The Treachery of the “Rulers”

Madina Archives

Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board

The Treachery of the “Rulers”
10/09/01 at 11:04:15
The Treachery of the “Rulers”

The Islamic sharia decisively forbids the Muslims aiding the non-Muslims against their fellow Muslims. To the contrary almost all of the Muslims rulers including the pseudo “Islamic” states have gone out of their way to support Bush’s “Crusade” particularly against Afghanistan, revealing their true ugly nature.

Unlike the previous conflict of the Gulf War, when some Muslims argued the existence of legitimate grounds to support the US led coalition as the Iraqi regime was the clear aggressor against another Muslim country (Kuwait), there is no such grounds this time. Rather the victims are clearly the innocent Muslims of Afghanistan, although there is no real shred of evidence to implicate them. Nor have the US by their standards any form of authorisation from the United Nations to attack Afghanistan. As such to aid the US in anyway would be clear open treachery against the Muslim Ummah, as there is not an ounce of justification for the Muslim rulers to carry out such actions.

This article will examine the three most prominent cases over the last week.

Arafat & Co

After years of treachery not surprisingly he was one of the first to openly offer help to the US, and even donated his own blood for this cause, whilst his own masses rejoiced out of the accumulated anger and frustration over the last fifty years or so. Very short is his memory about the State sponsored terrorism that was and still is being inflicted upon the very people, that he is supposed to be “representing”. When the butcher of Sabra and Shatila, Ariel Sharon aided the massacre of the defenceless women and children no one stood in silence or offered stirring speeches, let alone give blood. Sharon was in charge at the time, and was clearly responsible for the atrocities, which has been acknowledged by many leading US, European officials. Is Sharon not a worthwhile terrorist for the US? Certainly not! As the US and the “civilised” world, will never equate the lives of the five thousand people against the twenty or thirty thousands Palestinians. Arafat went further to aid Bush in his quest for building the grand coalition by ceasing all the resistance and naturally the Israelis followed suit. The question to be posed now is will Arafat be eliminating Sharon’s terrorists or Bushes terrorists? The media of the “civilised” world will only consider and propagate the notion of terrorism from their own perspective to the exclusion of the “uncivilised” world.

“King” Fahd and the Gulf Countries

As expected there was full eager cooperation from the oil rich nations run by the few privileged families, which have been in existence since the destruction of the Uthmania (Ottomans) Khilafah in 1924. The very foundations of these states were the product of treachery and betrayal. Their open cooperation with the British colonial power ultimately led to the destruction of the last political entity of the Muslim Ummah. Hence treachery for these elites is not something novel but it exists as part and parcel of their history. Which was again demonstrated in their open alliance with the US in the gulf war to the astonishment of the Muslim Ummah and the Arab masses. As Fahd and his regime claims to be the guardian of the two holy mosques (Khadim Al Haramain), but true to their nature has betrayed the third holy mosque of Islam (Al-Qudds), evident from their silence on the subject. Even the “Scholars (Ulemas)” have failed to regard these issues with any importance but instead they are focused on passing fatwa on subjects such as Pokemon. Some of the Kuwaitis went a step further, like Arafat, they started to offer blood to their fellow beloved American citizens, while turning a blind eye to the blood that is being spilt daily of their neighbouring Arab Muslims of Iraq and Palestine. Will these Arabs wave the American flag this time when the Muslim of Afghanistan and Iraq are killed by the expected US lead operation?

Pakistan & Iran

In practical terms what the US will most certainly require is the assistance from Afghanistan’s neighbours to provide them with land bases for the army and air space for the air raids, and finally human intelligence for the rugged train of Afghanistan. There are two possible main candidates, Iran and Pakistan.

The “Islamic” republic of Iran could not be seen to work openly with the great Satan, after all they are supposed to be an Islamic State and thus display a degree of responsibility towards the Afghan Muslims, even if they are at odds with their leadership. Iran is no longer on the path of bringing the ideal Islamic state and exporting their revolution, the zeal vanished with the demise of Ayatollah Khomeni. Instead as the events unfold in Iran it visibly indicates that Iran is on the route to greater level of secularisation with a nominal Islamic garb. Many Iranians under this fever of reformation have forgotten the various forms of US terrorism on their soil. When the passenger aircraft was shot down killing everyone onboard there was no compensation given or any tears shed, but yet the Iranians of today are eager to establish close ties with US government.

Pakistan on the other hand completely capitulated to the demands of US, without bothering to erect any form of effective resistance. Examining the arguments from Musharraf’s speeches undoubtedly reveals his gross incompetence, ignorance and lack of any form of feelings for the Muslims in that region.

a) His first argument is that India is trying to harm the interest of Pakistan by offering US full cooperation and help to install an anti Pakistani government in Afghanistan. If India is a clear foe with ill intention and not to be trusted then why did he make the visit to Agra? What is he hoping to achieve? This clearly exposes Musharraf’s lack of comprehension regarding US aspirations in the region and her plans. US policy was always geared towards creating an alliance with India, which has a larger market, a fully established democracy that shares many of the values with the Capitalist nations, most significantly can act as a counter weight to China. In the 1950s however India did not want to be a subordinate nation under the US influence after gaining independence from the two hundred years of British rule. This naturally led the US to become to reluctant nominal ally with Pakistan but all times she was actively working to establish closer relationship with India. In 1962 when China went to war with India, China requested Ayyub Khan to take Kashmir, but the US advised Ayyub Khan against this, promising to resolve the issue politically, but nothing materialised. Similarly, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the US aided Pakistan and Afghanistan but once the Russian troops withdrew through humiliation, the US left Pakistan to rot, whilst trying to establish close links with India. Despite many signals from the US at the expense of Pakistan, the Ghandi dynasty kept the US at bay until the BJP’s rise to power. The US has since been increasing her ties with the India on many fronts, and Pakistan is fast becoming irrelevant as was indicated by the various speeches made by leading US officials. It is for this reason US has asked Pakistan to ignore the UN resolutions on Kashmir as impractical and normalise relationship with India. Bush wants to strengthen India’s capability as a regional power to counter China, where Pakistan’s role is to aid that cause in compliance with India’s regional aspiration and US foreign policy. Hence cooperating with the US now may bring certain short-term benefits but all the signs indicate the US will heavily side with India at the expense of Pakistan as soon as this incident is over. In addition the US also contemplates a further risk of strengthening Pakistan, which may lead the alteration of balance of power in the Middle East region through the transfer of technology. After the attack on the world trade centre both countries share another common cause that is combating Islamic radicals, often referred euphemistically by the term terrorists, which has most certainly sealed the US-India alliance at the expense of Pakistan.

b) Musharraf then argues we should distinguish between bravery and cowardice. As he says “bravery without thinking is stupidity” and he elaborates further by stating “Allah has said that he who has “hikmat” (wisdom) has a huge blessing. We have to save our interest and Pakistan comes first, everything else is secondary”.
Bravery without thinking may be stupid but in many cases it can also be noble. Whereas capitulation of certain basic fundamental principles of a nation most certainly constitutes an act of cowardice at the least and outright treachery at the most. Such actions are not calculated political manoeuvres, or the display of wisdom (hikma) as he claims. It is not surprising for such statements to be emanating from a man who considers himself to be the follower of a Jewish traitor, Mustafa Kemal, responsible for the ultimate crime of dismantling the Khilafah. This type of argument has been presented to placate the anger of the Muslim Ummah as he proceeds to openly assist the US army’s murderous designs to slaughter the Muslims in Afghanistan. What Musharraf does not understand is that ‘hikma’ in the Quran has certain boundaries and parameters, and it is not a license to aid the non-Muslims openly to kill fellow Muslims. He has conveniently ignored the clear-cut Quranic verses forbidding Muslims to have any form of alliance with non-Muslims against their fellow Muslims. Whoever does so will become one of them (A Kaffir).

“The Believers (Muslims) men and women are protectors of one another” (Tauba, 9:91)

“O you who believe (Muslims) Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers “ (Nisa , 4:144)

“O you who believe take not my enemies (Kuffar) and yours as protectors offering them your love “ (Surat Mumtahana, 60:1)

“Oh you who believe (Muslims) take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. He amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them.” (Surat Maida, 5:51)

“ The unbelievers (Kuffar) are protectors, one of another, unless you (Muslims) protect each other, there will be tumult (fitna) and great oppression (fasad) on earth. (Surat Anfal, 8:73)

There are certain fundamental principals that cannot be violated; one of those is the sanctity of Muslim lives. Pakistan was founded as a sanctuary for the safety of the Muslims in the Indian subcontinent not as a base to launch murderous acts against fellow Muslims. Hence to act contrary to this principal would be an outright betrayal of the notion of Pakistan and the Islamic Sharia. Furthermore there is no guarantee that the US will not betray Pakistan again given her track record as already stated.

c) Musharraf then elaborates further by citing Islamic evidences from the life of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), “The move from Mecca to Medina (hijrat), was this (God forbid) cowardice? This was wisdom to save Islam.“ Prophet Muhammad’s flight to Medina was not due to cowardice nor was it a compromise the lives of the Muslims. The flight to Medina was only under taken after the second pledge of Aqabah, where prophet Muhammad was given absolute authority over Medina. Hence his flight was there as a head of the first Islamic state, where all the Muslims started to migrate to. If he was fleeing for his life then he would have fled much earlier but rather he was last one to leave Mecca after ensuring that most of the Muslims have left for Medina. In this action he did not commit any form alliance with the non-Muslims to attack fellow Muslims rather he established a true homeland for the Muslims. Hence there absolutely is no analogy with actions of Musharraf.

He further tries to legitimise his treachery by citing the treaty of Hudaybia, between the Islamic state and the Quraish of Mecca. The treaty was a temporary pact of truce with the Quraysh and not a pact of war against other Muslims. In fact the treaty mentioned clearly that no Muslims are to be persecuted let alone killed. A further reminder for Musharraf is the next major battle of Ahzab, where all of the tribes formed an alliance to exterminate the Muslims in Medina. Did the Prophet use his wisdom (hikma) and sacrifice the lives of some of the Muslims to repel the attackers? Nor was he afraid to be labelled as a terrorist state or isolated from the international community. To the contrary when the Jews insulted a single lady, the Prophet called his war council to wage Jihad in battle of Banu Qaunuqaa.

How many more Muslim lives will it take to convince the Muslim Ummah to arise and remove these treacherous rulers? What Mushraaf has demonstrated is gross ignorance and misinterpretation of the facts to say the least and twisting of Islamic evidences. This may be the defining point for the Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, as the events unfold revealing their fate but what is for certain is that all the leaders have openly sided with the Kuffar without any remorse or shame and have once again committed an action of outright treachery.

Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author.
The rest © Jannah.Org