Transcript of recent Khutbah fthe brothers and sisters from Indonesia wanted to share!!!

This is just about a khutba. I will send you some insight from Indonesia from time to time. Big developments here as well!!!

May Allah give you the success in dunia and akhira. Amin.
Slm alkm
Abuzul

„You are racist Muslims!“
by Abuzul; Jakarta

What? How do these two terms go together? That is what I thought when I heard this accusation from a little ´Alim in Indonesia. He is a old guy, 80 years, but still tough and if he speaks out, you do not want to be his enemy.

It was ´Id-ul-Adha and the khutba was about to be delivered. So the little ´Alim stepped up the minbar and started it. When he was finished to praise Allah and his messenger he started his speech. I cannot repeat it in the exact wording but I will keep it as closed as possible. You get the message anyhow.

'You are racists and you dishonour the legacy of seven generations of Mujahidin from Indonesia. You spit on them. And the likes of you are the ones that replaced the colonial power whereas you are not better than them. Some of your grandfathers died because they fought the Dutch. Seven generations of Mujahidin waged war against them.

And there was none of them who considered a different law than Sharia applicable to the state they wanted to see for their sons. And when Indonesia got rid of the Dutch, independence was proclaimed and the constitution mentioned that Sharia has to be this states law. Islamic law for a Muslim state that was founded on the backs and with the blood of the Mujahidin. And the first thing the politicians did was to abolish Sharia, since there were some non Muslim minorities who said they would not like to follow Sharia. That was the very first thing politicians did, after proclaiming independence. They abolished Sharia right away. And since then Indonesia is stuck in corruption and social injustice and exploitation of its huge natural resources by a few foreigners and disgusting Indonesians. These people were and are not Dutch people. It was people like you, picking and selecting, treating Islam like a Supermarket. Islam is good as long as it does not affect your bank account right? Or your status as respected ´Alim within society. Good Islamic clothes and a little Arabic is sufficient to fool the masses and to make a living out of it. You just tell them what they want to hear. Nothing of what you say is necessarily wrong but everything you say is not needed right now. And since you divert the people you – as scholars - are responsible for into the wrong direction, into passiveness and weakness, you become guilty as well.

You talk about Sabr. And what you mean is total defeat. What you mean by this term is total ideological defeat and surrender to everything that happens to you in your miserable lifes. You shelter a government that recently allowed to worship other weird ancient Indonesian gods, since that could be conductive to tourism. You give shelter to a government that kills the todays Mujahidin wherever they can grab them and you watch it in the TV just as they would hunt down pigs in a forest for entertainment. You do not need to talk about America. America cannot do anything like that to you. You are no men anymore. You are defeated. You lost your honour. You lost your identity. Look what Russian and Americas bombs caused Afghans to be like. Look what bombs did to the people of Iraq. Yes. Many died but many found the way back to Islam as well. And many were good Muslims already. These bombs are Tarbiyyah. You get hard boiled from that because may be Allah wants his worshippers not to be weak but strong. And that needs harsh education sometimes. The Mujahidin did not fought the Dutch people because they are Dutch. They fought them because of their oppression. And oppression is everything, every rule and every action that is not in line with the clear guidance of Islam. You can replace the word oppression with non-sharia- compliant if you like. That was the former Mujahidins view and it is our view today. And if you say that we may not fight todays rulers in this country, then you are racists. Todays rulers are doing just the same thing as the Dutch people. And the fact that they look like you and their skin is of the same color as yours and their language is known to you, does not render them any different than the Dutch. And it does not change the legitimacy to fight. You lost the proper criteria. The only criteria is Islam. Please imagine Dutch people would come to Indonesia and establish Sharia. What would you do? You would have no right to fight them. You would be obliged to obey them. That is because the only criteria is Islam. Nothing else. Who adheres and enforces it, you need to obey him. And whoever dismantles it and works against it, that is your enemy. It is that simple.

I am old. And in the old days there were heroes. Mujahidin. But todays grown ups here are lost. You worked more effectively against Islam by your wicked views than America and its allies. But the youth is different. Your excuses do not work on them anymore. They have the choice to live like animals serving the interests of a wicked minority and its system or they stand up and fight it preserving and winning back the honor you never taught them. And they are cured from the sickness of democracy. Democracy hasn´t changed anything in Indonesia. Everything got worse. So the system will be changed again and not just its puppets. You know it. You can feel it. Something is about to happen. Not just in Indonesia.

The Muslim youth is awakening while its parents generation were sleeping.

You always think that ´Id is about sacrificing something. And that it is done so easily. You never consider the

perspective of Ismail (as) who was willing to sacrifice himself. And you probably do not have that bond that Ibrahim (as) shared with Ismail (as) since their love and respect for each other was based on Iman. So you cannot feel what Ibrahim (as) felt when he was ordered to sacrifice his pious son. You are not aware of the dimension of this sacrifice. You do not know about Id-ul-Adha. And you will never achieve success until you are willing to act like Ibrahim (as) and Ismail (as). You are blabbering about Islam from a weak position. You are rather orientalistsbut Muslims. You will never achieve success until you become aware of the fact that nothing will change except by sacrificing and by the will to behave the proper way. You lack that will so you are stuck in this world and in the hereafter. But if you keep this up,you may wake up one day seeing your kids being ready to sacrifice. And if you stand in their way, then the Quran once again will split family ties, father from son and mother from daughter. You better give it a deep thought. Do you resemble the Quraishy elites of the old days or do you resemble the Sahaba and the youth that followed Muhammad (saw)? Are you stuck in traditions and ignorance or are you really striving for truth? Do you sacrifice for improvement or do you tend to stick to the existing system of kufr? Things become clear nowadays and you should choose wisely on which side you want to stand soon.

Week 1 Archive - Introduction to Shariah Compliant Fiance - Paradigm Shift or Neoimperialism?

Week 1 Archive is here - please register for week #2 here and syllabus here; forward any questions or comments to the comments section insha'Allah. And if you would like a link to the reading material please email islampolicy@gmail.com

'Tunisia's revolution isn't over, but the fear has gone' | World news | guardian.co.uk

'Tunisia's revolution isn't over, but the fear has gone' | World news | guardian.co.uk
At 19, Ghazi Megdiche, the son of an administrator from central Tunis, knew his baccalaureate certificate wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Going to university would leave him with barely a one in 10 chance of ever finding a job, so he turned up at one of Tunis's burgeoning call centres – the modern-day sweatshops of Tunisia's unemployed university graduates. Working 10 hours a day, sometimes seven days a week, on customer relations for a French paper firm, and earning on average £1 an hour, Megdiche says he can not complain. "At least I saved myself the agony of the kids who study for five years, can't find a job and fall into a deep depression," he says.

Major operation by Afghan Mujahideen in Kandahar: more than 100 Karzai minions and U.S. invaders killed and wounded - Kavkazcenter.com

Major operation by Afghan Mujahideen in Kandahar: more than 100 Karzai minions and U.S. invaders killed and wounded - Kavkazcenter.com
The Voice of Jihad reported on a major raid on Kandahar with reference to the Mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan:

"Today at around 12:00 pm, 5 heroes of Islamic Emirate (Mullah Abdullah, Mullah Abbdul Qudoose, Sher Agha, Mullah Malang along with their leader Mullah Sayed) wearing police uniforms and armed with heavy and light weapons entered Zaringar Khali Saloon (wedding hall) and started attacking the provincial police headquarters, located a few meters away.

Mujahideen detonated 2 bombs, which shook the whole city as the attack started. The first one was a vehicle packed with explosives in the HQ's car parking and the second blast was detonated on puppet police in Kabul Shah area as they arrived for help.

Officials say that a third car bomb was detonated an hour later on US-NATO invaders and their puppets that had gathered outside the wedding hall and were planning an operation against the Mujahideen inside the hall.

Reports add that hundreds of invaders and their puppets were killed and wounded in the 7-hour long gun battle and deadly blasts, with 12 enemy military and logistical vehicles destroyed and the police headquarters badly damaged. It is said that the police commander of the HQ and all his friends were also killed in the assault.

Mujahideen officials say that 3 of the Mujahideen involved in the assault were martyred (may Allah grant them the highest ranks in Jannah) and 2 came back out alive from the successful operation.

It is worth mentioning that the stooge regime has also admitted that 18 puppet police have died and 23 others have been injured in the assault. The recent intensified Mujahideen operations, from which the deputy governor of Kandahar was also killed, clearly refutes the claims of the invaders and their stooge regime about achieving any success in Kandahar through their recent operation", Voice of Jihad reported.

Department of Monitoring
Kavkaz Center

Tunisia: A Call For True Revolution

Tunisia: A Call For True Revolution
The Need for an Intellectual Insurgency against Westernization and Liberalism’s Ideological Hegemony

Abu Talhah

The taghi Bin Ali has fell, but the ideological hegemony of westernization has not. His secret police no longer roam Tunisia’s roads but the mental bondage and amnesia of intellectuals and mass psychology from the fallout of colonialism still pervades. Leaving one to ask, how liberating was this revolution? Our answer lays on top of the mass amount of literature published shortly after the fall of the regime calling the Jasmine Revolution a victory for democracy and the beginning of a road towards it. But is democracy our only alternative? Or does the fact that it sets itself up as the only option and alternative to authoritarianism represent the westernization of Arab and Muslim intellectuals and Liberalisms ideological hegemony originating in its colonial legacy?

In reaction to the colonization several movements emerged. Mainly, the anti-colonial nationalist movements and the Modernist-Progressive movements. An interesting paradox emerges upon examining the tenants of both these movements even if one were to have a rudimentary or superficial knowledge of their platform and beliefs. They sought military independence, but worked off of and within the colonial nation-state template and framework. The result was military independence, but mental and intellectual colonization. Islamists were not the only ones to come to this realization but even the likes of Frantz Fanon a psychiatrist who worked for Algerian independence. He notes that despite the military emancipation, full emancipation was "undermined by its 'imperial genealogy'" (Burnell 2007: 36). Secular, and non-Secular scholars alike have pointed towards the colonizing of the mind from India (Partha Chatterjee and Ramachandra Guha) to Kenyan writers (Ngug wa Thiong'o). Even history was defined by a 'metahistory' that created an overarching explanation and view of history that although was European in origin and nature, defined the means of attaining modernity for all the colonial subjects. Post-Colonial states were marked and shaped by the colonial legacy and its institutions. If one wanted to trace the lineage of most post-colonial states it would be traced more to the colonial predecessors as the ideological, institutional, and various other subtle methods had a more immediate influence than the states pre-colonial history. Increasingly, colonies became "underfunded and overextended laboratories of modernity" (Prakash 1999: 13) that became an interface for imported ideologies such as nationalism, socialism, liberalism, etc (Burnell 2007: 43).

Military independence was not granted until our apparent narrative or future (a shining road towards a democratic secular state) was firmly understood by the intelligentsia in the Muslim world. Our trajectory, and where we ought to head became part of a normative fact. Democracy is then seen as an inevitable successor to authoritarianism, an organic step which seems to be imprinted into our primordial disposition. As our history began with independence from colonial military rule, thus it is defined by a colonial legacy. The modernity project seemingly becomes more clearly a form of westernization.

It is one thing to hear the overtly secular intelligentsia speaking in a distinctly Liberal discourse, which has “already acquired hegemonic status” but it is another to hear it from “Islamist”. The “political liberalization” and concessions to a Liberal discourse by many Islamist movements, namely an-Nahda party (an fact evident, no clearer then in Rashid Ghannoushi’s rhetoric). Despite the contestation of Liberal theory as a political doctrine, the numerous reassessment to its normative and conceptual assumptions by Liberals in an attempt to mend its immutable philosophical faults - our ideologically regressing movements cannot be appeal to it. Often scrambling to show the conformity of Islam to many Liberal values, ignoring the incommensurable and insurmountable foundational assumptions of Liberalism, which define its essence and core.

Re-capturing the Islamic paradigm and constructing our own discourse based purely on the tawhidic worldview would show the foundational presence of concepts such as freedom and human rights. Saba Mahmood asks “It is striking that the normative claims of liberal conceptions such as tolerance are taken at face value, and no attention is paid to the contradictions, struggles, and problems that these ideals actually embody. As scholars of liberalism have shown, the historical trajectory of a concept like tolerance encompasses violent struggles that dispossessed peoples have had to wage to be considered legitimate members of liberal societies”. And goes on to point out “Islam, might have their own resources for imagining such an “ethic that respects dissent and honors the right to adhere to different religious or non-religious convictions?” ”. She then highlights some historical examples from the Ottoman era. In fact, Chatterjee in speaking of India points towards the “transformations [were] brought about in the doctrines and practices of Hinduism and Islam so as to facilitate liberal political rule”

Instead of accepting the normative claims made by Liberal Democracy on its commitment to justice, equality, and freedom it would have been more suitable to ask what metaphysical grounding they have to make such claims? And what is the source of such values? Classical observers such as Tocqueville, and more contemporary writers such as Hurd point towards the religious roots of these foundational values which Liberal Democracy holds dear and defines its very ontology. The truth is, secularist cannot do otherwise. Values such as equality have no legitimacy if one were to base morality on “public reason” or a “scientific worldview”. Hence, the sly resort to religion. Instead of pointing out this absurd inconsistency, most Muslim and Christian “Modernist” succumb to secularisms claims to be the exclusive upholders of these values. That is why we hear statements like “I support freedom of opinion and equality, because I am a Liberal Muslim” instead of “I support freedom of opinion and equality because Islam teaches me to do so” or “I support women’s rights, well, because I am a Muslim Feminist” instead of “I support women‘s rights because Islam was the first movement to liberate women on all levels, to an extent no secular ideology has done“. Is it not time we take Secularism off its self-constructed pedestal? It is ironic that Islamic movements have to appeal to, and associate with secular ideologies for values which secularism, as even the “freeloading” neo-Liberal Atheist Richard Rorty admitted, inherited from religion.

Many may contend that democracy and Liberal theory is universal despite its western origins. Arguing that it appeals to a human nature which yearns for the essential elements found in the Liberal doctrine. The point of this paper however is not to prove otherwise, but to point out the overt paradox of supporters of diversity and pluralisms inability to consider other traditions and doctrines as alternatives to authoritarianism - immediately after the fall of Bin ‘Ali as though their resort to Liberal doctrine was reflexive.

A true revolution would come with intellectual liberty and our ability to transcend the hegemonic and ideological discourses imposed on us through colonial legacy and harbored by our amnesia, inferiority, and fixation within the disillusioned binaries that create a false reality; its democracy, or another dictator. In doing so, we can ask real and more legitimate questions such as whether or not the system is legitimate as opposed to those who hold key positions in the already Jahili regime. To many, this would be deemed radical, in that it does not conform to the mainstream. But when the mainsteam is defined by a colonizing enemy proclaiming a “civilizing crusade“, the radical doesn’t seem so bad. Key and practical steps towards this must begin with the Islamist who must adopt a genuine Islamic discourse and expound a purely tawhidic worldview. Consequently, their political platforms must follow. Social and economic policies are context-sensitive. How these values and principles are disseminated to the public depends largely on the social dynamics of the Tunisian society and not the topic of this paper. What is obvious though, and not contingent to any political or social context is the need for Islamist movements to reform their methodologies.

Obedience and good words. And when the matter [of fighting] was determined, if they had been true to Allah , it would have been better for them. [Muhammad: 21]

No doubt, much of what has been said is indeed drastic. But Islam has never been a religion to accommodate a status-quo or succumb to “the reality of things”,. Nor a stagnant set of metaphysical doctrines and social conventions. It is a religion which defines reality. The recent turn of events point towards the inevitability of a return to Islam as a manifest way of life and that the future will be for this deen as history testifies to the utter failure of secular doctrines such as Liberal Democracy and Arab Nationalism.