This is a guest post by Raziq
****
There is a common misconception that the roots of radical Islamism stem from grievances in the Middle East i.e. Israel/Palestine. This is actually not true. The Indian Sub-continent is just as responsible for radical Islamism as the Middle East is thanks to one man in particular, largely ignored in the Western media, Maulana Mawdudi. In this article I will be looking at Mawdudi’s personality and ideology.
Mawdudi was the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), an Islamist party in the Indian sub-continent (the counterpart of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt). In the early part of his life he was a newspaper editor. He had no theological grounding as a scholar, rather he was a self-taught man with a passion for political authority. He was a key influence on many Islamist ideologues.
According to historian Philip Jenkins:
Egyptian Hassan Al Banna and Sayyid Qutb read him. Qutb ‘Borrowed and expanded’ Mawdudi’s concept of Jahilliyya (pagan ignorance) being a modern as well as pre-muhammadan phenomena, and for the need for an Islamist revolutionary vanguard movement. His ideas influenced the young Osama bin Laden during the anti-soviet war in Afghanistan. The South Asian Diaspora, including “significant numbers” in Britain, were “hugely influenced” by Mawdudi’s work. Mawdudi even had a major impact on Shia Iran, where Ayatollah Ruhoallah Khomeini is reputed to have met Mawdudi as early as 1963 and later translated his works into Farsi. “To the present day, Iran’s revolutionary rhetoric of ten draws on his themes.
(tnr. com The New Republic “The Roots of Jihad in India” by Philip JENKINS, December 24, 2008)
Mawdudi‘s ideas are laid out in the 120 books he wrote. In his book Al-Jihad fil-Islam (Jihad in Islam) he explains his interpretation of Jihad:
It must now be obvious that the objective of the Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system, and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine his rule to a single state or a hand full of countries. The aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution. Although in the initial stages, it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the state system of the countries to which they belong; their ultimate objective is none other than world revolution
(Jihad Fi Sabillilah: Jihad in Islam by Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi “– Chapter 3, Pg 10)
In another book he says:
Human relations are so integrated that no state can have complete freedom of action under its principles unless the same principles are not in force in a neighbouring country. Therefore, a, ‘Muslim Party’ will not be content with the establishment of Islam in just one area alone –both for its own safety and for general reform. It should try and expand in all directions. On one hand it will spread its ideology; on the other it will invite people of all nations to accept its creed, for salvation lies only therein. If this Islamic state has power and resources it will fight and destroy non-Islamic governments and establish Islamic states in their place.
(Maulana Mawdudi, Haqiqat-i-Jihad ,Pg 64, Taj Company Ltd, Lahore, Pakistan 1964)
It is not difficult to see the influence Mawdudi’s ideas had on Islamist ideologues (Syed Qutb for example) as they swiftly became widespread in various parts of the world. To propagate his ideas Mawdudi set up his group Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) in 1941. He describes his group as:
It (JI) is not a missionary organisation or a body of preachers or evangelists, but an organisation of God’s troopers.
(Mawlana Mawdudi, Haqiqat-i-Jihad, Pg 58, Taj Company Ltd, Lahore, Pakistan 1964)
The vision of this group was to destroy all man-made political systems and to establish an Islamic state in their place where non-Muslims would not be allowed to propagate their faiths. This state would then wage a Jihad against other countries.
In our domain we neither allow any Muslim to change his religion nor allow any other religion to propagate its faith.
(Mawlana Abul Ala Mawdudi, Murtad ki Saza Islami Qanun Mein, Pg 32, Lahore Islamic Publications Ltd, 1981, 8th Edition)
Women’s role in society would be restricted:
..the real place of women is the house and she has been exempted from outdoor duties…She has however been allowed to go out of the house to fulfil her genuine needs, but whilst going out she must observe complete modesty. Neither should she wear glamorous clothes and attract attention, nor should she cherish the desire to display the charms of the face and the hand, nor should she walk in a manner which may attract attention of others. Moreover she should not speak to them without necessity, and if she has to speak she should not speak in a sweet and soft voice
(Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi. Purdah and the status of Women in Islam, Taj Company Ltd, Pg 140)
In Pakistan, JI protested against women’s rights and supported the Hudood bill of 1979. This bill made it difficult for women to receive justice for rape as, if they failed to bring four male witnesses to the crime, they risked having their accusation against the man turned into an admission of guilt to fornication. The woman would be flogged and the rapist would walk free.
Mawdudi himself was arrested in 1953 for inciting violence against the minority Ahmadiyyah community and sentenced to death, which was later commuted. In total Mawdudi was jailed four times before his death in 1979.
In Pakistan, members of JI have gone on to join Pakistan’s military and intelligence departments in large numbers. This was a factor in the military coup in the 70’s which overthrew the government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and brought the dictatorship of General Zia into power. Zia then went on a campaign to Islamicize the country. He supported, trained and funded JI-inspired Islamist fighters in Afghanistan and India; the birth of the Taliban was a direct result of JI influence in the Pakistani Intelligence services.
In the UK today there are many organisations which have links to JI or actively support and propagate Mawdudi’s ideas. They include the Islamic Foundation in Leicester, East London Mosque, UK Islamic Mission, Islamic Forum Europe and leading figures in the Muslim Council of Britain. It is a shame that today in Britain we have organisations promoting Mawdudi’s hate-filled works and, if we are serious about defeating extremism in the UK, they must be exposed and challenged.
28 Comments
Mawdudi was also very keen on sex slaves:
“Even today, the government must distribute the women war captives among Muslim soldiers and the soldiers should “use” them. This rule will apply to women regardless of whether they belong to the People of the Book, or any other religion”
Vol 1 Pg 340 Tafirul Quran
Hmmmm.
The old JI website used to list exactly how it envisioned the Islamic state to be and had some pretty nasty stuff in it. Their new website has been cleared of most of the extreme stuff
Mawdud, HT, Ikhwan, Al-Qaeda are all the same.
Power hungry freaks who try to justify there ideas through religion, even if it means lying, twisting and distorting religous scripture.
Good brief intro to Maududi.
One of his close friends Amin Islahi split off from him over the role of Muslim scholarly class in politics. Javed Ghamidi, a sort of conservative-orientated modernist I suppose, is a pupil of Islahi.
In the light of current events I think we should all be reminded of Maudoodi and exactly what he stood for. Only then will we understand the IFE, MCB, FOSIS & Jamaat-e-Islami.
For this reason I am bringing this article to the fore again.
Didn’t Inayat once say that it was Mawdudi’s writings that first got him interested in Islam?
Iqbal finds the source of life in the desire for power and domination He says that misplaced forgiveness is a sign that life is decaying. He who remains contented with weakness falls into a state of disgrace. Weakness is a thief that steals away life and it is productive, of such evils as fear and falsehood. Truth is always accompanied by strength. Life is a field and its crop is strength. Power and strength are the criteria for the judgement of truth and falsehood. If your enemy is capable of mustering power and strength, his argument needs no further proof. Falsehood acquires the glamour of truth by means of power and considers itself the truth, because truth lacks power.
But how should one acquire strength and power. Iqbal says by conquering the world and subduing it to our purposes:-
Whoever hath subdued the things perceived can of one atom reconstruct a world.
The world and its splendours are not to be derided but subdued to higher purposes:-
O thou who slumberest, by dull opiates drugged,
And namest mean this material world;
Rise up and open thy besotted eyes!
Call not mean the world by law compelled!
Its purpose is to enlarge the Muslims’ soul,
To challenge his potentialities;
And again
God counts this world the portion of good men; Commits its splendours to believers’ eyes;
It is a road the caravan must pass,
The touchstone the believer’s gold to assay;
Seize thou this world, that it may not seize thee
And in its pitcher swallow thee like wine.
Just as Afghans condemns cowardice, Iqbal condemns fear:
The fear of God faith’s only preface is,
All other fear is secret disbelief.
Islamic warfare is directed to the securing of essential human liberties. Some people think, he says, that Islam has sanctioned only defensive warfare. If it means that you should wait until you are actually attacked, it is a misinterpretation of the essential principles of Islam. War must be waged in defence of human liberties, as the Qur’an says,’ ‘Fight with them until there is no persecution and religion should only be for Allah’ (2:193).
Fighting for the way of the Lord means fighting for social justice, it does not mean fighting to spread a dog¬ma. In countless places the Book says that you have to fight against tyranny and suppression of liberties and the fight must go on until per¬secution stops and people are free to believe and act as they like in a free manner. “And what reason have you that you shall not fight in the way of Allah and of the weak among the men and the women and the children are those who say: our Lord! cause us to go forth from this town whose people are oppressors and give us from thee a helper”. (4:75). This clearly explains what is meant by fighting in the way of the Lord. It is not a fight for a theological mystery or metaphysical doctrine; God is the ideal of human conduct, He stands for social justice. The fight for social justice only is enjoined by Islam, a war for any other purpose would be un-Islamic.
Islam is however too realistic a religion to be pacifist. It is one thing to want to live peacefully with others, but quite another to make them have the same attitude toward you. On the whole, people of every culture desire to be more powerful than those who are culturally opposed to them. They take all steps which they deem necessary for the preservation of their cultural identity, and for the subjugation of others. In his new classic paper on clash of civilizations, Huntington tells us with unusual candidness that, “The West is now at an extraordinary peak of power in relation to other civilizations. Apart from Japan the West has no economic challenge. It dominates international political and security institutions, and with Japan economic institutions.”
And: “In the post-Cold War, the primary objective of arms control is to prevent the development by non-Western societies of military capabilities that would threaten Western interests. The West attempts to do this through international agreements, economic pressure and controls on the transfer of arms and weapons technologies.”
Muslims are therefore enjoined to be materially powerful so as to deter those who might resort to aggression against Muslims or who are prone to use force to subjugate others. Material power can and should thus be an ally to the cause of spiritual development and not a contradictory of it.
In order to judge the incorrect ideas held by western people, it would be useful to survey the attitudes to women in different societies in the past.
During the Roman civilization, for example, a woman was regarded as a slave. The Greeks considered her a commodity to be bought and sold. Early Christianity regarded women as temptresses, responsible for the fall of Adam from Heaven. (1)
1. Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 19, p. 909 (1977 edition)
In India, the Hindus until recently considered their women worse than death, pests, serpents or even Hell. A wife’s life ended with the death of her husband. In the past, a widow had to jump into the flames of her husband’s funeral pyre.
In pre-Islamic Arabia, a woman was treated as a cause for grief and unhappiness and baby girls were sometimes buried alive after birth. This is mentioned in the Qur’an when Allah says: “And when the female (infants) buried alive (as the pagan Arabs used to do) is questioned. For what sin was she killed?” (81:8-9)
In France, in 587 CE, a conference was held to study the status of women and to determine whether a woman could truly be considered a human being or not! Henry VIII in England forbade the reading of the Bible by women and throughout the middle ages the Catholic Church treated women as second-class citizens. In the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, male and female students were not given the same rights until 1964. Before 1850, women were not counted as citizens in England and English women had no personal rights until 1882.
If we keep this status in mind and look into the position of the women in Islam, we must conclude that Islam liberated women from the dark age of obscurity, insecurity and being non-entities fourteen hundred years ago!
Islam is a religion of common sense and is in line with human nature. It recognises the realities of life. This does not mean it has recognised equality of man and woman in every respect. Rather, it has defined their duties in keeping with their different biological make-up (2:228). Allah has not made man and woman identical, so it would be against nature to try to have total equality between a man and a woman.
That would destroy the social balance. Society would not prosper but would instead have insoluble problems such as broken marriages, children born outside marriage and the break-up of family life. These problems are already rife in Western society. Schoolgirl pregnancies, an increase in abortions, divorce and many other problems have resulted from a permissive outlook and the so-called freedom of women championed by feminists.
What a load of waffle!
The post is about Mawdudian philosophy. Stick to the topic at hand!
Zalloom, don’t mask ‘waffle’ claims for your inability/laziness to read detailed posts. Adam’s post is related to the portion on women in the OP.
Don’t expect anyone to spoonfeed you meanings next time.
Responsibilities and Duties
To the Muslims we have only one very simple thing to say: Understand and fulfil the responsibilities and duties that fall upon you by virtue of your being Muslims. You cannot get away with merely affirming that you are Muslims and that you have accepted God as your only God and Islam as your religion. Rather, as soon as you acknowledge Allah as your only Lord and His guidance as your way of life, you take upon yourselves certain obligations and duties. These obligations you must always remain conscious of, these duties you must always endeavour to discharge. If you evade them, you shall not escape the evil consequences of your conduct in this world or in the Hereafter.
What are these duties? They are not merely confined to the affirmation of faith in Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgement. Nor are they confined to performing the Prayers, observing the Fasts, going on the Pilgrimage, and paying the Alms. Nor are these duties exhausted by observing the injunctions of Islam relating to marriage, divorce and inheritance. Over and above all these duties, there is one which is the most important: that your lives bear witness to the Truth that you have been given by God before all mankind, the Truth which you believe to be true.
The Only Purpose of Existence
The Qur’an clearly states that witnessing to the Truth in a manner that would leave mankind with no justifiable ground to deny it is the only purpose behind constituting you as a distinct Ummah (community), named Muslims.
And thus We have made you a community of the middle way, so that you may be witnesses [to the Truth] before all mankind, and the Messenger may be witness [to it] before you (al-Baqarah 2: 143).
This mission is the sole objective for which your Ummah has been brought into being, it is the raison d’être of its existence as a society of human beings. Unless you fulfil it you are squandering your life. For this is no ordinary duty; it is a duty enjoined on you by God. It is a Divine command and a Divine call:
O believers, be ever steadfast in standing up, for the sake of God, bearing witness to justice (al-Ma’idah 5: 8).
It is not a mere trifle but an emphatic and grave mandate, for Allah also says:
And who is a greater wrong-doer than he who suppres ses a witness entrusted to him by God (al-Baqarah 2: 140).
You have been warned of the consequences of evading this duty. Look at the history of the people of Israel. They too were appointed to stand in the witness-box; but sometimes they suppressed the Truth, and sometimes they witnessed against it. By their conduct, they, in fact, became witnesses to falsehood rather than witnesses to the Truth. The consequence was that God forsook them and a curse fell upon them.
And so, humiliation and powerlessness afflicted them, and they earned God’s anger (al-Baqarah 2: 61).
Witness to the Truth
What does this duty of witness imply? Consider it carefully: You have been given Divine guidance, you have been shown the Truth. You must, therefore, establish by your testimony and witness its authenticity and truthfulness before all mankind. This is a testimony that will make the authenticity and truthfulness of Divine guidance self-evident, for all to see, and a witness that will make it clear and indisputable for all people.
For this very purpose all the Messengers were sent to the world; this was their primary duty. After them, their followers were entrusted with the same duty. And now the Muslim Ummah, as the successor to the Last Prophet, blessings and peace be on him, is charged with this very mission, just as he was charged with it during his lifetime.
Nature and Importance
What is the importance of this witness? You will know its importance only when you understand that man has been made accountable for his conduct and will be rewarded and punished in the Hereafter under the Divine Law which rests entirely on this witness. God is All-wise, All-merciful, and All-just. His mercy, justice and wisdom are not such that He should punish people for living against His will while they had no knowledge of it, that He should take people to task for deviating from the right path of which they were ignorant, that He should hold people accountable for things of which they were unaware. [1]
It was as a provision against this that the first man He created was a Messenger, and that after him many more were sent from time to time. [2] They were all to be witnesses to mankind, to make it understand and remember the will of God. They were all to teach human beings the proper way of conducting their lives, the code of behaviour that they should adopt to win God’s favour, the acts that they should perform, the acts that they should avoid, and the things for which they will be brought to account. [3]
This witness was given by Allah’s Messengers so that the people may not be in a position to say to God: How can we be punished for things of which we were not warned? The Qur’an says:
[We sent] all Messengers as heralds of glad tidings and as warners, so that men may not have any argument against God, after [the coming of] these Messengers; God is indeed All-mighty, All-wise (al-Nisa’ 4: 165).
In this manner God made His Messengers bear the crucial responsibility for guiding man on His behalf. They were thus charged with a very delicate and grave responsibility: if they bore witness to the Truth properly, the people would be accountable for their own actions, but if they failed in their duty, they themselves would be called to account for their people going astray. In other words, unless the Messengers made people responsible for their conduct by giving them conclusive and indisputable testimony to the Truth, the people would hold the Messengers responsible for their own misdeeds, saying: ‘The knowledge that God gave you, that you did not communicate to us; the way of life that He showed you, that you did not show US.’ [4] That is why all the Messengers always remained acutely conscious of the burden of this responsibility, and that is why they endeavoured so hard to bear witness before the people to the Truth entrusted to them.
Responsibility of the Ummah
All those who were led by the Messengers to the knowledge of the Truth and Divine guidance were formed into a community, an Ummah. Every Ummah was charged with the same mission as the Messengers of witnessing to the Truth. As successors to the Messengers, every Ummah has the same crucial role and responsibility as they had. Thus, if an Ummah properly fulfils its duty of witnessing to the Truth and yet the people do not pay heed, it will be rewarded and the people will be brought to account. However, if the Ummah neglects its duty, or if it gives false witness, it will deserve to be punished more severely than the people. The Ummah shall be accountable not only for its own misdeeds, but also for the misdeeds of those who went astray or turned to error and wickedness because the testimony given to them by the Ummah was misleading or false.
This, brothers, is the nature and logic of that grave and crucial duty which lies upon me, you and all those who consider themselves part of the Muslim Ummah, or those who have become sufficiently aware of God’s Book and the guidance brought by His Messengers.
Not only bonkers waffle, but factually wrong:
Canon law reforms, isntigated by the establishment of the Church of England during the reign of Henry VIII, included extension of the already existing stipulation that a woman might not serve as a deacon in the newly established Church of England. As deacons traditionally make the readings in church service, this meant that effectively women continued to not be allowed to read from the Bible during Church service. The fact that Henry’s own daughters (both the Catholic Mary and the Anglican Elizabeth) not only read from the Bible but read it in Hebrew, Greek and Latin might give the lie to this piece of guff – but also consider the impossibility of enforcing such a law. Ridiculous!
This clarified the Church of England’s status as a non-conforming Catholic church in rite and Canon law.
Not just the Catholic Church, but also lay society – and not just women. Equal legal rights are a recent invention, historically – Islamism seeks to return society to conditions similar to those of the High Middle Ages in Europe on this score, lest we forget.
Rubbish. Iris Murdoch, for example, was up at Cambridge (where she was one of Wittgenstein’s finest Post-Grad students). There were colleges for women established in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries at both Places.
Dons – lecturers with tenure at Oxford and the Polytechnic of the Fens (sorry, couldn’t resist!) were expected to be celibate or at least bachelors. This was because, of course, both Places were originally monastic establishments.
Epic fail on this one as well, Ibn.
This is so utterly deranged it is hilarious. Of course women had rights – they may not have been equal to men’s rights – but they had rights. Even Anglo-Saxom rich women made wills in their own right, women figured in court cases which considered their rights throughout the whole history of English law. Women have ancient customary rights enshrined in Common Law.
Incidentally, until recently no-one was a citizen of Britain. One was (is) a subject of the Crown. The view being that citizens belong to republics, subjects to monarchies. Britain is, of course, part of a monarchy (read that carefully – part of a monarchy… now go and do some research).
In other words, you are a deranged, ignorant, dribble-merchant. Do go away.
The details of unjust rulings are but fuel for the Fire. As it is the lewdness of the western woman of this century as in bygone centuries isn’t something that I would want to defend or publicize. Praise be to the Creator Glory be to Allah WHOa Allah He is Allah that made the knowledge upon which Mawdoodi talked about and acted upon a well spread cause for concern. For there is only one Book in Islam the Koran and were all the trees pens and all the oceans ink never would the words of Allah end. The Muslim woman is stationed in her house her husband in the position of a slave to meet her material needs although he is her master the father of her children. For the illegitimate wars with the legion of illegitimate children is the answer of one man Imam Al-MAhDE who fights illegitimacy of causes rule and manpower. His enemies know him to be true. The promised one the guided one. So bring forth O ignorant ones your book of guidance if it be not your current whims your farcical laws your vendettas against the Muslim. If your talking about any version of the Bible again the Koran is the seal of that scripture too. If your drunk in public drinking openly we’ll rehabilitate you in public openly with forty lashes. Reason is the highest gift of God-Allah upon man and the Muslim protected the mind-life. The Muslim is to be preferred any day to the torture retreats of the disbelievers with there allied hypocrites in Islam. In the war on terror the Muslim is THE terrorist striking terror in your midst !! For you are the Terror wrecks –rex–king upon which the romans lost the revolutionary wars against kings for it is Islam under the Messiah who kills your crowned blinded king the antichrist !! Is there any other prattle about Islam or babble cock !!
Before we look at magna carta (the script) let us go back two years previous to 1213 and thecontract called the treaty of verona. King John, as most kings tried to no avail to establish as William the conqueror did a dictatorship. This seems to be the model to follow and William set a precedent that all kings and queens would to try to follow, or at least they would try to push the boundaries further set out in the doctrine written by the church of rome. The pope’s main goal was to try and control all the lands of the world under the doctrine he is the ‘vicar of christ’, using the myth of jesus christ to achieve this. Placing him at the top of the chain and by using the myth to his and who he serves benefit, he would proclaim that he was the owner of all lands on behalf of jesus, until such time as jesus would return and he would supposedly hand it all back to him. Contained within this is every living breathing creature including us – basically in servitude to his wishes and all he commands? This was done through a legal system called canon law, the law of contracting that works through fiction, as it itself, is only fiction. So to set the stage we have the pope at the top of the chain supposedly owning all land and everything upon it and canon law as the script for the play, and the principles of the script to be; that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience including their kings and queens. In being the ‘vicar of christ’ the number one law to be used at first was the fear of god and this is exactly what was used against king John to make him circum to the popes wishes.
When looking at King John there are so many conflicting versions of history surrounding the events and the life of John, almost to the point that most versions contradict themselves? It would seem that yes John and England were in some financial difficulties arising from the constant need to maintain lands in other countries and thecontrol of them, but more to the point that there was always someone wishing to take the throne of this country away from whoever held it at the time. The basis of the problem seems to be that John did not want to accept Stephan Langton as Archbishop the Vatican’s representative, installed by pope innocent III to rule England under religious doctrine as Holy See. (canon law) Did John realise he was just to be a front man with everything being controlled from the shadows? John in effect was to become a slave to Stephan Langton and I am sure John released this and of course no king of England could become a slave in his own land….what would become of his status? John thwarted the pope on this and got himself excommunicated, which to John being a very holy man in fear of god, was a very bad thing to happen – in fact the only card the pope needed to play. John, as his brother Richard I had done, had invoked the law of mortmain, being brought in by Richard when he was crowned for the second time after being held captive for 7 years by the czar of Germany. One of the agreements and part of the contract for his release was that Richard would install canon law on being crowned, to maintain what William had started. John invoked mortmain so no one could pass land on to the church or anyone else without the king’s permission, in some ways I see what John was trying to do, although historians have masked this fact deliberately – maybe a vain attempt to protect this island on behalf of who he served: us. But it still remains that the law of mortmain was to be used as a very bad devise and still is today and would serve the pope well, but it seems John was forced into a predicament and used what he had at his disposal. It seems without mortmain the king would lose all the land he controlled. The Vatican did not like this as they were losing control of lands as many under the fear of god were giving their lands to the church. The church had to devise a way to maintain the lands would always be theirs and they would maintain control. John was the perfect candidate because of his religious nature and the excommunication devise worked perfectly to achieve this, with the added bonus that Stephen Langton would be in control and John would circum to this. The pope needed to cast in stone or at least on paper a contract with John that would be everlasting that would hand over everything including lands and chattels (us) to the supremacy of the pope and the church of rome.
When John was excommunicated this affected this very religious man to such an extent it is said he went on bended knee and submitted to the popes supremacy to be absolved of excommunication. John handed over title to his kingdoms at the time which consisted of England and Ireland to the pope and all chattels as vassals, which means someone who is holding a fief (a piece of land held under the feudal system) who owes allegiance and service to a feudal lord. The pope was setting himself up as the ultimate lord on behalf of the corporation known as the church of Rome, the greatest conquest that netted the pope the place needed to take the rest of the world under an empire that he represented, an empire that was to become the biggest corporation in the world. John swore submission and loyalty to the pope under the delusion that if he didn’t he would be excommunicated again, and to John this was worse than death of the body or anything else on this earth that could be done to him. The threat of eternal damnation was enough for John to circum to the wishes and desires of a man pretending to be a god on earth, a land lord John would worship as all of religious men, women and children have been deceived into doing. This is the ultimate deception, the ultimate lie relying on a myth, but was so strong in its devious nature that a man would surrender anything it requires to be surrendered – as when you join the ‘order of St John of Jerusalem’ better known by their nick name ‘the knights templar’.
Albeit reluctantly John accepted Stephen Langton as archbishop of Canterbury, knowing full well that the new archbishop was in control of the country and truly ‘ruled’, for John had offered a vassals bond (contract) of fealty (a loyalty someone owes to a lord or sovereign) and homage (a disposition or tendency to yield to the will of another) to the pope and the pope’s servants, in other words to the CEO of the corporation and the CEO’s directors. It is recorded in history that in July of 1213 John was absolved of excommunication at Winchester by the newly appointed ‘ruler’ Stephen Langton after becoming the new archbishop of Canterbury. On October 3rd1213 John placed this island and every land across the world and the men, women and children of those lands in the hands of slavers and the biggest slave corporation in the world forever, by the ratification of the Treaty of Verona and by doing so he surrendered this island to the pope as vicar of christ who has claimed ownership of everyone and everything. Through the deception of religion and the lies it is based upon and perpetuates, from that moment in history we all became slaves to those lies and the construct it created, known as the commercialconstruct, in other words the world as we know it and all it has to offer.
The pope realized after a while, and only a short while, that in essence because the contract was between himself and John then the only people that could ever break the contract were descendants, heirs and successors doing the same in the same positions i.e. successive popes or successive kings and queens of England. Although he had manipulated John, he knew which is obvious, that John would not live forever, so steps would have to be taken to make sure every successive pope or king and queen of England would keep up their end of the contract. Now the Barons (French title not English) were the popes and the corporation’s next tool to be used to create a controlling aspect upon the king. By fueling the Barons by saying they were now the slaves and not the slavers as was created for them in William’s times, the pope and corporation fueled a rebellion of the Barons against the king for signing the treaty (contract) and supposedly forced John to sign the magna carta at Runnymede in 1215. Immediately after magna carta was signed it is wrote in history that the pope innocent III declared it unlawful, which I feel is a complete smoke screen (evidence to follow) as the pope needed the Barons to control any successive kings and queens to make sure the contract stayed in place – for without it the See of Rome (corporation) would lose its strangle hold over the island and would not have allowed for the control and false ownership of the lands of the world the corporation has now, none of this would have happened without this treaty (contract) first being in place.
At this time the whole powerbase was held by John, even though in pretence John was just over seeing what was happening under the ruling hand of Stephen Langton. As many in the country were very loyal to John, in effect John could raise an army if he had had the balls to do so, to go against Langton, the pope and the corporation, if becoming strong enough again to undo what he had done if his false belief in an entity called god did not stand in the way. The Barons were very much needed to be on the corporation’s side, so they were enticed and mustered through the greed of power and position, offering them status was all that was needed to maintain they would do the corporations dirty work. This was needed as anyone who ascended the throne after John could dissolve the contract, especially if they would not conform to the will of the corporation and the false laws of the fear of god and its oppression. What was needed was for the separation of power away from John and a legal document that would offer the Barons a unique set of laws for them alone and a commune of their own (city of London; within the Roman walls) a separate state to control everything from, in return for their willingness to keep John in check – on behalf of the archbishop which in turn was on behalf of the corporation. Because John was weakened from his endeavors with the pope, Stephen Langton and because of illness it was needed to strike while the iron was hot and a document within legal history was needed to be scripted to do such, not only the unique set of laws for the Barons, but also a document that would serve later to allow the corporation to extend its grip and maintain that the treaty (contract) would never be broken, by the introduction of a parliament and a fully fledged central point of administration of the legal systems you would call law that would ensure the devolution of the power base happened. Within this parliament (senate) the archbishops would have 26 seats to maintain absolute control on behalf of the corporation through a serious of deceptive processes based upon representation to fool everyone – which still remains to this day
Magna Carta 1215….the most perfect of all legal documents….
Not two years later the most famous or should I say infamous document in English legal history was scripted and forced upon King John at Runnymede to sign on the 15th June 1215, but to this day I have not seen a signed copy of this document and I know of no one who has ever checked the translation to see if it is correct – what else could be hidden in these words we have not been told about. Magna carta 1215 is as it stands the most perfect of all legal documents and contains many of the processes still used to this day, but as it was then, none of these are for you to use they are explicitly for the socially dominant and are unique to them. This is why Jack Straw in a presentation in Washington in February 2008 stated “we need to modernise magna carta” and the presentation he gave was called the modernisation of magna carta. Let’s start by looking at its name magna carta – the great charter of liberties.
Charter: A written grant from the sovereign power of a country conferring certain rights and privileges on a person or a corporation, also: A document incorporating an institution and specifying its rights; includes the articles of incorporation and the certificate of incorporation
As you can see a charter is a grant that does not apply to men, women and children it applies to ‘persons’, as long as you are deemed as to have the ‘privileges of a person’. Under canon law although man and person are synonymous in grammar, not all men were classed as persons as slaves were classed as ‘things’. At this time in England most of us would have been serfs; in other words slaves and this would have been the majority of us, so to any lord we would have been things and things (chattels) have no rights. They have no personality they are personalty: moveable property and Williams ‘Domesday Book’ was a list of all his personalty, as all censuses are. So when you combine this with liberties.
Liberties: The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, forced labour, privileges, rights etc civil liberties.
Something that is plainly obvious starts to emerge. As it says above legally free, but ‘things’ cannot be legally free as they have no legal personality i.e. ‘status’ they do not exist in the legal world, so in effect they have no legal rights. ‘Things’ are not physically or legally free and can be kept in confinement, servitude under forced labour, they have no privileges, or rights and no civil liberties. ‘Things’ do not enjoy social, political or economic rights and privileges, they are property of another under the whim of that other. Even in its name alone it spells out who it was wrote for and exactly why it was wrote. Liberty is not freedom, liberty is a grant of rights, but would only apply to the ones of status, those who believed they were better in some way, as we would know it now the upper class high society. This legal document set forth the class divide, although already well established this document maintained that this concept would carry on through the ages even to present day and even in the parliamentarians own words spoke by Jack Straw “it is very essential and is needed to be modernised so it can be maintained”.
The concept of liberty forms the core of all democratic principles and societies, yet as a legal concept it defies clear definition, which to me is very obvious because it actually defines slavery and is the antithesis of moral or natural as slavery is. We must remember that legal is in form only (persons) a category of ‘things’ distinguished by some common characteristic or quality and within this comes the legal ability to enslave those of lesser quality. A master slave syndrome maintained by a immoral legal concept in the form of liberty under a false belief system based upon nothing more than human suffering and a delusional miscomprehension that anything and everything is ok, as long as it has the label ‘legal’ upon it such as war. What is most evident here is the fact that ‘society’ relies upon a democratic process to exist and this is where the true meaning of society rears its ugly head. The socially dominant members of any community a definition of the word society says it all and describes what a democratic process really allows for in allowing the socially dominant to live off the back bone of the rest of the community believing they have a divine rite to do so and no matter what is needed to maintain this deception it is ok as long as it has the label ‘legal’ applied to it. In essence liberty is no more than legal slavery where men, women and children are bound by legal chains and not physical ones – are bound to those who are deluded under a misguided comprehension deriving from the use of fictional artificial law emanating from the church and the laws of oppression. One of the concepts magna carta achieved was to make the laws of oppression legal. But this document was to lead to many other devises that were needed to contain the kings and queens of the future within legal doctrine to prevent them from ever being able to break the originalcontract between John and pope innocent III and was to be used to set up the legal mechanism that would prevent this occurring and create a constitutional figure head. If you are struggling with any of this then let’s put it another way and bring it up to modern day. Before 1972 we were all known as ‘subjects’ the queens subjects, now of course we are known as ‘citizens’ more on this in a bit, but for now let’s look at the word ‘subjects’.
Subject: One who is under the rule of another or others, especially one who owes allegiance to a government or a ruler, the obligations of a vassal to a lord: a slave
So up until 1972 we were classed as slaves no different in description to the times magna carta was penned. Another deceptive word to disguise the true meaning of what we are actually classed as, by the socially dominant, the ruling classes and those of delusional status. Now we are classed as citizens, as of by definition being part of a republic, with the processes of a republic and a sovereign who is no more than a president, a figure head called a constitutional sovereign. When the new republic is fully establish i.e. the European union, the figure head of the old republic will be removed to allow us to merge with the new republic and thus the only one who can break the original contract is removed forever, legally that is….please remember this is all based upon legal fiction, the use of artificial law (legal systems) and has no power whatsoever over you unless you want it to and you except the illusion. The republic is a political one based on the legal concept of liberty that is why you are now classed as a ‘citizen’; a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community and oh boy you live in a political community controlled by legal parameters within a constitution, that is why everything is done under a constitutional basis derived from statute (legal) from the word status: The legal character or condition of a person or a thing. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed: The body of people (plural of person) who are citizens (a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community) of a particular government. But what they do not tell you is the fact that not all persons have to give consent, only ‘particular persons’ as slaves have no say now as they did not at any other time. You are ‘ruled’ whether you like it or not FULL STOP under this doctrine as a thing. They use an attachment to you called a legal personality via a piece of paper, a name, or as it was in the days of magna carta just a family name, to be able to legally label the thing (slave) as the thing cannot exist in the legal world unless it has a name, which became a certificate 153 years ago to say what it’s called. The thing is then ruled, regularised, regulated and ordered to adhere to all democracies legal concepts (statutes) via the attached name, via policy=contracts under acts (statutes) and are fooled into believing they are electing representatives to do this on their behalf and they are fooled into believing they can withhold consent – all we are really saying is ‘NO’ and that is the stumbling block, nothing to do with consent whatsoever. Without doubt we are fucking stupid!
This document set this doctrine in place as a legal concept and maintained that slavery would be legalised through this document that would be maintained till even now, with the concepts still now driven by the same purpose for the same needs. But this was not only to effect just England this was to effect the world and everywhere the fleet set sail to, delivering the doctrines of common and canon law legal systems and of course the place it emanates from the church. That is why whenever you look at a country within the common wealth its foundation is within a common law legal system construct to set up the privileges for the socially dominant who would then introduce the canon law legal system to control the ‘things’ (us), because the civil legal system has no foundation without the common law legal system first being in place. Because without a common law legal system there are no socially dominant and without the socially dominant there is nothing classed as things (slaves) so there is no need for a system to control them, a canon law legal system called democracy.
Without delving too deeply into the document evidence starts to emerge that without doubt throws new light on to what historians maintain. One key element is that the dope sorry the pope was against the signing of magna carta and was quoted to say “….this document is unlawful and unjust as it is base and shameful….” and this has been given as the main reason King John was excommunicated, total fabrication. Without doubt this document was scripted in Rome and put together by legal minds of the time because John had already signed the treaty of Verona (contract) and this document was to ensure John or any successor to the throne could never break that treaty (contract) and if this was not the case then why was Stephen Langton present at the signing? And offering advice! Especially because he was a cardinal: one of a group of more than 100 prominent bishops in the sacred college who advise the pope and elect new popes. It just does not make any sense if you realise the facts and do not except what historians say as being literal and more based on hearsay constructed to mask the truth deliberately.
“….on the advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry and Benedict of Rochester, bishops, of master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of the lord pope, of brother Aymeric, master of the order of Knights Templar in England….”
Not just Stephen but many other members of the pope’s house hold plus the ruler of Ireland in the holy see’s eyes. If the pope was so against this document, then why were all these witness to it and giving advice? Surely if this was the case they would have boycotted the whole thing, or prevented it from happening and not witnessed it. The Barons were being granted concessions in return for their obedience to the pope and to recognise the Stephen Langton was the official ruler even though this would be done from the shadows as it is now. Certain privileges and rights ordained upon them in the form of magna carta to maintain they would do what the pope wished through his representative Stephen Langton to ensure that the King would never have the ability to undo the contract. This is why this legal document is unique in every aspect to them and would serve to be the template to create another vessel for control of the king or queen and all the men women and children of England, namely parliament. This vessel again was to be employed around the world, although called by many different names, nonetheless exactly the same in construct and design for the same purpose: slavery through a deceptive legal process called democracy!
Nurse! NURSE!!!
The screens!!!!! THE SCREENS!!!!
Well done Ibn Adam, good boy. I hope IFE gives you a gold medal.
Now, meaningless waffle aside, will you address the real topic? the article is about Mawdudi and his violent ideology!
Interesting that no IFE/Jamaati actually wants to talk about Mawdudi and instead keep trying to change the topic!
Zalloom, the posts are all Mawdudi’s writings, directly linked to the post on ‘Mawdudi’.
Someone spoonfed you meanings before above, and you get fed yet again.
I could put up many nice quotes from Osama Bin Laden and George Bush!
Mawdudi (a non-scholar) and his views on aggressive jihad, sex slaves and world revolution make him a blood thirsty violent extremist. Selective quoting of some of his writings does not change that. JI & IFE are entryist organizations. Even your Islamist cousins Hizb ut-Tahrir admit that. Gradualism is the key word!
You may call Mawdudi not a dyed in the red scholar suggesting other groups agree with your slander but that does not displace his valuable contribution to Islamic thought. Truly had my brothers taken his point of view on sex slaves then the Muslim would have leverage over Muslim prisoners tortured and held Muslim sisters like Dr. Aafia Siddiqui would be championed in rights and rooms that are a guest house and not a jail where the criminals rape beat shoot lie and walk around !! How do you like the last three earthquakes Haiti Chile Taiwan and one in the Hindu Kush too. Whether you like it or not see the environment will be addressed as you speak about O same Bin LADEN. There is no pity for you the depositors with the bankers who made WAR an ecological concern then refused to address ecological issues. As I said before the ecological issues will inch a Allah be addressed macho Allah and O same’s proposal of doing away with the dolloping dollar is modest in comparison to what the dollar is doing away with of your cherished institutions !! Give me Mawdudi any day any time of the week O USA losers !! For you gradualism is but the inroad of evil the assault and battery of Islam.
Actually, it does.
Not even the arch-liar Siddiqui claims she was being held as a “sex-slave”.
What are you babbling about?
I was on the edge of the Hindu Kush earthquake – and I assure you I was none to pleased when all the washing up came crashing off the draining board and the telly fell off its stand.
Tell me was it a secret US earthquake drill, or God’s will?
Mad.
As a young man I used to toy with Class As; but they never had this effect on me!
Are you speaking in tongues?
I think, were he alive, Mawdudi would be presently not answering the door to you, O loonie one.
The arch liar is not Aafia for sure O arch villain and for Hindu Kush the slayer of Hindus NO hindus so petal your fairy some where else. You will be shown the signs of Allah in the outer universe and within yourselves !! Truly those in SIN are mad (looney) and wandering in mind !! The Muslim is sane !! Not so the american-jew polytheist Hindu disbelievers-hypocrites !! Burn in your forgeries/witch craft !!
cluck cluck!!! gibber gibber!!! my old man’s a mushroom!!! o american-jew-polytheist-hindu-disbelievers-hypocrites, i’m just off to hartlepool to buy a pair of exploding trousers!!
b’shalom
bananabrain (with underpants on my head and a pair of pencils up my nose)