It added that the Pakistani cricketeres are barred from playing in the country on the pretest of riots. The Indian media has reported IPL sources as saying that the alleged involvement of Pakistan in the Mumabi attacks was the major reason behind the attitude meted out to them during the auction bid. The report added that the inclusion of Pakistani players might have created hatred among other players besides it could have sparked riots in Mumbai. According to reports, all the franchises already decided not to let Pakistani players play in the series adding that the nomination of the players before the bid was a mere drama, adding that the Pakistani players were termed as big security risk.
But politics was to be his true calling. With his entirely secular upbringing and thoroughly British outlook on life, it was no surprise that he soon became, in Gopal Krishna Gokhale’s words, “an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity”.
Never known to be a religious man, let alone an advocate of a theocratic state, Jinnah went on to establish Pakistan. Jinnah had envisaged that Pakistan would be a homeland for the Muslims of India. In less than seven years after his death, his successors had declared it to be an Islamic Republic.
This would have been anathema to Jinnah who admired Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the apostle of secularism in Turkey. Jinnah thought poorly of pan-Islamism, calling it an exploded bogey.
Much of this is well known. Indeed, major academic libraries throughout the world have devoted entire sections to the partition of India and to Jinnah’s role in that cataclysmic event. What continues to be debated is the rush to partition, its necessity to begin with, and its failure to restore harmony to Hindu-Muslim ties.
Seeking to answer these intractable questions, the Indian statesman Jaswant Singh has now put on the historian’s hat in his book, Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence. A former stalwart of the rightwing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Singh was at various times India’s face to the world as either its finance or external affairs minister.
In Pakistan, Singh’s book has been seen as a vindication of Jinnah’s policies and a condemnation of Nehru’s. Indeed, there is much language in the book that is critical of Nehru. He faults Nehru and other congressional leaders for lacking realism and having no foresight, purpose or will.
While Singh admires Jinnah the man, he finds much to critique in Jinnah’s politics. Jinnah’s two-nation theory comes across as “an error of profound and telling dimensions” and explains why Jinnah “got the land but failed to create a state and failed decisively in creating a nation”.
In Singh’s narrative, when it became clear to Jinnah that the major political party of the time, the Indian National Congress, was not going to accommodate the Muslim viewpoint, he began arguing for separate electoral representation for the Muslims. At some point, this demand progressed into a call for a separate state.
But Singh argues that Jinnah may have propounded his theory of nationhood simply as a negotiating ploy. Until very late in the game, he may have been thinking of Pakistan in metaphorical, not literal terms.
Singh says that a man of the world such as Jinnah could not have been oblivious to the fact that there are many states which encompass multiple nationalities. Why then did he push forward with Pakistan? And why did he accept the ‘moth-eaten’ state that Mountbatten handed him? Did he not know that partition would unleash genocide, mass migration and untold suffering on millions? And how could he allow such a state to come into being without even knowing its precise boundaries? As Singh reminds us, the Radcliffe Commission awards were not released until three days after partition.
Singh reminds us that one of three Muslims chose to stay in India and asks whether that had bothered the Quaid. He wonders whether the Quaid saw the inconsistency in using the two-nation theory to create Pakistan and then famously putting it to bed in his Aug 11, 1947 speech.
Earlier, at a press meet on Nov 14, 1946, Singh reminds us that Jinnah posed a question: once partition had separated the two warring communities, what reason would there be for the two nations to quarrel? Jinnah predicted, “The two states … will be friends and will go to each other’s rescue in case of danger and will be able to say ‘hands off’ to other nations. We shall then have a Munroe Doctrine more solid than in America … I am not fighting for Muslims, believe me, when I demand Pakistan.”
Within months of independence, war broke out in Kashmir. In doing its cover story on Jinnah, Life magazine (Jan 5, 1948) found him a distraught man who was quick to add that the war was none of his doing. Life reported that as Pakistan struggled for survival amidst religious warfare and economic chaos, Jinnah remained in “absolute seclusion”, emerging only occasionally to denounce the Hindu. The war did not end until a UN ceasefire was imposed on Jan 1, 1949, almost four months after Jinnah’s death. Two major wars and some minor ones would follow in the years to come.
Would Jinnah have regarded the unending war between Pakistan and India a repudiation of the logic of partition? We will never know.
Nehru lived long enough to tell an interviewer in 1960 that he and other Congress leaders had accepted partition because “We were tired men and we were getting on in years too. Few of us could stand the prospect of going to prison again.” He added, “None of us guessed how much the killings and the crisis in Kashmir would embitter relations.”
Both Jinnah and Nehru were long gone by the time ethnicity trumped religion in 1971. Undoubtedly, Nehru and Jinnah who agreed on just about nothing would have felt differently about the partition of Pakistan.
Singh has posed some very deep and difficult questions. While one may disagree with his answers, one has to commend him for undertaking the journey.
For revisiting history with an open mind, the BJP expelled Singh from the party. Earlier, it had forced L.K. Advani to resign from its presidency simply for visiting the Quaid’s mausoleum and saying that the Quaid was a secular man. If the BJP could be so bigoted towards its own leaders, one can only imagine how it would treat those who live as a permanent minority in India.
It was precisely that fear of Hindu dominance which had driven the Quaid to ask for partition. Was that the right decision?
While appraising the conflicting views of French scholars about Napoleon, the Dutch scholar Pieter Geyl noted that “history is an argument without end”. That comment applies a fortiori to the momentous events that shook British India in 1947.
With Mullen asking for a guarantee that PAF will not respond to Indian surgical strikes.
General Kiyani is said to have responded with showing Mullen a photograph of an IAF Mirage-2000 locked by Pakistan Air Forces’ F-16 taken on December 13th. ‘Next time, we’ll bring it down’, Mullen was told.
To make sure the message was loud and clear, Pakistan Air Force jets started patrolling the skies in hot mode and a red-alert was issued througout the country.
- Picture: The defeated Mukherjee.
With India and Pakistan standing eyeball to eyeball, it was India who blinked first, with its media and officials admitting defeat on the diplomatic front.
Times of India writes:
While the de-escalation should soothe the tense nerves of the international community, it was being feared that Islamabad, by raising the bogey of war, may have edged out India’s concerns. By feeding fears of an imminent conflict between two nuclear-armed rivals, it had ensured that the focus would shift towards conflict prevention. Indian security experts noted that Gilani made it a point to mention that “our friends are persuading India against aggression”.
While the government persisted with reminders to Islamabad about unkept promises, independent security experts sid Pakistan may have got away with almost no cost at all. “As of now, Pakistan has managed to divert attention from the Mumbai attacks to an India-Pak conflict,” said K Subrahmanyam.
It was diplomacy by fear, and Pakistan played it effectively. As it allowed passions to run high and let known terrorists join in the show of national belligerence, it was also playing victim. As part of the script, its foreign secretary, it now turns out, even summoned the Indian high commissioner in Islamabad, Satyabrata Pal, on Friday to lecture him on the need for India to bring down tensions.
The US and China had on Friday asked India – in a clear sign of Pakistan’s success – to engage in a dialogue with Pakistan. It’s becoming increasingly evident that India has so far nothing to show for all its diplomatic offensive in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks.
How could things have gone so wrong, wonders Vir Sanghvi of the Hindustan Times:
I am now coming round to the view that they’ve only gone wrong for us. They’ve gone very right for Pakistan. Islamabad has got exactly what it needs, and what it always wanted.
Consider what’s happening today. The operation in the tribal areas has stalled. The Taliban have sworn to back the Pakistan army against India. Troops have been moved to the Indian border. The incoming Obama administration is talking about appointing a special envoy for India and Pakistan.
And forget about acting against those who organised the Bombay attacks. Pakistan isn’t even willing to hand over Dawood Ibrahim or Masood Azhar. Moreover, Washington seems largely content with this state of affairs.
I don’t want to sound like a pessimist or a war-monger — especially since I have always applauded New Delhi’s moderation and restraint — but it is beginning to seem to me that Pakistan has out-manoeuvered both India and America.
M K Bhadrakumar writes at Asia Times Online:
By gently holding out the threat to the US that the Afghan operations would grievously suffer unless Washington restrained Delhi from precipitating any tensions on the India-Pakistan border, Islamabad seems to have neatly pole-vaulted over Rice to appeal straight to the Pentagon, where there is abiding camaraderie towards the Pakistani generals.
With Pakistan’s recalcitrance and Mullen’s veiled threat of reopening the Kashmir file, a sense of frustration is gripping Delhi. Pakistan has ignored India’s tough posturing. The faltering Indian security agencies, which have been in a state of appalling decline in recent years, seem to have failed to put together any hard evidence of a Pakistani involvement in the Mumbai attacks.
All indications are that Pakistan is not impressed by the Indian rhetoric. It seems to think Indian politicians are grandstanding in an election year. But, just in case Delhi may spring a surprise, Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Kiani has warned that the armed forces would give an equal response “within few minutes” if India carried out any surgical military strikes. “The armed forces are fully prepared to meet any eventuality, and the men are ready to sacrifice for their country,” he reportedly said.
Just as we predicted, an all out war seems to have been averted and Indian media and officials are admitting defeat.
China, Saudi Arabia and Iran have come out strongly in the last couple of days which saw an intense diplomatic effort by all parties to make it clear to India that they not only remain unconvinced of Delhi’s allegations, but also that any attack could have serious consequences for India and the region as a whole.
Pranab Mukherjee was made to do an embarassing u-turn on India’s previous stance previously, admitting that terrorism – a global issue and not a bilateral one – should be fought jointly.The Indian officials have also been made to back-track from their earlier claims of deploying troops along the border with Pakistan.
Times of India, December 22nd:
Even as India refused to take the military option off the table while asking Pakistan to rein in the terrorists, the Indian Army’s and IAF’s quick reaction teams (QRTs) were deployed along the borders in the Western Sector.
“Runways, hangars, main roads, ammunition stores and other sensitive places have been provided with additional cover. Sophisticated radars are installed at a few air bases and we are keeping watch on each and every cross-border activity,” said an IAF personnel.
Indian forces were on regular firing exercises at locations like Lathi Firing Range in Jaisalmer, Mahsan in Bikaner, Suratgarh and Ganganagar.
India Today, December 27th:
India has informed Pakistan that it has not engaged in any sort of troop build-up along the frontier
In response to the ‘deadline’ set by India and the threats from Sonia Gandhi and Pranab Mukherjee, Pakistan had gone on a diplomatic counter-offensive, briefing world powers and countries in the region on the deteriorating relations with India and the steps taken by it to address Indian concerns. Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir met ambassadors of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — the US, Britain , China , France and Russia . He also met ambassadors of Italy , Japan , Germany , Saudi Arabia , Iran and Turkey soon after returning from France where he had gone for annual bilateral consultations. However, his most crucial meeting was with Indian High Commissioner Satyabrata Pal at the Foreign Office when he said that India should defuse tension.
Mr Pal was accompanied by his deputy Manpreet Vohra. The Indian side was categorically told that any ‘surgical strikes’ would be considered a declaration of war. India was urged to respond to Pakistan ’s proposal for joint investigation into the Mumbai attacks.
According to sources, the Indian diplomats looked sombre when they came out of the meeting.
As things stand, the possibility of war has been averted for now in which is being seen as a massive diplomatic victory for Pakistan.
This of course does not mean that we should let our guard down. In addition to the diplomatic counter-offensive, it was Pakistan Army’s seriousness that put India on the backfoot.
Once the realization set in that any further attempts to enter Pakistan Airspace will be punished severely by the PAF, the Indians had gone to plan B, with Mullen asking for a guarantee that PAF will not respond to Indian surgical strikes.
General Kiyani is said to have responded with showing Mullen a photograph of an IAF Mirage-2000 locked by Pakistan Air Forces’ F-16 taken on December 13th. ‘Next time, we’ll bring it down’, Mullen was told.
To make sure the message was loud and clear, Pakistan Air Force jets started patrolling the skies in hot mode and a red-alert was issued througout the country.
Failing to get that guarantee, the chance of an Indian strike was reduced significantly. For them it was never about a full war. A few surgical strikes on pre-agreed locations would have been enough to relieve some of the pressure the Indian Government faces domestically. Pakistan Army on the other hand made it clear that any action from India would be taken as a declaration of war, and the response would be swift and decisive.
India faces humiliation now on the diplomatic front having failed to achieve anything from this standoff.
In its attempts to isolate Pakistan by building what it saw as a definitive case, it is India that stands alone on the diplomatic front and is left with begging the Iranians and Chinese to put pressure on Pakistan.
We can now expect an intense and sustained terrorism campaign in Pakistani cities in an attempt to destabilize the country along ethnic / sectarian lines – New Delhi’s time-tested method.
On the diplomatic front India will be lobbying hard to have the ISI (and Pakistan Army) declared as terrorist organisations.
We can also not rule out another false flag attack in the next few weeks.
Pakistan needs to stay united.
Its not over yet.
Admin’s comment: India as usual under-estimated Pakistan, by threatening Pakistani Govt. of dire consequences soon after the Mumbai operation was carried out. Pakistan luckily had a rather castrated set of people running the state of affairs at the presidency. They bowed down to Indian pressure and began pursuing the path to destruction on Indian dictation. Pretty soon however, Indian Airforce made the mistake of provoking the Pakistan Army, that was simply observing the whole drama from the pavillion. When provoked, Pakistan Army came to the rescue and thrust behind these bloody politicians and locked horns with Indian forces, which after witnessing Pakistani muscle couldn’t do much except wet their pants. This led to the final results of this whole drama causing the barking from Indian side to be silenced as their Defence Minister made a conclusive statement that has been discussed in the article above.
Pakistan Youth slapping its response to Indian Army Chief’s statement – Pakistanfirst Exclusive
By: Faisal Awan
The writer is a member of editorial team and think tank of pakistanfirst.com
With too many Bollywood characters fashioning tiers of Lok Saba it seems like Bollywood action movie theme and mind set has inculcated in the hierarchy of the Indian Army to hilarious limits as well. The precedence of such mindset was exhibited by none other than its Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor, when he claimed “Indian army is ready to battle Pakistan and China at the same time”. This statement was further bolstered by Lt-General A S Lamba that “India within 48 hours of the start of assault can enter Pakistan”. The Indian Think Tanks and Indian Army are missing the cue that thrusting a war on Pakistan and entering Pakistan is by no means a Hindi Bollywood version of Adolf Hitler taking over Austria and Czechoslovakia or a Bollywood Remix version of “The Guns of Navarone “.
Indian government and army needs to understand that their unyielding greed for bloodshed and hegemony will back fire just like it did in September 1965, when General Joyanto Nath Chaudhri confidently and boastfully told his officers that he would like to have his evening drink at Lahore Gymkhana. What history witnessed then in the next 2-3 weeks was none other than a consummate squashing of their army chief’s wishful dream.
The drunken leadership of the Indian Army is trampling the tolerance of Pakistani people and is coquetting with fire. Indian government and its army’s multifaceted exploitation of Pakistan’s desire to peace must not be considered its weakness. The warmongers are forgetting that nothing is too big to cross for the resolute, tenacious and unyielding nation which the world calls The Pakistanis. But if these buffoons are under the impression that they will enter Pakistan in 48 hours, ironically giving themselves 24 hours more than General Joyanto Nath Chaudhri, then this will be the last mistake they will be making. The fate of General Joyanto Nath Chaudhri and his yes men should not be forgotten. If we can teach a lesson in 1965, then make no mistake about it that we are now a Nuclear Power and our enemies will be hung in the streets of their own country by Pakistani Army Jawans without any concession of their ranks in Indian Army.
The Indian authorities should strive to refrain themselves from such assertions which has historically caused nothing but utter embarrassment and disgrace to its country. The Pakistan army, Pakistani youth and the Pakistani nation has the resilience and audacity to slap a response to any aggression towards ideological and geographical boundaries of its Pak Sarzameen.
The Avatar movie is just the latest installment from Hollywood to move us closer to accepting the Global Elite’s psychopathic religious beliefs.
Plato, the Greek philosopher, taught that there are 5 elements: Fire, Earth, Water, Air and Aether (Ether). The last element, Aether, can best be described as pure energy or light. It is the stuff of the eternities.
Gnosticism, the religious belief of the Knights Templar, holds that mankind is nothing more or less than Aether trapped in a physical world and held there by Satan (they called him the demi-urge). Through multiple reincarnations, they held, a man or woman could become purified and ultimately freed from the other elements.
New Age religions call those with perfect Aether content, ascendant masters. George Bush referred to them as his 1,000 points of light. They include Mohammed, Christ, Buddha etc. Gnosticism holds that all light will be returned to Logos, or God, and exist as mass consciousness free from the limitations of the physical elements. One mind as it were.
These beliefs form the foundation of the Nicene Creed. The Emperor Constantine is held up as a “Philosopher King”, but he was also a Gnostic. Catholics and Protestants both adhere to the belief that there is no physical resurrection. Their creeds teach that we ultimately abandon the elements and become one with the mind of Christ (Logos). This is contrary to the beliefs of early Christians and Biblical scriptures, which teach that Jesus was resurrected with a physical body and we will do the same.
The Knights Templar, after being cut off from the Catholic Church, replaced Christ as “Logos” with Lucifer, “The Light Bearer”. God, they felt, had rejected them, so they formed an alliance with the enemy of God.
Luciferianism is the belief that Lucifer is the highest intelligence in the eternities. He is the father of wisdom, science and philosophy. Like the Greek god Prometheus, he gave these things unto man contrary to the decrees of God. Prometheus was punished by Zeus by being chained to a rock while a bird of prey ate his liver (which would regrow daily).
Eventually, the “hero”, Hercules freed Prometheus. The Illuminati believe that they, like Hercules will also free Lucifer from his punishment for giving unto man “wisdom”, science and philosophy. To the Illuminati, the serpent who gave unto Adam and Eve the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, is a hero and not a villain.
The Knights Templar created “Free-Masonry” and “Free Masonry” created the Illuminati (formerly the Rosicrucians). The Illuminati claim to be the Saviors of mankind with their gifts of reason, science and philosophy. But, they are still Gnostics.
They are also Satanists. In Gnosticism, the “Demi-Urge” was Aether that got trapped in the elements we now refer to as earth. It is the Demi-urge’s desire that we should remained trapped with him eternally. This is the being the Illuminati worship as Satan, a separate and distinct entity from Lucifer.
This religious belief is not a new one. It has its roots in the Babylonian and Egyptian mystery religions. In Babylon, Nimrod, the mighty hunter of the people of the Lord, was the enemy of God. He waged eternal warfare with God’s followers on earth (the City of Salem under Melchizedek). He also swore to build a tower so high that it would allow him entrance into the kingdom of God, where he promised to slay God.
Melchizedek is also known as Shem, the righteous son of Noah. He reportedly slew Nimrod in battle and cut his body into pieces. He then sent those pieces to the far reaches of Nimrod’s empire to show that God was still more powerful than man.
Nimrod’s wife was Queen Semiramis. She was the mother of harlots in Babylon. Nimrod was the great oppressor of mankind. Semiramus, heavily involved in “sex majic” became pregnant with an illegitimate son after Nimrod’s death. She falsely claimed that Nimrod himself had impregnated her from beyond the grave and that the child had no earthly father. Without a doubt, she did this to save her own life and the life of her bastard son. She deified Nimrod and was herself deified, along with her son.
Interestingly enough, Nimrod founded both Babylon and Assyria. One city (Babylon) was known for its sexual abominations and the other (Ninevah) for its cold-blooded murders. Nimrod was worshipped as Baal, Bel, Molech etc. Nimrod was also worshipped as the god of the sun. Semiramis was worshiped as the goddess of the moon. She is also known as Ashteroth or Asherah (The Queen of Heaven).
The “savior” son was named Tammuz who was slain by a wild boar, but returns from the underworld each spring.
Some have tried to argue that these systems of religion form the basis for Islam and Christianity. I believe the exact opposite. True Christianity (The Islam) was practiced by Adam, Noah, Enoch and Melchizedek. The Babylonian mystery religions are a cheap Satanic counterfeit of True Christianity (The Islam).
The Avatar, master over the elements, is really Lucifer, the angel of light. Just as the Avatar has power over the 4 elements, Lucifer has power over Satan (also known as the Demi-urge). According to the Illuminati, he will ultimately free us from the physical elements so that we can merge with him as one collective consciousness.
Maitreya also claims the title of “Avatar”. He is admittedly the servant of Lucifer in as much as his movement’s founder, Benjamin Creme, is an admitted Luciferian. Just like Nimrod was a Luciferian-Satanist and his wife as well.
As we continue our discussion of the coming Globalist/Illuminati messiah, it is important to understand that Maitreya is not a new creation. In fact, Luciferianism and Satanism are both as old as time.
We have discussed how Nimrod founded Babylon (The “Great Harlot”) and Assyria (The “Great Oppressor”). I will now explain the Biblical implications of these two societies and how it applies to today.
I quote from the Book of Revelation:
“1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will
shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. (Source)”
Some would argue that this scripture refers to a physical location, but this is inconsistent with modern geography. I am convinced that it refers to a specific economic system. A system that serves Satan by ensnaring the children of men in forbidden lusts. A system that has one standard only; the gold standard. Again I quote from Revelation:
2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,
10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,
13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.
15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,
16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!
17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
And so we see that Babylon is a corrupt economic system that God detests and is determined to “burn with fire”. The concept of Babylon is that things matter more than people. It is guided by the profit motive without thought for the consequences on one’s fellow men.
On the most sinister note, the Illuminati run this system. They are the owners of the narcotics industry, tobacco industry, alcohol industry, pornography, gambling, child sex rings, prostitution and everything else that corrupts the soul of man. They own all these things and yet they are themselves slaves to the consequences of ownership.
When we choose profit over what is morally correct than we tip the scales of justice against us. For a little gold, the Illuminati sell the souls of men to their master, Satan. They are his business partners and so they are also partners in the condemnation he is under.
I quote the following from Isaiah, in the Old Testament:
1 The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.
2 Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them, shake the hand, that they may go into the gates of the nobles.
3 I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness.
4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the akingdoms of nations gathered together: the Lord of hosts mustereth the host of the battle.
5 They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the Lord, and the weapons of his indignation, to adestroy the whole land.
6 Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
7 Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man’s heart shall melt:
8 And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames.
9 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
12 I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce danger.
14 And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land.
15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
17 Behold, I will stir up the aMedes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.
18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.
19 ¶ And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
Maitreya will be a permissive messiah. He will serve the interests of his masters, the Illuminati. He will teach that there is no sin but not “sharing”. Many of our venerable institutions have already sold their souls to Babylon. In exchange for gold and silver, they turn their backs on the oppressed, the vulnerable and the ignorant. They support unjust wars whose only objective is to prosper financially from the misery of untold millions.
The fate of any society that embraces Babylon is already decreed. They will be burned by fire, just like Sodom and Gomorrah.
The lesson, don’t destroy other people’s lives just because you can make money at it.
The sinister plan of The Anti-Christ Dajjal hidden in 1 dollar bill – Click to enlarge
Research Done by: PakAlertPress
KARACHI had an inauspicious start to Twenty Ten. Shutters were firmly down on new year’s day all over town, petrol pumps were surrounded by barricades, traffic was skeletal and a general air of gloom and doom prevailed.
Concerning the happenings on Muharram 10, last Monday, rumours abound and grow with each passing day.
There is an SMS doing the rounds: “To be noted! Bomb blast at 4:30 pm at Lighthouse intersection. Shops set on fire at 4:22 pm with chemicals by gangsters for a length of 2 km till Bolton Market. City Government Fire Brigade reached after 4 hours. All shops closed but by 4 am in morning thousands of banners hanging in the city. Pattern of selective targets is evident. Who gains by removal of old buildings & markets?”
A Dawn headline yesterday: ‘Arson attacks were preplanned: Malik’. Our ‘Knowall’ has spoken. As Hercule Poirot would enquire: Qui bono?
An early news report told us that the TTP had owned up to the blast said to be triggered by a suicide bomber but a report of Jan 1 advises that a TTP individual may well have spoken but the party leadership “has nothing to do with his statement”. So that would seem to be that. The general consensus is that the blast was not caused by a seeker of a direct route to paradise. So, we must ask, ‘who dun it?’ Chances are we will never know, though our suspicions will be strong. Something may be gleaned in the coming months when the owners of the properties put to fire are approached by whomsoever.
One other notable happening on the day preceding the bomb blast was the blast delivered by our president. Asif Zardari’s speech has been thrashed almost to death by our press commentators – and deservedly so as it was as far from being a presidential address as could be. Apart from the ranting and raving against unnamed unidentifiable ‘non-state actors’ and the conspiracies hatched against Zardari and his men and women, it smacked, in a way, of a guilty conscience.
Perhaps, underneath all the bluff and bluster there is the sniff of a conscience – or could it be just worry that the NRO decision might deprive him of some of his massive wealth if the state machinery, at judicial urgings, gets into gear?
For sure, only Zardari and his former legal counsel know the truth as to whether there is any substance in the alleged corruption charges brought against Zardari and, if there be, of how much the national exchequer has been relieved. The affable Farook Naek, now rightly rewarded, shot up as Senate chairman (and acting president), definitely deserves a ‘chand’ for staving off for so many years all decisions in the multiple cases filed against his former client.
For his own good and in the larger national interest so as not to sow more disquiet than now exists all over the country, Mr Zardari should refrain from making any public statements, either as president or party co-chairman as he does no favours to the office of head of state or to his party’s moral standing. He should also be protected from appearing on the interminable talk shows which afflict our television screens and from further muddying the situation as he did on new year’s eve when he added ‘political actors’ to the list of those conspiring against him.
Anyhow and whatever, Asif Zardari is neither the cause of nor the solution to this country’s problems. If we are with or without him the problems are going nowhere – as is Zardari going nowhere. He will stick it out – contrary to the wishful thinkers he is not a runner. The time has long past since in our case salvation can only lie in our adopting the old line – off with the old and on with the new.
There can be no progress on any front for as long as the ballot box fillers (said to be a mere 30 per cent of the listed voters) persist in bringing back to sit atop of them those that have been with us since 1985 onwards with rot being added to the ranks at each dismal election that has taken place.
Take for example, Zardari’s nominated prime minister, helpless he may be but he is still capable of doing wrong and doing harm. What was the point of the galivant to Gwadar last week, just what did it prove or help? He took with him that national disgrace, the monstrous cabinet, plus all sorts of extras, and going by a report in this paper on Friday it cost us few taxpayers many a million, “the most expensive cabinet meeting in the country’s history”. And this, after having, a few days prior to the picnic, uttered on the adoption by his government of austerity measures. Austerity, my foot !
Fine, the NFC award was signed. But then we had more false promises about the prime ministerial third term ban being got rid of along with power related provisions of the 17th Amendment.
Two days later, reported in the press was that all this would happen by the end of March, which translated into real terms indicates that nothing of the sort will happen. A happy new year indeed!
Credits: Dawn (Ardeshir Cowasjee)
Pakistan can fire missiles at only 10 minutes’ notice on all Indian cities: General. Kayani
The Chief of Army Staff, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, said on Friday that peace and stability in South Asia (and beyond) was the logical and fundamental principle underlining the security paradigm of Pakistan. Addressing senior officers at the General Headquarters here, Gen Kayani said that the army was alive to the full spectrum of threat that continued to exist both in conventional and unconventional domains.
He said that Pakistan Army stood committed and prepared to respond to any existing, potential or emerging threat. An army supported by 170 million people, with faith in Allah, is a formidable force to be reckoned with. “Proponents of conventional application of military forces, in a nuclear overhang, are chartering an adventurous and dangerous path, the consequences of which could be both unintended and uncontrollable,” he said.
He said Pakistan was not oblivious to the unprecedented acquisition of sophisticated military hardware, synergised with an offensive military doctrine.
However, as a responsible nuclear state, Pakistan army would contribute to strategic stability and strategic restraint as per the stated policy of the government.
He said peace and stability in South Asia was the logical and fundamental principle underlining the security calculus of Pakistan.
The recent statement by Indian Army Chief Gen Kapoor about the two-front war strategy on which India was at present working, targeting China and Pakistan, had sent shock-waves among those aspiring for peace and stability in the region.
Commenting on Gen Kayani’s observation, a defense analyst observed that India had to be reminded from time to time that Pakistan was a nuclear power, fully capable of deterring any external aggression.
He pointed out that Pakistan could fire missiles at only 10 minutes’ notice on all Indian cities.
Pakistan is the fourth country in the world possessing cruise missiles which are considered to be capable of accurately hitting targets in India.
The maximum range of Indian missiles is 1500 kilometers while Pakistan’s Shaheen has a range of 3500 kilometers.
India has done Karachi Terror Attack in bolton market exactly as india did in Tibet china. Pakistan has all the proofs required to blame india but Pakistani officials so called democratic politician are playing cowardly role or may be they are on the payroll of india which cannot open their mouth against india. The fire which is observed in Karachi and Tibet is enhanced by Potassium chloride. The only factory in the region which produces Potassium Chloride is Vaigai Industries Karaikal india. A stunning and eye opening episode with other proofs which show the involvement of india in terrorism in Pakistan by Ahmed Qureshi.
1. The problem of natural resources being consumed and misused by others.
2. The international political and financial laws being used on the Earth are harmful, i.e. socialism, communism, capitalism, etc and are made to benefit the elite of society.
3. Pollution is becoming a serious problem as it sinks into our soil, goes into our atmosphere and leaks into our water supply.
4. Food is becoming scarce as cities become overcrowded. This has a direct impact upon the population.
5. Constant warfare is making the earth one great big battlefield. Old weapons are left about, for unsuspectingchildren or adults to stumble upon them and most likely be maimed for life.
6. Women and children are left without a home, and many homeless people are living without any hope for the future. Even those who are needy are pulled into a usury system. They are blackmailed or given false hopes through gambling to destroy them. In addition to all this, there are alarming rates of prostitution; obscenity and family ties get severed.
7. Cloning and scientific abuse is going out of control. Our food, children and way of life are being tampered with and are being changed beyond recognition.
Text taken from the book: Allah's Governance on Earth
These thoughts crystallised at Allahabad Session (December, 1930) of the All India Muslim League, when Iqbal in the Presidential Address, forwarded the idea of a Muslim State in India:
I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Provinces, Sind and Baluchistan into a single State. Self-Government within the British Empire or without the British Empire. The formation of the consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of the North-West India.
The seed sown, the idea began to evolve and take root. It soon assumed the shape of Muslim state or states in the western and eastern Muslim majority zones as is obvious from the following lines of Iqbal's letter, of June 21, 1937, to the Quaid-i Azam, only ten months before the former's death:
A separate federation of Muslim Provinces, reformed on the lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of Non-Muslims. Why should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal be considered as nations entitled to self-determination just as other nations in India and outside India are.
There are some critics of Allama Iqbal who assume that after delivering the Allahbad Address he had slept over the idea of a Muslim State. Nothing is farther from the truth. The idea remained always alive in his mind. It had naturally to mature and hence, had to take time. He was sure that the Muslims of sub-continent were going to achieve an independent homeland for themselves. On 21st March, 1932, Allama Iqbal delivered the Presidential address at Lahore at the annual session of the All-India Muslim Conference. In that address too he stressed his view regarding nationalism in India and commented on the plight of the Muslims under the circumstances prevailing in the sub-continent. Having attended the Second Round Table Conference in September, 1931 in London, he was keenly aware of the deep-seated Hindu and Sikh prejudice and unaccommodating attitude. He had observed the mind of the British Government. Hence he reiterated his apprehensions and suggested safeguards in respect of the Indian Muslims:
In so far then as the fundamentals of our policy are concerned, I have got nothing fresh to offer. Regarding these I have already expressed my views in my address to the All India Muslim League. In the present address I propose, among other things, to help you, in the first place, in arriving at a correct view of the situation as it emerged from a rather hesitating behavior of our delegation the final stages of the Round-Table Conference. In the second place, I shall try, according to my lights to show how far it is desirable to construct a fresh policy now that the Premier's announcement at the last London Conference has again necessitated a careful survey of the whole situation.
It must be kept in mind that since Maulana Muhammad Ali had died in Jan. 1931 and Quaid-i Azam had stayed behind in London, the responsibility of providing a proper lead to the Indian Muslims had fallen on him alone. He had to assume the role of a jealous guardian of his nation till Quaid-i Azam returned to the sub-continent in 1935.
The League and the Muslim Conference had become the play-thing of petty leaders, who would not resign office, even after a vote of non-confidence! And, of course, they had no organization in the provinces and no influence with the masses.
During the Third Round-Table Conference, Iqbal was invited by the London National League where he addressed an audience which included among others, foreign diplomats, members of the House of Commons, Members of the House of Lords and Muslim members of the R.T.C. delegation. In that gathering he dilated upon the situation of the Indian Muslims. He explained why he wanted the communal settlement first and then the constitutional reforms. He stressed the need for provincial autonomy because autonomy gave the Muslim majority provinces some power to safeguard their rights, cultural traditions and religion. Under the central Government the Muslims were bound to lose their cultural and religious entity at the hands of the overwhelming Hindu majority. He referred to what he had said at Allahabad in 1930 and reiterated his belief that before long people were bound to come round to his viewpoint based on cogent reason.
In his dialogue with Dr. Ambedkar Allama Iqbal expressed his desire to see Indian provinces as autonomous units under the direct control of the British Government and with no central Indian Government. He envisaged autonomous Muslim Provinces in India. Under one Indian union he feared for Muslims, who would suffer in many respects especially with regard to their existentially separate entity as Muslims.
Allama Iqbal's statement explaining the attitude of Muslim delegates to the Round-Table Conference issued in December, 1933 was a rejoinder to Jawahar Lal Nehru's statement. Nehru had said that the attitude of the Muslim delegation was based on "reactionarism." Iqbal concluded his rejoinder with:
In conclusion I must put a straight question to punadi Jawhar Lal, how is India's problem to be solved if the majority community will neither concede the minimum safeguards necessary for the protection of a minority of 80 million people, nor accept the award of a third party; but continue to talk of a kind of nationalism which works out only to its own benefit? This position can admit of only two alternatives. Either the Indian majority community will have to accept for itself the permanent position of an agent of British imperialism in the East, or the country will have to be redistributed on a basis of religious, historical and cultural affinities so as to do away with the question of electorates and the communal problem in its present form.
Allama Iqbal's apprehensions were borne out by the Hindu Congress ministries established in Hindu majority province under the Act of 1935. Muslims in those provinces were given dastardly treatment. This deplorable phenomenon added to Allama Iqbal's misgivings regarding the future of Indian Muslims in case India remained united. In his letters to the Quaid-i Azam written in 1936 and in 1937 he referred to an independent Muslim State comprising North-Western and Eastern Muslim majority zones. Now it was not only the North-Western zones alluded to in the Allahabad Address.
There are some within Pakistan and without, who insist that Allama Iqbal never meant a sovereign Muslim country outside India. Rather he desired a Muslim State within the Indian Union. A State within a State. This is absolutely wrong. What he meant was understood very vividly by his Muslim compatriots as well as the non-Muslims. Why Nehru and others had then tried to show that the idea of Muslim nationalism had no basis at all. Nehru stated:This idea of a Muslim nation is the figment of a few imaginations only, and, but for the publicity given to it by the Press few people would have heard of it. And even if many people believed in it, it would still vanish at the touch of reality.
Abul Ala Maududi
The political system of Islam is based on three principles: Tawhid (unity of Allah), Risalat (Prophethood) and Khilafat (vicegerency). It is difficult to appreciate the different aspects of Islamic polity without fully understanding these three principles. I will therefore begin with a brief exposition of what they are.
Tawhid means that only Allah is the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that exists in it, organic or inorganic. The sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has the right to command or forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else shares it in any way. Life, in all its forms, our physical organs and faculties, the apparent control which we have over nearly everything in our lives and the things themselves, none of them has been created or acquired by us in our own right. They have been bestowed on us entirely by Allah. Hence, it is not for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our authority; nor is anyone else entitled to make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah, who has created us, endowed us with mental and physical faculties, and provided material things for our use. Tawhid means that only Allah is the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that exists in it, organic or inorganic. The sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has the right to command or forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else shares it in any way. Life, in all its forms, our physical organs and faculties, the apparent control which we have over nearly everything in our lives and the things themselves, none of them has been created or acquired by us in our own right. They have been bestowed on us entirely by Allah. Hence, it is not for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our authority; nor is anyone else entitled to make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah, who has created us, endowed us with mental and physical faculties, and provided material things for our use. Tawhid means that only Allah is the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that exists in it, organic or inorganic. The sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has the right to command or forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else shares it in any way. Life, in all its forms, our physical organs and faculties, the apparent control which we have over nearly everything in our lives and the things themselves, none of them has been created or acquired by us in our own right. They have been bestowed on us entirely by Allah. Hence, it is not for us to decide the aim and purpose of our existence or to set the limits of our authority; nor is anyone else entitled to make these decisions for us. This right rests only with Allah, who has created us, endowed us with mental and physical faculties, and provided material things for our use.
This principle of the unity of Allah totally negates the concept of the legal and political independence of human beings, individually or collectively. No individual, family, class or race can set themselves above Allah. Allah alone is the Ruler and His commandments are the Law.
The medium through which we receive the law of Allah is known as Risalat. We have received two things from this source: the Book in which Allah has set out His law, and the authoritative interpretation and exemplification of the Book by the Prophet, blessings and peace be on him through word and deed, in his capacity as the representative of Allah. The Prophet, blessings and peace be on him, has also, in accordance with the intention of the Divine Book, given us a model for the Islamic way of life by himself implementing the law and providing necessary details where required. The combination of these two elements is called the Shari‘ah.
Now consider Khilafat. According to the Arabic lexicon, it means ‘representation’. Man, according to Islam, is the representative of Allah on earth, His vicegerent. That is to say, by virtue of the powers delegated to him by Allah, he is required to exercise his Allah-given authority in this world within the limits prescribed by Allah.
Take, for example, the case of an estate which someone has been appointed to administer on your behalf. You will see that four conditions are invariably met. First, the real ownership of the estate remains vested in you and not in the administrator; second, he administers your property only in accordance with your instructions; third, he exercises his authority within the limits prescribed by you; and fourth, in the administration of the trust he executes your will and not his own. These four conditions are so inherent in the concept of ‘representation’ that if any representative fails to observe them he will rightly be blamed for breaking the covenant which was implied in the concept of ‘representation’. This is exactly what Islam means when it affirms that man is the vicegerent of Allah on earth. Hence, these four conditions are also involved in the concept of Khilafat.
A state that is established in accordance with this political theory will in fact be a human caliphate under the sovereignty of Allah and will do Allah’s will by working within the limits prescribed by Him and in accordance with His instructions and injunctions.
This is a new and revised translation of a talk given by the author on Radio Pakistan, Lahore, on 20th January, 1948.
The above explanation of the term Khilafat also makes it abundantly clear that no individual or dynasty or class can be Khilafah, but that the authority of caliphate is bestowed on any community which accepts the principles of Tawhid and Risalat. In such a society, each individual shares the Allah-given caliphate. This is the point where democracy begins in Islam.
Every person in an Islamic society enjoys the rights and powers of the caliphate of Allah and in this respect all individuals are equal. No one can deprive anyone of his rights and powers. The agency for running the affairs of the state will be established in accordance with the will of these individuals, and the authority of the state will only be an extension of the powers of the individual delegated to it. Their opinion will be decisive in the formation of the Government, which will be run with their advice and in accordance with their wishes. Whoever gains their confidence will carry out the duties of the caliphate on their behalf; and when he loses this confidence he will have to relinquish his office. In this respect the political system in Islam is as perfect a democracy as ever can be.
What distinguishes Islamic democracy from Western democracy is that while the latter is based on the concept of popular sovereignty the former rests on the principle of popular Khilafat. In Western democracy the people are sovereign, in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives. In the former the people make their own laws; in the latter they have to follow and obey the laws (Shari‘ah) given by Allah through His Prophet. In one the Government undertakes to fulfil the will of the people; in the other Government and the people alike have to do the will of Allah. Western democracy is a kind of absolute authority which exercises its powers in a free and uncontrolled manner, whereas Islamic democracy is subservient to the Divine Law and exercises its authority in accordance with the injunctions of Allah and within the limits prescribed by Him.
The Holy Qur’an clearly states that the aim and purpose of this state, built on the foundation of Tawhid, Risalat and Khilafat, is the establishment, maintenance and development of those virtues which the Creator of the universe wishes human life to be enriched by, and the prevention and eradication of those evils which are abhorrent to Allah. The state in Islam is not intended for political administration only nor for the fulfilment through it of the collective will of any particular set of people. Rather, Islam places a high ideal before the state for the achievement of which it must use all the means at its disposal. The aim is to encourage the qualities of purity, beauty, goodness, virtue, success and prosperity which Allah wants to flourish in the life of His people and to suppress all kinds of exploitation and injustice. As well as placing before us this high ideal, Islam clearly states the desired virtues and the undesirable evils. The Islamic state can thus plan its welfare programmes in every age and in any environment.
The constant demand made by Islam is that the principles of morality must be observed at all costs and in all walks of life. Hence, it lays down an unalterable requirement for the state to base its politics on justice, truth and honesty. It is not prepared, under any circumstances, to tolerate fraud, falsehood and injustice for the sake of political, administrative or national expediency. Whether it be relations between the rulers and the ruled within the state, or relations of the state with other states, precedence must always be given to truth, honesty and justice. It imposes obligations on the state similar to those it imposes on the individual: to fulfil all contracts and obligations; to have consistent standards in all dealings; to remember obligations as well as rights and not to forget the rights of others when expecting them to fulfil their obligations; to use power and authority for the establishment for justice and not for the perpetration of injustice; to look on duty as a sacred obligation; and to regard power as a trust from Allah to be used in the belief that one has to render an account of one’s actions to Him in the Hereafter.
Although an Islamic state may be set up anywhere on earth, Islam does not seek to restrict human rights or privileges to the geographical limits of its own state. Islam has laid down universal fundamental rights for humanity as a whole, which are to be observed and respected in all circumstances irrespective of whether a person lives on the territory of the Islamic state or outside it and whether he is at peace with the state or at war. For example, human blood is sacred and may not be spilled without justification; it is not permissible to oppress women, children, old people, the sick or the wounded; woman’s honour and chastity must be respected in all circumstances; and the hungry must be fed, the naked clothed, and the wounded or diseased treated medically.
These, and a few other provisions, have been laid down by Islam as fundamental rights for every man by virtue of his status as a human being, to be enjoyed under the constitution of an Islamic state.
The rights of citizenship in Islam, however, are not confined to persons born within the limits of its state but are granted to every Muslim irrespective of his place of birth. A Muslim ipso facto becomes the citizen of an Islamic state as soon as he sets foot on its territory with the intention of living there; he thus enjoys equal rights of citizenship with those who are its citizens by birth. Citizenship must therefore be common to all the citizens of all the Islamic states that exist in the world; a Muslim will not need a passport for entry or exit from any of them. And every Muslim must be regarded as eligible for positions of the highest responsibility in an Islamic state without distinction of race, colour or class.
Islam has also laid down certain rights for non-Muslims who may be living within the boundaries of an Islamic state, and these rights must necessarily form part of the Islamic constitution. According to Islamic terminology such non-Muslims are called dhimmis (the covenanted), implying that the Islamic state has entered into a covenant with them and guaranteed their rights.
The life, property and honour of a dhimmi is to be respected and protected in exactly the same way as that of a Muslim citizen. There is no difference between Muslim and non-Muslim citizens in respect of civil or criminal law; and the Islamic state shall not interfere with the personal law of non-Muslims. They will have full freedom of conscience and belief and will be entitled to perform their religious rites and ceremonies. As well as being able to practise their religion, they are entitled to criticise Islam. However the rights given in this respect are not unlimited: the civil law of the country has to be fully respected and all criticism has to be made within its framework.
These rights are irrevocable and non-Muslims can only be deprived of them if they renounce the convenant which grants them citizenship. However much a non-Muslim state may oppress its Muslim citizens, it is not permissible for an Islamic state to retaliate against its non-Muslim subjects. This injunction holds good even if all the Muslims outside the boundaries of an Islamic state are massacred.
The responsibility for the administration of the Government in an Islamic state is entrusted to an Amir (leader) who may be likened to the President or the Prime Minister in a Western democratic state. All adult men and women who accept the fundamentals of the constitution are entitled to vote in the election for the leader.
The basic qualifications for the election of an Amir are that he should command the confidence of the largest number of people in respect of his knowledge and grasp of the spirit of Islam; he should possess the Islamic attribute of fear of Allah; he should be endowed with the quality of statesmanship. In short, he should be both able and virtuous.
A Shura (consultative council), elected by the people, will assist and guide the Amir. It is obligatory for the Amir to administer the country with the advice of his Shura. The Amir can retain office only so long as he enjoys the confidence of the people, and must resign when he loses this confidence. Every citizen has the right to criticise the Amir and his Government, and all responsible means for the expression of public opinion should be available.
Legislation in an Islamic state should be within the limits prescribed by the Shari‘ah. The injunctions of Allah and His Prophet are to be accepted and obeyed and no legislative body can alter or modify them or make any new laws which are contrary to their spirit. The duty of ascertaining the real intent of those commandments which are open to more than one interpretation should devolve on people possessing a specialised knowledge of the law of Shari‘ah. Hence, such matters may have to be referred to a sub-committee of the Shã r~ comprising men learned in Islamic law. Great scope would still be available for legislation on questions not covered by any specific injunctions of the Shari‘ah, and the advisory council or legislature is free to legislate in regard to these matters.
In Islam the judiciary is not placed under the control of the executive. It derives its authority directly from the Shari‘ah and is answerable to Allah. The judges will obviously be appointed by the Government but, once appointed, will have to administer justice impartially according to the law of Allah. All the organs and functionaries of the Government should come within their jurisdiction: even the highest executive authority of the Government will be liable to be called upon to appear in a court of law as a plaintiff or defendant. Rulers and ruled are subject to the same law and there can be no discrimination on the basis of position, power or privilege. Islam stands for equality and scrupulously adheres to this principle in the social, economic and political realms alike.
Read the book Allah's Governance on Earth for more in depth analysis on the topic. The link follows bellow
This page is taken from http://www.jamaat.org