American Independence Day: A Cause for Celebration or Mourning?

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" - Dr. Samuel Johnson

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 was composed by a committee consisting of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston and Roger Sherman. Thomas Jefferson did most of the writing, with input from the committee. This was followed by the formation of the US constitution in 1789 and the first 10 amendments to it, collectively known as the “Bill of Rights”, passed in 1791. All these sets of documents have contributed significantly towards shaping the political history of the US. The core principles embedded in those documents form the basis of US-democracy; hence, the political institutions (Congress, Supreme Court and the President) should be functioning in accordance with those principles.

No matter how well intended and clearly worded the principles laid down are, what really matters is how those principle have been interpreted and applied. Just as the best judge is the deeds of an individual rather than the words uttered. Therefore, let us examine how the Declaration of Independence was applied by the founding fathers and the successive generations. Thomas Jefferson wrote the famous words in the declaration of independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Palestine: Two-State solution of Hamas or wait for the Caliphate

Hamas, the elected government of Palestine recently stated that it is prepared to accept the two-state solution[1], according to the UN resolution, which demands total withdrawal of Israeli troops to the 1967 borders, and the implementation of resolution 194, meaning repatriation of the Palestinian refugees. East Jerusalem with the holy cites of Masjid Al-Aqsa would be under the control of Hamas. The other major party, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), also concurs on this viewpoint; thus, a two-state solution seems to be representative of the vast majority of Palestinians living in the occupied territories.

The US Foreign Policy: Disarm the Muslim World and Arm the Israelis

By disarming the Muslim countries one by one, the neo-conservative US policy serves the Israeli objective of ‘securing’ its expanding borders, which at present is confined to building settlements (land theft) in the occupied territories. When this episode is forgotten, Israel will try to occupy another piece of land using the pretext of security, no doubt the world will be told, Israel was compelled to act in self-defence; thus, creeping towards its ultimate dream of creating Eretz (greater) Israel that runs from the Nile, to the Euphrates. The latest attempts to intimidate nuclear-free Iran by nuclear Israel, reflects that long term Israeli ambition.

Twelve Reasons for the International Community to Bomb Israel

“Maybe because we all grew used to seeing the Israelis kill Arabs, maybe the Israelis grew used to killing Arabs. Now they kill Turks”

– (Robert Fisk)

1. Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction; Iran or any of the other peaceful countries in the region does not have any nuclear weapons, except Israel.
   
   
2. Israel refuses to become a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and denies international inspection of its nuclear weapons; the recent declassified documents shows Israel offered nuclear weapons to the old apartheid regime of South Africa. One can see Israel’s natural affinity towards another racist regime; it is a clear threat to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
3. Iran has not attacked any of its neighbours, whereas Israel has constantly attacked its neighbour, and repeatedly in some cases, killing thousands of innocent civilians. It has now sent two of its submarine equipped with nuclear weapons to the coast of Iran. In the words of Norman Finkelstein, Israel is a lunatic state, armed with nuclear weapons, constitutes a real threat to the peace and security in the region.
   

Anti-Islamic Legislation and the Case for Participation

With the rise of the rightwing Conservative Party, there is a real danger that the Muslims in UK may face anti-Islamic legislation that specifically targets them; the trend has already been set in motion by the ban on the Burka (Niqab) in Belgium, the Minaret in Switzerland, and now France is on the verge of banning the Niqab. To halt these types of legislation, one has to engage the system somehow, particularly focus on influencing the legislative process.

Even in the absence of the danger of anti-Islamic laws becoming real here, there is a need to participate in order to ensure the following:

Ruling by Islam in the UK

If David Cameron succeeds in becoming the next Prime Minister and keeps his pre-election promise, the group Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT) faces the prospect of a ban. The group is characterised by its noble quest to re-establish the Caliphate in the Muslim world, which will be the starting point to unify the Muslim nations and remove the oppressive regimes, establish peace and justice. The leadership of HT reassured the previous regime that it has no intention of calling for the Caliphate in the UK, and resorted to considerable amount of lobbying to prevent the ban, and it seems they succeeded in persuading the MPs to renew the current legislation that permits the group the operate.

UK Election 2010: Why and How to Vote

Many prominent scholars, including the leading Saudi dissident, Professor Muhammad Al-Massari, endorse the permissibility to vote in the UK election. Although, there are differences on how we should exercise our votes, but there is broad consensus that it is primarily aimed at protecting our rights and to cater for our expanding needs as we continue to grow as a community.

The following points will elaborate on the permissibility to vote based on the premise of the anti-voting camp.