In the Name of Allah. All
praise be to Allah, and may peace and blessings be
upon the Messenger of Allah, and upon his family,
companions and those who follow him. To proceed:
My Muslim brothers and sisters
everywhere: As-Salamu alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa
Barakatuh. To proceed:
I wish to send a message today to
our fellow Muslims in Egypt. In reality it is a
message to all Muslims, for what has and continues to
occur in Egypt, has and continues to repeat itself in
many other areas of our Islamic world. I have only
chosen to focus on Egypt to give practical examples
from contemporary history of tragedies which have
occurred in other places. The minute details may
differ, but the general characteristics remain the
same across the Islamic World.
I start this first message
seeking help in Allah.
I hope to discuss the current
situation of Egypt by asking two questions:
1) The first: What is the current
condition of Egypt, and similarly many other places
across the Islamic world?
2) How can we change this current
condition into one which Islam seeks for us, which is
dignity in this life and success in the next?
To answer the first question, I
say:
The current condition of Egypt is
that it has deviated from Islam, in all aspects, from
immorality and corruption, to injustice, suppression,
and subservience. Corruption can be found in creed
(beliefs), as well as politics, economics, finance,
society and morality.
As for the corruptness of creed
of the Egyptian government, I can start by
highlighting the identity of this government. The
Egyptian government, as stated in its principle
documents, is a nationalistic, secular, democratic
government. In reality, it is a nationalistic,
secular, tyrannical and maybe a hereditary government.
It being "secular" means that it
is an atheistic government. Secularism is in essence
atheism, and if you wish to be more specific, it is
non-normative, i.e. it is a creed which is unrelated
to any fixed standard of ethics, whether religion,
morality or otherwise. The Islamic Shariah in the
constitution is only one of the many sources which may
or may not be taken from. This means that the one who
decides the standards or creed, as per the
constitution and principle documents, is not Allah
Most High, our Master, as affirmed in the Quran
explicitly without any tolerance for compromise.
"All judgement is for Allah
alone. He has commanded that you worship none but Him;
that is the (true) straight religion, but most men
know not." (Yousuf: 40)
Rather, the one who decides the
creed of the government and directs it is another
authority, which the constitution claims to be the
people when it states their sovereignty. However,
reality shows us that it is the modern Pharaoh in the
republican palace who remains sovereign, and if so-vereignty
and authority is given to the Egyptian government,
this means that it is not solely Allah's, as the Quran
confirms, but rather for another rival who competes
with Allah Most High in His authority and specific
rights. This is what the Quran calls, "Hukm al
Jahiliyyah (the judgement of Jahiliyyah), as The Most
High states:
Do they then seek the
judgement of (the days of) Ignorance? And who is
better in judgement than Allah for a people who have
firm Faith. (Al Maidah:50)
It being "democratic" means that
sovereignty is derived from the wishes of the
majority, without regards to any standard, morality or
creed. A democratic government must be secular, or in
other words atheist, because governance and authority
is not the sole right of Allah Most High, but rather
subject to the desire of the majority. A "secular
democratic nation" is what they call, either to soften
it or to trick people, a "civilized nation", and
regretfully this is term oft-repeated by even some who
attribute to Islamic movements.
A "civilized nation" in reality
is an atheist country which is governed by the wish of
the majority, without adherence to any set standard,
moral, or creed.
As-Sahab Media:
The strongest evidence that the
Egyptian constitution and laws are in opposition to
the Islamic Shariah is the ruling of the secular
judges of Egypt, when Qadi Abdul-Ghaffar Muhammad
con-firmed in case 462/81 of the Higher Security,
known as the "Great Al Jihad Case", regarded as the
biggest case in the judicial history of Egypt, said in
stating the considerations of the ruling:
"In regards to the second topic,
what the consciences of the court has settled upon is
that the rulings of the Islamic Shariah are not
implemented in the Arab Republic of Egypt."
He also confirmed elsewhere:
"Really, the second article of
the constitution, after its alteration, states that
Islam is the official religion of the state, that
Arabic is its official language, and that the
principles of the Islamic Shariah is the main source
of legislation. However, it is enough proof in the
court's statement that the rulings of the
consti-tution do not agree to the rulings of the
Islamic Shariah, that which Omar Ahmed Abdul Rahman
con-firmed, as he is a Muslim scholar, in front of the
court on Sept. 3, 1983, that the constitution clashes
with the Islamic Shariah and does not seek its
judgement."(Considerations of the Judgment in Case
81/462 of The Higher Emergency State Security Court,
known as the "Great Al Jihad Tri-al", pp. 265, 363,
364, quoted from Kamal Khalid Al-Muhami: They
killed Sadat: Secrets of the Court Proceedings of Al
Jihad Organization, Dar Al-I'tisam, pp 180, 181,
269, 261)
Sheikh Ayman Al Zawahiri
(May Allah protect him):
The Egyptian government claims
that the constitution is democratic, but in reality it
is a suppressive government who rules over its
subjects with brutal agencies, rigged elections,
corrupt media and a tyrannical judiciary.
It being nationalistic means that
it adheres to the concept of patriotism, i.e. it is a
nation based upon attribution to that nation and land,
not Creed or Shariah. Thus, it differentiates between
people, in that whoever is from that specific land or
area is a citizen, and whoever is from some-where
other than that specific land or area is a foreigner,
not given the same rights as a citizen. A Canadian in
America, a Sudanese in Egypt, a Tunisian in Libya, and
a Yemeni in Saudi is not able to become the president
or prime minister of the nation, nor a commander in
the army, a member of parliament, or even a voter.
Moreover, in Saudi Arabia. most of foreigners, whether
male or fe-male, are not even permitted to marry
citizens!
"Or have they partners with
Allah (false gods) who have instituted for them a
religion which Al-lah has not ordained?" (Ash-Shura:
21)
Thus, it is a government which is
dedicated to and implements the concepts of
Sykes-Picot which divided the Ottoman Caliphate
amongst the British, French and Russians.
As-Sahab Media:
In March, 1916, Britain, France
and imperial Russia reached an agreement, known as
Sykes-Picot, signed in May 1916, on its specific
applicable parts. This agreement divided the lands of
the Otto-man Caliphate, and the most important
fundamentals of the agreement were as follows:
1) Russia would be granted the
northern and eastern provinces;
2) Britain and France would be
granted the Arab states of the Ottoman Caliphate.
France would be granted Syrian, Lebanon and southern
Turkey, while Britain would be granted Palestine,
Iraq, and the Sheikhdoms of the Gulf;
3) The Holy areas in Palestine
will be alternated.
The Islamic Maghreb and Egypt had
already been stripped from the Ottoman Caliphate,
divided amongst the British, French, Italians, and
Spanish.
In the Hijaz, its Sharif had
formed an alliance with the British against the
Ottoman Caliphate. Abdul Azeez Aali Saud had signed
the Treaty of Darin with the government of Britain in
which he af-firmed his allegiance to Britain and that
he would not decide on any matter except after their
permission. Everything the scholars of the Najdi Dawah
(of Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab) about Al Walaa wal Baraa
(loyalty and disavowal) and showing hatred and enmity
to the pagans was thrown away.
On 26 Dec. 1915 CE, the Treaty of
Darin was signed between Percy Cox, the British
specialist on the Middle East and Abdul Azeez Aali
Saud, which contained the following:
1) The British government
respects and recognizes that Najd, Ahsa, Qateef,
Jubail and its surrounding areas and lands belong to
Ibn Saud and his forefathers, and those after him from
his sons and successors by inheritance, but under no
condition would a person who shows any enmity to the
British government become ruler.
2) Ibn Saud agrees and promises
not to engage in any talks, agreements, or treaties
with any other foreign people or country, moreover, he
is to inform the political authorities of the British
government of any attempt of any other country to
interfere in the aforementioned lands.
3) Ibn Saud unconditionally
promises that he will not grant, sell, put as
collateral, rent, or give up any of the aforementioned
lands or any part of them, or give distinctions in
those lands to any foreign country or its peoples
without prior agreement of the British government, and
that he will follow their advice in this without
reservation, on the condition that it is not
disadvantageous to his interests.
Sheikh Ayman Al Zawahiri
(may Allah protect him):
This creed opposes Islam, which
divides people on the basis of piety (taqwa) and
righteous works. All Muslims are brothers and equal:
"The believers are nothing
else than brothers." (Al-Hujraat: 10)
…and the Islamic lands, by the
ijma' (consensus) of the scholars are all regarded
as one nation. They must establish a Caliphate to
govern it, and they must seek judgment in the Shariah.
"Those who, if We give them
power in the land, enjoin prayers, to pay the Zakat
and they enjoin the good and forbid the evil. And with
Allah rests the end of (all) matters. (Al-Hajj:41)
I have gone into some detail
about secularism, democracy, and nationalistic states
in the second print of the first volume of the book
Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet (sallallahu
alaihi wa sallam). I have also discussed in detail
the deception of the Egyptian constitution in the
Muslim Ummah in its discussion of the Islamic Shariah
in my treatise entitled, Muslim Egypt between the
Whips of the Prison-Guards and the Stewardship of the
Traitors. Those who seek further clarification may
refer to them, but here I will summarize the most
important differences between the Egyptian government
and an Islamic government.
1) The Egyptian government is
secular in creed, while an Islamic government is one
which abides by a heavenly creed.
2) The Egyptian government claims
to be democratic, i.e., that its source is the wishes
of the people, without adherence to any set standard,
morals or creed, while an Islamic government is one of
shura (consultation), in which the Ummah refers to the
Shariah and judges the rulers, who are selected and
also held to account by them.
3) The Egyptian government in
reality, is a suppressive government which relies upon
brutality and rigged elections, while an Islamic
government is one based upon shura which relies upon
spreading justice, confronting oppression, and
enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.
4) The Egyptian government is a
nationalistic government based upon the principles of
the nationalistic state, which embodies the goals of
the Sykes-Picot Agreement, while an Islamic government
is one based on the principle of Muslim equality and
the unity of their nations, under the shade of the
Caliphate.
Now that I have clarified in
summary the main fundamentals of the secular,
nationalistic, suppressive government of Egypt, I wish
to briefly mention how this government in Egypt was
formed.
Egypt was one of the territories
of the Ottoman Caliphate which was ruled by the
Shariah. With growing corruption in the rulers of the
Ottoman State, and Mamluks, the scholars shouldered
the responsibility to enjoin the good and forbid the
evil.
As-Sahab Media:
The historian Al Jabarti, may
Allah have mercy on him, when discussing the events of
1209 H, states the following:
In the month of Dhul-Hijjah, it
happened that Sheikh Al Sharqawi had a stake in the
village of Belbis in Sharqiyyah. Its people came and
complained to him about Muhammad Bey Al Alfi, saying
that his followers came and oppressed them, demanding
from them things which they had no ability, and so
they turned to the Sheikh. Enraged he proceeded to Al
Azhar and gathered the scholars. They closed the doors
of the masjid and ordered the people to close the
market and shops. The second day, they mounted their
horses and many people gathered and followed them.
They went to the home of Sheikh Sadat so that Ibrahim
Bay could see them. He came to know of their
gathering, and sent Ayyoub Bey Daftardar. He arrived
and greeted them, stood before them and questioned
them about their intentions. They replied, "We seek
justice, an end to oppression and tyranny, the
implementation of the Shariah, and an end to these new
rules and taxes you have introduced.
The scholars rode back to Al
Azhar, and the masses from east and west gathered and
spent the night in the masjid. The third day, the
Pasha, the Ottoman governor, arrived at the house of
Ibrahim Bey, and the various Emirs met there. They
sent for the scholars, so Sheikh Sadat, Sayyid Naqeeb,
Sheikh Sharqawi, Sheikh Bakri, and Sheikh Ameer went
there. There was much discussion, which resulted in
them repenting and promising to abide by the
stipulations of the scholars, to put an end to newly
invented oppressive laws, to stop their followers from
usurping people's wealth, and to deal with people in
an amiable manner. The judge, who was present in the
gathering, wrote all this down as proof which could be
held against them. The scholars returned, and each of
them had a huge number of people in front and behind,
chanting, "It's enough what our leaders, the scholars,
have accomplished is that all of the injustices, new
laws, and taxes have been abolished from the Egyptian
lands and kingdom." (Ajaa'ib Al Aathaar, v. 2,
pp 166-7).
Sheikh Ayman Al
Zawahiri (may Allah protect him):
Then the French invasion
occurred, with their secular creed summarized by the
French Revolution, "Let us strangle the last king with
the guts of the last priest." Napoleon Bonaparte made
full at-tempt to deceive the Egyptians of his love of
the Muslims and the Ottoman Sultan, hiding his
arrogant and criminal secularism, Christian at heart
with a tinge of Zionism. He tried to pass the scholars
by with his secular ideas by requesting them to wear
the French emblem, but the scholars confronted him
severely.
As Sahab Media:
The historian Al Jabarti, may
Allah have mercy upon him, said when discussing the
events of the month of Rabi Al Awwal on the year 1213
H.:
In it was the request of the
Lashkar-e-Mast, Bonaparte, to the scholars. When they
were all present, he stood up from the gathering,
holding three different colored palliums – white, red,
and dark blue. He placed one of them on the shoulder
of Sheikh Sharqawi. and he threw it on the ground. He
gave up and his mannerism changed. They descended upon
the country like rulers, imprisoning, beating, and
demanding with severity. His color turned wan and
became harsh, and the translator said, "O' scholars!
The Lashker-e-mast has come to like you. He only
wished to honor you with his clothes and emblem. If
you wear this, the army and people will honor you and
you will hold position in their eyes." They rep-lied,
"However, our status with Allah and our fellow Muslims
will be lost." He was enraged by these words. (Ajaa'ib
Al Aathaar, v.2, pp. 203-4)
Sheikh Ayman Al
Zawahiri (may Allah protect him):
Even if the motto of the French
revolution was freedom, fraternity, and equality, this
does not ap-ply to Muslims. Rather, the French
Revolution and Bonaparte had other mottos in regard to
Egypt and other Islamic lands which led to their
devastation, terrorizing and massacre.
As-Sahab Media:
Napoleon wrote to General
Zayonchek, the Commandant of Menoufia:
You must deal with the Turks (the
Muslims) in the harshest of manners. Where I am now I
kill three a day, and then order them to march around
with their heads in the streets of Cairo. This is the
only way to subdue these people. You must direct your
attention to stripping the country from weapons in
totality.
Sheikh Ayman Al
Zawahiri (may Allah protect him):
Seven months after Napoleon
entered Cairo, he set off for Al Sham, hoping to take
control over it and the Jerusalem. However, Acre stood
and confronted him with resilience. He surrounded it,
but then he faced defeat after defeat, and retreat in
loss. However, he issued a famous statement when he
arrived at Acre, one which all Muslims must pay close
attention to, in order to under-stand the true face of
secularism which confronts us, which sings of the
French Revolution and its heroes. Upon arrival at
Acre, Napoleon issued his famous statement to the Jews
of the world that the French government has promised
to return them to their original homeland in
Palestine. The secular Napoleon who claims his
opposition to the Church fills his statement with a
number of verses from the Bible.
As-Sahab Media:
The secular government of France
had prepared plans to form a Jewish Commonwealth in
Pales-tine, in exchange that Jewish financiers would
provide loans to French government which was suffering
from financial crisis at the time. The Jews were
supposed to finance the march eastwards, and promise
to spread chaos, discord, and create crises in the
areas which the French army would attack to ease their
occupation. Thus, when Napoleon headed towards Al Sham
and faced problems at Acre, he issued his famous call
which stated:
From Emperor Napoleon to the
armed forces of the French Republic in Africa and Asia
to the rightful inheritors of Palestine: O'
Israelites! O unique people who no invading and
excessive force could strip their name and presence,
but only the land of their forefathers! Though the
time and situation may not be suitable to declare or
express your demands, moreover forcing you to let go
of them, France presents to you the inheritance of
Israel at precisely this time, and contrary to all
expectations. O
rightful inheritors of Palestine!
Indeed the nation who does not barter with its men or
homeland (France) does not call you to take control of
your inheritance, but to take what has been conquered
and safeguard it to guarantee that no other people
will ever interfere with it. Haste! Indeed this is the
proper time to demand your rights and status from the
peoples of the world, which may not reoccur for
thousands of years. Those rights which were stripped
from you for thousands of years, which is your
political presence as a nation amongst other nations,
and your natural right to worship "Yahweh" as your
creed demands, publicly and forever. (Joel 4/20)
Bonaparte. The Encyclopedia of Jews, Judaism and
Zionism, v. 3, p 34, The Secret Negotiations
between Arabs and Israel Part 1: "The Legend, the
Empire, and the Jewish State", pp. 30-33.
Sheikh Ayman Al
Zawahiri (may Allah protect him)
So Napoleon was the first
politician to call the Jews to settle in Palestine. He
declared this promise to them more than a century
before the Balfour Promise.
Thus, we must stop here and
clarify that secularism was introduced into our
country as a result of military occupation,
suppression and massacre, and it still lives off of
this as we will see, and that Western secularism in
its deep inside harbors enmity to Islam and sides with
the Zionists.
After Muhammad Ali and his sons
gained control over Egypt, foreign laws which had
slowly infiltrated into the judiciary and legislature
by to the direct and public and military occupation
were introduced. Along with this infiltration, there
was also an increase in the influence of the colonial-ist
powers in Egypt, and their population also increased.
This infiltration of judges and laws paved the way for
forceful military occupation of armies and warships.
In the era of Khedive Saeed, a
court for commerce was formed in 1855 CE, which was a
committee of businessmen, both Egyptian and foreign,
to settle commercial disputes in which one of the
involved parties were foreigners. With the increase of
the number and influence of foreign expatriates,
consular courts were established to settle disputes
between Egyptians and foreigners whose medium was not
Arabic and laws were secular and man-made.
When the situation in the
consular courts, which had reached seventeen in
number, became chaotic, they were organized in 1975 CE
by the formation of mixed courts. Its judges were
foreigners, its medium was French, and the legislature
was formed from Napoleonic laws, most of the judges
were foreigner [sic], and it was run by foreigners.
This growing foreign influence in Egypt, specifically
in the judiciary and legislation, was the preface to
foreign occupation as I mentioned. Britain decided to
occupy Egypt under the pretext that there was unrest
there. The Khedive Tawfeeq parted to the side of the
British and sought their protection.
Here, we must stop and highlight
the role of those scholars who held noble stances
which ought to be written with ink of gold in the
midst of these events. During the fight with the
British invaders, Khedive Tawfeeq ordered the removal
of Ahmed Arabi, the Minister of Jihad, from his post.
Arabi requested that a general assembly be formed to
investigate this decision, and a conference was held
on Ramadan 6, 1299 H (July 7, 1882 CE) in which an
estimated 500 members appeared, led by the Sheikh of
Al Azhar, the supreme judge of Egypt, its Mufti, the
representative of the Ashraf, the Coptic Patriarch,
the Jewish Rabbi, other representatives, judges,
investigators, the Director of the Directorates, and
many other key figures, chancellors, nobles, as well
as three princes from the ruling family. In the
conference, three of the leading scholars of Al Azhar,
Sheikh Muhammad Aleesh (or Ulaish), Sheikh Hasan Al
Adawi and Sheikh Khalqawi, gave the verdict that the
Khedive had left the fold of Islam due to his siding
with the army waging war with his country. After
discussion, the committee issued their decision not to
remove Arabi from his position, and to put an end to
the affair of the Khedive and his supporters and not
to implement his commands due to his leaving the fold
of the monotheistic Shariah.
As-Sahab Media:
Sheikh Aleesh - Abu Abdullah,
Muhammad bin Ahmad, bin Muhammad Aleesh, was a great
Maliki scholar. He was originally from the Islamic
Maghreb, from Tripoli. He was born in Cairo and
learned at Al Azhar. He became the lead Maliki scholar
there. He was accused of siding with the Arab
revolution, and was thus taken from his home at the
age of eighty, in a state of sickness unable to move.
He was thrown in the hospital jail and died in it, may
Allah have mercy upon him.
He has many works, from them
Fat'h Al ‘Ali Al Malik fil Fatwa ala Madh'hab Imam
Malik, in which he responded to question from the
Ameer, Abdul Qadir Al Jazairi about the conciliation
between the Sultan of the Maghreb and the French, his
transgressions against the Mujahideen and cutting them
from supplies, and whether it was permissible for them
to fight him if he sought to fight and kill them,
imprison them, and surrender them to the French. The
following is an excerpt from his response.
Yes, the impermissibility for the
Sultan, may Allah reform him, to do all this you
mentioned is some-thing all people know about the
religion by necessity, and none who have even an
atom's weight of faith in their hearts have doubt
about this. The pact which he has struck is invalid
and inapplicable, and selling cattle or any other
animal, or other food and goods (i.e. to the French),
or anything else which they may benefit from, in this
mentioned case is absolutely impermissible, by ijma',
and is something known from the religion by necessity
about which no Muslim harbors any doubts, whether the
Muslims have laid siege on them or otherwise, as
fighting them is an individual obligation for those
who do not have a valid excuse. And if he (the Sultan
of Maghreb) divides the ranks and attacks you, it
becomes an individual obligation upon you to fight
him, as they become like the enemy, or like rebels who
have suddenly taken control, and seek to bring harm to
life and women, due to their transgression and rivalry
to what the Muslim scholars have agreed impermissible
from your lives, women and wealth, and due to the fact
that he has forbidden you from what is an individual
obligation upon you by ijma' from waging Jihad against
attacking infidels. Those who die from amongst you
when fighting them are like those who die when
fighting the infidels. There is nothing between him
and Paradise except the exiting of the soul. Be firm
in you fight against them and prepare all you can
against him. (Al-A'lam, Al Zarkali, v.6, p.19;
Fat'h Al Ali Al Maliki. v.2, p.491)
Sheikh Al Adawi, Hasan Al Adawi
Al Hamzawi, was a scholar of the Malikis who learned
and stu-died at Al Azhar. He died in Cairo. When the
British took control of Egypt, Sheikh Al Adawi was
presented in court for trial at the age of eighty. The
head of the court asked him if he had signed the
declaration for the removal of Khedive Tawfeeq. The
Sheikh answered that he never saw the paper which the
head of the court was referring to, but if he were to
bring forth a similar declaration, he would sign it
and stamp it with his stamp in front of the court. The
head of the court was flabbergasted and ordered him to
be taken out of the court. He was then taken to his
village and imprisoned.
Sheikh Ayman
Al-Zawahiri (may Allah protect him)
The British in their occupation
administered Egypt with great cunningness, one which
is still present to this day. Egypt had a framework of
government. It had a Khedive ruler, a sultan or a
king, along with a parliament, an army, police, and a
nominal connection with the Ottoman state until the
onset of World War I. However, the real administrators
of all affairs were the British: its High
Commissioner, its army, its brutality, and its
advisors who penetrated into the very depths of the
administrations and interests of Egypt.
History repeats itself today.
Today Egypt has a president, a government, a
parliament, an army and police, but the real ruler
changed his seat from the British to the American
Embassy!
The same story of Egypt can be
said about other countries of the Islamic world. Every
land has a leader, whether Kadyrov, Karzai, and Maliki,
or Abdullah Al Saud or Bin Hussein; whether Ali
Abdullah Saleh or Bouteflika, or the leader of Arab
Zionists Hosni Mubarak or his once awaited leader son.
Whomever they are, subservience is subservience, and
occupation is occupation: a government, a ministry,
police, a brutal intelligence apparatus, concentration
camps, an army over our heads, and a real ruler who
governs it from his office in the embassy, usually the
American, but may also be Russian, British, French, or
maybe even the Israeli embassy.
In their occupation of Egypt,
they played a great role in corrupting the government,
in their efforts to form a nationalist secular state
which claims to be independent democratic nation,
while in reality it is a country directed by the
bayonets and canons of the occupiers, then the whips
and prisons of their agents. They were able to achieve
this through various means, from them was corrupting
the legislative branch of the government. A year after
the British occupation of Egypt, manmade laws were
enforced over all branches of the judiciary besides
the family laws and personal status. By the beginning
of World War I in 1914, in which the Ottoman State
fought with the British, Britain stripped Egypt from
the Ottoman State, and for the first time stripped the
title of "Sultan" from the ruler of Egypt, which may
have made it seem as if he was under the Ottoman
Sultan. To complete the frameworks of secularism for
the country, the British brought out the class of
Egyptians who they themselves produced to create a
secular constitution which would en-grain the
principles of secularism in Egypt. They introduced a
constitution in 1923 CE, by means of the Liberal
Constitutionalist Party who were excessively
cooperative with the British, which wrested Allah's
sole right of legislation and assigned it to the
parliament. It affirmed that the nation is the source
of all authority. This was the first constitution in
Egypt, rather the entire Arab world, and is regarded
as the basis for all successive Egyptian constitutions
created thereafter. Ra-ther we can say that it was the
basis for all successive constitutions across the Arab
world which took from it. For further detail about the
influence of that constitution upon latter ones, you
may refer to the beginning of the first chapter of the
book "The Bitter Harvest" (Al Hasaad Al Mur)
By the introduction of the
constitution of 1923, the basic framework for the
nationalist secular state was complete. It was a
country independent of the Ottoman Caliphate, and its
loyalty was not to the religion. It became a
nationalistic country whose loyalty was to the state,
a country which claims to be independent and
democratic, whose sovereignty is derived from its
people, while reality it is suppressed and
subservient, whose sovereignty is derived from British
bayonets and canons.
"And among mankind is he
who worships Allah as it were, upon an edge: if good
befalls him, he is content therewith; but if a trial
befalls him, he turns back on his face. He loses both
this world and the Hereafter. That is the evident
loss." (Al-Hajj: 11)
I will suffice with this in the
first episode. I ask Allah that He allows me to
complete this series, A Message of Hope and Glad
Tidings to Our Fellow Muslims in Egypt, and make all
our deeds correct and sincere. Our final prayer is
that all praise belongs to Allah alone, the Lord of
all that exists, and may peace and blessings be upon
our leader, Muhammad, his family and companions.
Asalamu alaykum wa Rahmatullahi
wa Barakaatuh.
Translated by: The Global
Media Islamic Front Observing Mujahideen News and
Inspiring the Believers
Add Comments