspects of Islam for political gain. By refusing and failing to stand against nationalism, they have become confined by the nationalist parameters whereever they are. Nationalims limits their ideas, their goals, their plans. And likewise for many other limitations which the kufar and enemies of Islam have erected, such as submission to international law and treaties.


And Allah knows best.

[JohnVK]

brother usama I sent you an email did you get it?

[Flalafuse]

Thought provoking and great reminder brother Usama.
Wassalam

[avavavava]

In the name of Allah.
Peace and blessings be upon the Prophet.

As salam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu.

Did you have an older sibling who used to beat you at almost every game of strategy? When I was a little child, my older brother and much older sister used to beat me at board games and games of strategy so much that it used to make me upset and cry and throw things, as little kids often do. They even conspired against me until I was out, then they would compete against each other.

For animals and Man, play often imitates life.
Lion cubs play at fighting, attacking, bringing down each other, even their parents give them live prey to play with. Until they are old enough to start hunting with their family.

As for Man, when one player controls the rules and knows and devices strategies which other players fall into, than that one player will win almost every time.

This is similar to our reality today.
The Muslim countries have submitted to democratic reforms which America and its global institutions encourage, under the false presumption that Muslims will somehoe bring about Islam. Thus, by engaging in the 'democratic process', Muslim countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sudan, Iraq, will gradually implement this or that ruling/hukm of Shariah, until most or all the ahkam are implemented, or most of the people will support its implementation.

However, the reality is quite at odds with this utopic and unsubstantiated plan which has no tie to Islam or the methodology of the Prophet (saaw) or his companions (rahm).

In recent history, America and Europe have set up obsticals to Muslim countries in particular who have attempted to use 'the democratic process'. When Algeria's FIS agitated for Islam, the secular nationalist led Algerian government allowed for open elections in 1991. The FIS won a majority of votes in the first round of elections, setting it up to bring forth Islam peacefully and through the democratic process.
However, America and Europe were aghast at any such matter occurring. In America, the phrase used to describe this was: one man, one vote, one time- which was to say Islam could not be allowed to come forth through democracy.

Thus, America instructed/supported the Algerian military's nullifying the election. The FIS, a coalition party, fractionalized into various groups. Among its militant wing were government operatives who advocated bloody massacres and uncontrollable violence. Thus, the Algerian military engaged in a full spectrum conflict to retain control:

1)present the official government position and its military operations with uniformed forces
2)undertake covert operations with both special forces and foreign mercenaries which no one knew about
3)engage in instigating violence among its infiltrated operatives so as to lead the opposition into violence that the people would not support.

All of this served to break the will of the Muslim people in favor for Islam.
As a result, a large number of Algerians today are repulsed at the idea of Islam simply because they associate it with the internal conflict and massacres during the civil war.

Sudan was led towards Islam by the National Islamic Front in the late 1980s which led to a coup by general Bashir. Bashir was said to be an ally of the NIF which sought to use the democratic process of the Sudanese republic to usher in Islam. Bashir, trained in Egyptian military academy and served under Egyptian commanders for a time, was keen to avoid the full implementation of an Islamic state, rather keeping the implementation of Islam within a nationalist republican framework, and according to limited degrees. But as Bashir catered to Western constructs (nationalism and republicanism), Western powers used their key assets against Khartoum: secessionist wars. Thus, America armed, trained, equipped the SPLA and Garang (trained in an American military academy) until the SPLA was strong enough to resist Khartoum and implement secularized treaties. The military conflict with the SPLA succeeded to absorb decades of Sudan's wealth, resources, attention, until Bashir capitulated to the Western demands against Islam more and more. Ultimately, Bashir agreed to the secession of southern Sudan, but claimed he would implement Islam afterwards. However, other forces began rebelling as well, including the Eritrean backed eastern Sudanese groups, the Western'Chadian backed Darfurian groups, etc. Meanwhile, Bashir has driven the NIF away from political power, agreed to various secular reforms, and yet Western pressure continues in the form of an ICC (international criminal court) indictment for war crimes.

Turkey also is an example of failure in using the democratic process for Islam.
The Turkey constitution empowers the military to function for national security independent of elected officials. Several times in Turkey's history, the people elected prime ministers who were advocates for Islam, only for the military to stage coups which removed the PM and his party and secured secularism. Adnan Menderes and Erbakan were famous prime ministers elected to office who support Islam to various degrees, but both were overthrown by the military.


Many more examples abound. And in various countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangledesh, Malaysia, Western powers have set up obsticals, conflicts, and opponents to the resumption of Islam in life to the point that adherence to the 'democratic process' proves to be a recipe, a plan for failure. Egypt recently had an election which positioned the Muslim Brotherhood to dominate the parliement, but the SCAF which runs the country has declared they will have final editorial power over the constitution.
To no surprise, SCAF'S "final say" over the Egyptian people's constitution sounds exactly like US Secretary of Defense's Donald Rumsfeld's declaration of "final say" over the Iraqi constitution too.

Surprised? Or not surprised?

And Tunisia's secular liberal political establishment which has served Europe for decades was recently granted overwhelming control by An Nahda party over the ministry of defense. Why did An Nahda, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, grant authority of the military to secularists? Because the Western powers demanded it.

(And an Nahda party in Tunisia, the NIF in Sudan, the FIS in Algeria, Erbakan in Turkey were all Muslim Brotherhood affiliates).

As well, The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has openly stated they do not want to bring forth an Islamic state, they will adhere to the secular constitution.

At what point do we realize that the "game" is fixed, that the strategies are designed against us as long as we adhere to THEIR game?

And behind the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy is the gradualism approach of piecemeal picking and choosing hukm, like they were fruit at a fruit stand. Which fruit is too green to pick today?
It is not the auspice of Man to decide a matter which Allah and His Messenger (saaw) have already decided upon.
the Sovereignty belongs to Allah.

The Sovereignty, Command, Hukm belongs to Allah, not Man.

Not even the Prophet (saaw) decided to withhold a hukm or revelation for some issue he percieved in his mind. Rather, he implemented upon receiving it. And the sahaba (rah) complied accordingly- they did not hide belief in a hukm like the Muslim Brotherhood hides belief in an Islamic state.

Rather, what has happened is the Muslim Brotherhood has violated many aspects of Islam for political gain. By refusing and failing to stand against nationalism, they have become confined by the nationalist parameters whereever they are. Nationalims limits their ideas, their goals, their plans. And likewise for many other limitations which the kufar and enemies of Islam have erected, such as submission to international law and treaties.


And Allah knows best.

In continuation of this thread, I wanted to mention a few more points related to the failed steps of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in EGypt and elsewhere.

First, strategic leadership is a fundamental requirement of any party, organization, or business. Strategic leadership requires organization towards specific objectives following a specific methodology. And a each long term objective, such as completing hajj, should be followed with incremental short term objectives, or benchmarks, which lead to the long term objective. In order to successfully complete hajj, we must undergo multiple short term objectives, such as pay off debts, save/earn necessary funds, educate oneself about the fiqh of hajj, then one must make preparations, including visa and travel plans, etc. All of these short term goals serve to lead to the long term objective.

Second, MB does NOT offer a long term objective for Egypt or the Muslim Ummah. It fails to clearly, specifically, and conclusively present its long term objective of an Islamic state. Rather, it has NOT recently remarked or presented it in today's contemporary political field.

Here is it's only english language official website: ikhwanweb.

It does NOT specify any form of government or state, nor does it specify Shariah as the sole "source of legislation" or guidance.

Third, it fails to clearly and conclusively mention or offer ANY possible alternative vision, plan, strategy, objectives once it is in power.
How can unaware people trust such a party when they don't know what they advocate and to what they strive?
For many in Egypt, to be a political movement and offer NO specific long term objective sparks mistrust and suggests irresponsbility. Most people will vote pragmatically if they are NOT convinced of an idea.
As a result, people will NOT trust or support such a movement. Rather than presenting an Islamic state and Shariah as a draft form and convincing people of both- even if modified to meet new demands or expectations- the MB has attempted to ride into political power through reputation. While the average voter may be insignificant to MB leadership, this criticial omission fails to win over those in the military heirarchy who might sympathize with the idea of an Islamic state following Shariah. And as Scaf has shown, IT is the power of Egypt and can and will nullify elections at will.

It is consistent with Islam to recognize that only a coup of the SCAF and arrest, detainment, and seizure of SCAF power and the generals corp can allow for progress towards an Islamic state and liberation of the Muslim people from kufr.

And this coup must occur through miltiary officers convinced of the leadership and objectives of the movement. As the MB has chosen to rely on elections and ignored the requirement of military support, it positions itself AGAIN to be defeated as in Algeria, as in Turkey, as in Sudan, and elsewhere.

And Allah knows best.

[Bletlemof]

Masha'Allah and may Allah (SWT) give more Barakah in your understanding of His Deen (Ameen).

[FoetAgerhot46]

Brother Usama this is a wonderful piece of work. I look forward to you continuing.

[MaraReenece]

I think Muslims who think that 'Islamic Democracy' will emerge in the Muslim world where Muslims will be able to impliment Shariah laws regarding riba and banking are living in fantasy land. The West and its bankers would never allow it, if it even came close to coming about it would be destroyed by them. They know that the Ikhwani Muslimeen and others like them will allow 'Islamic banking' to function and it will still be a country that can be controlled by the bankers. If a true Shariah economy was established it would be a model for others to follow and the kufr would never want such a thing. It would destroy the power of the current ruling elites. If Muslims want to establish a true Islamic government they will only be able to do it by ignoring the Democratic Process, political parties etc. and by following the deen. These bankers never say they object to Islam because it dis-allows riba and prevents them from controlling the whole society...because if they did it would let the cat out of the bag and everyone would know, instead they offer criticism of other aspects of Islam. Muslims should become aware that the root objections of the ruling elites against Islam is its prohibition of riba. Riba is what gives these people their control. Egypt owes billions of dollars to bankers, they are not going to let it go unpaid.

[mrllxp]

what do you guys suggets as an alternative then? Bearing in mind that overthrowing governments and implementing shariah will only get you massacred by america

[avavavava]

Bearing in mind that overthrowing governments and implementing shariah will only get you massacred by america

The short answer is: Shall we fear America more than we love and fear Allah?

There is NO GOD but ALLAH.

Egypt's political arena has banned 'religious' parties- shouldn't the Egyptian ruling establishment fear Allah, as He AWJ specified the standard for all groups in a Muslim society:

Translated from the Holy Quran: (3:104) And from among you there must be a party who invite people to all that is good and enjoin the doing of all that is right and forbid the doing of all that is wrong. It is they who will attain true success.
Ultimately, the objective of the believer is to propagate the message of Islam, advocating Islam and Shariah in a clear constructive, intellectual manner is the course.

what do you guys suggets as an alternative then? As for the alternative, the alternative is directly tied to the ability to stand for something greater than oneself, greater than a ethnic and national construct, greater than Man's base motives.

If the Islamic movements of Egypt represented this, this would open the door to many more possibilities.
For example, Egypt is a nation state formed according to the Taghut's ethno nationalist world order. Islam defies that order. By representing more than just a nationalist construct, Egypt could propagate the cause of joining with neighboring Muslim provinces in Libya and Sudan, to start. Together, they could form a singular state. So transcending the nationalist construct would be a priority, and welcoming Libyan and Sudanese forces woudl be a start.

As well, under Mubarak, Egypt has become subservient to foreign economies by transforming much of its economy as a niche of the global economy dominated by America. This has ended the effort of Egypt to seek self sufficiency as an economic goal. Instead of growing crops like cotton which serve the textile interests of American companies, Egypt would need to make changes towards self sustaining crops, like wheat. Thus, not only must the economic model change from a niche based, liberal capitalist model to an Islamic model, but self sufficiency must be a major long term objective, and the people must be made aware of this for it would take sacrifice and hardship to do so.

Another problem which has existed since precolonial era is the lack of strategic planning for the state/wilaya of the region. As kufar powers excelled at naval capacity, it was in the interest of Muslim regions to remove their capital cities from naval access. Cairo is the capital of Egypt and has been for centuries, but it is not defensible from a naval assault. Napoleon landed his forces at Alexandria and marched forth to Cairo with a naval fleet floating up the Nile. the battle at Giza ended the defense of Egypt within only a few days of Napoleon landing, ending Muslim control and the rule of Islam in Egypt. And that was July 1798. [Need less to say, the British soon defeated the French naval fleet, establishing British naval dominion and thus military authority over Egypt]

There were multiple reasons for the defeat of Muslim forces in Egypt in July 1798, including having a society which depended on and were subservient to an elite military force, Mamluks, rather than a society which was itself entirely prepared to wage war.
Today, not much has changed. It's capital is still Cairo and it is dependent upon and subservient to an elite military force, but in this case the force is controlled by foreign powers. the same societcal dynamic is present which has made EGypt succumb to foreign occupation and control.

And many who visit Cairo can tell you, its a city which is overburdened by its size- 10 million. It has outgrown itself. Like many of such Muslim capital cities, like Algiers, one of the ways of alleviating this would be to move the capital. Egypt doesn't have many natural defenses. However, many of its southern oases like al Kharijah (al Kharg) are sustainable cities with natural resources. The general idea is to remove the capital from the intransigence, complacency, greed which has festered for generations. And with a new state with a new principle, a new capital would be consistent. Al Kharijah in the southcentral of Egypt is 300 kms inland from Luxor, 600 kms from Cairo, and over 300 kms from Aswan, with its own crops and a 100,000 population, would present a new regional dynamic.

[PemiaGefe]

current egypt

Military dissolves Egypt's parliament
Legislators barred from entering

CAIRO -- Egypt's military rulers formally dissolved parliament Friday, state media reported, and security forces were stationed around the building on orders to bar anyone, including lawmakers, from entering the chambers without official notice.

The developments, reported on the Web site of the official newspaper Al Ahram, further escalated tensions over court rulings Thursday that invalidated modern Egypt's first democratically elected legislature.

The rulings, on the eve of a presidential runoff, thrust the nation's troubled transition to democracy since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak last year into grave doubt.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group that dominates the parliament, has said it disputes the court's ruling and its authority to dissolve the legislature.

Saad el Katatni, the Brotherhood-picked parliament speaker, accused the military-led government Friday of orchestrating the ruling.

Authorities set up checkpoints overnight and contingents of riot police were moving around the city to prepare for any disturbances.

The runoff, set for today and Sunday, pits Ahmed Shafiq, a military-rooted strongman promising a firm hand to ensure stability, against Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi.

Repressed under the Mubarak regime, the Brotherhood rose to become the strongest political force in parliament after elections that started in November.

But it lost that power when the legislature was dissolved Thursday.

The Brotherhood is now hoping to salvage its position by portraying itself as the last bulwark against forces loyal to the ousted president. http://www.toledoblade.com/World/201...arliament.html

failed egypt 1st spring.....they should demanded new system, not just to kick a pawn out of the office
is there gonna be 2nd spring in egypt?
if there is, then it's gonna be very2 bloody....

[Efksqhyu]

It is easy to criticize the Muslim Brotherhood for their Democratic and gradualist approach, but do you really think that their long term goal is anything other than to unite the Muslim countries and rule according to Islam?

It is easy to say they are doing it wrong they need to do it like...., but what are we doing ourselves when we say that? We have to be careful that we don't go to dreamland and develop unrealistic flights of fancy that cause problems and hurt a lot of people.

A few years ago (apparently like many other UK Muslims) I spent some time studying with HT and basically they were very critical of a gradualist approach and considered voting un-Islamic, but what have all their efforts come to? a lot of speeches, marches, classes, leaflets, a lot of calling for Khilafa, a lot of suffering of HT members in certain countries and what else?

At least those promoting a gradualist approach are achieving something, it may be two steps forwards one step back, but it is still going forwards. Islam was a fading thing in some Arab lands some decades ago, now it is thriving and the influence of the Muslims upon society is growing. Muslim Brotherhood has been a big part of this revival in many lands.

[DoctorQuquriramba]

In the name of Allah.
Peace and blessings be upon the Prophet.

As salam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu.

Did you have an older sibling who used to beat you at almost every game of strategy? When I was a little child, my older brother and much older sister used to beat me at board games and games of strategy so much that it used to make me upset and cry and throw things, as little kids often do. They even conspired against me until I was out, then they would compete against each other.

For animals and Man, play often imitates life.
Lion cubs play at fighting, attacking, bringing down each other, even their parents give them live prey to play with. Until they are old enough to start hunting with their family.

As for Man, when one player controls the rules and knows and devices strategies which other players fall into, than that one player will win almost every time.

This is similar to our reality today.
The Muslim countries have submitted to democratic reforms which America and its global institutions encourage, under the false presumption that Muslims will somehoe bring about Islam. Thus, by engaging in the 'democratic process', Muslim countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sudan, Iraq, will gradually implement this or that ruling/hukm of Shariah, until most or all the ahkam are implemented, or most of the people will support its implementation.

However, the reality is quite at odds with this utopic and unsubstantiated plan which has no tie to Islam or the methodology of the Prophet (saaw) or his companions (rahm).

In recent history, America and Europe have set up obsticals to Muslim countries in particular who have attempted to use 'the democratic process'. When Algeria's FIS agitated for Islam, the secular nationalist led Algerian government allowed for open elections in 1991. The FIS won a majority of votes in the first round of elections, setting it up to bring forth Islam peacefully and through the democratic process.
However, America and Europe were aghast at any such matter occurring. In America, the phrase used to describe this was: one man, one vote, one time- which was to say Islam could not be allowed to come forth through democracy.

Thus, America instructed/supported the Algerian military's nullifying the election. The FIS, a coalition party, fractionalized into various groups. Among its militant wing were government operatives who advocated bloody massacres and uncontrollable violence. Thus, the Algerian military engaged in a full spectrum conflict to retain control:

1)present the official government position and its military operations with uniformed forces
2)undertake covert operations with both special forces and foreign mercenaries which no one knew about
3)engage in instigating violence among its infiltrated operatives so as to lead the opposition into violence that the people would not support.

All of this served to break the will of the Muslim people in favor for Islam.
As a result, a large number of Algerians today are repulsed at the idea of Islam simply because they associate it with the internal conflict and massacres during the civil war.

Sudan was led towards Islam by the National Islamic Front in the late 1980s which led to a coup by general Bashir. Bashir was said to be an ally of the NIF which sought to use the democratic process of the Sudanese republic to usher in Islam. Bashir, trained in Egyptian military academy and served under Egyptian commanders for a time, was keen to avoid the full implementation of an Islamic state, rather keeping the implementation of Islam within a nationalist republican framework, and according to limited degrees. But as Bashir catered to Western constructs (nationalism and republicanism), Western powers used their key assets against Khartoum: secessionist wars. Thus, America armed, trained, equipped the SPLA and Garang (trained in an American military academy) until the SPLA was strong enough to resist Khartoum and implement secularized treaties. The military conflict with the SPLA succeeded to absorb decades of Sudan's wealth, resources, attention, until Bashir capitulated to the Western demands against Islam more and more. Ultimately, Bashir agreed to the secession of southern Sudan, but claimed he would implement Islam afterwards. However, other forces began rebelling as well, including the Eritrean backed eastern Sudanese groups, the Western'Chadian backed Darfurian groups, etc. Meanwhile, Bashir has driven the NIF away from political power, agreed to various secular reforms, and yet Western pressure continues in the form of an ICC (international criminal court) indictment for war crimes.

Turkey also is an example of failure in using the democratic process for Islam.
The Turkey constitution empowers the military to function for national security independent of elected officials. Several times in Turkey's history, the people elected prime ministers who were advocates for Islam, only for the military to stage coups which removed the PM and his party and secured secularism. Adnan Menderes and Erbakan were famous prime ministers elected to office who support Islam to various degrees, but both were overthrown by the military.


Many more examples abound. And in various countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangledesh, Malaysia, Western powers have set up obsticals, conflicts, and opponents to the resumption of Islam in life to the point that adherence to the 'democratic process' proves to be a recipe, a plan for failure. Egypt recently had an election which positioned the Muslim Brotherhood to dominate the parliement, but the SCAF which runs the country has declared they will have final editorial power over the constitution.
To no surprise, SCAF'S "final say" over the Egyptian people's constitution sounds exactly like US Secretary of Defense's Donald Rumsfeld's declaration of "final say" over the Iraqi constitution too.

Surprised? Or not surprised?

And Tunisia's secular liberal political establishment which has served Europe for decades was recently granted overwhelming control by An Nahda party over the ministry of defense. Why did An Nahda, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, grant authority of the military to secularists? Because the Western powers demanded it.

(And an Nahda party in Tunisia, the NIF in Sudan, the FIS in Algeria, Erbakan in Turkey were all Muslim Brotherhood affiliates).

As well, The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has openly stated they do not want to bring forth an Islamic state, they will adhere to the secular constitution.

At what point do we realize that the "game" is fixed, that the strategies are designed against us as long as we adhere to THEIR game?

And behind the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy is the gradualism approach of piecemeal picking and choosing hukm, like they were fruit at a fruit stand. Which fruit is too green to pick today?
It is not the auspice of Man to decide a matter which Allah and His Messenger (saaw) have already decided upon.
the Sovereignty belongs to Allah.

The Sovereignty, Command, Hukm belongs to Allah, not Man.

Not even the Prophet (saaw) decided to withhold a hukm or revelation for some issue he percieved in his mind. Rather, he implemented upon receiving it. And the sahaba (rah) complied accordingly- they did not hide belief in a hukm like the Muslim Brotherhood hides belief in an Islamic state.

Rather, what has happened is the Muslim Brotherhood has violated many aspects of Islam for political gain. By refusing and failing to stand against nationalism, they have become confined by the nationalist parameters whereever they are. Nationalims limits their ideas, their goals, their plans. And likewise for many other limitations which the kufar and enemies of Islam have erected, such as submission to international law and treaties.


And Allah knows best.

Great post brother. Truth is, even the conflicts that have shaped the region in the last two years have been influenced so heavily by outsiders that they, as you rightly allude to, are virtually set-up to lead into violent conflict or back into what some would call 'loose' dictatorship. In this instance, the Ikhwaan can't really be blamed for taking an ubber cautious approach. Not sure I would go as far as An-Nahda in Tunisia though.

You mention the example of Algeria - that is what will happen IF the brothers/sisters are not careful in Egypt and how they go about reforming - nobody wants a re-run of that. The Libyan tribes are fighting each other for power at the moment and the people there are in a fractured state. Interestingly, NATO stands by and watches while the tribes tear each other apart, spill more blood and sow the seeds of future conflict. Truth be told, that is what they have wanted and it is how colonialists operate (divide and conquer). I now consider maybe coming to some kind of agreement with Gaddafi, wherein religion could be practiced openly etc would have been a far better option than the savage bloodletting that is continuing to this day - with the full consent of NATO.

This is chess and ideally, it is a game we would do best to avoid. We will be ultimate losers if we are entrapped into this. One thing for sure, the West takes care of its interests. If they are promoting something among Muslims (Democracy) its for their sake and to the service of their interests - nothing else. We need to take care of our interests and work to UNITE and not divide the Ummah any further - doing so without ANY foreign/alien hand involved. We don't need to allow Kuffar at the table where Islam and Muslims are discussing their own issues. As Maripat said once before, removing permanent US monitors from such organisations as the OIC would be a step in the right direction to begin with.


Allahu A'lam

[Efksqhyu]

beware those who hate Islam want to divide and conquer the Muslims.

Report:

Civil Democratic Islam. Partners Resources and Strategies.

Cheryl Bernard

RAND Corporation

Summary


There is no question that contemporary Islam is in a volatile state, engaged in an internal and external struggle over its values, its identity, and its place in the world. Rival versions are contending for spiritual and political dominance. This conflict has serious costs and economic, social, political, and security implications for the rest of the world. Consequently, the West is making an increased effort to come to terms with, to understand, and to influence the outcome of this struggle.

Clearly, the United States, the modern industrialized world, and indeed the international community as a whole would prefer an Islamic world that is compatible with the rest of the system: democratic, economically viable, politically stable, socially progressive, and follows the rules and norms of international conduct. They also want to prevent a "clash of civilizations" in all of its possible variants-from increased domestic unrest caused by conflicts between Muslim minorities and "native" populations in the West to increased militancy across the Muslim world and its consequences, instability and terrorism.

It therefore seems judicious to encourage the elements within the Islamic mix that are most compatible with global peace and the international community and that are friendly to democracy and modernity. However, correctly identifying these elements and finding the most suitable way to cooperate with them is not always easy.

Islam's current crisis has two main components: a failure to thrive and a loss of connection to the global mainstream. The Islamic world has been marked by a long period of backwardness and comparative powerlessness; many different solutions, such as nationalism, pan-Arabism, Arab socialism, and Islamic revolution, have been attempted without success, and this has led to frustration and anger. At the same time, the Islamic world has fallen out of step with contemporary global culture, an uncomfortable situation for both sides. Muslims disagree on what to do about this, and they disagree on what their society ultimately should look like. We can distinguish four essential positions:

Fundamentalists (by which they basically mean Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots) reject democratic values and contemporary Western culture. They want an authoritarian, puritanical state that will implement their extreme view of Islamic law and morality. They are willing to use innovation and modern technology to achieve that goal.


Traditionalists want a conservative society. They are suspicious of modernity, innovation, and change.


Modernists want the Islamic world to become part of global modernity. They want to modernize and reform Islam to bring it into line with the age.


Secularists want the Islamic world to accept a division of church and state in the manner of Western industrial democracies, with religion relegated to the private sphere.


These groups hold distinctly different positions on essential issues that have become contentious in the Islamic world today, including political and individual freedom, education, the status of women, criminal justice, the legitimacy of reform and change, and attitudes toward the West.

The fundamentalists are hostile to the West and to the United States in particular and are intent, to varying degrees, on damaging and destroying democratic modernity. Supporting them is not an option, except for transitory tactical considerations. The traditionalists generally hold more moderate views, but there are significant differences between different groups of traditionalists. Some are close to the fundamentalists (they mean Deobandis and Nadwis etc). None wholeheartedly embraces modern democracy and the culture and values of modernity and, at best, can only make an uneasy peace with them.

The modernists and secularists are closest to the West in terms of values and policies. However, they are generally in a weaker position than the other groups, lacking powerful backing, financial resources, an effective infrastructure, and a public platform. The secularists, besides sometimes being unacceptable as allies on the basis of their broader ideological affiliation, also have trouble addressing the traditional sector of an Islamic audience (because they are mostly not true Muslims).

Traditional orthodox Islam contains democratic elements that can be used to counter the repressive, authoritarian Islam of the fundamentalists, but it is not suited to be the primary vehicle of democratic Islam. That role falls to the Islamic modernists, whose effectiveness, however, has been limited by a number of constraints, which this report will explore. (so they will work against them one way or another)

To encourage positive change in the Islamic world toward greater democracy, modernity, and compatibility with the contemporary international world order, the United States and the West need to consider very carefully which elements, trends, and forces within Islam they intend to strengthen; what the goals and values of their various potential allies and protégés really are; and what the broader consequences of advancing their respective agendas are likely to be. A mixed approach composed of the following elements is likely to be the most effective:

Support the modernists first:

- Publish and distribute their works at subsidized cost.

- Encourage them to write for mass audiences and for youth.

- Introduce their views into the curriculum of Islamic education.

- Give them a public platform.

- Make their opinions and judgments on fundamental questions of religious interpretation available to a mass audience in competition with those of the fundamentalists and traditionalists, who have Web sites, publishing houses, schools, institutes, and many other vehicles for disseminating their views.

- Position secularism and modernism as a "counterculture" option for disaffected Islamic youth (this policy has helped corrupted many of the Muslim youth).

- Facilitate and encourage an awareness of their pre- and non-Islamic history and culture, in the media and the curricula of relevant countries (see how they hate Islam).

- Assist in the development of independent civic organizations, to promote civic culture and provide a space for ordinary citizens to educate themselves about the political process and to articulate their views.

Support the traditionalists against the fundamentalists:

- Publicize traditionalist criticism of fundamentalist violence and extremism; encourage disagreements between traditionalists and fundamentalists.

- Discourage alliances between traditionalists and fundamentalists.

- Encourage cooperation between modernists and the traditionalists (is it they who are behind Hamza Yusuf and Tariq Ramadan sharing a stage so often?) who are closer to the modernist end of the spectrum.

- Where appropriate, educate the traditionalists to equip them better for debates against fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are often rhetorically superior, while traditionalists practice a politically inarticulate "folk Islam." In such places as Central Asia, they may need to be educated and trained in orthodox Islam to be able to stand their ground.

- Increase the presence and profile of modernists in traditionalist institutions.

- Discriminate between different sectors of traditionalism. Encourage those with a greater affinity to modernism, such as the Hanafi law school, versus others. Encourage them to issue religious opinions and popularize these to weaken the authority of backward Wahhabi-inspired religious rulings. This relates to funding: Wahhabi money goes to the support of the conservative Hanbali school. It also relates to knowledge: More-backward parts of the Muslim world are not aware of advances in the application and interpretation of Islamic law. [B]encouraging problems between Hanafis and Wahhabis - beware of abusive Salafis - some of them are fake)[/B]

- Encourage the popularity and acceptance of Sufism.

Confront and oppose the fundamentalists:(basically talking about Ikhwan).

- Challenge their interpretation of Islam and expose inaccuracies.

- Reveal their linkages to illegal groups and activities.(talking about Ikhwan associated groups).

- Publicize the consequences of their violent acts.

- Demonstrate their inability to rule, to achieve positive development of their countries and communities (talking about Ikhwan).

- Address these messages especially to young people, to pious traditionalist populations, to Muslim minorities in the West, and to women.

- Avoid showing respect or admiration for the violent feats of fundamentalist extremists and terrorists. Cast them as disturbed and cowardly, not as evil heroes.

- Encourage journalists to investigate issues of corruption, hypocrisy, and immorality in fundamentalist](talking about Ikhwan and offshoots).and terrorist circles .

- Encourage divisions among fundamentalists.

Selectively support secularists:

- Encourage recognition of fundamentalism as a shared enemy, discourage secularist alliance with anti-U.S. forces on such grounds as nationalism and leftist ideology.

- Support the idea that religion and the state can be separate in Islam too and that this does not endanger the faith but, in fact, may strengthen it (sound familiar?).

Whichever approach or mix of approaches is chosen, we recommend that it be done with careful deliberation, in knowledge of the symbolic weight of certain issues; the meaning likely to be assigned to the alignment of U.S. policymakers with particular positions on these issues; the consequences of these alignments for other Islamic actors, including the risk of endangering or discrediting the very groups and people we are seeking to help; and the opportunity costs and possible unintended consequences of affiliations and postures that may seem appropriate in the short term. Sheikh Abul Hassan Nadwi (ra) said about the Ikhwan;

Nobody loves them except the believer,

and nobody hates them except the hypocrite

[ImmitsRom]

We pray that the Muslim Brotherhood be victorious and take hold of the government. They have learned from their past mistakes and calling the shots correctly this time.

On a side note: Maulana Yusuf Kandehlvi appreciated the efforts of Hasan al-Banna As Shaheed but requested him to keep his efforts from clashing with the rulers.

[avavavava]

We pray that the Muslim Brotherhood be victorious and take hold of the government. They have learned from their past mistakes and calling the shots correctly this time.

On a side note: Maulana Yusuf Kandehlvi appreciated the efforts of Hasan al-Banna As Shaheed but requested him to keep his efforts from clashing with the rulers.

Brother, I don't agree with your assessments.
The Muslim Brotherhood have publicly placed their trust in the 'democratic processes' eventhough these processes have betrayed the Muslim Ummah time and time again.

More importantly, they have LED MUSLIM PEOPLE TO PUT THEIR TRUST IN DEMOCRACY despite the fiqh arguments against democracy and the political history of democracy used as a tool against Islam.

This is one of the worst failures!!!

[avavavava]

beware those who hate Islam want to divide and conquer the Muslims.



Sheikh Abul Hassan Nadwi (ra) said about the Ikhwan;

Nobody loves them except the believer,

and nobody hates them except the hypocrite

But how should one take your quote from shaykh Nadwi?

[avavavava]

It is easy to criticize the Muslim Brotherhood for their Democratic and gradualist approach, but do you really think that their long term goal is anything other than to unite the Muslim countries and rule according to Islam?

It is easy to say they are doing it wrong they need to do it like...., but what are we doing ourselves when we say that? We have to be careful that we don't go to dreamland and develop unrealistic flights of fancy that cause problems and hurt a lot of people.

A few years ago (apparently like many other UK Muslims) I spent some time studying with HT and basically they were very critical of a gradualist approach and considered voting un-Islamic, but what have all their efforts come to? a lot of speeches, marches, classes, leaflets, a lot of calling for Khilafa, a lot of suffering of HT members in certain countries and what else?

At least those promoting a gradualist approach are achieving something, it may be two steps forwards one step back, but it is still going forwards. Islam was a fading thing in some Arab lands some decades ago, now it is thriving and the influence of the Muslims upon society is growing. Muslim Brotherhood has been a big part of this revival in many lands.

Brother, I think I understand your previous post about Rand corp now.

I don't want to be confrontational with you, as you seem to want to defend the MB.
I am criticizing their 'approach', their methodology.

It is NOT consistent with the Sunnah of the Prophet (saaw) or the Dawah of the Prophets (as).
Nor is it reasonable in its consideration of the political history and political reality of the enemies of Islam.

As we only have this moment in time to serve Allah and establish HIS DEEN, and instability in various regimes like Egypt is a momentary event, it is MOST important for Muslims to: be aware of our political history, our political situation, know what the Shariah says about 'democracy', gradualism, adhering to Taghut rules and obeying Taghut power, etc. It is possible the Muslim Ummah can act effectively.


As for measuring what is achieved by an Islamic party, it is important to know what that party calls for- what is its mission and long term objectives, how they expect to accomplish them, and whether these are consistent with Islam.

As far as I know, HT's long term objectives of a khilafah are definitely consistent with Islam. And as they have NOT espoused democracy, or obeying Taghut, these too are consistent with Islam. I don't know about their achievements, obviously the khilafah has yet to be established, but then there are a lot of people against the khilafah.

It is my concern that PUTTING TRUST AND FAITH IN DEMOCRACY MISGUIDES MUSLIMS AND DISTRACTS THEM FROM ESTABLISHING ISLAM, THE ISLAMIC STATE, AND THE KHILAFAH.

Abdul1234, do you agree with this concern? If not, what is wrong with it?

[MaraReenece]

http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/cont..._16032011.html

DICTATORSHIP DEFINED.

In a dictatorship there is no political freedom.
Dissent is punished with removal from society – prison, torture, dungeon and death.
There is basic economic freedom since the State is the sole proprietor of wealth.

DEMOCRACY DEFINED.

In a democracy there is no economic freedom. You are a citizen in a set of similar democratic States. Being a citizen means you are a debtor. You are responsible for the national debt, e.g. a Mauritanian child born in the desert enters life owing his share of the national debt, thus is born into the world owing an unpayable sum of thousands of euros. You are free to change your political representative but, apart from his governmental taxes on you, he in turn has no power. He must keep you from rising up – protest you are granted but not violent protest – then you must be crushed. That is the status quo. When the banks fail, losing millions, you must bail them out. In doing this it is perceived that you, the masses, have become (thanks to democracy) passive and obedient.

BANKERS DEFINED.

The bankers, called by Joseph Proudhon, the Sect, are a mystical fraternity of atheists. They operate a usury system lending at interest, using not substantive, i.e. real wealth, but rather in the first instance paper currency, itself a ‘receipt’ for real wealth. Their power grew, and it has been growing since the French Revolution and the English de-empowering of its monarchy when it banished the legislative monarchs and replaced them with German obedient gentry.

World War II and its aftermath, coming as it did with the computer-based transformation of global information, saw a vital evolutionary jump in practice and power. The financial system had in effect abandoned currency (the paper document promising payment) and simply functioned on the numbers of any given ‘currency’ and its transfer from global point A to global point B. The ‘money’ was no longer even a numerical sum, but rather that electronic impulse flashing between two computers. In other words, the bankers ruled by magic. They controlled the political class – the latter knew their appointment was due not to the masses but the media (which the bankers owned) and their prior obedience to the fiduciary programme.

At present the bankers have found that the political class are even more servile than they had imagined. Once the politicians revealed their servility by bailing out the financial system’s collapse – the bankers struck. Now, they said, look at this mess. We must clean up the market-place. The truth is you, the political class, owe us vast fortunes in national debts. Time to pay. Rename it – the deficit – the amount owing – and clearly you must pay.
In one move, the bankers (a system, yes, but run by the priesthood of the system) were a giant step nearer the logical and mathematical end of their religion – one bank, no currency, and all mankind debtors.

The move to collecting the deficit followed the bankers’ financial meltdown – over twenty trillion dollars – people were too traumatised – now they had to, had to pay their dues.
No-one was in a state to ask – where did the money go? Had it simply vanished? Does that mean it was never there in the first place?

The so-called ‘deficit crisis’ continued the degrading and enslaving of the masses.

The myth of ‘recovery’ receded before the near-total cuts of social services which formed the basis of civic society. To give the bankers new vitality they needed new customers. They needed several million new clients to allow their continued move to world dominance and to keep their elite, rich and rewarded. For example in mid deficit-crisis Britain, Barclays Bank awarded its boss nine million pounds bonus, following a public outcry, the boss (with the deathless name of Mr Diamond!) humbly said that in tune with other people’s problems he would only take six million!

Ya Walad!

And this, is where you come in. The bankers ask: “Now where can we get our hands on tens of millions of new bank customers? New, young, wanting ‘democracy’, i.e. debtorship without dictators, and with it we can import drugs, rock and roll, sexual liberation and even fashion. Of course – along the littoral of the Mediterranean, there they lie, unemployed, tyrannised and blessedly free of Islamic teaching which might expose the evil nature of our fiduciary plans!”

Young man, you want democracy – PRESS ENTER.

[Efksqhyu]

Brother, I think I understand your previous post about Rand corp now.

I don't want to be confrontational with you, as you seem to want to defend the MB.
I am criticizing their 'approach', their methodology.

It is NOT consistent with the Sunnah of the Prophet (saaw) or the Dawah of the Prophets (as).
Nor is it reasonable in its consideration of the political history and political reality of the enemies of Islam.

As we only have this moment in time to serve Allah and establish HIS DEEN, and instability in various regimes like Egypt is a momentary event, it is MOST important for Muslims to: be aware of our political history, our political situation, know what the Shariah says about 'democracy', gradualism, adhering to Taghut rules and obeying Taghut power, etc. It is possible the Muslim Ummah can act effectively.


As for measuring what is achieved by an Islamic party, it is important to know what that party calls for- what is its mission and long term objectives, how they expect to accomplish them, and whether these are consistent with Islam.

As far as I know, HT's long term objectives of a khilafah are definitely consistent with Islam. And as they have NOT espoused democracy, or obeying Taghut, these too are consistent with Islam. I don't know about their achievements, obviously the khilafah has yet to be established, but then there are a lot of people against the khilafah.

It is my concern that PUTTING TRUST AND FAITH IN DEMOCRACY MISGUIDES MUSLIMS AND DISTRACTS THEM FROM ESTABLISHING ISLAM, THE ISLAMIC STATE, AND THE KHILAFAH.

Abdul1234, do you agree with this concern? If not, what is wrong with it?

MB functions on popularism, unfortunately most Arabs have been brainwashed into aspiring to Democracy, therefore it is necessary for them to pander to this aspiration. But if you really think that they put their faith in Democracy then I think you are missing something.

Their faith is Islam, Democracy is just a means to an end for them. They have tried various approaches in different countries in the past (including armed insurrection) and found little success with them, a policy of Democracy is the approach they are trying now, if it fails and is proven not to work you can be sure that InshaAllah they will move to another approach.

[Efksqhyu]

But how should one take your quote from shaykh Nadwi?

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah

May Allah reward you with good also.

I don't think anyone here hates them InshaAllah.