Please click here to read another version of my judgment on Where there is no Reasonable Doubt .
I should first quote from the Holy Bible; GENESIS 17, 18; CHAPTER 17 WHICH IS:
20 : And as for Ish-mael, I have heard the; Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall be beget,? and I will make him a great nation. 24: And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcise in the flesh of his foreskin. 25: And Ish'-ma-el his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 26: In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ish'-ma-el his son.
I am also quoting from GENESIS 21; CHAPTER 2
14: And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Ha'gar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away; and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Be'-er-sheba.
15: And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.
16: And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot; for she said, let me
not see the death of the child, And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept. 17: And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Ha'- gar out of heaven, and said unto her,
What aileth thee, Ha'-gar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. 18: Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.
The above great Nation is the 1300 yeard Khilafah/Caliphate abolished in 1924 through International Terrorism. And illegal nation States were created without any public opinion or approval of those land in the Middle East. The result is such that the people of those countries can not utter any word for re-establishing the 1300 years old Caliphate as they have no freedom as they are under one party or one family rule or we can say under the Governor appointed by Western Powers in the pretext of a United Arabia as promised by the then British Government to Sheriff Hussain of Mecca, great grand father of King Hussain of Jordan and other contact with Ibn Saud of Nazd (now Saudi Arabia), Mubarak of Kuwait. And all this happened when Lawrence of Arabia a secret service agent arrived in Middle East. But France and Britain divided those land among themselves and a British ambassador Cox divided the land as Iraq, Kuwait etc. So Muslims around the world can not accept and in fact never accepted this division of the land of Caliphate by terrorist way, by force, by treachery act. So without re-establishing the 1300 old Caliphate the World can not expect
21: 92 Verily, this Brotherhood Of yours is a single Brotherhood , 21: 92 And I am your Lord And Cherisher: therefore Serve Me (and no 21: 92 other). 23: 52 And verily this Brotherhood Of yours is a single Brotherhood 23: 52 And I am your Lord And Cherisher: therefore Fear Me (and no other) 33: 6 The Prophet is closer To the Believers than Their own selves, 33: 6 And his wives are Their mothers. Blood-relations Among each other 33: 6 have Closer personal ties, In the Decree of Allah Than (the 33: 6 Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs: Nevertheless do ye 33: 6 What is just to your Closest friends: such is The writing in the 33: 6 Decree (Of Allah). 49: 10 The Believers are but A single Brotherhood: So make peace and 49: 10 Reconciliation between your Two (contending) brothers; And fear 49: 10 Allah, that ye May receive Mercy. (4473) It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: People are subservient to the Quraish: the Muslims among them being subservient to the Muslims among them, and the disbelievers among the people being subservient to the disbelievers among them. (4474) It has been narrated on the authority of Hammam b. Munabbih who said: This is one of the traditions narrated by Abu Huraira from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who said: People are subservient to the Quraish: the Muslims among them being subservient to the Muslims among them, and the disbelievers among them being subservient to the disbelievers them. (4477) It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said: I joined the company of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) with my father and I heard him say: This Caliphate will not end until there have been twelve Caliphs among them. The narrator said: Then he (the Holy Prophet) said something that I could not follow. I said to my father: What did said: All of them will be from the Quraish. (Who knows that what the Holy Prophet said, but could not followed by the narrator is the event which we are facing on Caliphate). (4568) It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When oath of allegiance has been taken for two caliphs, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later. Under the above Quranic verses on One Brotherhood, we can not divide the one brotherhood or Caliphate into nation States. There are many Hadith on the the One Umma and one Brotherhood. I have also menntioned few Hadiths on Caliphate and from one Hadith #4568) we can say even two Caliphs are not allowed so as tw States, though there are more than 50 states in this world. Yet the Muslims scholars on Quran and Hadith from Morocco to Indonesia are silent on Caliphate since 1924, when it was formally abolished. We all people of this world show interest for the election of the President of USA, and almost all the countries of the world irrespective of religion, race and culture. This interest is only for world peace and harmony.
The followings are from Glimpses of World History, by JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, PUBLISHED BY JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MEMORIAL FUND, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW DELHI, PP. 141-153.
"We have considered the history of many countries and the ups and downs of many kingdoms and empires. Look at the map. To the west is Egypt; to the north Syria and Iraq, and a little to the east of this Persia or Iraq; a little farther to the north-west are Asia Minor and Constantinople. Greece is not far; and India also is just across the sea on the other side. Except for China and the Far East, Arabia was very centrally situated so far as the old civilizations were concerned. Great cities rose on the Tigris and Euphrates in Iraq, Alexandria in Egypt, Damascus in Syria, Antioch in Asia Minor. The Arab was a traveller and a trader, and he must have gone to these cities frequently enough. But still Arabia plays no notable part in history. There does not seem to be as high a degree of civilization there as in neighboring countries. It neither attempted to conquer other countries, nor was it easy to subdue it. Arabia is a desert country, and deserts and mountains breed hard people who love their freedom and are not easily subdued. It was not a rich country and there was little in it to attract foreign conquerors and imperialist. There were just two little towns- Mecca and Yethrib by the sea. For the rest there were dwellings in the desert and the people of the country were largely Bedouins or Baddus-the "dwellers of the desert". They were proud and sensitive, these men of the desert, were quarrelsome. They lived in their clans and theirs families quarrelled with other clans and families. Once a year they made peace with each other and journeyed to Mecca on pilgrimage to their many gods whose images were kept there. Above all, they worshipped a huge black stone-the Kaaba. It was a nomadic and patriarchal life-the kind of life led by the primitive tribes in Central Asia or elsewhere, before they settled down to city life and civilization. The great empires which rose up round Arabia often included Arabia in their dominions, but this was more nominal than real. It was no easy to subdue or govern nomadic desert tribes. Once, a little Arab States rose in Palmyra in Syria, and it had its brief period of glory in the third century after Christ. But even this was outside Arabia proper. So the Bedouins lived their desert lives, generation after generation, and Arab ships went out to trade, and Arabia went on with little change. Some people became Christians and some became Jews but mostly they remained worshippers of the 360 idols and the Black Stones in Mecca. It is strange that this Arab race, which for long ages had lived a sleepy existence, apparently cut off from what was happening elsewhere, should suddenly wake up and show such tremendous energy as to startly and upset the world. The story of the Arabs, and of how they spread rapidly over Asia, Europe and Africa, and of the high culture and civilization which they developed, is one of the wonders of history. Islam was the new force or idea which woke up the Arabs and filled them with self-condition and energy. This was a religion started by a new prophet, Mohammad, who was born in Mecca in 570 A. C. He was in no hurry to start this religion. He lived a quite life, liked and trusted by his fellow citizens. Indeed, he was known as "Al-Amin"-the Trusty. But when he started preaching his new religion and especially when he preached against the idols at Mecca, there was a loud outcry against him, and ultimately he was driven out of Mecca, barely escaping with his life. Above all he laid stress on the claim that there was only one God, and that he, Mohammad, was the Prophet of God. Driven away by his own people from Mecca, he sought refuge with some friends and helpers in Yethrib. This flight from Mecca is called the Hijrat in Arabic, and the Muslim calendar begins from this date-622 A. C. This Hegira calendar is a lunar calendar-that is, it is calculated according to the moon. It is therefor five or six days shorter than the solar year which we usually observe, and the Hegira months do not stick to the same seasons of the year. Thus the same month may be in winter this year and in the middle of summer after some year. Within seven years of the flight, Mohammad returned to Mecca as its master. Even before this he sent out from Medina a summons to the kings and rulers of the world to acknowledge the one God and his Prophet. Heraclius, the Constantinople Emperor, got it while he was still engaged in his campaign against the Persians in Syria; the Persian King got it; and it is said that even Tai-Tsung got it in China. They must have wondered, these kings and rulers, who this unknown person was who dared to command them! From the sending of these messages we can form some idea of the supreme confidence in himself and his mission which Mohammad must have had. And this confidence and faith he managed to give to his people, and with this to inspire and console them this desert people of no great consequence managed to conquer half the known world. Confidence and faith in themselves were a great thing. Islam also gave them a message of brotherhood of the equality of all those who were Muslims. A measure of democracy was thus placed before the people. Compared to the corrupt Christianity of the day, this message of brotherhood must have had a great appeal, not only for the Arabs, but also for the inhabitants of many countries where they went. Prophet Muhammad(Peace be upon him) died in 632 A. C.; ten years after the Hijrat. He had succeeded in making a nation out of the many warring tribes of Arabia and in firing them with enthusiasm for a cause. He was succeeded by Abu Bakr, a member of his family, as Khalifa or Caliph or chief. This succession used to be by a kind of informal election at a public meeting. Two years later Abu Bakr died, and was succeeded by Omar, who was Khalifa for ten years. Abu Bakr and Omar were great men who laid the foundation of Arabian and Islamic greatness. As Khalifas they were both religious heads and political chiefs - King and Pope in one. In spite of their high position and the growing power of their State, they stuck to the simplicity of their ways and refused to countenance luxury and pomp. The democracy of Islam was a living thing for them. But their own officers and emirs took to silks and luxury soon enough, and irony stories are told of Abu Bakr and Omar rebuking and punishing these officers, and even weeping at this extravagance. They felt that their strength lay in their simple and hard living, and that if they took to the luxury of the Persian or Constantinople Courts, the Arabs would be corrupted and would fall. Even in these short dozen years, during which Abu Bakr and Omar ruled, the Arabs defeated both the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid King of Persia. Jerusalem, the holy city of the jews and Christians, was occupied by the Arabs, and the whole of Syria and Iraq and Persia became part of the new Arabian Empire. Like the founders of some other religions, Mohammad was a rebel against many of the existing social customs. The religion he preached, by its simplicity and directness and its flavor of democracy and equality, appealed to the masses in the neighboring countries who had been ground down long enough by autocratic kings and equally autocratic and domineering priests. They were tired of the old order and were ripe for a change. Islam offered them this change, and it was a welcome change, for it bettered them in many ways and put an end to many old abuses. Islam did not bring any great social revolution in its train which might have put an end to a large extent to the exploitation of the masses. But it did lessen this exploitation so far as the Muslims ere concerned, and made them feel that they belonged to one great brotherhood. So the Arabs marched from conquest to conquest. Often enough they won without fighting. Within twenty-five years of the death of their Prophet, the Arabs conquered the whole of Persia and Syria and a bit of northern Africa on the west. Egypt had fallen to them with the greatest ease, as egypt had suffered most from the exploitation of the Roman Empire and from the rivalry of Christian sects. There is a story that the Arabs burnt the famous library of Alexandria, but this is now believed to be false. The Arabs were too fond of books to behave in this barbarous manner. It is probable, however, that the Emperor Theodosius of Constantinople, about whom I have told you something already, was guilty of this destruction, or part of it. A part of the library had been destroyed long before, during a siege at the time of Julius Caesar. In the west they marched on and on. It is said that their general Okba went right across northern Africa till he reached the Atlantic Ocean, on the western coast of what is now known as Morocco. He was rather disappointed at this obstacle, and he rode as far as he could into the sea and then expressed his sorrow to the Almighty that there was no more land in that direction for him to conquer in His name! From Morocco and Africa, the Arabs crossed the narrow sea into Spain and Europe- the Pillers of Hercules, as these narrow straits were called by the old Greeks. The Arab general who crossed into Europe landed at Gibralter, and this name itself is a reminder of him. His name was Tariq, and Gibralter is really Jabal-ut-Tariq, the rock of Tariq. Spain was conquered rapidly, and the Arabs then poured into southern France. So in about 100 years from the death of Mohammad (Peace be upon him), the Arab Empire spread from south of France and right across northern Africa to Suez, and across Arabia and Persia and Central Asia to the borders of Mongolia. India was out of it except Sindh (now part of Pakistan). Europe was being attacked bythe Arabs from two sides- directly at Constantinople, and in France, via Africa. The Arabs in the south of France were small in numbers and they were very far from their homeland. Thus they could not get much help from Arabs, which as busy then conquering Central Asia. But still these Arabs in France frightened the people of western Europe, and a great coalition was formed to fight them. Charles Martel was the leader of this coalition and in 732 A. C. he defeated them at the battle of Tours in France. This defeat saved Europe from the Arabs. ``On the plains of Tours," a historian has said, ``the Arabs lost the empire of the world when almost in their grasp." There can be no doubt that if the Arabs had won at Tours, European history would have been tremendously changed. There was no one else to stop them in Europe and they could have marched right across to Constantinople and put an end to the Eastern Roman Empire and the other States on the way. Instead of Christianity, Islam would tn have become the religion of Europe, and all manner of other changes might have taken place. But this is just a flight of imagination. As it happened, the Arabs were stopped in France. For many hundreds of years afterwards, however, they remained and ruled in Spain. From Spain to Mongolia the Arabs triumphed, and these nomads from the deserts became the proud rulers of a mighty empire. Saraens they were called, perhaps from Sahra and nashin- the dwellers of the desert. But the dwellers of the desert took soon enough to luxury and city life, and palaces grew up in their cities. In spite of their triumphs in distant countries, they could not get rid of their old habit of quarrelling amongst themselves. Of course, there was something worth quarrelling about now , for the headship of Arabia meant the control of a great empire. So there were frequent quarrels for the place of the Khalifa. There were petty quarrels, family quarrels, leading to civil war. These quarrels resulted in a big division in Islam and two sects were formed the Sunnis and Shiahs which still exist. Trouble came soon after the regimes of the first two great Khalifas -Abu Bakr and Omar. Ali, the husband of Fatima, who was the daughter of Mohammad, was Khalifa for a short while. But there was continuous conflict. Ali was murdered, and some time later his son Hussain, with his family, were massacred on the plain of Karbala. It is this tragedy of Karbala that is mourned year after year in the month of Moharram by the Muslims, and especially the Shiahs. The Khalifa now becomes an absolute king. There is nothing of democracy or election left about him. He was just like any other absolute monarch of his day. In theory he continued to be the religious head also, the Commander of the Faithful. But some of these rulers actually insulted Islam, of which they were supposed to be the chief protectors. For about 100 years the Khalifas belonged to a branch of Mohammad's family, known as the Ommeyades. Damascus was made their capital, and this old city became very beautiful, with its palaces, mosques, fountains and kiosks. The water supply of Damascus was famous. During this period the Arabs developed a special style of architecture which has come to be known as Saracenic architecture.There is not much of ornamentation in this. It is simple and imposing and beautiful. The idea behind this architecture was the graceful palm of Arabia and Syria. The arches and the pillars and the minarets and domes remind one of the arching and doming of palm groves. The Arabs,especially at the beginning of their awakening, were full of enthusiasm for their faith. Yet they were a tolerant people and there are numerous instances of this toleration in religion. In Jerusalem the Khalifa Omar made a point of it. In Spain there was a large Christian population which had the fullest liberty of conscience. In India the Arabs never ruled except in Sindh, but there were frequent contacts, and the relations were friendly. Indeed, the most notice able thing about this period of history is the contrast between the toleration of the Muslim Arab and the intolerance of the Christian in Europe. And Egypt did likewise, and indeed went so far to reclaim another Caliph. Egypt was near enough to be threatened and forced to submit,and this was done from time to time. But Africa was not interfered with ,and as for Spain, it was much too far away for any action. So we see that the Arab Empire split up on the accession of the Abbasides. The Caliph was no longer the head of the whole Muslim world, he was not now the Commander of all the Faithful. Islam was no longer united, and the Arabs in Spain and the Abbasides disliked each other so much that each often welcomed the misfortunes of the other. In spite of all this, the Abbaside Caliphs were great sovereigns and their empire was a great empire, as empires go. The old faith and energy which conquered mountains and spread like a praire fire were no more in evidence. There was no simplicity and little of democracy left, and the Commander of the Faithful was little different from the Persian King of kings, who had been defeated by the earlier Arabs or the Emperor at Constantinople. In the Arabs of the time of Mohammad the prophet, there was a strange life and strength which were very different from the strength of kings, armies. They stood out in the world of their time, and armies and princes crumpled up before their irresistible march. The masses were weary of these princes, and the Arabs seemed to bring them the promise of change for the better and of social revolution. All this was changed now. The men of the desert lived in palaces now and instead of dates had the most gorgeous foods. They were comfortable enough, so why should they bother about change and social revolution? They tried to rival the old empires in splendor and they adopted many an evil custom of theirs. One of these, as I told you, was the seclusion of women. The capital now went from Damascus to Baghdad in Iraq. This change of capital itself was significant, for Baghdad used to be the summer retreat of the Persian kings. And as Baghdad was farther away from Europe than Damascus, henceforth the Abbasides looked more towards Asia than to Europe. There were to be still many attempts to capture Constantinople, and there were many wars with European nations, but most of these wars were defensive. The days of conquest seem to have ended, and the Abbaside Caliphs tried to consolidate such of the empire as was left to them. This was great enough even without Spain and Africa. The merchants carried on a vast trade with the East and West. Crowds of Government officials kept in continuous touch with the distant parts of the Empire, and the government, becoming more and more complicated, was divided up into many departments. An efficient costal system connected all the corners of the Empire to the capital. hospitals abounded. Visitors came to Baghdad from all over the world, especially learned men and students and artists, for it was known that the Caliph welcomed all who were learned or who were skilful in the arts. The Caliph himself lived in great luxury surrounded by slaves, and his women- folk had taken to the harem. The abbaside Empire was at the height of its outward glory during the reign of Harunal-Rashid from 786 to 809 A.C. Embassies came to Harun from the Emperor of China and Emperor Charlemagne in the West. Baghdad and the Abbaside dominions were far in advance of the Europe of those days, except for Arab Spain, in all the arts of government, in trade, and in the development of learning. The old Turks of Central asia became Muslims and came and took possession of Baghdad. They are known as the Seljuq Turks. They defeated the Byzantine army of Constantinople utterly, much to the surprise of Europe. For Europe had thought that the Arabs and Muslims had spent their strength and were getting weaker and weaker. It was true that the Arabs had declined greatly, but the Seljuq Turks now came on the scene to uphold the banner of Islam and to challenge Europe with it. This challenge was soon taken up, as we shall see, and the Christian nations of Europe organized crusades to fight the Muslims and reconquer Jerusalem, their holy city. For over 100 years Christianity and Islam fought for mastery in Syria and palestine and Asia Minor and exhausted each other, and soaked every inch of the soil almost of these countries with human blood. And the flourishing cities of these parts lost their trade and greatness, and the smiling fields were often converted into a wilderness. So they fought each other. But even before their fighting was over, across Asia in Mongolia there arose Chengiz Khan, the Mongol Shaker of the Earth, as he was called, who was indeed going to shake Asia and Europe. He and his descendants finally put an end to Baghdad and its empire. By the time the Mongols had finished with the great and famous city of Baghdad, it was almost of heap of dust and ashes and most of its 2,000,000 inhabitants were dead. This was in 1258 A.C. Baghdad is now again a flourishing city and is the capital of the State of Iraq. But is only a shadow of its former self, for it never recovered from the death and desolation which of Mongols brought."
For World peace we must also renew 1300 years old Caliphate aboslished in 1924 after a long conspiracy within and outside Islamic world of Asia Africa and Europe. For instance in this country of United Sates we can come from different part of the world and can live without much difficulty with equal opportunity and right irrespective of race, language, religion or color. So we hope the whole world should be like United State where all people can live in peace without any war, any conflict and as one brotherhood of human race. For instance as a Muslim almost people from all Muslim countries live here where as in many of those Muslim countries we see always some kind of civil war like Iraq-Iran war, Iraq-Gulf war destroying billions of dollars worth of wealth and million of human life.
But as a Muslim our only political System is Caliphate or Khalifa (one brotherhood) and no nation State is allowed according to The Holy Quran and Sunna i.e. the saying of last Prophet of Islam (Peace be upon him). So these nation States in the land of Caliphate is illegal or violation of Islamic Law, which was created by British, France and other Western Government and even by League of Nation, partitioning the land of 1300 years old Caliphate without any public opinion or approval of those land in the Middle East. The result is such that the people of those countries can not utter any word for re-establishing the 1300 years old Caliphate as they have no freedom as they are under one party or one family rule or we can say under the Governor appointed by Western Powers in the pretext of a United Arabia as promised by the then British Government to Sheriff Hussain of Mecca, great grand father of King Hussain of Jordan and other contact with Ibn Saud of Nazd (now Saudi Arabia), Mubarak of Kuwait. And all this happened when Lawrence of Arabia a secret service agent arrived in Middle East. But France and Britain divided those land among themselves and a British ambassador Cox divided the land as Iraq, Kuwait etc. So Muslims around the world can not accept and in fact never accepted this division of the land of Caliphate by terrorist way, by force, by treachery act. So without re-establishing the 1300 old Caliphate the World can not expect peace in this world as Caliphate was abolished without the knowledge or wishes of the Muslims around the world and above all violating the principle of basic fundamental law of Islam.
If there was Caliphate, probably there could not be any war in the Muslim countries and we could use those wealth which was used for civil war among Muslim countries to abolish poverty from this world and in particular from some poor Asian and African countries.
And this is a only subject which is the main problem in the Muslim World in particular and the World in general. And what irony of history that the terrorist war against Caliphate by the British and other Western Powers is still continuing under the pretext of United Nation resolution and this started when Abraham Lincoln defeated the southerners in United State and kept this great country of 50 States united where as the southerners in the Caliphate became the agent of Western Christian powers under the leadership of Britain. So it is a matter of right of each Muslims to become a Lincoln to defeat the few southerners who are still acting as Governors of those who installed their ancestors in power to look after the interest of the Western powers. And in fact this war is Third World war which started since First World war. So now is the time that the Western powers should stay away from the land of 1300 years old Caliphate and must stop the various pretext like United Nation/League of Nation resolution as Muslims are not bound to accept which was created by those for whom Caliphate was abolished and Nation States were established abolishing Islamic Universal brotherhood or one Umma in the name of western Government or League of Nation. And this is the only solution that we the civilized or rational people of the world can stop killing of Muslims in Bosnia, Chechenia or even in the land of Caliphate where million of Muslims were killed by the fellow Muslims as happened in Iraq-Iran war. And above all what happened in Muslim Spain 500 years ago i.e. cleansing of entire Muslims from that land after 700/800 years of Muslim (secular) rule is happening again in Europe like Bosnia in the name of religion though all the major religions of this world originated in Asia. And the question is that where western military power can protect few families in the name of national sovereignty in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia; they can not save poor Muslims of Bosnia. Why this kind of double standard? Why this violation of democracy in Algeria, and in entire Gulf where few families are protected against the will of people who only want to establish Caliph.
If there was Caliphate, probably there could not be any war in the Muslim countries and we could use those wealth which was used for civil war among Muslim countries to abolish poverty from this world and in particular from some poor Asian and African countries.
Nehru's comment from Glimpses of World History is continuing:
A strange patchwork was India during the hundred years following Aurangzeb's death, a kaleidoscope, ever changing, but not very beautiful to look at. Such a period is an ideal one for adventures and those who are bold and unscrupulous enough to seize opportunities without caring for the means or methods adopted. So adventurers rose all over India, adventurers who were native to the soil, and those who came across the north-west frontier, and those, like the English and French, who came across the seas. Each man or group played his or its own hand and was prepared to send all the others to the devil; sometimes two or more combined to crush a third, only, later, to fall out among themselves. There were frantic attempts to carve out kingdoms and to get rich quickly, and to plunder, often undisguised and unashamed, sometimes under a thin disguise of trade. And behind all this was the vanishing Moghal Empire, disappearing like the Cheshire cat, till not even the smile remained, and the so-called Emperor was an unhappy pensioner or prisoner of others.But all this upheaval and turmoil, and turning and twisting, were the outward indications of a revolution going on below the surface. The old economic order was breaking up; feudalism had its day and was collapsing. It was not in keeping with the new conditions in the country. We have seen this process in Europe, and we have seen the merchant classes rise, only to be checked by absolute monarchs. Only in England, and to some extent in Holland, were the monarchs subdued. When Aurangzeb came to the throne, England was under the short-lived republic which followed the execution of Charles I. And it was during Aurangzeb's reign also that the British revolution was completed by the running away of James II and the victory of Parliament in 1688. The fact that England had a semi-popular council like Parliament helped greatly in the struggle. There was something which could be set up against the feudal nobles and later, the king.1The Caliphate System was never a new system, but it started after the last Prophet of Isalam went out of human sight. The Pope System started, several hundred years after the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) was taken to heaven alive, and not like Muslim Caliphate. Yet Pope was only religious head. The following comment of Nehru is enough about the Caliph: Compare this emperor(Holy Roman Empire) with the Khalifa or Caliph, who was styled the Commander of the Faithful. The Khalifa was really an emperor and Pope combined, to begin with. Later, as we shall see, he became just a figurehead.2Indeed, most of the Muslims, including some of the rulers, are Indians converted to Islam. Many of these become converted in the hope of gaining Court favor or economic advantage. Non-Muslims are made to pay a poll-tax called the jizya, and many of them, wishing to escape this, become Muslims.3A Mongol army sent to Palestine was defeated by Sultan Baibers of Egypt. This Sultan had an interesting surname -"Bandukdar"- because of a regiment of men armed with banduks or firearms. We now come to the era of the firearms. The Chinese had long known gunpowder. The Mongols probably learnt it from them and it may be that firearms helped them in their victories. It was through the Mongols that firearms were introduced into Europe.4 Recently, we the people of this world are observing various terrorism around the world, and most of these terrorisms are state terrorism. Helplessly we are presiding over all these state terrorism like killing of Muslims in India by the government police and paramilitary forces whose duty is to defend the citizen of the country. Even under the coverage of United Nations we are observing how a community like Muslims, who once was the leader of vast territories of Asia, Africa and Europe, during the time of caliphate upto 1924, has been cleansed in Bosnia. More wonderful event is that those Muslims have not been allowed to defend themselves, they were denied the minimum arms to defend themselves. But the Muslim used to protest those state terrorism they are branded as terrorist. But can you fool the entire humanity?
The Muslim rulers around the world did not disbelieve to any race or the the followers of any religion. They even allowed the foreign tourists of many religion to do business in the Muslim held countries, in the Arab Gulf and in India. Though when those outsiders took the chance of correct moment to fight with those ruler who allowed them to stay in their country. And ultimately even those outsiders who were given chance to do business, even ousted those rulers who gave them selters and the facilities. Those outsiders eve did not hesitate to kill those with the whole family member, whenever they got such chance with the help of bribing some local people or some members of the ruling family. This happened with the killing of princes of last Mogol Emperor, Bahadur Shah Jafar. Bahadur Shah Jafar was even expelled to Burmuh. Before that Nawab Sirajud-Dowla of Bengal was killed. This happened to Tipu Sultan and many ruler in India. And finally this happened in the process of abolition of Caliphate in Arab World. Following references are the proof of my above observation:
As a matter of fact, the first so-called legal title of the East India Company in Bengal was that of revenue-farmer on behalf of the Moghal Emperor. This was the grant of the diwani to the Company in 1765. The Company thus became a kind of diwan of the Moghal Emperor at Delhi. But all this was fiction. After Plassey, in 1757, the British were predominant in Bengal, and the poor Moghal Emperor had little or no power anywhere. The East India Company and its officers were terribly greedy. ... They tried to squeeze Bengal and Bihar and extract the maximum of land revenue. ....The revenue-farmers for some time past had been behaving like landowners. The result was that for the first time India got this new type of middleman, and the cultivators were reduced to the position of mere tenants. The British dealt with these land-holders or zamindars directly, and left them to do what they liked with their tenantry. There was no protection of any kind for the poor tenant from the rapacity of the landlord. This settlement that Cornwallis made with the zamindars of Bengal and Bihar in 1703 is called the "Permanent Settlement". The word "settlement" means the fixing of the amount of land revenue to be paid by each zamindar to the Government. 5
2:120 Never will the Jews Or the Christians be satisfied With thee unless 2:120 thou follow Their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah ,- 2:120 that Is the (only) Guidance. " Wert thou to follow their desires 2:120 After the knowledge Which hath reached thee, Then wouldst thou find 2:120 Neither Protector nor Helper Against Allah.
The above verse has proved for the Islamic Khelafat a reality, what happened during for past about 100 years not by the story of the muslim writers but by the western researchers, one such recent book is "UNHOLY BABYLON" by ADEL DARWISH AND GREGORY ALEXANDER.
In the above book in page 7 under the caption "LINES IN THE SAND" the authors has mentioned "On the eve of the First World, Britain was conspiring to use the warlike bedouin to protect its interest in the Middle East, either under the leadership of their sheikhs or under British officers - such as T. E. Lawrence - rather than deploying its own soldiers in the desert. To secure the support of Mubarak, Britain agreed to recognize Kuwait as independent of the Ottoman Empire. In exchange, Mubarak was to support Britain against Turkey in the coming war.
Kuwait emerged as an emirate, as it was known in the Ottoman administration, or sheikhdom as the Arabs knew it, during a period when the entire area was suffering from a political vacuum. ottoman rule, which had been established in Iraq in 1550, could not control the tribes of the coast whilst at the same time the new european powers had begun to fight over maritime supply lines to secure a route to India. What is now known as Kuwait was part of Lewa'a Al-Basra. In theory, it came under the control of Vali Al-Basra(the Governor of Basra), but his grip on the upper Gulf had weakened by the early eighteenth century.
In about 1710, a new clan led by Sheikh Sabah bin Jaber arrived, with other clans, on the sea coast in the north-eastern corner of the Arabian Peninsula Some 160 years later, The long-running conflict between the Ottomans and the Persians gave a defacto independence to the emirate which had not existed two decades earlier. By the time Abdullah died in 1815, the tribes of U'tubs dominated Bahrain as well as Kuwait, controlling the entire Arab maritime trade and pearling in the Gulf. Dutch maps dated 1740 make no mention of Kuwait, but they show the island of Failaks, calling it Peleche. It was there that in 322 BC Nearchus, the admiral who led the fleet of Alexander the Great, built of fortress when Alexander ordered him to return from India to the Euphrates via the Gulf, hoping to secure a maritime link between Babylon, the capital of his eastern Empire, and India. The name Kuwait first appeared, written next to a tower on the coastal area known as Graen, on a navigation map drawn up by the Dutch East India Company and dated 1765. The word is the plural of Kut, which means a tower or small coastal castle.
But can any muslim leader claim to be a follower of Islam who conspire with non-muslim leader to divide the Islamic world?
2: 86 These are the people who buy The life of this world at the price Of 2: 86 the hereafter: their penalty Shall not be lightened, Nor shall they 2: 86 be helped. And according to Holy Quran last Prophet of Islam (Peace be upon him) was sent to proclaim it over all religion the verse is as follows:
48 28 IT IS HE WHO HAS SENT HIS APOSTLE WITH GUIDANCE AND THE RELIGION OF 48 28 TRUTH, TO PROCLAIM IT OVER ALL RELIGION: AND ENOUGH IS ALLAH FOR 48 28 A WITNESS.
In page 71 of the above book under heading "IRAQ AND THE WEST", more references from the above book are given bellow: "On 5th September 1990, in a comment on the Western response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Moroccan writer Abdellatif Laabi wrote in the magazine Zeune
In 1492 A. C. tha Arab Muslims had to surrender to the King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella after a long years and for the division among the muslim rulers. The Muslims could not get any lessons from the event in Spain and the division among them in the name of language and culture effected ultimately the abolition of long 1300 years long Caliphate, and even most muslims do not remember the past glorious period of muslims Caliphate during which the whole world enlightened by their high culture when the Muslims introduced science in whole world, even in Spain, when the oldest university like Al-Azhar was established in Cairo, though certain university in Cordova, Spain was destroyed by Christians, in Baghdad by Halaku Khan, but suddenly since 1924 when Caliphate was formally abolished, The Muslim Leaders now pretends in such a way that we forgot the basis of Islamic Political System of Caliphate and we are satisfied with so called OIC or Organization of Islamic Conference, though no benefit was derived from OIC, except fighting among Muslims, between Iraq and Iran, between, Iraq and Kuwait and so many. The result of all these violent among Muslims are due to lost of memory of the past which are as follows:
Jerusalem is sacred to the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims. But when Jerusalem was conquered by the Muslims during the Caliphate of Hadrat Umar, he allowed the freedom of all religion, and even he did not offer Muslim prayer in the Church for which the then Bishop requested him just to honor him. Hadrat Umar knew that if he offered prayer in the church the future muslims will convert it into a mosque. In return of this true Muslim gesture, after few hundred years, the Christian world imposed an unnecessary war on Muslims which is called 'Crusade Wars which continued from 1096 to 1202 A. C. It should be mentioned here that during the third Crusade all the great Monarchs of the Christian Europe, namely, Frederick Barbarous of Germany, Philip Augustus of France and Richard I of England led a United expedition against the Muslims on Jerusalem, but they were defeated by Ghazi Salahuddin Ayubi and they were forced to retreat after concluding a treaty in November, 1192 A. C. The Crusade War came to an end by the end of Thirteenth Century when the Christians lost their faith in the old ideal of Crusade as "the way of God" and failure brought lassitude to them. Jerusalem finally came under the Muslim occupation and remained in the possession of the Turkish or Osmani Caliphate until December, 1917 A. C. when the British army marched from Egypt and occupied it at the closure of the first World War. It is however, in 1917 that the British General Allenby standing at the foot of the Citadel in Jerusalem declared, "the crusade wars have finally ended". This declaration thoroughly unmasked the Britisher's true intention of making 'alliance' with the Arabs who were completely disillusioned. Thus Arab Muslims are responsible for the defeat of the Muslims at the hand of Christians because they conspired against the Osmani Caliphate and took the Christians as their friend when Lawrence of Arabia arrived in the Arab land with a mission of dividing the Muslims into two group i. e. The Arabs and the Turks, and with the same mission the Britishers arrived in the soil of almost all Muslim world. They came to India and established it's base in Bengal and other coastal area of India and particularly divided the ruling Muslims with the same dose of assurance of future power to the greedy power hungry muslim relative of Nawab Sirajjod Dowla and probably used the Hindus against ruling Muslims. They established British government in Bengal after the defeat of Sirajjod Dowla in Bengal and step by step they abolished the Muslim rule in India. But before the Britishers came to India the majority Hindus and minority Muslim rulers lived together in harmony and in peace. There was no communal riot in India. The Muslims fought bravely against the British and gave their own life and the life of dear one for the defence and sovereignty of India, among them was Tipu Sultan in south India, who when was killed by the Englishman was still holding his sword in his hand. Bahadur Shah Jafar, the last Mogul Emperor of Muslim ruled India was expelled to Rangoon, Burma and his sons were killed along with other freedom fighters in 1857. But still then Rana Ranajit Sing was holding Panjab and his area of authority was extended upto Afghanistan and many of his General was Muslim though he himself was a great Sikh Leader which is enough proof that before British rule there was atleast less or negligible communal feeling between different religious groups in India. But it is a irony of fate that when the British handed over power to leaders of India and Pakistan, and when the Governor General of Independent India was Mount Baton who himself was a British national, there was cleansing of Hindus and Sikh in Pakistani part West Panjab and cleansing of Muslims in Indian part East Panzab, although for long 900 years those Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs lived as a closed neighbor sharing their sorrows and pleasure among themselves and even sharing the administration among themselves fighting against the British occupation for independent movement, but the result was that still to-day the Sikhs and Hindus have been shedding their blood among themselves because once People of a particular region become intolerable and love for fellow neighbors vanishes, the trend continues for next generation and that used to continue which are still happening in East Panzab. The same things happened between Arab and Turkey who lived as a single Umma (Nation) for long 1300 years as muslims, but with the conspiracy of British and other power like French, One single nation was divided first by two The Arab and Turk then again by so many states like Iran and Iraq, Iraq and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Egypt and Syria, so around thirteen Arab States under the pretext of so called Arab League with division of people, economy, Army, sometime fighting in the name of Iran and Iraq, Iraq and Kuwait and so many. Where as the Majority Christians established United Nation, grabbing all the power like veto power with them or giving some other countries, according to their choice to some others like veto power to Russia and China but no power to Muslim countries from whom they took Spain, India and Arab world, and even South-East Asian countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and son on. The muslims have been fighting among themselves during last 80 years when they established so many Nation State and abolishing Caliphate, with the destruction of their huge wealth which they could use for the benefit of entire Muslim population of this world and in general the entire poor and hungry people of this world. The result is the poor Muslim countries are dependent on the Charity of the Non-Muslim world for food and for everything.
Now who is responsible for this situation? The simple answer is the Muslims. Some Muslims will call some western Countries as Satan though they will compel the poor Muslim Countries to depend on the Western countries for everything, while they will be spoiling their vast God gifted wealth like oil with purchasing unnecessary arms which they will be using against the fellow Muslim countries violating the Islamic Law of the Holy Quran and Sunna and accepting the Jews and the Christians as their friend and advisor, not for the sake of Islam or The Lord Almighty Allah or His Prophet, but to grab power or to stay in power violating all the Democratic norm for which the Western World used to shop around the world, but the Western World overlooked when a dictator of any Muslim country takes power killing the democratically elected people for instances in Algeria, and if the western leader think that the democratically elected Government is the true follower of Islam, who intend to follow the life of a true Muslim Leader, want to enforce Quranic Law. Here Western shoping for Democracy failed. The power hungry and illegally occupied Leaders of so many Muslim Countries are not True Muslim but hypocrite as those Western leaders who talk about defending democracy and freedom around the world, who installed three members of a particular family, father and two sons in three divided and so called nation States which existed into a single state for long 1300 years. Yes I mean Hejaj where Sharif hossain was in power and his two sons Abdullah and Faruque were installed in Iraq and Syria. How foolish were those Arab people that they were divided into so many states but power were give to few family like the Gulf States like Kuwait, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia to the members of a single tribe called 'Utub', and Iraq, Syria, Jordan to another family i. e. the family of Sharif Hossain of Mecca, when the seed of division and abolition of Caliphate was created.
Here as mentioned earlier, I should again quote a very recent book namely "UNHOLY BABYLON, THE SECRET HISTORY OF SADDAM'S WAR" by ADEL DARWISH AND GREGORY ALEXANDER and published by VICTOR GOLLANCZ LTD, LONDON IN 1991, some of the important events mentioned in the book and in support of my observation mentioned above are as follows:
The authors, who were researching the book before the invasion, demonstrate that the events of 2nd August 1990 were the logical conclusion to twenty years of diplomatic duplicity, intelligence bungling, greed and corruption, particularly on the part of Britain, the US,France and Germany. The pursuit of short-sighted and relentlessly self-interested foreign policies led them to arm Hussein with a terrifying arsenal capable of mass destruction while overlooking his deplorable record on human rights and the legitimate interests of other states in the area.6 During his press conference a few days later, General Qasim said, Kuwait is an inseparable part of Iraq; the Iraqi republic has decided not to recognize the 1899 Anglo-Kuwait agreement signed by the former Sheikh of Kuwait for 15000 Indian rupees from the British Commissioner in Abadan... and the Iraqi republic has decided to protect the people of Kuwait who are the same people of Iraq.' He declared that Kuwait was part of the province of Basra and promised to issue 'a presidential decree appointing the Sheikh of Kuwait an executive administrator to the Muhafadha [country] of Kuwait'. Thus another Middle Eastern crisis was created, but this claim to Kuwait was not the first; it was merely a chapter in a long-running drama. 'It is all the fault of the British,' declared the editorials of the Iraqi papers next morning. 'Kuwait is part of Iraq, we are one nation, separated by the criminal knife of British imperialism.' The story was generations old. By the end of the eighteenth century, the entire responsibility for policing the Gulf had become Britain's. India was by then a British possession and the Dutch and the French had been largely evicted from the subcontinent. Britain was happy to restrict its interests in the Gulf to protecting its trade routes and subduing piracy. In 1820, it succeeded in negotiating a General Treaty of Maritime Peace with the sheikhs of the Trucial Coast. (There was no need to make a separate agreement with the Kuwaitis, who took no part in the piracy that plagued the lower Gulf.) Britain required some for of legal framework as pretext for intervention if needed,as it was worried about the growing presence of Turkish naval power in the waters of the Gulf. The Turks had also been known to encourage Arab piracy against the French and Portuguese. Britain proceeded to establish posts and naval bases along the trade route to India via the Suez canal, which was opened in 1866, and also signed exclusive agreements with Arab rulers throughout the Gulf. The first was with Bahrain in 1880, prohibiting the sheikhdom from making any treaties or agreements with any state other than Britain or establishing diplomatic relations with other countries without British consent. With a history of living under threats from hostile neighbors, the Kuwaitis also wanted British protection.
When Sheikh Mubarak became ruler in 1896, he was forced to fight off his two brothers. He managed to defeat and kill them both, this bloody episode marking the start of his reign. Such conflict was unusual among the Sabahs and shocked members of the other ruling families were quick to ally themselves with Mubarak before they shared the same fate. A feud within the Sabah clan was thus prevented. Mubarak subsequently built up a 25,000 strong force of loyal tribesmen and used it to defend the emirate, its caravans and other interests from marauding bedouins...... In 1897 the Baghdad Vali-the Ottoman governor of Baghdad - tried to assert control over Kuwait. Mubarak sought British protection in the form of an alliance, but the British refused his request...... Lord Curzon, an expert on the Gulf and a pillar of British imperialism, became India's viceroy. He managed to persuade the British government to sign an agreement with Sheikh Mubarak in 1899, ensuring that no territories would be leased, sold or given to any other power without British consent. At the same time, Britain's growing rival in Europe, imperial Germany, announced that it was to build a railway from Berlin to Baghdad. Mubarak received a letter assuring him of 'the good offices of Her Majesty's Government towards you, your heirs and successors, plus 15,000 rupees.7So only 15,000 Indian rupees, and surely that was Indian money, the India was also taken from Muslim rulers and money is given to another Muslim with the same mission of destruction of Muslim interest around the world, the Caliphate and the Muslim influence with the help of so called Muslim agents in Bengal, like Mirzafar and in Arab like those who received the money and not British money but Indian money. In July 1913, the storm clouds of war were gathering over Europe and Britain urgently wished to resolve matters in the Gulf. Mubarak, never one to miss an opportunity, wanted to make the best of the options facing him. The British and the Ottomans reached an agreement recognizing Kuwait as 'an autonomous district of Ottoman empire'. The agreement defined the frontiers of the emirate, whose population had doubled since 1898, while its pearling and fishing fleet now included more than 800 vessels. On the eve of the First World War, Britain was conspiring to use the warlike bedouin to protect its interest in the Middle East, either under the leadership of their sheiks or under British officers- such as T. E. Lawrence-rather than deploying its own soldiers in the desert. To secure the support of Mubarak, Britain agreed to recognize Kuwait as independent of the Ottoman Empire. In exchange, Mubarak was to support Britain against Turkey in the coming war. Mubarak and his family continued smuggling and trading with all comers and leaving doors open for new deals with many parties. It was war, an ideal situation in which to make money. Turkey joined Germany and her central European allies, while Mubarak took Britain's side but did not fight. He persuaded Abdul Aziz ibn Sa'ud, the Sultan of Najd-later Saudi Arabia-to join the alliance. Sharif Hussain, the Emir of Mecca, whose son Faisal led the Arab tribes with Lawrence against the Turks, also joined.8The above event as mentioned in the book and mentioned earlier is enough proof how the so called Muslims in Arabia worked as British agent violating The Quranic Law not to believe the Jews and Christians and take them as the friend of Muslims, and thus so called Arab Muslims helped to abolish the 1300 years old Caliphate and thus weakened the Muslim power around the world, a situation now the Muslims are in everywhere in this world. Even the Ummayad leaders like Mawbia or Yazid did not take such treacherous act like accepting the advice of Jews and Christians, so far there was no such historical evidence when they revolted against the elected fourth truthful Caliph of Islam Hazrat Ali(may Allah be pleased with him), or against the great grandsons of the last Prophet of Islam, Hazrat Imam Hassan and Hazrat Imam Hussain(may Allah be pleased with them).
Quotation from the above book are continuing as follows: Mubarak's son Salem, who masterminded smuggling for the Turks, succeeded his father in 1915 and declared his sympathy for Muslim Turkey. He also permitted the Syrians, who were under naval blockade by the Allies,to use Kuwait as a conduit for trade. Seven years later, in 1922, Britain punished the Kuwaitis for their treachery when Sir Percy Cox, the British High Commissioner in Iraq, carved away an oil-rich coastal slice of Kuwait land and handed it over to Ibn Sa'ud. However, it continued to honor the 1899 agreement guaranteeing Kuwait's status as a British protectorate. After the war, Ibn Sa'ud pressed his territorial claims along the border lines agreed by Turkey and Britain. In 1920 he placed and embargo on Kuwait trade which caused great damage to the emirate's economy, whilst his Wahhabi warriors carried out many raids across the border. In October 1920, Sheikh Salem marched with his forces to meet those of Ibn Sa'ud at Al-Jahrah, some thirty miles east of Kuwait City. Unlike 2nd August 1990, the Kuwaitis managed to halt the advance of their well-armed and battle-hardened adversaries. Despite heavy losses, they were able to prevent the invaders form occupying Kuwait City until British warships arrived and landed Royal Marines.The Wahhabis withdrew and Sir Percy Cox proposed to resolve the border dispute a year later. Cox had arrived in what was to become iraq in October 1920, replacing as High Commissioner Sir arnold Wilson, who had wanted to set up a British protectorate. Wilson's plan had been ill-received in the newly founded country, already in turmoil since General Maude had captured Baghdad from the Turks in March 1917 at a cost to the British of two and a half years of bitter fighting and 98,000 casualties. Maude proceeded to put into effect the secret Sykes-Picot agreement, drawn up in 1916 between Britain and France, in which the two powers shared out the spoils of their coming victory over the Ottoman Empire, (The Ottoman and last long 1300 years Caliphate.) Mesopotamia, comprising the two former Ottoman velayets (provinces) of Basra and Baghdad, was given to Britain. The Northern Velayets (provinces) of Basra and Baghdad, was given to Britain. The northern valayet of Mosul was initially given to France, but was the subject of a dispute which was settled in Britain's favor in 1919. The Kurds were in constant revolt, demanding an independent home land, and found the defeat of the Ottomans and the occupation of Mosul a few days after the Armistice a golden opportunity for pressing their claim for a free state. They were further encouraged by the promises of autonomy that American president Woodrow Wilson appeared to offer in his fourteen-point plan. Initially the British had encouraged the appointment of 'suitable' local Kurdish leaders in the administration of Al-Mosul velayet.
However, Arab state under its control when it was the Sunny minority that gained from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. A group of Western-educated politicians who wanted an independent, secular Iraqi state or a British-style constitutional monarch, they included Nuri al-Sa'id and the pro-Western nationalist group Ahdal'Iraq, who had been encouraged by the Syrian congress in Damascus which had elected Abdullah as King of Transjordan and Faisal King of Syria. They were the sons of Sharif of Mecca who with Lawrence had led the Arabs to fight Britain's war in the desert. Sir Percy Cox abolished British military rule and implemented an 'Arab solution' by setting a national council of ministers to draft an electoral law and establish a national assembly. Britain insisted, however, on maintaining control of foreign policy. It was the national council which approved Faisal as constitutional monarch when he arrived for the first time on Iraqi soil in June 1921, after the French had dethroned him as King of Syria. With Faisal's help, Cox proceeded to establish a strong hold on the fledgling country..... Cox and Faisal had feared that the lawlessness on the country's southern border might be a threat to the stability of the nation. In 1922, in order to put an end to the trouble, Cox summoned Ibn Sa'ud to a conference at Uqair, near the seaport of Al-Hasa on the Gulf coast near Bahrain. Cox wanted to define the northern borders of Najd in an attempt to prevent any further incursions by the king's bedouin followers who cared little for artificial frontiers. Their loyalties were to their own tribal chiefs, not to some distant government or ruler. ........... ...To put an end to these disagreements, Cox decided to draw the borders himself. The red pencil line denoting the new borders was arbitrary and unfortunately the map he used was inaccurate, so even the exact geographical position of the border was far from certain. However, it marked the division between Saudi Arabia and Iraq, as well as two neutral zones, and thus temporarily settled the disputes. The aggressive Ibn Sa'ud accepted Cox's newly marked border at the time, but trouble simmered endlessly therefore, eventually culminating in the events of 2nd August, 1990. Knowing that many more deals would be made with Faisal in future, Cox gave Iraq a large slice of the Najd territory it claimed. In order to placate Ibn Sa'ud, he had to exact a price from the Kuwaitis for their co-operation with both the Turks and British during the First World War. He gave the Najd tribes about two thirds of the land that was governed by the Kuwaitis according to a 1913 Anglo-Turkish agreement, now forcibly annulled. Kuwait also lost its right to part of the hinterland south of 1913 agreement lines and this became a neutral zone. Another neutral zone was created between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and the two zones were the source of endless arguments and feuds for years to come. .... Cox drew his lines after weighing up claims by the conflicting tribes and assessing their real force on the ground. He later explained to Sheikh Ahmad al-Jaber, Kuwait's ruler, that at the time nothing could be done to prevent Ibn Sa'ud from taking this territory by force if he wished to do so. He added, however, that Britain would not stand in the way if Kuwait was to fight to win it back. Compared to Mubarak, who had ambitiously and vigorously defended Kuwait's interest, Ahmed took fewer risks. He based his policies on the fact that Kuwait needed the help of a powerful friend like Britain while keeping good relations with its neighbors in order to preserve independence After Cox's rearrangement of the borders, which left Iraq virtually landlocked, British officials in the region worked hard to persuade the Arabs to recognize them. When the subject arose again in March 1923, Major Moore, the British political resident (agent) in Kuwait, asked the emir, Sheikh Ahmed Jaber al-Ahmed, to define the borders formally. The latter replied in a letter dated 4th April 1923, referring to Mubarak's letter of 1920 to Cox which stated that 'the borders were the same which Sheikh Salem al-Mubarak defined to the British High Commissioner in Baghdad in a letter dated 17th September 1920 as the green line defined in the Anglo-Ottoman treaty of 1913'. .... In the summer of 1932, Britain nominated Iraq for membership of the League of Nations, which asked for a copy of the border agreements between Iraq and its neighbors. Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Sa'id, wrote on 21st July 1932 to Sir Francis Humphrie, the British High Commissioner in Baghdad, recognizing the borders exactly as outlined in Sheikh al-Mubarak's letter of 1920. Another border crisis followed five years later. In 1935, a retired British officer, one Colonel Ward, was director-general of the port and navigation works in Basra. At that time, developments in artillery had resulted in considerable increases in the maximum ranges of field guns and howitzers. Consequently, Ward was of the opinion that Basra was too near to the Iranian border-a mere thirteen miles away-which put it in danger in any future conflict. He advised the Baghdad government to build a port in Umm Qasr as an outlet to the sea, instead of at Basra which ships could only reach by sailing up the Shatt al-Arab waterway along the Iranian borders. (Thirty years later the Shah of Iran implemented a similar idea by moving oil export facilities from Abadan on the Shatt al-Arab to Kharg Island.) The Baghdad government showed great interest in the project, which was known as Khor Abdullah (the Abdullah Canal). ...... Iraq's head of state at the time was young King Ghazi, a playboy with a taste for fast cars who had succeeded his father Faisal in 1933. An inexperienced but sincere Arab nationalist, Ghazi denounced France rule in Syria, Zionist claims in Palestine and the British colonialist presence in the Gulf. Annexing Kuwait was also an important item on his nationalist agenda and he made his first move in this respect in 1938. Using propaganda broadcast through the Iraqi press and his own private broadcasting station in his Baghdad palace of Azzohour, Ghazi exploited political unrest in Kuwait. ... Clashes between the Kuwaitis authorities and those citizens gathering to discuss democratic demands gave the Iraqis an opportunity to build up a persuasive propaganda campaign in which they extolled the virtues of their constitutional monarchy whilst putting forward persuasive arguments for a Kuwaiti federation with Iraq. ...King Ghazi massed troops near the borders,... Britain informed the now-independent Iraq that it would militarily intervene if there was any move into Kuwait. However, the Sabah family again had luck on their side. Late at night on 4th April 1939, King Ghazi drove his sports car at high speed into a lamp-post inside the gardens of the Azzohour palace. His instant death drew the curtain on this chapter of Iraqi attempts to annex Kuwait.9The above events are enough proof how the Caliphate was abolished step by step how the holy land was divided, and divided in such way that in future they will be fighting among themselves, and every time will be calling their British friends to save them from one another, this way there will be no peace and there will no muslims but few hypocrite who were installed in power, will be protected by the British and other western powers. So those division of the Holy Land by the red pencil line by Mr Cox can never be accepted by any Muslim any where in this world.
Human life is more important than any politics and diplomacy. Those who treat other people as inhuman being cannot be termed as human. Modern war of bunker buster and cluster bombing is nothing but crime against humanity. All human being is equal. Thus no one have the right to kill any USA soldier or Iraqi soldier and they are just employed for job and to earn bread for their family and not kill others. Ancient war with sword was better than modern war with WMD as two can fight between themselves with sword and non-combatant is spared from any harm, injury and death. So we must destroy all WMD, fighter-bomber, nuclear bombs and cluster bombs if we want the survival of this earth. No one can impose democracy on any nation through brute force of cluster bomb and it must come from people of that land. His people elected Sukarno of Indonesia through democracy. But Suharto destroyed democracy and stayed in power for several decades. Pakistani democracy is a joke for its army just like Indonesia under Suharto. Iran is the only country with democracy in entire Midle East Muslim country during last 24 years. Lastly there was no present client States like Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt etc before 1916 as Caliphate is the only Islamic States. Caliphate was far better than present client States created by the West through gunpoint. And you cannot buy peace through gun and cluster bombs. bBut all medias and so called scholars like are simply greatest liar and dishonest and as such they will never search for permanent peace as they need to propagate lying to earn their livelihood through cheap propaganda to the illiterate audience of the West.
There is only one alternate for permanent peace which are:
Let all illegal subcontractors of illegal client States leave their present illegal power to a senior Supreme Court Judge for a caretaker Government under whom there must be election for a Caliph from Morocco to Kuwait/U.A.E. and Yemen to Iraq/Syria all Arab countries with the model of present election of Bangladesh.
Will scholars, illegal subcontractors of illegal client States and Western Government accept my above proposal and leave Middle East forever in peace?
I don’t think so.
In history of USA no President can be branded as one even stole 10 millions dollars of wealth or money while he was president and the same is true for any Prime Minister of UK or any President of France and most of the present European country. The same is true for all most all Prime Ministers of India or even Prime minister of illegal Immigrants in Palestine, falsely known as Israel. And look at so called all Islamic countries and you will see that they are greatest thieves of this earth though they claim to be Muslim. And those subcontractors of illegal clients States of Caliphate are no better than Blair’s Saddam and in fact they are worse than Saddam as they even could not manufacture a plane or a tank or a missile to defend the land of Caliphate though they have stolen billions of dollars wealth and kept it in banks of their masters in the West. And those thieves who have been working as subcontractors were hosting 300,000 Army with all kind of WMD to kill and destroy while they were trying to stop this war through Arab League or Organization of so called Islamic Conference (OIC) Meeting. Is there any more hypocrisy than their act? So World Muslims must drive them from the land of Caliphate and punish them.
References are from:
1 GLIMPSES OF WORLD HISTORY BY NEHRU, PP. 317-318. 2 GLIMPSES OF WORLD HISTORY BY NEHRU, PG. 158 3 GLIMPSES OF WORLD HISTORY BY NEHRU, P. 250. 4 GLIMPSES OF WORLD HISTORY BY NEHRU, PP. 222-223. 5 GLIMPSES OF WORLD HISTORY BY NEHRU, PP. 425-426. 6 "UNHOLY BABYLON, THE SECRET HISTORY OF SADDAM'S WAR" by ADEL DARWISH AND GREGORY ALEXANDER and published by VICTOR GOLLANCZ LTD, LONDON IN 1991, Comments. 7 "UNHOLY BABYLON, THE SECRET HISTORY OF SADDAM'S WAR" by ADEL DARWISH AND GREGORY ALEXANDER and published by VICTOR GOLLANCZ LTD, LONDON IN 1991, pp.1-6. 8pg. 7 of the above book 9 "UNHOLY BABYLON, THE SECRET HISTORY OF SADDAM'S WAR" by ADEL DARWISH AND GREGORY ALEXANDER and published by VICTOR GOLLANCZ LTD, LONDON IN 1991,pp. 7-13. 10 "UNHOLY BABYLON, THE SECRET HISTORY OF SADDAM'S WAR" by ADEL DARWISH AND GREGORY ALEXANDER and published by VICTOR GOLLANCZ LTD, LONDON IN 1991, pp. 16.
Or click to go to my main page on Khilafah
____________________________________________________________________________
Please feel free to contact me at the following address:
E-mail:kgmowla@worldnet.att.net
You are visitor#:
