Sunday, June 29, 2008

Anwar's Press Statement : 2nd Sodomized Allegation

The full text of Anwar’s Press statement

The Police report lodged against me earlier today is a complete fabrication. I believe we are witnessing a repeat of the methods used against me in 1998 when false allegations were made under duress.

This is clearly a desperate attempt by the Barisan Nasional regime to arrest the movement of the Malaysian people towards freedom, democracy and justice.

The report has been organized by interested parties to attack me in retaliation for evidence I have recently obtained implicating IGP Musa Hassan and the AG Gani Patail in misconduct including fabrication of evidence in the cases launched against me in 1998-1999. This vile attack will not prevent me from releasing this dossier to the public.

I urge the Malaysian people to stand against the repressive forces that will be unleashed by the government in the coming days and weeks. We expect the media, the judiciary and the police force to all come under the direct and unchecked control of the executive.

My fellow Malaysians – we took a bold step forward on March 8th towards a new dawn for freedom and justice for all our citizens. This people’s movement for change must go on with all of our strength and conviction.



Thursday, June 26, 2008


Wednesday June 25, 2008

Adjusting to shifting sands: REFLECTING ON THE LAW


The Government must move towards more openness, accountability and integrity and must abjure appeal to race and religion and to exploitation of people’s fears and suspicions to garner electoral support.

AFTER the stunning results of the March general election, many people thought that legal and political reforms were in the air and that there would be a sincere effort to win back the hearts and minds of the estranged electorate.

Hopes were expressed that the political elites would try genuinely to feel the pulse beats of the nation and to have their ears close to the ground.

We may have been over-optimistic. The determined opposition within the dominant party to the comprehensive package of judicial reforms indicates that in the corridors of political and administrative power not every one is convinced on the need for fundamental changes.

For those who agree that in our changed circumstances, the Government must move towards more openness, accountability and integrity and must abjure appeal to race and religion and to exploitation of people’s fears and suspicions to garner electoral support, the following issues should be of concern:

Civil service neutrality: The civil service is the pivot around which the administration of the contemporary state revolves. Every country’s economic, social and educational policies are ultimately dependent on the quality and commitment of its public officials.

This commitment is being tested in Penang, Perak, Kedah, Kelantan, Selangor and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, where public officials appointed by the previous government have to reconcile their old political loyalties with their professional duty to serve the new administrations with dedication, competence and neutrality.

Federal-state division: In Malaysia’s federal system, there is a constitutionally defined division of legislative, executive, judicial and fiscal powers between central and regional authorities.

State governments are not mere agents or delegates of the Federal Government. The allocation of power to them is safeguarded by the Constitution and protected by judicial review.

Due to the 50-year dominance of the Alliance and Barisan Nasional, the tendency in the last five decades was for the Federal Government to behave as if we were a unitary state.

But with the changed political complexion, it will not be surprising if some states assert independence, refuse cooperation and question federal jurisdiction in a number of areas.

Public Complaints Bureau: This is a federal body created by administrative fiat and not under a statute. How far it has the power to call a state government to account, to ask for information and explanation from state employees is constitutionally questionable.

It may be better to amend the Constitution to create the office of the Ombudsman on the lines of the office of the Auditor-General.

We could emulate Britain, which, besides a Parliamentary Commissioner, has created additional specialised ombudsmen for local authorities, police and health services.

If the states consent, the federal Parliament can enact a uniform law on the point under Article 76.

State Legal Advisers: Officers from the federal Attorney-General’s chambers hold the critical position of State Legal Advisers. Many state Constitutions provide for such federal presence.

However, it is conceivable that some opposition states may want to have their own State Legal Advisers and draft their own laws. They are entitled to amend their Constitutions to assert their autonomy.

Appointments in Sabah and Sarawak: It is a long-standing grievance of the Borneo states that important civilian, police and armed forces posts are cornered by Malaysians from the peninsula. This grievance needs to be looked into.

Administration of Islamic laws: In the last decade deeply divisive disputes about conversions into and out of Islam have strained our social fabric.

In cases where one spouse converts to Islam there are painful and intractable issues about custody and guardianship of children and eligibility for inheritance and derivative pension rights.

The unwillingness of the Federal Government to provide leadership in this area and to rectify many clear injustices allowed extremists and obscurantists to poison society and to alienate the electorate.

Water, sewerage and environment: These pose not only national but also international challenges. Uniform and enlightened policies are needed to tackle the multifarious problems arising in these areas.

With the consent of the states, the Constitution should be amended to federalise these topics. Any loss of revenue by the states will have to be compensated.

Local authorities: Democratic institutions and procedures exist at federal and state levels. But in the 1960s the Federal Government used its constitutional powers under Article 76(4) and its emergency powers under Article 150 to abolish local authority polls.

Some states have expressed willingness to democratise local authority governance but are prevented by federal laws from responding to the popular demand. If the Federal Government is not sensitive, it will pay a heavy electoral price.

Ethnic diversity in public services: Article 136 mandates impartial treatment of all federal employees. Racial discrimination is not allowed. However, due to considerations of Article153 and 161A (on ethnic reservations and quotas), Article 136 has been largely overlooked.

A long time ago, Tun Suffian Hashim, in his book An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia, offered a wise and workable way of reconciling Article 136 with Articles 153 and 161A.

At page 140 the former lord president said: “Article 153 and 161A allow the favouring of Malays and natives of the Borneo states as to entry into public service; but article 136 provides that after entry all federal employees must ? be treated impartially.”

New laws and institutions: In response to the felt necessities of the times, the Government should consider the establishment of the following new laws and institutions:

An independent Integrity Commission to replace the ACA. The Commission should have independent power to commence prosecutions. Its members should enjoy the safeguards available to members of the Election Commission.

Statutorily created ombudsmen at federal, state and local authority levels. All large public sector organisations should be encouraged to set up Complaint Resolution Procedures.

An Institute of Parliamentary Affairs on the lines of ILKAP (Judicial and Legal Training Institute) and INTAN (National Institute of Public Administration) should be established to improve the institutional efficiency of Parliament. The committee system in Parliament should be strengthened.

The Judicial Service should be separated from the Legal Service to improve the independence and impartiality of lower court judges.

An independent Judicial Appointments Commission is needed to restore confidence in the judiciary. The proposed amendment to Article 121(1) to restore the independence and separation of the judiciary should be enacted without delay.

A University Services Commission should be set up to handle transfer and secondment of academic staff. With more and more universities being set up, we need to permit sharing of talents and allow interchangeability and continuity of service.

Quangos and statutory bodies: These are established to avoid the bottleneck of bureaucratic procedures and to permit initiative and enterprise. The law gives them a separate corporate identity from the Government and permits them operational autonomy.

Regrettably, due to financial reliance on the Federal Government, the supposed autonomy of statutory bodies, quasi-national government organisations, universities and Government-Linked Companies is a legal myth.

There is a high degree of control by federal agencies and a general reluctance to allow managers in these 'semi-government agencies' to manage their organisations with initiative and vision.

Routinely, calls are made for decentralisation, devolution and delegation, but these calls run contrary to entrenched top-down decision-making procedures.

What is required is a psychological shift on the part of senior federal officers to be willing to let go, to take some risks, to permit quangos and statutory bodies to experiment with the best of public and private sector practices.

Globalisation: If Asean evolves along the lines of the European Union and if our representation on globalised institutions deepens, we will have to train a new breed of international-minded, non-parochial, knowledgeable and articulate civil servants to service global and Asean institutions.

In sum, it can be stated that Malaysia has invested heavily in upgrading its administrative system.

A great deal is in place that can lead to good governance. Proper hierarchies, organisational structures, planning, programming, budgeting, and management by objectives are some of the attributes readily available.

What must be remembered, however, is that systems are as good as the people who administer them. Organisations can rise no higher than the quality of their leaders.

Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is Professor of Law at UiTM



Sunday June 22, 2008

Oil is thicker than blood : BEHIND THE HEADLINES


Months before a new president takes office, the US affirms the main purpose of invading Iraq.

EVENTS in Iraq have been gathering pace in recent days, and it’s far from the mounting death toll on all sides long pushed into the background.

The latest news topic instead is how Western oil giants are salivating at the prospect of carving up Iraq’s oil wealth in no-bid contracts later this month. The theme of triumphant giantism ranged from the size of the oil companies to the size of Iraq’s oil reserves.

First, some history: soon after a rising Saddam Hussein nationalised Iraq’s oil assets in 1972, US players had been itching to get back in. In 1980, “peace president” Jimmy Carter said Persian Gulf oil was so vital to US interests that it justified military action to get it, laying the groundwork for US Central Command (Centcom) to do that.

When Saddam took power in July 1979, five months after Ayatollah Khomeini took over in Iran, Saddam seemed useful to US interests in checking leftists within and Islamist Iran next door. But he later entertained visions of being another Gamal Nasser in a pan-Arabism that would restrict oil flow westwards.

How would US strategists overcome that? Towards the end of Bill Clinton’s second term, neo-conservatives in the US oil industry were aching to seize the “ultimate prize” of Iraqi oil.

Vice-President Dick Cheney headed the shadowy Energy Task Force soon upon taking office in 2001, and then Sept 11 happened. The following year the State Department set up a “working group on oil and energy” in a project that included Iraqi political exiles.

In March 2003 Iraq was invaded and occupied, Saddam was overthrown, and the Iraqi exiles became part of the new US-friendly government. Since then, US “advisers” worked on the new Constitution and the controversial petrochemical law, both now accepted by the Iraqi Cabinet.

This proposed law would effectively hand over control of dozens of rich oilfields to the “Big Four” ExxonMobil, BP, Shell and Chevron, with Australia’s BHP and France’s Total squeezing in with the last two. The contracts to be signed this month are unusual in avoiding tenders, edging out some 40 oil companies from countries like China, India and Russia that Saddam had preferred.

The earlier contracts with these countries had already been stalled by US-engineered UN sanctions. After the invasion of Iraq, US officials threatened to stop financial and military aid until the new Iraqi Cabinet accepted the new oil law.

The Cabinet complied, only to see the Bill held up by Parliament, so this month’s “surge” by the oil companies seeks to push it through. Most Iraqis and many parliamentarians reject the Bill, particularly since US officials had studied and “approved” it before they could even look at it.

This month’s contracts are for an initial two years, and will favour the Big Four in much larger deals to come. They conform with US moves to seize Caspian oil since 2002, pushing out other countries like Russia and China in the process.

US officials deny any role in determining the contracts, showing that official statements only confirm what they deny. The so-called Production-Sharing Agreements effectively make Iraq pay for the war and the losses and damage caused.

Some officials like former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan have been more forthright upon retirement. Admitting that he had lobbied for the war, he conceded that it was “largely because of oil,” confirming what 75% of Iraqis and Americans already knew.

Iraqi oil is highly prized because of its quantity and quality. The reserves, among the world’s largest, are of a high grade and easy to access.

To get it, US officials are now pressuring Iraqi leaders to agree to a long-term military presence by July 31, exactly one month after the oil contracts are signed on June 30. This would extend the US military presence in the country beyond the UN mandate, a plan already seeing local resistance.

Among other things, US forces seek to retain the power to arrest Iraqis and detain them in US facilities, while US forces remain immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts. US forces also want no restriction on their presence in the country, without guaranteeing protection for Iraqis.

Meanwhile, Israel as a key US ally has been conducting major military exercises to prepare for an attack on Iran, raising oil prices further. Russia on Friday warned against such an attack, insisting that Moscow and the IAEA had found no evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons facilities.

An attack on Iran would again use the “weapons of mass destruction” excuse to topple another oil-rich nation’s leadership. So far the US war on Iraq has been highly successful, contrary to widespread opinion.

It has raised oil prices, increasing profits for oil cronies of the White House while restricting access by China and others. It has also changed Iraqi law to favour US interests and enabled US forces to remain indefinitely to protect those interests.


Saturday, June 21, 2008


Peace and Justice in Islam
6/11/2008 - Religious - Article Ref: IC0602-2924


Imam Zaid Shakir
IslamiCity* -

We are living in a world where there could obviously be more peace. As Muslims, we realize this fact more than most people, as the peace of many off our brothers and sisters in various parts of the globe has been tragically disrupted: Palestine, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and other locales. Similarly, we are living in a world where there could be more justice. We read almost daily of assassinations in various parts of the world where terrorist groups, military forces, or intelligence services, oftentimes in summary fashion, declare victims guilty and then proceed to execute them. Unfortunately, such unprincipled political behavior has become increasingly common in both the foreign and domestic policies of this country, causing untold damage to her image and credibility abroad.

These two issues, peace and justice, are joined in the slogans we hear from many activists, especially here in the United States, "No Justice, No Peace!"1 This linkage is logical, as justice must be considered one of the indispensable prerequisites of any lasting peace. This article intends to briefly look at the ideas of peace and justice in Islam and explore their deeper significance in the life of a Muslim,


In the Arabic language, the word peace is derived from the radicals S-L-M. The scholars of language mention four closely related terms that can be derived from this origin: Salam, Salamah, Silm, and Salm. Raghib al-Isfahani says in his lexicon of Qur'anic terms, "As-Salm and as-Salamah mean freedom from any external or internal ruination."2 Based on that, he mentions that true peace will only exist in Paradise, for only there will there be perpetuity with no end, complete satisfaction with no need, perfect honor with no humiliation, and perfect health with no disease. In this regard, God is known as As-Salam, because He alone is described as being totally free from any defects or flaws.3 This understanding of true peace being a reality associated with a transformed world is also understood in both Jewish and Christian theology.4

At the level of interstate relations, if we ponder the above definition, we can consider peaceful relations between nations as a condition where violence, a state inevitably involving both internal and external ruination, is absent. In this sense, war can be viewed as an aberrational state. The aberrational nature of war is made clearer if we consider that murder, the ultimate consequence of war, is considered an innovation that destroyed the peace formerly existing among the human family. It is stated in a prophetic tradition, "No soul is killed unjustly, except that the elder son of Adam (Cain) shares in the stain of the crime. That is because he was the first to innovate murder [in the human family]."5

At the individual level, peace can be viewed as an absence of the ruinations of the heart. One free from such ruinations will succeed, God-willing, when he/she meets his/her Lord. Therefore, he/ she will enter safely into the Abode of Peace (Dar as-Salam). God says in that regard, [On] the day no amount of wealth or children will be of any benefit. [The only one benefited] will be one who comes before God with a sound (salim) heart. [Quran 26:89]

If one reflects on these meanings, it should be clear that the wars that Muslims have been involved in throughout our long history do not nullify the validity of the statement, "Islam is the religion of peace." what is meant by that expression, and God knows best, is that Islam provides a path for the human being to enter Paradise (Dar as-Salam), and there he/she will know true peace.

Peace has meanings wider than those mentioned above. One of the loftier objectives of our religion is to introduce into the world an ethos that facilitates the spreading of peace at every level. Our personal relations with our fellow Muslims should begin with the implementation of the Prophetic order "Spread peace between you all."6 This order is so pressing that the Beloved Prophet - advised its indiscriminate implementation. He said at the end of a tradition in which he described one of the best forms of Islam, "Extend the greeting of peace, to those you know and those you know not."7 This is a very weighty matter that calls for our deeper reflection. Its weightiness is illustrated by the fact that it is mentioned as being one of the things that completes our faith. The Prophet said in that regard, "You will not enter Paradise until you believe, and you will not believe until you love one another. Shall I indicate to you something that will surely lead to your mutual love? Spread the greeting and spirit of peace between yourselves."8

Our relations with our spouses should also be characterized by peace. God admonishes us concerning those relations, And peace is best. [Quran 4:128] Similarly, in our relations with other nations, God commands us, If they (the enemy) incline towards peace, then you should similarly incline, and place your trust in God. [Quran 8:61] As mentioned above, peace is the original state that prevailed in relations between individuals and societies. This opinion is based, among other narrations, on the saying of the Prophet that Jesus "will return the world to a state of peace" (Yurji' as-Salim) after his appearance at the end of time.9


Our lexicographers define justice, variously, as "to rule based on that contained in the Book of God and the tradition (Sunna) of His Messenger and refraining from ruling based on empty opinion." It is also defined as "extending inherent rights [to their possessors] equitably."10 This latter definition emphasizes the importance of equity as an essential aspect of distributive justice.

The concept of justice is one of the essential pillars in the maintenance of both the natural and social orders. God, be He Exalted, has said, He has established the scale, therefore, do not transgress in the scale [of justice]. Undertake the measuring with justice and do not cheat concerning the scale. [55:7-8] Justice, as many of our scholars point out, is one of the underpinnings of the order that has been established by God. This reality is also a foundation of a healthy social order. God says in that regard, O, You who believe! Be upright for God, witnesses to justice; and do not let your hatred of a people move you to a position where you are unjust. Be just, that is closer to piety. Be mindful of God! Verily God is well informed concerning all that you do. [Quran 4:135]

This social aspect of justice has been beautifully summarized by Imam al-Qurtubi. He says, discussing the relationship between two words that are usually translated as justice (al-'Adl), and distributive justice (al-Qist), "Justice is the basis of all human relations and a foundation of Islamic rule."11 This saying is illustrative of the meaning conveyed by the saying of God, Verily, we have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and we have revealed unto them the Scripture and the Balance in order that they lead people with justice... [Quran 57:25]

Imam al-Mawardi has summarized the social implications of distributive justice in the following way:

One of the things that reforms worldly affairs is the principle of distributive justice. It facilitates amicable relations between people, engenders obedience to the Divine Law, and brings about the prosperity of countries. It is the basis of a thriving economy, strong families, and stable government. Nothing devastates the land nor corrupts the mind as quickly as tyranny. That is because there are no acceptable limits [to regulate tyranny].12

For this reason, Ibn Taymiyya sees the responsibilities of Islamic government emanating from a single verse in the Qur'an, God enjoins that you deliver the Trusts to their rightful possessors. And when you rule over [or judge between] people, that you do so with justice... [Quran 4:58]13 The Noble Prophet has said in this context, "Surely the most beloved of people with God and the closest to Him on the Day of Resurrection will be a just leader. And the most hated of people and the furthest removed from Him will be a tyrannical leader."14

Clearing himself from even an inadvertent association with oppressive, unjust acts, our beloved Prophet is reported to have said:

You bring your disputes to me for adjudication; perhaps one of you is less eloquent than another, and I rule against the wronged party on the basis of what I have heard. Therefore, if I inadvertently grant one of you something owed to his brother do not take it, for I am granting him something that constitutes a piece of Hellfire.15

Our impeccably just Khalifa 'Umar b. al-Khattab uttered the following penetrating words:

Verily, God sets forth parables for you, and He directs admonition towards you in order that hearts will be quickened. Surely, the hearts are dead until God quickens them. Justice has signs and portents. As for its signs, they are shyness, generosity, humility, and gentleness. As for its portents, they are embodied in mercy. He has [likewise] made for every affair a gate, and He has made that gate accessible by providing a key. The gate of justice is a deep consideration of consequences, and its key is otherworldliness. Consideration of consequences ultimately involves remembering death and preparing for it by freely parting from one's wealth. Otherworldliness involves dealing justly with everyone and being satisfied with what suffices. If one is not satisfied with what suffices him, no abundance will every enrich him.16

Much of this discussion has focused on distributive justice. However, the Qur'an also places great emphasis on commutative justice. God commands us, Do not be moved by partiality to discriminate in meting out divinely legislated punishments. [Quran 24:2] The Prophet Muhammad mentioned that one of the reasons behind the ruination of a nation is a lack of commutative justice.17 In this context, he mentioned that if his very daughter were to steal, he would not hesitate to punish her to the full extent of the law.18

In summary, this brief discussion should make it clear to any Muslim that peace and justice are comprehensive concepts with deep implications and we have to be people committed to peace and justice. We must clearly illustrate to the world that our religion is indeed the religion of peace. However, our striving for peace must never allow us to be unjust, nor should it allow us to passively accept injustices. We must take a stand for justice, as we are ordered in the Qur'an, Be you upright supporters of justice... [4:135] However, that stand must go far beyond slogans, such as the one mentioned at the beginning of this article, and move into the realm of positive action; action inspired by the Qur'an and the words and deeds of our illustrious Prophet

Excerpted from the book "Scattered Pictures", by Imam Zaid Shakir


1. This slogan has been particularly popularized by the New York-based activist Rev. Al Sharpton and his followers.
2. Raghib al-Isfahani, al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Qur'an (Beirut: Dar al Ma'rifa, no date), 239.
3. Al-Isfahani, 239.
4. See The Holy Bible, Isaiah, 9:6-7; and John 14:27.
5. Ibn Hajar al-'Asgalani, Fath al-Bari, 13:369, no. 7321.
6. This Hadith is related by Muslim, Abu Dawud, and at-Tirmidhi in their collections. Quoted in an-Nawawi, Riyaz as-Salihin, 289-290. Ibn Hajar al-'Asgalani, Fath al-Bari, 11: 26-27. The full text of the Prophetic Tradition follows: A man asked the Prophet "Which Islam is best?" He replied, "That you provide food, and extend the greeting of peace, to those you know and those you know not:"
8. This is the full narration of the Prophetic tradition mentioned in note no.4 above.
9. This meaning is narrated in prophetic traditions that are related by al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Ibn Majah. See for example, Fath al-Bari, 6:599-600. The above quote is the version of Ibn Majah. Al-Bukhari's version mentions that Jesus will "put an end to war."
10. These and other definitions of justice are mentioned in Salih b. 'Abdullah b. Humayd, Nadra an-Na'im fi Makarim Akhlaq ar-Rasul al-Karim (Jeddah: Dar al-Wasila, 2000), 7: 2792.
11. Quoted in Ibn Humayd, Nadr al-Na'im, 8:3153.
12. Quoted in Ibn Humayd, Nadr al-Na'im, 7:2793.
13. See Ahmad b. Taymiyya, As-Siyasa Ash-Shar'iyya (Beirut: Dar al-Afaq alJadida, 1983), 4-5.
14. At-Tirmidhi, no. 1329.
15. Ibn Hajar al-'Asgalani, Fath al-Bari, 5:354.
16. Quoted in ibn Humayd, Nadra an-Na'im, 7:2811.
17. This concept is mentioned at the beginning of the tradition where a lady from Bani Makhzum, one of the most aristocratic Arab tribes, stole something and the companions were moved to intervene for a lessening of her punishment. The Noble Prophet responded, "O people! Those before you were ruined in that if a noble person among them stole something, they left him alone. On the other hand, if a lower class person stole something, they punished him!" See this narration in its entirety in Abi Zakariyya Yahya b. Sharaf an-Nawawi, al-minhaj: Sharh Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar at-Ma'rifa, 1419 AH/1998 CE), 11;186-187, no. 4386.
18. An-Nawawi, Al-Minhaj, 11:186-187, no. 4386.

Thursday, June 19, 2008


Khamis 19 Jun 2008 | 14 Jamadil Akhir 1429 Hijrah

Masa untuk menukar kerajaan BN kepada Pakatan Rakyat sudah tiba

Mohd Rashidi Hassan
Tue | Jun 17, 08 | 3:50:23 pm MYT

Difahamkan seawal November 2007 lagi, sudah dilontarkan kemungkinan kenaikan harga minyak dalam mesyuarat di antara Perdana Menteri, Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi dengan anggota exco kewangan kerajaan negeri dari seluruh negara.

Ketika itu, Abdullah dilaporkan sudah membayangkan bahawa subsidi minyak kemungkinan akan dikurangkan atau dihapuskan bagi mengurangkan bebanan kerajaan.

Justeru di kalangan penganalisis ekonomi menjangkakan harga minyak akan dinaikkan sebelum Pilihan Raya Umum ke 12, namun ia segera dinafikan kerajaan.

Jika penarikan balik subsidi minyak dibuat sebelum pilihan raya, nescaya kerajaan Barisan Nasional yang ada pada hari ini, sudah lama pupus di muka bumi.

Tanpa menggunakan isu kenaikan harga minyak pun, Pakatan Rakyat sudah menang di enam negeri (termasuk Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur) dengan 82 kerusi Parlimen, mungkin jika harga minyak dinaikkan, BN akan 'totaly wiped out' ditolak rakyat.

Langkah menaikkan harga minyak secara mendadak, dengan menarik balik subsidi ini, merupakan langkah yang paling tidak popular, dibuat Abdullah dalam keadaan imejnya, BN dan Umno yang sudah tercalar dari perspektif rakyat.

Ianya merupakan langkah yang paling tidak bijak, yang bakal menunjuk jalan mudah bagi Pakatan Rakyat menumbangkan BN.

Kesan domino menyebabkan ekonomi menguncup

Dalam menguruskan soal ekonomi, Abdullah tidak keseorangan. Beliau dibantu seluruh anggota Kabinetnya, khususnya Menteri Kewangan II, Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop dan di bawah JPM sendiri ada Unit Perancangan Ekonomi (EPU).

Timbul pertanyaan di kalangan rakyat, tidakkah kerajaan membuat perbincangan atau perancangan serta mengkaji impak-impak ekonomi dengan menarik balik subsidi?

Apabila harga petrol dinaikkan RM0.78 sen seliter, diesel dinaikkan RM1.00 seliter, ianya menghasilkan kesan domino kepada ekonomi, di mana rakyat begitu merasai tekanan dan terbeban.

Kesan ketara ini, disusuli dengan kenaikan harga makanan, barangan keperluan harian, produk industri serta lain-lain menyebabkan rakyat semakin tertekan.

Tekanan ini menyebabkan ekonomi negara semakin menguncup.

Misalnya jika dilihat dari satu aspek, para peniaga gerai makanan mengadu pelanggan semakin tidak ramai, bila tidak ramai, peniaga akan mengurangkan pembelian bahan mentah. Jika tidak laku, peniaga terpaksa menutup gerai atau memecat pekerja.

Kesan pengurangan pesanan bahan-bahan mentah juga akan menyebabkan industri perkilangan terjejas.

Apabila kuasa beli rakyat berkurangan, perniagaan tidak laku, penghasilan produk yang tidak kompetitif dan ia juga akan menyebabkan indeks pengangguran serta inflasi yang mungkin meningkat.

Aspek ini belum lagi dikaji kesannya kepada bentuk perniagaan yang lain, industri perkilangan, industri pembuatan serta yang terbabit dalam sektor import eksport.

Secara keseluruhannya teori domino yang berlaku kepada ekonomi negara menjejaskan keseluruhan rakyat dari pelbagai sektor dan pekerjaan.

Kegelisahan rakyat dizahirkan tanpa selindung lagi. Di mana-mana sahaja, sama di masjid, pejabat, premis perniagaan, gerai makan, stesyen bas, di kedai kopi, hatta sehingga di pejabat Umno di PWTC juga, rakyat merungut tentang kelemahan PM menguruskan kesejahteraan rakyat.

Tiada kewajaran menyokong kerajaan yang lemah

Rakyat kini, tidak melihat kewajaran bagi sesebuah kerajaan yang juga antara negara pengeluar minyak, menyalahkan kenaikan ekonomi di peringkat global, untuk memujuk rakyat terus menyokong mereka.

Rakyat Malaysia adalah mereka yang matang berfikir serta membuat tindakan. Tahap kematangan yang tinggi ini diungkapkan melalui keputusan PRU lepas.

Rakyat tidak lagi mahu parti yang mempunyai 'solid' majoriti dalam kerajaan. Rakyat mahukan ketelusan serta 'check and balance' dalam pentadbiran negara.

Maka akibat dari kesan ekonomi yang tidak menentu ini, rakyat mula mempersoalkan, apakah pegawai-pegawai kerajaan di EPU dan Kementerian Kewangan tidak buat kerja dan tidak mengkaji kesan seburuk ini?

Atau pun mungkin, kertas kajian mengenai impaknya sudah disediakan, tetapi tidak dibaca atau tidak difahami oleh PM sendiri?

Atau pun mungkin Abdullah yang tidak memahami soal ekonomi, juga terkenal dengan sifat 'spoon feeding'nya, menerima taklimat silap yang diberikan oleh pegawai lulusan Oxford University, yang bukan mahir dibidang ekonomi tetapi major dalam bidang linguistik?

Kesilapan besar Abdullah ialah, beliau tidak disokong dengan kajian yang rapi serta mendalam dan jelas tidak mempunyai langkah pemulihan terancang bagi mengendalikan krisis kenaikan harga minyak dalam negara.

Apabila menerima bantahan menyeluruh di kalangan rakyat, kerajaan mula kelam kabut.

Langkah 'ad hoc' terdesak terpaksa diambil, tiba-tiba elaun anggota Kabinet dipotong 10 peratus, memberi rebet tunai, mengurangkan cukai pendapatan, membayar gaji dua kali sebulan dan entah apa-apa lagi hendak dilakukan.

Semakin banyak langkah 'ad hoc' dibuat, kerajaan menjadi semakin tidak popular.

Apabila tiada cara lain, kerajaan meminta rakyat berjimat cermat, kurang menggunakan kenderaan persendirian, sebaliknya menggunakan pengangkutan awam.

Cadangan kerajaan ini turut menerima rungutan rakyat, macamlah pengangkutan awam negara begitu efisyen.

Jika hendak dihurai soal kelemahan pengangkutan awam ini begitu banyak, ia memerlukan satu topik yang khusus.

Semua ini menimbulkan persepsi negatif rakyat, bahawa langkah 'ad hoc' yang dibuat Abdullah ini tidak akan berhasil. Keyakinan rakyat terhadap kerajaan sukar dipulihkan.

Rakyat bukan tidak boleh menerima kenaikan harga minyak, rakyat juga rasional. Tidak bolehkah Abdullah dan kerajaan membuat sesuatu dasar dengan perancangan yang teliti?

Tidak bolehkah langkah-langkah pemulihan dikemukakan secara terancang, dibentangkan bersekali ketika membuat pengumuman kenaikan harga minyak?

BN 'underestimate' kuasa rakyat

Atau mungkin juga kerajaan BN memikirkan rakyat Malaysia begitu baik dan tidak akan membuat bantahan yang boleh mengakibatkan mereka kehilangan kuasa.

BN sudah membuat kesilapan yang kedua, iaitu kesilapan yang lebih besar apabila mereka 'underestimate' kuasa rakyat.

Kesilapan pertama dilakukan pemimpin BN sewaktu menghadapi PRU ke 12. Mereka terlalu 'confident' untuk mengekalkan kuasa sehingga 'underestimate' pengaruh pembangkang di kalangan rakyat.

Hakikatnya pemimpin BN tidak menyedari bahawa sebarang bentuk kekangan ekonomi yang melampau akan membawa kesan politik yang buruk.

Kelemahan besar anggota komponen BN begitu terserlah apabila mereka terbukti gagal membawa kestabilan politik dan kesejahteraan ekonomi.

Rakyat semakin hilang keyakinan kepada BN. Keadaan negara sekarang ini membuktikan, persepsi bahawa hanya BN sahaja yang mampu memerintah sudah lenyap.

Rakyat bukannya hamba kepada kerajaan BN. Rakyat adalah tuan dalam negara. Tuan berhak menentukan masa depannya sendiri.

Tiada jalan lain untuk mengubah nasib rakyat, selain mengubah kerajaan BN kepada Pakatan Rakyat.

Justeru, rakyat harus memberikan sepenuh kepercayaan kepada Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim untuk menerajui negara dengan pembentukan Kerajaan Persekutuan Pakatan Rakyat.

Jika 16 September 2008 terlalu lewat, rakyat boleh membantu Anwar menyegerakannya, dengan mengajak wakil rakyat mereka beramai-ramai berhijrah kepada Pakatan Rakyat.

Jika dalam Gerakan, MCA, SAPP, PBB sudah wujud perbincangan 'wajar atau tidak untuk meninggalkan BN', maka parti-parti komponen BN lain juga harus memikirkan opsyen ini.

Berubahlah, berhijrahlah demi kebaikan rakyat. Jika rakyat tidak menyokong mereka, nescaya mereka akan pupus tidak lama lagi.


Wednesday, June 18, 2008


Islam and love

By: Hasib Hossain

Hasib Hossain Ms. Murata 4 / 24 / 2000

Islam and Love Love is an important aspect of Islam. In the Sufi Path of Love, written by Rumi, Love is the central theme. Rumi speaks alot about love and its branches and ramifications. According to Rumi, Love ddominateds most of the Sufi way of life.

In a translation of Sufi Path of Love written by William C. Chittuck, Sufi says: "No matter what I say to explain and elucidate Love, shame overcomes me when I come to Love itself. Love cannot be contained within our speaking or listening/ Love is an ocean whose depths cannot be plumbed.... Love cannot be found in erudition and science, books and pages. Whatever is duscussed by people- That is not the way of lovers. Whatever you have said or heard is the shell; The kernel of Love is a mystery that cannot be divulged." Chittuck's translation of this is that Love cannot be explained in words but that it must be felt to be understood. There is not possible way that you can tell someone what love is or write it down to someone so the person may understand. To Rumi, If love isn't felt, then the person will not truly know what love is.

To understand the Islamic conception of Love, you must know the Koran's defenition of the term. The Prophet Muhammad once said, "God is beautiful, and He loves beauty." It can be also defined like this: "If something is beautiful, it is worthy of love." In the Vision Of Islam, it says that that whenever God is said to love something, the object of his love are human beings but his love aren't for all human beings. His love is for those who do things and have traits that are beautiful. Some verses in the Koran that prove this are: "Do what is beautiful! Surely God loves those who do what is beautiful." " Whoso fulfills his covenant and is wary of God- surely God loves the god-wary." "Truly God loves those who repent, and He loves those who cleanse themselves." " Trust in God. God loves those who have trust.: "Make things wholesome among them equitably, and be just. Surely God loves the just." One of the most important things about the Koran's use of the word love is that God's love is always for humans and to nothing else. In the translation of Sufi Path of Love, Rumi tells us that God is the source of all love.

The question that is asked also, however, is God really love? God is love but he is also other attributes as well. He is also Mercy, Knowledge, Life, Power, and Will. He possesses all these things not just one. So even though He is Love, He does not let it exhaust his reality. Rumi also says that Love is desire and need. Yet God is beyond all need. In the Koran, it says that God said, "I desire to be known, so I created the world." Also, God's love for exhibiting the Hidden Treasure through the prophets and saints was the motivation in His creation of the universe. Everything that happens on Earth is because of the original Love. In a verse of the Koran, it says that God wants people to love him and that their love for him follows up upon his love for them. That quote is this: "O you who have faith, should any of you turn back on your religon, God will bring a people whom He loves and who love him, who are humble toward the faithful and disdainful toward the truth-concealers, who struggle in the path of God and fear not the blame of any blamer. That is God's bounty,- He gives it to whomsoever He will. He is All-embracing, All-knowing." What this verse says is that that loft is God's gift or prize to us.

Everything in reality partakes in God's love so that would mean that all things are lovers. So that means everything has a need and desire for everything else and yearns for a union with everything. This quote proves this fact: "God's wisdom in His destiny and decree has made us lovers of one another. That fordainment has paired all parts of the world and set them in love with their mates. Each part of the world desires its mate, just like amber and straw. Heaven says to the earth, "Hallo! Thou drawest me like iron to a magnet!"

... This quote from Rumi summarizes everythings needs and desires for everything else to survive. Human being's love can be sperated into two different kind of loves. There is "True Love" which is the love for God. Then there is "Derivative Love" which is the love for anything else that's not God. When you take a good look at it, however, that both loves are actually a love for God. Since everything has come from God and whatever exists is his reflection or shadow. So "Derivative Love" just ends up in human's loving God anyways. Here is a quote from Rumi that helps understand this: "All things in the world- walth, women, clothing- are desired for the sake of other things, not for their own sake. Do you not see that if you had a hundred thousand dirhams and were hungry, but you could nto find food, you would not be able to eat those dirhams? Wome are for children and for satisfying passion. Clothing is for warding off cold. So it is with all things, which are linked together, one after the other, all the way to God. It is He who is desired for His own sake, not for something else. He is better than all things, nobler than all, pleasanter than all. So how should He be desired for the sake of what is less than He? So He is the Goal.

When He is attained. The Universal Object of Desire has been attained. There is no passing on." So Love has been described and Love's signifigance to Islam. It has been concluded that Love is for God and everything that has been created by God. Love is to desire and need something. All human beings, no matter what religon and how they feel, according to Rumi, needs God. So all human beings Love God.



The Real Roots of Terrorism

The Real Roots of Terrorism: Darwinism and Materialism

Most people think the theory of evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin, and rests on scientific evidence, observations and experiments. However, the truth is that Darwin was not its originator, neither does the theory rest on scientific proof. The theory consists of an adaptation to nature of the ancient dogma of materialist philosophy. Although it is not backed up by scientific discoveries, the theory is blindly supported in the name of materialist philosophy. (see Harun Yahya, The Evolution Deceit, Taha Publishers, 1999)

This fanaticism has resulted in all kinds of disasters. Together with the spread of Darwinism and the materialist philosophy it supports, the answer to the question "What is a human being?" has changed. People who used to answer: "Human beings were created by God and have to live according to the beautiful morality He teaches", have now begun to think that "Man came into being by chance, and is an animal who developed by means of the fight for survival." There is a heavy price to pay for this great deception. Violent ideologies such as racism, fascism and communism, and many other barbaric world views based on conflict have all drawn strength from this deception.

This part of the book will examine the disaster Darwinism has visited on the world and reveal its connection with terrorism, one of the most important global problems of our time.


Darwin set out with one basic premise when developing his theory: The development of living things depends on the fight for survival. The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and oblivion.

According to Darwin, there is a ruthless struggle for survival and an eternal conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place. The subtitle he gave to his book The Origin of Species, "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", encapsulates that view.

Furthermore, Darwin proposed that the "fight for survival" also applied between human racial groups. According to that mythical claim, favoured races were victorious in the struggle. Favoured races, in Darwin's view, were white Europeans. African or Asian races had lagged behind in the struggle for survival. Darwin went further, and suggested that these races would soon lose the struggle for survival entirely, and thus disappear:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.28

The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin's theory of evolution imposed racism on the social sciences:

His (Darwin's) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man's civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists.29


Darwin's source of inspiration on this subject was the British economist Thomas Malthus's book An Essay on the Principle of Population. Left to their own devices, Malthus calculated that the human population increased rapidly. In his view, the main influences that kept populations under control were disasters such as war, famine and disease. In short, according to this brutal claim, some people had to die for others to live. Existence came to mean permanent war.

In the 19th century, Malthus's ideas were widely accepted. European upper class intellectuals in particular supported his cruel ideas. In the article "The Scientific Background of the Nazi "Race Purification" Programme," by Jerry Bergman, the importance 19th century Europe attached to Malthus's views on population is described in this way:

In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe, members of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered "Population problem" and to devise ways of implementing the Malthusian mandate, to increase the mortality rate of the poor: "Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations," and so forth and so on.30

As a result of this cruel policy, the weak, and those who lost the struggle for survival would be eliminated, and as a result the rapid rise in population would be balanced out. This so-called "oppression of the poor" policy was actually carried out in 19th century Britain. An industrial order was set up in which children of eight and nine were made to work sixteen hours a day in the coal mines and thousands died from the terrible conditions. The struggle for survival demanded by Malthus's theory led to millions of Britons leading lives full of suffering.

Influenced by these ideas, Darwin applied this concept of conflict to all of nature, and proposed that the strong and the fittest emerged victorious from this war of existence. Moreover, he claimed that the so-called struggle for survival was a justified and unchangeable law of nature. On the other hand, he invited people to abandon their religious beliefs by denying the Creation, and thus undermined all ethical values that might prove to be obstacles to the ruthlessness of the struggle for survival.

Humanity has paid a heavy price in the 20th century for the dissemination of these callous views which led people to ruthlessness and cruelty.


As Darwinism dominated European culture, the effects of the struggle for survival began to emerge. Colonialist European nations in particular began to portray the nations they colonized as "evolutionary backward na-tions" and looked to Darwinism for justification.

The bloodiest political effect of Darwinism was the outbreak of World War I in 1914.
In his book Europe Since 1870, the well-known British professor of history James Joll explains that one of the factors that prepared the ground for World War I was the belief in Darwinism of European rulers at the time.

…it is important to realise how literally the doctrine of the struggle for existence and of the survival of the fittest was taken by the majority of the leaders of Europe in the years preceding the First World War. The Austro-Hungarian chief of staff for example, Franz Baron Conrad von Hoetzendorff, wrote in his memoirs after the war:

Philanthropic religions, moral teachings and philosophical doctrines may certainly sometimes serve to weaken mankind's struggle for existence in its crudest form, but they will never succeed in removing it as a driving motive of the world… It is in accordance with this great principle that the catastrophe of the world war came about as the result of the motive forces in the lives of states and peoples, like a thunderstorm which must by its nature discharge itself.

Seen against this sort of ideological background, Conrad's insistence on the need for a preventive war in order to preserve the Austro-Hungarian monarchy becomes comprehensible.

We have seen too how these views were not limited to military figures, and that Max Weber for example was deeply concerned with the international struggle for survival. Again Kurt Riezler, the personal assistant and confidant of the German chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, wrote in 1914:

Eternal and absolute enmity is fundamentally inherent in relations between peoples; and the hostility which we observe everywhere… is not the result of a perversion of human nature but is the essence of the world and the source of life itself.31
Friedrich von Bernardi, a World War I general, made a similar connection between war and the laws of war in nature. "War" declared Bernhardi "is a biological necessity"; it "is as necessary as the struggle of the elements of nature"; it "gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things."32
As we have seen, World War I broke out because of European thinkers, generals and administrators who saw warfare, bloodshed and suffering as a kind of development, and thought they were an unchanging law of nature. The ideological root that dragged all of that generation to destruction was nothing else than Darwin's concepts of the "struggle for survival" and "favoured races."
World War I left behind it 8 million dead, hundreds of ruined cities, and millions of wounded, crippled, homeless and unemployed.

The basic cause of World War II, which broke out 21 years later and left 55 million dead behind it, was also based on Darwinism.


As Darwinism fed racism in the 19th century, it formed the basis of an ideology that would develop and drown the world in blood in the 20th century: Nazism.

A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologues. When one examines this theory, which was given shape by Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, one comes across such concepts as "natural selection," "selective mating," and "the struggle for survival between the races," which are repeated dozens of time in the works of Darwin. When calling his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler was inspired by the Darwinist struggle for survival and the principle that victory went to the fittest.

He particularly talks about the struggle between the races:
History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendour, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.33

In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that "a higher race subjects to itself a lower race… a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right". 34

That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that almost all historians who are expert in the matter accept. Peter Chrisp, the author of the book, The Rise of
Fascism, expressed this fact as follows:

"Charles Darwin's theory that humans had evolved from apes was ridiculed when it was first published, but was later widely accepted. The Nazis distorted Darwin's theories, using them to justify warfare and racism."35

The historian Hickman describes Darwinism's influence on Hitler as follows:
(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.36

Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence that had never before been seen. Many ethnic and political groups, and especially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi invasion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism's concept of the "struggle for survival."


While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin's theory.

This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these "isms." Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin's The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at its dialectical materialist attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin's theory as "containing the basis in natural history for communism." In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man."
Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin's theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is seen as the founder of Russian communism, regarded Marxism as "Darwinism in its application to social science."37

Trotsky said, "Darwin's discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."38

Darwinist education had a major role in the formation of communist cadres. For instance, historians note the fact that Stalin was religious in his youth, but became an atheist primarily because of Darwin's books.
Mao, who established communist rule in China and killed millions of people, openly stated that "Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution."39
The Harvard University historian James Reeve Pusey goes into great detail regarding Darwinism's effect on Mao and Chinese communism in his research book China and Charles Darwin.

In short, there is an unbreakable link between the theory of evolution and communism. The theory claims that living things are the product of chance, and provides a so-called scientific support for atheism. Communism, an atheist ideology, is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism. Moreover, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is possible thanks to conflict (in other words "the struggle for survival") and supports the concept of "dialectics" which is fundamental to communism.

If we think of the communist concept of "dialectical conflict," which killed some 120million people during the 20th century, as a "killing machine", then we can better understand the dimensions of the disaster that Darwinism visited on the planet.


As we learned earlier, Darwinism proposed that the struggle between living things is the cause of their development and gained so-called scientific currency for the philosophy of dialectical materialism.

As can be understood from its name, dialectical materialism rests on the idea of "conflict". Karl Marx, the founder of this philosophy, propagated the idea that "if there were no struggle and opposition, everything would stay as it is." In another place he said, "Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one."40 By saying this, he called people to violence, war and bloodshed in order that they could develop.

The first to apply Marx's theory in the realm of politics was Lenin. Fostering the idea that "progress comes about as a result of the conflict of opposites", Lenin advocated that people with opposing ideas should be in constant conflict. Lenin also repeatedly stated that this conflict would require bloodshed, that is, terrorism. A piece by Lenin titled "Guerrilla Warfare" which was first published in Proletary in 1906, eleven years before the Bolshevik Revolution, shows the terrorist methods he had adopted:

The phenomenon in which we are interested is the armed struggle. It is conducted by individuals and by small groups. Some belong to revolutionary organisations, while others (the majority in certain parts of Russia) do not belong to any revolutionary organisation. Armed struggle pursues two different aims, which must be strictly distinguished: in the first place, this struggle aims at assassinating individuals, chiefs and subordinates in the Army and police; in the second place, it aims at the confiscation of monetary funds both from the government and from private persons. The confiscated funds go partly into the treasury of the party, partly for the special purpose of arming and preparing for an uprising, and partly for the maintenance of persons engaged in the struggle we are describing. 41

In the twentieth century, one of the most well known ideologies to oppose communism was fascism. The interesting thing is that, although fascism declared itself opposed to communism, it believed just as much as communism in the concept of struggle. Communists believed in the necessity of the class struggle; the fascists simply changed the arena of the struggle concentrating on the idea of the struggle between races and nations. For example, the German historian Heinrich Treitschke, one of the most important sources for Nazi ideas and a prominent racist, wrote, "nations could not prosper without intense competition, like the struggle for survival of Darwin."42

Hitler also said that he had taken inspiration from Darwin's understanding of struggle:

The whole world of Nature is a mighty struggle between strength and weakness-an eternal victory of the strong over the weak. There would be nothing but decay in the whole of nature if this were not so. He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.43

These two social Darwinist ideologies believed that, for a society to grow strong, struggle and bloodshed are necessary; what they created in the 20th century is well known. Countless numbers of innocent people died; countless others were wounded or maimed; national economies crumbled; money that used to be spent on health, research, technology, education and art was spent on arms, on bandages to bind the wounds caused by those arms and to restore ruined cities. It became evident as time went on that struggle and terror did not to promote human development but rather destruction.

Certainly there are contradictions in the world. Just as in nature there are light and darkness, day and night, hot and cold, so there are also contradictions in putting ideas into practice. But a contradiction in ideas does not necessitate conflict. On the contrary, if contradictions are approached with tolerance, peace, understanding, love, compassion and mercy, good results may be achieved. Everyone who compares his own idea with another's may develop his own or see its deficiencies and remedy them. Those who defend opposing opinions could have an exchange of ideas in conversation or engage in a constructive critique. Only the kind of sincere, forgiving, peaceful and humble person who conforms to the moral teaching of the Qur'an can develop this approach.

To kill a person or do him harm because he has different ideas, believes in a different religion or belongs to a different race is an immense act of cruelty. For this reason only, throughout history and all over the world, sons and daughters of the same fatherland have struggled with one another to the death, murdering one another without pity. Or people of different race or nationality, women and children included, have been indiscriminately slaughtered. The only person who could do such a thing is someone who has no respect for a human being, and who regards the person in front of him just as an intelligent animal; it is someone who does not believe that he will have to give an account to God for what he has done.

The best and truest attitude to have towards opposing ideas is revealed in the Qur'an. Clashes of ideas have arisen throughout history and one of the most well-known examples of this is the opposition between Moses and his contemporary Pharaoh. Despite all Pharaoh's cruelty and aggressiveness, God sent Moses to invite him to
God's religion, and He explained the method Moses was to use:

“Go to Pharaoh; he has overstepped the bounds. But speak to him with gentle words so that hopefully he will pay heed or show some fear.” (Qur'an, 20:43-44)

Moses obeyed God's command and explained true religion to him at great length. In order to stop Pharaoh's denial of God and his cruelty to people, Moses patiently explained every matter. However, Pharaoh showed a hostile attitude toward Moses' noble character and patience, threatening to kill him and those who shared his ideas. But it was not Pharaoh's attitude that prevailed; on the contrary, he and his people were drowned. Moses and his people were victorious.

As this example shows, the victory of an idea or the struggle for development does not come about by hostility or aggression. The meeting between Moses and Pharaoh offers a lesson from history: it is not those on the side of contention and cruelty who are victorious, but those who are on the side of peace and justice. The exercise of fine moral principles receives its reward both in this world and in the hereafter


As we have so far seen, Darwinism is at the root of various ideologies of violence that have spelled disaster to mankind in the 20th century. The fundamental concept behind this understanding and method is "fighting whoever is not one of us." There are different beliefs, worldviews and philosophies in the world. It is very natural that all these diverse ideas have traits opposing one another. However, these different stances can look at each other in one of two ways:

1) They can respect the existence of those who are not like them and try to establish dialogue with them, employing a humane method. Indeed, this method conforms with the morality of the Qur'an.

2) They can choose to fight others, and to try to secure an advantage by damaging them, in other words, to behave like a wild animal. This is a method employed by materialism, that is, irreligion.

The horror we call "terrorism" is nothing other than a statement of the second view.
When we consider the difference between these two approaches, we can see that the idea of "man as a fighting animal" which Darwinism has subconsciously imposed on people is particularly influential. Individuals and groups who choose the way of conflict may never have heard of Darwinism and the principles of that ideology. But at the end of the day they agree with a view whose philosophical basis rests on Darwinism. What leads them to believe in the rightness of this view is such Darwinism-based slogans as "In this world, the strong survive," "Big fish swallow little ones," "War is a virtue," and "Man advances by waging war." Take Darwinism away, and these are nothing but empty slogans.

Actually, when Darwinism is taken away, no philosophy of conflict remains. The three divine religions that most people in the world believe in, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, all oppose violence. All three religions wish to bring peace and harmony to the world, and oppose innocent people being killed and suffering cruelty and torture. Conflict and violence violate the morality that God has set out for man, and are abnormal and unwanted concepts. However, Darwinism sees and portrays conflict and violence as natural, justified and correct concepts that have to exist.

For this reason, if some people commit terrorism using the concepts and symbols of Islam, Christianity or Judaism in the name of those religions, you can be sure that those people are not Muslims, Christians or Jews. They are real Social Darwinists. They hide under a cloak of religion, but they are not genuine believers. Even if they claim to be serving religion, they are actually enemies of religion and of believers. That is because they are ruthlessly committing a crime that religion forbids, and in such a way as to blacken religion in peoples' eyes.
For this reason, the root of the terrorism that plagues our planet is not in any of the divine religions, but in atheism, and the expression of atheism in our times: Darwinism and materialism.


The solution in the fight against a particular problem lies in doing away with the ideas this problem fundamentally depends on. For instance, no matter how hard one endeavours to keep the surroundings of a stinking garbage bin clean, the garbage will keep on stinking. All solutions will prove to be short-lived. The real solution lies in a thorough cleaning of the garbage's source, removing the trash altogether. Alternatively, this is like spending years raising poisonous snakes on a farm, then letting them go, wondering why they start to bite people and trying to round them all up again. The important thing is not to breed them in the first place.
Consequently, in the fight against terrorism, searching for terrorists one by one and trying to render them ineffectual does not provide a viable and permanent solution. The only way of totally eradicating the scourge of terrorism from the face of the earth is to identify the basic sources that breed terrorists and remove them. The main source of terrorism, on the other hand, is erroneous ideologies and the education received in the light of these ideologies.

Our day, in almost all countries of the world, Darwinism is incorporated into school curricula and is considered to be scientific fact. Young people are not taught that they are created by God, that they are endowed with a spirit, wisdom and conscience.
They are not told that they will have to give account of their deeds on the Day of Judgement and accordingly be punished in hell or rewarded with paradise for all eternity. On the contrary, they are taught that they are creatures whose forefathers were animals that somehow came into existence by some random coincidences. Under such indoctrination, they assume themselves to be stray beings who are not answerable to God and see their future - that is their survival - in being victorious through struggle. After this stage, it becomes rather easy to brainwash these people, who have been already indoctrinated all through their school lives, and to turn them into enemies of humanity cruel enough to murder innocent children. Such young people can be readily attracted by any strayed ideology; they can act under the influence of the terrorists' conditioning and engage in inconceivably cruel and violent acts. The communist, fascist and racist terrorist groups that have been in existence since the 19th century are the products of this kind of education system.

The second great harm this education system does is to entirely distance education from religion, thereby limiting the sphere of religion to the world of uneducated people. Thus, while those who have access to education are totally removed from religion thanks to Darwinist-materialist instillation, religion becomes something peculiar to the uneducated. This causes the development of superstitious and erroneous ideas and allows those who put forward ideas totally contrary to religion in the name of religion to take control easily.

The recent events of September 11 are the most obvious examples of this. No one who fears God, loves Him and expects to give an account of his deeds in the hereafter can commit any act that will leave thousands of innocent people dead or wounded and orphan thousands of children. Such a person knows that he will give an account to God for every person he subjected to cruelty and each one of them will become a source of anguish for him in hell.

To conclude, the way to stop acts of terrorism is to put an end to Darwinist-materialist education, to educate young people in accord with a curricula based on true scientific findings and to instil in them the fear of God and the desire to act wisely and scrupulously. The fruits of such an education will be a community made up of peaceable, trustworthy, forgiving and tolerant people.

Recommendations to the Western World and Muslims

Today, the Western world is concerned about the organisations that use terror under the guise of Islam and this concern is not misplaced. It is obvious that those carrying out terror and their supporters should be tried according to international judicial criteria. However, a more important point to consider is the long-term strategies that have to be pursued to discover viable solutions to these problems.
The assessments above reveal that terror has no place in Islam and that it is a crime committed against humanity. They further show the inherently contradictory nature of the concept of "Islamic terror". This provides us with an important vantage point:

1) The time ahead requires all countries to act with caution, sensitivity and wisdom. The bleak scenario that unfolds with the "Clash of civilisations", is one to the detriment of the whole world, and from which no one benefits. The world community at large must take the opportunity to learn to live side by side in peaceful interchange, learning from each other, studying each other's history, accomplishments in religion, art, literature, philosophy, science, technology, and culture, all of which mutually enrich one another's lives.

2) The activities serving the presentation of true Islam must be widespread. The solution to combat radical factions in Islamic countries should not be "compulsory secularisation". On the contrary, such a policy will incite more reaction from the masses. The solution is the dissemination of true Islam and the appearance of a Muslim model which embraces the Qur'anic values such as human rights, democracy, freedom, high morality, science, spirituality, aesthetics, and which offers happiness and bliss to humanity. Muslims must explain and live by the moral values commanded by the Qur'an and as exemplified by Muhammad, the Messenger of God. Muslims have the responsibility to take Islam out from the hands of those who misapply it, (which leads to further misunderstanding of Islam) and place it back into the hands of those who live by the teachings of Islamic virtue and by the example of Muhammad, the Messenger of God.

3) The source of terrorism is in ignorance and bigotry and the solution to terrorism is education. To the circles who feel sympathy with terror, it should be made clear that terror is utterly against Islam and that it only serves to harm Islam, Muslims and humanity at large.

4) Long-term cultural solutions must be devised to combat terrorism which has its roots in communist, fascist and racist ideologies. Today in countries all over the world, Darwinist precepts form the basis of the education system. However, as we have stressed earlier, Darwinism is an erroneous ideology that sees man as an animal who developed only by fighting for survival - something which constitutes the likely basis of all forms of terrorism. An ideology that predicts only those holding power will survive and considers war as a virtue is like a huge morass that will never cease to visit disaster on the world. This being the case, beside the judicial and other measures that will be introduced to combat terrorism, there is also a need for a vigorous education campaign to be launched all over the world. Disclosure of the real face of the deception of Darwinism and materialism and instruction in the good values God has revealed for people must be the fundamentals of this education. Peace and stability are attainable only through living by the good values of true religion. Without draining the morass, it is not possible to rid the world of disaster.

Our hope is that these measures will help to the world get rid of terrorism and all other bigoted, brutal, barbarous structures. With the Christian culture it represents, since the United States defines itself as "a nation under God", it should be a friend of the Muslims. In the Qur'an, God draws attention to this fact and informs us that Christians are those who are "most affectionate to those who believe". (Qur'an, 5:82)

In history, some ignorant people (for instance, the Crusaders) failed to understand this fact and caused conflicts between these two religions. To prevent the repetition of this scenario, which is propagated with mottos like "Clash of Civilizations" or "Holy War against the West", true Christians and Muslims need to come together and co-operate.

Indeed, the developments which took place in the aftermath of these grievous events indicate that the seeds of this co-operation has already been sowed. This grave act of terrorism, which has drawn the Christian and Muslim communities closer, led many Christians come to know more about the religion of Islam and encouraged Muslims to make greater efforts to communicate true Islamic morality described in the Qur'an.
All these developments are the glad tidings that people will understand Islamic values better and be able to rid themselves of any prejudices they had held. By the Will of God, the 21st century will be the time when people will truly acknowledge that the dissemination of the values of Islam is the unique way of achieving much longed-for peace on the planet.

28. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178
29. Lalita Prasad Vidyarthi, Racism, Science and Pseudo-Science, Unesco, France, Vendôme, 1983. p. 54
30. Theodore D. Hall, "The Scientific Background of the Nazi "Race Purification" Program",
31. James Joll, Europe Since 1870: An International History, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1990, p. 164
32. M.F. Ashley-Montagu, Man in Process, New York: World. Pub. Co. 1961, pp. 76, 77 cited in Bolton Davidheiser, W E Lammers (ed) Scientific Studies in Special Creationism, 1971, p. 338-339
33. L.H. Gann, "Adolf Hitler, The Complete Totalitarian", The Intercollegiate Review, Fall 1985, p. 24; cited in Henry M. Morris, The Long war Against God, Baker Book House, 1989, p. 78
34. J. Tenenbaum., Race and Reich, Twayne Pub., New York, p. 211, 1956; cited by Jerry Bergman, "Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust",
35. Peter Chrisp, The Rise Of Fascism, Witness History Series, p. 6
36. Hickman, R., Biocreation, Science Press, Worthington, OH, pp. 51-52, 1983; Jerry Bergman, "Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust", Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13 (2): 101-111, 1999
37. Robert M. Young, Darwinian Evolution and Human History, Historical Studies on Science and Belief, 1980
38. Alan Woods and Ted Grant, Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science, London: 1993
39. K. Mehnert, Kampf um Mao's Erbe, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1977
40. Karl Marx, Das Capital, Vol. I, 1955, p. 60341. Vladimir Ilich Lenin, Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 11, p. 216
42. L. Poliakov, Le Mythe Aryen, Editions Complexe, Calmann-Lévy, Bruxelles, 1987, p. 343
43. Robert Clark, Darwin: Before and After, Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958., s. 115-116; cited by Jerry Bergman, "Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust",


Monday, June 16, 2008

Oil hits record near $140 a barrel on dollar

Oil hits record near $140 a barrel on dollar, fire - Monday June 16, 10:12 am ET

By John Wilen,
AP Business Writer,
Oil futures shoot to a record near $140 a barrel on falling dollar, North Sea fire

NEW YORK (AP) -- Crude oil futures hit a record near $140 a barrel Monday as investors shrugged off Saudi Arabia's promise to boost production and instead focused on a weaker dollar. Retail gas prices rose to a record $4.08 a gallon.

Light, sweet crude for July delivery soared to a trading record of $139.89 before retreating to trade up $3.33 at $138.19 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Many investors buy commodities such as oil as a hedge against inflation when the dollar falls. Also, a weaker dollar makes oil less expensive to investors dealing in other currencies. Many analysts believe the dollar's protracted decline is a major factor behind oil's doubling in price over the past year.

The euro bought $1.5502, a sizable increase from $1.5354 late Friday in New York. The British pound rose to $1.9668 versus $1.9469 in New York.

Also supporting prices was an overnight fire at a StatoilHydro ASA drilling rig in the North Sea, which could affect as much as 150,000 barrels of daily oil production, said Addison Armstrong, director of market research at Tradition Energy in Stamford, Conn.

But prices of North Sea-produced Brent crude oil, while higher, were lagging Nymex crude's advance, suggesting to analysts that the dollar was the main driver of Monday's rally. In London, August Brent crude futures rose $3.01 to $138.12 a barrel.

"We have a weaker U.S. dollar, and the buyers are out in force right now," said James Cordier, president of Tampa, Fla.-based trading firms Liberty Trading Group and

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, told U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon over the weekend that it would boost output by 200,000 barrels a day, or by 2 percent, from June to July. In May, the kingdom raised production by 300,000 barrels a day.

The latest promise of a production increase by the kingdom was largely ignored by traders Monday amid strong global demand and falling production elsewhere.

Cordier said Saudi Arabia has "to increase by north of 1 million barrels per day" to have an impact on prices, "and the market doesn't think they have it."

At the pump, meanwhile, the national average price of a gallon of gas rose 0.3 cent overnight to its latest milestone, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service. Gas prices are following crude prices higher, and likely have several more cents to rise before catching up with oil's latest advance.

If oil prices pass $140 and head even higher, the pain consumers are feeling at the pump will intensify.

Diesel fuel prices held steady Monday at a record $4.797 a gallon. High prices for diesel, used to transport most of the world's food, are pushing food prices higher, putting even more pressure on consumers.

In other Nymex trading, July gasoline futures rose 7.26 cents to $3.5352 a gallon, while July heating oil futures rose 9.6 cents to $3.9328 a gallon.

July natural gas futures rose 25.2 cents to $12.877 per 1,000 cubic feet.

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. said Monday that natural gas production from a project in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico has been restored, hitting a gross rate of about 900 million cubic feet per day. Output from the Independence Hub was halted April 8 after a pipeline leak was found.

AP Business Writer John Porretto, in Houston, and Associated Press writers George Jahn in Vienna, Austria, and Eileen Ng in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, contributed to this report.


Sunday, June 15, 2008

What is Shari'ah


Written by leading scholars, the Focus On essays are designed to stimulate thought and enhance understanding of vital aspects of the Islamic world. New essays on specific themes, with links for further reading, are published throughout the course of the year. Earlier features and links will continue to be available for subscribers.

What Is Shari’ah?
Tamara Sonn


For many people, the term shari‘ah sets off alarm bells. Visions of court-ordered amputations and stoning arise in the popular imagination. Commentators point out that the European Court of Human Rights has pronounced some components of shari‘ah, particularly those dealing with pluralism and public freedoms, incompatible with fundamental principles of democracy. And fears of “creeping shari‘ah” have inspired hundreds of Web sites warning that Muslim fanatics intend to reestablish the caliphate and bring the entire world under Islam’s harsh legal system.

The concerns expressed in these reactions reflect a common misunderstanding of the term shari‘ah. The misunderstanding stems from the fact that the term has two meanings. In its most common usage, shari‘ah (way, path) refers to Islamic law. Muslim countries throughout the world have shari‘ah courts, which deal with matters such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In some countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the jurisdiction of shari‘ah law extends also to certain aspects of criminal and commercial law. Both countries, for example, incorporate the ḥudūd punishments into their legal codes. The ḥudūd punishments—such as stoning for adultery and amputation of the hand for theft—were established in the earliest days of Islam and are considered mandatory, unlike other crimes which are punishable at the discretion of a judge and may be dealt with through compensation or retribution. As a result, many people assume that all Islamic laws are fixed and unchanging. Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights ruling mentioned above characterizes shari‘ah as “stable and invariable.”

But shariʿah has a much broader meaning as well. It encompasses the core beliefs and practices of Islam, revealed in the Qur'ān and exemplified by the Prophet Muḥammad in the Sunnah, as well as the laws that are derived from those sources. While the core beliefs and practices remain stable, the laws derived from them change over time and display significant diversity. That is because most of the laws are derived from the Qur'ān and the Sunnah through interpretation. The Qur'ān does contain some specific legislation, including regulation of inheritance, for example. Most authorities believe that those regulations are not subject to interpretation. But the majority of the Qur'ān’s teachings are in the form of moral guidance and recommendations, which require human effort to be put into specific law codes. The human effort at understanding the legal implications of the Qur'ān and Sunnah is called fiqh (understanding).

The term fiqh is also used to refer to the laws devised by human effort. Unlike shari‘ah laws which are believed to be of divine origin and thus perfect and unchanging, fiqh laws are human products and therefore recognized as imperfect and subject to revision. Indeed, the body of Islamic law has been developing for over fourteen centuries and has adapted to diverse conditions and changing circumstances and five major schools of Islamic legal reasoning have developed. As in any other legal system, interpretations have diverged, some laws have become obsolete, and others have emerged. One of the official “roots” of fiqh is intellectual effort (ijtihād), whose purpose is to allow for reinterpretation of the laws when circumstances warrant it.

The body of Islamic law does undoubtedly contain elements that are startling in the light of contemporary Western norms. And today, there is lively debate among Muslim scholars over many of the laws that most concern non-Muslim observers, particularly those dealing with democracy, pluralism, the rights of women and of minorities, and the status of the traditional ḥudūd punishments.

Many contemporary Islamic thinkers fully endorse pluralism, including full equality for all citizens. Egypt’s Fahmiy Huwaydiy, for example, argues for equal rights for non-Muslim minorities based on the overall goal of Islamic law, which is to establish justice. In order to achieve justice in today’s world, he says, democracy is essential. Democracy has been shown to be successful in the West, and it is the most effective way to implement the Qur'ān’s command to govern through consultation (shūrā). While shūrā has been exercised in various ways throughout history, in order to result in justice today it must be anchored in a government that recognizes the right of people to choose their ruler, and this right must be shared equally by all citizens. Egyptian legal scholar Salim al-Awa (Salim al-Awwā) also argues in favor of democracy, saying that Islam places authority with the people, and all citizens have equal rights to choose, women and non-Muslims included.

Exiled Tunisian thinker Rachid Ghannouchi (Rāshid Ghannūshiy) argues for Muslim participation in secular democracies, again based on the Qur'ānic principle of participatory governance, shūrā, which he defines as the authority of the community. Muslims must work with whoever is willing to help achieve essential Islamic goals such as “independence, development, social solidarity, civil liberties, human rights, political pluralism, independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press, or liberty for mosques and Islamic activities.”

Leading European Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan concludes that any government conforming to Islamic principles must allow for communal consultation, including both men and women, and that the most efficient means of doing that today is through a consultative council made up of elected members. He also insists that any representatives be chosen on the basis of competence in various areas pertinent to daily life, rather than heredity or some other unearned criterion. This competence allows them to exercise ijtihād, that is, to deliberate and formulate ways to achieve Islamic principles in today’s circumstances, instead of relying on models appropriate to circumstances that no longer exist. Consequently, Ramadan concludes, Islam is completely opposed to theocracy. Not only must Islamic government be conducted through consultation, it also requires freedom of conscience. This is based on Ramadan’s reading of the Qur'ān’s prohibition of compulsion in matters of religion (2:256). Thus, he says, people must have the right to choose their leaders, express their opinions, and live—male and female, Muslims and non-Muslim—under equal protection of the law, as was the case in the Prophet’s time under the Constitution of Medina. He argues that, although there is no unique model of Islamic government, basic principles have been provided which Ramadan calls “a framework to run pluralism.”

In a similar vein, Ramadan recommends a moratorium on the implementation of ḥudūd punishments. Other scholars agree, focusing specifically on the prohibition of apostasy (renouncing one’s religion). For example, the former chief justice of Pakistan, Dr. S. A. Rahman, argues that the prohibition of apostasy under threat of capital punishment violates the Qur'ān’s fundamental insistence on freedom of conscience. Egypt’s highest religious authority, Grand Mufti Ali Gomaah (Alī Jum’ah), also rejects the death sentence for apostasy, arguing that if punishment is due, it will come in the afterlife. There is even debate about whether or not some of the ḥudūd punishments have been properly understood and interpreted in the first place. Tunisian historian Mohamed Talbi explains that the law requiring capital punishment for apostasy resulted from a confusion of apostasy with treason. Leading American Muslim scholar Professor Ali A. Mazrui takes a slightly different approach. He argues for rethinking the ḥudūd punishments, saying that the punishments laid down fourteen centuries ago “had to be truly severe enough to be a deterrent” in their day, but “since then God has taught us more about crime, its causes,the methods of its investigation, the limits of guilt, and the much wider range of possible punishments.”

There is wide ranging opinion regarding precisely which laws should be subjected to ijtihād. It is common for conservative scholars to identify the laws they believe should be preserved as shariʿah and therefore not subject to ijtihād. Reformist thinkers tend to place greater emphasis on the distinction between shari‘ah and fiqh. This discussion has been a feature of Islamic discourse throughout history.

Renowned jurisconsult Ibn Taymiyah (d. 1328) criticized those who fail to distinguish between the technical usage of shari‘ah as the ideal, revealed will of God, and its generic usage to refer to specific legal codes, and cautioned against confusing the decisions of ignorant or unjust judges with shari‘ah. Shari‘ah texts even provide a measure by which laws can be judged as just or not: the “purposes” or “goals” (maqāṣid) of shari‘ah. Those goals include the preservation of human rights, defined as the right to life, religion, family, property, and reason. If those rights are not being served, the laws must be rethought.

It is true that Muslims stress the eternity and universality of shari‘ah, but that does not imply that all Islamic laws are unchangeable or that everyone must be ruled by Islamic law. It means that the values and goals of shari’ah are meant to cover all aspects of life. Some scholars even claim that any laws that fulfill the goals of shariʿah are Islamic in nature, if not in name. It is also true that there are Muslims who believe that the world would be better off if it were guided by shari‘ah. Except for an outspoken few, however, this position is a spiritual, not political, one.


1. Al-Awwa, Muhammad Salim. “Political Pluralism from an Islamic Perspective.” In Islam in Transition: Muslim Perspectives, edited by John J. Donohue and John L. Esposito, eds., pp. 279–287. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
2. Ghannouchi, Rachid. “Participation in Non-Islamic Governments.” In Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook, edited by Charles Kurzman, pp. 89–95. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
3. Huwaydī, Fahmī. Muwāṭinūn la Dhimīyūn (Citizens, Not Protected People). Beirut: Dar al-Shuruq, 1985.
4. Rahman, Fazlur. Islam. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
5. Ramadan, Tariq. Western Muslims and the Future of Islam. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
6. Talbi, Mohamed. “Religious Liberty.” In Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook, edited by Charles Kurzman, pp. 161–168. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.