Saturday, 24 Muharram 1447 | 2025/07/19
Time now: (M.M.T)
Menu
Main menu
Main menu

Should Muslims be supporting the ‘forbidden' conflict in Syria?

It is exactly 3 years since the peaceful yet powerful call against the regime of Bashar al Assad was met with a violent and merciless response from the regime. Now, the British government has started criminalising those who oppose Bashar's regime. Has something changed? Are they now on Bashar's side?

In fact the stance of global powers like Britain has remained unchanged. From the outset they have done little to hasten Bashar's departure. Politicians like Hillary Clinton and William Hague were measured in their criticisms saying he was a reformer. As his horrific crimes escalated, they simply suggested he should step aside. The missions of Lakhtar Brahimi and Kofi Annan stalled for time. They made lip service against the Bashar's use of chemical weapons.

The truth is they fear losing control of a region that has been under their influence since the settlement of the Sykes-Picot Agreement in World War One - a region that strategically important for its closeness to Iraq, Turkey and the Zionist occupation of Palestine.

For all this time, they have searched for an alternative to Bashar who will secure their interests as well as retaining credibility with the people. Yet all their plotting and planning in Geneva, Qatar and elsewhere has not succeeded in fabricating an opposition that has any credibility with the people.

This stance by the West in the face of mass murder has meant Muslims in Syria came to rely upon Allah alone - and have become very sceptical of any western-linked politicians and suspicious of their political moves. From the earliest days their chants have been Islamic. Their protests carried Islamic titles and brigades were given Islamic names. Even their declared aims for a post-Assad Syria have been overtly Islamic.

Yet, only now Bashar's opponents are labelled as ‘extremists' and ‘Islamists' and their shortcomings are exaggerated in comparison to those of the regime. They have now started arrested Muslims in Britain who have travelled to Syria to help on suspicion of ‘terrorism'. Muslim charities have been investigated for sending sadaqah.

This criminalising of Islam and attacking of the opposition is a message: A message to those in Syria to bow down to Western interests or suffer under Bashar - and a message to those in Britain that they are expected to be more concerned about British foreign policy interests than the Ummah in Syria.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Islam! Our community must take the correct stand in supporting the Muslims in Syria.
Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says

((كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ))

"You are the best Ummah produced for mankind. You enjoin ma'roof (what is right) and forbid munkar (what is wrong) and believe in Allah." [Ali-Imran: 110]

1. Being part of this ‘best Ummah' means we are privileged and obliged to care for what is happening to our brothers and sisters in Syria. So, we must continue to support them with our prayers, our sadaqah and our voices.

The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wasallam said

«المُسْلِمُ أَخُو المُسْلِمِ، لَا يَخُونُهُ وَلَا يَكْذِبُهُ وَلَا يَخْذُلُهُ»

A Muslim is a brother to a Muslim. He should neither deceive him nor lie to him, nor leave him without assistance. [At- Tirmidhi].

So we should not abandon the families in the UK who are being punished for their support for Muslims in Syria - whether individuals or charities. In particular, even if some people in the community might consider that it is unwise for Muslims in Britain to go, or that their help is best given other ways; we should never condemn those who go there for an Islamic motivation as ‘criminal' or ‘terrorists'.

They are being called ‘extremists' - just as Muslim women who wear Niqab are called ‘extremists', or Muslim men and women who sit separately in public events. This is all part of the ‘Prevent' policy - a policy of compulsion to their ‘deen' of secular beliefs, liberal values and a Capitalist world of nation states.

2. Enjoining ma'roof and forbidding munkar means being vocal in speaking for what is correct and against what is wrong - even if the Home Office and Foreign Office detest what we are saying, and they use lies, smears and bullying to try to silence us.

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says:

*يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَقُولُوا قَوْلًا سَدِيدًا
يُصْلِحْ لَكُمْ أَعْمَالَكُمْ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَمَنْ يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ فَازَ فَوْزًا عَظِيمًا

"Believers! Fear Allah and speak words straight to the point. He will amend for you your deeds and forgive you your sins. And whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly attained a great achievement." [al Ahzab: 70-71]

So, we should ask the politicians what business they have in criminalising Islam and Muslims? Does a serious government spend its efforts chasing people who never intended any harm to people in Britain - or should they catch thieves and rapists? Does a serious government chase after Muslim charities that gave sadaqah for Bashar's victims - or clean up the corrupt world of finance that almost wrecked the global economy?

Also, we should vocally oppose and expose today's regional power games by global powers that interfere in the region, in particular their efforts to manufacture an opposition e.g. in Geneva summit. Those who created the structural problems in the region have no credibility in fixing them.

Furthermore, we should vocally support the desires of Muslims in Syria to replace the current oppression with an Islamic system; by redressing the propaganda that such a system would worsen the sectarianism unleashed by Assad or oppresses minorities. Indeed, it is only the Islamic system - the Khilafah "Caliphate" - that unified all people in the region for centuries - before it was fractured by Sykes-Picot, Balfour and a host of other regional power games by global powers. It is because of this system that Christian and Jewish communities were protected and maintained in Bilad al Shaam.

3. Most importantly, we should trust in Allah alone and recall at all times:

((إِنْ يَنْصُرْكُمُ اللَّهُ فَلَا غَالِبَ لَكُمْ وَإِنْ يَخْذُلْكُمْ فَمَنْ ذَا الَّذِي يَنْصُرُكُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ وَعَلَى اللَّهِ فَلْيَتَوَكَّلِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ))

"If Allah is your helper none can overcome you, and if He withdraw His help from you, who is there who can help you after Him? In Allah let believers put their trust." [Ali-Imran:160].

Read more...

Hizb ut Tahrir Rejects Statement of Uzbek Ambassador Hizb ut Tahrir is a Political Party and has No Relation with Militant Action

Hizb ut Tahrir rejects and condemns the statement of the Uzbek ambassador, published in a newspaper, on Friday, 14th March 2014, in which he tried to link Hizb ut Tahrir with terrorism and put forwards a baseless allegation that people affiliated with Hizb ut Tahrir are taking terrorist training in the tribal area of Pakistan. Even a person who knows very little about Hizb ut Tahrir is well

Read more...

Bashar Killer of Children and Women will not be able to Deceive the Women of Ash-Sham

On 13/3/2014, media outlets reported the news of the surprise visit of the tyrant Bashar to the displaced people sheltering in the Dwair centre in Adra in the province of Damascus. The images showed the tyrant surrounded by a number of his bodyguards, as he spoke to the women and children in the Dwair centre; embracing a number of the children, and shaking hands with an elderly woman wearing a black Khimar.

Read more...

Freedom to insult? Free speech as a liberal tool of power 06 February 2014 By: Uthman Badar

  • Published in Analysis
  •   |  

I recently participated in a debate on the proposition that "God and His Prophets should be protected from insult." But, I argued, this proposition is based on the premise of free speech, on the understanding that free speech is the starting point and what remains is to debate its limits.

I reject this premise entirely. Free speech is a liberal position, not some neutral universal. So here's a frank memo to the liberals: enough of the self-indulgence. You don't represent the default position. Billions of people around the worlds are not liberals. Stop feigning universality. Drop the pretence and let's have an honest discussion. It is of the most basic human civility to respect others. That is the starting point - not free speech. To insult others is to treat them with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness. The onus is upon those who want to allow such behaviour to prove why this depravity should be permitted.

The idea of free speech is flawed in theory and politicised in practice. It is an idea impossible to implement, and has never been implemented anywhere historically - not even today, in liberal societies.

For instance, when justifying the most recent film insulting the Prophet, the White House said, "we cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country." Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted, "our country does have a long tradition of free expression ... we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be." These sentiments have been echoed by leaders in Europe and Australia.

But these statements are simply not true. Free speech does not exist in absolute form. There is no absolute freedom to insult. Across the liberal West, we find defamation laws, sedition laws, professional standards and journalistic standards of reporting about politicians and celebrities. In Germany, denial of the Holocaust is prohibited by law. In the United Kingdom, the Public Order Act makes "threatening, abusive or insulting words" a criminal offence. In Australia, Commonwealth Criminal Code makes it an offence for a person to use a postal or similar service "in a way ... that reasonable persons would regard as being ... offensive."

As for in practice, we find numerous examples of people being convicted for mere speech. In the United Kingdom, Azhar Ahmad was convicted in 2012 for "grossly offensive communications" because of a comment he made on Facebook about British soldiers killed in Afghanistan, which read, "all soldiers should die and go to hell." District Judge Jane Goodwin, in arriving at the conviction, noted that the test was whether what was written was "beyond the pale of what's tolerable in our society." In Australia, a Muslim man who sent letters deemed offensive to the family of dead soldiers was convicted last year under the above-mentioned criminal code provisions. These are but two of many examples that may be cited.

The principle of free speech, I argue, is wielded selectively as a political tool. When Muslim sanctities are denigrated, we're lectured about free speech and how it can't be qualified. Yet when Muslims and others insult, they are met with the force of law. Who decides about when and how to qualify free speech? The real question, then, is not about freedom. It is about how far power can go. It's about power using the notion of freedom to extend and enforce its reach.

Ultra-liberals may say here that they disagree with all these laws and cases and maintain absolute free speech for all - unqualified, carte blanche. But is such a position conducive to society? Would we accept white people using the "n word" against blacks? Or a person shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? Or a student insulting his teacher, or a child her parent? Everyone teaches their children to respect others, not to insult. Why? Because insults beget insults, hate and rancour. Is that the type of society we want for ourselves and for our children?

Some forget, perhaps, that even in the western tradition, free speech was upheld as a most basic value for specific ends: to allow the profession of ideas, inquiry into truths and the ability to hold government to account. Do any of these noble ends - all of which are upheld in Islam, I should hasten to add - require the freedom to insult? Or does insult, in fact, defeat the very purpose of these ends? Insulting another person's beliefs does not encourage them to think. Instead, it makes them more entrenched, defensive and prepared to retaliate - that's human nature.

But, let's be honest, the reason this debate over the freedom to insult others is still a live one is because secular liberalism has dominated both East and West, not by the strength of its values, but by the strength of its militaries. The Muslim world resisted and continues to do so. Unlike Christianity and Judaism, which crumbled under the force of secularism, Islam did not. Lands were divided and colonised, conquered and exploited. The Islamic state, the Caliphate, was dismantled, but the Islamic mind remained. It is in an effort to break this resistance that the insults come - to impose secular liberalism, to consolidate its victory forever.

Is the western world really in a position to lecture others about violence? Or about values? The "free world" seeks to dominate and impose itself upon the rest by means of military, political and epistemic violence: perpetuating Orientalist fantasies about Muslims being prone to violence, backward, unable to manage themselves; propping up dictators like Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah; destroying entire countries through war and invasion; using unmanned drones to kill indiscriminately in Yemen and Pakistan. This is the broader context of provocation in which the global Muslim reaction to insults come. It here that far more attention needs to be focused.

When it comes to critique - as opposed to insult - I'd say, bring it on. Any attempt to quash or stifle serious debate is unacceptable in Islam. Critique of any ideas or beliefs is kosher. It's halal. Insulting any beliefs or people is not. Critique Islam all you want. Write in measured, considered tones about why Islam is not the truth, or why the Prophet was not a prophet. Such books fill bookstores across the West as it is. Never have any of these books resulted in a riot. But to mock, to denigrate, to provoke, to agitate - that is something else, and is unacceptable.

Everyone has lines they will not cross. All worldviews and cultures are sensitive with respect to certain things they hold dear. In Australian culture, for instance, Jesus may have become fair game, but ANZAC is not. Modernity did not do away with sanctities; it merely shifted them from the religious to the worldly.
***

To insult is not an acceptable mode of interaction for mature, self-respecting people. It is the modus operandi of pseudo-intellectuals with nothing to offer, no intent to engage, and only interested in projecting their own insecurities onto others. Insults bring nothing to society except hate and divisiveness.
Hence all beliefs and sanctities should be protected from insult, including that which is most sacred to billions around the world: God and His Prophets, peace be upon them all. This should be done, in our present context, by the elevation of values, not imposition of law. You can't regulate civility. You can't force people to be respectful. This is about elevating the human condition -reviving the sacred and the most basic value of human decency, which has been eroded by secular liberalism in the most hideous of ways.

 

Uthman Badar is a writer, activist and student of economics, Arabic and Islam. He is the spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia.

February 6, 2014

 

[Source: ABC]

Read more...

News and Comment The mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 aircraft that has brought together a wide range of human expertise but remains unable to solve this problem proves the limitations of the human mind

  • Published in News & Comment
  •   |  

News

On the 8th of March, 2014, Malaysia Airlines confirmed and issued a press statement about the loss of a Boeing 777-200 aircraft from Kuala Lumpur heading to China. Concurrent with this announcement, various media around the world also covered this news regarding the lost plane carrying 239 passengers including the crew. Experts around the world too gave their insights and helped in the investigation of the loss of the aircraft. Search and rescue efforts continued to find the Malaysia Airlines aircraft. Searching efforts have been enhanced with cooperation from several countries, including Vietnam, China, Singapore, United States and Australia. However, after entering the fourth day, all parties still have not found any sign or indication of the loss of the aircraft. This event also has brought various speculations regarding the disappearance of the aircraft.

Comment

The loss of the MH 370 aircraft carrying 227 passengers and 12 crew members shocked the entire world. We, the women section of Hizb ut Tahrir are sympathetic to the plight of the families involved and feel for their grief. We pray that the families can remain patient, that Allah gives strength to any of our brothers and sisters affected by this situation and that they are able to accept the scene as a Qada (destiny) from Allah. Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur'an,

((يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اسْتَعِينُوا بِالصَّبْرِ‌ وَالصَّلَاةِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ مَعَ الصَّابِرِ‌ينَ))

"O you who have believed, seek help (to Allah) through patience and (performing) prayer. Indeed, Allah is with the patient." [Al-Baqarah: 153]

Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 is a sophisticated aircraft in which it is said to be able to fly long distances although it functions using only one engine. The loss of this aircraft has brought together experts from a wide range of expertise whether in terms of engineering, searching and investigation. However, the puzzle regarding the disappearance of this aircraft remains unresolved and investigations are still unable to find any clue even though it has entered the sixth day. This proves that the human mind and technology are unable to compete the power of God. Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur'an,

((سَنُرِ‌يهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ ۗ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَ‌بِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ))

"We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?" [Surah Fussilat: 53]

The above verse is a warning from God to advise us not to be too arrogant with intelligence of the human mind and sophistication of technology that has been created by man. Without the permission of Allah swt, surely no human being would be able to create and produce something.

Indeed, the creation of man will never be comparable to the creation of Allah. Lack of information and clues has slowed down the search for the aircraft proving limitations of the mind and vulnerability and fragility of life. This should remind us of our dependence on Allah - that our life lies in His Hands alone and how He alone should decide the laws by which mankind should live by for He has All the knowledge in the universe and awareness. He alone is enough to decide how our lives, society and state should be organised.

 

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Sumayyah Amar
Member of the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir

Read more...

Policy for Ending the Scourge of Sectarianism February 2014 CE - Rabii' uth-Thaani 1435 AH

Hizb ut Tahrir / Wilayah Pakistan has issued a Publicized Policy Position (PPP) regarding the scourge of sectarianism and how the Khilafah "Caliphate" will engender respect for difference of opinion and end factionalism

A. Preamble: Democracy causes division, factions and conflict, including sectarianism

Read more...
Subscribe to this RSS feed

Site Categories

Links

West

Muslim Lands

Muslim Lands