The People Declare China Guilty of Genocide

On account of the evidence of torture, systematic suppression of births with intent to destroy a community, and crimes against humanity beyond reasonable doubt, the People’s Tribunal has concluded that the Chinese government is committing genocide against Uyghurs.
Many Uyghur activists and members of the public gathered at Church House Westminster on 9 December to hear the verdict by the Uyghur tribunal. “The allegations are of the gravest human rights violations and international crimes,” said Sir Geoffrey Nice, the tribunal’s chair.

The tribunal called out the haunting evidence of a million Uyghurs being subject to detention by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) without any remotely sufficient reason. Evidence confirmed that detainees were subject to inhumane cell conditions; up to 50 people would sometimes be locked in a 22 square metre cell – making it impossible to lie on concrete – while only being given a communal bucket for a toilet. Some of the torture methods included the pulling off of finger nails, beating with sticks, being restrained in tiger chairs – where feet and hands were locked in position for days, and being put in containers filled with cold water up to the neck. Men and women were subjected to extreme sexual violence, including gang rape, forced penetration with electric shock rods, and iron bars. These are just some of the cruel violations that have taken place and continue to take place in China’s detention camps.

Further methods of control were evidenced by mass disappearances of Uyghur members, Han men forced into Uyghur homes, mass securitisation, neighbours spying on neighbours, intense monitoring of ‘separatist’ behaviour, and the involuntary removal of thousands of children from their families in order to send them to Han state-run boarding schools.

Sir Geoffrey Nice pointed to the lack of evidence of mass killings, as well as Uyghurs being allowed to return to society for short or long periods of time. For this reason, comparisons to the Holocaust were described as “well-intentioned but unhelpful”. Whilst the common understanding of genocide assumes mass killings, this is not the only indicator considered by scholars. It also constitutes the systematic suppression of births, as well as the utter destruction and eradication of a people’s lineage, culture, religion, thought, beliefs, and values, as evidenced by the ‘re-education’ camps and ‘anti-terror’ methods used by the PRC.

The PRC’s intent to biologically destroy the Uyghurs by preventing births met the legal elements of genocide. Surmounting evidence pertaining to the forced sterilisation of Uyghur women was found after considering the frequent insertion of IUD devices, which are only removable by surgical means. In addition, further findings were presented, such as forced abortions at early and late stages of pregnancy, involuntary removal of wombs, as well as the killing of babies at birth.

“The tribunal is satisfied that President Xi Jinping and other very senior officials in the PRC and CCP bear primary responsibility” for acts that occurred in East Turkistan. Let there be no mistake: the PRC’s treatment of Uyghurs links back to their agenda to destroy and eradicate Uyghur religion and culture through the use of ‘anti-terror’, ‘anti-extremism ’, and ‘separatist’ rhetoric. The Chinese state has already destroyed 16,000 mosques and has even torn down cemeteries to build ‘cafes’. In addition, “displays of religious adherence” like attending a mosque, wearing a hijab, having a beard, and not drinking alcohol or eating pork have been proscribed by the state.

Former Guantanamo prisoner and prominent War on Terror critic Moazzam Begg questioned the tribunal about the evidence suggesting the PRC’s exploitation of the War on Terror narrative through the enactment of ‘anti-terror’ policies. “To what extent do you think it has exploited that language and has been able to get away with the targeting of Muslims in East Turkistan as ‘extremists’ and ‘terrorists’?” A member of the tribunal agreed that China was able to “sweep their Uyghur problem under the global war on terrorism. They actually persuaded the US to join in on the categorisation of a Uyghur group outside Xinjiang as a terrorist group. The application of that lasted up until 2018”.

After a year and a half of compiling detailed forms of evidence and finally coming to the necessary outcome of genocide, the public are probably thinking, “What now?” Politicians who were present at the press conference after the tribunal called on the UK government to use the readily available evidence and publicly recognise that a genocide is taking place. This is something they have never succeeded to do while a genocide was ongoing. They also request the UK government to place sanctions on Chinese imports and declare a full diplomatic boycott.

There is no doubt that this tribunal is a significant step in the right direction towards putting pressure on China to end their crimes against the Uyghurs. Alḥamdulillāh, the tribunal did what governments had no courage to do. Sir Geoffrey Nice alludes that both the US and the UK acknowledged China’s crimes, but have done nothing about it.

It would be naïve to place full hopes on those who only seek to further their socio-political agenda. The essence of the problem must be addressed, which is China’s state run policies to suppress and eradicate Muslims and other minorities in East Turkistan, where individuals are tortured and persecuted for their religion. Unless this is done, we cannot expect their actions to sincerely have the Uyghur people’s interests at heart. We wait for the UK to make an open statement about the genocide and actually make references to the list of crimes against humanity taking place. We hope this sends a message to much of the international community who have shown complicity in the heinous crimes against Uyghur Muslims, and urge them once again to take action.

May Allah hasten the Ummah to success and bestow justice upon the Uyghurs and thousands of others around the world being persecuted for their dīn. And last but not least, may He aid us in standing firm with our brothers and sisters.

from: http://www.islam21c.com

Why is the world not recognizing the Taliban government?

More than three months have passed since the Taliban took over Kabul, but the world has yet to officially recognize the new government. Even the United States of America that took the lead in inking the Doha peace deal is still weighing the pros and cons of such a possibility.

This situation is lingering on, despite the United Nations warning that Afghanistan is facing a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions and is on the verge of disaster.

So, what are the impediments in recognizing the new reality in Afghanistan, when almost all the stakeholders are in direct contact with the Taliban government?

Broadly, the world can be divided into three major groups on this issue.

The first and the foremost is led by the United States of America. It comprises the European Union, NATO members, most Middle Eastern countries, Japan and India. The second is the regional group that consists of Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, and a number of Central Asian Countries.

The rest of the world can be categorized into the third group that includes at least six countries from the non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

All these groups have similar views on at least a few points. They have unanimously asked the Taliban to form an inclusive government, ensure the rights of women and minorities and guarantee that Afghanistan will no more serve as the launching pad for global terrorist operations.

But, all is not as black and white. The truth lies somewhere in the grey area. And, these three groups remarkably differ from each other.

Let’s first consider a group led by the United States of America. The Biden administration has not openly demanded who should or shouldn’t be in the inclusive government. But, there are clear signs that Washington wants to see some significant figures of the previous governments be given important portfolios.

Thomas West, the US special envoy for Afghanistan, has recently participated in a two-day talk with the Taliban. These discussions have the potential to make some headways in economic support. But, the United States is in no hurry to recognize the Taliban. Why?

Well, after the September 11 attacks on the United States of America, Washington had declared the Taliban as a terrorist organization. Gradually, they were divided into reconcilable and irreconcilable ones. Hasn’t the time come to include currently banned figures in the reconcilable ones as they have submitted themselves to the Doha Peace Agreement?

Till now, international pressure to take them out of the cabinet hasn’t worked. There are least chances that it will. True, the Taliban have accommodated dozens of Afghans by giving them ceremonial positions. But, it’s an admitted fact that the top hierarchy remains the same.

This stubbornness has raised some eyebrows in Russia, China, and Iran, who also want a truly inclusive government that represents all the main ethnic and political groups. This second group is also keeping mum about naming those who they want to see in the government.

But, each member of this group wants a friendly and independent Afghan government, which diplomatically means less dependent on the group led by the United States of America.

This second group pretends that it is equally not in a hurry to recognize the Taliban. In reality, with every passing day, this group is becoming more concerned about why the world is not coming to terms with the new reality of Afghanistan.

The reason is obvious. Pakistan, Iran, China, Russia, and the Central Asian countries have more stakes in the region. For this reason, they had cultivated ties with the Taliban long before the fall of Kabul.

The increasing presence of Daesh in Afghanistan has given these countries another reason to join hands. After all, this group has long faced one terrorist organization or the other.

Moscow can’t afford another Beslan Siege of 2004 when 32 Chechen terrorists took 1,200 children and adults hostage and killed at least 330 in a primary school.

China equally wants to stop the resurgence in Xinjiang where Uighur militants killed 39 people in a vegetable market in 2014. Any such incident now has the potential to cast a shadow over the security of the One Belt One Road initiative as Xinjiang connects China with eight major countries.

Iran, already facing a biting economic situation, is putting up all efforts to stop elements seeking instability. It’s a country where militants disguised as soldiers killed 25 people in the Ahvaz military parade, during sacred defense week.

Pakistan is the worst-hit country. In a few days, the nation will mourn the Army Public School massacre that had shocked the whole world.

But by recognizing the Taliban, the world can strengthen them to go against Daesh and affiliated groups that seem to have a bigger agenda in the region and beyond. It will also avert total economic collapse and lawlessness that is serving as the breeding ground for extremist ideologies.

As far as the Taliban are concerned, they should also realize that an inclusive government will strengthen not weaken their rule.

NASIM HAIDERThe author is Controller News at Geo News

Greater Israel and The fourth industrial revolution

INTRODUCTION
Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem
All praises are due solely to Allah Ta’ala, the one who raised His final messenger among the Arabs. Peace and salutations be upon our master Nabi Muhammad Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam the one who ordered the expulsion of the Jews from the Arabian Peninsula. Three Gulf States, namely Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain are currently on a campaign to expunge the religion of Islam from all aspects of life in a bid to appease the apartheid regime of Israel. Concerts and cinemas have sprouted up in Saudi Arabia while the largest temple outside of India has been inaugurated by the UAE government. Saudi Arabia is removing all content from Islamic literature that is deemed “Anti-Semitic” while the UAE is funding various wars and think-tanks across the globe to curb and curtail anything to do with Islam. The de facto rulers of Saudi Arabia and UAE, MBS (Murtad Bin Shaytaan) and MBZ have nothing to do with Islam. They are on a mission to satanise the Arabian Peninsula in conjunction with the apartheid regime of Israel and the Masjid-demolishing regime of India. We have been explicitly prohibited from befriending the Kuffaar and adopting their ways and customs. This will lead to our downfall and destruction in both this world and the hereafter.
The example of Sri Lanka has been brought to the attention of the reader in the Ummati Ummati book. The Sri Lankan Muslims hosted open Masjid days in which Buddhists would come to the Masaajid and pollute the Houses of Allah Ta’ala. The Muslims also desecrated the Masaajid with masks. The consequence was forced cremation of Muslim Mayyits. The Muslims could do nothing but watch the bodies of their fathers, mothers etc. being incinerated and burnt to ashes. Maulana Ebrahim Bham of Fordsburg Jamiat, in an attempt to bamboozle us, made the following foolish statement:
“Assimilate or be annihilated”
May Allah Ta’ala make this book a means of us abstaining from befriending the Kuffaar and following their ways and customs. Ameen.

AAFIYAH SIDDIQUI KIDNAPPED AND BRUTALIZED BY AMERICA

Dr.Aafiyah Siddiqui, a Pakistani scientist, disappeared with her three children aged 7, 9 and 1 year, in 2003. On 28 March, 2003, Aafiyah left home in a Metro-cab, in Karachi to catch a flight to Rawalpindi. But she never reached the airport. Seven years later, in February 2010, her eldest son, then 14 years old, was returned and described the abduction. When Aafiyah and her three children came out of their home, about 20 men including a white woman, presumably an Americam, and members of the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence agency), were waiting in several vehicles on the next street. Aafiyah and her children were promptly kidnapped. Aafiyah was loaded in one car, and the shocked and crying children in another vehicle. A hood was immediately pulled over Aafiya’s head and she was drugged. When she awoke she found herself tied to a wheeled stretcher. She did not know where she was, but the dryness of the air convinced her that she was not in Karachi. Her youngest child who would be 7 years old now, is still missing. It is believed that the one year old baby was killed during the kidnapping. She was later shown a picture of her baby in a pool of blood. According to the Pakistani media, the day after her kidnapping, a woman had been taken into custody on charges of terrorism. The Pakistan Interior Ministry confirmed the ‘arrest’. She was taken to an unknown place for questioning. A year later the Pakistani press, quoting a government spokesman said that Aafiyah was handed over to the US in 2003. Later the Pakistani government and US officials in Washington denied any knowledge of Aafiyah’s custody. However, Aafiyah was kidnapped by the Pakistani intelligence services with her three children and transferred into US custody. She was detained in several prisons for five years and was repeatedly tortured and raped. The International Committee for the Red Cross had also confirmed the presence of a Pakistani female detainee at Bagram, the American torture facility in Afghanistan. Little is known about what happened to Aafia and her children in the five years in which they were missing. However, in October 2009, when Aafia was visited by a Pakistani parliamentary delegation she spoke a little about the five years in which she had been disappeared, saying “I have been through living hell”. She described being given an injection and when she came to, she was in a cell. She said she was being brainwashed by men who spoke perfect English, who may have been Afghans. She did not think they were Pakistanis. She described being forced to make false confessions and sign statements. She alleged that she had been tortured although she provided no details. She was also told by her captors that if she did not co-operate, her children would
suffer. During her trial, Aafia alluded to being tortured in secret prisons, to being raped, her children being tortured, and being threatened to be “sent back to the bad guys” – men she described as sounding like Americans but could not be “real Americans” but “pretend Americans” due to the treatment they had subjected her to. After her trial it emerged that the government of Pakistan had put a gag order on Aafia’s family in exchange for releasing her eldest son Ahmed. Aafia’s lawyers, Elaine Sharpe and Elizabeth Fink, would later corroborate this by stating publicly that she had “been through years of detention, whose interrogators were American, who endured treatment fairly characterised as horrendous” and that she had been “tortured”.
On 7 July 2008, a press conference led by British journalist Yvonne Ridley, in Pakistan resulted in mass international coverage of Aafia’s case as her disappearance was questioned by the media and political figures in Pakistan. Within weeks, the US administration reported that she was arrested by Afghani forces along with her 13 year old son, outside the governor of Ghazni’s compound, allegedly with manuals on explosives and ‘dangerous substances in sealed jars’ on her person. Her lawyers claim that the evidence was planted on her. Aafia would later testify during her trial that the bag in which the evidence was found was not her own and was given to her, being unaware of its contents. She also claimed that the handwritten notes were forcibly copied from a magazine under threat of torture of her children. She recalled the presence of a boy at the Ghazni police station whom she believed could have been her son, but could not know with certainty since they had been separate for several years. On 3 August 2008 an agent from the FBI visited the home of her brother in Houston, Texas and confirmed that she was being detained in Afghanistan. On Monday 4 August 2008, federal prosecutors in the US confirmed that Aafia Siddiqui had been extradited to the US from Afghanistan where they alleged she had been detained since mid-July 2008. They further allege that whilst in custody she fired at US officers (none being injured) and was herself shot twice in the process. Aafia confirmed during her trial that she was hiding behind a curtain in the prison, as the US claim, with the intent of escaping as she feared being returned to a secret prison, but categorically denied picking up the gun or attempting to shoot anyone. Aafia was charged in the US with assaulting and attempted murder of US personnel in Afghanistan. In late August 2008, Michael G Garcia, the US attorney general of the southern region confirmed in a letter to Dr Fowzia Siddiqui that Aafia’s son, Ahmed had been in the custody of the FBI since 2003 and he was currently in the custody of the Karzai government. Earlier the US ambassador to Pakistan, Anne W Patterson had earlier claimed that Washington has no information regarding the children. According to an Afghan Interior Ministry official quoted in the Washington Post, Ahmed Siddiqui was briefly held by the Interior Ministry after his arrest in July 2008 and was thereafter transferred to an Afghan intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security (NDS), notorious for its brutal treatment of detainees, despite the fact he was too young to be treated as a criminal suspect under both Afghan and international law. Under Afghanistan’s Juvenile Code, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 13 and according to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child a minimum age of criminal responsibility below the age of 12 is “not internationally acceptable.” Ahmed was finally released to the custody of Aafia’s family in Pakistan in September 2009. He later gave a statement to police in Lahore, Pakistan, that he had been held in a juvenile prison in Afghanistan for years. On being reunited with his father for the first time, he ran away screaming in horror, claiming that his father was amongst those who used to beat him in Afghanistan.
The trial of Aafia Siddiqui began Tuesday 19 January 2010, in a Manhattan federal courtroom. Prior to the jury entering the courtroom, Aafia turned to onlookers saying; “This isn’t a fair court, (…) Why do I have to be here? (…) There are many different versions of how this happened,” referring to the alleged shooting. Three government witnesses testified on the opening day of the trial; Army Capt. Robert Snyder, John Threadcraft, a former army officer and John Jefferson, an FBI agent. Both were stationed in Afghanistan at the time of the alleged assault and murder attempt. During the trial, while Snyder testified that Aafia had been arrested with a handwritten note outlining plans to attack the Empire State Building, the Brooklyn Bridge and Wall Street, Aafia disrupted the proceedings with a loud outburst aimed at Snyder, after, which she proclaimed her innocence stating; “Since I’ll never get a chance to speak, if you were in a secret prison.. where children were tortured… This is no list of targets against New York. I was never planning to bomb it. You’re lying.” In the morning before the closing remarks, the last government witness, FBI Special Agent, Angela Sercer testified. Sercer monitored Aafia for 12 hours a day over a two week period while she was at a hospital in Bagram. She tried to rebut Aafia Siddiqui’s testimony, by saying that Aafia told her she was in “hiding” for the last five years and further that she “married” someone to change her name. However under cross examination, Sercer admitted that while at the hospital Aafia expressed fear of “being tortured”. Sercer also admitted that Aafia expressed concern about the “welfare of the boy” and asked about him “every day”. Moreover, that Aafia only agreed to talk to her upon promises that the boy would be safe. According to the testimony Aafia said that the Afghans had “beaten her”; that her “husband had beaten her and her children”; and that she was “afraid of coming into physical harm”.
When Sercer was further questioned about what Aafia said about her children during that two week period, she admitted that Aafia expressed concern about the “safety and welfare of her children”, but felt that the “kids had been killed or tortured in a secret prison”. “She said that they were dead, didn’t she” asked Defence attorney, Elaine Sharpe; reluctantly Sercer answered, “Yes.”
The trial took an unusual turn with an FBI official asserting that the finger prints taken from the rifle, which was purportedly used by Aafia to shoot at the U.S. interrogators, did not match hers. Another event complicated the case further, when the testimony of witness Masood Haider Gul appeared different from the one given by U.S. Captain Schnieder earlier. The defence denied all charges, stating that “the soldiers had given different versions of where she was when the M-4 was allegedly fired and how many shots were fired.”
The trial lasted for 2 weeks and the jury deliberated for 2 days before reaching a verdict. On February 3, 2010, she was convicted and found guilty on all counts. , despite the following discrepancies:
The court proceedings were flawed, and limited to the incident in Ghazni, which itself lacked concrete evidence.
It is still unexplained how a frail, 110 pound woman, confronted with three US army officers, two interpreters and two FBI agents managed to assault three of them, snatch a rifle from one of them, open fire at close range, hit no one, but she herself was wounded.
There were no fingerprints on the gun.
There was no gunshot residue from the gun.
There were no bullet holes in the walls from that particular gun.
There were no bullets cases or shells in the area from the specified gun.
The testimony of the government’s six eyewitnesses contradicted each other.
The statements Aafia made to FBI agent Angela Sercer were made whilst she was under 24 hour surveillance by FBI agents in the hospital at Bagram, with her arms and legs tied to a bed for weeks, several types of medication, sleep-deprived and at the mercy of the agent for food, water and in order to relieve herself. Sercer did not identify herself to Aafia as a FBI agent. The use of these statements in court were objected to by the defence on the basis of ‘Miranda laws’ which mandate that a detainee must be informed of their rights, have access to an attorney, or in the case of international law, consular staff and law enforcement officials must identify themselves. Despite this the judge denied the motion and allowed this to form part of the questioning. Aafia’s disappearance, torture and missing children were not at all addressed during the court case.
Following her conviction, Aafia remained at the Metropolitan Detention Centre in New York where she has spent the best part of her detention in the US. Throughout that time, she has been subject to humiliating and degrading strip and cavity searches, prompting her to refuse legal visits on many occasions. Since the beginning of March Aafia has been refused all contact with her family and has not been permitted any letters, phonecalls, visits or reading material under the pretext of “the security of the nation.” In April 2010, a 12 year old girl was left outside the residence of Fowzia Siddiqui in Karachi by unidentified men claiming she was the missing daughter of Aafia Siddiqui. Although initially it was thought that she was not Aafia’s daughter, following DNA tests conducted by the Pakistani government, the Interior Minister Rehman Malik confirmed that the tests proved that the child was indeed Aafia’s daughter, Maryam, and that her DNA matched that of Ahmed Siddiqui (Aafia’s eldest son) and their father, Amjad Khan. Dr Fowzia intended to carry out their own independent investigation to confirm the girl’s identity. In a press conference Senate Committee for Interior Chairman, Senator Talha Mehmood reported that Maryam Siddiqui was recovered from Bagram airbase in the custody of an American – in the Urdu language press, an American soldier – called “John”. He also said that she had been kept for seven years in a ‘cold, dark room’ in Bagram airbase. After several postponements, Aafia was finally sentenced to 86 years in prison, on 5 counts, on September 23rd 2010, making her eligible for release in 2094. She would be 122 years old at the time of her release, if she remains alive at that time. The whereabouts and welfare of Aafia’s youngest son, Suleman remains a mystery.

FROM AL-HAQ 40

MARCH 2012

Can the Afghan Taliban learn from their greatest Sheikh?

BY: Ammar Anwer September 28, 2021

According to Husain Ahmad Madani, only a draconian state could enforce Islamic conformity given Muslims’ own diversity

“Muslims today remember only the word ‘jihad’, but they do not remember that in opposition to rebels against Islam and enemies of the community…. patience, forbearance, and high ethics were spoken of as jihad-i akbar (‘the greater jihad’). In this greater jihad, there is no need of sword or dagger, but only strength, resolve, and action”[i].

Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani (1879–1957) was one of the most important Muslim figures in the history of twentieth-century South Asia. He was a traditionally educated Islamic scholar who studied at the Darul ‘Ulum at Deoband, the” madrasa” (seminary) that gives the “Deobandi” sectarian orientation its name. The American Historian and expert on the Islamic thought in South Asia, Barbara Metcalf has offered an incisive and incredible account of the life of Maulana Madani (Maulana is an honorific title for an Islamic scholar), covering both his political activism, as well as his spiritual and religious contributions[ii]. As I was reading through her meticulously researched account, I realised how great a debt we Easterners owe to these inquisitive orientalists who have brought those historical figures back to the mainstream academic discourse which we ourselves had long forgotten. Madani is indeed a much-remembered and much cited-figure amongst the Deobandi Seminaries, but within the larger public atmosphere in India and Pakistan, he remains somewhat unknown.

Madani started his political activism with his involvement in the India’s nationalist movement. He joined the Gandhian non-cooperation movement at its inception, dressing in the handloomed cloth popularised by Gandhi as a symbol of resistance. From 1916 to India’s independence in 1947, he was arrested at least once every decade.

Although religiously a traditionalist, he was quite novel in his political imagination. As the Indian independence approached, Madani stood fervently opposed to those Muslims who campaigned for a separate homeland for Muslims. Instead, he argued that Muslims could live as observant Muslims in a religiously plural society where they would be full citizens of an independent, secular India. He insisted that the fundamental institution of contemporary political life was the territorial nation state and that the political culture of the day was one of citizen-based civic and human rights. He criticized the idea of organizing a polity on Islamic grounds, dismissing it as unrealistic. His uniqueness rests in his being both a political activist and an influential Islamic scholar who was able to frame his advocacy of modern territorial nationalism within the context of Islamic traditions.

His support for territorial nationhood landed him into dispute with certain other Islamic thinkers of his time, most notably the poet and Philosopher and the chief ideologue of Muslim territorial autonomy in the Subcontinent, Dr. Mohammad Iqbal, and the then emerging Islamist scholar Syed Abul Ala Maududi.

Iqbal strongly denounced Madani’s views, accusing him of misinterpreting Islam. He wrote three vitriolic Persian couplets:

“The non-Arab (‘ajam) still does not know the secrets of the faith

Thus from Deoband Husain Ahmad proves somewhat strange

Singing out high on the pulpit

That millat is based on land (watan).

What does he know of the stance of the Arab Messenger, on whom be peace?

Bring yourself close to Mustafa, for his alone is faith complete

If you cannot approach him you’re just an Abu Lahab!”[iii]

This was quite presumptuous for many a reason. First, it suggested that Madani being a non-Arab (Ajami) did not quite understand Arabic- this being said about someone who taught Islamic and Arabic disciplines in the foremost Indian Seminary, and whose mastery of Arabic language was never contested even by those scholars who disagreed with him on certain theological matters.

Second, it made a false equivalence between “millat’’, a term reserved for religious community, and “Qaum” which simply translates into nation. Madani had never asserted that “millat” derived from homeland- he always acknowledged that within the Muslims there existed a much stronger and special bond given their religious affinity. What he had stated is that one’s nationality in the present epoch is determined by one’s homeland, and not religious leanings.

Third, worst of all, it equated Madani to Prophet Mohammad’s arch-rival, his own paternal uncle who rejected his message and was given the nickname of “Abu Lahab” (“Father of the Flame),”. The Qur’an mentions that he has been condemned till eternity “to roast at a flaming fire” (Sura CXI).

Iqbal invoked him purposely, given the fact that Abu Lahab’s name also serves as a byword for Arabic linguistic eloquence coupled with the greatest moral/intellectual failure any human can make, the rejection of the Prophet of Islam. Thus, according to Iqbal, even if Madani was a master of Arabic language, it did not count for much- since if linguistic eloquence alone could have helped someone to come to the truth, then Abu Lahab would have done so too.

Metcalf notes that “Since Maulana Madani was in fact a master of Arabic and Iqbal was not, Iqbal was undercutting an obvious criticism of his own authority before it was even made.[iv]” Thus, Madani, with all his expertise of Arabic, could still be wrong and Iqbal, with his very elementary knowledge, might still be right.

This dialogue culminated in a book that Madani published in 1938, entitled “Composite Nationalism and Islam”, where he couched his support for a multicultural and multi-religious society within the framework of Islamic traditions and history. Addressing Iqbal’s distrust of his Arabic competence, he quite fittingly entitled the first substantive sub-heading of his book: “The key to Qur’anic vocabulary and the words of Hadith will come only from the Arabic tongue”[v].

“Approximately the first half of his treatise then proceeded to a meticulous examination of texts, provided both in Arabic and in Urdu translation, scrutinized in the light of Arabic usage as known from grammars and dictionaries of the Prophet’s own time, in order to deny what he saw as Iqbal’s equation of ‘‘qaum” and” millat””[vi].

He argued that in the Prophet’s usage a “qaum” (nation) could consist of believers and unbelievers who both act together for a common purpose—and that would be the model for the” qaum” (nation) of India.

He persuasively argued in favour of a multi-religious India by profusely citing passages from the Qur’an, which showed that the prophets shared the same territory with the people who rejected their message, and yet that did not make them two separate nations. According to Madani, the very spirit of the Qur’an is to encourage harmonious co-existence in a multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious world. To lend further credibility to his ideas, he cited the charter of Medina, created by the Prophet Mohammad upon his arrival in Medina, in which he unified Muslims, Jews, and Christians into a single nation. According to Madani, the Prophet of Islam himself created a constitution which unified people of different faiths into one nation, declaring them to constitute one community (“ummah”) separate from the people outside of the city.

Madani was not the first to cite the constitution of Medina as a justification for a multi-religious state. Before him, another Indian Scholar, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, had also done the same. Like Madani, Azad was also both an Islamic theologian and a political leader. He served twice as the President of All India National Congress, and after the independence, became the first education minister of India.

Both Madani and Azad were heavily criticised by Maududi, who at the time was developing his own Islamist political theory. Maududi dismissed the constitution of Medina as a mere political compromise made by the Prophet, which possessed no seminal status when it comes to the real ethos of an Islamic state. Maududi, unlike Madani, argued that non-Muslims can only have the status of “dhimmis” (protected citizens) in an Islamic state, and that also on the condition that they agree to pay the annual protection tax called “Jizya”. Furthermore, he regarded the entire notion of modern territorial nation-states as alien to Islam and considered secularism as the first step towards atheism.

Addressing Maududi’s criticism, Madani said that theory like his gets you nowhere. “Siyasiyyat (politics) is not resolved through falsafiyyat (philosophy)”, he wrote[vii]. For Madani, the reality of the day was the anti-colonial and constitutional movement. Maududi’s effort to propose “an Islamic order” was both abstract and unrealistic. He argued further that given that among Muslims themselves there is hardly consensus on religious grounds: just what would Islamic rule mean? He provided a list of different sects and orientations within Islam and pointed out that each “considers his reasoning beyond that of Plato or Socrates”[viii].

Therefore, to maintain harmony in society, Madani argued, it is best that all different Islamic schools adopt persuasion, guidance, and advice as their only modus operandi. According to Madani, only a draconian state could enforce Islamic conformity given Muslims’ own diversity. Thus, it is clear that Madani’s opposition to Islamist politics was not simply based on the fact that Muslims were a minority in India, which made Islamic rule in the country improbable through pure democratic means. In fact, even in a predominantly Muslim state, he believed, there could be no agreement on the precise nature of Islamic rule, and therefore such activism is from the onset destined to incite religious tensions.

Madani also objected, in principle, to the assumption that there were Islamic “laws,” in the sense of absolute universals that were equally valid in all times and place. He commented that Maududi must be living in a fanciful world, a world where he could conveniently disregard the facts of India’s mixed and heterogeneous population.

“How could he imagine enforcing the rules he drew from theoretical premises, like the criminal penalties (stoning, prohibition, or monetary compensation for murder) that were typically enacted by any ruler claiming to be guided by Islamic law?”[ix]

Madani concluded that such rules are neither applicable nor morally obligatory in a country like India.

Maududi, dismayed by the Indian Ulamas’ support for religious pluralism, eventually threw his support behind the Pakistan movement.

Madani’s noble efforts to prevent partition of India on religious grounds ultimately failed when in August 1947, the subcontinent was divided into Hindu-majority India, and Muslim-majority Pakistan. Madani advised the Deobandi scholars who migrated to Pakistan to remain loyal to their new country and dreamt of a peaceful co-existence between the two nations (alas! that too has not happened hitherto).

Ironically, the Deoband scholars in the Pakistan started to campaign for Islamisation very soon, and in the 70s and 80s actively participated in the Afghan Jihad against Soviet occupation. Their attitude, therefore, became quite different from the Indian Deoband, which still strongly supports a secular structure. According to some scholars, Pakistani Deobandis, under the aegis of Pakistani Military and Saudi Riyals, became strongly infused with Wahhabism, and thus diverged from the Classical Islam that the Indian Deoband still adheres to. According to this theory, after the Iranian revolution in 1979, Saudi Arabia was worried that the Muslim world would be dominated by a Shia country — Iran. So, they started funding seminaries which taught Wahhabi-styled Islam throughout the Muslim world, including Pakistan. Wahhabi influence continuously grew in Pakistan and Afghanistan throughout the 1980s, when the CIA and Saudi Arabia both funneled arms to mujahideen guerrilla groups fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the Cold War. Thus, slowly, the Wahhabi culture entered into Deobandi Islam.

The Afghan Taliban also follows the Deobandi Islam, and most of its leadership consists of graduates from Deobandi seminaries, including in particular the famous (or infamous) seminary Dar al-Ulum Haqqania, which is based in the town of Akora Khattak, in Northwestern Pakistan.

But the Taliban, much like most of their Pakistani associates, do not subscribe to the inclusive and democratised form of Islam that Madani supported. Though they continue to revere him, their methods display a sharp contrast to what Madani had struggled to disseminate. In the oddest of twists, the spiritual descendants of a scholar who according to Peter Hardy was the first to justify from within the Islamic traditions the concept of equal citizenship and participation in the state with non-Muslims (which was an exceptional change from what had existed in Medieval Islam)[x], became the very opposite; unwavering in their commitment to accord second-class status to non-Muslims, and eager to employ violence as their means to attain religious and political authority.

Today, the world expects from Taliban to create an inclusive government- a government that speaks for all sections of Afghan population. Though, no one would normally expect in their wildest of imaginations that Taliban would adopt anything remotely similar to the model that Madani had proposed, but it is also true that without mending their ways, they may face serious difficulties in gaining recognition from the West, which can lead to a severe economic crisis within the country. Moreover, Afghans population has witnessed incessant warfare for over four decades. They crave for stability and internal religious and ethnic harmony. What better model could there be to achieve this than the one proposed by Maulana Madani in the 1930s, which is both Islamic and modern? Could the Taliban revert to the teachings of their greatest Sheikh, and truly demonstrate that they have changed (which they seem quite adamant to prove to the world)? I will end with this hope that the Soul of Maulana Madani would guide them to give up fundamentalism and accept moderation and inclusivity.

[i] Hasan, Tariq. Colonialism and the Call to Jihad in British India, P#177.

[ii] Metcalf, Barbara. Husain Ahmad Madani: The Jihad for Islam and India’s Freedom.

[iii] Armaghan-e-Hijaz (Gift from Hijaz)- Iqbal’s collection of poems.

[iv] Metcalf, Barbara. Husain Ahmad Madani: The Jihad for Islam and India’s Freedom, P#166.

[v] Husain Ahmad Madani. “Composite Nationalism and Islam”, P#7.

[vi] Metcalf, Barbara. Husain Ahmad Madani: The Jihad for Islam and India’s Freedom, P#168-69.

[vii] Maktubat, Volume I, P#396.

[viii] Maktubat, Volume I, P#399.

[ix] Metcalf, Barbara. Husain Ahmad Madani: The Jihad for Islam and India’s Freedom, P#199-200.

[x] Hardy, Peter. Partners in freedom and true Muslims: The political thought of some Muslim scholars in British India (1912-1947).

WRITTEN BY:
Ammar Anwer
The writer is a columnist from Pakistan currently living in Europe. His writings address social, political, cultural, religious, and philosophical issues. He has also written extensively on contemporary Islamism. His work has also been published at the Quilliam Foundation, and the AMERICAN SPECTATOR.

The Pastor & vaccines

Nabi (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said, “The word of wisdom is the lost property of the believer. Wherever he finds it, he is most deserving of it.” (Tirmizi Shareef)
The following is a message of a Pastor which was forwarded to us. We have reproduced it here with our comments in brackets, in a different font and our acronym ‘COH’ written at the end. The question is really troubling as to whether the pastor and crowd supporting him had any threats, lawyer’s letters sent, were reported to the authorities, or had their church and their names blackened by fellow Christians – journalists, activists, anti-church pastors, etc.?

In the comments of this report on the internet, almost all Christians voiced their full support for churches to open and operate at 100% capacity, etc. Yet, when it comes to Muslims taking legal ways to do the same – Muslims going to court last year to ask for the Masaajid to reopen the legal way – then unfortunately, Mulanas turned out to be the biggest obstacle in this achievement. However, in everything there is good, hence, this made Tameez(distinction) in our communities to know better ‘who is who’, Alhamdulillah!

Khutbah: 20 Years of the War on Terror

Purpose

  • – Build awareness of the 20 year mark of the global War on Terror, which led to the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other lands.
  • – Educate the community on the factually correct narrative around the events of 9/11 to counter mainstream propaganda.
  • – Inspire, empower, and have a positive impact on the community.
  • – Use the 20 year mark to remember and pray for Muslims who lost their lives during the post 9/11 wars.

KHUTBAH

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.

الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ نَحْمَدُهُ وَنَسْتَعِينُهُ وَنَسْتَغْفِرُهُ وَنَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنْ شُرُورِ أَنْفُسِنَا وَمِنْ سَيِّئَاتِ أَعْمَالِنَا مَنْ يَهْدِهِ اللَّهُ فَلَا مُضِلَّ لَهُ وَمَنْ يُضْلِلْ فَلَا هَادِيَ لَهُ وَأَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَحْدَهُ لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ

All praise is due to Allah. We praise Him, we seek His help, and we seek His forgiveness. And we seek refuge in Allah from the evil within ourselves and our evil deeds. Whoever Allah guides, there is none to misguide him. Whoever Allah leads astray, there is none to guide him. I testify that there is no deity worthy of worship but Allah alone, without any partners, and that Muhammad ﷺ is His servant and His Messenger.


قال الله تعالى يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ تُقَاتِهِ وَلَا تَمُوتُنَّ إِلَّا وَأَنْتُمْ مُسْلِمُونَ

Allah Almighty said, “O you who have faith, fear Allah as it is His right to be feared and do not die unless you are Muslims.”[1]

وقال الله وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ الَّذِي تَسَاءَلُونَ بِهِ وَالْأَرْحَامَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلَيْكُمْ رَقِيبًا

And Allah Almighty said, “Fear Allah, from whom you ask each other, and in your family ties, for Allah is ever watchful over you.”[2]

وقال الله اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَقُولُوا قَوْلًا سَدِيدًا يُصْلِحْ لَكُمْ أَعْمَالَكُمْ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَمَنْ يُطِعْ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ فَازَ فَوْزًا عَظِيمًا

And Allah Almighty said, “Fear Allah and speak words as befitting. He will amend your deeds for you and forgive your sins. Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has achieved a great triumph.” (al-Aḥzāb, 70-71)

إِنَّ أَصْدَقَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ وَأَحْسَنَ الْهَدْيِ هَدْيُ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَشَرُّ الْأُمُورِ مُحْدَثَاتُهَا وَكُلُّ مُحْدَثَةٍ بِدْعَةٌ وَكُلُّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلَالَةٌ وَكُلُّ ضَلَالَةٍ فِي النَّارِ. أَمَّا بَعْدُ…

The truest word is the Book of Allah, and the best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad ﷺ. The most evil matters are those that are newly invented, for every newly invented matter is an innovation. Every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Hellfire. To proceed (and then to begin the sermon):

Allah says:

وَإِذَا تَوَلَّىٰ سَعَىٰ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ لِيُفْسِدَ فِيهَا وَيُهْلِكَ ٱلْحَرْثَ وَٱلنَّسْلَ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلْفَسَادَ

“Whenever he attains authority, he goes about the earth spreading mischief and laying to waste crops and human life, even though Allah does not love mischief.” [3]

Topic of the Khutbah

– This September marks 20 years of a worldwide war that was initiated by President George Bush on 18 September 2001. He declared a ‘crusade’[4] that created a never ending war, turning the whole world into a battlefield for America and its allies.

– This so called global ‘War on Terror’ led to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the CIA torture programme, abuses at CIA ‘black sites’, inhuman treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, drone assassinations, and systematically draconian and Islamophobic laws across the world.

– This global War on Terror fuelled the rise of Islamophobia, which casted Muslims as potential terrorists. Anti-Muslim violence escalated and the targeting of mainstream Islamic beliefs by politicians and the media became normal.

– This global war also accelerated the growth of far right movements across the West, who exploited the hate against Muslims to justify their racism. In these 20 years, we have also seen Eastern governments like China adopt a similar ‘War on Terror’ narrative against the Muslims of East Turkestan. India has done the same to deprive Indian Muslims of their citizenship and also attack Muslims in Kashmir.

– These two decades of the ‘War on Terror’ have led to so many deaths of innocent people, as well as numerous oppressive and unjust statutes and policies targeting Muslim communities. There has been a clear undermining of the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, and due process.

– Many in the mainstream media will be discussing the events of 9/11 tomorrow. Our sympathies are with the families of the 2,977 people that died on that day. And our hearts go out to the nearly one million Muslims[5] that were killed by America and its allies since that day.

“For the Muslim Ummah every single day has been like a 9/11.”

This global war was launched allegedly as a response to the 9/11 incident. In fact, many have come to accept this false narrative, as though history began on September 11th 2001. In reality, the aggression against the Muslim world and destruction of Muslim people began much earlier before 9/11. Here are just some examples:

  1. In 1991: The US and 35 allies bombed Iraq. They even used depleted uranium, which caused almost half a million children to die.[6] More than a decade of financial and medical sanctions were imposed thereafter. This is BEFORE the second invasion that occurred during the Iraq War in 2003!
  2. In 1993, the US invaded Somalia. US troops were expelled in an infamous Black Hawk 312 Muslims were killed and many more were wounded.
  3. For many decades the US and allies have provided unflinching support to Israel in its continued occupation of Palestine and expulsion of Muslims there.
  4. For a very long time, the US has maintained a huge military presence in Muslim countries through military bases. From these bases, war and destruction is launched on other Muslim countries.[7]
  5. Long before 9/11, the US and its allies provided political and economic support to brutal dictators in the Muslim world, whilst singing about democracy.

Effect of this war on Muslims in the UK

This 20-year war has not only been impacting Muslims in distant lands. It has affected us right here directly: in our schools via the Prevent program; at our workplaces experiencing Islamophobia; at airports being stopped under Schedule 7; in the media while routinely being associated with violence and hate…and much more. Because of this false narrative created by the War on Terror, all Muslims are misrepresented as suspects or potential terrorists in our current time.

Our duty as Muslims

– We are part of the Muslim Ummah, and we stand together against injustice taking place against the Ummah from around the world, and also here in this country.

– We should call for accountability for all governments, agencies, and officials that are guilty of war crimes and abuses since 2001. This is a basic duty we owe to our brothers and sisters who suffered.

– We should demand that governments and leaders acknowledge the crimes which were committed in the name of the ‘War on Terror’. At the same time, we should demand restorative justice for victims and survivors of these wars.

– We should work towards the complete dismantlement of the infrastructure which made those crimes possible, including the unjust laws, policies, and practices that were created in this so-called ‘War on Terror’.

Positive & empowering reminder to finish

 The oppressed will one day secure their freedom, as it is a promise from Allah:

وَنُرِيدُ أَن نَّمُنَّ عَلَى ٱلَّذِينَ ٱسْتُضْعِفُوا۟ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ وَنَجْعَلَهُمْ أَئِمَّةً وَنَجْعَلَهُمُ ٱلْوَٰرِثِينَ

وَنُمَكِّنَ لَهُمْ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ وَنُرِىَ فِرْعَوْنَ وَهَـٰمَـٰنَ وَجُنُودَهُمَا مِنْهُم مَّا كَانُوا۟ يَحْذَرُونَ

“And We wanted to confer favor upon those who were oppressed in the land and make them leaders and make them inheritors; and to establish them in the land; and through them show Pharaoh, Hamân, and their soldiers ˹the fulfilment of˺ what they feared.” [8]

The Muslim is always positive and optimistic; we know our Lord is Allah and He is always in support of His obedient slaves. We must remain steadfast on the path to justice. Those who spend trillions on spreading war and destruction – especially if the goal is to undermine Islam – will never succeed, because their cause is unjust and criminal:

إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ يُنفِقُونَ أَمْوَٰلَهُمْ لِيَصُدُّوا۟ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ ۚ فَسَيُنفِقُونَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ حَسْرَةً ثُمَّ يُغْلَبُونَ ۗ وَٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوٓا۟ إِلَىٰ جَهَنَّمَ يُحْشَرُونَ

“Surely the disbelievers spend their wealth to hinder others from the Path of Allah. They will continue to spend to the point of regret. Then they will be defeated and the disbelievers will be driven into Hell.” [9]

Many Islamic scholars from around the world have come together to express their solidarity and sympathy with victims and survivors of the wars in the post-9/11 era. You can read their statements here

That website is the home of a worldwide campaign launched by more than 50 organisations to ensure that the stories of the survivors of this war are not forgotten.

RESEARCH NOTES FOR IMAMS

What Does The International Witness Campaign Stand For?

Key Points

After decades of confrontation with the Soviet Union, the US emerged as the sole superpower and immediately engaged in a series of destructive “humanitarian wars” and political meddling. This included starving to death more than 500,000 children in Iraq, which was “a price worth paying”, as infamously stated by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Soon after, US militarism reinvented itself under a new label.

In 2001, US President George W. Bush announced the launch of a “crusade”. Since then, we have witnessed 20 years of premeditated illegal wars, carpet bombings, drone assassinations, arbitrary detention, torture, mass displacement, and rampant corruption in the Muslim world.

As a result, thousands in Western democracies have lost their loved ones in these wars. Many more have suffered life-changing injuries, and an untold number have come home with unseen trauma to their mental health.

Western democracies have also enacted countless statutes and policies targeting Muslim communities and undermining the rule of law for all. This has meant the erosion of basic freedoms, unprecedented waste of taxpayers’ money, and the West’s loss of standing in the global arena.

This infrastructure was built and promoted by ideologically-motivated architects, which included interest-driven politicians, think-tanks, experts, media outlets, and businesses.

It was also facilitated by the liberal complicity in structural Islamophobia and securitisation.

In the process, we saw whistleblowers and truth speakers being demonised and repressed.

However, the dialogue initiated in Doha, as well as President Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan after facing military and moral defeat, represent a historic moment which deserves much reflection.

More than a contemplative exercise over past events, this campaign seeks to respond to the globalisation of the War on Terror. Unfortunately, most countries in the world have adopted the pervasive 20-year-old rhetoric, laws, and policies to suppress their Muslim populations and dissidents. Thus, it is important for civil society actors to rise to these new challenges and produce a response centred around the empowerment of Muslim communities and changing the status quo.

The International Witness Campaign gathers international partners to commemorate this anniversary and remember the millions of people affected across the globe.

It explores two decades of the War on Terror: its impact, its failures, and its future, while promoting solidarity, justice, and dialogue.

Why Should You Support The International Witness Campaign?

Key Facts

  • – At least 801,000 people have been directly killed in major wars since 2001.
  • – 37 million people have been displaced as a result of America’s War on Terror.
  • – Over 6.4 trillion dollars have been spent on wars by the US alone.
  • – Over 134 countries have been involved in some way with these conflicts.
  • – Dozens of laws eroding civil liberties of all citizens have been passed and implemented.
  • – Private security corporations have been profiting from taxpayers’ funded national security systems.

Source: www.islam21c.com

Notes:

For futher reading, click here

[1] Al-Qur’an, 3:102

[2] Al-Qur’an, 4:1

[3] Al-Qur’an, 2:205

[4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1001020294332922160

[5] https://www.brown.edu/news/2019-11-13/costsofwar

[6] https://mackdegeurin.medium.com/is-the-price-worth-it-the-crippling-effects-of-u-n-sanctions-in-iraq-481d4a89bdd2

[7] https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/01/09/which-muslim-countries-host-u-s-military-bases/

[8] Al-Qur’an, 28:5-6

[9] Al-Qur’an, 8:36

The White Tears for Afghanistan’s Women

We see the War on Terror in Afghanistan conclude in a similar way to how it began, with plentiful white tears for the plight of Afghan women.
It makes sense, since before missiles are fired or bombs are dropped, war requires a hard sell to the public. We must construct, reinforce, and peddle the narrative to the public. This helps to ensure public opinion is controlled, resistance is problematised, and the parameters of debate are tightly regulated.

Western pledges to improve the conditions of Afghan women were one of the most prominent justifications for the intervention and subsequent military operations to defeat the Taliban. What else could unify, outrage, and indulge the Western white-saviour complex better than Afghan women who needed to be saved from their male counterparts?

The military industrial complex cry to “Save the women!” has the same rhetorical framing as “Support our troops” (or “Support our lads!” for a British parlance), rather than “Support the war”, which is what is really being asked.

Recent Wikileaks reports reveal how the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) constructed a PR “sell” of the war which revolved around saving Afghan women and girls.[1] It literally weaponised liberal feminism to invade, occupy, and make spectacular profits from one of the poorest countries in the world.

The Bush Administration wasted no time in framing the War on Terror as “also a fight for the rights and dignity of women”. Then First Lady Laura Bush openly and swiftly condemned the “severe repression” against women in Afghanistan. The UK Prime Minister’s wife, Cherie Blair, called for moves to “give back a voice” to Afghan women.

In the same breath that the War on Terror was declared, the barbaric treatment of Afghan women under Taliban rule was dramatically thrust into the Western public consciousness. The Western media machine struck narrative gold with the Taliban: these were hostile brown bearded men with turbans and ethnic clothing. They became a dangerous Other as the greatest nation on Earth faced a group who were uncivilised, clumsily handled weapons, failed to speak English, and were hostile to “the freedoms we cherish”.

In 2010, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed to defend Afghan women’s rights. This was a huge part of liberal feminism – vowing to save the Afghan women, while bombing them. So began “white men saving brown women from brown men” in Afghanistan, as feminist scholar Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak eloquently put it.[2]

Funnily, saving Afghan women and girls played out a lot like making them disappear off the face of the Earth altogether. Over 70,000 civilians were killed and countless injured in the US’s longest-running war, the majority of whom were women and children.[3]

Fast forward to 2021, and we are hearing something not too dissimilar. We have come full circle to see dangerous militarism cloaked in humanitarian and women’s rights language, where the same arguments made by Clinton have been recycled. “Western intervention is something million[s] are praying for right now”, tweeted anti-FGM campaigner Nimco Ali recently.[4] There is apparently now a feminist case for keeping Western troops in Afghanistan.

But why? “The imaginary future bloodshed of the Taliban has so much more potential weight in the coverage than the actual people who have been killed by the US in the last 20 years.”[5]

During these two decades of international intervention, troop-contributing nations paid lip service and cash toward women’s rights, but rarely provided the political capital needed to realise actual gains. Over time, the lip service and cash dwindled too. In 2011, the Washington Post reported on how efforts to support women’s rights were being stripped out of US programs. This article quoted an official who said, “All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down.” US aid funding to Afghanistan fell from 16,748 million dollars in FY 2010 to 3,120 million dollars in FY 2021.[6]

The West’s intervention was framed as an act of benevolence, with many convinced by the characterisation of a liberatory US military combat. Afghan women were used as symbols and pawns in a hugely complex geopolitical context. This civilising mission by the US meant the diverse needs and interests of Afghan women were obscured and obfuscated, and native females were rendered incapable of defining and taking control of their own aspirations.

Kabul is not the entire country
The broad brushstrokes of lazy narratives prevent us from considering important, nuanced realities. Firstly, it is important to note that Kabul does not represent all of Afghanistan. The central government in Kabul never held sway over the majority of rural areas in the country. Furthermore, the much-lauded US-backed female empowerment of Afghan women largely consisted of a handful of the educated urban elite from professional families in the capital.

Instead of economic, social, and political empowerment, Afghan women in rural areas – where an estimated 76 percent of the country’s women live – continued to experience the devastation of bloody and intensifying fighting between government forces and local militias in the last 20 years.

The apparent gains for Afghan women have been distributed in a highly unequal manner, with the increases far greater for women in privileged urban areas. For many rural women, (particularly in Pashtun areas alongside other rural minority ethnic groups), daily life has not changed much from the 1996 Taliban era. This is despite the formal legal empowerment mechanisms currently in place. Since 9/11, and without any prodding from the Taliban, most Afghan women in rural areas are fully covered with the burqa.

The issues central to their lives did not revolve around the Western obsession of whether or how much they cover, but harsh realities much more foundational. The loss of husbands, brothers, and fathers due to the fighting not only generates complex psychological trauma, but also fundamentally jeopardizes their economic survival and ability to function in everyday life. Widows and their children are thus highly vulnerable to an array of debilitating disruptions due to the loss of male family members.

Interviews with Afghan women conducted in the autumn of 2019 and summer of 2020 revealed that peace and stability is an absolute priority for some rural women. This is even if the prospective peace deal is signed on the terms of the Taliban. This fundamental finding was confirmed in a recent International Crisis Group report. While rejecting a 1990s-like lockdown of women which was once imposed by the Taliban, many rural women acknowledge that in that period the Taliban also reduced the sexual predation and wanton robberies that debilitated their lives.[7]

Indeed, for those who commanded U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, it was in the mostly rural areas of Afghanistan where the administration of swift and equitable justice meant that the Taliban could compete with the Afghan government. The Taliban could not provide fresh water, electricity, or any civil services, but they could provide near-instantaneous shariah-based justice that sometimes served the best interests of both Afghan women and men by ending disputes and violence.

“Afghan women are incapable of helping themselves”
The post-colonial arrogance of Western attitudes routinely exposes itself. Proponents of this “school” deem it unthinkable that women in Afghanistan would not enthusiastically embrace the construct of liberal feminism and instantly seek to instil it into their own homes and societies. Instead, we witness the dehumanisation of native Afghan women as passive entities which need to be rescued by the West. It refuses to understand that Afghan women are not a monolithic group, and that many of them have long resisted both Taliban rule and Western intervention, opting for advocacy relevant to their cultural and political realities instead.

The irony is that there has been a lot of publicity for women’s rights through promoting a handful of elite women activists in recent years. Yet there has barely been any effort to build trust in communities by encouraging these conservative men to join the platform to support women’s rights. Likewise, proponents of this rights discourse not only fail to ensure that their approach is sensitive to the country’s religious and traditional values, but they ignore the complex cultural diversity of Afghanistan.

“The Ghani government wants to say they’re prioritizing women,” a female Afghan diplomat says, speaking on condition of anonymity during the NATO Summit in Brussels in July. “But they’re really not. Supporting women in Afghanistan is something people all over the world pay lip service to, but money and aid never get to them. It’s eaten by corruption, the monster of war.”[8] Transparency International ranked Afghanistan the fourth most corrupt country in the world, noting that corruption hampers humanitarian aid from reaching its rightful recipients.

As Rafia Zakaria – author, most recently, of Against White Feminism – argues, white feminists in the US decided from the outset that “war and occupation were essential to freeing Afghan women”,[9] no matter what those women themselves thought. Obviously, it requires a distinct level of imperial delusion to think that you can bomb and occupy women into accepting a form of freedom that they do not want to be subjected to. “In terms of current laws including the electoral law, elimination of violence against women law, etc., I disagree with using the Westernized word with it. These laws are purely the efforts of Afghans within civil society who made it happen through lots of lobbying and advocacy.

“The majority of Afghans do not consider women’s education a ‘Western value,’ but see improvements in women’s education as one of the biggest achievements of the past 10 years. Similarly, women’s participation in public life is not a new reality to Afghans. The fight for improved education and democracy is not a recent phenomenon funded by the West; in fact, it’s insulting to Afghans to suggest so. Afghans have struggled for their rights since the early 20th century.”[10]

This is a type of imperial hubris and exact embodiment of a brand of paternalistic and sexist condescension. It is skilfully used by the US to relentlessly lecture the Arab and Muslim world on gender equality and women’s rights. This arrogance rears its head with baffled headlines such as: “Despite the West’s efforts, Afghan youth cling onto ‘traditional ways’”.[11] Unfortunately, their hubris is so strong they are unable to grasp the resistance to the US’s transparently Orientalist civilising mission in Afghanistan.

What empowering Afghan women does not look like
The so-called female empowerment of Afghan women is characterised almost exclusively by dress, with the Western gaze imposing its ideal standards. Photographs of elite Afghan women in miniskirts in Kabul during the 1970s are circulated with a starry-eyed nostalgia of a “golden age” for the country. Western priorities for what Afghan women really need mirror this vision, in a revealing and spectacularly tone-deaf way.

The main interveners in a country shattered by decades of ongoing war seem to be wilfully ignorant that the fatal consequences of conflict – not native misogyny – are the biggest challenges to Afghanistan’s women and girls. Indeed, this applies to their men and boys too.

When asked why two-thirds of girls are still out of school at a NATO summit, then-President Ashraf Ghani largely blamed the numbers on ill-conceived and misguided Western aid efforts, which fail to acknowledge the realities on the ground.

“To get to the very nitty gritty, how many girls schools at the age of puberty have a toilet? That’s fundamental,” he said. “How many girl schools are three kilometres away? The issue here is that international experts were male-centric. They talked about gender, but their pamphlets were glossy and totally lacking content.”[12]

Government statistics from 2014 show that 80 percent of all cases of suicide are committed by women, making Afghanistan one of the few places in the world where such rates are higher among women. Psychologists attribute this anomaly to an endless cycle of domestic violence and poverty. The 2008 Global Rights survey found that nearly 90 percent of Afghan women have experienced domestic abuse.

“Women’s rights were supposed to be the success story of the 2001 invasion,” Naseri said. “But the legacy of war is still killing our women.”[13]

The only conception of female empowerment deemed acceptable was imposed externally through the values of liberal democracy. Any gains made for the progress of Afghan women are all attributed to the altruistic intervention of foreign powers, rather than the struggle and work of native Afghan women working within their own cultural context. That work, of course, also includes resistance to foreign occupation.

Twenty years and almost 3 trillion dollars later, the country is still in turmoil. In October, the U.N. said Afghan civilian deaths were the highest since 2014. From January to September 2018, at least 2,798 civilians were killed, and more than 5,000 others were injured. Gallup’s most recent survey of Afghans, conducted in July, revealed strikingly low levels of optimism: Afghans’ ratings of their own lives are lower than any other country in any previous year.[14]

What the selective outrage glosses over
The same people who feel upset about the fate of women in Afghanistan now would probably benefit from expanding their feelings of rage by considering other pressing issues as well. This includes learning about how the military industrial complex profiteered handsomely from an ongoing war, one that need not be ‘successful’, as long as it kept on going. The beneficiaries of the war made trillions; the biggest winners were not Afghan women but the arms firms, military contractors, mercenary firms, press barons, and politicians who will retire into the defence industries.

When it comes to Afghanistan itself, one must ask: where were the tears for Afghan women and girls when reports of Western war crimes were being suppressed? Reports of British soldiers killing children and proven cases of deaths in custody, beatings, torture, and sexual abuse of Afghan civilians are all extremely alarming incidents which have received little attention (let alone tears) thus far.[15]

Or consider when Australian Elite troops had 400 people witness prisoners, farmers, and civilians be killed, with even more egregious crimes committed, including:

– Junior soldiers were told to get their first kill by shooting prisoners, in a practice known as “blooding”.
– Weapons and other items were planted near Afghan bodies to dress them up as militants and cover up crimes.
– Additional incidents that constitute war crimes and fall under the rubric of “cruel treatment” were committed.[16]
Or how about when America punished the International Criminal Court for authorising an investigation of US forces for war crimes against civilians?[17]

Only when the rage and concern for Afghan civilians remains strong and consistent for all injustices – no matter who the perpetrators are – then the flowing liberal tears for Afghanistan’s people might be worth their salt.

Source: http://www.islam21c.com

Notes:

[1] https://twitter.com/North_Star88/status/1429408799450976263/photo/1

[2] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dont-use-girls-as-justification-for-bombing-afghanistan-again/

[3] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan

[4] https://twitter.com/NimkoAli?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[5] https://theintercept.com/2021/08/19/afghanistan-taliban-defense-industry-media/

[6] https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/08/17/fragility-womens-rights-afghanistan

[7] https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/afghanistan/what-will-peace-talks-bode-afghan-women

[8] https://time.com/5472411/afghanistan-women-justice-war/

[9] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/8/21/white-women-washing-the-uss-civilising-mission-in-afghanistan

[10] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/world/asia/afghans-share-their-views-on-the-wests-influence.html

[11] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/world/asia/despite-wests-efforts-afghan-youths-cling-to-traditional-ways.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

[12] https://www.iwmf.org/reporting/were-all-handcuffed-in-this-country-why-afghanistan-is-still-the-worst-place-in-the-world-to-be-a-woman/

[13] https://time.com/5472411/afghanistan-women-justice-war/

[14] https://time.com/5472411/afghanistan-women-justice-war/

[15] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/17/uk-government-and-military-covered-up-war-crimes-report

[16] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-54996581

[17] https://theconversation.com/us-punishes-international-criminal-court-for-investigating-potential-war-crimes-in-afghanistan-143886

FROM: islam21c.com

MUSLIM “INACTION”

A Brother from the U.S.A. writes:

Q. Muslims get attacked while other Muslims do absolutely nothing. Then they conveniently  choose to say: “This is the will of Allah.”, to justify their inaction. Even Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had sent  out war  contingents over the death of one Muslim. Now, today in this age, the kuffaar, mainly the U.S.A. slaughtered thousands of Muslims, and there is no response to   such atrocities.

  When Muslims in the U.S. overlook the actions of this government, it is an absurdity, cowardice or even nifaaq. When Muslims suffer financial hardship, they take action, even haram action to get more money. But when it concerns  the tyranny of America on Muslims, there is no action. All of a sudden it is the  divine decree.

   Please elaborate. I don’t want to be holding on to erroneous and kufr views. If I am wrong, correct me.

ANSWER

At the outset, understand well, that in this age Muslims are not Muslims.  The vast majority of the Ummah consists of  zanaadaqah, modernists, munaafiqeen and  such persons whose Imaan is grossly deficient.  Morally Muslims are bankrupt. Thus they lack  spiritual stamina  (roohaaniyat).

   While  your sentiments are correct and a sign of healthy Imaan, you have  not  comprehended the practicality of  instituting action against the kuffaar by ordinary people. Consider your own example. You  quite rightly  are concerned and emotionally feel for  Muslims suffering under kuffaar  oppression. Despite this, you are unable to  do anything against the kuffaar oppressors, and  according to the Shariah you as an individual are not required to do anything besides Sabr (Patience) and Dua.

   The very same applies to all other individuals who, despite suffering emotionally  for  the oppressed Muslims, find themselves impotent to react. The obligation of  aiding Muslims  against kuffaar oppression is the incumbent duty of  Muslim  rulers and governments. But unfortunately  all rulers and governments today in  control of Muslim countries are themselves kuffaar. Instead of  aiding and defending Muslims, they  aid the kuffaar to further oppress Muslims.

   While it is easy to say that Muslims should take action, the question is that in the current scenario how should Muslim  individuals take action? How can individual Muslims such as yourself take action against America  for its tyranny? How can ordinary individuals take action against the American government, military and armed forces?

   Undoubtedly, whatever happens  is by the decree of Allah Azza Wa Jal whether it is  the weakness and impotency of Muslims or the zulm (oppression)  and tyranny of the kuffaar. All of it is the decree of Allah Ta’ala. It is not a case of “a sudden divine decree being the subject matter”.  It is always the decree of Allah Ta’ala. The Qur’aan Majeed states:  “Not a leaf drops (from a tree) but Allah is aware.” “Nothing is hidden from your Rabb be it  the tiniest particle in the earth or in the heaven, but it is  recorded in a Clear Book.”

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) during the  second phase of Nubuwwat in Madinah was in position to send out expeditions on Jihad missions. But in Makkah, he  was unable to do so, hence the Fardh requisite  during the Makki period was only Sabr, Salaat and self-reformation. Our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah  suffered in silence and with patience the persecution, torture and oppression of the kuffaar for more than a decade in Makkah. They attributed their suffering and their weakness to Allah Ta’ala – to His decree.

   Reminding them of this condition of weakness, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

        “And, remember when you were a small band, oppressed in the land. You feared that the people (the mushrikeen)  would snatch you (uproot you), then Allah gave you succour, and He aided you with help from Him, and He  provided  for you Tayyibaat (wholesome food) so that you be grateful.”

    So weak and fearful  was Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah  during the initial phase of Nubuwwat in Makkah  that they would perform Salaat in secret in a house, without  reciting the Qiraa’t  audibly. That is why the Qiraa’t to this day in Zuhr and Asr is recited inaudibly. What practical alternative is there for individuals – ordinary lay people  – besides Sabr? Sabr was the advice of  Nabi Musa (Alayhis salaam) when Fir’oun was engaging in slaughtering all the male babies of Bani Israaeel. They were helpless.  Their helplessness imposed Sabr and Dua on them, and this was by the decree of Allah Ta’ala.  Allah Ta’ala has willed such inaction of Bani Israeel at the time when they were being brutally oppressed, persecuted and slaughtered. The Qur’aan is replete with the command and advice of Sabr.

FROM AL-HAQ #63

PALESTINE-KASHMIR-SYRIA

THE DECREE OF ALLAH
“If Allah aids you, none can ever vanquish you, and if He abandons you, then who is there to aid you thereafter? And, the Mu’minoon should have tawakkul (trust) on only Allah.” (Qur’aan) “There is no aid except from Allah, The Mighty, The Wise.” (Qur’aan)
The Ummah is vastly weaker and more degraded than it was in 1947 when Israel was carved out from Palestine and handed to the Jews and when the Hindus took control of Kashmir. Despite the continuous fighting and hostility of almost 8 decades, Muslims of these lands have attained no successes leave alone victory over the kuffaar. On the contrary, greater suffering and humiliation have been imposed on them. All the so-called Muslim governments in all the Lands of Islam, have in entirety deserted the suffering millions of Palestine, Kashmir, Arakan, Syria, etc. In fact, most of these so-called Muslim countries are in support of Israel. Some such as the Saudi Darul Kufr and others are actively aiding the Israelis in their objective of exterminating the Palestinians. The prolonged horrendous suffering and humiliation of Muslims at the hands of the Yahood, Nasaara, the Mushrikeen of India and China is conspicuous evidence of Divine Abandonment. That is, Allah Ta’ala has abandoned this Ummah. In other words, Allah Ta’ala is inflicting His punishment on us for our treachery, disobedience and rebellion against Him. The vast majority of this Ummah has become kuffaar, not only in practice, but also in belief. Even its ulama have become the scum of people. The Deen has long ago been discarded and is currently being trampled on by even those who are supposed to be its vanguards and the guides of the Ummah, viz., the ulama. The munaafiq rulers and kuffaar governments in political domination in all the lands of Islam are merely the reflection of the evil, villainy and kufr of the Muslim populations in these countries. Allah Ta’ala imposes and afflicts a nation with rulers which are reflections of their deeds and misdeeds. Thus, it is stupid to point the finger of blame for the degradation and misery of the Ummah at the munaafiq and kuffaar rulers and governments. The rot is in the entire Ummah at ground level. The moral and spiritual conditions of the entire Ummah in general is absolutely rotten and beyond the limits of lament. Fisq, fujoor, bid’ah, nifaaq and kufr are the primary attributes of those who profess to be Muslims, and the worst of them are their molvis and sheikhs. While this is the prevalent state of affairs in all Muslim countries, it is worse in Palestine, Kashmir, Syria, Arakan, China and now India must be added to the list. The moral rot and spiritual bankruptcy of these segments of the Ummah are justifying the horrendous Punishment which is engulfing them. Muslim communities elsewhere are not heeding and not deriving any lesson from the conflagrations of horror which have overwhelmed Muslims in these few countries. This attitude of indifference is the sign for more Muslim communities upon whom will fall the axe of Allah’s Athaab. The misery which has engulfed the Palestinians currently is not an accident. It is not a haphazard development. It is not the power of the Yahood and Nasaara. It is by the decree of Allah Azza Wa Jal. The Qur’aan Majeed states:
“Not a leaf drops (from a tree) but He is aware. There is not a seed in the darkness of the earth nor anything moist or dry, but it is recorded in a Clear Book (Looh-e-Mahfooz).” “Nothing is hidden from your Rabb, be it the finest particle in the earth or in the heaven, nor something smaller or bigger, but it is recorded in a Clear Book.” Then Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that if the entire mankind unites to cause harm to you, they will succeed only to the degree that Allah Ta’ala has ordained for you. People of valid Imaan will now understand that whatever is currently happening in Palestine, Syria and elsewhere is by Allah’s command and everything is on course and Allah Azza Wa Jal is in full control and command.


OUR OBLIGATION
The obligation of Muslims is to repent and morally reform themselves. This moral reformation is structured on total obedience to the Shariah and adoption of the Sunnah in all spheres of life. Minus these fundamental requisites there is absolutely no hope for the redemption of Muslims and for casting off the shackles of the kuffaar. Muslims have enshackled themselves with the culture and lifestyle of the kuffaar. Muslims have made the Yahood and Nasaara their leaders, hence Allah Ta’ala has made them our rulers to oppress and brutalize us. That is Allah’s Athaab, and for the Ways of Allah there is no change. The Qur’aan Majeed says:
“Never will you find a change for the Sunnah of Allah.”