- Category: Mahdism
- Written by Paul White
- Hits: 5341
Source : The Scientific Committee of the International Conference of Mahdism Doctrine
As a Political Scientist I get asked to speak about ‘controversial’ topics. Few are as ‘controversial’ — and as important to the ’Ummah — as the presents topic. I propose to begin by sketching the political context in which this debate occurs. This will lead to a comparison of the two great opposing systems: man’s law versus the law of Allah (swt). It will then be possible to look at some of the central ideas of ‘moderate’ Islam. Finally, the ramifications of these ideas will be looked at and an alternative suggested.
I want to commence by posing a question: where is the ’Ummah going? The forces of kufr, led by the United States , have declared War on Islam. As we meet here tonight, the Muslims in Somalia face murderous attack from an invading Ethiopian army at the behest of the United States . Just as in Lebanon and Iraq , this is justified in the name of ‘democracy’. As the US folksinger David Rovics puts it: “Bombs falling over Baghdad , And each one cries ‘democracy’”.
My ‘own’ Government has enthusiastically joined in many of these massacres. Australian Prime Minister John Howard says Israel as a ‘right to defend itself’ (that is, exterminate Palestinian and Lebanese Muslims). Australian troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan and full support has been given to the escalating war drive against Muslim Iran.
Australia actively supports the Israelis who murder, torture and humiliate Palestinian Muslim men, women and children daily – once again in the name of their Godless ‘democracy. Islam is under attack everywhere not because it is a source of terror, but because true Islam is the framework of genuine justice. Exploiters and evil-doers really do fear authentic Islam. Islam grasps that humanity today is on the brink of a precipice, centrally because humankind is devoid of the vital values which are necessary for its survival. The Holy Qur’an warns us: ‘[2.217] and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can’.
Sayyid Qutb explains the threat that Islam’s Divine system represents to Godless capitalism:
It is Islam that stands for a universal and articulated theory of the universe, life, and mankind, and which sets up the idea of the mutual responsibility of society in place of the idea of hostility and struggle. It is Islam that gives to life a spiritual doctrine to link it with the Creator in the heavens, and to govern its direction on earth; and it is Islam that is not content to allow life to be limited to the achievement of purely material aims, even though material and productive activity is one of the Islamic modes of worship.
The kufr media subjects Muslims to an unrelenting barrage of hate. In Sydney, where the largest concentration of Muslims in Australia live, this has duped many non-Muslims into fearing that youth of so-called ‘Middle Eastern appearance’ are ‘rapists’, if not ‘Muslim terrorists’. The events at Cronulla (a beach suburb in Sydney , Australia ) – when up to 5,000 racists and anti-Muslim bigots attacked a handful of persons of ‘Middle Eastern appearance in December 2005 – were merely the logical continuation of this campaign.
This was not a riot but a consciously orchestrated pogrom – that is, a violent attack by a majority against a minority, aiming to drastically escalate anti-Muslim tensions, while simultaneously terrorising the Muslims.
The anti-Muslim crusade is being fought at all levels, including at the levels of theology and psychological warfare. The cartoons of our Holy Prophet (S) aimed to further demoralise the Muslims, while at the same time further whipping up anti-Muslim hatred.
The recent lengthy diatribe by Cardinal Pell was a carefully calculated rant against Islam. Given Pell’s senior status in the Catholic Church globally, moreover, it is probable that his attack was made at the request of Pope Benedict XVI, who has a track record of demonising Islam. That’s why Joseph D’Hippolito wrote gleefully in the Jerusalem Post (9 May 2005): ‘The era of de-facto appeasement under Pope John Paul II is over. ‘The era of subtle, discreet, yet firm confrontation has begun’. And yet, so many Muslims still do not get it.
Sadly, many of Australian Muslim community ‘leaders’ are refusing to stand by the truth, however. This is why the anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic offensive is succeeding, even though there is no shortage of Believing Muslims wanting to ‘do something’.
The truth of the matter is that our ’Ummah has a severe shortage of pious leaders in Australia who are prepared to rally us to challenge the oppressors. Instead, many of our leaders sit on committees with the oppressors (the Government’s ‘Reference Group’ and its sub-committees), that plot against Muslims. Such misleaders want Muslims to become like the Christians: to resign ourselves to submit to oppression, by leaving our religion at the masjid door.
This is a blatantly secular perspective. The secular Muslim misleaders are determined, that our Divine ethical and moral code should on no account be applied to how we actually live our lives. The consequences of this for the ’Ummah should be obvious: it would mean submitting to kufr across the board. And, in the context of a global War on Islam, it could result in the destruction of the ’Ummah.
And yet, this so-called ‘moderate’ perspective has the support of many Muslims. It appears very ‘reasonable’. And it appeals to those among us looking to fit-in with the dominant system, to find a little niche in it, by not rocking the boat. This is the outlook known as so-called ‘moderate Islam’, which buys the central strategy of the enemies of Islam.
A very conscious game is currently being played by the enemies of Islam. They are attempting to divide us even further into so-called ‘moderate (or ‘Australian’) Muslims’ and ‘extremist’ (or pious) Muslims. The next stage of this operation will be to totally marginalise all those Muslims who insist on following their religious obligations and do not bow to man’s desires, instead.
Then those marginalised Mumineen will be subject to ferocious repression. Meanwhile, the enemies of Islam will point to the ‘moderate’ and ‘Australian’ Muslims as ‘good Muslims’ whom they accept. Then, if all the so-called ‘extremist’ (or pious) Muslims are successfully crushed or marginalised, even the so-called ‘moderate Muslims’ could face a frontal assault.
We should never forget what the founding father of the contemporary anti-Islamic Crusade, Samuel P. Huntington, wrote in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order:
Some Westerners … have argued that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent Islamist extremists. Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise (p. 209).
And: The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam… (pp. 217-18).
At the heart of this perspective is the con-game of ‘democracy’. Many Western-educated and ‘modernist’ Muslims are staunch advocates for Western liberal democracy, which they tell us is an integral part of Islam. But the word ‘democracy’ has come to mean all things to all people. It has become so vague that it is virtually meaningless, even in the West.
Western politicians are fond of using this term to describe any policy they favour. For them, it has no agreed terms of reference, no fixed points of definition. Whether something is ‘democratic’ or not in their eyes depends only on who is doing it — the West’s allies or its opponents. A military regime such as Algeria’s can be ‘democratising’, to give just one example, while a popular revolution such as that in Iran can be ‘anti-democratic’.
Western academics and idealist political activists are increasingly concluding that democracy might be an ideal that can only be aspired to — and never actually achieved. And yet many Muslims, the main victims of the West’s self-serving and ‘undemocratic’ conduct, seem unable to grasp this reality.
Unfortunately, the West’s dominance in every aspect of modern life — political, economic, cultural and intellectual — has convinced many Muslims that the West has the only viable foundation for success. These Muslims try to find equivalents for Western ‘democratic’ concepts in Islam. After all, Islam is not opposed to the rule of law; Islamic rulers and governments are supposed to be law-abiding. They are also supposed to promote and protect the rights of their people, not to oppress anyone, and to consider public opinion in decision-making.
What then, some Muslims say, is the difference between Islam and democracy? However, when Muslims talk in terms of ‘democracy’, even if they do not mean to be pro-Western, the effect is:
• to give the impression of endorsing Western values and Western claims to represent universal values, and
• to lay themselves open to accusations of being undemocratic by Westerners.
Then suddenly, instead of being able to simply accept the parts of ‘democracy’ that are common to Islamic political thought, and criticise the rest, Muslims find themselves having to explain why they do not accept all of democracy, at which they tend to be extremely apologetic and ineffective.
They are put on the defensive and find themselves talking about democracy instead of Islam. And, infatuated by the West’s supposed ‘superiority’ in all things, they find themselves apologising for the idea of Shari’ah law not to mention the very concepts of the Islamic state or global Muslim community, the ’Ummah. These are universally denounced by the West as ‘backward’, if not ‘medieval’, and the ‘moderate’ Muslims concede that they are ‘outmoded’ in the 21st century.
- Next >>