Umar Lee writes here:
1) Islam is attempting to be defeated by ‘Sufis’ supported by think-tanks such as the ‘Rand Institute’.
Part of the RIM line of thinking is to invent an Islam that is completely detached from politics. Instead of looking at those Muslim leaders, such as Imam Hasan al-Banna, who saw the modern world , colonialism and Western domination and developed a system based on Islamic principals to reform Muslim societies based on the principals of the Sunnah, and admiring them, RIMS call this “Islamist Modernism” as they sit in non-Muslim countries in their affluence.
The historic role of many Muslim organizations in America has been to raise money for and support groups in Muslim countries seeking to reform their societies based on the principals of al-Islam. RIMS reject this. They want no part of helping any Islamic Movement and even slander those engaged in the revival. Simultaneously they are at peace with many corrupt Muslim regimes and are joined at the hip in fighting the Islamic Movement which they both seek to destroy. They cede the public and political life of Muslim societies to secular forces and opt to relegate the role of Islam to the home and family life.
In America RIMS use their position to claim the role of good harmless upper-class Western Muslims who have no affinity for, or attachment to, those misguided Third World Muslim movements trying to establish Sharia and remove tyrants. While the Islamic Revival is working in the trenches of Muslim societies to reform; RIMS prefer to sit in circles and make dhikr and make duah that one day a miracle will occur and everything will change. Those RIMS in America sit in coffee shops using language strange to Muslims, but well-known to grad students of liberal arts colleges, to distance themselves from the dirty masses in the revival.
Which category do we put people such as Umar Lee, a white convert to Islam, dictating to us what Islam really means, while wearing his beret backwards? Muslims will inshaAllah have justice, but it will be on our terms Umar Lee. It won’t be in the terms of ‘revolution’ or ‘democracy’ with ‘political parties’. If a 100 years of history haven’t shown you that, then its time to write up “Rise and Fall of the American-Convert-pseudo-Salafi-Worldview”.
Our Sufi forefathers fought actual Jihad, our grandfathers are buried in Muslims graveyards and we visit them. ‘Sufism’ as a tradition contains wisdom from 1400 years of thought and action (including battle). Your ideas came from your own ego, yesterday.
One of the aspects of the Dajjalic freemasonic system is to create and promote two sides which are, ostensibly, against each other, but driven by the same agendas and methodologies. In other words, the world is filled with opposing teams, but they are playing the same game, they follow the same rules, and their continued success is connected to when the game succeeds.
Succeeding in ‘politics’ got us Ellison, that turned out well didn’t it? Ellison voted ‘present’ on HRES 34.
Succeeding in ‘politics’ got the Gazan people, Hamas. Where is their victory? Are the body counts truly affecting any side of this?
Who was it that killed Aslan Mashkadov, who fought a real sufi jihad? Which burning cancer came in to destroy that righteous movement which led to numerous successes?
We don’t have to be ‘Rand Institute Muslims’ to recognize that Hamas is an entity which exists for its own nationalistic agendas. And last time I checked, nationalistic agendas are in direct contradiction with the Khalifat. The choice Umar Lee gives us is: either buy into this new age of “Islamic states”, which will one day be able to exist for longer than 6 months, through the power of Allah, and ‘elect’ a Khalifa through their new-found-brotherhood-ness or…. be a sell-out. This is ridiculous.
It is above and beyond the ‘Rand System’ to create entities and personalities who simply advocate for Islam as a ‘side’ in this twisted game, rather than recognizing how deep the rabbit hole goes.
How do you establish Shariat through a constitution and by-laws? How do you establish Shariat without a Khalifa? Where is their nominee? Where is his success?
Umar Lee’s political positions are so confused between his actual genuine anger and post-modern government rhetoric that in one of his online videos, I would think that the first part of his video (speaking of the terrorism of the West), would make fun of the second part of his video (whose height of direction is to suggest Muslims in the West to stop the blockade of aide.. the how is not specified.).
This is your jihad Umar? A blog and a video? And you stand ready to criticize, who exactly?
http://umarlee.com/2009/01/04/video-response-to-ground-invasion-of-gaza/
Umar Lee, I suggest you watch this video of someone who actually fought for Islams sake:
Towards the middle of the nineteenth century, various European Masonic obediences set up lodges throughout the Ottoman empire, many in Istanbul, while another important centre was Smyrna. Freemasons were also active in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Cyprus and Macedonia. Lodges were established in the main political, economic and cultural centres of the Empire. There was a strong parallelism between the Ottoman Masonic geography and that of European colonial expansion. It is easy to delineate the social and ethnic structure of lodges, but we know less about what was going on behind the walls of Masonic temples. For sure, Ottoman Freemasons, like their brethren in other parts of the world, when not busy with ‘table works’ or ceremonies, dedicated themselves to philanthropic activities. A considerable part of the annual income of the lodges was used to finance various charitable works (assistance to orphans, to brethren in distress …) and to fund educational institutions. The lodges were also places for the discussion and exchange of ideas about current themes: socialism, feminism, venereal diseases, progress of science, etc. Some mingled with politics, displaying a highly nationalistic discourse. The politicization of Ottoman/Turkish freemasonry climaxed during the years of the Young Turk revolution (1908–1914), when an autochthonous obedience was created. One of the goals of the new organization, coldly received by most European freemasonries, was to rid the Ottoman Empire of foreign penetration. After the proclamation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, this national freemasonry continued to flourish, except for 13 years between 1935 and 1948 when Masonic activity was banned.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=EF33F4826E94713591111F9888132C04.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=318561
Jamal al-Afghani and his teachings are one of the main pillars on which modern mass-consumed (by Muslims) Islamic movements are constructed.
While there are those that say whether or not he was a freemason is not relevant to understanding his message, what becomes necessarily relevant is the motivations for his actions and teachings. The Ottomans judged him to be a dangerous munafiq, and essentially held him captive, others heralded him and his students as their saviors.
“He belongs to the select band of men who have wielded the greatest influence on the rising Muslim generations in the modern times” – Nadwi, At-Talib Blog
“Dr. Muhammad ‘Emarah, answered these contentions stating: “Those who question his race and religious orientation would like to, in light of these accusations, establish his dishonesty, for indeed, he has stated about himself that “I am Afghani.” And his words and writings illustrate that he was a sunni. Thus, the objective of behind these accusations is to destroy the man who is cherished by all.” – suhaibwebb.com
“The result was that this school impacted every Islamic reform effort at whose forefront was the Muslim Brotherhood lead by Imam Hassan al-Bana. [May Allah have mercy upon all of them].” – suhaibwebb.com
Whatever his admirers may say, the reality is that questioning his race and religious orientation is a necessary result of reading Afghani’s own words. To understand what he wrote one must first understand the context of the time and audience to which Afghani corresponded.
In the days before mass media and mass literacy in the Middle East, it was generally safe to correspond with high class Europeans and their magazines rather freely. As long as these works were not being translated back to Arabic, there was really no practical chance of one’s words coming back to bite the author. There is also much evidence indicated Jamal ad-Din interrupted numerous translations of his letters back to Arabic in his lifetime.
This was how orientalists such as Johann Ludwig Burckhardt were able to report on Muslim activities while assuming Muslim identities. As time went on and the success of impostors such as Burckhardt and “Ali Bey el Abbasi” gave the West new ways to manipulate and reform the religion. Hence much of ‘revivalist’ thought from Wahabis to the movements supported by al-Afghani’s thought were backed by the West, particularly, Western intellectuals.
The Prophet (S) said “You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit, so much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure (lizard) you would follow them.” We said “O Allah’s messenger (Do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?” He said “Whom else?”
So what did Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani write to the Europeans when he thought no one was ‘listening’? In a series of debates with Renan, Afghanis viewpoints became clear.
“If it is true that the Muslim religion is an obstacle to the development of sciences, can one affirm that this obstacle will not disappear someday? How does the Muslim religion differ on this point from other religions? All religions are intolerant, each one in its way. The Christian religion, I mean the society that follows its inspirations and its teachings and is formed in its image, has emerged from the first period to which I have just alluded; thenceforth free and independent, it seems to advance rapidly on the road of progress and science, whereas Muslim society has not yet freed itself from the tutelage of religion. Realizing, however, that the Christian religion preceded the Muslim religion in the world by many centuries, I cannot keep from hoping that Muhammadan society will succeed someday in breaking its bonds and marching resolutely in the path of civilization after the manner of Western society…No I cannot admit that this hope be denied to Islam.”
“Wherever it has established itself, this religion has tried to stifle science and it has been marvelously served in its aims by despotism”
(“Answer of Jamal al-Din to Renan Journal des Debats, May 18, 1883 in N. R. Keddie, An Islamic Response to Imperialism, p. 183)
Much of this letter speaks for itself. I find the last line most interesting. For all the discussions in the excerpt about religion being an obstacle and an impediment to progress, the article concludes with the hope that western style civilization and abandonment of faith not be ‘denied to Islam’. Through this language, Islam is redefined from a faith to a political movement, just as he redefines Christianity to mean “the society that follows its inspirations and its teachings and is formed in its image”.
And this is how faith began to be separated from the religion.
When Al-Afghani could speak of ‘Islam’ as a society, with a determined focus on rules, laws and ‘advancement’, while being completely separated from matters of spiritual faith itself, the ability to fool Muslims looking for a ’cause’ fell well into his grasp.
However, correspondence with Westerners was not the only means by which Afghani made his intentions clear. Numerous evidences exist of his hostile attitude towards faith and tradition.
Further facts and excerpts:
in 1871 he left Istanbul for Cairo because he was accused of heresy by the Ottomans.
In Egypt, the writer Abbas Mahmud al Aqqad tells us Afghani had a reputation for heresy amongst ‘the divines’.
In Cairo, he mixed with dogma, writes his contemporary Abdull al-Nadim, who was not an enemy
“what gave rise to criticism . . . and some of his disciples became known for their heresy and for their great opposition to religion, either through misunderstanding or perverse teaching, so that many of the believers turned away from him” (ref: Muhammad Ahmad Khalafallah (1956), Abdullah al-Nadim wa mudhakkiratuhu al-siyasiyya (A.N . and his Political Memoirs) p 52, Cairo.
Shaikh Abd al Qadir al-Maghribi recounts a story Afghani used to tell which concerned a believer and an unbeliever. The believer would exhort the unbeliever to pray by telling him:
“Try to pray regularly for forty days, and see whether you can give up prayer afterwards” to which the unbeliever retorted “Give up praying for forty days, and see whether you can ever resume the practice afterwards” – (ref Abd al-Qadir Maghribi (1926), al Bayyinat Vol I, pp 48-49. Cairo)
His friend and protege, Adib Ishaq wrote that Afghani
“He became expert in the study of religion, wrote Selim al-Anhuri, “until this led him to atheism and belief in the eternity of the world. He claimed that vital atoms, found in the atmopshere, formed, by natural evolution the stars which we see and which reolve round one another through magnetism, and that the belief in an all knowing First cause was a natural delusion which arose when man was in a primitive stage of evolution and corresponded with the stage which his intellectual progress had reached”
Sheykh Mustafa Abd al Raziq was to become the head of Al-Azhar in 1945 – 1947. He reported that after his arrival in Paris 1883, Afghani suffered a change in belief:
“(He) Became a rebel against religion, and came to believe it was the enemy of science, reason and civilization so much so that he gladly and deferentially acquiesced in Renan’s attack on Islam” - ref: Rashid Rida (1923), al-Manar vol XXIV, p 311
Finally in private letters between Afghani and his student Abduh, his student writes
“We regulate our conduct according to your sound rule: we do not cut the head of religion except with the sword of religion (nahnu al-an ala sunnatika al qawima la naqta ra’s al-din illa bi-saif al-din) Therefore, if you were to see us now, you would see ascetics and worshippers [of God] kneeling and genuflecting, never disobeying what God commands and doing all that they are ordered to do. Ah! how constricted life would be without hope!” (ref Documents, published: Tehran , Plates 138-140) also (ref: Kedourie (1966), Afghani and Abduh, London).
Now knowing the desire of such individuals in attacking the faith of Islam, using the pretext of Islam, a universe of questions opens up to us.
At a minimum, ‘modern Muslims’ need to ask themselves: to what extent has this corruption and redefinition of social ‘Islam’ entered their own psyche and thought?
The fact that Jamal ad-Din Afghani, who was at least a heretic if not apostate, is a noted influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat e Islami, Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Indian Khilafat Movement, and basically every political Islamic reform movement today requires a major reconsideration of the fundamentals of reform itself.
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 
