Post by maruf on Jul 8, 2004 1:30:52 GMT -5
Bismillahi Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
Bush's speech declares a comprehensive war against the Muslim countries. It is the beginning of the demise of the United States of America
Bush gave a speech on Thursday 6/11/2003 before the National Endowment for Democracy on the 20th anniversary of its establishment. He stated in his speech that his country has adopted a 'forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East'. He also said, 'Our commitment to democracy is also tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations of the Middle East-countries of great strategic importance-democracy has not yet taken root.' Then he said, 'As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country.' He said, 'The absence of democracy in the Middle East represents a great challenge to the United States' and reaffirmed his confidence that 'democracy will reach the Arab States in the end' and that a wave of democracy will engulf the region. Bush expressed his country's readiness to make sacrifices in the path of supporting freedom and democracy in the world because they think the absence of democracy threatens the world.
Bush insisted in his speech that America is committed to bringing democracy to the Middle East and that the wave of democracy will reach the region and that this is considered a forward strategy for America in the Middle East. He also confirmed that he is ready to make sacrifices in this path because it is in the American national interests. In their view, democracy is worthy of waging war against the lands of the Muslims and their Islam, and spreading false corrupt concepts amongst Muslims, to deceive them and distance them from their Deen. They consider this matter vital for them, so they are mobilizing weapons, money, agents and spies to occupy the Islamic region of the Middle East. This is because, as he mentioned in his speech, it is of strategic importance for America. Although the US never spared any effort in fighting Islam and occupying their lands as we see in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, in the past she used to deal with the Muslims' countries individually, having specific aims for each country. What's new now, is that Bush has announced a comprehensive strategy to fight the Islamic region in general-i.e. the Middle East-under the pretext of spreading democracy, removing dictatorships and creating representative governments.
Before we explain the danger of this speech and the aim of this new strategy, which Bush has announced for the region, we wish to mention something known by necessity. It is the fact that anything that clashes with the 'Aqeedah of the Muslims can never find a place in the minds of the Muslims, and nor can it find life in their hearts, however much effort may be expended in spreading it, and however many agents were mobilized to impose it. The fundamental basis of democracy-to which Bush calls and gives good tidings of-is that man should be the one to decide the Halaal and Haraam, good and bad, and husn and qubh i.e. man should place himself in the position of gods instead of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'aala). We are confident that the democracy of man deciding Halaal and Haraam and legislation which excludes Allah can never be approved by a Mu'min and accepted by a Muslim.
It is as if Bush knows that Islam does not accept this kufr democracy, so he wished to deceive the Muslims in their Deen and fabricate lies against them, claiming that Islam and democracy do not contradict. He gave the example of secular Turkey, which fights Islam, and which has even banned women from wearing a headscarf. It is as if Bush is indicating the kind of democracy he is looking for; it is a secular liberal democracy, which is disassociated from Islam.
However, Bush tried to appeal to the feelings of the Muslims by linking democracy in his speech to (the representative government), where the rulers should represent their people and the people should elect their rulers. Since Islam stipulates that the ruler is elected by choice and consent and it stands against the one who usurps the authority, Bush tried to reach the Muslims by embellishing democracy in the sight of Muslims. This is in order to make them forget the essence of democracy, which is legislation by other than Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'aala), and draw their attention to what democracy calls for in terms of representative government i.e. the ruler's representation of the people through the people electing their ruler.
Is it true that Bush wants representative governments in the Islamic region-the Middle East?
Any one who follows international politics will realize that the West in general and America in particular, do not want a rule in the Islamic region where the people elect their rulers by choice and consent. In other words, the West does not accept representative government, as called for by Bush. The reason is that The West knows that had the people of this region elected their rulers then Islam would have come to power and the rulers would have been those who are sincere to their Deen and Ummah, and the Khilafah Rashidah would have returned once again. This is unacceptable for The West and they fight this prospect with the most severe of campaigns and they use their weapons, agents, followers and conspiracies in preventing its return and pursuing those who work for it. The example of Algeria is not far from our minds. When the ballot boxes were counted under the watchful gaze of The West and its agents, they showed that the people wanted Islam. The West and its agents were shocked and agreed unanimously to cancel the elections; then the army began to suppress the Muslims who demanded that the elections be sanctioned; The West blessed the action of the army by turning a blind eye to what happened.
Also The West in general, and America in particular, know that if the people's opinion was taken regarding their issues then no ruler of Egypt would have the courage to conclude an agreement with the Jewish state in Camp David and recognize their usurping of Palestine. Likewise, the ruler of Jordan would not have dared to conclude the Wadi Arabah agreement with the Jewish state and surrender to them the Land of Israa and Mi'raaj. Abu Ammar, Abu 'Alaa, Abu Mazin and their cronies would never dare to conclude the Oslo agreement with the Jews and abandon Palestine, the blessed land, to the Jews. This is because the people will not accept anything but one solution, which Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'aala) has obliged, and that is the elimination of the Jewish entity and the return of the whole of Palestine to the lands of Islam. The West in general, and America in particular, are the ones who created the Jewish state and suggested that the rulers conclude agreements with the Jewish state so as to protect its existence and security. This is because The West views the preservation of the Jewish state as a key interest. So how can America agree to create a rule, which represents the people and whose result is the elimination of the Jewish state that has usurped Palestine? Also, do the occupation, massacres and destruction performed by America in Iraq, and by the Jews in Palestine with the support of America, take place with the choice and representation of the people?
Bush's speech itself also proves him to be lying when he claims that he is striving to create representative governments in the Middle East where the people will choose their rulers. Bush's speech is full of praise for rulers who are imposed upon the Ummah, without their choice and approval, and without having any representation from the people.
Therefore, we are entitled to ask: what has pushed Bush to announce his new strategy for the region by spreading democracy and creating representative governments? When at the same time he knows with certainty that he does not want the people to elect their rulers in the Islamic region by choice and consent, but rather he fights any form of representative ruling for the Muslims in their lands because he fears Islam will come to power; a matter that deprives him of sleep and makes him dizzy, and from which he cannot escape?
Bush's speech declares a comprehensive war against the Muslim countries. It is the beginning of the demise of the United States of America
Bush gave a speech on Thursday 6/11/2003 before the National Endowment for Democracy on the 20th anniversary of its establishment. He stated in his speech that his country has adopted a 'forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East'. He also said, 'Our commitment to democracy is also tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations of the Middle East-countries of great strategic importance-democracy has not yet taken root.' Then he said, 'As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country.' He said, 'The absence of democracy in the Middle East represents a great challenge to the United States' and reaffirmed his confidence that 'democracy will reach the Arab States in the end' and that a wave of democracy will engulf the region. Bush expressed his country's readiness to make sacrifices in the path of supporting freedom and democracy in the world because they think the absence of democracy threatens the world.
Bush insisted in his speech that America is committed to bringing democracy to the Middle East and that the wave of democracy will reach the region and that this is considered a forward strategy for America in the Middle East. He also confirmed that he is ready to make sacrifices in this path because it is in the American national interests. In their view, democracy is worthy of waging war against the lands of the Muslims and their Islam, and spreading false corrupt concepts amongst Muslims, to deceive them and distance them from their Deen. They consider this matter vital for them, so they are mobilizing weapons, money, agents and spies to occupy the Islamic region of the Middle East. This is because, as he mentioned in his speech, it is of strategic importance for America. Although the US never spared any effort in fighting Islam and occupying their lands as we see in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, in the past she used to deal with the Muslims' countries individually, having specific aims for each country. What's new now, is that Bush has announced a comprehensive strategy to fight the Islamic region in general-i.e. the Middle East-under the pretext of spreading democracy, removing dictatorships and creating representative governments.
Before we explain the danger of this speech and the aim of this new strategy, which Bush has announced for the region, we wish to mention something known by necessity. It is the fact that anything that clashes with the 'Aqeedah of the Muslims can never find a place in the minds of the Muslims, and nor can it find life in their hearts, however much effort may be expended in spreading it, and however many agents were mobilized to impose it. The fundamental basis of democracy-to which Bush calls and gives good tidings of-is that man should be the one to decide the Halaal and Haraam, good and bad, and husn and qubh i.e. man should place himself in the position of gods instead of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'aala). We are confident that the democracy of man deciding Halaal and Haraam and legislation which excludes Allah can never be approved by a Mu'min and accepted by a Muslim.
It is as if Bush knows that Islam does not accept this kufr democracy, so he wished to deceive the Muslims in their Deen and fabricate lies against them, claiming that Islam and democracy do not contradict. He gave the example of secular Turkey, which fights Islam, and which has even banned women from wearing a headscarf. It is as if Bush is indicating the kind of democracy he is looking for; it is a secular liberal democracy, which is disassociated from Islam.
However, Bush tried to appeal to the feelings of the Muslims by linking democracy in his speech to (the representative government), where the rulers should represent their people and the people should elect their rulers. Since Islam stipulates that the ruler is elected by choice and consent and it stands against the one who usurps the authority, Bush tried to reach the Muslims by embellishing democracy in the sight of Muslims. This is in order to make them forget the essence of democracy, which is legislation by other than Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'aala), and draw their attention to what democracy calls for in terms of representative government i.e. the ruler's representation of the people through the people electing their ruler.
Is it true that Bush wants representative governments in the Islamic region-the Middle East?
Any one who follows international politics will realize that the West in general and America in particular, do not want a rule in the Islamic region where the people elect their rulers by choice and consent. In other words, the West does not accept representative government, as called for by Bush. The reason is that The West knows that had the people of this region elected their rulers then Islam would have come to power and the rulers would have been those who are sincere to their Deen and Ummah, and the Khilafah Rashidah would have returned once again. This is unacceptable for The West and they fight this prospect with the most severe of campaigns and they use their weapons, agents, followers and conspiracies in preventing its return and pursuing those who work for it. The example of Algeria is not far from our minds. When the ballot boxes were counted under the watchful gaze of The West and its agents, they showed that the people wanted Islam. The West and its agents were shocked and agreed unanimously to cancel the elections; then the army began to suppress the Muslims who demanded that the elections be sanctioned; The West blessed the action of the army by turning a blind eye to what happened.
Also The West in general, and America in particular, know that if the people's opinion was taken regarding their issues then no ruler of Egypt would have the courage to conclude an agreement with the Jewish state in Camp David and recognize their usurping of Palestine. Likewise, the ruler of Jordan would not have dared to conclude the Wadi Arabah agreement with the Jewish state and surrender to them the Land of Israa and Mi'raaj. Abu Ammar, Abu 'Alaa, Abu Mazin and their cronies would never dare to conclude the Oslo agreement with the Jews and abandon Palestine, the blessed land, to the Jews. This is because the people will not accept anything but one solution, which Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'aala) has obliged, and that is the elimination of the Jewish entity and the return of the whole of Palestine to the lands of Islam. The West in general, and America in particular, are the ones who created the Jewish state and suggested that the rulers conclude agreements with the Jewish state so as to protect its existence and security. This is because The West views the preservation of the Jewish state as a key interest. So how can America agree to create a rule, which represents the people and whose result is the elimination of the Jewish state that has usurped Palestine? Also, do the occupation, massacres and destruction performed by America in Iraq, and by the Jews in Palestine with the support of America, take place with the choice and representation of the people?
Bush's speech itself also proves him to be lying when he claims that he is striving to create representative governments in the Middle East where the people will choose their rulers. Bush's speech is full of praise for rulers who are imposed upon the Ummah, without their choice and approval, and without having any representation from the people.
Therefore, we are entitled to ask: what has pushed Bush to announce his new strategy for the region by spreading democracy and creating representative governments? When at the same time he knows with certainty that he does not want the people to elect their rulers in the Islamic region by choice and consent, but rather he fights any form of representative ruling for the Muslims in their lands because he fears Islam will come to power; a matter that deprives him of sleep and makes him dizzy, and from which he cannot escape?