|
|
I have three
questions for the party. The first concerns the United Nations. I
think Muslims, Muslim governments, and even the Islamic state,
whenever it returns should be involved with this institution as far
as it concerns the spreading of Islam and also of working with other
nations in treaties, alliances, or making peace. But I do not think
Muslims should allow this institution to control their destinies too
much. It seems to me that according to many Quranic verses Muslims
should not trust in non-Muslims to the point of giving them too much
authority over Muslims. The institution seems to have failed Muslims
in the past such as in Bosnia or Jenin, and all of its biggest
missions seem to come when making inroads into Muslim countries. I
don't think Muslims should ever support an attack on other Muslims
backed by the UN or not and this is a policy the Islamic state
should follow. The consequences of this seem to be that there are
now U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia! I wanted to know the opinion of the
Party on this.
I also wanted to
know if the government of Iran was a stooge government like the
others in the Middle East. The last question regards the war
policies of the Khilafah. There are some who say the state can only
fight wars if it is attacked, others say the Khilafah has a right to
fight wars if there is a land in which the government doesn't at
least allow Islam to be heard by the people of that state, and they
base it on examples of the history of the Prophet (SAW). They also
say the defense only idea came much later in Islam. I wanted to know
what is the truth of this?
According to David
Ben Gurion the UN is a Jewish ideal. It certainly isn't a fair
representation of the nations of the world; its structure is
carefully weighted in favour of existing powers structures. Very
often its Security Council acts opposite to the will of its General
Assembly. An unjust war does not, therefore, become just, simply
because the nations represented on the Security Council have been
convinced, bullied or bribed into giving a fig leave of credibility
to an act of aggression which is in itself violating the Charter of
the United Nations. The United Nations cannot authorise the use of
force by any member state other than in clear self-defense of that
state. At the present time, international institutions, like the UN
are simply being used as required by the dominant states who will
impose their will with or without them. Unfortunately, most
governments of Muslim nations also take part in this horse-trading
where they try to secure their safety or some financial benefit at
the expense of other nations.
None of the existing
Muslim states, organised along the lines of nation states in
contradiction to the Islamic prohibition of nationalism, can be
regarded as an example of what is often referred to as the
"Islamic State" (in itself an unfortunate term, because of
the confusion it causes between Islamic models of governance and
Western state philosophy). Islam permits military action as a last
resort in defence both of people's land and property and their
freedom of practising their faith. Today's Muslim states, on the
other hand, will take their decisions very much based on the basis
of international law as developed and controlled by their former
colonial overlords.
|
|