Muslims For Peace

At BEIRUT: Lebanon’s US-backed Government provoked an armed crisis in Beirut, when it seized control of HezbAllah’s military communications system last Wednesday (7 May 2008). HezbAllah responded by sending its armed fighters onto the street in Beirut’s Muslim sector on Friday. Some observers see the Government’s actions as part of political and military preparations for a new Israeli invasion, in the near future. (See separate report below for more on this.)

At least 18 people have been killed and 38 wounded in three days of battles between pro-government gunmen and fighters loyal to HezbAllah. The group said the Government had declared war.

A US State Department spokesman said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had phoned her French and Saudi counterparts and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to discuss ‘what the international system can do to support this Lebanese government … in the face of illegal acts, by the armed gangs’.

A White House spokesman said: ‘The United States is consulting with other governments in the region and with the U.N. Security Council about measures that must be taken to hold those responsible for the violence in Beirut accountable’.

Syria said the issue was an internal Lebanese affair, while Iran blamed ‘the adventurist interferences’ of the United States and Israel for the violence.

A senior opposition source told Reuters that HezbAllah and its allies would maintain roadblocks, including barricades on routes to the airport, until a full resolution of the crisis.

‘All issues are linked. Beirut will remain shut until there is a political solution’, the source said.

HezbAllah seized the offices of pro-Government factions, including Hariri’s Future group in the predominantly Muslim western half of the city.

Backed by fighters from the Shi’a Amal group, HezbAllah handed over the offices to the army. Hariri supporters gave up their offices to the army elsewhere in the country.

HezbAllah also moved into Hariri-owned media outlets, and Hariri’s television and radio stations went off the air. Members of the Syrian Socialist National Party set ablaze a building housing studios of Hariri’s TV station.

In a televised address, HezbAllah leader Sayyid Nasrallah said the political crisis in Lebanon had ‘entered a new phase’ because of what HezbAllah claims are government moves against the Muslim group.

‘This decision is a declaration of war against the resistance [HezbAllah],” said Nasrallah. He added that the Government’s decision ‘is designed to push the resistance and the military into direct confrontation’. He warned that HezbAllah would act to stop any attempt by the Government to dismantle the communications network.

 ********

HIZBULLAH PREPARES FOR WAR ON TWO FRONTS

WHEN ISRAEL NEXT INVADES LEBANON

By Nasr Salem

Crescent International, April 2008

There is open talk of impending war in Lebanon these days. Lebanese of many factions are speculating about potential scenarios for another war being waged on Hizbullah by Israel. These discussions concentrate on the question of when, rather than whether, such a war will erupt. However, despite the diversity of visions, they all agree about a large-scale war that will be more intense and destructive than the 34-day war against Hizbullah in summer 2006 that followed Hizbullah’s operation on July 12, 2006, in which two Israeli soldiers were captured and three killed. Whenever it comes, this large-scale conflict will probably dwarf the previous war; it could well inflame the entire Middle East.

From Israel’s standpoint, the rationale for such a war derives from the ignominious setbacks its army suffered during its confrontation with Hizbullah in southern Lebanon in 2006. Hizbullah shattered Israel’s military thinking, which was based on employing a combination of state-of-the-art air-power, hi-technology weapons-systems and lightning attacks to overrun enemy posts or occupy vast swathes of enemy territory (or both). Hizbullah’s tactical preparedness enabled it to use guided anti-tank missiles to destroy advancing Israeli tanks and to rain short- and intermediate-range missiles on Israeli targets throughout the war, despite the Israeli air force’s apparently absolute dominance of the skies. Israel’s much-vaunted Arrow missile program proved useless against these incoming low-flying missiles. Hizbullah fired a total of approximately 4,000 rockets at Israel during the 34-day war. It also destroyed at least one Israeli naval vessel, the INS Hanit, using an Iranian-made C-802 Noor guided missile. Another war, therefore, will seek not only to redeem the image and restore the diminished prestige of Israel’s army, but also to eliminate the threat posed by Hizbullah, which not only managed to survive repeated Israeli aggression but has also managed since then to replenish its stores of arms and munitions.

The main lesson Israel derived from that war is that heavy dependence on air power and artillery bombardment cannot root out Hizbullah. Only a major conventional ground offensive might eliminate Hizbullah. So the war Israel is preparing to launch is likely to involve columns of tanks advancing northwards through the Beqa’a plateau along the Syrian border in eastern Lebanon. This will enable the invading troops to avoid having to make their way through the areas patrolled by the Lebanese army and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) south of the Litani River in accordance with Security Council resolution 1701, which was the diplomatic means of ending the war of July-August 2006. Such a ground offensive, in which two or three reinforced armoured infantry divisions – between 30,000 and 45,000 troops – would take part, will certainly be accompanied by an intense campaign of airstrikes targeting Hizbullah positions and civilian areas where the party maintains wide popular support, such as the southern suburbs of Beirut, aiming to cause massive economic and human dislocations. Israeli planners could choose targets to suit various options ranging from limited air-strikes to a more comprehensive set of strikes against a wide array of targets. Supporting squads of special forces belonging to Israel’s Sayaret or special ops, amphibious contingents, and specialised engineering units would try to infiltrate Hizbullah areas to destroy underground systems of tunnels and bunkers, missile and artillery positions, weapons-depots and vital installations.

With diplomatic support from the US, Britain and France, the UN Security Council would pass a resolution to expand UNIFIL’s mandate to deploy forces along the Syrian-Lebanese border. The ultimate objective would be to cut off the lifeline supplying arms and ammunition to Hizbullah through Syria. UNIFIL, which is made up largely of troops belonging to NATO countries, is likely to be responsive to the interests of the US and its strategic Middle East ally, Israel, and will by no means be neutral with respect to Syria and Hizbullah.

The fighting will certainly be fierce. Unlike the regular Arab armies the Israeli army is used to routing in the battlefield, Hizbullah is a formidable adversary with an impressive record of military achievements. Over the past quarter of a century, Israel’s experience of engaging Hizbullah fighters has been chastening and humbling, to say the least. Since the guns fell silent in August 2006, Hizbullah has been busy rehabilitating its armed wing and preparing for the next war. It has reportedly managed to replenish its stores with stockpiles of advanced Russian-made anti-tank missiles and short-, intermediate- and long-range surface-to-surface missiles that are able to deliver larger payloads to targets deep inside Israel’s borders. Thousands of fighters and new recruits have undergone intensive training as well.

Hizbullah’s preparations are for a two-war scenario, in which it will find itself fighting, at the same time, both Israeli forces and Lebanese militias belonging to political factions affiliated with the pro-western government of Lebanese prime minister Fouad al-Siniora. The scenario posits that the Israeli assault will be coordinated with Lebanese pro-government militias that will move to control certain areas in Mount Liban and northern Lebanon, thus denying Hizbullah freedom of movement throughout the country and providing safe corridors and bridgeheads for invading Israeli troops. Over the past year, there has been a heated drive by both loyalist and opposition factions to arm themselves and train fighters in preparation for an impending internal war. Should such a scenario materialise, Hizbullah will concentrate on fighting the invading Israeli troops, whereas its allies in the Lebanese opposition will engage and attempt to crush the threat posed by pro-government militias.

An Israeli push into the Beqa’a valley will almost certainly provoke Syria to respond, thus igniting a major regional war. The Syrians have long been aware of the limitations of their army, with its ageing Soviet-era tankforce and old MIG and Sukhoi fighter jets, as well as of Israel’s vulnerability to surface-to-surface missiles. That has led them since the 1990s to incorporate a North Korean element into their military thinking. This element is based on the utility of missile stockpiles as both a deterrent and an essential component of defence strategy. Syria has also learnt the lessons of the Hizbullah-led resistance in Lebanon and the Iraqi insurgency. Special units have been trained in the tactics of guerrilla warfare. These units can be mobilised if necessary to engage Israeli military formations with frontal hit-and-run attacks, to disrupt their supply lines and to harass their forces’ positions behind the frontline and the theatre of operations.

Further complicating this scenario are indications that Israel is preparing for simultaneous wars against Syria and Iran. Israel might use Syria’s entry into the war as a pretext to launch air-strikes against Iran’s military, nuclear and other strategic installations, thus setting off retaliatory ballistic missile strikes against Israel and US military installations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf region. Without such Israeli bombardment against the Islamic Republic, Iranian troops might still be sent to fight alongside Syrian troops. Syria and Iran have signed a mutual defence agreement which commits the Islamic Republic to come to Syria’s aid if it is subjected to military aggression.

This conflagration might eventually develop into a confrontation involving US troops. It is difficult to imagine an attack against Iran that does not have a direct effect on the anti-US resistance in Iraq. Iran could use its ties to some groups inside Iraq to initiate attacks directed against US troops stationed in the country. There is also the possibility that Iranian troops might cross the Iraq-Iran border and engage US troops inside Iraq. Were this to happen, the entire Middle East could be transformed into one enormous war zone.

None of all these preparations and planning means that such a broad Middle East war is inevitable. The war scenario, especially in its extreme version, might not come to pass. But in the light of the escalating tensions engulfing the region, it is certainly conceivable that US and Israeli military plans for all-out war on Hizbullah, Iran and Syria have reached an advanced stage of readiness. However, several factors work against the likelihood of direct US involvement in such a war. For one thing, the US is not in a position to fight another major war. US forces and military capabilities are already overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another war in the Middle East would drive up the already high price of crude oil and the soaring American deficits (the costs of Washington’s misadventures in both Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to have reached a staggering $3,000 billion so far), with highly damaging consequences for the US economy. As for Israel, it is unlikely to win quickly, if at all, in another war against Hizbullah, whether it involved Syria and Iran or not, even if it marshals all the ground, sea and air components of its military juggernaut. A long-drawn-out war would limit Israel’s ability to avoid casualties on a scale that would sap domestic support for the war. It is true that such limitations and uncertainties render any new Israeli military misadventure a highly perilous exercise for Israeli leaders and their blind supporters in the US government. But with such a crazed, arrogant, warmongering clique of decision-makers in Washington and Tel Aviv, who refuse to learn from history or their own experiences, it is always prudent to be prepared for the worst-case scenario.

To err on the side of caution is the best form of far-sighted wisdom.

By Syed Zain Abbas, UK

To understand this question and the answers to it we must look at the history of Israel and why it was created and the context of its creation. Many people do not know this, but Israel was first promised to the Jews in 1917 and this was the first time in history that a land of one set of people (Muslims) was promised to another set of people (Jews) without the permission of the people to whom the land belonged. Although the creation of Israel actually happened in 1948, the planning happened a long time before 1917 just after the land was seized off the Ottomans after WW I. The fall of the Ottoman caliphate was largely due to their lack of political awareness and their support for the Germans in WW I. While they should have stayed neutral in Europe’s War between rival wings of the kuffar, they decided to back Germany, which ultimately led to their demise.

In 1948 the Jews decided to declare Independence and set up their Zionist state. Previous to this, people had been immigrating in and driving away Palestinians, buying land off them etc. Eventually, Palestine was occupied and the Palestinians were robbed of their land. So the occupation of Palestine started in 1948 with the creation of Israel — although all the Western media and even some so-called ‘Moderate Muslims’ now claim that the occupied areas are those that Israel seized in 1967 after its Six Day War, in fact this was just a further occupation from the land already occupied. In Islam, we are told to fight for our rights and fight occupation and the occupier:

[2:190-193] Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever you catch them and drive them out from whence they drove you out, for terrorism is worse than killing. But do not engage in combat with them at the sacred mosque unless they engage you in combat there. But if they combat against you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And combat them until there is no more terrorism or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. But if they cease, don’t let there be hostility except to those who practice oppression.

Islam’s solution to this problem

Islam has given us the answer and solution to this problem, which is to initiate a defensive jihad, in order to fight the occupation and liberate our people. If someone wants to make peace or accept the existence of Israel, then it no longer becomes an occupation because an occupier is illegitimate. But as soon as you start negotiating and accepting with the occupier, in your eyes and in the eyes of the world, he becomes legitimate which is what any occupation wants. Anyone who does not fight the occupation and or accepts the occupation is committing a sin and is straying away from the hukm that Islam gives on this issue. So we as Muslims are ordered to fight and help our brothers and sisters in Palestine until the whole of Palestine is liberated and rogue illegitimate state of Israel is destroyed. If you understand the history behind the existence of Israel and you understand the Islamic hukm of what to do, you will never go astray, but as soon as people start to confuse either of the two, they fall into committing sin. For example, some people do not understand the history and think the only reason that Israel is illegitimate is because of the 1967 borders, or some people, I am afraid to say, have totally abandoned the concept of jihad in Islam.

Jihad is not aggression, but a mercy from our Creator (SWT), through which he prevents oppression and mischief on the earth:

[2:251] … And were it not for Allah’s repelling some men with others, the earth would certainly be in a state of disorder; but Allah is Gracious to the creatures.

And Islam prescribes strict guidelines for such fighting. Muslims are commanded by Almighty Allah neither to be aggressive, nor to violate the rights of others, nor harm the innocent, animals or even trees. The Qur’an [22:40] commands respect for all houses of worship and stresses that ‘[2:256] There is no compulsion in religion’.

All Israel is illegitimate

The 1967 borders as they are now are an extension of Israel’s borders after its Six Day War with its Arab neighbours. Most people see this as the illegitimate part of Israel’s existence, when in reality, because the 1967 borders are mentioned so much, we slowly start to accept that: ‘yes, that is the problem and that is what must be solved’, without looking at the root cause. If people start to negotiate around the issue of the 1967 borders, it means that they have accepted the rest of Israel as we mentioned before, and that is haraam. Many groups and organisations that started off as legitimate liberation movements in the end sold out and started to accept Israel, negotiating with them over the issue of just the 1967 borders. But this is the plan of the kufaar — to in the end set up a ‘two-state solution’, where Israel is accepted by its neighbours and hence Israel is no longer illegitimate.

Now that we understand it is haraam to make peace with Israel and to accept even a peace agreement promising the land back to the 1967 borders is haraam as well, it is easier to understand this situation and its implications. For example HAMAS portrayed in the Western media as terrorists and seen as mujahids by Muslims, are a group that really started off to fight against Israel as an entity but as in all other good sincere Muslim groups, the leadership has betrayed the original goals of the organisation and the people which support it.

There are two things which prove that HAMAS has gone astray. The first is that they took part in an un-Islamic process and system of government that is haraam and secondly, when they did get elected, they did not implement Islam, but actually stayed with the kufr base of government and model. In fact, all they did was just appear to be Islamic, when in reality on the ground level they made no difference and their statements lead us to believe they had gone astray, because they said themselves that the most important thing was not to establish Islam at that time, but to sort out the problems in Palestine etc. (that is, a more nationalistic outlook than an Islamic one). But what is even more clear cut is that, by taking part in the political process, they had to accept Israel, for if they did not, they would not have even been able to participate in the elections. So, they have committed the biggest two sins: first shirk by ruling in a kufr system and second to make peace with a transgressor and occupier, which is also haraam. So even if we were to believe that HAMAS thought it was not important to implement Islam first but rather to deal with the problem of Israel, then even then they would be deceiving us, because they have already accepted Israel in secret, while going to the ballot box.

Now that all sides have accepted and are willing to comply with the plans of the kufaar for the region that is, a two-state solution where an illegitimate Israel sits alongside a Palestinian state, which in turn makes the Israeli state legitimate for all parties — including Arabs who will get a proportion of the land. The only stumbling block to this plan are the sincere Muslims who will never accept Israel, and the Israelis themselves — who now are so arrogant and proud that they will not even discuss a two-state solution. So with the plans of the kufaar nearly implemented, a lot of political and media pressure will be put on the Israelis to try and make them feel as though they need this two-state solution, because on the other side all the major players like HAMAS etc., have accepted Israel’s existence.

This current situation we have of a fake kuffr illustrated jihad or resistance is not new because on 14 May 1948, when Israel declared Independence, the Arab League members (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq) declared war on the rogue state. They initiated what seemed to be a ‘jihad’ on the surface, but in reality one must question truly what was the intention of these states and whether or not they really wanted to exterminate the illegitimate presence — or just wanted a share of the spoils at the expense of the Palestinians.

The Syrian and Lebanese forces were small in number and never really threatened from the north, while the most organised and advanced fighting force was that of King Abdullah’s Jordan — but this was commanded by British officers (even though Israel’s existence was the result of the British Balfour declaration). So this meant that the Jordanians were really implementing the borders of Israel through their soap opera of ‘jihad’ and, because of the British influence, they restricted the operations to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Also, King Abdullah wanted to share Palestine with the Jews; noudobillah he wanted to sell the honour of his own Palestinian brothers for personal gain! The southern armies from Egypt were not as strong as the Jordanians either and failed to reach Jerusalem from the south. To sum up, each Arab leader going to war either did it because of pressure from the people or to expand his own kingdom or personal status; it was neither a resistance built on Islamic principles nor one with an Islamic aim.

There has never been a large-scale legitimate resistance to Israel, mainly due to the fact that in the past it would be the duty of the state. Now, however, we have no state and Islam does not exist in the form of an implemented ideology, so that must be done first. The root cause of the creation of Israel and the inability for the ’Ummah to deal with it arose from the absence of Islam and as soon as Islam is once more established InshaAllah, our brothers and sisters in Palestine will finally be liberated.

We must also realise that, as this is a religious issue, it must be dealt with and the answer will come from Islam and Islamic methods taught by RasulAllah (S) and his Ahl ul-Bayt (as). So brothers and sisters who continue to pursue this noble cause but who do so with an incorrect method are not only bound to failure, but they are in fact assisting the kuffar by confusing the ’Ummah and diverting its efforts in the wrong way. A very good example of this is the boycott of Israeli goods and supposed companies that support Israel’s cause such as Coca Cola or Pepsi. It is not haraam to boycott any of these goods or products which support Israel, but we must understand in reality the effort of a small number of Muslim westerners will not make a difference to the global market and that this is a means not an end. So, just by you not buying these goods, the problem of Israel will not go away. The main problem to these boycotting campaigns is that people think they boycott and have done their job and they do not look at what Islam commands; they also do not work for the re-establishment of Islam. In fact, they are shirking their duty and are innovating a fard — that is, boycotting — and neglecting and replacing the fard to work for Islam. If the ’Ummah worked even half as hard on implementing Islam rather than boycotting, then most of the problems in the Muslim land would have been over.

So now we reach the conclusion that the only solution to the problem of Israel is to establish an Islamic State built upon the foundations of Tawhid and then put up a legitimate resistance to Israel with the correct goal — which is to liberate the people of Palestine.

So-called ‘Moderate Muslims’, have feigned outrage at statements by MFP that the ‘National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies’ is a device for misleading and miseducating young Muslims. These ‘Moderates’, who deny that there is a War on Islam, have already found warm support from the Zionist establishment, as the article below demonstrates. Note especially how the Executive Council of Australian Jewry President Grahame Leonard says:

the appointment of Professor Abdullah Saeed, an acclaimed Islamic educator at the University of Melbourne, as the centre’s director “is comforting and a good appointment … we have had dealings with him and find him to be a moderate”.

Now we know what the meaning of a ‘Moderate Muslim’ is: one acceptable to Zionism, since he or she seeks to limit Islam, by over time removing everything except some very formal rituals. Islam is the utterly self-sufficient, perfect plan for the entire Universe and beyond; it does not need anything added to it by mere men and women — or it becomes something else altogether. For Islam is a total way of life; there is nothing outside its sphere — including social justice, which is why the Zionists collaborate with some Muslims to eliminate authentic Islam.

Australian Jewish News (25 January 2007)

Jewish leaders welcome new $8 million Islamic studies centre

Peter Kohn

THE Jewish community should “cautiously welcome” a multi-campus Islamic studies centre announced by three major Australian universities this week.

Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) president Grahame Leonard said the initiative, which has the backing of the Federal Government “has objectives we very much applaud”.

The National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies, which will receive $8 million in funding from the Federal Government, will be a shared resource of the University of Melbourne, Brisbane’s Griffith University and the University of Western Sydney.

Leonard said the appointment of Professor Abdullah Saeed, an acclaimed Islamic educator at the University of Melbourne, as the centre’s director “is comforting and a good appointment … we have had dealings with him and find him to be a moderate”.

But he cautioned that the centre, an initiative of newly-appointed Vocational and Technical Education Minister Andrew Robb, would need to be carefully monitored.

Its curriculum and lecturers “will need regular quality-assurance checks to see that the objectives as stated are being achieved and it doesn’t become yet another source of home-grown extremist, fundamentalist Islamic radicalism”.

Leonard said the centre has the prospect of countering local radicals such as Australian-born Sheikh Feiz Mohammad, who in previous sermons has likened Jews to pigs and called on Muslims to teach their children to die for jihad, as well as Australia’s mufti, Sheikh Tajeddin al-Hilaly, and Melbourne’s Sheikh Mohammed Omran.

“At the end of the day, the only [group] who can appropriately deal with these extremists is Australia’s Muslim community itself.”

One of the centre’s objectives is reportedly to train homegrown imams and help develop leadership in the Muslim community.

B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission chairman Michael Lipshutz also welcomed the new centre as a potential boost for inter-faith relations and as a safeguard against the influence of radicals on young Australian Muslims.

“If the centre allows non-Islamic people to learn about Islam and allows young Muslims to learn about their religion and culture, it can become a counterpoint to extremism.”

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies CEO Vic Alhadeff said: “There have to be controls in place, both in terms of who is appointed to teach and what it is that is being taught.

The composition and involvement of the centre’s advisory board will therefore be critical.”

WITH YONI BASHAN

  Use in case of dissent

A number of Muslim students at the Centre
 of Disinformation & Misguidance (Centre for Excellence 
in Islamic Studies) at its University of Western Sydney (UWS) Campus have received notices from the University, threatening action against them. The students have been told that they will be expelled from one unit that they are all studying, if they continue to question what they are being taught. The students had recently sent a joint letter to UWS authorities, pointing out, in serene, polite language, the unprofessional and anti-Islamic nature of the course being run at the Centre by Dr. Samar Habib. (For details of this controversy, see earlier blogs, below.) In short, the students were merely exercising their ‘democratic rights’. Naturally, the threats to students from the UWS Administration are made in the name of ‘academic freedom’.

It’s time that those dreamers in the Muslim community who imagine that ‘democracy’ means that they are free to say what they like — and that UWS is ‘Muslim-friendly’ — came to their senses. ‘Democracy’ does not and never has applied to Muslims.

Today, the board of management of the so-called ‘Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies’ (Centre of Kufr) meets in Melbourne. Among other things, they will consider how to deal with the controversy that has arisen around one of the Units studied at the Centre: 101.471: Women in Arabic and Islamic Literature, which consists in large part of propaganda in favour of lesbianism. The lecturer has derided the Holy Qur’an asmisogynist told students that Ahadith are all unverified, that homosexuality ‘is neither condemned nor condoned’ by Islam, and that hijab is not obligatory in Islam.

In the face of rising Muslim anger at these developments, theAustralian National Imams Council (ANIC) has issued a statement. This begins by stressing that the University of Western Sydney ‘is a University of good repute amongst the mainstream and Muslim community’, but registers ‘deep concern’ about the course Women in Arabic and Islamic Literature. Then, to be fair, it accurately depicts the teaching style and content of this course as ‘seriously flawed’ and promoting ‘a very negative view of Islam and especially women in Islam’. The Imams’ statement rightly condemns the Unit’s ‘emphasis on sexuality’ and ‘explicit sexual content’.

Unfortunately, the Imams then appear surprised and shocked that this could have occurred, since they understood, they say, that the Centre would reflect so-called ‘normative Islam’. The Imams manifestly fail to protect our Muslim youth from this evil Centre, by demanding — at the very minimum — that the pro-Lesbian lecturer of the Unit in question is dismissed from the Centre and her Lesbian Studiescourse abolished. This is not enough, in response to the situation, but it is the most minimal, immediate response. Instead, the Imams meekly request:

We would appreciate a reassessment of this course, its contentand the manner in which it is taught so that it more accurately reflects theactual and not imagined teachings of Islam. And to truly reflect the normativeteachings of Islam which is best placed under the Centre of excellence [sic] in Islamic studies.

It is worth mentioning, by the  way, that one of  the Centre’s two Co-Directors is ANIC’s media spokesperson Dr Mohamad Abdalla!

Muslims For Peace has beenvirtually alone in calling upon all Muslims associated with this accursed Centre, at whatever level — academics, administrators, students or whatever —to immediately disengage from the Centre. Now that its wicked nature should be crystal clear for all to see, Muslims should fear Almighty Allah and break all connections with this diabolical Centre of Kufr. We further, with respect, urge our beloved and influential sheikhs and ’Ulema to lend their support to this call for all Muslims to break from the odious Centre of Kufr. This Centre cannot be ‘reformed’ because its recent shameful activities are merely the Centre being faithful to its true nature. It is the spearhead of the War on Islam in Australian Universities.

To read detailed critique of this Centre, The War on Islam in Australian Universities: The Bogus ‘NationalCentre of Excellence for Islamic Studies’ (National Centre of Kufr), go to: http://www.mfp.org.au/?page_id=13.

Zafar Bangash, April 2008 Crescent International 

Commanding the collective good and forbidding evil must rank as the most important obligation of Muslims, the Islamic movement and the Islamic state. The Qur’anic ayah, “amr bil ma‘roof wal nahy ‘anil munkar” (3:104 and 110) is often mistranslated as “enjoining good and forbidding evil”, minimising its forcefulness and giving it a pacifist twist. Implicit in the ayah is the aspect of power, because without power, good cannot be commanded nor evil prevented. The Arabic verb amr is an active command. A further signifier of the importance of this duty is that this verse, with slight variations, occurs at least 28 times in the noble Qur’an.

When Allah says: “You must command the [common] good and forbid evil,” it is clear that these two go together; merely to command the good is not enough, one must also banish evil. Without that, the aim of commanding the good cannot be realized. It is like trying to clean a room while others are throwing rubbish into it. A society cannot move towards its sound, wholesome Islamic potential if its people indulge in all kinds of vices without anyone exercising the power to check them. And yet today we have Muslims, especially those who wield power as rulers, actually encouraging the munkar under the guise of liberalism, progress or personal freedom. This is the case in most Muslim countries today. Progress and freedom have come to mean the promotion of vulgarity and lewdness in society.

But we must also be clear about the nature of evil itself. In most Muslim countries, drinking alcohol is rightly considered to be bad. But what about those who drink the blood of people? – not literally, but by causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people, including women and children, as a result of their policies; are such acts any less evil? In Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Iraq, Egypt and many other places, Muslims are murdered by the kuffar in connivance with Muslim rulers. Often, Muslim soldiers are deployed to kill other Muslims while the vast majority of Muslims, including many ’ulama, remain silent. Some even socialize and dine with people whose hands are drenched in the blood of innocent people. Allah’s verdict on this is clear: even if one innocent person is killed, it is like killing the whole of humanity (5:32). How, then, can Muslims justify their behaviour or inaction in light of this divine verdict?

We must consider how Muslims have come to distort the meanings of the Qur’an and its commands, as well as the proper understanding of the Sunnah and Seerah. This has much to do with our history. Soon after the khilafah was subverted into mulukiyyah (kingship), the ’ulama came under great  pressure from rulers to confer legitimacy upon them. The rulers believed, quite rightly, that they needed religious sanction to be accepted by the Muslim masses. Many ’ulama refused to oblige and suffered grievously for it. The persecution of the leaders and followers of the Ahl al-Bayt, and of Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi’i and Ahmed ibn Hanbal (ra), is well known; but many less known ’ulama also suffered great hardships at the hands of ruthless rulers. Gradually, scholars emerged who succumbed more easily to official pressure and inducements.

The scholars’ acquiescence took several forms. Unable to change a bad situation, they tried to limit the damage to the Islamic polity by justifying it under the pretext of avoiding fitna (sedition), hoping that the situation would gradually rectify itself. Gradually, a body of “court ’ulama” emerged who provided religious sanction for the un-Islamic behaviour of rulers. The Qur’anic prohibition on backbiting (49:12) was extended to stifle criticism even of those in power. The court ’ulama reduced the duty of amr bil ma‘roof and nahy anil munkar to merely giving naseeha (advice), regardless of whether the rulers accepted it or not. Such attitudes are far removed from the Prophetic command of actively and positively preventing or stopping evil; if that is not possible, he said, we must speak out against it. And if that too is impossible, it should be considered evil in your hearts, although that is the lowest form of imaan.

The Qur’an tells us that Allah punished a group of Yahud for violating the Sabbath (7:163-166). In a hadith the Prophet (saws) tells us that the Yahudi deviation began when one person would see another indulging in evil and would tell him to stop it, yet the very next day would dine with the offender. The Prophet then went on: “You must command the good, forbid evil and prevent injustice, otherwise you will incur Allah’s wrath” (Abu Da’ud). In another hadith, Allah’s Messenger (saws) has said: “If you abandon this duty [of commanding the good and forbidding evil], you will earn Allah’s wrath and your prayers will go unanswered” (Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal).

Most Muslims today have clearly abandoned this Qur’anic duty as well as the Prophetic hadith, especially the aspect of forbidding munkar. Seeking refuge in rituals is no substitute for honest responsibility towards Allah’s deen.

Is it any wonder that the Muslims’ prayers go unanswered in the face of horrendous crimes in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kashmir and elsewhere?

Muslims in these areas are paying a high price for the historic failures of the ’Ummah, while most of us remain shamefully passive in the face of appalling atrocities.

By Dr. Ali White

If it were not so despicable, it would be laughable. I have been either banned or suspended from contributing to any discussion at the online Forum MuslimVillage. My crime? I committed the monstrous felony of telling the whole unvarnished truth about the anti-Islamic Centre of Kufr
(so-called ‘Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies’) — and attempted to place this in the hands of young Muslims whose Iman has been targeted by this diabolical Centre.

All my posts in the MV Thread on the Centre of Kufr have been removed. Earlier this week, attempts to post a link to the most recent Muslims For Peace fully documented Essay exposing the Centre, were removed by MV Moderators — at least 4 times!

It is almost laughable because the online Forum’s Moderator who has acted to censor me (for the umpteenth time) is none other than a person who has been handpicked by the University of Western Sydney (not appointed by Muslims, let alone elected by Muslim students), to serve as its so-called Campus ‘Muslim Advisor’. In other words, this person acts on behalf of the University, to deal with Muslim students — hardly an independent role. In this person’s other role as a MuslimVillage Moderator, this Muslim acts to eliminate cogent criticism of the University’s anti-Islamic agendas.

With such childish censorship, our misguided Modernist sisters and brothers no doubt imagine that they have eliminated informed criticism of their pet, the Centre of Kufr. Perhaps they are even congratulating themselves: ‘We showed who’s got the real power; now we’ve shut him up for good!’ But they are only fooling themselves, for history proves that injustice and evildoing has a habit of exposing itself. Indeed, the arrogance of the Centre of Kufr’s Directors is a very good example of this. Deluded by the praise they receive from the open enemies of Almighty Allah (a process no doubt assisted by their generous pay packets) the Centre’s Directors recently employed an internationally prominent advocate of lesbianism as a Lecturer at the Centre. Dr. Samar Habib takes the Centre’s course 101.471: Women in Arabic and Islamic Literature. Muslim students enrolled in this subject have already expressed their dismay at the thoroughly unprofessional, biased, pro-Lesbian and frankly anti-Islamic character of teaching in this Unit.

Allah (SWT) has promised the Believing Muslims that their pious efforts to unmask and resist the Unbelievers’ schemes will be richly rewarded by Him:

[8.30] And when those who disbelieved devised plans against you that they might confine you or slay you or drive you away; and they devised plans and Allah too had arranged a plan; and Allah is the best of planners.

And this is precisely what is now beginning to unfold. Petty bureaucrats imagine they can eliminate the truth have never prevailed and they will not in this instance, however much they delude themselves, as Allah (SWT) in His Wisdom and Mercy reminds us:

[7.179] And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; they have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear; they are as cattle, nay, they are in worse errors; these are the heedless ones.

If the MV Moderators truly want Muslims to believe that this evil Centre, which they will apparently commit much mischief to protect, really can be ‘reformed’, they will demand that Lesbian advocate and Islam hater Dr. Samar Habib is dismissed from the Centre and her lesbian studies course abolished. Does anyone really think that is going to happen? Isn’t it true that this wretched Centre is utterly beyond reform? And isn’t that why foolish and frantic efforts are being made to silence coherent, informed Muslim criticism? You don’t need a PhD to answer these questions.

For the second time in only seven months, the Moderators at the online Forum ‘MuslimVillage’ have outlawed posts by Muslims For Peace that attempt to place a serious, scholarly, critique of their beloved Centre of Kufr
 (so-called ‘Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies’) in the hands of young Muslims. One of these Moderators serves on the Board advising this diabolical Centre and works closely with the Administration of the University of Western Sydney.

Meanwhile, as the comments on yesterday’s blog indicate, MV’s disgraceful censorship and its shameful support for the Centre of Kufr is not shared by a growing number of other important Muslim Web sites internationally. We can be certain that the enemies of Truth will not succeed. MV’s Moderators are all practicing Muslims, but they are blinded by the Kuffar, and believe they are actually serving Almighty Allah, by assisting some of the Kuffars‘ vile schemes. Allah (SWT) has promised the Believing Muslims that their pious efforts to unmask and resist the Unbelievers’ schemes will be richly rewarded by Him:

[8:30] And when those who disbelieved devised plans against you that they might confine you or slay you or drive you away; and they devised plans and Allah too had arranged a plan; and Allah is the best of planners. 

To read the complete illustrated and fully referenced Essay, The War on Islam in Australian Universities: The Bogus ‘National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies’ (National Centre of Kufr), go to: http://www.mfp.org.au/?page_id=13.

To see the earlier discussion that MV’s Moderators censored, go to: http://www.mfp.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/war-on-islam.pdf. 

Less than 12 months after the opening of the so-called ‘National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies’, this Centre has already utterly exposed itself as a Centre of Kufr. Its Directors call for secularism (the doctrine that the Laws of Almighty Allah have no relevance to daily life) with increased frequency, and several of the Centre’s leading figures are not even Muslims.

Units studied at the Centre include 101.471: Women in Arabic and Islamic Literature, which supposedly uses Qur’an and Ahadith, then other literature, to examine how Islam impacts on women. In reality, Muslims enrolled in this course have faced a barrage of propaganda in favour of lesbianism. The Holy Qur’an has been derided as supposedly misogynist. It has been asserted that Ahadith are simply hearsay accounts (so-called ‘Chinese whispers’) of statements of Prophet Muhammad (S). Students are taught that homosexuality ‘is neither condemned nor condoned’ by Islam, and that hijab is not obligatory in Islam.

A new Muslims For Peace Essay proves each of the claims made above. The analysis begins by putting the present discussion in context, with an examination of the Centre’s role and its leading figures. It will show who is really pulling the strings. It proves that this Centre cannot be ‘reformed’ because it is only being faithful to its true nature. It is the spearhead of the War on Islam in Australian Universities.

Muslims For Peace therefore calls upon all Muslims associated with this accursed Centre, at whatever level — academics, administrators, students or whatever — to immediately disengage from the Centre. Anyone can make mistakes — it is part of the human condition to err. But now the wicked nature of this Centre should be crystal clear for all to see; for the sake of their Akhira, Muslims should fear Almighty Allah and break all connections with this diabolical Centre of Kufr. We further, with respect, urge our beloved and influential sheikhs and ’Ulema to break their silence and lend their support to this call for all Muslims to break from the odious Centre of Kufr.

To read the complete illustrated and fully referenced Essay, The War on Islam in Australian Universities: The Bogus ‘National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies’ (National Centre of Kufr), go to: http://www.mfp.org.au/?page_id=13.

Muslims For Peace wholeheartedly endorses this peaceful rally and urges all Muslims to attend, inshaAllah. Read the rest of this entry »