Archive for the ‘HuT – Britain’ Category

Hizbut Tahrir UK – “When ‘Moderates’ Talk of Peace, They’re Lying!”

“When Muslim leaders persist on responding by saying ‘Islam is a religion of peace,’ all it takes is a non-Muslim to pick up the Qur’an or the books of hadiths to see that they’re lying. You can’t just equate the whole religion with peace.”

That’s from Hizbut Tahrir’s ‘British’ leadership. http://www.5pillarz.com/2013/06/10/ht-urges-muslims-not-to-compromise-their-islam-post-woolwich/

Hizb ut-Tahrir UK Executive Committee advised Muslims to remain unified without compromising Islam
Hizb ut-Tahrir UK Executive Committee advised Muslims to remain unified without compromising Islam—-

And how about the blood-stained savagery recorded on that Woolwich street?

“The least we as Muslims should have done was ask Allah to forgive them for their mistakes, not call them kafir…”

There are decent Muslims in Britain, not least the Ahmadiyah, who share fellow-Britons’ horror at what’s going on there. But HTUK has a message for them too.

“So the secularists and moderates amongst the Muslim community went further and made takfir on the Woolwich perpetrators and began showing their support for British troops. This is a clear example of when people are scared, they’ll say too much….”

Source: Cross Right Angle

Advertisements

Cameron admits Hizb ut-Tahrir can’t be banned

by Sunny
5th June, 2011 at 10:32 am
Today’s Observer has this nugget:

The Conservative manifesto named Hizb ut-Tahrir as a group it wanted to proscribe; in 2009 the then shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, promised to “immediately ban” the group if the Tories were elected.

But they won’t. The new Prevent review – on how the government deals with counter-terrorism – will avoid anything on Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Its hardly surprising though. I’ve been pointing out for ages that banning HuT is like banning the BNP – idiotic and an attack on free speech. But while banning the latter would have raised hackles amongst Conservatives, attempts to ban HuT have been met with embarrassed silence by Conservatives who claimed to be for defending free speech.

The main observation in the article is that:

Home Office sources say that Cameron has quashed Nick Clegg’s argument for a more tolerant attitude to Muslim groups by insisting on a strategy centred upon the notion that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism.

The shift in approach will be outlined when the government’s counter-terrorism strategy is unveiled by the home secretary, Theresa May, on Tuesday. Central to the Prevent strategy is a broader definition of extremism that will be extended beyond groups condoning violence to those considered non-violent but whose views, such as the advocacy of sharia law, fail to “reflect British mainstream values”.

I suppose I’ll have to dust off my arguments on why this is a bad idea and makes us all the more unsafe.

 

Post to del.icio.us

Egypt’s Copts need the Caliphate Thursday, September 13, 2012 12:19 PM
By Abdul-Kareem Jamil

World attention is focussing on Egypt’s Coptic Christians after a bomb exploded outside a Church in Alexandria killing 21 people and injuring 70 more.[1] The attack sparked clashes between Egyptian police and Copts protesting against government inaction in protecting their community and places of worship. “Now it’s between Christians and the government, not between Muslims and Christians,” shrieked one Christian woman as several hundred young men clashed with helmeted riot police in the street outside the targeted church hours after the blast.[2]
At a protest in Shubra, downtown Cairo, some 500 Muslim and Coptic activists, politicians and other civil society leaders shouted the slogan, “Not a police state, not a religious state, we want Egypt to be a secular state.”[3]
Egypt is already a secular state where religious political parties are banned and those calling for the implementation of Islamic law (sharia) in society (Islamists) are heavily persecuted. Copts in Egypt do face oppression but so do Muslims and the cause is not sharia but the absence of sharia in Egyptian society. In the absence of any religious restrictions on the conduct of ministers, politicians, judges and police, ordinary Egyptians – both Muslim and Christian – must suffer at the hands of policies which further the interests of the ruling party, their families and supporters. This is why Egypt is a police state, ruled under a state of emergency since 1967 apart from 18 months between 1980 and 1981. The law of emergency is used to restrict any non-governmental political activity: street demonstrations, non-approved political organisations, and unregistered financial donations are formally banned. Some 17,000 people are detained under the law, and estimates of political prisoners run as high as 30,000.[4]
In one horrific example of police abuse, Imad Kabir, a Muslim, was filmed being tortured and sexually assaulted by police officers. Instead of the police officers being punished the victim Imad was subsequently jailed for three months on the charge of ‘resisting authority.’[5]
The law of emergency is applied under the excuse of fighting terrorism which means clamping down on the Islamist opposition, who are the only threat to the brutal Egyptian regime. However, as Abdullah al-Ashaal, professor at the American University in Cairo said, “I think the terrorism is from the government for neglecting the needs of the people and not serving the national interests. This intensifies the tensions in Egypt…And if any terrorism arises, it is because of the government policies – raising prices, the detention of people and the injustices which are prevailing everywhere.” [6]
In regards to some of the issues blamed for inflaming tensions between Muslims and Copts in recent years such as killings, kidnappings and forced conversions, those with a wider political agenda use them as evidence to claim Muslims are oppressing Christians and Islam should be further removed from societal affairs, i.e. more secularism. French President Sarkozy’s comment, that “We cannot accept and thereby facilitate what looks more and more like a particularly wicked program of cleansing in the Middle East, religious cleansing,”[7] shows how the issue is being inflamed by the west to justify meddling in the affairs of the Muslim world. The hypocrisy of Sarkozy’s statement is clear when we look at France and other western countries silence and inaction over the Rwandan Genocide where 800,000 Christians were actually cleansed from the country.
A closer examination of these crimes against Copts shows the motivation is not necessarily religious. In Egypt as in any other country criminals exist. Some of these criminals are Muslim and some are Copts. Murders take place, and a Muslim may murder a Copt or a Copt may murder a Muslim. This is crime and cannot be viewed solely through a Muslim vs. Christian lens.
On the allegations of kidnappings and forced conversions of Christians, Youssef Sidhoum, the editor of a well-respected Christian newspaper, says the allegations are always difficult to prove. Often, he says, they are love stories that have gone wrong. Very often they are not kidnapping or forced conversions, but relationships between Christian girls and Muslim boys. Sometimes it is their parents who say they have been kidnapped in order to hide their shame, when in fact the girl has married a Muslim of her own choice. “They tend to exaggerate the cases,” he said. “We have investigated lots of cases, again and again. This is an important issue to us and we go wherever the cases are. “But I don’t recall since 1997 more than three definite cases where we had clear evidence that there was kidnap and forced conversion.”[8]
So what is the way forward for Copts and Muslims in Egypt? Is the problem a growing ‘Islamisation’ of Egyptian society as those with a wider political agenda to secularise Egypt and reshape Islam are claiming?
In answer to this we need to examine the sharia laws relating to Christian and other non-Muslim citizens living in an Islamic State and look at some historical examples of when these sharia laws were applied on the Copts of Egypt.
Non-Muslims citizens living in a Caliphate have an honourable status and are referred to as dhimmi (people of contract). Their places of worship, lives and property are protected and they are not persecuted for their beliefs.
The Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah.”[9]
The Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) wrote to the people of Yemen: “Whoever is adamant upon Judaism or Christianity will not be tormented for it.”[10]
The classical scholars of Islam also detailed the rights of the Muslims towards the dhimmi. The famous Maliki jurist, Shaha al-Deen al-Qarafi said:
“The covenant of protection imposes upon us certain obligations toward the ahl al-dhimmah. They are our neighbours, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), and the religion of Islam. Whoever violates these obligations against any one of them by so much as an abusive word, by slandering his reputation, or by doing him some injury or assisting in it, has breached the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), and the religion of Islam.” [11]
Dhimmi are not forced to become Muslim or leave their beliefs, values and worships. They are permitted to drink alcohol, eat pork, marry and divorce according to their religions. In all other areas of society they are viewed and treated in the same way as Muslims unless belief in Islam is a pre-requisite for the action.
Allah (Most High) says in the Holy Qur’an:
لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ
“There is no compulsion in religion” [12]
Christianity and other religions do not have detailed rules and systems governing societal affairs such as government, foreign affairs and economy. Christianity for example adopts the principle:
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”[13]
Therefore dhimmi in their societal transactions will obey the law of the land which in the Caliphate happens to be sharia (Islamic law). This will not be a source of conflict since these laws do not contradict any religious rulings. A good example of this is the spread of Islamic finance based on sharia throughout the western world. Even a country such as France which is staunchly secular and anti-Islamic, passed laws last year aimed at making France a hub for Islamic finance.[14] This is not because France has any love for sharia but because of the economic benefit derived from the transactions.
The general atmosphere in an Islamic society towards its non-Muslim minority is shaped by the above Islamic evidences and does not lead to a hostile atmosphere of persecution. However, the Caliphate is not a utopia and crime will exist and a dhimmi might be attacked and murdered by a criminal as happens in all societies.
An accusation brought by Copts in Egypt is that Muslims are not punished for crimes against their communities or given lesser punishment. In a Caliphate Muslims and dhimmi have equal status when it comes to crimes such as assault, rape and murder. An Islamic judiciary judging by sharia will not apply disparate punishments as found in secular Egypt.
Allah (Most High) says in the Holy Qur’an:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ لِلَّهِ شُهَدَاءَ بِالْقِسْطِ ۖ وَلَا يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَىٰ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا ۚ اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَىٰ ۖ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ
“You who believe, be steadfast in your devotion to Allah and bear witness impartially: do not let hatred of others lead you away from justice, but adhere to justice, for that is closer to awareness of Allah. Be mindful of Allah: Allah is well aware of all that you do.” [15]
The dhimmi is allowed to be a witness in an Islamic court against a Muslim and their evidence is acceptable. The conditions of being a witness apply equally to Muslims and dhimmi. The conditions of a witness are: sane, mature and ‘adl (trustworthy).
Punishments for crimes are applied equally to both Muslims and dhimmi with no distinction. The only distinction is that dhimmi will not be punished for those actions which are permitted for them such as drinking alcohol, whereas a Muslim would be.
The Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “The diyyah (blood money) of the Jews and Christians is like the Muslim’s diyyah.”[16]
It is narrated in a hadith that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) killed a Muslim for a mu’ahid (citizen of a foreign state with which the Caliphate has a treaty) and said, “I am the most noble of those who fulfil their dhimmah.”[17]
This hadith clearly indicates that if a Muslim kills a mu’ahid he is punished with death.[18] This applies to the dhimmi who has more rights than a mu’ahid since the dhimmi is a full citizen of the Islamic State.
If we look to the history of Copts in Egypt when they lived under the Caliphate we can see these sharia rules detailed above being implemented in practice. Whilst there were times during the Caliphate when dhimmi did suffer some persecution at the hands of tyrant rulers we cannot generalise and paint the entire 1300 year history as one of persecuting non-Muslims. The fact that Coptic Christians and their places of worship exist today is proof enough that the Caliphate did not adopt a policy of religious cleansing like Europe did.
Thomas Arnold mentions this point: “But of any organised attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the Caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years.” [19]
Nabil Luqa Bebawy, a Coptic, religious author compares the conditions of Copts before and after Islamic rule. He said that Orthodox Christians were brutally tortured at the hands of Byzantines. The number of Copts who were killed during the rule of the Byzantine emperor Diocletianus [284-305 AD] is estimated up to one million Coptic Egyptians. The is why the Orthodox Coptic Church called that age the age of martyrs and the Coptic calendar starts at this age.
When Islam came to Egypt, all conditions changed dramatically and Copts witnessed an age of freedom that they had not known before. About the Jizya imposed on non-Muslims, Dr. Bebawy says that they were part of the “security pact” made between Muslims and Copts. Jizya was a tax paid in exchange for exempting Copts from joining the Islamic army.
Finally, Dr. Nabil Luqa Bebawy stresses that the ill practices of some Muslims rulers in dealing with Copts are individual behaviors that have nothing to do with Islamic teachings.[20]
Hani Shukrallah, a Coptic Christian and a former editor of the newspaper Al-Ahram writes:
“It is not easy to empty Egypt of its Christians; they’ve been here for as long as there has been Christianity in the world. Close to a millennium and half of Muslim rule did not eradicate the nation’s Christian community, rather it maintained it sufficiently strong and sufficiently vigorous so as to play a crucial role in shaping the national, political and cultural identity of modern Egypt.
Yet now, two centuries after the birth of the modern Egyptian nation state, and as we embark on the second decade of the 21st century, the previously unheard of seems no longer beyond imagining: a Christian-free Egypt, one where the cross will have slipped out of the crescent’s embrace, and off the flag symbolizing our modern national identity…”[21]
Even during the Crusades when western Christians invaded and occupied parts of the Islamic State, the Copts of Egypt defended the Caliphate under the rule of Salahudin Ayyubi who was the governor of Egypt during the Abbasid Caliphate.
Carole Hillenbrand, in ‘The Crusades: Islamic perspectives’ says:
“…Saladin had a private secretary, ibn Sharafi, who was a Copt and Saladins brother al-Adil put a Copt named ibn al-Muqat in charge of the army ministry (diwan al-Jaysh). The appointment of a Christian to a position of such power in war-time and in an area that was military so sensitive tells its own story. Indeed, the loyalties of the Copts in the Ayyubid period seem often to have lain more with the Muslims and with their own local interests than with the Crusaders. This was demonstrated in the Crusade of Damietta in 1218 when the Copts helped to defend the city, and as a consequence suffered greatly at the hands of the Crusaders.” [22]
These are some of the reasons why Egypt’s Copts need the Caliphate, and in fact all the non-Muslims of the Muslim world need the Caliphate.

Source: Caliphate Online

We cannot compromise Islam to protect the tourist industry Monday, January 09, 2012 5:06 PM

 

With Islamic parties taking power in Egypt and Tunisia concerns have been raised over the future of the tourist industry which brings in billions of dollars in revenue each year. Western tourists, for example flock to the sandy beaches of Sharm al-Sheikh where alcohol and free mixing between men and bikini clad women takes place.
Saad al-Husseini, a member of Egypt’s Freedom and Justice Party executive bureau said in a recent interview, that Tourism is very important for Egypt and stressed that drinking and selling alcohol are forbidden in Islam. However, he then added, “Yet Islamic laws also prohibit spying on private places and this applies to beaches as well…I wish 50 million tourists would travel to Egypt even if they come nude.”
There are two points to consider when addressing the Islamic viewpoint towards tourism.
Firstly, as Muslims we must submit to all the laws of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. The sharia has not remained silent on ruling and economy. It contains detailed rules on what government revenues are permitted in an Islamic State including the imposing of temporary taxes if there was a budget shortfall. We must not try and circumvent these rules to achieve some material benefit. Our position is “we hear and we obey” not “we hear and we disobey”.
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
لَا تَرْتَكِبوُا مَا ارْتَكَبَتِ الْيَهُودُ فَتَسْتَحِلُّوا مَحَارِمَ اللهِ بِأَدْنَى الْحِيَل
“Do not repeat what the yahud committed, and violate Allah’s prohibitions using deceitful tricks.” [Tafsir ibn Kathir]
The Qur’an contains many stories of the previous generations that we may take a lesson and reminder from. One such story is the fisherman of Bani Israel who circumvented the ruling on the Sabbath for material benefit and suffered a severe punishment.
وَاسْأَلْهُمْ عَنِ الْقَرْيَةِ الَّتِي كَانَتْ حَاضِرَةَ الْبَحْرِ إِذْ يَعْدُونَ فِي السَّبْتِ إِذْ تَأْتِيهِمْ حِيتَانُهُمْ يَوْمَ سَبْتِهِمْ شُرَّعًا وَيَوْمَ لَا يَسْبِتُونَ ۙ لَا تَأْتِيهِمْ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ نَبْلُوهُمْ بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْسُقُونَ
وَإِذْ قَالَتْ أُمَّةٌ مِنْهُمْ لِمَ تَعِظُونَ قَوْمًا ۙ اللَّهُ مُهْلِكُهُمْ أَوْ مُعَذِّبُهُمْ عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا ۖ قَالُوا مَعْذِرَةً إِلَىٰ رَبِّكُمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ
فَلَمَّا نَسُوا مَا ذُكِّرُوا بِهِ أَنْجَيْنَا الَّذِينَ يَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ السُّوءِ وَأَخَذْنَا الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا بِعَذَابٍ بَئِيسٍ بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْسُقُونَ
فَلَمَّا عَتَوْا عَنْ مَا نُهُوا عَنْهُ قُلْنَا لَهُمْ كُونُوا قِرَدَةً خَاسِئِينَ
Ask them about the town which was by the sea when they broke the Sabbath – when their fish came to them near the surface on their Sabbath day but did not come on the days which were not their Sabbath. In this way We put them to the test because they were deviators. When a group of them said, ‘Why do you rebuke a people whom Allah is going to destroy or severely punish?’ they said, ‘So that we have an excuse to present to your Lord, and so that hopefully they will gain taqwa.’ Then when they forgot what they had been reminded of, We rescued those who had forbidden the evil and seized those who did wrong with a harsh punishment because they were deviators. When they were insolent about what they had been forbidden to do, We said to them, ‘Be apes, despised, cast out!’ [Al-Araaf, 7:163-166]
Secondly, we do not change Islam to fit the reality, rather we change the reality to fit Islam. The economies of Egypt, Tunisia and most Muslim countries are suffering under decades of mismanagement, and corruption with policies aimed at benefiting western colonialists. The tourist industry and the resulting munkar it brings is just one aspect of an interest-based economy, with severe poverty and no manufacturing base. When faced with such a reality Islam obliges us to radically transform such an economy to an Islamic economy which will bring prosperity for the entire Muslim Ummah and not simply the corrupt rulers and their western backers.
Will there be tourism in the Khilafah?

Tourists visiting the Khilafah is permitted but is controlled by the sharia rules related to foreign policy.
Article 183 of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s draft constitution states:
“Conveying the Islamic da’wah is the core around which the foreign policy revolves, and upon which relations between the State and other states are built.”
Tourism would be in line with this objective where people entering the Khilafah would see the practical implementation of Islam, and this is a dawah for them.
The citizens of other nations who wish to enter the state fall under various categories as outlined in Article 184 of the draft constitution.
Article 184The state’s relations with other states are built upon four considerations. These are:
1. States in the current Islamic world are considered to belong to one state and, therefore, they are not included within the sphere of foreign affairs. Relations with these countries are not considered to be in the realm of foreign policy and every effort should be expended to unify all these countries into one state.
2. States who have economic, commercial, friendly or cultural treaties with our State are to be treated according to the terms of the treaties. If the treaty states so, their subjects have the right to enter the State with an identity card without the need for a passport provided our subjects are treated in a like manner. The economic and commercial relations with such states must be restricted to specific items and specific characters which are deemed necessary and which, at the same time, do not lead to the strengthening of these states.
3. States with whom we do not have treaties, the actual imperialist states, like Britain, America and France and those states that have designs on the State, like Russia are considered to be potentially belligerent states. All precautions must be taken towards them and it would be wrong to establish diplomatic relations with them. Their subjects may enter the Islamic State only with a passport and a visa specific to every individual and for every visit, unless it became a real belligerent country
4. With states that are actually belligerent states, like Israel, a state of war must be taken as the basis for all dispositions with them. They must be dealt with as if a real war existed between us – whether an armistice exists or not – and all their subjects are prevented from entering the State.
Non-Muslims legitimately entering the Islamic State are called Mu’ahid (covenanted person) who are protected by the state and no harm can be done to them.
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “The one who kills a covenanted person during the period of his covenant he will not smell the fragrance of jannah, though its fragrance can be smelled from a distance of five hundred years march.” [Reported by Ibn Hibbaan in his Sahih]
Muslims travelling outside the Khilafah will also be subjected to the sharia rules related to foreign policy. Although their journey maybe for a variety of reasons, primarily they are dawah carriers who are ambassadors for Islam wherever they travel. Historically, Muslim traders travelled throughout the world and many people accepted Islam from them.
Unlike non-Muslims the objective in life for Muslims is to worship Allah سبحانه وتعالى which means sacrificing many material pleasures for the ultimate, everlasting pleasure in jannah. Therefore, Muslims in the Khilafah who want to travel and see the world will do so by joining the armed forces and opening new lands to Islam, rather than spending two weeks by the pool in a 5 star hotel.
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “The siyaahah (tourism) of my ummah is jihad for the sake of Allah.” [Abu Dawood]

Source: Caliphate Online

Christians of Homs under the Caliphate: ‘Your rule and justice are dearer to us than the oppression that we used to suffer.’Tuesday, May 01, 2012 12:08 PM
Last month the Muslims of Homs in Syria held a rally calling for a return of the Khilafah to replace the tyranny and oppression of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. This is not the first time Syria (ash-Sham) has been ruled by a tyrannical ruler. When Homs was first opened to Islam during the time of Khaleefah Umar bin al-Khattab, ash-Sham was part of the Byzantine Empire under the leadership of Emperor Heraclius. A few years after Homs was conquered and opened to Islam the Muslims were forced in to a temporary retreat back to Damascus. Faced with being ruled again by the Byzantines a similar call for the Khilafah was heard in Homs but this time from the Christian dhimmi. Although these Christians had only lived under the Khilafah for a short period of time, compared to years living under the oppressive Byzantine Empire, they preferred the Islamic rule.

Abu ‘Ubaydah, Amir of Jihad in Syria ordered his commander Habeeb ibn Maslamah, “Give back to the local people with whom we made a treaty (Christian dhimmi) what we took from them, for we should not take anything from them if we do not protect them.”

And he said to them, “We are bound by the same terms between us and you, and we will not retract anything so long as you do not do so. The only reason why we are returning your wealth to you is that we do not want to take your wealth when we cannot protect your land. We are simply moving to some other land and sending for our brothers to come to us, then we will face our enemy and fight. If Allah causes us to prevail, then we will fulfil our covenant with you, unless you change your minds.”

The next day Abu ‘Ubaydah ordered the Muslim army to march to Damascus, and Habeeb ibn Maslamah called the people from whom he had taken the jizyah and returned their wealth to them. He told them what Abu ‘Ubaydah had said, and the people of Homs started saying, “May Allah bring you back to us, and may Allah curse the Byzantines who used to rule over us. By Allah, they would not have returned anything to us, rather they would have confiscated it and taken whatever they could of our wealth. Your rule and justice are dearer to us than the oppression that we used to suffer.”
[Dr Ali Muhammad as-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab his life and times,’ vol. 2, p. 306]

The reason these dhimmi in Homs preferred Islamic rule is because the foreign policy of the Khilafah is dawah and jihad. The objective of offensive jihad is not to kill, it is to rule, i.e. make Allah’s word the highest in the land. The Muslim army doesn’t fight for materialistic interests or revenge as we witness the western armies doing in Afghanistan. Rather the Muslim army fights seeking the pleasure of Allah (swt) and achieves one of two best things, victory or martyrdom.

قُلْ هَلْ تَرَبَّصُونَ بِنَا إِلَّا إِحْدَى الْحُسْنَيَيْنِ
“Say: ‘What do you await for us except for one of the two best things?” [at-Tawba, 9:52]
Insha’Allah Bashar al-Assad’s tyrannical regime will go the same way as the Byzantine Empire – in to the dustbin of history.

Source: Caliphate Online

O Syrian Army Commanders! Follow in the footsteps of the Roman General who defected to the Muslim army at the Battle of Yarmuk, and died shaheed, the greatest deathFriday, July 27, 2012 3:02 PM

The Battle of Yarmuk was part of the campaign to conquer Syria and open it to Islam. The Amir of Jihad was Khalid bin Walid who was appointed by the Khaleefah Umar ibn al-Khattab. At the start of the battle a Roman general by the name of George emerged from the Roman centre and rode towards the Muslims. Halting a short distance from the Muslim centre, he raised his voice and asked for Khalid bin Walid (Amir of Jihad). From the Muslim side Khalid rode out, delighted at the thought that the battle would begin with himself fighting a duel. He would set the pace for the rest of the battle.
As Khalid drew near, the Roman made no move to draw his sword, but continued to look intently at Khalid. The Muslim advanced until the necks of the horses crossed, and still George did not draw his sword. Then he spoke, in Arabic: “O Khalid, tell me the truth and do not deceive me, for the free do not lie and the noble do not deceive. Is it true that Allah sent a sword from heaven to your Prophet and that he gave it to you and that never have you drawn it but your enemies have been defeated?”
“No!” replied Khalid.
“Then why are you known as the Sword of Allah?”
Here Khalid told George the story of how he received the title of Sword of Allah from the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. George pondered this a while, then with a pensive look in his eyes, asked, “Tell me, what do you call me to?”
“To bear witness”, Khalid replied, “that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Slave and Messenger; and to believe in what he has brought from Allah.”
“If I do not agree?”
“Then pay the Jizya, and you shall be under our protection.”
“If I still do not agree?”
“Then the sword!”
George considered the words of Khalid for a few moments, then asked, “What is the position of one who enters your faith today?”  “In our faith there is only one position. All are equal.”
“Then I accept your faith!” 1
To the astonishment of the two armies, which knew nothing of what had passed between the two generals, Khalid turned his horse and rode slowly with the Roman to the Muslim army. On arrival at the Muslim centre George repeated after Khalid: “There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah!” A few hours later the newly-converted George would fight heroically for the faith which he had just embraced and would die in battle as a shaheed the greatest death. 2
O Syrian Army Commanders!
You have the power to end the bloodshed, to remove the corrupt Assad regime and to give support (nusra) for the establishment of Khilafah. This Khilafah will bring peace and unity once again to the blessed land of ash-Sham after decades of oppression.
Seize this opportunity in the month of Ramadhan to become one of the heroes of ash-Sham like Khalid bin Walid and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah, and achieve the greatest prize of all – Al-Jannah.
Allah says:
فَلْيُقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يَشْرُونَ الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا بِالْآخِرَةِ ۚ وَمَنْ يُقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَيُقْتَلْ أَوْ يَغْلِبْ فَسَوْفَ نُؤْتِيهِ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا وَمَا لَكُمْ لَا تُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاءِ وَالْوِلْدَانِ الَّذِينَ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا أَخْرِجْنَا مِنْ هَٰذِهِ الْقَرْيَةِ الظَّالِمِ أَهْلُهَا وَاجْعَلْ لَنَا مِنْ لَدُنْكَ وَلِيًّا وَاجْعَلْ لَنَا مِنْ لَدُنْكَ نَصِيرًا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۖ وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ الطَّاغُوتِ فَقَاتِلُوا أَوْلِيَاءَ الشَّيْطَانِ ۖ إِنَّ كَيْدَ الشَّيْطَانِ كَانَ ضَعِيفًا
“So let those who sell the life of this world for the Next World fight in the Way of Allah. If someone fights in the Way of Allah, whether he is killed or is victorious, We will pay him an immense reward. What reason could you have for not fighting in the Way of Allah – for those men, women and children who are oppressed and say, ‘Our Lord, take us out of this city whose inhabitants are wrongdoers! Give us a protector from You! Give us a helper from You!’? Those who have iman fight in the Way of Allah. Those who are kafir fight in the way of false gods (taaghoot). So fight the friends of Shaytan! Shaytan’s scheming is always feeble.” 3
1. Tabari: Vol. 2, p. 595
2. Lieutenant-General A.I. Akram, ‘The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin Al-Waleed, His Life and Campaigns,’ October 1969
3. Holy Qur’an, Surah An-Nisaa, 74-76

Source: http://www.caliphate.eu/feeds/posts/default

The Caliphate will protect the honour of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wasallam)Friday, September 14, 2012 3:57 PM

A new anti-Islamic film ‘The Innocence of Muslims’ has been released in America. Unable to control their venom and hatred for Islam, the kuffar have once again unleashed a vicious attack on our beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.
Sam Bacile, the film’s creator is not the first to produce a drama insulting the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. In 1889 Henri de Bornier, a French poet and dramatist wrote an anti-Islamic play called Mahomet. Even though the Ottoman Caliphate was in a declined state and dubbed the ‘sick-man of Europe’, the French Prime Minister Charles de Freycinet banned the play in 1890 after opposition from the Caliphate.
“Bornier himself was the victim of blind and unreasoning Muslim prejudice in regard to his Mahomet. The play was being rehearsed in 1889 when a Turkish newspaper reproduced from a French journal the news of its forthcoming production. The French Foreign Ministry assured the Turkish ambassador in Paris, Es’at Pasha, that the play did not constitute an attack on the Prophet and on the cherished beliefs of the Muslims. Bornier pointed out that the Persian ta’ziyas or passion plays regularly depicted the death of Muhammad as well as those of the Shi’ite martyrs, and he offered to accept prohibition of his work’s being played in Algeria and Tunisia. These arguments still failed to satisfy the Turkish authorities, and in 1890 the head of the government, Freycinet, banned the production of Mahomet in France, a prohibition which, it was reported, gave much pleasure to the Sultan Abd al-Hamid II. It must be admitted that Muslims would undeniably find offensive a play in which their Prophet killed himself because of a woman and because of inferiority feelings vis-a-vis Christianity, but there is no evidence that either the Turkish ambassador or the Sultan had seen the play, much less read it, when they first objected to it. The French government’s surrender to this Turkish pressure was plausibly attributed by Martino to the contemporary political situation, for in 1889 the German Emperor William II was beginning his journey to Istanbul and the Near East, and France feared to do anything which might drive Turkey further into Germany’s arms; the susceptibilities of France’s numerous Muslim subjects in North Africa must also have been a consideration. Not till 1896 were excerpts from Mahomet presented to the public in a special arrangement for theatrical declamation. Since Bornier’s time, no major European dramatist seems to have essayed a play on the life of the Prophet.”(Source: C. E. Bosworth, ‘A Dramatisation of the Prophet Muhammad’s Life: Henri de Bornier’s “Mahomet”,’ Numen, Vol. 17, Fasc. 2 (Aug., 1970), p. 116)
After failing to defeat Islam and its noble values intellectually all the west has left are insults, lies and fabrications. These attacks will ultimately fail. They will strengthen the believers and they will generate greater interest in Islam among the non-Muslim populations in western countries who are embracing Islam in greater numbers.
يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطْفِئُوا نُورَ اللَّهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَاللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ
“They desire to extinguish Allah’s Light with their mouths but Allah will perfect His Light, though the kafirun hate it.” (as-Saff, 61:8)
A future Caliphate will use all its political, economic and military resources to protect the honour of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and all the other Prophets including Adam, Noah (Nuh), Moses (Musa) and Jesus son of Mary (Isa ibn Maryam), peace be upon them all.

Source: Caliphate Online

Is history repeating itself with new measures to tackle Muslims in the UK?

https://thehizbuttahrirwatch.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/79353-nf-islam-out-of-britain.jpg

In 1290 King Edward I expelled all Jews from England. Is a similar fate awaiting Muslims in the UK?
In 1275 the King of England Edward I issued a law called “The Statute of the Jewry” which placed a number of restrictions on Jews living in England. These included:
1. Usury was outlawed in every form.
2. Debtors of Jews were no longer liable for certain debts.
3. Jews were not allowed to live outside certain cities and towns.
4. Any Jew above the age of seven had to wear a yellow badge of felt on his or her outer clothing, six inches by three inches.
5. All Jews from the age of 12 on had to pay a special tax of three pence annually.
6. Christians were forbidden to live among Jews.
7. Jews were licensed to buy farmland to make their living for the next 15 years.
8. Jews could thenceforth make a living in England only as merchants, farmers, craftsmen or soldiers.
The UK government’s Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure (TPim) operates outside the criminal justice system and the threshold for applying a TPim on someone is extremely low. In the wake of the Woolwich killing the use of TPims is likely to increase dramatically and someone deemed to have ‘extremist’ (anti-government) ideas could be subject to this. The Telegraph has already called for Anjem Choudary to be placed under a TPim simply for having views the government doesn’t like even though he has broken no law.
Interestingly there are many similarities between being under a TPIM and the restrictions applied in the 1275 statute. Some restrictions applied by a TPIM can include:
• Leaving your house overnight
• Going beyond the geographical boundaries decided by the Home Office
• Taking off your electronic monitoring tag
• Talking to or meeting with whoever you wanted
• Stopping the police or staff from the monitoring company entering and searching your home without a warrant
• Having friends or family to your home unless approved by the Home Office, approval which can be removed at any time
• Travelling overseas
An electronic tag is a modern version of a yellow badge. Preventing someone travelling outside their area is the same as the 1275 statute. Restricting the professions a Muslim can work in is already happening through classifying them as a security risk as happened to one Muslim airline pilot who was prevented from working in his chosen profession.
Fifteen years after placing these restrictions on Jews, Edward I in 1290 went a step further and issued another statute called The Edict of Expulsion which expelled all Jews from England. They only returned 350 years later when for economic reasons Oliver Cromwell encouraged their return.
In 1492 King Ferdinand of Spain followed England’s example and issued his own Edict of Expulsion called the Alhambra Decree. The Jews were expelled from Spain but were welcomed in to the Islamic State by the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II who famously said: “How can you call this Ferdinand wise – he who has impoverished his dominions in order to enrich mine?”
This was proved true because the Jews played a major role in contributing to the economic activity of the Islamic State. Jewish physicians from the school of Salanca were employed in the service of the Sultan and the Viziers (ministers). In many places glass making and metalworking were Jewish monopolies, and with their knowledge of foreign languages, they were the greatest competitors of the Venetian traders. (Cecil Roth, “The House of Nasi: Dona Gracia”)
No matter what tests and trials are in store for the Muslims of the UK, ultimately there is khair (good) in them because Allah سبحانه وتعالى tests the believers out of mercy not hatred. A future Caliphate needs the wealth and skills of Muslims in the west in order to build itself back to a world superpower. Any plans for an ‘edict of expulsion’ or lesser measures will simply accelerate this.
Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:
وَيَمْكُرُونَ وَيَمْكُرُ اللّهُ وَاللّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ
“They were planning and Allah was planning, but Allah is the Best of planners.” (Al-Anfal, 8:30)

Source: Caliphate Online

Conveyor belts of hate are rooted in Government policy not mosques or madrasas

david-cameron-05

The only thing more predictable than the British government’s age old colonial policies in the Muslim world, is their “conveyor belt of hate” theory about terrorism. Rolled out once again by David Cameron in the wake of the Woolwich killing of solider Lee Rigby, the only surprise is that it has taken him this long.

Even staunch supporters of Cameron’s Islamophobic attitude towards the Muslim community must be wondering how they could possibly spin this to the Muslim street. After all anyone would think that towns up and down the UK were churning out terrorists by the dozen. The reality is in fact the opposite, Muslim communities in the UK are making a positive contribution to society.

The very institutions Cameron targeted with this vitriol such as mosques, madarasas and Islamic Charities are for the most part setup, run and funded by the communities in which they reside and are a beacon of morality in a society that according to Cameron himself has lost its “moral compass”.

The task force assigned to come up with the policies of “rooting out extremism” in universities, Islamic institutions and schools will not doubt apply more and more pressure on Muslim community leaders to hand over their institutions to what is in effect state control.

What should be remembered is once the Whitehall spin is removed from David Cameron’s hate speech there is no substance to his claims. The fantastical idea that the actions of two individuals in Woolwich can be attributed to such a wide array and varied set of possible causes simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

None of the two alleged killers were known to be involved in Islamic charities, attended a madarasa or were active Muslims at a university. It is clear that the new policies pushed by the task force will be nothing more than an extension of previous failed attempts to secularise the Muslim community.

Conveyor belts of hate are triggered not by mosques Imams failing to understand Britain or Islamic charities collecting for the disenfranchised in the Muslim world. Acts such as Woolwich are as a direct result of the production line of colonial policies of Britain in the Muslim world, going back hundreds of years. The legacy of doom left in Iraq and Afghanistan and the continued subjugation of the Muslim community in the UK are the real albeit unjustifiable roots for the Woolwich murder.

So David Cameron is wrong to say that the “conveyor belts of hate “ begin in Mosques or Madrasas, he should try and look a little closer to home. The hate speech he speaks so passionately about has its origins in the cabinet rooms and task force meetings of his very own government.

Source: Hizb ut-Tahrir In Britain

Hizb-ut leader Maola held again

DB says arrest made yesterday, but wife claims he was picked up 5 days ago

Though the wife of Hizb ut-Tahrir leader Prof Syed Golam Maola had claimed that her husband had been picked up by detectives on September 19, DB police said that Maola was arrested yesterday.

Shahida Ahmed, wife of Maola, told newsmen at a press conference yesterday that her husband has been made to “disappear” after detectives had picked him up from the gate of Kashimpur jail following his release on bail on September 19 night.

Shahida said Abul Bashar, jailer of Kashimpur jail, handed her husband over to some people who identified themselves as DB police on that night.

Source: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/print_news.php?nid=251199