Monday, 31 May 2010

The American vulture openly declares Bangladesh as its prey

Hizb-ut-Tahrir calls upon the Muslims to remove the current leaders and re-establish the Khilafah before the Americans complete their occupation of the country

The American Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently published a report detailing the U.S. designs for Bangladesh. The title of report (dated April 01, 2010 and authored by specialist in Asian Affairs, Bruce Vaughn) is, ‘Bangladesh: Political and Strategic Developments and U.S. Interests.' Besides mentioning American economic interests in the area of trade and energy sectors and the oft-repeated empty slogans of ‘strengthening democracy' and ‘promoting development' etc, the report highlights the key American policy objectives in Bangladesh as:

1. Using the country as a base for countering ‘terrorism' and ‘extremist Islamists';
2. Expanding military-to-military ties especially between US Pacific Command and Bangladesh Military; and
3. Making use of Bangladesh's strategic location to achieve U.S. interests within the context of ‘shifting regional balance of power between India and China'.

This report is clear evidence, amongst many others, that Hizb-ut-Tahrir's warnings to the people about America's plans against the country is not a conspiracy theory. Rather the American vulture is openly declaring Bangladesh and the Muslims as her prey. It does not concern us that they are making plans against China, which in any case is not as malicious as their plans against the Muslims. They will not occupy China or commit mass murders against its people.

But the imperialist plan against the Muslims includes occupying and killing in order to prevent the rise of Islam as a political ideology and the return of the Khilafah. The recently retired UK armed forces chief and advisor to the new Prime Minister, General Richard Dannatt confessed to this in an interview to the BBC Radio 4. The General stated the objective behind the war in Afghanistan; he said "there is an Islamist agenda which if we don't oppose it and face it off in Southern Afghanistan, or Afghanistan, or in South Asia, then frankly that influence will grow. It could well grow, and this is an important point, we could see it moving from South Asia to the Middle East to North Africa, and to the high water mark of the Islamic caliphate in the 14th, 15th century."

Crusader America and the imperialists are working to prevent this region encompassing Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Central Asia from becoming a starting point for the re-emergence of the Khilafah. This is the meaning of countering the so-called terrorism and extremism and the reason behind the military-to-military ties and their military's presence in this region. And they are using their slavish agents, Karzai, Zardari-Gilani, and Hasina-Khaleda to implement their plans. These traitors are facilitating the American occupation of this region on the one hand and at the same time harassing and imprisoning the members and activists of Hizb-ut-Tahrir for exposing the plans of their American masters.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir in Bangladesh calls upon the Muslims to join with the party in a unified struggle to resist the American plans. The party also calls upon the Muslims to detach themselves from the current agent leaders, Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia. The party calls upon the Muslim Army of Bangladesh to refuse the orders of the government to cooperate with the military of the American enemy. Furthermore the party calls upon them to remove this government and re-establish the Khilafah before the Americans complete their occupation of the country. (Ends/)

Home                  Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

Sunday, 30 May 2010

The Myanmar Elections

NB: Please do not trust this article fully, as there are many wrong ideas and concepts. This article is just an information for further Islamic & Academic research! Says; The Theoretician of Sri Lanka ( Islamic) Think Tank – UK & The SCHOOL of Political & Economic Thoughts-Sri Lanka

Myanmar will shortly hold its first elections in twenty years. Given the restrictive provisions of the 2010 Political Parties Registration Law that bar anyone serving a prison term from membership in a political party, many imprisoned dissidents will be excluded from the process, unless they are released in the near future. Aung San Suu Kyi – whose suspended sentence and house arrest possibly exclude her also – has condemned the legislation, and her National League for Democracy (NLD) has decided not to participate and has, therefore, lost its status as a legally-registered party. There has rightly been much international criticism of the new constitution and of the fact that the elections will not be inclusive, but the political and generational shift that they will bring about may represent the best opportunity in a generation to influence the future direction of the country.

The balloting will take place in the framework of the new constitution, adopted under highly questionable circumstances in 2008. That document, which will come into force following the elections, will entrench the military’s power. It gives the institution significant autonomy, as well as considerable political influence, by reserving a quarter of the seats in national and regional legislatures for it and creating a powerful new national defence and security council controlled by the commander-in-chief, who also receives control of key security ministries and other extraordinary powers.

It seems very likely that the vote will go ahead without any moves by the regime to address concerns. At the same time, the problematic nature of the process should not lead observers to underestimate its significance. The elections and the constitution they will bring into force will define the political landscape for years to come and will influence what opportunities there are to push for long-overdue social, economic and political reforms in Myanmar. An understanding of the political dynamics they will create is, therefore, vital.

It is clear that the top leaders, Generals Than Shwe and Maung Aye, will step aside after the elections, making way for a younger generation of military officers. Although the old guard may continue to wield significant influence behind the scenes, the reins of power will be in new hands, and the new political structures make it unlikely that any single individual will be able to dominate decision-making in the way that Than Shwe has in recent years. Myanmar has been under military rule for half a century. The attempts by the regime to introduce a more civilian and plural character to governance, however tentative and flawed they may be, should be critiqued but not dismissed.

These were the messages of Crisis Group’s August 2009 report, Myanmar: Towards the Elections, and they continue to be valid. This briefing updates recent developments, including an analysis of the electoral legislation issued in March. It provides a timeline for the implementation of the new constitutional structures after election day, including the formation and initial functioning of the new legislatures. It also examines the critical question of the impact on the ethnic conflict and concludes that renewed fighting in areas where ceasefires currently hold should be of concern but remains on balance unlikely. A brief assessment of the recent mass sell-off of public assets, which was driven in part by the uncertainty of post-election rent-seeking opportunities, suggests that this could have greater impact on the political economy than the elections themselves, by providing significant off-budget resources that will help the army take advantage of the considerable autonomy and political influence written into the constitution for it.

The electoral legislation is in most respects almost identical to the laws governing the 1990 poll, including provisions that led to a broadly fair count. The most significant departures are highly restrictive provisions in the Political Parties Registration Law. This suggests strongly that, as in 1990, the elections will be characterised by a campaigning period that is highly controlled and far from free, but that the voting on election day may well be relatively fair. Such a scenario presents important challenges, as well as opportunities, to domestic stakeholders and to the international community. (Ends/), Read full report here.

Home                    Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

Lebanon’s Politics: The Sunni Community and Hariri’s Future Current

NB: Please do not trust this article fully, as there are many wrong ideas and concepts. This article is just an information for further Islamic & Academic research! Says; The Theoretician of Sri Lanka ( Islamic) Think Tank – UK & The SCHOOL of Political & Economic Thoughts-Sri Lanka

The June 2009 swearing in as prime minister of Saad Hariri, leader of the Sunni Future Current movement, marks a turning point, the end of a period of exceptional domestic political turbulence and regional tensions that began with the 2005 murder of his father, Rafic; led to institutional paralysis; and culminated with the violent May 2008 showdown between government and opposition. It also presents the new leader with a host of novel challenges. The man who took the helm of a once deeply divided Sunni community must discard much of what enabled his rise, if he is to succeed now that he is in power. With Hizbollah, the principal Shiite movement, he must move away from the sectarianism that has become Lebanon’s political stock-and-trade. The Future Current should initiate the process of becoming a more genuine, institutionalised party, breaking from the clientelism that will otherwise inhibit the prime minister’s transition from community leader to statesman. And Hariri must continue to navigate the difficult normalisation with Syria, overcoming deep mistrust among his constituency toward Damascus.

Upon his father’s assassination, Saad inherited an almost impossible task. Rafic Hariri was larger than life: at once successful businessman, diplomat, politician and statesman. As Lebanon awoke from years of a bloody civil war, he strove to be the nation’s saviour. He was not without his critics or his failings. Many chastised his propensity to mingle private dealings and public affairs. But few challenged his leadership qualities or his ability to rise – for the most part – above confessional politics and to juggle contradictory international relations.

In death as in life, Rafic was an outsized character whose influence extended far beyond Lebanon’s borders. Syria, widely viewed as responsible for the murder, faced intense international pressure. Unprecedented demonstrations forced the withdrawal of its troops after an almost 30-year presence. His death stirred deep, lingering Sunni resentments and anxieties: anger at Syria’s heavy-handed domination and unease stemming from a sense of vulnerability. The result was a massive, overwhelming instinct of communal solidarity among Sunnis, who rallied around Rafic’s son and dramatically shifted national, regional and international alliances. The community joined forces with its historical foes, anti-Syrian Christian parties. It turned against a traditional ally, Damascus, now seeing its struggle with Syria as a conflict between two incompatible visions for the country. And, for the first time in its history, it turned toward the West, partners in a perceived life-or-death battle against Syria, Hizbollah and Iran.

Of all, the most striking transformation in Sunni attitudes since 2005 has been the exacerbation of sectarian feelings and hostility toward Shiites, nurtured by deepened regional sectarian divisions following the fall of the Iraqi regime. Tensions existed in the past, but for the most part they had remained dormant or, if expressed, quickly contained. There were several turning points: Hariri’s assassination; subsequent expressions of pro-Syrian sentiment by Hizbollah and Amal; the 2006 war with Israel, which many Sunnis blamed on Hizbollah and which highlighted the Shiite movement’s troublesome military might; and, finally, Hizbollah’s swift May 2008 takeover of the capital, which Sunnis suffered as a humiliating defeat.

The net effect was to solidify the Future Current’s hegemony over the Sunni community and Hariri’s control over the Future Current. Stunned by Hizbollah’s decision to turn its weapons inwards, Sunnis rallied as one behind the movement. Dissent was tantamount to betrayal. In June 2009, the Future Current – buoyed by a large Sunni turnout – triumphed in the parliamentary elections. The vote, a reflection of a powerful communal solidarity, signalled Hariri’s emergence as the virtually unchallenged Sunni leader.

But the Future Current’s clear victory also contributed to important domestic and regional changes. Syrian acceptance of the results and Hariri's selection as prime minister removed important impediments to a Saudi-Syrian rapprochement, which had begun earlier that year. Riyadh encouraged normalisation of ties between Syria and Lebanon, notably by pressing Saad Hariri to visit Damascus – a trip brimming with emotional and political significance. Once selected as prime minister, Saad reached out to the opposition, which responded in kind. He now leads a national unity government whose ability to function will depend on consensus.

Ruling successfully will require that he takes this evolution a step further. More will be needed to reverse sectarianism and deepen the process of Syrian-Lebanese normalisation. Hariri will have to relinquish his de facto position as Sunni leader and devolve that role to a more institutionalised Future Current – in effect turning it into a party with clear and accountable decision-making mechanisms, an identifiable political platform and professional cadres – as well as to reformed and strengthened religious bodies better able to manage the community and prevent a radical drift. In the same vein, he gradually will need to break with the type of community-based, patron-client style of politics that, over the past five years, the Future Current has more fully embraced.

Competition from Sunni rivals and loss of hegemonic control almost certainly will be one consequence, but – assuming a lessening of confessional tensions – it also is an inevitable one. If the goal is to stabilise Lebanon, promote its welfare and avoid any sectarian backsliding, it is a price Saad Hariri will have to pay. It also would be the best way for him to honour the most promising elements of his father’s legacy. (Ends/) Read full report here. Beirut/Brussels, 26 May 2010

Home                 Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

Cameroon: Fragile State?

NB:Please do not trust this article fully, as there are many wrong ideas and concepts. This article is just an information for further Islamic & Academic research! Says; The Theoretician of Sri Lanka ( Islamic) Think Tank – UK & The SCHOOL of Political & Economic Thoughts-Sri Lanka

Cameroon’s apparent stability in a turbulent region cannot be taken for granted. The co-option of elites through the distribution of state largesse, and the emigration of many educated young people provide a certain safety valve for tensions, but the failure of reform and continued poor governance mean people no longer believe in the rule of law or peaceful political change. Multiple risks of conflict exist in the build-up to presidential elections in 2011 and beyond. This background report, Crisis Group’s first on Cameroon, analyses the historical roots of the current impasse.

Cameroon’s history shows a pattern of apparent stability followed by violent crisis. For long periods (early 1950s, 1970s), problems have been masked but not dealt with. In the late 1950s, widespread unrest occurred as the main party opposed to French rule was banned, leading to a bloody and protracted guerrilla war. Independence came in 1960, but in the context of extensive violence. In 1961, though the southern region of British-controlled Anglophone Cameroon voted to re-join Francophone Cameroon, the north voted to remain with Nigeria.

The late 1960s and the 1970s was a period of relative peace. The regime was obsessed with unity and stability following the traumas of the 1950s, but, having fought against the only genuine liberation movement, lacked historical legitimacy. It was autocratic, and pluralism and diversity were considered unacceptable threats to the nation-building project. Nevertheless, the economy grew, and some genuine development took place.

The resignation of President Ahidjo in November 1982 and the hand-over of power to his prime minister, Paul Biya, initially passed off smoothly. But tensions soon emerged, culminating in a coup attempt in April 1984, blamed on Ahidjo loyalists. It was violently put down, no process of reconciliation followed, and the trauma of this period is still a source of bitterness for many from the north, Ahidjo’s home area. Equally, some from the south, including in the security forces, fear communal reprisals stemming from the unfinished business of 1984.

In the early 1990s, opposition parties emerged, and multi-party elections were held. For two and a half years, the regime was seriously threatened at the ballot box and in the street, and frustrations led to widespread violence in 1991. But having pulled through, President Biya and his ruling party started to push back on reforms and restore authoritarian rule behind a façade of democratic practice.

Today, the nation-building project has become frayed, as the economy has stagnated, and unemployment and inequality have risen. The economy is weighed down by corruption and inertia, and the population sees very little from what economic growth there has been, mainly through exploitation of natural resources. While potential organising forces are weak and dissipated, popular anger is high.

The regime retains its old conservative reflexes, but the experiences and expectations of a youthful population have moved on. The political opposition is weakened by internal fractures and an erosion of democratic space, leaving few channels to express legitimate discontent. The explosion of anger in February 2008, stimulated by Biya’s decision to alter the constitution to seek a further term in office, showed the dangers of this situation.

Cameroon has many features of other countries which have fallen into conflict, including highly centralised and personalised leadership, political manipulation of ethnic tensions and very widespread corruption. Even if it overcomes its near-term challenges, the possibility of longer-term deterioration leading to more open conflict cannot be excluded. In Côte d’Ivoire a protracted struggle for succession of a long-serving president laid the ground for a civil war. With President Biya now 77, and in the absence of any clear signals over his intentions, the question of presidential succession also looms large.

Events in Guinea in December 2008, when weak rule of law and manipulation of the constitution were seized on by junior officers with disastrous consequences, should be sobering for anyone concerned about Cameroon. Respect for the constitution and for rule of law more generally is low. The end of Paul Biya’s presidency, only the second the country has known, is likely to be fraught with risk. But it could also be an opportunity to initiate the reforms needed to ensure the country’s longer-term stability.

The international community has frequently provided the Cameroonian regime with decisive help. Though this help has come with pressure for reform, very little has been forthcoming. The danger is that the regime now sees any opening as a fundamental threat to its survival and is likely to harden its stance as the presidential election approaches.

Most donors and other international partners are very reluctant to criticise the regime and seemingly willing to go along with its cat and mouse game of fake political and economic reform. But an unstable Cameroon, or just more years of bad governance, would threaten a fragile region. The problems are of legitimate wider concern and present a classic case of possible early conflict prevention. But strong international and domestic vested interests have to be challenged to enact the changes needed to avoid instability. Donors should use their leverage, both financial and diplomatic, to send far stronger messages to the Cameroon government. (Ends/) Read full report here Dakar/Nairobi/Brussels, 25 May 2010/

Home                     Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

Tuesday, 25 May 2010

Celebration of Apartheid

This month marks the 62nd anniversary of one of the most egregious and horrendous acts ever carried out against the Muslim Ummah. It marks the continued pain, suffering, persecution and occupation of our sacred Muslim land and the pillaging of its resources.

This is a month in which Israel celebrates the slaughter of thousands and driving millions of Muslims to the surrounding and other countries. It is a month in which Israel celebrates apartheid and racism and the theft of our sacred land, Al-Quds, in creating the illegitimate state of Israel.

On 14th May 1948, the Zionist state of Israel was created by the alliance of Western powers, principally Britain, France and the United States with the treacherous Muslim rulers. The primary representatives of the so- called ‘Palestinian cause’ were King Abdullah of Transjordan, King Farook of Egypt and the Mufti of Palestine who were under the spell of the British. In particular, Abdullah’s portrayal of himself as a defender of the Palestinian cause was a facade. It is no secret that his father Sharief Hussein collaborated with the British against the Ottoman Caliphate. Moreover, his brother Faisal had sought relations with leading Zionists such as Chaim Weizman as far back as 1919 when they signed the Faisal-Weizman Agreement.

Britain’s deep rooted role in the creation of Israel goes as far back as WWI when she adopted Zionism as a tool to gain control over the Muslim world. In 1919 Lord Balfour, the father of the Balfour Declaration justified the usurpation of Muslim land when he stated,

"Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder importance then the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 [Palestinian] Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land."

Winston Churchill, the former Prime Minister of Britain laid down the policy by which the formation of the state will occur when he stated, “the local [Palestinian] population will be cleared out to suit [Zionist] convenience.”

The scene of ‘Al-Nakba’ is all too vivid in the eyes of the Ummah when overnight 800,000 Muslims were thrown out from their homes and left to scrap a living during the horror of the Zionist incursions. Sixty two since, over 5 million refugees still suffer at the hands of Israel and its former Prime Minister Golda Meir had the arrogance to state, “we came and threw them out and took their country away from them, they did not exist.”

Decades of massacres and ethnic cleansing the likes of Dair Yasin, Tantura, Khan Yunis, Qana, Jenin, Sabra, Shatila and the recent masacre in Gaza (just to name a few) has not yet quelled the blood-lust of Israel as it continues to occupy Muslim land with the willful killings of civilians – children, women and the elderly.

The reality of Israel is that it is an apartheid nation much like apartheid South Africa. It has institutionalized racism which manifests itself in the national flag, the national anthem, the ID Cards, the Law of Return (1950), the Law of Absentee Property (1950), the Law of the State’s Property (1951), the Law of Citizenship (1952), the Status Law (1952), the Israel Lands Administration Law (1960), the Construction and Building Law (1965) and the Nationality Law (2006) that bans marriage between Israelis and Palestinians of the occupied territories. Moreover, Israel’s Supreme Court legitimizes the assassination of Palestinian activists, the demolition of Palestinian homes and the use of Palestinians as human shields. Below are a few quotes that will further clarify the reality of the Zionist state for the reader:

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion stated, “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and cutting off all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”

Rabbi David Batzri stated, “The nation of Israel is pure and the Arabs are a nation of donkeys. They are an evil disaster, an evil devil, and a nasty affliction. The Arabs are donkeys and beasts. They want to take our girls. They are endowed with true filthiness. There is pure and there is impure and they are impure.”

The Neturei Karta, an anti-Zionist devoutly religious Haredi Jewish organization declared, “The collaboration of Zionism with Nazism is an indelible stain. The perpetration of war crimes against the Palestinian people is an everlasting blot. But one can share with truly religious Jews the conviction that the fraud of Zionism will pass and the Jewish people will live.”

Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor and ex-chairman of Israeli League for Civil and Human Rights pointed out that, "What brought the Holocaust was the racist attitude toward Jews, the division of German society into Jews and non-Jews on grounds of race. This is exactly the same thing that is happening in Israel. You can define Israeli society as a society in which there are no Israelis, but only Jews and non-Jews. You have separate tables for dying Jewish infants and dying non-Jewish infants and so on. This is Nazification of Jewish society and this can well bring the calamity it brought in Europe, only this time a calamity to Arabs."

Over these past 62 years Israel has disregarded and violated numerous Security Council Resolutions, Human Rights Resolutions and the Geneva Convention with the tacit approval of the West. Indeed, violations of the Geneva Convention are considered war crimes and as such the activities of the Israeli army and Israeli settlers living illegally in occupied Palestine constitute war crimes. Moreover, the U.N. Human Rights Commission stated in 2000 (after Ariel Sharon visited Masjid Al-Aqsa) that Israel is guilty of “crimes against humanity.”

Ironically, the concept of ‘crimes against humanity’ dates back to the 1945 Nuremberg Charter which was stipulated for the Nazi war crimes tribunal against the Jewish people, which was drafted by the United States who now supports the Israeli government against its crimes against humanity.

In 1944 the State Department described the Middle East as “a stupendous source of strategic power and the greatest material prize in world history.” Control over the Middle East and its vital natural resources is essential in maintaining American supremacy and hence Israel serves as a critical player in its foreign policy. American oil companies such as Amoco, Chevron, Exxon and Texaco have substantial investments within the region and undoubtedly the administration will take any measures necessary should their interests ever be threatened. Every U.S. president has pledged their continuous support of Israel since its creation and has rewarded its torture, aggression and neo-apartheid policies with billions of dollars in aid packages and weapons infrastructure.

The tyrant Muslim rulers in the Middle East have colluded with Israel and the West to maintain the Zionist entity irrespective of its atrocities against the Ummah and Masjid Al-Aqsa. These treacherous regimes are all to happy to sign treaties with Israel and supply oil to power the tanks, helicopters and planes that continue to bomb Gaza to execute the “shoah” or holocaust threatened by Israeli deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna’i. Their insincere and pathetic declarations in the Arab Summit and OIC against Israeli aggressions are a testament to their deep-seated duplicity against the Muslim Ummah and their loyalty to their American and British masters.

The latest wave of ‘Peace Negotiations’ brokered by the United States comes at a time when 1.5 million Muslims in Gaza have suffered under the collective punishment rendered by the Israeli state's continued blockade of basic necessities of food, water, medicine and fuel supplies from reaching the entire population. Over the decades long conflict these so called ‘peace’ agreements have only led to the recognition of Israel as a legitimate entity and have legalized its expropriation of Muslim land.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not an Arab issue nor is it a Palestinian issue and nor is it a Gaza or West Bank issue for it is a Muslim issue. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “You see the believers as regards their being merciful among themselves and showing love among themselves and being kind, resembling one body, so that, if any part of the body is not well then the whole body shares the sleeplessness and fever with it.”

And the only solution to this conflict is the return of the Muslim lands to the Muslims under a singular Islamic Caliphate (Khilafah). The Messenger of Allah (saw) said,

“This matter (Khilafah) will continue after me in Al-Madina, then (move to) Al-Shaam, then to the peninsula, then to Iraq, then to the city (Constantinople), then to Bait-ul-Maqdis (Jerusalem). So if it reaches Bait-ul-Maqdis, then it would have reached its (natural resting place); and no people who remove it (i.e. the capital of the Khilafah) from their land will ever get it back again (for them to be the capital again).” (Ibn ‘Asaakir) (Ends/)

Home                  Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

Tuesday, 4 May 2010

‘Declaration to the People of Power’ in Pakistan


Today Pakistan is faced by unprecedented dangers, as a result of the collaboration of the agent oppressor rulers with their American masters. American intelligence and private military organizations are conducting a campaign of bombings and assassinations throughout the country, whilst through “strategic dialogue” with America, the agent rulers are supervising a war of Fitnah in the tribal areas, where Muslims face Muslims on the battlefield, so that America may maintain its failing occupation in Afghanistan. After Jamia-e-Hafsa, Swat and South Waziristan operations, government is conducting military operations in Orakzai Agency. Moreover, it has also been announced that the army will soon conduct operations in North Waziristan as well, a matter which America has been applying pressure on Pakistan for quite some time. On the other hand, the masses have been ensnared in a fake electricity crisis, so that they do not resist either America’s war of terror or Blackwater and DynCorp, who are busy bombing civilians to produce chaos. And to further push Pakistan into America’s clutches, these rulers have ruined Pakistan’s economy and thrown the masses into a quagmire of poverty, unemployment, hunger, inflation and electricity shortages.

During Musharraf’s rule there were certain quarters who vociferously claimed that had there been a democratic government, it would have resisted American onslaught with vigor and zeal. But the last two years of this democratic government have proven that in both democracy and dictatorship, the colonialist enslaves the people by legislating laws to serve its own interests. The imperialists legalize their criminal acts by using an individual in a dictatorship and a select group in democracy. Even today, in a democratic government, American bases are still present in Pakistan; we are still providing NATO tanks fuel at half of its price, even though Pakistan is facing a fuel crisis; drones takeoff from our territory and kill our own people and it is the government itself which provides security to the Blackwater and DynCorp officials to conduct bomb blasts in Pakistan. Indeed democracy and dictatorship are two sides of the same coin which the imperialist use, one after the other.

People are fed up with the system and its custodians. They have realized that this system is nothing but a game of musical chairs for a select, corrupt, treacherous elite. They are anxiously waiting for this system to be uprooted. The people are clear that this secular capitalist system, which is breathing its last breath in America and Europe, cannot provide prosperity for the Muslim world. The Ummah has become conscious of the fact that the day Islam was separated from state and society through the destruction of the KHILAFAH Muslims were divided, with devastation and destruction becoming their destiny. The lack of a single, unifying leadership, imperialist control of our affairs, implementation of a kufr system and lack of implementation of Islam are the root causes of all the problems of the Muslim Ummah. And indeed the establishment of the KHILAFAH ala Minhaj an-Nabova provides solutions to all the problems of the Muslims all over the world.

O Muslims! Enough is enough! There remains no excuse for the apologists. Whoever ignores the treachery of these rulers also shares the burden of their crime. RasulAllah صلى الله عليه و سلم said,

إنَّ النَّاسَ إَذا رَأوُا الظَّالِمَ فَلمْ يَأْخُذُوا عَلى يَدَيْهِ أوْشَكَ أن يَعُمَّهُمُ اللَّهُ بعِقَاب

“If the people witness an oppressor and they do not seize him by his hands (to prevent him) then it is near that Allah will cover them all with punishment.” [Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, ibn Majah]

Hence we would like to forewarn all those who provide help to these rulers that they should not ruin their Hereafter by obeying them. We would like to remind the People of Power, the example of Iraq, from which they should learn valuable lessons. When the People of Power of Iraq remained silent regarding the oppressive rule of Sadam Hussain and even provided help instead of seizing his hand, to prevent him. And when America invaded Iraq, these People of Power again remained silent and today the people of Iraq are bearing the consequences, whilst Baghdad has been turned into ruins. And now America is looking towards Pakistan and she is keeping the people as well as the People of Power busy in various issues, so that the launch of the revival of Muslims may not start from this region.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is the party which is working for the revival of the Muslim Ummah in more than forty countries through establishing the Khilafah. And she observes that the Muslim Ummah is now ready to live under the Khilafah. The time has come for the People of Power to move and rescue 180 million Muslims of Pakistan from this dire situation and make Pakistan the strong starting point for the unification of the entire Ummah. InshaAllah, on Sunday, 9th May 2010, Hizb ut-Tahrir Wilayah Pakistan will issue a bold declaration to the People of Power in Pakistan at the Islamabad Press Club, before the media which will have solution to Pakistan’s problems. In this regard Hizb ut-Tahrir has started a month long campaign in major cities including Karachi, Lahore, Multan, Islamabad and Peshawar. During this campaign hundreds of thousands of flyers will be distributed, thousands of posters and hundreds of banners will be hoisted. Various means such as mass SMS, Email, Facebook and websites will be employed to make people aware of this activity. Furthermore, speeches will be delivered outside mosques and people from political, social and media circles will be contacted to highlight the importance of this Declaration.

We call upon the Ummah to support Hizb ut-Tahrir to make this declaration as effective as possible. You should contact the important people from the media and urge them to provide proper coverage to this declaration. In this regard you should call, SMS, email and write letters to the media so that they should cover this event properly. Furthermore, you should contact the People of Power so that they should not only watch the declaration but also act upon it. We also call upon the media that it should fulfill its responsibility to convey this declaration to the People of Power in the best possible manner.  (Ends/)