HADHARAH ISLAMIYYAH

Hanya Khilafah yang Dapat Melindungi Kesucian Qur’an, Darah, Negeri dan Sumber Daya Umat

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:10:00 +0000

Syabab.Com - Pada tanggal 20 Februari 2012, tentara salib kolonialis membakar Qur’an Yang Mulia bersama dengan beberapa buku Islam lainnya. Dua orang Muslim mengucapkan shahadat ketika mencoba untuk mencegah tindakan jahat dan memalukan ini. Setelah muncul reaksi yang sangat keras dari umat Islam, para penjajah kolonial tampaknya meminta maaf dan memerintahkan penyelidikan atas masalah ini untuk menenangkan massa.

Wahai Mujahid Muslims Afghanistan!

Ini bukan sesuatu hal yang baru. Kita telah menyaksikan pembuatan kartun Nabi SAW, penodaan Al-Qur’an di Teluk Guantanamo dan pembuatan film “Fitna” oleh anggota parlemen Belanda. Kita semua tahu apa yang terjadi atas para tahanan di Teluk Guantanamo dan Bagram, yang hingga kini masih terjadi. Semua kejahatan ini tidak manusiawi ini jauh lebih sedikit yang terungkap daripada yang belum terkuak sama sekali. Bukti-bukti ini cukup untuk mengetahui seberapa besar kebencian Amerika dan sekutunya terhadap umat Islam. Selain itu, Anda pasti telah melihat kekejaman yang besar yang dilakukan oleh AS dan para sekutunya tentara salib di Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Qandahar, Helmand, Kunar, Wardak, Nuristan dan Waziristan.

Misalnya, orang Amerika telah mendobrak pintu-pintu rumah, telah memperbudak rakyat dan telah membunuh kaum perempuan, anak-anak dan orang-orang tua Afghanistan, setelah terlebih dulu menganiaya mereka. Contoh yang paling mencolok dari kekejaman AS adalah yang dilakukan atas seorang Muslimah Pakistan yaitu Dr. Afia Siddique, yang dipenjara selama 86 tahun, padahal dia menderita kanker dan hamil. Cerita yang serupa dari kejahatan ini seperti kekejaman yang terus terjadi di Somalia, Yaman dan Pakistan. Semua ini menunjukkan bahwa Amerika dan pasukan sekutunya telah kehilangan semua kualitas kemanusian dan telah mengadopsi sifat-sifat barbar.

Wahai Orang-orang Yang Jujur dan Berhati Tulus!

Ini adalah situasi yang Anda hadapi setelah runtuhnya Daulah Khilafah. Anda tahu bahwa Anda adalah umat terbaik, Anda adalah pewaris Nabi SAW, Khulufaur Rashidin dan para Penakluk, yang mengorbankan hidup mereka di jalan Tuhan mereka, Allah SWT. Anda adalah pewaris Mu’tasim yang mengirimkan bala tentara Islam yang besar bagi tentara Romawi untuk melindungi kehormatan seorang wanita muslim, ketika dia berteriak Ya, Mu’tasim! Anda adalah putra Harun Ar-Rashid yang mengirim surat kepada Kaisar Bizantium dengan mengatakan “Dari Harun Al Rashid, Khalifah orang-orang yang beriman atas Nicephorus, anjing Romawi: Saya telah membaca surat Anda, Anda tidak akan mendengar, Anda akan melihat jawaban saya. ” Khalifah kemudian mengirim tentara besar atas Kekaisaran Bizantium dan memaksa Kaisar Nicephorus untuk mematuhi perjanjian tersebut. Namun, para penguasa pengkhianat hari ini menandatangani pakta strategis dengan musuh-musuh yang sama dan sebagian Mujahidin juga bersedia untuk memiliki kesepakatan damai dengan tentara salib itu.

Hizbut Tahrir meminta negara Muslim dan Mujahidin Afghanistan untuk berusaha dan berjuang untuk mendirikan kembali Daulah Islam (Khilafah) untuk melindungi kesucian Al Qur’an, negeri dan sumber daya umat. Sebagaimana yang dikatakan Nabi Muhammad SAW: “Sesungguhnya Imam adalah perisai, di belakangnya lah umat berperang dan melindungi dirinya ” [Sahih Muslim]

Allah سبحانه وتعالى berfirman:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا بِطَانَةً مِنْ دُونِكُمْ لَا يَأْلُونَكُمْ خَبَالًا وَدُّوا مَا عَنِتُّمْ قَدْ بَدَتِ الْبَغْضَاءُ مِنْ أَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَمَا تُخْفِي صُدُورُهُمْ أَكْبَرُ ۚ قَدْ بَيَّنَّا لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ ۖ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ

“Hai orang-orang yang beriman, janganlah kamu ambil menjadi teman kepercayaanmu orang-orang yang, di luar kalanganmu (karena) mereka tidak henti-hentinya (menimbulkan) kemudharatan bagimu. Mereka menyukai apa yang menyusahkan kamu. Telah nyata kebencian dari mulut mereka, dan apa yang disembunyikan oleh hati mereka adalah lebih besar lagi. Sungguh telah Kami terangkan kepadamu ayat-ayat (Kami), jika kamu memahaminya.” [Al-Imran, 3:118]

Artikel di atas berdasarkan terjemahan dari selebaran yang dikeluarkan oleh Hizbut Tahrir, Wiliyah Afghanistan. Sumber :www.khilafah.com [htipress/syabab.com]

Sumber:shabab.com.

Perancis Melarang Drama Anti-Islam Tahun 1890 Setelah Ada Penentangan Dari Khilafah Utsmani

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:58:00 +0000

Posted By: ABDUL KAREEM

Syabab.Com - Henri de Bornier, seorang penyair dan dramawan Perancis menulis drama bernuansa anti-Islam yang berjudul “Mahomet (Muhammad)” pada tahun 1889. Perdana Menteri Prancis Charles de Freycinet melarang drama itu pada tahun 1890 setelah ada penentangan dari Khilafah Utsmani.

“Bornier sendiri merupakan korban dari prasangka buta dan tidak beralasan kaum Muslim berkaitan dengan dramanya yang berjudul Muhammad itu. Mereka sedang berlatih drama pada tahun 1889 ketika sebuah surat kabar Turki memberitakan dari sumber berita jurnal Prancis tentang adanya rencana pergelaran drama itu. Kementrian Luar Negeri Perancis meyakinkan duta besar Turki di Paris, Es’at Pasha, bahwa drama itu bukan merupakan serangan terhadap Nabi Muhammad dan menghargai keyakinan kaum muslim. Bornier menunjukkan bahwa drama ta’ziya Persia atau drama yang berisi kesengsaraan yang menggambarkan wafatnya Nabi Muhammad maupun juga kematian para mujahid Syi’ah secara rutin telah dipertunjukkan, dan dia menawarkan pelarangan atas karyanya yang sedang dimainkan di Aljazair dan Tunisia. Namun, argumen itu masih belum berhasil untuk memuaskan otoritas Turki, dan pada tahun 1890 Kepala Pemerintahan Perancis, Freycinet, melarang pertunjukkan drama berjudul “Muhammad” di Perancis, larangan yang, seperti dilaporkan, menyenangkan Sultan Abdul Hamid II. Memang harus diakui bahwa tidak dapat disangkan umat Islam akan menganggap drama itu sebagai penghinaan di mana Nabi Muhammad digambarkan melakukan bunuh diri karena seorang wanita dan karena perasaan rendah diri atas agama Kristen, tetapi tidak ada bukti bahwa baik Duta Besar Turki atau Sultan telah menyaksikan drama itu, apalagi membacanya, ketika mereka pertama kali mengajukan keberatan atas hal itu. Menyerahnya Pemerintah Perancis atas tekanan Turki ini adalah hal yang masuk akal disebabkan oleh Martino hingga situasi politik kontemporer masa itu, karena pada tahun 1889 Kaisar Jerman William II memulai perjalanannya ke Istanbul dan Timur Dekat, dan Prancis takun untuk melakukan apapun yang mungkin mendorong Turki jatuh kedalam pangkuan Jerman, sedangkan kepekaan atas banyaknya warga Prancis Muslim di Afrika Utara juga harus telah menjadi pertimbangan. Baru pada tahun 1896, kutipan atas drama Muhammad ditmapilkan kepada publik dalam suatu gubahan yang khusus dibuat untuk deklamasi teater. Sejak zaman Bornier itu, tidak ada dramawan besar Eropa yang tampaknya telah memainkan drama tentang kehidupan Nabi. “

Sumber: C.E. Bosworth, ‘Sebuah Dramatisasi atas Kehidupan Nabi Muhammad: Drama ‘Mahomet’ karya Henri de Bornier, Numen, Vol. 17, Fasc. 2 (Agustus, 1970), hal 116

Sumber:syabab.com.

Monday, September Angela Collins: Why I decided to submit?

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 02:11:00 +0000

I accept that I cannot control the events that occur in my life or in the lives of others.

Islam is the only religion that communicates total submission to our Creator, the Creator of all people and of all things. As a Muslim I know that everything I do first begins with an intention and then I must transform that intention into an effort in order to carry out what has already been decreed. This wisdom defines my path to be a better person to myself, my family, my community and to all of my brothers and sisters here on earth.

In essence Allah (the one God) opened my heart, Islam gave me the direction, and now I live to serve out the guidance lent by my Creator for happiness here on earth and if Allah wills, in the hereafter.

While religion is a resource to help guide ourselves to good behavior through our spirituality, there is no prerequisite that it should be far fetched in mental comprehension.

I am a recent convert. Catholicism is the religion followed by my forefathers. At the age of 14, I refused the trinity concept and narrowed what I saw as a complicated tale of 'three in one' down to 'two in one' and started attending a Baptist church.

Throughout my life, I have searched for understanding, but when it came to my faith I truly was confused about why God would come as a human being and would allow himself to die for the sins of only those privileged enough to believe in his (or his son's) crucifixion. I found this explanation extravagant and shared my doubts with pastors and scholars who gave every effort to communicate the Christian belief to my understanding. I asked myself: "Why would my religion need to be so complex?" When I reached adulthood, I decided to make it very simple. There was just one, our Creator and that was it. No other explanation could rationally make sense.

I see Islam as a religion that came to clarify the errors of human beings who changed the original word of God to fit their interests. Islam is simple: God is God. God created us and we worship God and God alone. God sent Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (PBUH) to deliver his message to guide all people. In Islam, Jesus is the only prophet who never died which is why he is the only messenger who will come back before the Day of Judgment to lead the people of the books: [the Torah, the Injeel (Bible) the book of Psalms and the Quran]. The Quran is the final book that has never been altered to fit the changing interest of people throughout history.

Islam confirms that you are not awarded passage into heaven just because you say you are Muslim. And you may not go straight to heaven just because you believe that God is monotheistic. You go to heaven based on your intentions and actions following the message taught to us by the messengers themselves and confirmed by the original books of God. Heaven is not an exclusive club for those who merely follow what their fathers taught them. Instead it is your responsibility, especially as a Muslim, to constantly search for truth, understanding and to read and think. After reading every chapter in the Quran twice and taking detailed notes, I believe that this masterpiece could only have come from my Creator. Without a doubt the author of this book knows more about me than I know about myself.

It is no secret that Islam is seriously misunderstood and disliked by many here in my homeland, the United States. My conversion to this "controversial" religion has my family and friends puzzled. It is my sincere belief that Allah led me to Islam by enhancing my passion in exploring unfamiliar perspectives through foreign travel. I have a genuine interest in building bridges with all people everywhere rather than promoting my own ideology as the only system that can work for all people.

While culture shock is a mild term to express the drastically different life styles of Muslims in the Middle East, I saw great beauty in the generosity of people, the cohesiveness of families and the immediate acceptance of a girl so foreign in her ways. Even so, in the present I face a culture shock within my own predominantly Middle Eastern Muslim community. I do understand the challenges a Muslim born into their religion faces to dissect their own culture within it. After finding myself in Islam, I am able to adhere to the teachings supported by the Quran and Hadiths while also managing to bypass the cultural manifestations taught by Muslims born into their religion. Islam is multi-cultural and is a system that can be adopted in any environment at any point in time.

I can confidently say that if Allah had not breathed Islam into my soul, I would have never found Angela. Well, today, here I am: Angela, a Muslim American: the soul who persistently searched for her Creator and has found the Creator of all that is in the universe and beyond, in Islam.

Angela Collins
Posted by HB-TFS
Source: http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Article

Why we need a Caliphate to restore stability to the Muslim world

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 04:13:00 +0000

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 | Posted by Noor

It is now routine to talk of a Muslim world in crisis. But an end to the misery appears no closer. Despite experimenting with numerous models and indeed being the subject of recent experiments with liberalism, the autocracy, dictatorships, growing dissent and instability appear no closer resolved. Problems are deep rooted; some even talk of a Middle Eastern ‘exceptionalism’ to describe the region’s apparent inability to move forward. Fresh ideas and approaches are needed if we are to overcome the status quo.

The Caliphate – the Islamic order that governed the Muslim world for centuries – is increasingly presented by Muslims and Islamic movements as key to shaping the future and overcoming the lack of progress and stability that plagues the Muslim world. Some in the West suggest the Caliphate is a pre-modern system unable to deal with current political challenges. But it is our contention that the Caliphate will be a stabilising force for the Muslim world.

These are some of our reasons:

Firstly, the Caliphate system is consistent with – not alien to – the values of the people in the Muslim world. This provides it deep roots and a better chance at working in partnership with its populations because it engages them on a common point of reference and for common goals. But it also means the Caliphate acts as a guarantor for those values considered by Muslims most under threat since its demise. Secular, autocratic regimes that emerged in the Caliphate’s wake significantly curtailed Islamic practice and engineered new readings of Islamic values and history, often imposing views that broke with orthodoxy to demand loyalty to divisive and failed ideologies from Arabism to communism. The import of foreign value systems too is often associated with the threat of eroding deeply Islamic values – ‘western’ values for example are associated with moral and sexual decadence. A political system that credibly protects Islamic values is key to securing public confidence and partnership – and providing the much-needed glue that cements a contract between citizens and their rulers.

Secondly, the Caliphate is an accountable political system whose head is legitimised only through popular consent. That immediately separates it from the current regimes that currently litter the Muslim world, which are unrepresentative, unaccountable and inherently fragile and unstable as a result. With no means of recourse and no channels to express dissent or criticism, peoples’ concerns have become threatening political undercurrents, even threats of rebellion and overthrow. The Caliphate, in striking contrast, engages voices of dissent through the political system by providing extensive channels for accounting all parts of the states’ apparatus as well as a consultative assembly made-up of elected representatives with significant powers.

Thirdly, the loss of the Caliphate brought with it an unprecedented loss of authority and leadership on Islamic issues. The resulting vacuum allowed individuals to unanimously declare themselves spokespersons for Islam, and to become figureheads for merely speaking the rhetoric of anti-colonialism and standing-up to aggressors. This crisis in leadership after the Caliphate dangerously allowed its functions to be dismembered and claimed by virtually anyone who was willing to take them on, from tax collection, to defending Muslim territory (and deciding when and how) to defining the relationship between Islam and other peoples. The Caliphate was the only institution able to provide credible leadership on Islamic issues and the only legitimate Islamic system charged with the responsibility of administering Islamic temporal law and international diplomacy.

Fourth, many of the problems facing the Muslim world are caused or compounded by division. Artificial borders created after ‘independence’ from colonial rule have led to disputes over land, waterways and resources, and been the cause of bloodshed and strife. Furthermore, the deficiencies in resources in these small nation states has prompted Muslim countries to become dependent upon external powers, and not develop the self-reliance that is required for any state to stand on its own feet.

The emergence of the nation state and nationalism has created strangers out of regional neighbours and has also led to the slow disintegration of states that hold multiple ethnicities, or communities, who have continued the demand for independence and thus undermined the overall integrity of the nations they live in. The examples of this across the Muslim world are numerous and is a constant source of unrest and instability. The Caliphate does not consider its population through the prism of ethnicity but rather enshrines the concept of citizenship. It also has an unrivalled history in dealing with different ethnic and religious minorities, much of which has been shattered through the emergence of artificial nation states that have subsequently competed and fought each other over boundaries that lack any historical or Islamic precedent.

The goal of replacing unrepresentative unaccountable rulers with a political system that is neither and which draws on strong ideological commonalities with its people can only be a stabilising force. The Caliphate represents an alternative political vision for the Muslim world and a political system that draws on a strong historical record.

source : www.newcivilisation.com

Hukum Sambutan Tahun Baru Cina

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:14:00 +0000

Isnin, 23 Januari 2012 15:05

tahun-baru-cinaTerdapat sebahagian daripada masyarakat Muslim yang mengatakan bahawa menyambut Tahun Baru Cina itu hanyalah suatu adat tradisi semata-mata dan ia tidak termasuk sebahagian daripada mana-mana ajaran agama tertentu. Dengan hujah tersebut, umat Islam khususnya yang beretnik Tionghua dianggap boleh untuk meraikan Tahun Baru Cina. Persoalannya, benarkah Tahun Baru Cina hanya merupakan adat tradisi semata-mat dan adakah umat Islam dibolehkan untuk meraikannya? Penulisan ini bertujuan untuk merungkai persoalan ini agar kita mendapat gambaran yang jelas tentang latar belakang sambutan Tahun Baru Cina serta pandangan hukum syarak ke atas perkara tersebut.

Ajaran Agama Konfusianisme, Bukan Sekadar Adat Tradisi Tionghua

Kita sering mendengar daripada kalangan kaum Tionghua termasuk tokoh-tokoh yang telah memeluk Islam bahawa sambutan Tahun Baru Cina ini adalah sekadar adat tradisi semata-mata dan ia tidak mempunyai kaitan dengan ajaran sesuatu agama.

Oleh itu, umat Islam dianggap boleh untuk turut serta dalam merayakannya. Jika kita benar-benar mendalami ajaran agama Konfusianisme, khususnya tentang sambutan perayaan-perayaan mereka, maka akan terbukti bahawa kenyataan tersebut adalah tidak benar. Ini adalah kerana sambutan Tahun Baru Cina adalah merupakan sebahagian daripada ajaran agama Konfusianisme yang tidak dapat dipisahkan dan ia bukannya adat tradisi semata-mata.

Dalam sebuah buku karangan penganut Konfusianisme, Dr. Hendrik Agus Winarso yang berjudul 'Mengenal Hari Raya Konfusian' (Semarang : Effhar & Dahara Prize, 2003) hal. vi-vii, ia menyatakan bahawa kebanyakan masyarakat kurang memahami Hari Raya Konfusianisme. Beliau memberi contoh, “Misalnya Tahun Baru Cina yang dianggap sebagai tradisi orang Tionghua.” Oleh yang demikian, pandangan yang mengatakan bahawa sambutan Tahun Baru Cina adalah sekadar adat tradisi dan tidak ada hubung kait dengan agama adalah suatu kesalahfahaman, menurut penulis berkenaan (Ibid., hal. v).

Dalam buku tersebut, Dr. Hendrik telah membuktikan dengan meyakinkan bahawa sambutan Tahun Baru Cina adalah sebahagian daripada ajaran Konfusianisme. Dr. Hendrik menerangkan, Tahun Baru Cina atau dikenali juga sebagai Sin Cia, merupakan suatu momentum untuk memperbaharui diri. Momentum ini dinyatakan dalam salah sebuah kitab suci Konfusianisme iaitu kitab Lee Ki, bahagian Gwat Ling, yang berbunyi :

“Hari permulaan tahun (Liep Chun) jadikanlah sebagai Hari Agung untuk bersembahyang besar ke hadrat Thian, kerana Maha Besar Kebajikan Thian. Dilihat tiada nampak, didengar tiada dengar, namun tiap yang wujud tiada yang tanpa Dia… (Tiong Yong XV : 1-5).
(Lihat Hendrik Agus Winarso, Mengenal Hari Raya Konfusian, [Semarang : Effhar & Dahara Prize, 2003], hal. 60-61).

Penulis tersebut telah membuat membuat kesimpulan bahawa sambutan Tahun Baru Cina adalah merupakan sebahagian daripada ajaran Konfusianisme. Beliau mengatakan bahawa:

“Dengan demikian, menyambut Tahun Baru bagi umat Konfusianisme Indonesia mempunyai erti ketakwaan dan keimanan.” (ibid., hal. 61).

Maka oleh itu adalah tidak benar pendapat-pendapat yang menyatakan bahawa sambutan Tahun Baru Cina adalah hanya sekadar adat tradisi orang Tionghua semata-mata dan ia bukan perayaan agama. Sedangkan hakikatnya, ia adalah sebahagian daripada ajaran agama Konfusianisme.

Selain itu, sebagai seorang Muslim, kayu ukur untuk melihat sama ada boleh atau pun tidak untuk melakukan sesuatu perkara bukanlah dilihat dari segi agama atau tradisi. Sebahagian umat beranggapan, jika ia berasal daripada adat tradisi, adalah tidak mengapa dan boleh untuk diamalkan. Tetapi jika ia berasal daripada agama lain, maka ia tidak boleh. Sesungguhnya kayu ukur sebegini adalah batil dan tidak boleh diguna pakai dalam Islam. Dalam Islam, satu-satunya kayu ukur yang benar adalah Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah semata-mata. Firman Allah SWT:

“Ikutilah apa yang diturunkan kepadamu daripada Tuhanmu dan janganlah kamu mengikuti pemimpin-pemimpin selain daripadaNya.” [TMQ Al-A’raaf (7) : 3]

Kalimat “maa unzila ilaikum min rabbikum” (apa yang diturunkan kepadamu daripada Tuhanmu), adalah merujuk kepada Al-Qur`an dan As-Sunnah. (Tafsir Al-Baidhawi, [Beirut : Dar Shaadir], Juz III/2). Maka, kayu ukur sesuatu perbuatan sama ada boleh ataupun tidak boleh untuk dilakukan adalah Al-Qur`an dan As-Sunnah. Apa sahaja yang benar menurut Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah, bererti ia boleh dilakukan. Sebaliknya, apa sahaja yang batil menurut Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah, bererti ia tidak boleh untuk dilakukan.

Oleh yang demikian, jika kita hendak menilai perbuatan kaum Muslimin yang turut serta dalam merayakan Tahun Baru Cina menurut Islam, maka tolok ukurnya haruslah benar. Kita perlu melihat adakah perbuatan tersebut boleh atau pun tidak menurut Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah, dan bukannya melihat sama ada aadakah ia daripada tradisi ataupun daripada ajaran agama. Jika kita menggunakan kayu ukur tradisi atau agama dalam membuat penilaian, maka kita akan tersesat. Bukan semua tradisi adalah benar. Ada yang bertentangan dengan Islam dan ada bersesuaian dengan Islam.

Sebagai contoh, amalan seks bebas atau seks di luar nikah adalah tradisi masyarakat Kristian Barat, sedangkan perbuatan jijik tersebut bukan sebahagian daripada ajaran agama Kristian/Katholik. Malah agama Kristian pun turut mengharamkan zina. Jadi, adakah disebabkan seks bebas atau seks di luar nikah itu merupakan suatu tradisi dan bukan daripada ajaran agama, maka umat Islam pun boleh turut serta melakukannya? Tentu sekali tidak boleh.

Marilah kita kembali menggunakan kayu ukur yang benar untuk menilai sesuatu perbuatan. Kayu ukurnya bukan dilihat dari segi asal usulnya sama ada sesuatu perbuatan itu datangnya daripada tradisi ataupun agama. Sebaliknya melihat dari segi sama ada boleh ataupun tidak perbuatan tersebut menurut Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah. Inilah satu-satunya pandangan yang haq dan tidak ada lagi yang lain.

Haram Bagi Muslim Turut Serta Meraikan Tahun Baru Cina

Jika dikaji berdasarkan dalil-dalil Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah, maka adalah haram hukumnya bagi seseorang Muslim untuk turut serta dalam merayakan hari raya agama lain, termasuklah Tahun Baru Cina, tidak kira sama ada dengan mengikuti ritual agamanya ataupun tidak, termasuk juga memberi ucapan Gong Xi Fatt Chai. Kesemuanya adalah haram.

Imam Suyuthi berkata, “Juga termasuk perbuatan mungkar, iaitu turut serta merayakan hari raya orang Yahudi, hari raya orang-orang kafir, hari raya selain orang Arab [yang tidak Islami], ataupun hari raya orang-orang Arab yang tersesat. Orang Muslim tidak boleh melakukan perbuatan tersebut kerana perkara itu akan membawa mereka ke jurang kemungkaran…” (Imam Suyuthi, Al-Amru bi Al-Ittiba’ wa An-Nahyu ‘An Al-Ibtida` (terj.), hal. 91).

Khusus tentang memberi ucapan “selamat” terhadap sambutan agama lain, Imam Ibnu Qayyim Al-Jauziyyah berkata, “Adapun memberi ucapan selamat yang berkaitan syiar-syiar kekufuran yang menjadi ciri khas kaum kafir, hukumnya adalah haram menurut kesepakatan ulama', misalnya memberi ucapan selamat atas hari raya atau puasa mereka...” (Ahkam Ahli Adz-Dzimmah, [Beirut : Darul Kutub Al-'Ilmiyah], 1995, Juz I/162).

Dalil Al-Quran yang mengharamkan perbuatan kaum Muslimin untuk merayakan hari raya agama kafir adalah melalui firman Allah SWT :

“Dan (hamba-hamba Tuhan Yang Maha Penyayang itu adalah) orang-orang yang tidak menghadiri kebohongan…” [TMQ Al-Furqan (25) : 72].

Menurut Imam Ibnu Taimiyah, makna yang tepat bagi kalimat “laa yashhaduuna az-zuur” dalam ayat tersebut adalah tidak menghadiri kebohongan (az-zuur), dan bukannya memberi kesaksian palsu. Dalam bahasa Arab, memberi kesaksian palsu diungkapkan dengan kalimat yashhaduuna bi az-zuur, yakni terdapat tambahan huruf jar yang dibaca bi. Maka ayat di atas yang berbunyi “laa yashhaduuna az-zuur” yang lebih tepat adalah bermaksud “tidak menghadiri kebohongan”, dan bukannya “memberi kesaksian palsu.” (M. Bin Ali Adh-Dhabi’i, Mukhtarat min Kitab Iqtidha` Shirathal Mustaqim Mukhalafati Ash-habil Jahim (terj.), hal. 59-60)

Manakala kata “az-zuur” (kebohongan) itu sendiri, menurut sebahagian tabi’in seperti Mujahid, adh-Dhahak, Rabi’ bin Anas dan Ikrimah adalah hari-hari kebesaran kaum Musyrik atau kaum jahiliyah sebelum Islam (Imam Suyuthi, Al-Amru bi Al-Ittiba’ wa An-Nahyu ‘An Al-Ibtida` (terj.), hal. 91-95).

Maka ayat di atas adalah dalil kepada haramnya bagi seseorang Muslim untuk merayakan hari raya agama lain seperti hari Natal, Wesak, Deepavali, Tahun Baru Cina dan sebagainya.

Imam Suyuthi juga berdalil dengan dua ayat lain sebagai dasar pengharaman bagi Muslim untuk turut serta merayakan hari raya agama lain (Lihat Imam Suyuthi, ibid., hal. 92). Salah satu daripadanya adalah ayat :

“Dan sesungguhnya jika kamu mengikuti keinginan mereka setelah datangnya ilmu (kebenaran) kepadamu, sesungguhnya jika demikian kamu termasuk golongan orang-orang yang zalim.” [TMQ Al-Baqarah (2) : 145].

Menurut Imam Suyuthi, larangan pada ayat di atas bukan hanya khusus kepada Nabi SAW, tetapi juga merangkumi umat Islam secara umum. Larangan tersebut adalah larangan untuk melakukan perbuatan sebagaimana yang dilakukan oleh orang-orang bodoh atau orang kafir (seperti merayakan hari raya mereka). Walhal yang mereka lakukan itu bukanlah perbuatan yang diredhai oleh Allah dan RasulNya (Lihat Imam Suyuthi, ibid., hal. 92).

Adapun dalil daripada As-Sunnah, hadis daripada Rasulullah SAW, “Barangsiapa yang menyerupai sesuatu kaum, maka ia termasuk dalam golongan mereka.” (HR Abu Dawud).

Dalam hadis ini, Islam telah mengharamkan kaum Muslimin untuk menyerupakan atau menyamakan diri mereka dengan kaum kafir dalam perkara-perkara yang menjadi ciri khas bagi kekafiran mereka, seperti perayaan hari raya mereka. Oleh itu, adalah haram hukumnya seseorang Muslim untuk turut serta merayakan hari raya agama lain (Lihat Syeikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz, Penjelasan Tuntas Hukum Seputar Perayaan, [Solo : Pustaka Al-Ummat], 2006, hal. 76).

Berdasarkan kajian fakta dan dalil-dalil Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah yang telah dinyatakan di atas, adalah jelas bahawa haram hukumnya bagi seseorang Muslim untuk merayakan Tahun Baru Cina dalam segala bentuk dan juga manifestasinya. Haram bagi kaum Muslimin untuk terikut-ikut dalam mengucapkan Gong Xi Fatt Chai kepada kaum Tionghua, begitu juga haram bagi Muslim untuk menghiasi rumah atau biliknya dengan tanglung khas Cina atau hiasan naga dan pelbagai aksesori lain yang serba merah, kerana itu semua mempunyai kepercayaan tertentu dalam agama tersebut. Haram juga untuk mengadakan pelbagai jenis pertunjukan untuk meraikan Tahun Baru Cina seperti live band, karaoke mandarin dan lain-lain. Semua bentuk perbuatan tersebut haram dilakukan oleh Muslim kerana ia termasuk dalam perbuatan merayakan hari raya agama kafir yang telah diharamkan oleh Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah.

Seruan Kepada Muslim Etnik Tionghua

Akhir sekali, kami ingin menyeru saudara-saudara kami dari kalangan etnik Tionghua, hendaklah kalian masuk ke dalam agama Islam secara keseluruhannya (kaffah). Janganlah kalian (semoga Allah melimpahkan rahmatNya kepada kalian semua) mengikuti jejak langkah syaitan, yakni masuk ke dalam agama Islam namun pada masa yang sama masih lagi mempertahankan sebahagian daripada ajaran lama yang dahulunya pernah kalian anuti dan amalkan, seperti perayaan Tahun Baru Cina. Renungilah firman Allah SWT :

“Wahai orang-orang yang beriman, masuklah kamu ke dalam Islam secara kaffah (keseluruhannya), dan janganlah kamu menurut jejak langkah syaitan. Sesungguhnya syaitan itu adalah musuh yang nyata bagi kamu.” [TMQ Al-Baqarah (2) : 208]

Wallahua’lam bissawab.

Sumber: Mykhilafah.com

O Muslims of Syria: Stay firm upon the Haqq because verily this regime is on the brink of a pit of fire

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:00:00 +0000

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Following the fourth speech of Bashaar...

On Tuesday 10/01/2012 the tyrant Bashaar gave his fourth speech at Damascus University. Ten months have passed in which he has committed the most obscene massacres against his people. He repeated himself again, reiterating his commitment to his vision for dealing with the crisis and declared that he is in the midst of a battle against criminality which he is engaged in fighting and that he is not in a shell. He employed the same type of words and statements used to justify the killing of people like: 'A foreign conspiracy', 'Sectarian strife', 'Fighting against terrorism', 'An invitation to reform'...and the most dangerous of which was when he made clear his determination to deal with criminality when he repeatedly made one threat after another saying: "This will not be achieved except by striking the terrorists hard" knowing full well that those he is describing as terrorists and conspirators are none other than the unarmed believing Syrian people including its children, youth and elders, its men and women, its labourers and academics... those who he is taking revenge upon only because they have said to Bashaar: "You are a Zhaalim (oppressor)"!

Indeed this regime proves day after day that it does not deserve to go on living any longer, not even for an extra hour because it is a regime which is an enemy to its people that has the notion nestling in its head that it is necessary to commit murder! As such it has not withdrawn even in the least of ways and instead has revealed its determination to continue killing and bring about termination, a matter which has begun to put pressure in the direction of those of his own gang that surround him.

What made Bashaar's thinking reach to this level of criminality is the support from America including all its manoeuvrings, the inaction of the Arab and so called official Islamic entities, the weakness of the opposition, its divisions and contradictions due to its distance from Islam in addition to the collusion of the Arab League and its General Secretary who have been manufactured by America which has provided the Syrian regime more time to increase its killing. Despite all of this he will never be able by the permission of Allah to stop what is happening in Syria due to the insurmountable determination of the people, their patience and their willingness to bear sacrifices! Due to this Bashaar does not see any solution except the increase of killing so Bashaar came out in his speech declaring that the only way to solve the problem is to bring about termination and he repeated this wording ten times in his speech.

O revolutionary Muslims in the Shaam of the Messenger and the Shaam of Khair (goodness)!

You have indeed given the most brilliant examples for the entire world to take note of in facing this immoral regime, and you have shown real rare metal in determination. It was only due to your Imaan (belief) in Allah that is within your souls that has caused your old and young, men and women to gather together upon which you have gathered upon. So blessed be your strength, and blessed be your stand, your chants and resistance which have exposed the true reality of this criminal regime when they faced you with their brutal war machine. So remain firm because verily this regime is on the brink of a pit of fire and it will collapse very soon by the permission of Allah Ta'Aalaa. Close your ranks and hold firmly to your covenant which you made when you declared: "We will not bow down to other than Allah" so the issue is like you sincerely and truthfully declared by the will of Allah Ta'Aalaa: "If you give victory for Allah then Allah will give you victory." And what is more excellent than the truthful words that were sung in your chants in Homs: "Are you waiting for the victory from Obama? Are you waiting for the victory from Erdogan?" Then you answered with fire in your throats that stirred the Imaan so that the whole world could hear: "There is nothing for us except Allah".

O revolutionary Muslims in the Shaam of the Messenger and the home of the promised Khilafah!

Indeed the establishment of the rightly guided Khilafah in the blessed land of Shaam upon the ruins of this criminal regime is your opportunity to take the honour of establishing the promise of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم by establishing it for its last time in your blessed land. So have Tawakkul upon Allah when seeking it with sincerity and Imaan and make it the aim of the revolution so that you can save yourselves and your Ummah through it from the clutches of the western disbelievers and from the fallacy and weakness of the democratic ruling systems to the truthful solutions from pure Islam. Here is Hizb-ut-Tahrir calling you, and it is sincerely bound to you to work in accordance to the method of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and there is no method that can stand up to it in terms of uprightness as Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

قُلْ هَذِهِ سَبِيلِي أَدْعُو إِلَى الله عَلَى بَصِيرَةٍ أَنَا وَمَنِ اتَّبَعَنِي وَسُبْحَانَ الله وَمَا أَنَا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ

"Say this is my way, I call to Allah upon awareness, I and those who follow me and Glory be to Allah and I am not from the Mushrikeen." [Yusuf, 12:108]

Hizb-ut-Tahrir

Wilayah of Syria

16 Safar 1433

10/01/2012

Original Arabic leaflet:http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/info/index.php/contents/entry_15994

The shari'ah and the rule of law – Islamic governance for the 21stcentury

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:36:00 +0000

THURSDAY, 19 JANUARY 2012 17:59 WAKIL ABU MUJAHID

The year 2011 ended with an irreversibly changed Middle East where the hegemony of several dictators collapsed at the hands of their oppressed populations. The Syrian and Yemeni peoples' immense sacrifice and desire for change continue into 2012. There is little doubt that the world will further witness the collapse of other dictatorial regimes in the region.

Whilst the Muslims of the Middle East continue to sacrifice their sweat and blood for liberation from the shackles of dictatorship, the debate about the aftermath continues. In Egypt, for example, although the Ancien Régime remains largely intact, parliamentary elections were conducted at the end of November 2011 and the presidential election is expected to be held in July 2012. Nevertheless, the question of the form and character of the system of governance is far from settled. Although the role of Islam in the state will be inevitable, its extent of influence remains far from clear.

The Anglo-French-American triple alliance has added to the mist of confusion, as they painstakingly attempt to hijack the spirit of the protesters in order to install a new generation of rulers who would ensure the security and furtherance of Western interests in the region.

In such cataclysmic circumstances, the subject of whether Islam can deliver the rule of law under the shari'ah is in the minds of millions of Muslims. After all, nobody wants to return to the repressive days of Mubarak, Ben Ali and Gaddafi. People want an accountable, transparent, fair and just authority.

This article explores how the Islamic shari'ah can realise the hopes and aspirations of the millions of protesters in the Arab spring by ensuring that the rule of law is established. This article surveys the illustrious Islamic history and highlights how Islamic rule guaranteed the rule of law many centuries before the Europeans even dreamt of such standards. It is argued that the rule of law in the Muslim world can only be instituted under Islamic rule.

Definition of the "rule of law"

Prior to launching into defining the rule of law, it is important that certain misconceptions are dispelled. One such fallacy is the argument by many Western politicians that the rule of law is the monopoly of Western secular democracy. [1] For example, Thomas Bingham, the former lord chief justice of the English courts said, "There has been much debate whether the rule of law can exist without democracy. Some have argued that it can". [2] Bingham's assumption is premised on an erroneous notion that good governance can only be the result of democracy.

The West has hitherto paraded democracy as the only system available to mankind but failed to convince the Muslim world that democracy is the panacea for all its ills. As Mark Welton quite aptly recognises, "Democracy... is a high-value term loaded with positive connotations for Americans and Europeans. But the same term, used so indiscriminately by Western politicians, is also widely perceived in the Arab Middle East as a codeword, a "guise for Western efforts to re-conquer Arab territories and plunder their natural resources". [3]

The Islamic legal and historical sources strongly rebut the suggestion that the rule of law is the sole possession of the West. As Welton elucidates, "...the concept embodied in the term "rule of law" is in fact a legal and political value shared by both the West and Islam, and if properly refined, can provide a useful framework for more effective discourse and understanding between these two traditions".

So what do we commonly understand by the principle of the rule of law? Let us look at Bingham's definition. Bingham asserts that under the rule of law "all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts". [4] Islam in principle has no objection to this definition insofar as this definition can manifest within the Islamic legal and political framework. [5]

The rule of law necessitates that law is accessible and clear so that citizens of a state are aware of the boundaries of the law, which they must obey. The rule of law also applies to government and guarantees certain basic rights such as presumption of innocence until proven guilty, not to be arbitrarily detained without due process and right to fair trial in an independent court. All the executive and judicial organs of a state must uphold the rule of law because nobody is above the law. [6]

Brief analysis of the system of governance in Islam

It is well known that the system of governance in Islam is the Khilafah (caliphate). This system is well rooted both in the Islamic shari'ah and the history of Islam. It is a system that is quite unlike the Western democratic paradigm. The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel; whenever a prophet died, another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no more prophet after me. There will soon be khulafah and they will number many. Fulfil the bayah [i.e. pledge of allegiance] to them one after another and give them their dues for Allah will verily account them about what He سبحانه وتعالى entrusted them with". [7]

The Khalifah is the guardian of the people and his task is to ensure that the shari'ah is implemented so that justice prevails. Allah says,

وَإِنْ حَكَمْتَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِالْقِسْطِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ

"And if you judge, judge with justice between them. Verily, Allah loves those who act justly". [8]

Under the Khilafah, there is no separate legislature because the power of legislation lay not in man but in the Creator of man. Allah says,

فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ

"So judge between them by what Allah has revealed..." [9]

Allah also says,

إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ

"The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allah". [10]

Sovereignty belongs to the laws of Allah, the shari'ah, not the people. It is the Khalifah who implements the shari'ah in the lands of Islam. As imam Abu'l Hasan al-Mawardi (died 450 AH) states, "Imamate is prescribed to succeed prophethood as a means of protecting the deen [Islam] and of managing the affairs of this world". [11]

The rule of law is therefore established on the basis of the shari'ah. As Welton states, "The Islamic world, too, has a devotion to the rule of law that has prevailed through much of its history and, while severely impaired in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by Western colonialism and its aftermath, has resurfaced as a desired virtue, fully compatible with Islamic law and tradition". [12]

How the shari'ah guarantees the rule of law

This section of the article seeks to illustrate what role the people, the Khalifah and the judiciary play in establishing the rule of law under shari'ah.

a) The people

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says,

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ۖ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ

"O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger". [13]

Allah has thus obliged Muslims to obey the ruler who rules by the shari'ah.

Moreover, the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "A Muslim is obliged to hear and obey whether he likes it or not, except when he is required to do something that is sinful, in which case, there is no obligation to hear or to obey". [14] Unlike democracies where obedience to the law of the land requires coercion by the state, Muslims historically lived by and obeyed the laws of Islam by and large without the need for coercion. This is because respect for and obedience to the laws of Islam is a matter of doctrinal and creedal obligation upon Muslims, which was the reason behind the success of the Khilafah. Thus, when Allah ordains upon Muslims to obey their rightful ruler, there is no option but to observe this command. This principle is well established in Islam from numerous ayat and ahadith.

b) The Khalifah

It is beyond the scope of this paper to elucidate the process of electing the Khalifah; however, it suffices to say that the majority of the classical scholars of Islam are unified on the view that the Khalifah assumes authority by approval and authority of the people. As imam al-Mawardi asserts, "...it is necessary for the electors to agree to his Imamate and that once agreed, it comes into effect because Imamate is a contractual agreement and it is not brought into being except by the contracting partner". [15] The post-colonial despotic rulers of the Muslim world are therefore an anomaly in the history of Muslims.

The first Khalifah of Islam, Abu Bakr (RA), in his inaugural address said, "O People, I have been appointed over you, though I am not the best among you. If I do well, then help me. And if I act wrongly, then correct me... If I disobey Allah and His Messenger, then I have no right to your obedience".

The second Khalifah of Islam, 'Umar bin al-Khattab (RA) enunciated the attributes required of a Khalifah, "By Allah, O Ibn 'Abbas, only the strong person without violence, the one who is gentle without being weak, the one who is economical but without being miserly, and the one who is generous without being wasteful is worthy of this affair". [16]

The above abundantly illustrate that the Khalifah (and thus his executive subordinates) is required to be mindful of his obligations to the people and the shari'ah. He cannot be above the law but rather is subject to the law like everyone else.

The Khalifah fulfils, amongst the myriad of other obligations, the following as part of his responsibilities. The Khalifah must:

1. guard and protect Islam and its way of life against external influences and ensure that innovations do not creep into the pure message of Islam;

2. establish justice where disputes arise between litigants so that the strong does not oppress the weak;

3. implement the Islamic hadd punishment (i.e. criminal laws) so that the prohibitions of Islam are not violated;

4. possess the appropriate defence capabilities in order to defend the territories of the Islamic state and its citizens against external attacks;

5. manage the fiscal affairs of the state and collect the taxes prescribed by the shari'ah e.g. kharaj, zakah, jizya and ushur etc;

6. manage the funds of the treasury (Bait-ul-Mal), invest in public projects he considers necessary without being wasteful and pay the public sector employees' salaries from the treasury; and

7. assume personal responsibility over the affairs of the people and execute the policies of the ummah without overreliance on delegation of authority.

Provided that the Khalifah conducts himself in accordance with the shari'ah as abovementioned, he would be deemed to have discharged his obligation to Allah and the people.

c) The judges

The Khilafah also has a strong judiciary which implements the laws of Islam, dispenses justice and keeps the executive accountable. Everybody under the shari'ah is equal before the law and judgment is pronounced without fear or favour. Principally, there are three types of judges in Islam: [17]

1. the Qadi settles disputes between people in private law matters and implements the penal codes;

2. the Muhtasib is responsible for dealing with communitywide issues that affect the public and wider society, e.g. unscrupulous traders who harm the wider public; and

3. the Mazaalim is responsible for investigating and settling the disputes between the ruler and the ruled. Essentially, this judge keeps the executive accountable and in checks.

When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was the head of the Islamic state in Medina, he was petitioned to intercede for a noble lady who had committed theft, but the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "The nations before [us] were destroyed because if a noble person committed theft, they used to leave him, but if a weak person amongst them committed theft, they used to inflict the legal punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, committed theft, Muhammad would cut off her hand!" [18]

This hadith illustrates that even if the Prophet's daughter had committed a crime, notwithstanding his position as the head of the Islamic state, he would have implemented the same criminal punishment upon his daughter without favour. Such approach is inimical to the rulers that litter the Muslim world today whereby the rulers, their families and their entourage enjoy unbridled favour and effectively operate above the law. This is a direct result of the absence of the shari'ah in the Muslim world.

There are detailed rules in Islam pertaining to the appointment of judges, the discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper. However, let us again invoke the words of the second Khalifah of Islam, 'Umar bin al-Khattab (RA) when he outlined the attributes a judge requires in an Islamic court. He said, "The task of the judiciary is an undisputed obligation and a sunnah to be followed. Seek to comprehend when people have recourse to you, for it is no use to speak of a right if it is not put into effect. See that your face, your justice and your sitting are the same between people, such that the lord does not hope for your partiality, nor the weak despair of your justice..." [19]

These words of wisdom essentially outline the justice one can expect to see under Islam. The Khalifah or the judiciary have no room to depart from this boundary and will be accounted by the people if any departure from the rule of law is apparent to the citizens. The Umayyad Khalifah 'Umar bin Abdul Aziz (RA) once said "Rulers usually appoint people to watch over their subjects. I appoint you as a watcher over me and my behaviour. If you find me at fault in word or action guide me and stop me from doing it".

The judiciary is principally responsible for accounting state officials, including the Khalifah and his governors, in cases of wrongdoings. [20] The remit of such judges is wide enough to serve the purpose. Imam al-Mawardi maintains that such persons have the authority to investigate abuse of power by rulers against the ruled, and to hold them to account for the injustice they may have inflicted. Such powers may be invoked by the judges irrespective of whether or not the citizens complain against the official concerned. [21]

During the early Umayyad era, there were some incidence of official misconduct whereby the citizens were deprived of the rights they were entitled to. However, these were not tolerable in Islam and thus Khalifah 'Umar bin Abdul Aziz (RA) instituted formal procedures to investigate wrongdoings by officials, to the extent that he returned the goods that were seized by members of his tribe to their rightful owners. In the sight of 'Umar members of his tribe were no different from the citizens of the Islamic state whose rights were violated. As imam al-Mawardi recorded in his treatise, "he would reject all such wrong doing and would maintain respect for just and fair practices or re-establish such practices if necessary". [22] This practice of accounting state officials for abuse of power was carried out, in varying degrees, during the Abbasid era, for example, under al-Mahdi, al-Hadi, ar-Rashid, al-Ma'mun and al-Muhtadi.

The history of Islam contains abundant examples where abuse of power by state officials were investigated and remedied by judges. Such a judge may, amongst other matters, deal with:

1. abuse by tax officials, e.g., if they miscalculate the tax due from individuals and overtax. In such cases, the judge would order the return of the amount due back to the individual who overpaid;

2. allegations of deficiency, delay or negligence towards the payment of salaries of state employees who receive their salaries from the treasury. In such circumstances, the judge concerned would investigate and rectify any errors and ensure that their salaries are paid in a timely manner;

3. the restitution of private property seized unlawfully by state officials, even if he was a governor. The judge is obliged to investigate such allegations of seizure of property and effect restitution after conducting his investigation; and

4. unlawful seizure of property by one powerful individual from another due to his weakness. Upon investigating such complaints, restitution will be effected in accordance with the judge's findings.

The rule of law deficit in the West

The West has over the past few decades lectured countries around the world to institutionalise democracy, the rule of law, justice and equality. However, the USA and the UK have been exposed in recent years for not practising what they preach. For example, both the USA and the UK have been systematically involved in practices such as "extraordinary rendition", torture of terror suspects, indefinite detention without charge, unjust treatment of foreign nationals and intrusive spying on Muslims. As one American academic commented,

"Virtually every significant government security initiative implicating civil liberties – including penalizing speech, ethnic profiling, guilt by association, the use of administrative measures to avoid the safeguards of the criminal process, and preventive detention – has originated in a measure targeted at noncitizens". [23]

Yet, this deficit of the rule of law is not just limited to the above. In June 2007, it emerged that Tony Blair had pulled the plug off a major fraud investigation by the Serious Fraud Office against the British arms manufacturer BAE Systems. It was reported that BAE secretly paid £1 billion to Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia as "secret commission", thus effectively bribing the Saudis to place the largest defence contract worth £43 billion, known as the al-Yamamah deal. [24] It was allegedly in Britain's "national interest" to terminate this SFO investigation, thus sacrificing the rule of law under the pretext of Britain's oft-quoted "national interest".

Similarly, on the eve of Bill Clinton's departure from office, he pardoned 140 convicted criminals/fugitives. Those pardoned included US billionaire Marc Rich, who was at living abroad to avoid prosecution by US authorities. It was alleged that Marc Rich made handsome donations to the Democrats to secure the pardon. [25] This "cash for pardon deal" scandal raised many doubts over America's hollow claims that the US upholds rule of law. Needless to say, examples of abuse of power are quite common in the 21st century Wild West.

Conclusion

The above discourse evidently illustrates that the shari'ah has put in place all the ingredients necessary for establishing the rule of law, which is much needed in today's turbulent Muslim world. History is testament to the fact that Islam had established an enviable civilisation under its rule. There is no reason why this cannot return. On the other hand, the tired and baseless suggestion that only democracy is the way forward for Muslims is hardly foolproof. Western politicians must wake up to the slogan in Tahrir Square, ash-shab yurid isqat an-nizam (the people want to bring down the regime).

References

[1] Lord Goldsmith QC, "Government and the Rule of Law in the Modern Age", lecture given on 22 February 2006 (former British Attorney-General)

[2] Thomas Bingham, the Sixth Sir David Williams Lecture (lecture given in 2006), p-35

[3] Mark David Welton, Islam, the West, and the Rule of Law, 19 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 169 (2007), p-172

[4] Bingham, p-5

[5] By deploying a common definition in this discourse vis-à-vis the rule of law, this paper is not intended to be an appeasement to the critics of Islam. To the contrary, Muslims advocating the shari'ah believe that Islam is inherently superior to any man-made systems because Islam originated from the Creator and not from the minds of weak men.

[6] This article excludes any discussion of a legislature because such a body is incompatible with the Islamic political and legal philosophy.

[7] Imam al-Nawawi, Riyad us Salihin (National Hijra Council, 1992), hadith no-657

[8] Qur'an: 5-42

[9] Qur'an: 5-48

[10] Qur'an: 12-40

[11] Abu'l Hasan al Mawardi, Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah (Ta-Ha Publications, London, 2005 reprint), p-10

[12] Welton, p-173

[13] Qur'an: 4-59

[14] Imam al-Nawawi, hadith no-664 (reported in Bukhari and Muslim)

[15] al-Mawardi, p-15-16

[16] ibid, p-21-22

[17] Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, the Ruling System in Islam (Nidham ul Hukm fil Islam) (Khilafah Publications, London), p-205

[18] Narrated in Bukhari and Muslim

[19] al-Mawardi, p-108

[20] This is comparable to the public law remedies that Western citizens often invoke against public authorities.

[21] al-Mawardi, p-121

[22] ibid, p-118

[23] Bingham, p-15

[24] The Guardian, 7 Jun 2007

[25] BBC News, 22 Feb 2001

the-islamic-khilafahthe-difference-between-the-sticking-to-principles-of-hizb-ut-tahrir-and-the-compromises-made-by-others

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 01:24:00 +0000

The newspaper 'Al-Masriyoon' published on 29/11/2011 the statements of the general guide (leader) of the 'Muslim Brotherhood' Dr Muhammad Badee' which he made in his weekly address when he said: "That the group was close to achieving its greater objective as specified by Imaam Hasan Al-Banna the founder of the group, and that is the establishment of the just and rightly guided ruling system, its institutions and elements which would comprise a government which would be followed by the rightly guided Khilafah and leadership of the world".

These statements stirred up outrage from the secularists in Egypt (those who have been battling to preserve the secular system in Egypt since the outset of the revolution on the 25th of January 2011 and who reject in a decisive manner any talk about there being an Islamic form of governance). As a result Dr Abdur Rahman Al-Barr (a member of the leadership council of the group) reacted to address what had resulted from the statements so he went about stripping away the content of the statements made by their leader in an attempt to please and satisfy the secularists and those who are behind them in terms of the western disbelieving states who have been frightened by the rise of the Islamic movement in Egypt and what has accompanied this rise in terms of calls being raised demanding the implementation of the rule by Islam via the Khilafah.

So Dr Al-Barr said according to what was published in the newspaper: 'Freedom and Justice' on the 05/01/2012: "The General Guide did not mean the Rightly guided Khilafah according to the traditional model where there exists a Khaleefah upon the head of the state who governs Wilaayahs (provinces) and other than that" but rather he meant: "That there would exist a unity between all of the Arab and Islamic states" considering the model presented in the organisation of Islamic co-operation and a model that can be developed and built upon!"

This is almost an exact repeat of what happened recently in Tunisia when Hamaadi Al-Jabaali (the number two in the Nahdah party) on the 13/11/2011 in the town of Souso talked about the coming of the sixth Khilafah which also provoked a wide debate in the Tunisian arena which led him to revise his words by being adamant that the words had been 'taken out of context' and added a message to reassure the opposing parties saying: "That the choice of the Nahdah party in terms of the ruling system is that it has chosen the democratic republican system which obtains its legitimacy from the people". And this speedy revision by Al-Jabaali of his statements opened the door for him to then become the forthcoming Prime Minister of Tunisia. This was followed by the statements from the head of the group Al-Ghanooshi who stated that Al-Jabaali would be the Tunisian Prime minister and not the head of the Othmani Khilafah.

And in the same light Doctor Rif'at As-Sa'eed wote on the web site: 'The poeple of Qur'aan' on the 07/01/2012 an article under the title: 'About the Khilafah and its delusions' in which he attempted in a manner lacking credibility to present a 'Sharee'ah understanding that negates the opinion that Islam has made the Khilafah its obligatory ystem of ruling. He used as evidence the views of Ash-Sharastaani, Al-Jarjaani, Al-Ghazaali and Al-Aamadi who said that the Khilafah is not part of the Usool (fundamentals) of the Aqaa'id (beliefs) as an argument to say that the Khilafah is not an obligation. And the Doctor is excused in this consideration of his because he is unable to distinguish between the subjects of Aqeedah (belief) and the subject of the Sharee'ah laws. So the proof for the obligation of the Khilafah is established upon the basis of the Sharee'ah rules in which the evidences from the Kitaab, Sunnah and Ijmaa' of the Sahaabah are many in number and firmly establish it as an obligation.

Therefore the place of the ruling in regards to the Khilafah is not within the realms of the subject of the Aqeedah. And I will now report what the Doctor himself reported from Al-Jarjaani in his book: 'Sharh Al-Mawaaqif' when he stated: "The Khilafah is not part of the fundamentals of the Diyaanaat and Aqaa'id but rather it is from the branches related to the actions of the Mukallafeen". This is because the Hukm Shar'i is the address of the legislator Subhaanahu related to the actions of the Mukallaf (legislatively responsible) servants whilst the Aqeedah is the decisive belief that is based on evidence and conforms to the reality.

And in relation to this Hizb-ut-Tahrir (whose name is synonymous in the Islamic arena with the Da'wah focused on the work to establish the Khilafah) has published a number of statements and leaflets which discuss the current situation in Egypt and have distributed these on a wide and challenging manner. The most recent was that which was issued on 06/01/2012 and it carried the title: "O People of Egypt: Is it necessary to experiment for more decades with a secular democratic state with an elected peoples assembly that holds no power or influence until you realise that the only way out for you is the establishment of the rightly guided Khilafah?!" and during the distribution of this leaflet to the people a group who had connections with the security services prevented its distribution pretending and claiming that they were from the Salafiyah whereas the true righteous Salafis are those who put the election of the Khaleefah as a priority over the burial of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم due to the greatness and gravity of the obligation. As for these, well, they prevented Ustaadh Ahmad Abu Daif a member of the Hizb from completing his distribution of a leaflet that was discussing the obligation of the Khilafah! And thereafter they handed him over to the police and then he was passed on to the prosecutors office which then cleared the way for his release and returned to him his leaflets.

And as a result of this incident which the newspapers described (falsely) as a violent confrontation between the Shabaab of the Hizb and some Salafis the satelite TV channel 'Dream 2' invited Ustaadh Muhammad Abdul Qawwiy the delegated founder of Hizb-ut-Tahrir in Egypt, Ustaadh Mahmoud At-Tarshooby and Ustaadh Ahmad Abu Daif (who had been involved in the incident) to attend the TV discussion show 'Al-Haqeeqah' which is presented by Ustaadh Waa'il Al-Ibraashi for a discussion which was meant to be between them alone so as to present an outline of the Hizb (its ideas and work etc...). And it seems that the subject of this episode changed overnight when the Shabaab of the Hizb were surprised by the appearance of additional previously unannounced guests who were invited in an attempt to undermine the idea of the Khilafah and provide a false image of the Hizb. They did this by inviting guests who were well known to reject the concept of Khilafah however their attempt and planning failed as the show resulted in producing a discussion within the Egyptian political arena and this was followed by a number of newspapers providing large spaces in their papers for articles containing information about Hizb-ut-Tahrir, its ideas and work.

When the TV programme introduced the show it read out a statement made by the ruling military council about Hizb-ut-Tahrir but they failed to read the response of the Hizb to this military statement which made clear that the Hizb is an international party that is working to unify the Muslim lands in the Islamic Khilafah state. However Al-Ibraashi (the host) neglected to mention this for some reason or another!

The guest Dr Abdur Raheem Ali used his turn to try and undermine the idea of Khilafah by stating that it is not Fard without presenting any Sharee'ah evidence to support his claim. Whereas the role of Dr Abdullah Bin Umar Abdur Rahman (May Allah free his father from the prisons of America, the land which leads the world in its war against the return of the Khilafah) was to focus on trying to give a false and misleading image of the Hizb by putting forward a number of fabrications and lies against the Hizb which he had extracted from a number of books which had been specifically written about the Hizb in the times of the past. The researcher carried these fabrications forward without scrutinizing their correctness and without evidence to support the claims. In particular he showed ignorance when he stated that we consider our Sheikh a Mujtahid Mutlaq whilst at the same time we say that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم was not a Mujtahid like our Sheikh. In doing so he made the issue a comparison between the capability of making Ijtihaad which is a strange and quite astonishing matter because how is it possible for him to interpret our statement: "It is not allowed in regards to the Messenger to be a Mujtahid" to mean that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم is not capable of performing Ijtihad whereas our Sheikh does have the capability?!

Dr Ibn Umar Abdur Rahman has confused the matter, whether this was out of ignorance or intentional. This is because Ijtihad allows the possibility of being wrong as well as being right and this is not permitted in relation to the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم who does not speak from his desire and does not say except what is correct. On the other hand it is permissible for our Sheikh and all Mujtahideen to perform Ijtihad and deduce rules which they believe to be correct whilst acknowledging the possibility of an error. He confused this issue making it a discussion comparing the capabilities in relation to the making Ijtihad so that the one listening would think that we have raised the level of our Sheikh higher than that of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم in regards to Ijtihad! How unfortunate this understanding would be.

Despite all of this there is no doubt that the Hizb benefited a great deal from this TV programme which participated in the breaking of the general blanketing that had been imposed upon the Hizb in Egypt previously. As such the news of the arrest of the Hizb member, his referal to the prosecuters office and his release after that was all mentioned within the news series whereas the arrest of 120 from Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2002 did not get nearly as much coverage despite its much greater significance and despite 24 of them being presented to the courts and handed down sentences ranging between one and five years.

Verily Hizb-ut-Tahrir has held on firmly to its idea which it calls for in an unrivalled manner, bearing on its path all kinds of hardship and harrasment from the security apparatus, patient and anticipating the reward not fearing the blame of the blamers for the sake of Allah. It has continued as such until its name has become tied to the Khilafah and the Khilafah has become tied to it and it will remain as such by the permission of Allah until it achieves its goals through the resumption of the Islamic way of life via the establishment of the rightly guided Khilafah which the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم gave glad tidings of its return after the oppressive and tyrannical rule. And this is at the time when we see other Islamic movements making compromises one after the other so that they can reach the seat of ruling, so we ask what compromises will they be willing to make so that they can stay in the position of ruling!?

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

قُلْ هَٰذِهِ سَبِيلِي أَدْعُو إِلَى اللَّهِ ۚ عَلَىٰ بَصِيرَةٍ أَنَا وَمَنِ اتَّبَعَنِي

"And say this is my way I call to Allah upon awareness. Me and those who follow me." [Yousef, 108]

Sharif Zayid

Head of the media office of Hizb-ut-Tahrir – Wilayah of Egypt

The above is a draft translation from Arabic.

Original article: http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/info/index.php/contents/entry_16025

Egypt parliament holds first session since revolution

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:57:00 +0000

MONDAY, 23 JANUARY 2012 17:39
AFP

By Jailan Zayan

Islamist MPs took centre stage on Monday as Egypt's parliament met for the first time since a popular uprising ousted Hosni Mubarak, while their supporters massed outside to cheer the historic event.

A year after the uprising, many Egyptians see the new parliament as the first sign of democratic rule, in sharp contrast to the previous legislature dominated by Mubarak's party.

Egypt's first free parliamentary elections, which were held in phases between November and early January, saw Islamists clinch nearly three-quarters of the seats.

Outside the People's Assembly, hundreds of Islamist supporters had greeted the MPs as they entered the parliament, in scenes unimaginable just a year ago when most Islamist movements were banned.

And in their first act, the deputies in the lower house began voting for a speaker, with leading Muslim Brotherhood member Saad al-Katatni expected to win.

But the exact role of parliament remains unclear, with power remaining in the hands of the generals who took power from former president Mubarak.

"How can we read this oath when we don't even know if we will be a presidential system or a parliamentary system?" one MP asked during the swearing in.

Later, protesters set off for parliament from across Cairo to press deputies to implement the goals of the revolution, including an end to military trials of civilians, social justice and the trial of officials found guilty of abuse.

They were to join hundreds who were already chanting outside the parliament against the ruling military council and its chief Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, who served as Mubarak's defence minister for two decades.

The military has come under intense criticism in recent months for rights abuses and stifling dissent.

Activists accuse the generals of seeking to maintain political control despite assurances by the army that it will cede power to civilian rule when a president is elected in June.

The packed and sometimes chaotic first session was chaired by parliament's most senior member, Mahmud al-Saqqa of the liberal Wafd party.

The deputies were sworn in one by one, pledging to "preserve the safety of the nation and the interests of people and to respect the constitution and the law."

In a sign of the Islamists' increasing assertiveness, one ultra-conservative Islamist MP insisted on adding a religious reference to the oath.

When lawyer Mamduh Ismail took the microphone vowing to also "abide by the law of God," he was sharply rebuked by the chair, Saqqa.

"Please stick to the text," an angry Saqqa urged Ismail, asking him to repeat the oath several times. "Mr Ismail, my friend, please stand up and read the oath, and stick to the text."

Others tried to add "to protect the goals of the revolution" to the oath and received a similar rebuke, during the animated first session which saw several deputies don yellow sashes calling for "an end to military trials of civilians."

The long-banned Muslim Brotherhood won a crushing victory with 47.18 percent through its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party.

The ultra-conservative Salafist Al-Nur party came second with 24.29 percent, with the liberal Wafd party finishing a distant third.

The liberal Egyptian Bloc -- which includes the Free Egyptians party of telecom magnate Naguib Sawiris who faces trial on allegations of insulting Islam -- came fourth with around seven percent.

The 508-member assembly was dissolved in February by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces that took power when Mubarak was forced to step down.

The Brotherhood, Egypt's best organised political grouping, had been widely expected to triumph in the polls but the surge by Al-Nur and high visibility of Salafi movements have raised fears about civil liberties and religious freedom.

Elections for parliament's upper house, the Shura Council, are to begin later this month and end in February. Then the two chambers will choose a 100-member panel to draft a new constitution.

Exclusive: How Pakistan helps the U.S. drone campaign

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:53:00 +0000

SUNDAY, 22 JANUARY 2012 19:02
Reuters

By Chris Allbritton

ISLAMABAD

(Reuters) - The death of a senior al Qaeda leader in a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan's tribal badlands, the first strike in almost two months, signaled that the U.S.-Pakistan intelligence partnership is still in operation despite political tensions.

The Jan 10 strike -- and its follow-up two days later -- were joint operations, a Pakistani security source based in the tribal areas told Reuters.

They made use of Pakistani "spotters" on the ground and demonstrated a level of coordination that both sides have sought to downplay since tensions erupted in January 2011 with the killing of two Pakistanis by a CIA contractor in Lahore.

"Our working relationship is a bit different from our political relationship," the source told Reuters, requesting anonymity. "It's more productive."

U.S. and Pakistani sources told Reuters that the target of the Jan 10 attack was Aslam Awan, a Pakistani national from Abbottabad, the town where Osama bin Laden was killed last May by a U.S. commando team.

They said he was targeted in a strike by a U.S.-operated drone directed at what news reports said was a compound near the town of Miranshah in the border province of North Waziristan.

That strike broke an undeclared eight-week hiatus in attacks by the armed, unmanned drones that patrol the tribal areas and are a key weapon in U.S. President Barack Obama's counter-terrorism strategy.

The sources described Awan, also known by the nom-de-guerre Abdullah Khorasani, as a significant figure in the remaining core leadership of al Qaeda, which U.S. officials say has been sharply reduced by the drone campaign. Most of the drone attacks are conducted as part of a clandestine CIA operation.

The Pakistani source, who helped target Awan, could not confirm that he was killed, but the U.S. official said he was. European officials said Awan had spent time in London and had ties to British extremists before returning to Pakistan.

The source, who says he runs a network of spotters primarily in North and South Waziristan, described for the first time how U.S.-Pakistani cooperation on strikes works, with his Pakistani agents keeping close tabs on suspected militants and building a pattern of their movements and associations.

"We run a network of human intelligence sources," he said. "Separately, we monitor their cell and satellite phones.

"Thirdly, we run joint monitoring operations with our U.S. and UK friends," he added, noting that cooperation with British intelligence was also extensive.

Pakistani and U.S. intelligence officers, using their own sources, hash out a joint "priority of targets lists" in regular face-to-face meetings, he said.

"Al Qaeda is our top priority," he said.

He declined to say where the meetings take place.

Once a target is identified and "marked," his network coordinates with drone operators on the U.S. side. He said the United States bases drones outside Kabul, likely at Bagram airfield about 25 miles north of the capital.

From spotting to firing a missile "hardly takes about two to three hours," he said.

DRONE STRIKES A SORE POINT WITH PAKISTAN

It was impossible to verify the source's claims and American experts, who decline to discuss the drone program, say the Pakistanis' cooperation has been less helpful in the past.

U.S. officials have complained that when information on drone strikes was shared with the Pakistanis beforehand, the targets were often tipped off, allowing them to escape.

Drone strikes have been a sore point with the public and Pakistani politicians, who describe them as violations of sovereignty that produce unacceptable civilian casualties.

The last strike before January had been on Nov 16, 10 days before 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed in what NATO says was an inadvertent cross-border attack on a Pakistani border post.

That incident sent U.S.-Pakistan relations into the deepest crisis since Islamabad joined the U.S.-led war on militancy following the Sept 11, 2001 attacks. On Thursday, Pakistani foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar said ties were "on hold" while Pakistan completes a review of the alliance.

The United States sees Pakistan as critical to its efforts to wind down the war in Afghanistan, where U.S.-led NATO forces are battling a Taliban insurgency.

Some U.S. and Pakistani officials say that both sides are trying to improve ties. As part of this process, a U.S. official said, it is possible that some permanent changes could be made in the drone program which could slow the pace of attacks.

The security source said very few innocent people had been killed in the strikes. When a militant takes shelter in a house or compound which is then bombed, "the ones who are harboring him, they are equally responsible," he said.

"When they stay at a host house, they (the hosts) obviously have sympathies for these guys."

He denied that Pakistan helped target civilians.

"If ... others say innocents have been targeted, it's not true," he said. "We never target civilians or innocents."

The New America Foundation policy institute says that of 283 reported strikes from 2004 to Nov 16, 2011, between 1,717 and 2,680 people were killed. Between 293 and 471 were thought to be civilians -- approximately 17 percent of those killed.

The Brookings Institution, however, says civilian deaths are high, reporting in 2009 that "for every militant killed, 10 or more civilians also died." Pakistan's interior minister, Rehman Malik, also said in April 2011 that "the majority of victims are innocent civilians."

Still, despite its public stance, Pakistan has quietly supported the drone program since Obama ramped up air strikes when he took office in 2009 and even asked for more flights.

According to a U.S. State Department cable published by anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks, Pakistan's chief of army staff General Ashfaq Kayani in February 2008 asked Admiral William J. Fallon, then-commander of U.S. Central Command, for increased surveillance and round-the-clock drone coverage over North and South Waziristan.

The security source said Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, also was supportive of the strikes, albeit privately.

(Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball in Washington; Editing by Ron Popeski)

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:32:00 +0000

Palestine – Central To The Arab Uprisings And Islamic Awakenings

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:04:00 +0000

Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 |Posted by Noor

There was an unmistakable hint of triumph in the comments made by Ismail Haniyeh, prime minister of the elected Hamas government in Gaza when he was hosted by Mohammed Badie, chairman of the Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

Both leaders said what would be expected of them under these circumstances. Haniyeh asserted that his movement’s “presence with the Brotherhood threatens the Israeli entity,” and Badie reaffirmed the Brotherhood’s commitment to “issues of liberation, foremost the Palestinian issue.”

It is very telling that Haniyeh’s first official visit outside Gaza as prime minister was to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood headquarters in Cairo’s Moqattam district. He shared his message — of resistance against Israeli occupation, national unity with rival Fatah and reaching out to Muslim countries — and then resumed his regional tour.

Since 2006, Hamas has attempted, but largely failed to win the approval of governments in Muslim-majority countries. Muslim solidarity was the thrust of Hamas’ foreign policy aimed at lessening Palestinian political and financial dependence on the US and other Western governments. It failed because, as it turned out, US financial and political leverage is too overpowering and far-reaching for a relatively small movement like Hamas to single handedly challenge. But, as Haniyeh himself reiterated, times are changing

In the first and second rounds of Egyptian elections, the Brotherhood’s newly created Freedom and Justice party won more than 35 percent of the vote. The electoral success was hardly an anomaly. The Islamic Nahda party, which formed the first post-revolutionary government in Tunisia, won more than 40 percent of the vote last October. Morocco’s Justice and Development party won the November elections and the Islamic leaning of Libya’s new political set up is all too palpable. There have been marks of Islamic political influence in other countries across the region.

The reformation of the political landscape in the Arab region has tempted many to infer polarizing, if not frightening conclusions. Israeli Army Home Front Command Chief Maj. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg was one of the first in Israel to refer to these developments as an Arab Spring turning into a “radical Islamic winter”. He said, “This leads us to the conclusion that through a long-term process, the likelihood of an all-out war is increasingly growing.”

However, what truly worries Israel is not the radicalization of Muslim societies, but the rise of Islamic politics to represent a rational, mainstream political discourse. It threatens Israel because it rallies many Arabs around one cohesive political agenda, and repositions Palestine, once more, as central to what many Muslim intellectuals refer to as the “Islamic Awakening.”

Israeli fear mongering aside, the US — Israel’s main benefactor — must find ways to co-exist with the new political arrangement. Other Western governments too “will have to adapt to a power shift they have long sought to prevent,” wrote Roula Khalaf and Heba Saleh in the Financial Times (Dec. 28).

For Israel, however, the transformation in regional politics will prove unbearable. It is not Tunisia’s Nahda party that Israel is most concerned about, of course; it is Hamas. This is partly what compelled Haniyeh to venture out of Gaza. As the US is hoping to control, if not manage, the rise of Islamic parties, Hamas aims at ensuring a primary position for Palestine — as seen through the prism of the Islamic movement — in the region’s new political landscape.

There is little doubt that Hamas’ rise to political prominence in 2006, and the numerous subsequent attempts at isolating and destroying it will influence new Islamic parties in various Arab countries. Hamas’ ability to survive has certainly registered among new Muslim politicians in Egypt and elsewhere. Now, with the early fruits of the Egyptian revolution being plucked by Islamic parties, Hamas is guardedly making its move. Hamas is a “jihadi movement of the Brotherhood with a Palestinian face,” said Haniyeh in Cairo.

A quick look at the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine shows that Haniyeh was hardly exaggerating. Since the Society of the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Ismailiyya, Egypt, in 1928 by Hasan Al-Banna and a few others, it quickly found in Palestine a rally cry to unite Muslims through the entire region. The first link between the movement and Palestine was formed in 1935, when Abd Al-Rahman Al-Banna (the founder’s brother) visited Palestine and met with the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husseini.

The Brotherhood became visible during the revolt of 1936, as they communicated the Palestinian message with an Islamic tone to the rest of the Arab world. The cause of Palestine promptly became the central mission and calling of the Brotherhood, as Hasan Al-Banna himself headed the newly founded General Central Committee to Aid Palestine.

More, in April 1948, when most Arab governments delayed in partaking in the defense of Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood deployed three battalions of volunteers.

Estimates of the number of Brotherhood volunteers in Palestine during the war and the subsequent Nakba vary, but Hasan Al-Banna himself noted, in March 1948, that the movement had approximately 1,500 volunteers in Palestine.

The relationship between the Brotherhood and Palestine had it ebbs and flows, but the rapport was never completely severed. Even before Hamas was officially established 1987, the movement functioned under various classifications, all directly affiliated with Egypt’s Brotherhood.

The recent Cairo meeting between Haniyeh and Badie could be understood within that historical context, representing a triumphant reunion and possibly open coordination. This would once again rejuvenate the Brotherhood’s Palestine connection, and grant Hamas greater political leverage — after years of isolation, and despite the current political turmoil in the region.

Of course, Hamas’ challenges are many and growing. Leading among them is Israel’s violent escalation in Gaza, and the unremitting US pressure. Still, it is expected that Hamas’ political message and outlook will continue to find balance between Palestinian exceptionality and the more inclusive Arab and Islamic framework.

By venturing out of Gaza, Haniyeh is hoping to expand the diameters of the Palestinian Islamic movement into Egypt and beyond — thus reclaiming what Hamas once considered “the strategic depth” of the Palestinian cause. While such a push failed to attain its objectives in 2006, 2012 is a brand new year.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London).

source : newcivilisation

The Hype of Erdogan’s Heroism and His Claim of Secularism’s Compatibility with Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:38:00 +0000

JANUARY 2, 2012

The evidence of the thirst in the Muslim world for a sincere Islamic leadership can be understood by the fact that even a little gesture of concern regarding the Muslim Ummah is enough to make people regard a leadership as sincere, Islamic and the representative - in any section of the Muslim world. AKP’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s myth of heroism is similar in this regard.

The positive regard for Recep Tayyip Erdogan can be comprehended in a way that not only the Muslims in general but even the leaders of some religious organisations are also seen praising him merely for his gestures and words. The leader of Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Qazi Hussain Ahmed in a visit to Turkey praised Recep Tayyip Erdogan as a true spokesman of the Muslim Ummah. Similarly, Hamas, a Palestinian group, praised Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s anger over Israel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. However, the Israeli official says that the relationship between the two countries would not be affected but the relations with Erdogan would become adverse. This means the tension between the two entities was only limited to verbal claims.

It is not new that rulers in the Muslim world exploit Islam to fulfil their political desires or appease the motives of foreign powers. It is due to the fact that Muslims are inert to offer any leadership to a personality who is alien to Islam. Pervaiz Musharraf also exploited the treaty of Hudaibiya when making a U-turn regarding the Taliban [in Afghanistan]. However, unlike the treaty of Hudaibiya, Pervez Musharraf unconditionally supported the US without any time frame. Foreign concepts of interest based banking are beautifully wrapped with Islamic banking labels. Similarly, when concepts of socialism are given to the Muslim masses, the term Islamic socialism was coined for it. This actually proves that people in the Muslim world want Islam and therefore these foreign ideas need a wrapping of Islam in order to be embraced in the Muslim world.

However, Islam is meant to be implemented as a whole system of life, Pickthall translated the verse of Quran chapter 5 verses 49 as: ‘So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee. And if they turn away, then know that Allah’s will is to smite them for some sin of theirs. Lo! Many of mankind are evil-livers.’

In these definite and categorical verses of the Holy Quran, Allah Almighty has explicitly described the system of life for Muslims as Islam alone and there is no acceptability of any desire or contamination of even the smallest part of Islam with some contradictory concept.

In this verse, it is not only the contamination of Islam with an alien idea that is forbidden but the Prophet (peace be upon him) is also directed to be aware of the evil desires of the natives clashing with the law of Allah (swt). As this ordinance is not exclusive to the Prophet (peace be upon him), therefore the verdict is applicable to Muslims in general. Hence before blindly following someone as an Islamic leadership, it is necessary for us to evaluate him on the real grounds of Islam.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan had many times made it clear that his party does not have an Islamic agenda. When he became the leader, he declared that “AK Party is not a political party with a religious axis.” Similarly he categorically exclaimed his alignment with the liberal democratic doctrine as ”We’ll start working on a new constitution right away to support democracy and freedoms,” This clearly demonstrates the fact that Erdogan in his own words has a liberal, democratic and secular agenda. Yet, some Muslim groups still advocate them as being heroic.

Practically, Turkey is still a parliamentary democracy, founded on the source of law on the majority ruling of five hundred and fifty members of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, and not the Quran and traditions of the Prophet (peace be upon Him). Moreover, under the AKP government in April 2010 the first nudist beach in Turkey was approved. Apart from this, wine, night clubs, prostitution and many other forbidden activities are officially permitted in Turkey. People in the Muslim world, especially those who are ideologically weak, try to stress that the AKP be given more time and that they will ensure heroism and Islamism.

Recently Erdogan made it crystal clear that he advocates secularism. Although, the Muslim Brotherhood initially gave an overwhelming welcome to Erdogan in Cairo but on the crystal clear statement of Erdogan aligning with the secular agenda that they then criticized Erdogan for advocating secularism. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on a visit to Egypt called on Egyptians to take on a secular constitution, noting that secularism does not mean renouncing religion. He said; “Do not be wary of secularism. I hope there will be a secular state in Egypt,” Erdogan stressed that secularism is not against religion.

There are several leaders and orators in the Muslim world, who advocate secularism and try to present it as compatible with Islam. The question is do they really know secularism? Or are they playing with the emotions and values of the people?

George Jacob Holyoake, the inventor of the word “secularism,” defined secularism in real terms in his book English Secularism: ‘Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable.’ Now should we consider the one who brought the idea of secularism first? Or are these pseudo intellectuals and rulers in the Muslim world who are still not aware of their own direction? Or if they are aware, then the question is do they find Islam indefinite, inadequate, unreliable and unbelievable??

Naveed Butt

Official Spokesman Hizb ut-Tahrir Pakistan

Hizb ut Tahrir Egypt Spokesman explains Khilafah on TV: January 2012

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:33:00 +0000

JANUARY 11, 2012

Sheikh Muhammad Abdul Qawwiy, Hizb ut Tahrir Egypt gives a glimpse into the now open presence of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Eygpt following Mubarak’s removal. He studied Shariah at Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.

Forbidden Islam: British courts bans “political” Islam in move to McCarthyism

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:38:00 +0000

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 | Posted by Noor

Sayyid Qutb

The British State has been attempting to develop a version of Islam that is subservient to a secular ideology, ever since the Rushdie affair. This version of Islam has been widely described as “moderate” Islam in the media. The State has also been grooming individuals and organisations whom it would deal with as representatives of “moderate” Islam (moderate Islam for them being Islam without politics and ideas of governance).
This policy of reforming Islam was pursued more aggressively after 911 and the advent of the so-called war on terror. In fact, the War on Terror was little more than a cover for preventing the rise of Islamic self-determination in the Muslim world. The British Home Office began sponsoring new “moderate” Muslim groups to counter the ones they had previously promoted which were now considered too “extremist”. It also started to float the notion that Sufi Islam (the entirely spiritual type) was genuine Islam. The ideas of a reformed or moderate Islam became enshrined in the Governments Prevent Strategy. Prevent was the first policy in recent history that targeted all aspects of the life of an entire community, ostensibly to prevent violence, but the hidden agenda was to outlaw certain beliefs and ideas within Islam. This would allow the State version of Islam to be promoted freely and unchallenged. The Governments recent iteration of the Prevent Strategy published early this year, makes it clear that the policy is about unacceptable ideas, which include talk of implementing Sharia, even in the Muslim world.
Along with Prevent, new terrorism laws were enacted. Their remit was so wide that they incorporated not just acts of violence and their preparation, but also allowed for the prosecution of ideas, beliefs, thoughts and their promotion (Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006).
Having prosecuted or marginalised some preachers, created new groups to tow the line, attempted to outlaw some Muslim groups, withdrawn funding for those groups who it was alleged hold the wrong version of Islam; what remained was to outlaw certain ideas and ban the materials in which they were contained. This would then allow for an unchallenged promotion of “moderate “Islam and reduce the space for promotion of what Neo –con writers call “political” Islam. Of course the British State could not pursue a direct ban on books. Instead, in this next phase on the war on Islamic ideas, it has chosen to pursue a back door policy of effectively banning books using terrorism laws and the courts.
In recent cases, British courts have ruled that certain books and videos are terrorist material, effectively banning them and classing the ideas contained within them as not being genuine Islam. On the 13thDecember, a Birmingham bookseller (in Regina vs Faraz ), was sentenced to three years, for publishing and distributing a number of books and DVD’s classed as terrorist material ( using the opinions of an expert Muslim witness whose own ideology was clearly different to that of the authors in question, and hence his opinion was a difference of thought , not expertise ). This trial clearly shows that the next phase of the battle to create a compliant Islam is now being played out in British courts.
The books being judged and sold by Faraz inlcuded Milestones by Sayyid Qutb, and a number of writings by Sheikh Abdullah Azzam , Hassan al Banna and others. These were written in a different era, and for different conflict situations, yet judgements were made on them in Britain 2011. The prosecution case, the “expert” testimony and the Judges summing up, all point to the fact that it was not Faraz who was on trial but Qutb, Abdullah Azzam and the ideas and thoughts in the books; and whether or not they constituted legitimate Islam as defined by the states prosecution and “expert “. Having established that the books on trial represented an erroneous interpretation of Islam, Faraz as was bound to be found guilty. His crime was to be a publisher and bookseller of the books and hence to be associated with them, and by implication an adherent of the “erroneous “ideas and thoughts in the books now defined as “terrorist”. Therefore we have had the ludicrous situation where a British Court has been debating at length the legitimacy of the ideas of Syed Qutb, Abdullah Azzam, Hassan al Banna, Ibn Taymiyyah; and whether they had correctly interpreted verses of the Quran. And we have had the absurdity of a British Jury and Judge passing judgment on what is and isn’t legitimate Islamic thought and ideas.
The underlying conclusion appears to be that certain religious and political ideas are a threat to a secular British State and to be outlawed. It appears that the trial is history repeating itself. In 1964 when the first Arabic edition of Milestones was published in Cairo, its ideas were considered so dangerous that it was treated as a threat to national security. The nationalist and secularist Nasser banned the book, had it confiscated from libraries, bookstores and homes. Owners of the book were jailed, and every book was ordered to be burned by the military. Seyd Qutb himself, paid the ultimate price for publishing the book, he was hanged in 1966.
What made Milestones (Ma’alim fi’l-tareeq ) so “dangerous” was not a threat of violence but the ideas in it. It was a manifesto for Islamic Governance and for the implementation of Sharia in all aspects of life. Qutb had been the key ideologue and editor of the Muslim Brotherhood’s weekly newspaper Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin. The Muslim Brotherhood, had initially supported Nasser and the Free Officers movement in overthrowing the monarchy, a slave to Britain. In return they mistakenly reached an understanding that Nasser would allow the formation of an Islamic Government. Nasser however, concluded that his secular nationalist ideology was incompatible with Islam and turned on the Brotherhood. So began a repressive campaign by the military against the Brotherhood and the Egyptian people, that was to last until this year. Today, the Muslim Brotherhood has again done a deal with a nationalist and secularist military in return for a promise of power whilst many Egyptians demand a revolution and overthrow of the system. Once again they hope they can introduce Islam via a nationalist /secularist ruling system. Only time will tell if they have made the same miscalculation as they did back then.
In the Arab and Muslim world the “Arab Spring” has bought to the fore discussion of the role of Sharia and the introduction of Islamic ideals of politics and governance. Whilst in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and elsewhere it is clear that Islamic Governance will be the future, the British State appears to have adopted the role of Nasser and dictatorships in the Muslim world, in using the courts to effectively outlaw Milestones and eliminate “political Islam”. Today its Milestones, tomorrow the British courts could rule on the works of Hassan al Banna, Madudi, Khomeini and anyone else who talks of Islamic Government and Jihad.
What Nasser and those that followed him did not realise is that you can lock someone up or kill the individual, ban their books, but you cannot kill or prevent the rise of ideas. After Qutb’s death his ideas spread like wildfire throughout the Arab and Muslim World, and Islamic Movements. The books classed as tier 3 (terrorist) materials in yesterdays Faraz case have been confiscated by the State and will now be destroyed. The British Government seems also not to realise that you can destroy books but cannot kill ideas. The Islam and ideas that they are trying to de- legitimize are the future of the Muslim world and naturally Muslims in Britain will embrace them too. The Terrorism Laws will one day be history and stand as testimony to Britain’s role in attempting to prevent the rise of Islam in the Muslim world. In the Meantime Muslims in Britain will have to get used to Muslim political prisoners in their midst.
Jahangir Mohammed is the Director Centre for Muslim Affairs and adviser to Cageprisoners, and can be reached at cenmua@gmail.com
source : newcivilisation

US DOUBLE STANDARD: GADDAFI BAD, KARIMOV GOOD

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:36:00 +0000

Sunday, December 11th, 2011 | Posted by Admin

Uzbek President I. Karimov. Karimov's people terrorize citizens with random raids, murders and countless checkpoints where motorists are shaken down.
TASHKENT, December 7 — The US shows its hypocrisy by accusing “tyrants” of human rights abuses while not owning up to supporting dictators. “After four decades of brutal dictatorship and eight months of deadly conflict, the Libyan people can now celebrate their freedom and the beginning of a new era of promise,” President Obama said at the end of October.
The capture and death of Muammar Gaddafi prompted him and other US officials to congratulate the Libyan people on their liberation from a despot accused of terrible violations of human rights, including the 1996 massacre of more than 1200 prison inmates.
The kudos was as much for the US itself as Libya’s victorious Transitional National Council. After all, the United States played a decisive role in Gaddafi’s death. First President Obama put together the NATO coalition that served as the Benghazi-based rebels’ loaned air force. When the bombing campaign was announced in February, Gaddafi’s suppression of the human rights of protesting rebels was front and centre: “The United States also strongly supports the universal rights of the Libyan people,” Obama said at that time. “That includes the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. They are not negotiable. They must be respected in every country. And they cannot be denied through violence or suppression.” (No word on how police firing rubber bullets at unarmed, peaceful protesters at the Occupy movement in Oakland, California, fits into that.)

Tortured Uzbek Political Prisoner- Apparently a regular sight in Uzbekistan against political activists for Islam
And in the end, it was reportedly a Hellfire missile fired by a Predator drone plane controlled by the CIA – in conjunction with an attack by a French fighter jet – that destroyed the convoy of cars Gaddafi and his entourage used to try to escape the siege of Sirte, driving him into the famous drainage pipe and into the hands of his tormentors and executioners. US officials and media reports were right about Gaddafi’s human rights record: It was atrocious. They cautioned the incoming TNC to make human rights a priority: “The Libyan authorities should also continue living up to their commitments to respect human rights, begin a national reconciliation process, secure weapons and dangerous materials, and bring together armed groups under a unified civilian leadership,” Obama said. (No word on how Gaddafi’s execution fits in to that.) Hypocrisy reigns Yet, in the very same week, the United States was cozying up to another long-time dictator – one whose style, brutal treatment of prisoners, and notorious massacre of political dissidents is highly reminiscent of the deposed Libyan tyrant.
Like a business that maintains two sets of records, one for the tax inspector and the other containing the truth, the United States has two different foreign policies. Its constitution, laws and treaty obligations prohibit torture, assassinations, and holding prisoners without trial. In reality there are secret prisons such as Guantánamo. Similarly, there are two sets of ethical standards in America’s dealing with other countries. Enemies are held to the strictest standards. Allies get a pass. This double standard is the number-one cause of anti-Americanism in the world.
Hypocrisy reigns
In yet another display that exposes US foreign policy on human rights as hypocritical and self-serving, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Uzbekistan to establish closer ties with the Central Asian republic’s president-for-life, Islam Karimov. Even as her State Department was ballyhooing the bloody conclusion of Gaddafi’s 42-year reign as a victory for freedom and decency, the former First Lady was engaged in the cynical Cold War-style of one of the worst human rights abusers in the world.
In the human rights brief on Karimov, one major highlight is Central Asia’s Tiananmen Square, the 2005 massacre of between 750 and 1250 peaceful demonstrators at Andijan, a southern town along the restive border with Kyrgyzstan, near the ancient Ferghana Valley. Karimov personally ordered Uzbek militia, Interior Ministry troops and regular army units to surround a square and gun down the protesters, then travelled to the site in order to witness the carnage. A few dozen people managed to escape, scrambling across a border crossing. Shocked Kyrgyz sentries, who had a view of the killing orgy, admitted the refugees. Uzbek troops chased the escapees into Kyrgyzstan, dragged them back and executed them on the Uzbek side of the bridge.
Prior to Andijan, the Clinton and Bush Administrations had a cozy relationship with Karimov, overlooking such untidy matters as the Uzbek leader’s habit of boiling political dissidents to death (more on that later), in light of the perceived high strategic value of his country. Uzbekistan has huge energy reserves and a unique placement. (Uzbekistan is the only state in Central Asia that borders all the others. It also borders Afghanistan. In 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan via the Uzbek town of Termiz.) Tashkent is the region’s biggest city, complete with its own metro system, European-standard international airport and daily nonstop flights to New York-infrastructure that became invaluable after America’s 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. US and NATO paid Karimov for the right to build airbases.
After Andijan, the US gave into pressure by international human rights organisations to pull back. Covert aid continued, however. The airbases, including one known as Karshi-Khanabad (K2) were technically “closed” (though the personnel and activities continued). In late 2005 the US imposed low-grade trade sanctions.
That’s all in the past now. In September 2011 Secretary Clinton lifted the sanctions, saying that the Karimov regime was “showing signs of improving its human rights record and expanding political freedoms”. As a goodwill gesture in advance of Clinton’s trip last week, Uzbek authorities released Norboi Kholjigitov, a human rights advocate jailed since 2005 on charges widely believed to have been politically motivated. Kholjigitov is said to be near death after years of abuse in prison.
One step forward, two steps back. One week before Clinton’s arrival an Uzbek court found BBC journalist Urunboy Usmonov guilty of conspiring with Hizb ut Tahrir, an Islamist group that serves as an all-purpose national bugaboo (along with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, a Tajik-based organisation with alleged links to the Afghan Taliban). The specific charge: “Failing to report on Hizb’s activities.” Usmonov received a three-year suspended sentence. He claimed to have been beaten and tortured in prison. The same day, newspaper reporter Makhmadyusuf Ismoilov, in jail since late last year for “insult and defamation” of Karimov, was subjected to a large fine and banned from journalism. In Tashkent, a US State Department official described Karimov’s most outrageous excesses as “a thing of the past”. In this case, the past isn’t merely prologue – it’s ongoing.
According to a 2010 report by Human Rights Watch:
“New research by Human Rights Watch reveals that the Uzbek government continues to intimidate and harass the families of Andijan survivors who have sought refuge abroad. The police regularly summon them for questioning, subject them to constant surveillance, and threaten to bring criminal charges against them or confiscate their homes. School officials humiliate refugees’ children. Five years after the massacre, on May 13, 2005, people suspected of having participated in or witnessed the massacre are still being detained, beaten, and threatened. The sentencing on April 30 of Diloram Abdukodirova, an Andijan refugee who returned to Uzbekistan in January, to ten years and two months in prison, shows the lengths to which the government will go to persecute anyone it perceives as linked to the Andijan events.” These Soviet-style persections did not prevent President Obama from personally calling Karimov last month on the
occasion of Uzbekistan’s 20th year of independence.
Karimov is one of three Central Asian strongmen (along with Emomali Rahmon of Tajikistan and Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan) who have retained absolute power since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. He presides over an autocracy whose level of corruption and dysfunction is staggering – even by dismal regional standards. All media is state-controlled. Opposition parties are banned. With substantial reserves from the Caspian Sea oil bonanza and by some measures the world’s largest reserves of natural gas, Uzbekistan has the means to provide a comfortable living for all of its citizens. However, a tiny coterie of businessmen connected to the regime diverts nearly all of the proceeds of the nation’s patrimony to numbered accounts overseas, leaving most of the population unemployed and in abject poverty.
Local militia (military police) are unpaid. So they pay themselves. They terrorize citizens with random raids, murders and countless checkpoints where motorists are shaken down. While arriving to visit a friend in the Uzbek capital of Tashkent a couple of years ago, I observed a dead body on the curb of the road in front of his apartment building. The man had been struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver several days earlier. His body was in a state of advanced decomposition in the 120-degree heat, but no one had called the cops. No one dared.
New strategy
As noted above, there are many reasons for the US to coddle the Uzbek dictator. But President Obama is especially focused on one. “The object of Obama’s interest is the ‘Northern Distribution Network, the Central Asian roads over which diesel and other US military supplies now increasingly travel [into Afghanistan],” writes Russell Zanca in Foreign Policy. “The administration is correct in thinking that NDN, as it is known for short, will run more smoothly through secular Uzbekistan than supplies have moved through Pakistan. But a question for practitioners of realpolitik is why the US considers it necessary to validate the unpopular Uzbek leadership now that it is politically expedient to do so.” It also prompts another question. The US is scheduled to withdraw from Afghanistan by 2014. If they’re really leaving, why do they care so much about the NCN? Is a soon-to-be abandoned supply route worth dealing with a man like Karimov?
The dichotomous US approaches to Gaddafi and Karimov – kill one, pay millions to the other – were pointed out in an eerily-prescient Uznews.net piece published on February 22, 2011, at the commencement of the NATO air campaign in Libya. “The regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya is using the whole power of its armed forces, including artillery, air forces and foreign mercenaries, to crush the ongoing protests in the country; Uzbek President Islam Karimov used similar tactics in Andijan in 2005,” reported Uznews. “The developments in Libya are reminiscent of the government crushing of a rally in Andijan on 13 May 2005. Gaddafi, like Islam Karimov, is not allowing foreign journalists into the country, blocking the internet and telecommunications and calling protesters ‘terrorists’. He appeared on national television yesterday and called foreign news channels ‘dogs’. Like Karimov, he is not considering negotiations as an option and is not willing to fulfill even parts of demands of protesters; he is offering a bloodbath instead … Like in Libya now, according to Uzbek opposition leaders, Uzbek authorities also hired foreign mercenaries: one of them was Tajik Colonel Makhmud Khudoyberganov, who was living in Uzbekistan after a failed coup d’état in Tajikistan in 1998.” Surely Secretary Clinton read her own State Department’s recent report on Uzbekistan, which accuses the Karimov regime of “Instances of torture and mistreatment of detainees by security forces; incommunicado and prolonged
detention; arbitrary arrest and detention; denial of due process and fair trial; restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association; governmental control of civil society activity; restrictions on religious freedom including harassment and imprisonment of religious minority group members; and government-compelled forced labour in cotton harvesting.”
“Amnesty International and other groups have documented specific cases. In the summer of 2002, Amnesty International reported, Fatima Mukhadirova, a 62-year-old Tashkent shopkeeper, was sentenced to six years of hard labour after denouncing the government for the death of her son, Muzafar Avozov, in a Tashkent prison,” says a May 1, 2005 report in The New York Times. “An independent examination of photographs of the body, conducted by the University of Glasgow, showed that Mr Avozov died after being immersed in boiling water, human rights groups reported. The examination said his head had been beaten and his fingernails removed.” According to Uzbeks, live boiling was a common practice.
Roadblocks ahead
“The relationship between the US and Uzbekistan is problematic,” the 2005 Times article quoted a Human Rights Watch official as saying. “It can be useful that the US is powerful enough to push for certain concessions. That being said, the US should not be saying that Karimov is a partner, is an ally, is a friend. The US should send the message that Uzbekistan won’t be considered to be a good ally of the United States unless it respects human rights at home.” During Clinton’s trip to Tashkent last week, she defended the US policy of engagement. “I can assure you that we have raised all of the human rights issues in Uzbekistan and elsewhere,” she said in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, another country
with a poor human rights record. “But we have also learned over the years that after a while, after you’ve made your strong objections, if you have no contact, you have no influence.” Clinton didn’t say why contact and influence were good for Karimov’s Uzbekistan, but not Gaddafi’s Libya. Ted Rall is an American political cartoonist, columnist and author. His most recent book is The Anti-American Manifesto.

Source: AlJazeera English

Comment on the Egyptian Elections by Hizb ut-Tahrir, Wilayah of Egypt

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:28:00 +0000

Friday, December 9th, 2011 | Posted by Noor
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
This is a clear statement to the people
The forthcoming parliamentary elections are not permitted to become an act of devotion for the formation of the civil secular democratic state
This is because the Islamic Khilafah is the method to make Islam firm within a system of ruling and going through or coming out of the system of parliamentary representation is not the method, and because the establishment of this Islamic Khilafah and the work involved to establish it when it is absent are two Islamic obligations which the pure Sharee’ah has commanded of which there is no difference of opinion in this regard, and because this establishment and method have not been left by Islam without a clear and transparent explanation in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, in addition to the Seerah of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, and also as this is the method that is obligatory to follow as taken from this source and also due to the principle: “Whatever does not fulfil a Waajib except with it is in itself a waajib.”
And this is where this method is based upon an intellectual and political struggle upon the basis of Islam and Islam alone as an Aqeedah, Sharee’ah and methodology, without hesitation, appeasement or adjustment and this is so that Islam appears to the people clearly and in an obvious manner manifesting its ability to regulate their lives and to face their enemies. And that it is Fard upon them to carry the Da’wah, its message, guidance and mercy to the entire world through invitation and jihad. And this is so the Muslims can stand in front of Allah Subhaanahu having fulfilled their covenant and conveyed the message as witnesses to the whole of mankind:
وكَذَلِكَ جَعَلْنَاكُمْ أُمَّةً وَسَطًا لِّتَكُونُواْ شُهَدَاء عَلَى النَّاسِ وَيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ عَلَيْكُمْ شَهِيدًا
“And in this way we have made you witnesses upon mankind and the Messenger is a witness upon you.”
Despite all of this the disbelieving colonising west has managed to play around with the minds of the Muslims making them forget the main mission and the secret to their strength and they are still continuing their attempt to perfect their political and cultural grip over the Muslim lands after the Islamic Ummah awoke and began working to remove its agents from amongst the traitors and tyrants one after the other. And they are still attempting to spread the idea of its ‘Civil, democratic, liberal and secular’ state and this meaning has even been combined with this strange contradictory statement: ‘Civil state with a reference to Islam’!!! So how is it possible that Liberalism, democracy and secularism can be brought together with the Islamic Aqeedah and its Sharee’ah?! And what is the real reason for this strange mix and ugly concession?! Are we shy from demanding the Islamic State which the Shar’a has defined as the Khilafah State and obliged the work for its establishment?! A state that is unique in manner and system from those of the east and west and neither history nor man has known an equal to it in terms of civilisation and progress.
As a consequence of their determined marketing of the ‘Civil democratic state’ most of those who are working for Islam whether with a good or sinister intention have accepted the ‘civil secular democratic state’ and as such have engaged in the democratic game with its elections and parliaments with a strict compliance to the degree of adapting Islam and its rules and systems so as to comply with democracy and liberalism! We have begun to hear about ‘Supra constitutional principles’ and specific procedures for choosing a committee for the preparation of the constitution, so what is behind this strange determination and who benefits from it?! The justification for these two proposals is so that the constitution is protected from not being decided by a certain group to the exclusion of others in a situation where this group was to win a majority in the upcoming parliament! Is this how the Muslim people of Egypt Al-Kinaanah have become a division or group within Egypt similar to other than them who do not represent the majority of Egypt?
O Muslims, O People of Egypt Al-Kinaanah, O candidates in the elections and voters:
Verily Hizb-ut-Tahrir are sincere in advising you, because the Deen is Naseehah (sincerity and advice).
He صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “The Deen is sincerity.” We asked: “To whom?” He صلى الله عليه وسلم replied: “To Allah, His book, His Messenger, to the leaders of the Muslims and the general masses” related by Muslim.
The foremost actions of the Parliament or Peoples assembly are making legislation, providing confidence and accounting.
As far as making legislation is concerned then this belongs to Allah سبحانه وتعالى and to His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم as a Wahi (revelation) from Allah Al-’Azeez Al-Hakeem:
إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّه
“The Rule is for none but Allah.”

فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا
“And no by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you judge between them in what they dispute and then find no resistance in themselves (to the command) and submit with complete submission.”
And the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said in regards to the statement of Allah سبحانه وتعالى:
اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ
“They take their priests and Rabbis as idols other than Allah.”
The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “They did not used to worship them but rather they would make Halal what they made Halal and make Haram what they would make Haram” related by At-Tirmidhi .
This highlights the greatness of the sin of legislating, making things Halal and Haram from other than the book of Allah Subhaanahu or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم.
In relation to the giving of confidence then this relates to supporting and showing contentment to the ruler, and this does not acceptable except with the ruler who rules by what Allah has revealed and does not befriend the enemies of Allah. If he was content with the rule by other than what Allah revealed then he would be sinful and this is due to many ‘Aayaat that prohibit ruling by other than Islam:
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ
“And whosoever rules by other than what Allah has revealed is an oppressor.”
In addition to the prohibition to incline towards oppressors and those who support their oppression:
وَلَا تَرْكَنُوا إِلَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا فَتَمَسَّكُمُ النَّارُ وَمَا لَكُمْ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ مِنْ أَوْلِيَاءَ ثُمَّ لَا تُنْصَرُونَ
“And incline not toward those who do wrong, lest the Fire should touch you, and you have no protectors other than Allah, nor you would then be helped.“
Therefore it is prohibited to take part in the acts of making legislation and the giving of confidence unless it is within a state that rules by Islam and where all of its rules are taken from Islam.
As for accounting then this is an obligation from amongst the greatest acts in Islam as commanding the good and forbidding the wrong are of the most noble descriptions which this Ummah has been characterised with:
كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ
“You are the best Ummah raised up from mankind, you command what is good, you forbid what is wrong and you believe in Allah.”
And the true word in the face of the tyrant ruler is the greatest Jihad:
“The best Jihad is the just word to the tyrant ruler” related by Abu Daawood.
Therefore built upon this understanding it is obligatory upon those standing in the elections to declare these points in their electoral campaigns and programmes whilst they are seeking votes, declaring with absolute clarity without equivocation or play of words that they will not participate in the legislative process unless it is extracted from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger and that they will not give the confidence except to a ruler who rules by Islam. And that they will expend their efforts to account the ruler upon the lack of his ruling by Islam and for their allegiance to the disbelieving colonising west and in particular its leader America.
As for those who are electing then it is not permissible for them to vote for other than the candidates who have conducted their election campaigns upon this basis whoever the candidate may be. This is because the election is an act of delegacy and it is not permitted to delegate unless the subject of delegation is valid according to the Sharee’ah. So whoever’s election programme is in accordance to the Sharee’ah principles described above then is its permitted to elect him and in contrast if it is not in line with these principles then it is not allowed to elect him, and Allah takes care of the righteous.
O Muslims, O people of Egypt:
Hizb-ut-Tahrir whilst it is working to return Islam to the battlefield of life and establish it firmly in existence for the second time, and this is only by working to establish the Khilafah state upon the path of the prophethood and by the methodology of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم through the following of his Sunnah, whilst engaging in this it invites you to work with it so that you are freed from blame and excused in front of Allah سبحانه وتعالى and this is especially after He سبحانه وتعالى granted you by the revolution the removal of the tyrant who oppressed you for so many years and fought your Islam and made you slaves to America and the Zionists.
And Hizb-ut-Tahrir reminds you of the promise of Allah سبحانه وتعالى:
وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُم فِي الأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّن بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا وَمَن كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ
“Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the land, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practise their religion which He has chosen for them (i.e. Islam). And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear (provided) they (believers) worship Me and do not associate anything (in worship) with Me. But whoever disbelieves after this, they are the Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah).”
And we remind you of the glad tidings of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم when he said in the Saheeh Hadeeth:
“And then there will be the Khilafah upon the path of the Prophethood”
Therefore do not place the Dunya over your Deen and do not accept except the complete and comprehensive establishment of Islam which is neither missing anything or glossed over, so take grasp of the book of Allah with power.
يا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ اسْتَجِيبُواْ لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُم لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَحُولُ بَيْنَ الْمَرْءِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَأَنَّهُ إِلَيْهِ تُحْشَرُونَ
“O you who believe! Answer Allah (by obeying Him) and (His) Messenger when he calls you to that which will give you life, and know that Allah comes in between a person and his heart (i.e. He prevents an evil person to decide anything). And verily to Him you shall (all) be gathered.”
Hizb ut-Tahrir, Wilayah of Egypt
1st of Muharram 1433
26/11/2011
The above is a draft translation from Arabic.

Source : hizb-america.org

Refleksi Dunia Islam 2011: Menanti Gelombang ke-5 Dunia Islam, Tegaknya Khilafah

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:58:00 +0000

Posted by تان سليمانAnalisis, GM, Internasional 6:26 AM

oleh: Farid Wadjdi Ketua Lajnah Siyasiyah Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia
Penjajahan Barat di Dunia Islam
Tahun 2011 telah berlalu. Secara umum tidak banyak perubahan mendasar yang terjadi di dunia Islam. Negeri-negeri Islam masih menjadi objek imperialisme negara-negara Kapitalisme dunia. Irak, Afghanistan, dan Pakistan masih diduduki. Pangkalan militer Amerika tersebar di antero dunia Islam terutama di Timur Tengah. Cerminan pendudukan Amerika yang disetujui para bonekanya.
Meskipun Amerika menarik pasukannya dari Irak pada Desember ini, negara itu malah memperkuat posisinya di negara-negara Timur Tengah. Ketua Gabungan Kepala Staf mengatakan kepada anggota Kongres bahwa Amerika Serikat harus memperkuat kehadiran militernya di Kuwait untuk melawan pengaruh Iran yang terus tumbuh di Irak dan kawasan Teluk. Amerika Serikat, yang memiliki 29 ribu tentara di Kuwait, 7 ribu di Bahrain dan Qatar, 3 ribu di UAE, dan 258 militer di Arab Saudi, menginginkan Kuwait untuk mengakomodasi tentaranya yang ditarik dari Irak, yang jumlahnya diperkirakan 24 ribu tentara
Sementara itu, Menteri Pertahanan AS, Leon mengatakan Kamis (13/10) kepada para anggota parlemen bahwa sepuluh ribu pasukan AS akan ditarik dari Afghanistan sebelum akhir tahun ini seperti yang direncanakan, namun 23 ribu orang tentara yang dikirim oleh Barack Obama ke Afghanistan akan tetap menduduki wilayah itu sampai musim panas 2012.
Di bidang ekonomi, negeri Islam yang kaya menjadi obyek eksploitasi perusahan-perusahan negara Imperialis dari Maroko hingga Maruke. Sementara rakyat dunia Islam , sebagian besar hidup miskin.
Amerika juga masih menggunakan rezim-rezim represif yang menjadi bonekanya untuk menekan perjuangan syariah dan Khilafah . Seperti yang terjadi di Uzbekista, Tajikistan, Kazhastan, Bangladesh, dan Pakistan.
Situs uznews.net mempublikasikan sebuah laporan dengan judul: “Penyiksaan Terus Menyertai Para Tahanan Yang Dituduh Melakukan Kejahatan Keagamaan“. Para aktivis hak asasi manusia melaporkan kasus-kasus baru, seperti penyiksaan, dan pemalsuan tuduhan-tuduhan baru di penjara-penjara Uzbekistan terhadap orang-orang dipenjara karena alasan keagamaan dan orang-orang yang masa hukumannya hampir habis. Ketua Kelompok Inisiatif Independen Hak Asasi Manusia Uzbekistan (IGNPU), Surat Ikramov mengangkat bahwa kasus baru ini menimpa dua orang bersaudara dituduh menjadi anggota Hizbut Tahrir.
Rezim Kazahstan pada tanggal 22/9/2011 mengeluarkan undang-undang yang berisi larangan melakukan shalat di lembaga-lembaga dan departemen-departemen pemerintah. Termasuk melarang melakukan syiar Islam apapun di tempat-tempat milik pemerintah ini. Berdasarkan undang-undang ini semua masjid dan tempat-tempat pelaksaan shalat di semua tempat milik pemerintah tersebut harus ditutup.
Adapun di Bangladesh, sebagaimana dilaporkan situs islamtoday.net (18/1/2011) dengan mengutip Surat kabar The Guardian terungkap keterlibatan intelijen Inggris pada pusat-pusat penyiksaan di Bangladesh, yang diadopsi oleh pemerintah untuk Partai Buruh Inggris. Menurut laporan yang dibuat oleh Jacqui Smith, mantan Menteri Dalam Negeri Inggris, bahwa ia sangat khawatir tentang penggunaan penyiksaan di Bangladesh oleh badan-badan intelijen Inggris. Yang menjadi objek penyiksaan di Bangladesh disamping lawan politik penguasa , adalah aktifis Islam Hizbut Tahrir yang memperjuangkan tegaknya syariah Islam.
Nasib Muslim Minoritas
Sementara itu monoritas muslim di daerah-daerah yang mayoritas dikuasai oleh orang-orang kafir nasibnya sangat menyedihkan. Pembantaian, diskriminasi, pelecehan, merupakan perkara yang berulang yang dialami kaum muslimin Rusia, muslim Pattani di Thailand (rezim Budha), muslim di India ,Khasmir, dan Srilanka (rezim Hindu), muslim di Moro (Philipina), muslim di Xianjiang (China Selatan).
Menurut Situs islamtoday.net (12/8/2011) berdasarkan laporan Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life mengungkap bahwa kaum Muslim dilecehkan di 117 negara, termasuk negara-negara Eropa yang melarang cadar (niqâb) dan adzan. Cina adalah negara yang paling memaksakan pembatasan kebebasan beragama dan pelaksanaan ritual-ritual keagamaan, dan kemudian disusul Prancis yang menempati urutan ketiga karena melarang cadar (niqâb).
Muslim Uighur dihalangi untuk menunaikan ibadah haji. “Kita tidak bisa mendapatkan paspor,” kata Mehmet Ali, bukan nama sebenarnya, kepada surat kabar The Hindutimes.com, Senin (31/10).Mehmet mengatakan untuk berhaji, Muslim Uighur harus membayar 70 ribu Yuan. Bukan harga yang mereka persoalkan, namun kesulitan permohonan paspor yang menjadi masalah. Pemerintah Cina dengan sengaji mempersulit permohonan paspor untuk bisa menunaikan ibadah haji.
Situs almokhtsar.com,(23/11/2011) memberitakan penghancuran sebuah masjid di distrik Mullaitivu, di Provinsi Utara Sri Lanka oleh kaum ekstrimis Hindu, lalu dibangun sebuah pusat Hindu untuk meditasi dan tempat yoga. Padahal, kaum Muslim sudah tinggal di daerah ini sejak tahun 1965, dan jumlah keluarga Muslim ada 165 keluarga pada saat itu. Masjid Firdaus selama ini menjadi tempat kaum muslim menjalankan shalat lima waktu
Nasib Muslim di Negara Barat
Nasib yang sama dialami kaum muslim di negara-negara yang mengklaim demokratis dan menyunjung HAM. Islamophobia yang bercampur dengan Xenophobia meningkat di Eropa. Dukungan terhadap kelompok ultranasionalis pun meningkat.Mulai dari pelemparan masjid, penghinaan terhadap Rosulullah SAW, tindakan kriminalitas karena agama dan ras, hingga tindakan resmi negara seperti pelarangan menggunakan busana muslimah (niqab), pelarangan pembangunan masjid. Semua dilakukan atas nama keamanan negara dan kewajiban negara mempertahankan sukulerisme.
Menurut FBI bahwa kejahatan dan pelanggaran ringan terhadap umat Islam mengalami peningkatan sebesar 50% antara 2009 dan 2010. Situs berita islamtoday.net (15/11/2011) melaporkan statistik dari FBI jumlah total tindak kekerasan terhadap kaum muslim meningkat dari 107 pada 2009 menjadi 160 pada 2010, yakni naik 49%.
Badan Intelijen Pusat AS (CIA) memberikan bantuan kepada Kepolisian Distrik New York (NYPD) untuk memata-matai warga Amerika, khususnya Muslim. Sejak serangan 11 September, dengan bantuan CIA, NYPD mengirim petugas yang menyamar ke lingkungan minoritas sebagai bagian dari program pemetaan manusia, kantor berita AP melaporkan Rabu (24/8).
Majalah satir Prancis Charlie Hebdo mengangkat Nabi Muhammad sebagai “pemimpin redaksi” untuk terbitan terbaru guna menandai kemenangan Partai Islamis Ennahda di Tunisia. Majalah itu akan diganti nama menjadi Sharia Hebdo. ”Untuk merayakan kemenangan Partai Islamis Ennahda di Tunisia, Charlie Hebdo mengangkat Muhammad sebagai pemimpin redaksi dalam edisi mendatang,” kata majalah itu dalam satu pernyataan
Yang menarik , meskipun terjadi stigmanisasi yang massal dan sistematis terhadap ajaran Islam dan kaum muslimin. Jumlah pendudukan Eropa dan Amerika yang masuk Islam semakin bertambah. Terutama wanita eropa berpendidikan menengah keatas. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian lembaga penelitian Inggris “Faith Matters” menunjukkan bahwa angka warga Inggris yang memeluk sebenarnya mencapai 100 ribu, di mana setiap tahunnya ada 5000 orang baru yang memeluk Islam.
Padahal selama ini yang sering kali menjadi obyek penghinaan adalah syariah Islam yang berkaitan dengan wanita. Ajaran Islam yang bersumber dari Allah SWT, yang sesuai dengan fitrah , dan memuaskan akal manusiak karena dibangun atas dasar prinsip tauhid (keesaan Allah SWT) , mampu mengalahkan sterotif negatif yang berupaya dibangun untuk menjauh masyarakat dari Islam.
Syariah Islam yang komprehensif yang dipraktikkan meskipun secara parsial seperti ajaran kasih sayang dalam keluarga, integritas untuk menjaga kehormatan wanita dan keluarga, menghormati yang tua, hingga pakaian muslimah yang menjauhkan wanita dari sikap ekploitasi keji kapitalisme telah memikat banyak pihak untuk memeluk ajaran Islam.
Arah Perubahan Di Timur Tengah
Yang sangat membedakan dunia Islam adalah perkembangan di Timur Tengah. Berupa kejatuhan rezim-rezim represif. Di awali dari tumbangnya Zainal Abidin bin Ali di Tunisia, mundurnya Mubarak di Mesir, hingga berakhirnya rezim represif Gadzafi secara tragis di Libya. Saat ini beberapa wilayah masih terus bergolak seperti Yaman dan Suriah. Negara-negara yang selama ini dikenal benar-benar ‘under control’ penguasanya pun dipastikan akan turut bergoyang seperti Yordania, Saudi Arabia, Bahraian, dan lain-lain.
Gerakan rakyat yang bergerak penuh dengan keberanian mampu menumbangkan para rezim ini. Meskipun ditengah jalan , arah perubahan di bajak oleh Amerika Serikat dan sekutunya. Perubahan diarahkan ke demokratisasi. Tanpa malu AS pun mengklaim dirinya sebagai pahlawan yang mendorong perubahan di Timteng. Meskipun nyata-nyata , negara bengis ini yang selama ini mendukung rezim represif . Mereka kemudian berubah arah seakan memihak rakyat , setelah melihat para bonekanya tidak lagi bisa dimanfaatkan.
Namun Barat tahu, bahwa perubahan di Timur Tengah, tidak bisa dilepaskan dari faktor Islam yang telah menjadi cultur dan syu’ur kaum muslimin disana. Tidak mengherankan kalau mereka membungkus tawaran ide-ide kapitalisme dengan Islam. Muncullah istilah ad daulah al Madaniah (negara madani/civil society), al islam al mu’tadil ( Islam moderat) yang merupakan istilah racun (poison words). Sebab inti dari semua ide itu adalah penerimaan terhadap sistem sekulerisme ,demokrasi, dan pluralisme yang bertentangan dengan Islam. Yang mereka maksud dengan Islam moderat adalah Islam yang mengakomodasi pemikiran Barat seperti demokrasi , Ham dan Pluralisme. Dan yang menerima kebijakan penjajahan Barat atas nama keterbukaan dan sikap inklusif .
Pertanyaannya berhasilkah Barat dengan strategi ini ? Apakah akan membawa perubahan berarti bagi masyarakat Timur Tengah ? Jawabannya sangat jelas. Barat akankembali gagal. Dan tawaran ide-ide Barat yang berbungkus Islam pun akan gagal. Sebab semuanya tetap melestarikan penjajahan Barat yang menjadi pangkal persoalan utama di Timur Tengah dan negeri Islam. Melestarikan ideologi kapitalisme dan campur tangan asing.
Sayangnya, Partai-partai pemenang pemilu –berbasis Islam- justru terjebak pada tekanan Barat denganmengusung ide-ide Barat seperti demokrasi, liberalisme dan pluralisme. Partai an Nahdha yang menang di Tunisia berjanji tidak akan mengubah sekulerisme yang sudah menjadi asas negara di Tunisia. Sebagaimana dikutip dari situs http://english.alarabiya.net (5/11) Partai an Nahda yang akan memerintah di Tunisia pasca tumbangnya Zainal Abidin bin Ali akan fokus pada demokrasi, hak asasi manusia dan ekonomi pasar bebas dalam rencana perubahan konstitusi. Partai ini tidak akan menggunakan agama sebagai rujukan teks dan rancangan yang konstitusi yang akan disusun dan tetap menjamin Tunisia sebagai negara sekuler .
Beberapa partai yang berbasis Islam pun melakukan kerjasama rahasia dengan negara-negara Barat. Sebuah tindakan bunuh diri secara politis. Secara hukum syara’ juga adalah haram bekerjasama dengan negara-negara muhariban fi’lan yang telah membunuh jutaan kaum muslimin dan merampok kekayaan alam dunia Islam. Sekali lagi, Tanpa syariah dan Khilafah , akan pasti gagal, sekali lagi pasti gagal. Sebab hanya penegakan syariah Islam dan Khilafah yang bersumber dari Allah SWT lah yang akan menyelesaikan persoalan dunia Islam termasuk di Timur Tengah.
Hanya dengan menerapkan syariah Islam-lah secara total yang merupakan bukti keimanan kepada Allah SWT dan ketaqwaan , kemenangan akan diraih. Hal ini ditegaskan Allah SWT.Dalam Al Qur’an QS A'raf 96 Allah SWT berfirman : Seandainya penduduk suatu negeri beriman dan bertaqwa, sungguh kami akan membukakan bagi mereka pintu berkah dari langit dan bumi, tetapi mereka mendustakan(ayat-ayat Kami), maka kami menyiksa mereka karena perbuatan mereka.
Menanti Gelombang ke-5
Insya Allah umat pasti akan memasuki gelombang terakhir dari perjalanan umat Islam pasca runtuhnya Khilafah Islam tahun 1924. Sebutlah gelombang I merupakan era ketika pemerintah kolonial mengokohkan penjajahan negeri-negeri Islam secara langsung.
Mereka mengirim pasukan-pasukan kolonial ke negeri-negeri Islam. Namun mereka menyadari cara seperti ini pasti berujung kegagalan. Kaum muslim akan mudah bergerak, karena musuh mereka jelas di depan mata yaitu tentara-tentara asing. Disamping juga membutuhkan biaya yang mahal.
Gelombang ke-dua, adalah ketika penjajah Barat , memberikan kemerdekaan ‘semu’ kepada negeri-negeri Islam. Semu karena mereka belum benar-bener memberikan kemerdekaan. Pasukan kolonial sebagain besar menarik diri dari negeri Islam. Namun penjajahan tetap berlangsung melalui penguasa-penguasa boneka anak negeri Islam sendiri. Mereka pun memastikan yang berlaku bukanlah syariah Islam tapi sistem Barat.
Kemudian masuklah umat Islam pada gelombang ketiga. Saat, penguasa-penguasa boneka Barat bertindak represif terhadap rakyatnya sendiri. Karena mereka lebih mengutamakan melayani tuan-tuan imperialisme mereka. Untuk mendapat dukungan negara-negara Barat mereka mempersilahkan kekayaan alam negeri Islam dieksploitasi sementara rakyatnya miskin. Sementara setiap upaya perjuangan syariah Islam ditindak secara represif, karena hal ini akan mengancam kepentingan penjajahan.
Mereka menangkapi,menyiksa, membunuh, para pejuangan syariah Islam. Penguasa tipe seperti ini silih berganti di negeri Islam baik berupa raja atau pun presiden atau perdana menteri. Diantaranya adalah Suharto di Indonesia, Saddam Husain di Irak, Husni Mubarak di Mesir , Zainal Abidin bin Ali di Tunisia, termasuk Gadzdzafi di Libya. Rezim inipun tumbang.
Masuklah umat Islam pada gelombang keempat, dimana Barat terpaksa memberikan demokrasi yang mereka bungkus dengan istilah-istilah Islam. Mereka berusaha menyesatkan kaum muslim. Tapi hal ini juga akan gagal. Kondisi kegagalan ini diperkuat dengan semakin melemahnya negara-negara utama kapitalism dunia seperti Amerika Serikat dan Eropa. Krisis di negara Barat akan membuat mereka tidak bisa mendukung sepenuhnya penguasa-penguasa boneka baru yang menjadi andalan mereka.
Insya Allah, umat Islam akan masuk gelombang kelima. Dimana rakyat tidak lagi bisa ditipu. Mereka menyadari bahwa sistem apapun yang berasal dari ideologi Barat penjajah tidak akan memberikan kebaikan. Baik itu dibungkus dengan istilah Islam atau kata-kata penyesatan lain atau tidak. Umat pada gilirannya akan dengan tegas menolak demokrasi,pluralisme, liberalisme , dan ide-ide sesat lainnya.
Saat itulah , umat hanya akan percaya kepada Islam dengan syariah dan Khilafahnya. Umat tidak ada pilihan lain saat itu kecuali mendukung tegaknya syariah dan Khilafah. Umatpun akan memberikan kepercayaan mereka sepenuhnya kepada kelompok dakwah yang dengan serius selama ini memperjuangkan syariah dan Khilafah. Mereka tidak lagi percaya kepada ulama-ulama salatin yang menjadi kaki tangan penjajahan. Saat itulah tegaknya Khilafah sudah di depan. Insyallah!

|
Posted by تان سليمان on 6:26 AM. Filed under Analisis, GM, Internasional . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0

Al-Shabaab says Kenya trying to ‘destroy Muslim people’

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 01:11:00 +0000

Khamis, 17 November 2011 15:40
2
altMOGADISHU: A spokesman for the Somali militant group Al-Shabaab said Tuesday that Kenya’s prime minister recently visited Israel to seek assistance in “destroying Muslim people and their religion.

”Sheikh Ali Mohammad Rage also warned Kenya that it still has a chance to withdraw its forces from neighboring Somalia because “things have not begun in earnest,” a likely reference to threats to carry out terror attacks in Nairobi, Kenya’s capital.

The office of Kenya’s prime minister said Monday that Kenya received the backing of Israeli leaders to help Kenya fight what it called “fundamentalist elements.” Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga visited Israel Sunday and Monday and sought help building the capacity of his country’s security forces.

Kenyan troops last month moved into Somalia to fight Al-Shabaab militants who in return promised reprisal terror attacks in Nairobi.

“We tell Kenya that things have not began in earnest yet and it is now a month on. You still have a chance to go back to your border,” Rage said.

Kenya said in a statement that Israeli President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised the East African nation help in securing its borders with Somalia.

A statement from the Odinga’s office said Netanyahu promised to help build “a coalition against fundamentalism,” bringing together the countries Kenya, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Tanzania. Kenya said that Peres said Israel was ready to make “everything available to Kenya” for internal security.

The Israeli government did not confirm any of statements made by Odinga’s office. Israel said the meetings were a continuation of the deepening of Israel’s relations with African countries.

Israeli security forces are among the best in the world in dealing with terror threats. But Al-Shabaab could view Kenya’s request to the Israelis as a provocation.

In 2002 militants bombed an Israeli-owned luxury hotel on Kenya’s coast near the city of Mombasa, killing 13 people. The militants also tried to shoot down an Israeli airliner at the same time.
November 16, By Abdi Guled

Source : dailystar.com

Tunisia Islamist causes outcry with "caliphate" talk

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:23:00 +0000

Khamis, 17 November 2011 15:35
altTunis (Reuters) - Tunisia's secularists said their fears about an Islamist takeover were being realized on Tuesday after a senior official in the moderate Islamist party which won last month's election invoked the revival of a caliphate, or Islamic state.

Footage posted on the Internet showed Hamadi Jbeli, the secretary-general of the Ennahda party, telling supporters that "We are in the sixth caliphate, God willing."

The caliphate was a system for governing Islamic empires based on sharia law. There were five caliphates under different dynasties until Turkey's founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk abolished the last of them early last century.

The remarks by Jbeli -- his party's nominee to be the next prime minister -- complicated Ennahda's efforts to form a coalition government, leading one prospective partner to say it was partly suspending negotiations in protest.

Ennahda has reassured Tunisians it will not impose a Muslim moral code on society and will respect women's equality, but the comments by Jbeli were interpreted by secularists as evidence the party has a hidden agenda.

Khemais Ksila, a member of the executive committee of the Ettakatol party, which is in coalition talks with Ennahda, said the party was suspending its participation in two of the three committees which were working on a coalition deal.

"We do not accept this statement," he said. "We thought we were going to build a second republic with our partner, not a sixth caliphate."

Ennahda won Tunisia's first democratic election after a revolution in January which ousted autocratic leader Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and inspired the "Arab Spring" uprisings.

The party's actions are being scrutinized closely in Egypt and Libya, where Islamists who until now have been banned from political life are also gaining in influence after revolutions forced out entrenched rulers.

The Internet footage showed Jbeli, a political prisoner under Ben Ali, telling supporters: "My brothers, you are at a historic moment ... in a new cycle of civilization, God willing ... We are in sixth caliphate, God willing."

The use of the term caliphate in Arab politics is highly sensitive because it is a concept promoted by groups at the radical end of the Islamist spectrum, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which is banned in many countries.

Moderate Islamist movements such as Ennahda or Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood generally steer clear of the term because of these associations.

"DELIBERATE DISTRACTION"

An Ennahda official said that the party's opponents were deliberately misreading what Jbeli had said.

"Jbeli was intending to speak about good governance and a break with corruption ... not the establishment of an Islamic regime," Faouzi Kamoun, the director of Jbeli's office, told Reuters.

"We are a civil party ... This is indisputable. But a section of the elite is seeking to distract people from the main issues," he said.

That did not reassure secularists, who have traditionally dominated Tunisia's ruling classes and now think their freedoms will be eroded by the Islamists.

Ennahda is the first Islamist party to win power in the Arab world since Hamas won an election in the Palestinian Territories in 2006.

"This speech is very dangerous," Said Issam Chebbi, a leading member of the secularist PDP party, told Reuters. "This is what we feared."

The secularist Maghreb newspaper mocked Jbeli with a photo montage on its front page of the Ennahda official dressed as a traditional Arab emir, or leader, and the headline: "Sixth Caliph Hamadi Jbeli."

An Internet user called Imen Kaouel posted a comment underneath an online video of Jbeli's speech saying: "We are starting to discover the true face of Ennahda."

Ennahda is led by Rachid Ghannouchi, an Islamic scholar who spent 22 years in exile in London. Western diplomats say his moderate approach is sincere, but that some in the party's rank and file may want to take it down a more hardline path.

In last month's election, Ennahda emerged the biggest party in an assembly which will choose a new caretaker government, rewrite the constitution and schedule fresh elections.

It did not have a majority, forcing it into coalition talks with two smaller, secularist parties, Ettakatol and the Congress for the Republic (CPR).

Ettakatol official Ksila said the suspension was in protest at Jbeli's comments, and also because the CPR was trying to railroad through the selection of its leader, Moncef Marzouki, as Tunisia's new president, a largely ceremonial post.

Ettakatol had indicated it wanted its leader, Mustafa Ben Jaafar, to get the job.

The row was the first public sign of friction between the would-be coalition partners.
By Tarek Amara (Editing by Christian Lowe and Diana Abdallah)

Source : reuters.com

Kemenangan An-Nahdha, Kebangkitan Politik Islam ?

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:40:00 +0000

Isnin, 21 November 2011 09:29

Sejak tumbangnya rejim Zainal Abidin bin Ali, parti an-Nahdha kini telah muncul sebagai pemenang dalam pilihanraya demokrasi yang pertama di negara Tunisia. Tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa kemenangan parti An-Nahdha ini menunjukkan bahawa betapa kuatnya arus pengaruh Islam dalam pergolakan kebangkitan di Timur Tengah (Arab Spring). Walaupun mereka tidak mengisytiharkan diri mereka sebagai parti agama, tetapi parti ini ditubuhkan oleh aktivis-aktivis Islam yang mengambil pemikiran gerakan Ikhwanul Muslimin. Kebangkitan politik Islam dalam 'Arab Spring' ini juga dapat dilihat daripada keinginan Majlis Peralihan Kebangsaan (National Transitional Council) di Libya untuk menjadikan syariah Islam sebagai sumber hukum selepas kejatuhan rejim Ghadafi.

Kemunculan fenomena ini adalah disebabkan oleh kegagalan parti-parti nasional-sekuler yang selama ini berkuasa di sebahagian besar Timur Tengah. Di samping penindasan yang dikenakan, parti-parti sekular ini juga gagal dalam menyelesaikan masalah-masalah dasar masyarakat seperti kemiskinan dan juga buruknya perkhidmatan kesihatan dan pendidikan. Golongan elit ahli politik nasionalis sekular juga dianggap telah memberikan jalan dan ruang bagi pengukuhan campur tangan pihak asing terutamanya dalam bidang ekonomi di Timur Tengah. Hal ini diburukkan lagi dengan dukungan rejim terhadap penjajahan zionis Israel di Palestin, baik secara terbuka mahupun tertutup.

Para pemimpin Barat juga sedang berusaha keras bagi membendung arus politik Islam yang merugikan mereka. Pelbagai usaha dilakukan oleh Barat untuk membendung daripada munculnya negara Islam yang ingin menerapkan syariah Islam secara total di Timur Tengah. Adalah sesuatu yang tidak menghairankan jika Barat berupaya mengarahkan dan mengawal angin perubahan di Timur Tengah agar ia tetap dalam kerangka negara sekular yang demokratik. Beberapa istilah baru diwujudkan seperti Negara Madani, Islam Moderat dan lain-lain yang bertujuan untuk mengaburi niat Barat dalam memastikan agar sistem demokrasi-sekular terus diterapkan dalam negara.

Melalui pemerintahan sementara yang masih berada di bawah telunjuk dan kawalan Barat, pelbagai usaha pencegahan terhadap apa yang disebut sebagai 'kebangkitan Islam radikal' sedang giat dilakukan. Di Mesir sebagai contoh, pemerintahan tentera sementara telah melarang sebarang penggunaan simbol-simbol atau istilah-istilah Islam dalam pilihanraya Mesir akan datang. Perkara ini telah membuatkan gerakan Ikhwanul Muslimin mengambil jalan ‘aman’ dengan menghapuskan slogan “Islam adalah solusi” dan menggantikannya dengan slogan lain iaitu “Kami membawa kebaikan untuk Mesir”. Slogan yang sama telah digunakan oleh calon-calon Ikhwan dalam pilihanraya parlimen tahun lalu.

Sementara di Tunisia pula, parti-parti yang berdasarkan agama telah diharamkan sama sekali daripada terlibat dalam pilihanraya. Akibatnya, sikap pragmatik telah diambil oleh parti-parti yang berakarkan Islam ini. Parti An-Nahdha telah berulang-ulang kali mengisytiharkan bahawa mereka bukanlah parti agama, tidak akan menerapkan syariah Islam, mengiktiraf pluralisme dan bersahabat dengan Barat termasuk dalam bidang ekonomi. Setelah menang suara majoriti dalam pilihanraya Tunisia baru-baru ini, partai An-Nahdha telah berjanji untuk terus bekerja dalam membentuk masyarakat pluralistik, sekular dan menghormati hak asasi manusia. (http://www.maannews.net; 25/10)

Pemimpin An-Nahdha, Ghannouchi, juga pernah menyatakan sebelum ini bahawa jika an-Nahdha berjaya memerintah (berkuasa) di Tunisia, maka ia akan tetap terus mempertahankan Tunisia sebagai destinasi perlancongan, tidak akan mengharamkan arak atau mengharamkan wanita daripada memakai bikini di pantai. Parti An-Nahdha juga berjanji untuk tidak mengganggu kod undang-undang Tunisia yang menjadikan negara itu satu-satunya negara di dunia Arab yang melarang amalan poligami.

Rasyid Ghannouchi juga mengatakan bahawa gerakannya yang telah memenangi pilihanraya baru-baru ini tidak akan memaksa pemakaian menutup aurat terhadap wanita Tunisia, kerana semua usaha-usaha negara Arab untuk melaksanakannya terbukti gagal. Perkara yang sama seperti ini tidak mustahil akan berlaku di Mesir memandangkan satu-satunya gerakan politik yang terorganisasi di negara tersebut adalah gerakan Ikhwanul Muslimun.

Pengaruh Model Turki Sekuler

Sehingga ke hari ini, perkembangan seperti ini di Tunisia sudah tentu cukup menggembirakan Barat. Tawaran yang diberikan Barat melalui model negara Republik Sekular Turki di bawah rejim AKP nampaknya berjaya diwujudkan di Tunisia. Ia merupakan sebuah model negara yang dianggap sebagai mampu untuk memadukan antara Islam dan demokrasi, yang mana secara hakikatnya ia tetap sebagai sebuah pemerintahan sekular yang kuat.

Sejak awal-awal lagi, Amerika memang sentiasa berusaha untuk menguar-uarkan agar menjadikan model Republik Sekular Turki sebagai contoh dan arah ikutan kesemua negara-negara di Timur Tengah pasca pergolakan. Menteri Luar Amerika Syarikat, Hillary Clinton, melihat Turki sebagai negara ‘model’ dan ‘contoh’ bagi negara-negara di Timur Tengah dan Afrika Utara untuk mengikutinya. Presiden Obama juga pernah membuat kenyataan yang sama dalam sebuah akhbar Itali di mana ia mengatakan, “Kenyataannya adalah negara itu (Turki) adalah negara demokrasi dan negara yang mana sebahagian besar penganutnya adalah Islam, merupakan model yang sangat penting bagi negara-negara Muslim yang lain di wilayah itu (untuk mencontohinya).”

Akhbar The New York Times baru-baru ini mengatakan bahawa Perdana Menteri Turki, Recep Tayyip Erdogan adalah standard rujukan yang baru bagi pemimpin-pemimpin Islam. Erdogan menjanjikan Islam konservatif yang selari dengan kebebasan individu serta tetap terus berpegang kepada budaya konservatif, tetapi dengan polisi ekonomi yang liberal dan menjadi mercu tanda kebangaan bagi sebuah Timur Tengah Baru.

Adalah sesuatu yang cukup meragukan bagaimana model Republik Sekular Turki ini boleh menjadi model terbaik bagi negara-negara di Timur Tengah. Memang terdapat beberapa faktor yang dapat merealisasikan kejayaan model Republik Turki Sekular ini di Timur Tengah. Namun persoalannya, sejauh manakah model sekular ini mampu untuk menyelesaikan masalah sebenar di Tunisia dan kawasan-kawasan Timur Tengah yang lain? Tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa masalah kemiskinan, buruknya perkhidmatan kesihatan, pengangkutan, pendidikan dan tahap pengangguran yang tinggi menjadi antara pendorong kepada bangkitnya anak-anak muda di Tunisia dan Mesir untuk melawan rejim yang berkuasa sebelum ini. Sehingga ke saat ini, parti An-Nahdha masih belum mempunyai konsep dan halatuju yang jelas dalam menyelesaikan masalah-masalah ini.

Jika kita merujuk kepada model ekonomi Republik Turki Sekular yang berasaskan ekonomi liberal itu, terdapat terlalu banyak persoalan yang timbul. Turki di bawah teraju rejim parti AK memang mengalami pertumbuhan ekonomi yang cukup signifikan di mana dilaporkan bahawa pertumbuhan ekonomi negara tersebut mencapai 8.9 peratus pada tahun 2010. Statistik peningkatan atau pertumbuhan yang tinggi itu langsung tidak menjamin atau menunjukkan bahawa setiap individu dalam masyarakat negara itu hidup dengan sejahtera. Ini adalah kerana, kekayaan boleh menimbun pada segolongan manusia sahaja di dalam negara.

Sepertimana negara-negara sekular yang lain, Turki juga menghadapi masalah yang sama iaitu terdapat jurang yang terlampau jauh antara golongan yang kaya dan yang miskin. Meskipun terdapat pertumbuhan ekonomi yang tinggi, angka kemiskinan di Turki pada 2009 meningkat dengan mendadak jika dibandingkan dengan tahun sebelumnya. Menurut laporan terbaru yang dikeluarkan oleh Institut Statistik Turki (TurkStat), peratusan rakyat Turki yang hidup di bawah garis kemiskinan meningkat daripada 17.79 peratus pada tahun 2008 kepada 18.08 peratus atau sebanyak 12.75 juta orang pada tahun 2009.

Pertumbuhan ekonomi Turki sekali-kali tidak dapat terlepas daripada program liberalisasi ekonomi sepertimana yang dicanangkan oleh Erdogan. Akibatnya, ekonomi Turki sangat bergantung kepada sistem ekonomi kapitalisme global dunia yang sangat rapuh. Jika Amerika dan Eropah sebagai negara pelopor kepitalisme pun boleh bergoncang dan bergoyah, apatah lagi negara Turki sebagai pengikut mereka. Segala-galanya hanya menunggu masa sahaja.

Masalah pokok di Timur Tengah dan di negeri-negeri kaum Muslimin yang lain tidak lain adalah disebabkan oleh penerapan sistem kapitalisme liberal di negara masing-masing yang mana para penguasa boneka ini dijaga dan dipelihara dengan begitu baik oleh Barat. Hasilnya, Timur Tengah Baru yang bertunjuangkam sekularisme ini sekali-kali tidak akan dapat menyelesaikan masalah-masalah mereka, malah sebaliknya ia akan mengukuhkan lagi polisi kapitalisme Barat di samping memelihara campur tangan imperialisme kuasa asing. Di samping itu, sikap permusuhan dan penindasan akan tetap terus dikenakan terhadap aktivis-aktivis Islam yang menginginkan agar tertegaknya syariah Islam secara kaffah.

Model Negara Republik Sekular Turki ini pasti akan menemui kegagalan di Timur Tengah dan revolusi kebangkitan rakyat kali kedua mungkin akan berlaku. Apabila sistem demokrasi dan liberalisme telah terbukti gagal, rakyat di Timur Tengah akan hanya mempunyai satu harapan dan satu pilihan sahaja pada waktu itu, yakni negara Khilafah Islamiyyah. Negara inilah yang akan menerapkan syariah Islam secara menyeluruh dan menyelesaikan segala permasalahan manusia. Setelah perkara ini berlaku, ia bukan sahaja akan merubah arus perdana wilayah Timur Tengah, tetapi juga di peringkat antarabangsa. Majlis Perisikan Kebangsaan Amerika (NIC) pernah meramalkan bahawa Khilafah akan tertegak menjelang tahun 2020, namun bagi kalangan para pejuang Islam, mereka yakin bahawa janji Allah dan RasulNya untuk tertegaknya Khilafah buat kali yang kedua adalah terlalu hampir, dengan izin Allah SWT.

Call for 'sixth caliphate' alarms Tunisian liberals

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:07:00 +0000

Sabtu, 19 November 2011 16:21

The Islamist politician likely to become Tunisia's first democratically elected prime minister has alarmed liberals and secularists by claiming the arrival of the "sixth caliphate," a controversial term for a Muslim empire.
l
Hamadi Jebeli, secretarygeneral of Ennahda, the moderate Islamist party which romped to victory in last month's elections, told a rally in the city of Sousse: "My brothers, you are at a historic moment in a new cycle of civilization, God willing. We are in sixth caliphate, God willing."

Party officials, who have spent months insisting they wanted to pursue secular democratic politics rather than an international Islamist agenda, were forced on the defensive after his comments were posted on the Internet.
The left-of-centre, secular Ettakatol party, which came third in the vote, suspended talks with Ennahda over forming a government.

"We thought we were going to build a second republic with our partner - not a sixth caliphate," Khemais Ksila, a senior member, said.

Ennahda's other prospective coalition partner, the centre-left and secular Congress for the Republic, did not follow Ettakatol's lead, perhaps soothed by a deal making its leader, Moncef Marzouki, interim president.
The term "caliphate" refers to a governance system based on Islamic law as formerly used by successive Muslim empires.

It is a sensitive term in Arab politics, due to its associations with extremist groups like al-Qaida - and especially in Tunisia where it is promoted by Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the radical Salafi movement.

Source : montrealgazette.com

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:48:00 +0000

Syiar Islam Dilarang, Demokrasi dan Liberalisme Diizinkan?

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

Apakah Syiar-syiar Islam Dilarang, sementara Syiar-syiar Demokrasi

dan Liberalisme Diizinkan?!

Sungguh Itu adalah Perang terhadap Islam dan Pemeluknya

Komisi Tinggi untuk Pemilu, berdasarkan undang-undang mengeluarkan keputusan yang melarang penggunaan “syiar-syiar keagamaan dan simbol-simbol yang terkait dengan akidah dan agama”. Keputusan itu juga menyatakan bahwa siapa saja yang melanggarnya akan ditahan dan dijatuhi hukuman penjara dan denda. Padahal konstitusi saat ini menyatakan bahwa agama negara adalah Islam!

Sungguh keputusan jahat ini tidak datang dari ruang hampa. Akan tetapi, keputusan ini berada pada posisi pertama perang terhadap Islam. Ini adalah perpanjangan untuk setiap aktifitas yang berkaitan dengan lilitan revolusi. Hal itu untuk merealisasi apa yang diinginkan sejak asal berupa pemisahan agama dari negara menurut doktrin negara sipil sekuler. Juga untuk menundukkan semua hukum syara’ untuk ditundukkan kepada pemungutan suara menurut hawa nafsu Dewan Rakyat. Keputusan itu bertujuan agar mayoritas kursi diisi oleh setiap orang yang mengusung slogan-slogan liberalisme demokrasi, meski dengan jalan membeli suara menggunakan harta. Hal itu agar mereka bisa menghancurkan semua hukum Islam. Islam dijadikan agama kependetaan, dibatasi di dalam dinding-dinding masjid. Setelah itu dan dari dalam Dewan Rakyat khamr disetujui; porografi disebarluaskan atas nama kebebasan personal; manusia dijauhkan dari Islam atas nama kebebasan berakidah; wanita dilarang mengenakan busana syar’i di kehidupan umum, sekolah dan perguruan tinggi; apa yang masih tersisa dari hukum-hukum waris, perkawinan, dan talak dihapus dengan dalih kesetaraan; kaum Muslim ditekan atas nama demokrasi, sehingga masalahnya sampai pada meragu-ragukan manusia dalam akidah mereka. Semua itu akan menjadi konstitusional atas nama mayoritas di Dewan Rakyat. Dan akhirnya Mesir pun menjadi seperti masyarakat barat yang kehilangan nilai-nilai spiritual, kemanusiaan dan moral, disamping kondisinya yang terlanyar tidak diperhatikan sama sekali.

Wahai kaum Muslim, wahai warga al-Kinanah

Bagaimana mungkin syiar-syiar barat yang dibawa oleh penjajah kapitalis barat pemilik berbagai musibah dan krisis, bisa diizinkan diimpor dan dibawa ke negeri kita, sedangkan syiar-syiar lâ ilâha illâllâh Muhammadun rasûlullâh justru dilarang dan orang yang mengusungnya dijatuhi hukuman?! Bukankah ini pelecehan terhadap akal pikiran warga Mesir?! Sungguh ini perkara yang sangat mengherankan!!!

Demokrasi liberalisme kapitalisme telah dicoba dan dibuktikan kegagalannya di masyarakat-masyarakat barat. Tidak perlu diperlihatkan, apa yang dimunculkan oleh ide-ide dan syiar-syiar ini berupa komunitas gay dan lesbian, berbagai kriminalitas dan krisis-krisis ekonomi yang akhirnya menimpa seluruh dunia. Lihatlah, anak-anak syiar-syiar itu sendiri di dunia berdemonstrasi untuk mengadili demokrasi mereka dikarenakan ketidakmampuan demokrasi mereka memberikan solusi-solusi bagi berbagai permasalahan mereka dan kemiskinan, dan pengangguran justru menyebar di tengah barisan mereka. Pada saat yang sama, kekayaan justru terkonsentrasi di tangan sekelompok kecil orang dari mereka. Ini sekadar satu contoh dari ribuan contoh semisalnya. Lalu bagaimana bisa orang yang mengklaim memelihara urusan-urusan masyarakat di Mesir justru menerima untuk memaksakan kepada warga mereka kaum Muslim, peradaban yang tidak datang dari mereka dan mereka juga bukan bagian dari peradaban itu?! Ingatlah, alangkah buruknya apa yang mereka pikul.

Pemilu yang direncanakan dan fitnah berupa undang-undang dan keputusan-keputusan zalim itu, datang dari rezim yang sama dengan rezim sebelumnya yang masih tetap memerintah. Jika tidak, lalu apa artinya pengeluaran undang-undang dan keputusan yang melayani demokrasi dan liberalisme itu? Kenapa penyebutan Islam yang merupakan agama warga Mesir justru dilarang? Bukankah itu merupakan perang terhadap Islam dan pemeluknya?

أَمْ حَسِبَ الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ أَن لَّن يُخْرِجَ اللَّهُ أَضْغَانَهُمْ

Atau apakah orang-orang yang ada penyakit dalam hatinya mengira bahwa Allah tidak akan menampakkan kedengkian mereka ? (QS Muhammad [47]: 29)

Wahai kaum Muslim, wahai warga Mesir

Sesungguhnya semua versi tindakan ini adalah bagian dari rencana Amerika dan rezim yang menjadi kaki tangannya. Maka Anda harus memupus jalan bagi mereka, beraktifitas untuk mengusir mereka dari bumi Kinanah dan tidak mentolerir mereka untuk memasuki tanah Anda, sehingga mereka tidak bisa menjamah Anda, agama Anda dan keamanan Anda dan tidak bisa merampok kekayaan Anda seperti yang mereka lakukan terhadap saudara-saudara Anda di negeri-negeri kaum Muslim. Mereka tidak memelihara kekerabatan dengan Anda dan sama sekali tidak mengindahkan perjanjian. Ketakutan terbesar mereka adalah diterapkannya syariah melalui daulah al-Khilafah ar-Rasyidah yang akan menghentikan dan mengeluarkan mereka dari negeri-negari kaum Muslim dalam keadaan tercela dan kalah. Hari-hari ini adalah kesempatan Anda wahai orang-orang mukhlish di antara militer Mesir Muslim untuk melaksanakan hal itu.

ۚ وَإِن تَتَوَلَّوْا يَسْتَبْدِلْ قَوْمًا غَيْرَكُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَكُونُوا أَمْثَالَكُم

dan jika kamu berpaling niscaya Dia akan mengganti (kamu) dengan kaum yang lain; dan mereka tidak akan seperti kamu ini. (QS Muhammad [47]: 38)

Wahai kaum Muslim

Sesungguhnya tidak ada keselamatan bagi Anda kecuali dengan Islam. Kezaliman dan kemiskinan tidak akan hilang dari Anda kecuali dengan penerapan syariah Allah. Anda telah mencoba sosialisme, kapitalisme, nasionalisme dan patriotisme, akan tetapi kondisi masyarakat tetap saja terpuruk dalam segala aspek kehidupan. Maka campakkan bendera syike-picot. Kibarkan panji Rasulullah saw. Berjuanglah bersama Hizbut Tahrir untuk menegakkan syariah Allah melalui daulah al-Khilafah al-Islamiyah ar-Rasyidah yang hanya di dalamnya sajalah terdapat jalan keluar Anda. Allah bersama Anda dan tidak akan menyia-nyiakan amal-amal Anda.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِن تَنصُرُوا اللَّهَ يَنصُرْكُمْ وَيُثَبِّتْ أَقْدَامَكُمْ

Hai orang-orang mukmin, jika kamu menolong (agama) Allah, niscaya Dia akan menolongmu dan meneguhkan kedudukanmu. (QS Muhammad [47]: 7)

23 Dzulqa’dah 1432 H

21 Oktober 2011

Hizbut Tahrir

Wilayah Mesir

Kisah Pemimpin Khilafah Islam Terakhir Sambungan

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 22:07:00 +0000

Sambungan..

Yahudi Mula ‘Menggigit’ Daulah Islamiah

Semua pihak mahukan sebahagian daripadanya, tidak ketinggalan kaum Yahudi. Orang-orang Yahudi yang menjadi warga Daulah Islamiah adalah pelarian dari negara-negara Eropah seperti Sepanyol dan Portugal selepas pemerintah Islam di Andalus dikalahkan oleh tentera Kristian. Pada tahun 1895, sebuah buku bertajuk Der Judenstaat (Negara Yahudi) karangan Dr Theodore Hertzl (1869-1904), seorang Zionis dari Hungary, diterbitkan.

Dalam buku itu disebutkan bahawa kaum Yahudi mesti mempunyai negara sendiri. Oleh itu, Yahudi lantas mengadakan pertemuan pertama di Switzerland pada 29-31 Ogos 1897 untuk meletakkan asas pembentukan negara Yahudi di Palestin. Selepas persidangan itu, pergerakan Yahudi semakin aktif. Ini menyebabkan Sultan Abdul Hamid mengeluarkan keputusan tahun 1900 untuk tidak membenarkan orang-orang Yahudi yang datang ke Palestin dan tinggal lebih daripada tiga bulan. Segala cara dilakukan kaum Yahudi untuk memujuk Sultan Hamid membatalkan keputusannya. Termasuk dengan menawarkan sejumlah pampasan dan pelbagai janji lain. Abdul Hamid enggan menerima tawaran tersebut. Ia menghantar jawapan kepada mereka melalui Tahsin Pasha:”Katakan kepada Yahudi biadap itu, hutang negara Usmaniah bukan sesuatu yang memalukan.”

Pada tahun 1902, Hertzl untuk kesekian kalinya menghadap Sultan Abdul Hamid dalam percubaan untuk melakukan rasuah. Diantara rasuah yang disogokkan Hertzl kepada Sultan adalah :

1. 150 juta poundsterling Inggeris khusus untuk Sultan.
2. Membayar semua hutang pemerintah Ustmaniyyah yang mencapai 33 juta poundsterling Inggris.
3. Membangun kapal induk untuk pemerintah, dengan kos 120 juta Frank
4. Memberi pinjaman 5 juta poundsterling tanpa bunga.
5. Membangun Universiti Ustmaniyyah di Palestin.

Semuanya ditolak Sultan, bahkan Sultan tidak mahu menemui Hertzl, diwakilkan kepada Tahsin Basya, perdana menterinya, sambil mengirim pesan,

“Nasihati Mr Hertzl agar jangan meneruskan rancangannya. Aku tidak akan melepaskan walaupun sejengkal tanah ini (Palestin), kerana Palestin bukan milikku. Tanah itu adalah hak umat Islam. Umat Islam telah berjihad demi kepentingan tanah ini dan mereka telah menyiraminya dengan darah mereka. Yahudi silakan menyimpan harta mereka!! Jika Khilafah Othmaniyah dimusnahkan pada suatu hari, maka mereka boleh mengambil Palestin tanpa membayar harganya. Akan tetapi, sementara aku masih hidup, aku lebih rela menusukkan pedang ke tubuhku daripada melihat Tanah Palestin dikhianati dan dipisahkan dari Khilafah Islamiyah. Perpisahan adalah sesuatu yang tidak akan terjadi. Aku tidak akan memulai pemisahan tubuh kami selagi kami masih hidup.”

Al-Quds (Jerusalem) menjadi sebaagian dari tanah Islam sewaktu Umar bin Al-Khattab menaklukkan kota itu dan aku tidak akan mencatat sejarah yang memalukan dengan menjual Tanah Suci kepada Yahudi dan mengkhianati kepercayaan rakyat.” Tahun 1901, Abdul Hamid mengeluarkan perintah melarang tanah di Palestin dijual kepada Yahudi.

Tindakan Abdul Hamid ini sesuai sabda Rasulullah SAW: ”Imam adalah perisai (pelindung) yang dibelakangnya kamu berperang dan mendapat perlindungan.” Dengan penyertaan Yahudi dan Zionis dalam konflik, maka barisan musuh Islam semakin kuat. Yahudi akhirnya meminta bantuan Inggeris untuk mewujudkan impian mereka. Setelah Abdul Hamid II digulingkan pada 13 Mac 1909 maka pembentukan negara Yahudi di Palestin semakin dekat. Inggeris kemudian melancarkan serangan terhadap Khilafah Usmaniyah dan inilah menjadi punca kejatuhannya. Tahun 1918, Sultan Abdul Hamid II meninggal dunia.

Peristiwa kejatuhan Sultan Abdul Hamid II

Malam itu, Sultan Abdul Hamid dan keluarganya dikunjungi oleh sekumpulan manusia yang tidak akan dilupakan oleh sejarah.

Emmanuel Carasso, seorang Yahudi warga Itali dan wakil rakyat Salonika (Thessaloniki) di Parlimen Othmaniyyah (Meclis-i Mebusan) melangkah masuk ke istana Yildiz. Turut bersama beliau adalah Aram Efendi, wakil rakyat Armenia, Laz Arif Hikmet Pasha, anggota Dewan Senat yang juga pemimpin Armada Othmaniyyah, serta Arnavut Esat Toptani, wakil rakyat bandar Daraj di Meclis-i Mebusan.
“Bukankah waktu seperti ini adalah waktu khalifah menunaikan kewajipannya terhadap keluarga. Tidak bolehkah kalian berbincang dengan aku pagi esok?”, Sultan Abdul Hamid tidak selesa menerima kedatangan mereka yang kelihatannya begitu tergesa-gesa.
Tiada simpati di wajah mereka.“Ummah telah memecat kamu”, Esat Pasha memberitahu. Angkuh benar bunyinya.Satu persatu wajah ahli rombongan itu diperhati oleh Sultan Abdul Hamid.
“Apakah mereka ini sedar dengan apa yang mereka lakukan?”, baginda berfikir.

“Jika benar Ummah yang menurunkan aku, mengapa kamu datang dengan lelaki ini?”, Sultan Abdul Hamid menundingkan jarinya kepada Emmanuel Carasso.
“Apa kena mengenanya Yahudi ini dengan Ummah?”, wajah baginda kemerah-merahan menahan marah.

Sultan Abdul Hamid memang kenal benar siapa Emmanuel Carasso itu. Dia jugalah yang bersekongkol bersama Theodor Herzl ketika mahu mendapatkan izin menempatkan Yahudi di Palestin dengan penuh licik lebih sedekad yang lalu (1898). Mereka menawarkan pembelian ladang milik Sultan Abdul Hamid di Sancak Palestin sebagai tapak penempatan Yahudi di Tanah Suci itu. Sultan Abdul Hamid menolaknya dengan tegas, termasuk alternatif mereka yang mahu menyewa tanah itu selama 99 tahun.

Pendirian tegas Sultan Abdul Hamid untuk tidak mengizinkan Yahudi bermastautin di Palestin, telah menyebabkan Yahudi sedunia mengamuk. Harganya terlalu mahal. Sultan Abdul Hamid kehilangan takhta, dan Khilafah disembelih agar tamat nyawanya.

“Sesungguhnya aku sendiri tidak tahu, siapakah sebenarnya yang memilih mereka ini untuk menghantar berita penggulinganku malam itu”, Sultan Abdul Hamid meluahkan derita hatinya di dalam diari baginda.

Perancangan untuk menggulingkan baginda sudah dimulakan lama sebelum malam itu. Beberapa Jumaat kebelakangan ini, nama baginda sudah tidak disebut di dalam khutbah.
“Walaupun engkau dipecat, nyawamu berada di dalam jaminan kami”, Esat Pasha menyambung katanya.

Malam itu juga, baginda bersama ahli keluarganya hanya dibenarkan membawa sehelai dua pakaian, dan mereka diangkut di dalam gelap menuju ke Stesyen Keretapi Sirkeci. Khalifah terakhir umat Islam, dan ahli keluarganya dibuang negara ke Salonika, Greece.

Gerombolan tentera kedengaran melangkah penuh derap ke istana. Meriam diletupkan sebagai petanda Sultan Mehmed V Resad ditabal menjadi raja boneka. Rasmilah malam itu Sultan Mehmed V Resad menjadi Khalifah ke 99 umat Islam semenjak Abu Bakr al-Siddiq r.a. Tetapi khalifah yang satu ini sudah tiada kuasa. Hanya boneka umpan menahan pemberontakan masyarakat terhadap pembubaran Khilafah Othmaniyyah.

“Entahlah, di saat hidup dan matiku tidak menentu, aku terasa begitu tenang dan aman. Seperti sebuah gunung besar yang selama ini menghempap dadaku, diangkat penuh kelegaan” kata Sultan Abdul Hamid di dalam diarinya.

Sultan Abdul Hamid mengusap kepala anaknya Abdul Rahim yang menangis ketakutan. Anak-anaknya yang lain turut menangis sama. Perjalanan dari Sirkeci Istanbul menuju ke Salonika di Greece penuh misteri.

“Sabarlah anak-anakku. Jika Allah mengkehendaki kematian bagi kita, bukankah kematian itu kesudahan untuk semua”, kata Sultan Abdul Hamid kepada sekalian kaum kerabat baginda.

Kereta api meluncur laju. Bumi khilafah ditinggalkan di belakang. Sejarah kegemilangan 600 tahun Bani Osman, berakhir malam itu. Palitan hitam yang mustahil untuk diputihkan kembali.

Lama benar baginda dan ahli keluarganya dikurung di istana Yahudi yang buruk itu. Mereka dikurung di dalam bilik tanpa perabot. Pintu dan tingkap istana, dilarang daripada dibuka. Hari demi hari, adalah kematian sebelum mati bagi baginda sekeluarga. Akhirnya pada tahun 1912, Sultan Abdul Hamid dibawa pulang ke Istanbul, dan anak-anaknya bercerai berai, dibuang ke Perancis sebagai pengemis dan pelarian yang merempat di jalanan.

Sultan Abdul Hamid dikurung di Istana Beylerbeyi selama 6 tahun

Kisah Pemimpin Khilafah Islam Terakhir

noreply@blogger.com (Harun Awang) — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 22:05:00 +0000

Kisah Sultan Abdul Hameed II Pemimpin Khilafah Islam Terakhir. Sejarah Islam yang kita patut tahu.

Antara lain tanda kejayaan Islam di benua Eropah ialah dengan berkembangnya wilayah kedaulatan Khilafah Othmaniah Turki. Selama berabad-abad, kerajaan Islam tersebut berjaya memantapkan pengaruhnya di Eropah Timur, Balkan, dan Mediterranean. Namun begitu selepas berabad-abad, pengaruh itu beransur pudar. Menjelang masa-masa kejatuhannya, muncul pemimpin Khilafah Othmaniah iaitu Sultan Abdul Hamid II. Dengan segala kuasa yang ada, ia cuba untuk terus mempertahankan pemerintahan Islam di wilayah-wilayah kekuasaannya dari bahaya yang semakin mengancam, khasnya dari kekuatan Barat dan Yahudi.

Kelahiran Khalifah

Sultan Abdul Hamid II dilahirkan pada hari Rabu, 21 September 1842. Nama lengkapnya adalah Abdul Hamid Khan II bin Abdul Majid Khan dan merupakan anak kedua Sultan Abdul Majid I (dari isteri keduanya).

Ibunya meninggal dunia semasa beliau berusia tujuh tahun. Abdul Hamid sejak muda, sudah boleh berbahasa Turki, Arab, dan Parsi di samping mengetahui bahasa Perancis. Dia juga gemar mempelajari beberapa buah buku kesusasteraan dan puisi.

Sewaktu orang tuanya, Sultan Abdul Majid meninggal dunia, bapa saudaranya, Abdul Aziz telah diangkat menjadi Khalifah. Abdul Aziz tidak terlalu lama memegang jawatan Khalifah. Dia dipaksa berhenti dari jawatannya dan selepas itu dibunuh oleh musuh politik Othmaniah.

Penggantinya adalah Sultan Murad, anak Sultan Abdul Aziz, namun dia pun disingkirkan dalam masa yang singkat kerana dianggap tidak layak. Pada tarikh 31 Ogos 1876, Sultan Abdul Hamid dilantik menjadi Khalifah menggantikan saudaranya, Murad V.

Umat memberikan baiat dan ketaatan kepadanya. Pada masa itu, dia telah berumur 34 tahun. Dari tahun 1877 hingga tahun terakhir memerintah pada 1909, dia tinggal di Istana Yildiz. Abdul Hamid menyedari, seperti yang diungkap dalam catatan hariannya, tentang pembunuhan bapa saudaranya dan pergantian kepimpinan yang selalu disebabkan adanya konspirasi menentang Daulah Islamiah (Negara Islam).

Para sejarawan mengkaji secara mendalam tentang perwatakan Abdul Hamid. Menurut mereka, Abdul Hamid mewarisi jawatan kepimpinan sebuah negara besar yang berada dalam keadaan tegang dan genting.

Dia juga menghabiskan masa lebih daripada tiga puluh tahun yang penuh dengan konspirasi, peperangan, revolusi, peristiwa-peristiwa dan perubahan-perubahan yang terus terjadi.

Diperalat oleh orang kepercayaannya sendiri.
Cubaan pertama yang dihadapi Abdul Hamid adalah Midhat Pasha (1822-1885). Ada dakwaan bahawa Midhat berasal dari kaum Yahudi Dunnama.

Midhat Pasha terlibat secara rahsia dalam usaha penyingkiran bapa saudaranya, Abdul Aziz. Tidak lama selepas dilantik sebagai Khalifah, Abdul Hamid melantik Midhat Pasha sebagai ketua Majlis Menteri-Menteri kerana Midhat Pasha amat terkenal pada masa itu.

Abdul Hamid memerlukan jaminan untuk pemerintahannya stabil. Midhat Pasha adalah gabenor yang cekap tetapi keras kepala. Sultan Abdul Aziz telah menjadi Khalifah dalam tahun 1861 dan disingkirkan dalam tahun 1876. Empat hari selepas disingkirkan, ia meninggal dunia. Ketika pemerintahan Abdul Aziz, banyak kemajuan telah dicapai.

Pasukan Khilafah Usmaniah membuat persiapan untuk menjadi pasukan ketiga terkuat di dunia dengan kekuatan tentera darat mencapai 700,000 orang. Sultan Abdul Aziz juga melawat Mesir, Perancis, Inggeris, dan Jerman.

Tujuan lawatan itu ialah untuk mempengaruhi Perancis supaya berpihak kepada Daulah Usmaniyah dan supaya Perancis tidak berpihak kepada Rusia. Tujuan lain adalah untuk menghimpunkan negara-negara Eropah untuk menentang Rusia.

Tidak lama kemudian, Inggeris mencadangkan diadakan pertemuan di Istanbul yang dihadiri oleh para duta kuasa-kuasa besar dengan tujuan untuk mewujudkan ‘perdamaian’ di Balkan. Perjanjian pertemuan akhirnya memaksa Khilafah Usmaniah untuk melaksanakan beberapa reformasi.

Maka, Midhat Pasha menjalankan reformasi-reformasi domestik tersebut. Termasuk di dalamnya pembentukan sebuah perlembagaan demokrasi dan undang-undang sekular.

Dikelilingi oleh negara-negara besar, undang-undang itu jelas bertentangan dengan Islam, yang jika dilaksanakan akan bermakna penghapusan sistem Khilafah dan bererti mewujudkan sebuah negara yang serupa dengan negara-negara Eropah lain.

Abdul Hamid, para ulama serta tokoh-tokoh Islam yang lain menentangnya. Khilafah menolak memenuhi desakan negara-negara besar. Inggeris berusaha gigih untuk menghancurkan Khilafah dan mereka berusaha untuk mempastikan pelaksanaan perlembagaan sekular yang didrafkan oleh Midhat Pasha. Untuk menghalang niat jahat ini, Abdul Hamid cuba mengurangkan populariti Midhat Pasha. Akhirnya dia berjaya melepaskan diri dari belenggu Midhat.

Midhat didakwa merancang pembunuhan Sultan Abdul Aziz. Seterusnya Abdul Hamid mengalihkan perhatian terhadap musuh luar negara Daulah Islam Usmaniah. Melalui kebijaksanaannya, dia mampu meramalkan bahawa revolusi komunis akan berlaku di Rusia dan akan membuat Russia lebih kuat dan lebih berbahaya.

Pada waktu itu Balkan yang merupakan sebahagian daripada wilayah kekuasaan Daulah Islam Othmaniah sedang berhadapan dengan dua bahaya iaitu Rusia dan Austria. Abdul Hamid berusaha membangkitkan penduduk Balkan dan menyedarkan mereka tentang bahaya yang bakal dihadapi. Dia hampir berjaya membuat perjanjian dengan negeri-negeri Balkan tetapi ketika perjanjian mencapai peringkat akhir, empat negeri Balkan mengambil keputusan lain dan mengenepikan Daulah Islam Usmaniah. Ini adalah disebabkan pengaruh Barat dan Russia. Abdul Hamid menyedari bahawa persekongkolan untuk memusnahkan Negara Islam Usmaniah lebih besar daripada yang disangkakan.

Persekongkolan itu melibatkan usaha dari dalam dan dari luar Negara Islam. Dari dalam, adalah Panglima Pasukan Awni Pasha yang cuba mengheret Daulah Islam Usmaniah ke dalam kancah perang Bosnia tanpa persetujuan Abdul Hamid. Abdul Hamid mengetahui jika terjadi peperangan, maka Rusia, Inggeris, Austria, Hungary, Serbia Montenegro, Itali, dan Perancis akan menyerang kerajaan Usmaniah secara serentak dan memastikan Bosnia dirampas. Kejatuhan Daulah Islam Othmaniah tinggal menunggu waktu.

Istana Yildiz , Pusat Pemerintahan Kerajaan Othmaniah