Ads by Muslim Ad Network


No announcement yet.


No announcement yet.

Man with a mission looks to an Islamic superpower

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Man with a mission looks to an Islamic superpower

    Man with a mission looks to an Islamic superpower Chris McCall in Jakarta hears the plans of a Muslim radical (sic)

    MUHAMMAD Ismail Yusanto is a soft-spoken man with a mission: to unite the Muslim world as a superpower.

    But he is also a realist. He wants to start by saving Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim state, from its troubles by putting it under sharia law.

    His movement, Hizbut Tahrir, is banned in much of the Middle East. But last weekend it sent thousands of supporters on to the streets of Jakarta, demanding the inclusion of sharia law in the Indonesian constitution. Under Suharto, the dictator who ruled Indonesia for more than three decades, any sign of Islamic fundamentalism was crushed. Hizbut Tahrir was established in 1953, and arrived in Indonesia in 1985, according to Mr Yusanto.

    He became involved after he met activists from Lebanon and the movement has come into the open since Suharto fell four years ago. The country has plunged from crisis to crisis since then.

    Now Hizbut Tahrir - the Party of Liberation - has hundreds of study groups across the country. Mr Yusanto, a father of two who speaks freely and with conviction, says it is growing rapidly.

    He said he was converted because Hizbut Tahrir could describe Islam as a whole. "The second thing was the struggle," he added. "It was very rational. Its ideas were very strong."

    Most Indonesian Muslims follow versions of Islam which are extremely moderate, in some cases only vaguely resembling the practices of the Middle East. Few really understand how sharia law would affect their lives.

    But since the fall of Suharto a number of hardline Islamic activists have been been freed from jail.

    The image of Islam contrasts starkly with the corruption that seeps into daily life in Indonesia, and has proved attractive to many.

    Civil wars between Christians and Muslims in Maluku and central Sulawesi have been taken up as a jihad by hardline Muslims.

    Mr Yusanto says he regards both of those conflicts as legitimate jihad, on the grounds that the Muslims did not start them but were attacked. Christians in both regions hotly dispute this interpretation.

    Hizbut Tahrir has had a difficult existence. Its activists are in jail throughout the Middle East.

    In many countries it is still an underground movement. As Mr Yusanto, 40, admits, its programme of Hizbut Tahrir is a direct threat to the existence of regimes which have adopted western ideas and believe government is best implemented when separated from religion.

    This is anathema to Hizbut Tahrir, founded in Jordan in 1953, which believes the Islamic world should be governed as set out in the Koran and other sacred texts of Islam.

    It wants to unite the entire Islamic world in a superstate called Daulah Khilafah, to recreate the Caliphate of the early days of Islam.

    The first stage is to uphold sharia law in every Islamic country and prepare them to merge. Many Muslims see these ideas as unrealistic, utopian even. But the level-headed Mr Yusanto believes they are not. According to Mr Yusanto, America is deliberately turning the Islamic world into its new enemy, to replace the Soviet Union and keep its own military and arms industry busy.

    The new superstate would require nuclear weapons, he says, although only as a deterrent. He says Hizbut Tahrir is a non-violent movement, but like other Islamic movements it believes in jihad or holy war if the right conditions are met.

    "If we are to face a superpower, we have to become a superpower," he said.

    Non-Muslims need not fear living in an Islamic state, he said. It would protect their rights, but they would have to accept that they lived in a country with Islamic rules.

    "Islam is going to return to all the areas where it once grew," he said. "Maybe also to Europe."

    Please Re-update your Signature

  • #2
    Re: Man with a mission looks to an Islamic superpower

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by F R E S H

    His movement, Hizbut Tahrir, is banned in much of the Middle East. But last weekend it sent thousands of supporters on to the streets of Jakarta, demanding the inclusion of sharia law in the Indonesian constitution.



    I am disturbed by the statement that this individual wants sharia law in the constitution! So sharia law exists with the Kufr law? This will make the consitution still Kufr..besides the constitution emanates from Kufr by adding sharia law to it does not make it Islamic. It will be just like Saudi's or Sudans or Irans for that matter....

    Furthermore having and Islamic constitution does not mean that you have a Islamic State.

    The understanding this brother has is not comparable to Hizb ut Tahrir's even though he claims to be a member. I am pretty sure this brother also said that Hizb ut Tahrir are going to take part in the democratic elections in Indonesia! Is this true?

    Again I know Hizb ut Tahrir are totally against participating in democratic elections for it considers it haram.

    Therefore I can only conclude that these ideas do not represent the views or adoptions of Hizb ut Tahrir.

    Please Re-update your Signature


    • #3
      sharia law in context of government and governance offers no solutions. it is merely an abstract concept with no concrete foundations and is not viable or suitable for modern day government.

      the idea that the entire muslim world be ruled by one caliph who would enjoy supreme judicial, temporal and spiritual powers and selected by a handful of hand-picked advisors making up the council or shura is utterly riddiculas.

      this form of government would be nothing but a dictatorship and totalitarian state.

      the fact is that muslims throughout their history have been ruled by tyrants and despots. throughout muslim history hereditary monarchy has been the form of government. even now all of the muslim states are ruled by dictators and kings who groom their own sons to take over after their demise.

      the muslims have never struggled for civil liberties. the fact is that the idea of civil liberties and human rights although advocated by the Prophet Mohammad, never took hold in muslim societies.

      immediately after the Prophet's death, his companions began to jostle for power. the first caliph was elected rather dubiously. the second was appointed by the first. the second upon his deathbed appointed a committee of six but made sure that the government passed on to the person who then became the third caliph. the third caliph was assassinated and the fourth caliph then faced unrest and civil war.

      upon the assassination of the fourth caliph, muawiyah the governor of syria who had fought the fourth caliph, seized power by forcing the son of the 4th caliph to abdicate. it is worth noting that the person whom muawiyah forced to abdicate was nobody else but Hasan the eldest grandson of the Prophet Mohammad.

      muawiyah initiated dynastical rule and appointed his son yazid as his successor. from that point onwards, muslims throughout their conquered lands ruled by monarchial systems. often one muslim dynasty destroying and overthrowing another, only to undergo the same fate.

      for government muslims will do anything. if necessary even kill the family of the Prophet, which they did. note that merely after 50 years after the Prophet's death, on the plains of kerbala [in southern iraq], Hussain the grandson of the Prophet along with a few dozen followers and kinsmen, all related to the Prophet were slaughtered mercilessly. the historian edward gibon has painted a picture of this slaughter in his history 'fall and decline of the roman empire'.

      never in their history have muslims ever had a government based on sharia. the surprising thing is that they failed to achieve this immediately after the death of the prophet. His companions failed to establish a government based on the sharia. in any case, muslims who regard the rule of the first four caliphs as the 'golden age' failed to produce a viable system of government and the system that began with the first caliph collapsed with the assassination of the 4th caliph. in any case the fourth caliph, throughout his four year rule remained busy quelling rebellions. first, he had to fight Ayesha the widow of the Prophet and the daughter of the first caliph. then he had to fight muawiyah who although failed to defeat the caliph on the battlefield outwitted him in political manouvering. the civil wars of that time cost thousands and thousands of deaths but muslims always hush this period up. they do not like anybody to mention those wars.

      this idea of a world government based on sharia is a wild dream and will never come true. the west is here to stay and america with all its faults will dominate the world economically and militarily for centuries. i am afraid muslims can kiss goodbye to their dream of world dominance because they had their chance, enjoyed their dominance for a good thousand years and then nature/God saw it fit to replace them because they were unworthy to lead the world.

      in some of the unversities in the uk, i have come across members of the the hizb ur tharir and al-muhajiroun. these misguided youths go around distributing leaflets, that call for the destruction of israel, america and promise to raise the flag of islam over buckingham palace and 10 downing street. talk to them and they come out with nothing but rhetoric. press them on a matter and they become aggressive espeically if they do not have a logical answer. their remedy to all of the ills of the muslim world is the establishment of one government under a single caliph.

      the hizb ur tahrir and alike organizations preach nothing but hate. their version of sharia is based on hate and destruction of the rest of mankind. their philosophy is that either the rest of mankind will have to submit to them or be destroyed.

      they call the west dar-ul-kufr and dar-ul-hizb, which means, the west is the abode of non-believer and the the place to wage war. despite this their leaders are quite happy to claim asylum in the west. ask omar bakri, or the mulla with the hook hand would they like to go back to their countries of origin. their answer is how can we go back over there nobody would tolerate our nonsense and most likely we would be strung up.

      just imagine they live in our lands, enjoy our constitutional freedoms [because they have none in their countries of orgin], their leaders live off our welfare benefits. enjoy life in our countries, don't want to go back to their muslim countries because they wouldn't be tolerated. and then they go on to plan the destruction of our civilzation.

      Last edited by john; 24-09-02, 02:22 PM.
      Please Re-update your Signature


      • #4
        Salaam as to the realities to the person in question i am very sure he is with the hizb ut tahrir, but then again we have to look at where this article emanates from the Telegraph and well i have my doubts in the honesty of kuffar reporting because it is going to written to suit western kuffar tastes, as for the realities of the hizb we all know what they are, what they want and some of their sytles and means as to how they are going to set about achieving those goals.

        I just posted this article to show that there is a want and desire for sharia not just in western europe amongst the many muslims here, who do have certain freedoms granted by the kuffar regimes yet there is a love and uncontrollable love for shaira in muslims lands where the muslims who call for the ruling of Islam to be implemented are targetted and hunted down yet they do not rest until they achieve the set objective the Khilafah no matter what the cost.
        Please Re-update your Signature


        • #5

          i wonder which muslim land you talking about which wants KHILAFA.

          the afghans just experimented with mulla omar as amir ul momineen the caliph. his only achievements were to brutalize women, kill minorities and destroy the buddhas.

          only lunatics and fanatics who have no chance of winning in elections talk about establishing KHILAFA by armed force.

          interesting to note that in every muslim country the people who rant and rave about establishing the KHILAFA have no support amongst the masses. an example is pakistan where the religious parties have always failed in elections.

          Please Re-update your Signature


          • #6
            Just to correct you, according to a HT delegation that went to Afghanistan, mullah Omar wanted to rule an emirate-not a Khilafah state.

            And elections in Pakistan are a joke! The whole system is corrupt right down to the elections!


            • #7
              LOL John i am disappointed that you called mullah omar as amir ul mumineen, because he was anything but that, and afghanistan was not the khilafah so to argue ure point would be fruitless because it shows what media conditioning can do to a person, because the media were very thorough in getting across the message of what Afghanistan was supposedly to be. yet when we cross examine that with Islamic text and what the Taliban themselves actually said the western media fall flat on their faces, ! They were not the khilafah and Mullah Omar was not amir ul mumineen
              Please Re-update your Signature


              • #8
                Originally posted by john
                sharia law in context of government and governance offers no solutions. it is merely an abstract concept with no concrete foundations and is not viable or suitable for modern day government..........................



                You seem to have missed the point. Islam was revealed for mankind so it totally fufill mans needs whether in the 7th century or 25th century. This is so because mans needs stay the same and the only thing that changes are the forms and things, such as technology. So humans need organising in a manner by which all society remains in harmony as apposed to the privileged few in the West. Islam is the only idelogy which can bring this tranquility and harmony to a society because it has correctly diagnosed the needs of man this is so because the Ideology is from the Creator.

                Islam was implemented thoughout the era of the Khilafah in its totality despite the abuse of the pledge of allegiance by some Khalifs. The point is that a Khalif was appointed because Muslims understood that they were obliged to be ruled by ISlam. Even though someone may usurp power doesn't make the system unIslamic nor does have a hereditory leadership. These are minor technicalities which we will ensure do not happen again.

                The fact that only Islam was applied can be deduced from the old cities of the Khilafah where all the records are kept. All the rulings were from ISlam and nothing else . This was the case from the death of the Prophet(saw) to 1924.

                Admittedly there was neglect and at times incompetence but Islam was always implemented. The muslims rose to be the leaders of the known world from being desert nomads at the margins.

                The future should be even better for Muslims once the khalif is re-established by the Muslims en masse.

                As for the US, it has only been a Superpower for about 50 yrs and already it is crumbling as its fallacy has become transparent for all to see.
                Please Re-update your Signature


                • #9
                  firstly, some info for Fresh. it seems that your info on the taliban is stale. you need to update it. mulla omar was given the title of Amir ul Momineen and it was by this title that he was referred to by his followers. quite clearly amir ul momineen i.e. commander of the faithful was a title reserved for caliphs. therefore, there is no doubt that mulla omar regarded by himself and his followers as a caliph.

                  secondly, i would like to point out to Sultan thatthe full title of afghanistan during the taliban rule was: the islamic emirate of afghanistan. the name of the country has no bearing upon the fact that mulla omar was considered by himself and the taliban as a caliph in the proper islamic sense and therefore styled amir ul momineen. further, he was appointed for life with full temporal, judicial and spiritual powers without constraints in line with the concept of a caliph.

                  now i turn to Enlightened. it is you who has missed the point and not me. i simply stated that the khilafa for which the muslim s are yearning for has never existed throughout muslim history in practice, although, there is a theoretical concept about it.

                  further, i stated that the rulers whether ummaiyads, abbassids, ottomans or mughals or safavids, they were muslims but their system of government was unislamic and therefore cannot be referred to as khilafa.

                  how can you refer to pure monarchial systems of governments as 'KHILAFA'.? are you trying to tell us that their governments were modelled on the teachings of the Prophet?

                  the fact is that from the govt of Muawiya to the present day, the only system of govt that the muslims have experienced is monarchial system and totalitarian dictatorships. the concept of khilalfa is also that of a totalitarian system, a dictatorship, in which one man rules for life assisted by a council of advisers and hold supreme judicial, spiritual and temporal powers.

                  for you to say that the muslim govts of the past ages implemented islam is utterly false and untrue. the muslim kings passed laws that suited them and which enhanced their power. they most often passed laws that were unislamic themselves. hereditary kingship itself was opposed by the prophet and he had warned his followers not to adopt it. yet, it was one of his companions muawiyah who blatantly ignored the prophet and established hereditary monarchy. his son went on to kill the prophet's youngest grandson hussain.

                  was the killing of hussain an islamic act by an islamic caliph?

                  throughout history there never has been a true Khilafat. there have been muslim kings. some good and some evil. to close i draw your attention to abdul malik ummaiyad who ordered his governor hujjaj to sack mecca and kill his opponents within the kaaba. is this an example of the powers of a caliph?

                  Please Re-update your Signature


                  • #10
                    John dearest, let me get through to ure thick yet slow brain functions. Mullah omar may have been called amir ul mumineen by the taliban, but apart from them i am sure no others muslims called him that, the taliban by there own admissions said they were an emirate of Islam, now to explain to you, America calls it self the bastion of freedom ( yeah when it is in it's interest), as mullah omar called himself the amir ul mumineen yeah when it suited him, as we look to reality the amir ul mumineen has certain prerequisties to fill, the first one is he needs a khilafah, which Afghanistan was not,

                    and a final point please use an islamic source when trying to find out what the khilafah really is !
                    Please Re-update your Signature


                    • #11
                      Please Re-update your Signature


                      • #12
                        Please Re-update your Signature


                        • #13
                          May God hasten the return of the caliphate and the unity of this ummah as a single state from Morroco in the west to indonesia in the east.
                          Please Re-update your Signature



                          Edit this module to specify a template to display.