Madina Archives

Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board

latest taliban edict!!!
Abid
05/22/01 at 18:44:56
Any comments about this brothers and sisters?? http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1345000/1345019.stm Wassalam

Re: latest taliban edict!!!
chachi
05/22/01 at 19:10:25
it's by the bbc which became known as the Bharatiya Broadcasting Corporation by most muslims during the kargil affair when it's bias was blatently obvious and secondly the taleban is carrying out the advice given to the rulers of afghanistan in the future by Amir Dost Muhammond in the 1800's which i put on the web a while back...that the greatest mistake that any muslim country or even some non-muslim countries eg the aztecs , the native americans , the chinese etc ever made was allowing non-muslim 'explorers' to map the country by passing themselves off as muslims (one can mention a certain orientalist who travelled in the hijaz here in the 1800's) so the taleban is applying a simple rule..if the person is a muslim and breaks islamic law he will be judged...which is good ..and if he is non-muslim and he breaks islamic law he will be kicked out.. Islam isn't DEMOCRACY akhi ISLAM as my legal sociology lecturer used to constantly state is COMMUNITY...muslims are judged by islamic law..non-muslims by their own law or the basic code and foreigners are kicked out if they violate the law

Re: latest taliban edict!!!
chachi
05/22/01 at 19:18:48
You might find it useful to consider the following principles by which the world was colonised In particular the Minority principle ( this article was from a letter sent by the leader of the murabitun Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi ad-Darqawi (the author Ian Dallas at  http://bewley.virtualave.net\african1.html and NO i'm not of the maliki madhab i just think it's a good article! 1. The Partition Principle The first necessary political action of colonists is the impotising of opposition from the indigenous people, due to be made non-persons in the colonial transformation. The original dialectic civilising-culture/ignorant savages had met with growing and dramatic resistance from only one source – the sufic Tariqahs, and that means also the Muslim intellectuals. By the 1950s the old european free-for-all grabbing of territories had to be replaced with a new dialectic. Also a powerful competitor had moved on to the scene. The u.s.s.r. over and against 'imperialism' – meaning western control of Africa – was projected as a new dialectic of 'people's liberation'. Ironically, this movement posed as marxist although there is absolutely no foundation for nationalist freedom movements in classical marxist thought. Just as the rabbinical Marx never questioned the moral validity of production itself, he never forcefully confronted the morality of colonialism. Yet a powerfully persuasive people's liberation movement was set in motion based on these which were quite out of accord with the realities as well as the theories of leninist statism. While the russian imperialists used the liberation dialectic, on their side the americans and the french began to construct a brilliantly veiled system of patronage and concern which in the long run proved more powerful a control mechanism than the old repressive colonial political structure backed up by the ex-convict recruited Desert Legion which had for so long terrorised the Sahara. Charitable aid programmes and national revitalisation projects were the fronting of the new colonialism. Behind these lay the real powers of the new Africa, the multi-national corporations, the banks and especially the super-bank structures like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But we will return to the banking element later, if Allah wills. In the 1950s the french 'withdrew' from tunisia and morocco. The british pulled out of libya, sudan and suez. By the mid-fifties an anti-colonial war broke out in algeria where french racism and anti-Islamic passion were at their most fanatical. Never during the algerian conflict did the french call their enemy algerians or even arabs – they were always referred to as the muslims – the crusading (i.e. genocidal) spirit was at large again. So it was only by the beginning of the sixties that the world was to see the creation of a self-governing state called nigeria, and the formal withdrawal of the french from the Sahel and the creation of 'new nations' who would 'govern their own destinies' – or so the propaganda went. The age of colonialism was drawing to an end. Or so it seemed from the map and from the media – all produced still by the 'withdrawing' forces of the north. Out of the french empire in Africa which had been one territory under their administration were to merge no less than twelve nations. If it can be used to underline the cynical and irrelevant nature of 'national identity' it should be mentioned that there is in Paris an office whose sole work is to supply national anthems for new 'emergent' nations. Another supplies national flags. The national anthem of free 'niger' is 'La Nigerienne'! The division of the Sahel which is basically one vast desert into several separate nations with all the paraphernalia of nationhood and the inevitable competition and conflict that sets up between neighbouring states – all this was the recipe for continued control of a power now, they assumed, hopelessly divided against itself. Partition. It had (they imagined) worked in ireland. It had paralysed the sub-continent of india. It had even been used to keep a door open on cyprus, a tiny Mediterranean island. The whole 'middle east' fiasco that has seen the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children is a direct result of the colonial partitioning of peoples – deliberately separating language groupings, religious patterns, and most of all locating the seat of power in an accessible place under supervision. Splitting and decentralising volatile and energetic elements in the society. Partition invented mauritania, mali, niger, chad out of an area unified by religion, language groupings, and geographic character. But it also sliced off a portion of what lay below it in order to introduce into the Muslim identity an animist or 'christian' element. (See Principle 4) As a result of this – if you examine the map you will observe that the capitals of these four countries are situated in the south – that is, out of the influence of the Muslim leaders and within the animist/christian belt or near to it. Thus the personnel of administration and governance would be basically non-Muslim and christian. The Lagos based government of nigeria is a built-in assurance that the notoriously independent and educated muslims would be left out of federal decision making. A theory that was to be ruthlessly pursued to the point not only of assassinating Muslim leaders but also to the massacre of a people by instigation in order to 'isolate' the muslims further within their own land and from world opinion – world opinion is, by the way, what the kafir press agency which controls ALL news decrees it shall think. Partition must be understood. It is option one when dealing with the colonialist take-over. It is not a method of withdrawal but of re-establishment. The result is the fictional entity which is politically helpless. There is 'no such place' as lebanon or israel – they are creations of a political fiction which then has to be sold as fact and also 'humanitarian fact'! By the same token these Sahelian countries which do not exist – except, understand, as elements in a policy of the absentee rulership of a colonial power – because of their non-viability as countries, become dependent on assistance. It is this assistance which then forces the puppet leaders to invite back the 'developed' countries to bring to them the magical blessings of a technology they can in fact never inherit. It is not in the logic of the system of technique to release slave populations to take the benefits from the high-drive societies. The most recent and most extreme partitioning has been the creation of Djibouti an entity in the ethiopia glutted with its possession of eriteria and ogaden. Another brilliant evidence of what partitioning means and who is meant to gain from it. One country that exemplifies the Partition principle dramatically is cameroon. A quite arbitrary frontier creates a state with numerous languages, numerous peoples, a Muslim north, an animist/christian south. A capital in the south, disenfranchised muslims in the north. At the same time its real role is to be a strategic wedge between chad and nigeria in case the great Muslim city of Kano in northern nigeria proves a focus for Muslim activists across that area over into chad. And just such turbulence, for the colonialists have learned to help each other, gives nigeria's federal brewery-based government the chance to destroy the great civilising influence of Kano piety. Tunisia is a wedge-country. Togo is a wedge-country. Gambia is a wedge-country. Upper Volta is a wedge-country. Another form of wedge is the splitting of linguistic groups. This counts as a principle in itself. 2. The Linguistic Principle The issue of language becomes a red-hot issue in the colonial schema. It has led to massacres on the indian sub-continent and it is a most significant element of disruption. It must be understood. Language usage and control operates on various levels. There is the language usage reserved for the colonial power – and for those good slaves who collaborate with it. The civil service in nigeria were taught english at mission schools. Therefore the family which wanted to 'get on' had to abandon the Islamic madrasah. Equally in algeria, use of french implied abandonment of arabic. Note that already two elements emerge, The primary one is the use of the occupying-forces language. That is the first tier of the political system. At the second level we witness the seconding of Islamic learning to kafir education. Again the 'christian north' is militarily opposed to the educated Islam traditional to Africa. This could be considered the ideological element in language control. There is, however, a further element. For centuries the common language of Africa had been the language of the Qur'an. While the colonialists were a political presence in Africa they could allow an elite to speak their language. Once withdrawn to their own lands except for the infra-structure of technology-investment they had left behind, they had to control the place at the cultural level in another way. Only the french, obsessed with their odd language, insisted on defining their 'abandoned empire' as new allies called the Francophone states, that is, french-speaking. The english pushed for the setting up of Swahili as a common language. This was the solution of the bishops made to avoid the continued use of Arabic, the language of Islam. Ironically, at a still lower level we can observe that Idi Amin forced Swahili to become the language of government in uganda in order to get rid of the dominant use of english! Yet, Swahili is the language of the christian ethos and Arabic is the great common language of use across the continent. Another dimension of language control is stalinian in its theory. That is, to divide a language group by a 'new national frontier' – thus weakening the change of their language being the voice of rebellion. This happened on the border between kenya and somalia and between uganda and kenya. It is clear from these examples that unity of language will lend strength to the anti-colonialist movement. The children of Soweto refuse to learn Afrikaans. They have got the point. More radically, to learn and use Arabic is a unifying act the consequences of which will undoubtedly change the face of Africa and be a door to freedom. 3. The Democracy Principle With this principle and the next we can observe the colonial system in all its ruthless irrational power. For the fourth principle is deliberately set up to be the contradiction of the third. Let us examine this. First of all you may be aware that there is abroad in the western version of advanced society the myth of democracy. Democracy derives from a greek word demos – the people. But the democratic system of the greek ancient city state is not the true derivation of this term in modern political parlance. It derives from the masonically scripted french revolution. It does not lead to people's rule but rather it is a device to install an all-powerful bureaucratic elite who can carry out policies without further interference due to the mythic 'franchise' that has been granted them at the polls. In other words, the pattern that may be valid for people's control at a small-town level (for that is all ancient Athens was) cannot work within the framework of large modern cities, let alone vast nation-states. It can be clearly seen that the democratic framework once established then survives on the acceptance of political parties who go 'before the people'. Yet groups can be barred from this process through rulings that outlaw them when unwanted – be they leftist or rightist – and then they can also be barred by lack of funding as within the two party system in the u.s.a. If necessary the whole system can be eroded from within through the deliberate proliferation of centrist parties in order not to change things but to protect the status quo in crisis. Parliament and General Assembly are thus two antique models to guarantee the continuance of an already existing power elite. Its usefulness is, however, that it allows the possibility of absorbing new strong elements in the society rather than being threatened by them. Trade union power can be absorbed into its system as can fascism itself. Hitler was elected to power by a popular franchise and can be seen as one of the major achievements of the so-called democratic system! So mythic is it in its coronation of people's rights that it is used as a device even in the non-political systems of the east. Here we seethe comic ritual of 99% of the votes in favour of leaders and communist parties. It is also a rightist practice in dictatorships like those of chile and egypt. Yet it is this dubious and defunct system which boasts anarchy in italy and a quasi-fascist police state in almost every e.e.c. country today that we are told is the necessary prelude to the even more elusive 'self-government' that Africans are told they fervently desire and are fighting for – all this dialectic must be seen for what it is! We had earlier noted that democracy stems from the french revolution and this is not merely its historical source, it is its ideological one. This means that nationhood is a concept invented to destabilise religious power according to the zionist thesis of masonism which is wipe out the religious power of the forces opposing jewish ambitions. To this end the very concept of the modern nation has to be disestablished from religious control. It is called the secular state. Every modern state in the west and east is 'secular. Even england which symbolically names the monarch as 'Defender of the faith' actually has reduced church power to the ineffective upper house. Every president of the u.s.a. since Washington has been a mason, almost every french president too. The case of rhodesia is relevant. An African nation named after a notorious adventurer and mason, struggles for 'independence'. Actually, the white settler represents agrarian wealth and 'backward' power. He is a bad investment. It is necessary to align the country with the new investment-colonialism. A change-over must be made that seems to fulfil all the rhetoric of both radicalism and the just values of de-colonialisation. The solution is democracy. One man one vote. A census is taken. An all but impossible sociological event. An election is held. The white settlers win the election. This was not the required goal. So the election is declared invalid. Two governments play their role in this from england. One left wing and one right wing. The policy identical. Second time round a brilliant deal is done behind the scenes. The apparently 'radical' leader is elected by a landslide. One man one vote is vindicated. This time the same faces from england declare that this election was just, as they previously had said that the former was unjust. The way is clear to dump the economically irrelevant white settlers and move on to the new economic level of exploitation. Scrap the unpleasant colonialist name rhodesia, call it a good African name – zimbabwe – and then move in the massive investment in the new phase of exploitation that is being set up. Two groups moved into the new zimbabwe after 'independence' – new, specially trained 'missionaries' and the banking community! New flag. New anthem. New motto. New face on the chair of power. Behind the scenes – the same story! In some countries the election is a mere formality. In egypt dictatorship hides behind a parliamentary facade. Yet it is not the left/right dialectic we should look to – what concerns us is the role of colonialism in opposing Islam. With the setting up of the colonial power bases in the post military-presence and post administrational presence – it became necessary to ensure that Islam did not re-establish its intellectual and therefore political supremacy in greater Africa. After a tremendous amount of research by the orientalists, jewish and christian, a systematic approach was designed. The 'middle phase', as it was called, was the creation of a group of traitor 'ulama' and intellectuals who would be flattered to join the european club. The means were the masonic lodges already well established in egypt. In algeria educated meant french speaking, beardless and with a re-spelt de-islamicised name. Baggy trousers meant derision and low echelon jobs, tight trousers meant higher rank. Today you can still be sacked from the moroccan postal service if you dare to wear a beard! It took the marxists to re-introduce the Lenin-style beard into north Africa. These middle phase allies were co-opted into the re-structuring of their countries' constitutions. Their instructions were to draft secular legislation which saw the shari'at of Islam was displaced from its role as part of state governance. The essential element was to reduce its authority over social matters until it only concerned personal matters like marriage, divorce and property settlement. For this these middle phase 'ulama' and academics and civil servants were cynically co-opted. In nigeria the de-islamicising of the legal system was a sophisticated and brilliant piece of work. It is here that the cynicism of 'democracy' shows through. Nigeria is a Muslim country. It has a large Muslim majority – although the percentage statistic diminishes year by year in official pronouncements! Since nigeria is a Muslim state by democratic principles – if these principles had any reality it would have to opt for rule by shari'at. It is not the case. Look further. Tanzania is an almost completely Muslim country yet it has a christian leader and is governed by christians. The same is the case in kenya. What representation do Muslims have in mozambique? In madagascar? The shari'at is denied to countries which are already majority Muslim populations. This takes us to the ironically effective next principle. 4. The Minority Principle It is clear that all the principles of colonial methodology are based on means by which the host organism can be paralysed and made subservient to the parasitic guest. The Minority Principle is the one which most openly reveals the disdain the colonists have for the very principles they pretend to adhere to, and the clear split in their world view that implies one morality for them and another for colonial countries. Remember, we are assuming, on powerful evidence, the continued control of Africa by the high-tech north. The Minority Principle is a leverage device, Its purpose is to delay administrative and political departure or to provide a writ for re-entry. It goes like this: "In the country there is a minority. If we (the colonists) leave, we fear for the safety of the minority due to the fanaticism of the majority group." Or, We are not satisfied that the minority are justly represented in the forthcoming assembly of the new republic." It is patently obvious that this approach is in direct contradiction to the Democracy Principle, but expediency is the dominant rule of colonialism, and that implies total disregard of justice. Ireland was partitioned in order to protect the protestant christian minority, or so they said. When all logic demands that an island with one cultural and linguistic past should be unified, the reason for staying, ironically, becomes the need to protect the catholic majority of the north from sectarian violence, so the troops are sent in, and remain. In sudan the moves towards Islamic shari'at are deflected by uprisings and fomented trouble in the south. Suddenly the christians produce lines of anthropologists all begging for the protection of the 'noble savage', the animist in his pristine state. The declared desire to bring the world to christian faith, strangely forgotten in a desire to preserve pagan worship! This dialectic which shows christians begging for the protection of primitivism as a bastion against the spread of Islam is a phenomenon that presents itself all across the continent. In short, missionaries may bring pagans into the christian church, but any possibility of their entering Islam means an incursion into their culture which must be preserved – as, presumably, a domain for more anthropologists to study and write monographs on. This position can be seen at work in upper volta with the Dogon, in northern uganda with the tribes there, as well as with the animist groups bordering the Muslim Sahelians. In egypt the Copts who traditionally have always been quite ignored by the Muslims are presented as being put at risk should egypt 'turn the clock back' by re-introducing shari'at law. So the Minority Principle is used to order, and can cue in military intervention whenever required. Just as the jews are not beyond sacrificing their own people for the zionist cause, as in their bombing of their own synagogue in Paris to create hysteria which then defines any criticism of israel as anti-semitism, so too, the christians are not beneath using the same technique. Fomenting riots and coming to the rescue is a classical trick of colonialists. The Makarere massacre in uganda was ona of the incidents used to justify the tanzanian invasion of the country. It never took place. Significantly, there has been more genocide under tanzanian occupation than ever took place under Idi Amin. But no one 'intervenes', tanzania is the tool of the colonial nexus as everybody knows. In chad the french foreign legion rampaged through the Muslim lands causing havoc. Their atrocities were so savage they even drew criticism from the colonialist countries. Women were raped, men used for bayonet practice, children slaughtered. Yet when they put under pressure they had to create 'disturbances' and then present themselves as the force needed to restore law and order. It was bitterly cynical, but the world prefers to buy the picture of civilising europeans to that of Africans with 'human rights'. 'Human rights; are for jews but not for palestinians, for american hostages but not for iranian savak victims. Minority protection has been used in nigeria – it was the underlying dialectic of the 'biafran' war. It is also that of the moves to re-write the legal code to displace the Islamic shari'at – protection of the minority. Yet when the Muslim minority in northern cameroon were massacred no state or french troops moved in to protect them. Shari'at law is never made constitutional to protect Muslim minorities – yet again and again shari'at law is displaced to 'protect' kafir minorities! The fact is, of course, that it is only in Islamic law that you build a built-in guaranteed protection for minorities. As a footnote to this we can note the supreme disdain that england has for its Islamic minority and their 'human rights'. Men have been sacked from their jobs for trying to attend jumu'a prayers. The trade unions have upheld the decision and so the obligatory duty of a Muslim is denied him and he has no protection in the courts. 5. The National Myth Principle The strongest element in controlling a state is the creation of a strong national myth. There is a whole system involved in creating a pseudo-nation. It is in fact a minor industry earning money. The key elements are: 1. A name for the country. 2. A specially designed flag. 3. A national anthem. 4. A national motto. 5. A national football team. The flag is another masonic concept and allegiance and worship of the flag are essential elements in the kafir materialist state. The americans are notorious for their superstitious and irrational emotion where the flag is concerned. It was a most significant ritual that saw the admittedly embarrassed Shaykh al-Azhar bow into ruku' and kiss the egyptian flag at a ceremony on the Gaza-strip marking the first phase of the israeli victory over egypt called the Camp David Agreement. The raising and lowering of flags in ritual at fixed times of the day or night consisting of religious rites and therefore haram. Saluting a flag is a half-takbir. No Muslim may do this. National anthems are another ludicrous imposition on a colonised people. Wahhabi 'ulama' object to sufis using music to draw people to dhikr of Allah and yet stand solemnly to attention at civic functions while the national anthem is playing. Yet standing to attention is an iqama, and therefore an act of worship and therefore haram. No Muslim may do this. The first sign of Muslim strength against ataturkism (i.e. masonry) and secular government in turkey was when, at a mass rally, the Muslims tore up the flag and refused to stand for the national anthem. They were being called fanatical! Yet the rituals they were being asked to participate in were irrational and superstitious! Some they were accused of 'desecrating' the flag – this meant it was considered a sacred object. An admission that the rites were religious in nature. National mottoes nearly always are phrases from the masonic and anti-theistic declaration of human rights that followed the french revolution (and reign of terror). The most popular is the famous 'liberty, fraternity and equality'. This is a displacement of the Qur'an as the final guide to men's actions and the highest possible statement about human rights and obligations. Any national motto is a rejection of and an insult to the Qur'an and should be refused and ridiculed. National football teams and the participation in the world sport movement is a deliberate involvement of Muslims in pagan games. Allah, glory be to Him, has clearly stated in the Qur'an: We did not create this world as a sport and a pastime. Play for its own sake is forbidden, particularly in ritualised group games. It must not be forgotten that along with these games goes a complete anthropological system. It is part of the 'solution' to the problem of what to do with excess physical energy and aggression among workers – the answer is to contain the workers in isolated arenas where they watch the violent conflict ritualised in a 'safe' game. At the end the worst that may happen is inter-team fighting. This de-politicises crowd violence and protects central government. Further to this, modern games involve the raising and lowering of national flags, the playing of anthems, and worse the olympic ideology which is pagan and involves body worship and fire worship. These pathetic and degrading spectacles present 'modern' man at his most primitive and superstitious. Thus the olympic games were the vehicle to confirm the validity of the afghanistan invasion. The commonwealth games are the confirmation of the colonial power syndrome. A whole series of secondary elements follow the main group. One of these is the Airport Ritual. This is for the elite – to glorify them. It is also for presentation on national television. The plane touches down. The president or minister visiting the country comes down from the plane onto a red carpet. He walks forward slowly. The host president of minister advances slowly. They embrace or shake hands. They walk ritually to 'inspect the troops'. This means walking hurriedly down a line of soldiers at attention. Then the party moves to a dais under the two national flags. The two national anthems are played. Short speeches follow and then everyone walks to the waiting cars and the ritual drive to the palace. A kafir jumu'a! One last element of national practice is the closing of a day's television with a reading from the Qur'an. This, in so-called Islamic countries, is a copy of the behaviour of the christians who recite a piece of their Bible before closing the station. Since this is done on a regular ritual basis it should, of course, be stopped, since it is a clear bida'. Again, official 'ulama' never question the role of religion in upholding a non-Islamically governed state. Thus the duty reverts again to the ordinary Muslims to put things right. An extension of the National Myth principle is the propagandist line that people are proud to be sudanese or egyptian and so on. Thus frontiers which were utterly spurious and arbitrary when created become things to be protected and defended. This was clear in the chad affair. A frontier that had been invented by foreign mercenary troops became something 'all chadians' were determined to protect and keep inviolable. 'National' sovereignty is upheld by media at the local level and by the masonic power control system of the united nations, a body that was created and convened with the sole purpose of legitimising the state of israel, a country that has ever since flaunted its directives and now, when its expansionist aims are being halted, calls for its abolition! Yet it is israel which forms along with south africa, the colonialist axis which still aims at the complete control of the African continent and its de-islamicisation. This brings us to the next level of our analysis. What lies behind the official and yet mythic political framework which maintains the colony status over a whole continent. It should be remembered that some countries do indeed seem to have gained a certain autonomy, like algeria and libya, but we must examine these causes also in greater detail and try to discern the undertow of events as best we can.
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, 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