Alcohol flows in the streets of Western cities and towns, where those whose reason has been set aside by it stagger and fall into sidewalks and gutters, and those who suffer alcohol-induced violence and chronic degeneration are carried into hospital wards and morgues. The alcohol problem is huge. According to a research paper, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association in 2004, alcohol consumption and illicit use of drugs accounted for a staggering 102,000 deaths in the US during the year 2000. This was higher than the death toll due to microbial agents (75,000), higher than the death toll due to toxic agents (55,000), and far higher than the death toll due to motor vehicle crashes (43,000).

The US has taken many steps to protect its citizens against harmful microbial agents and toxins and has enacted legislation to protect against motor vehicle crashes, but what has been done to protect its citizens from the murderous effects of alcohol and illicit drugs use, which claims more lives than any of these other causes of death? Illicit drugs have been made illegal, but alcohol, which accounts for 85,000 of the 102,000 deaths, is freely available in the US, as it is in all Western countries. This legislative gap contradicts the claim that Western civilization is built upon ‘reason' as a European Renaissance value, which is pertinent, as Western thinkers and politicians often call for Islam to undergo a similar Renaissance. However, Islam has been protecting the minds and bodies of its followers from alcohol's destructive influence for fourteen centuries, without the need to adopt Western culture.

The Western comprehension of ‘reason' is confined majorly to one of its branches, namely the scientific method, which has been amply applied to the subject of alcohol abuse, but, to no avail. There are tens of thousands of scientific articles available in university databases upon the harmful effects of alcohol consumption, and one of these was published in 2010 in  a British medical journal, The Lancet, that looked at two types of harm: self harm and harm to others, and what was striking was that alcohol was ranked as the most harmful of 20 drugs; about 40% more harmful than heroin or crack cocaine for example, and yet these later two are prohibited, while alcohol is permitted in the West. In addition to being the most harmful drug overall, alcohol was also shown to have the distinction of being the only drug that is more harmful to other people (victims) than to the drug users themselves. This makes the free availability of alcohol even more strange, as although the personal freedoms in Western civilization have become a fundamental creedal imperative, this is upon one condition: that while people are free in the West to destroy themselves against all reason, it is generally considered desirable to restrict individual freedom where other people are being harmed against their wishes. So why is alcohol use, with all its ills, so exceptionally tolerated?

It is certainly not because of any doubt about how harmful it is to other innocent people. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta tabulate data for alcohol use, as they do for other harmful human pathologies, and much of these data relate to the link between alcohol and violence against other persons: about 35% of victims of violent crime report that offenders were under the influence of alcohol at the time of their crime, alcohol use is also associated with 2 out of 3 incidents of intimate partner violence (i.e. 3 million violent crimes, according to the US Department of Justice, being committed against spouses, girl/boyfriends and children),  and alcohol is a leading factor in child maltreatment and neglect cases. The CDC also publishes data collected from the medical professions, and reports that in 2006, there were more than 1.2 million hospital emergency room visits and 2.7 million physician office visits due to excessive drinking. The human and social cost of alcohol consumption is very high, and so also is the economic cost, which was estimated at $223.5 billion for 2006.

Western reticence about solving the alcohol problem today can be traced back to the failure of the US's National Prohibition Act of 1919, also known as the Volstead Act, which criminalised alcohol. Prohibition was repealed in December 1933 due to massive public opposition to the law, which is an example of a democracy abrogating reason and the public good in favour of the will of the majority. This episode in history has become a symbol of secular democracy prevailing against religious opposition to the right of the people to enjoy what they choose. This right is the right of the majority only, and France is a case in point here. While no one seriously considers the Muslim woman's Hijab to cause death, it is prohibited to be worn in many places in France, while alcohol is always welcomed, even though the European Journal of Public Health reported that in France, alcohol consumption was responsible for the deaths of around 49,000 people in 2009 and is "responsible for 22 percent of deaths between 15 and 34 years of age."

Alcohol dependency has ensnared 140 million people worldwide according to the World Health Organization, and this stems from the highly addictive nature of alcohol, which has profound effects upon the central nervous system at even low doses. Long before blood-alcohol levels become high enough to cause direct harm to the drinker, other more subtle effects lead to the unseating of reason from its normal place, wherein increased self-confidence and sociability become evident along with impaired judgement, and release of normal inhibitions against primitive desires.

Western civilization proclaims itself to be rational, but democratic societies are only as rational as the majority of people want them to be. That being so, the rapes, murders, wife beatings, child abuse, suicides and financial and social ruin shall for now continue in the West. And all of this, under the giddy banner of preserving individual freedom, without regard to preserving individuals themselves.

Dr. Abdullah Robin

Hizb ut Tahrir/ Wilayah Lebanon Assembly: "Signs of the Ummah's Progress and the Decline of Western Hegemony"

On Friday 17 Ramadan 1434 AH corresponding to 07/26/2013, supporters of Hizb ut Tahrir held halaqat and lectures in the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque, speakers addressed the crowds about various political topics relating to matters of Muslims, such as the events in Egypt, and the need for the rule of the Quran to prevail in Egypt, and that this can not be through the republican or democratic system, but through the application of the law of Allah and to declare Egypt an Islamic caliphate state.

Speakers also stressed the sanctity of Muslim blood and the sanctity of the fighting for the sake of the rulers' chairs and positions, and they also criticized America who stands behind the events in Egypt, and behind the alleged democracy in the beginning and then stood behind the coup.

Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir in Palestine

Picture Slideshow: Click Here

Question:

Given the course of events, it has disrupted my understanding of the happenings which confused me:

1. We know that the actual influence in Egypt belongs to America. Then how come Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait financially support the new rule in Egypt, when these countries have agency to Britain?

2. Furthermore, the UAE supported France in Mali and sent financial support to Mali, although the actual influence in Mali does not belong to Britain?

3. Also we observe conflictive media attitudes between the channel Al-Arabiya in the Emirates and the channel Al-Jazeera in Qatar, although the UAE and Qatar are both agents for the British. By the way, does the recent change in Qatar affect British politics in it?

4. Further it seems to us that the Saudi men in the coalition like al-Jarba possess an active role unlike the men of Qatar. Is weakness beginning to grab hold of the men of Qatar due to the course of events in Syria while strengthening the position of the men of Saudi Arabia?

5. Finally: Does America's abandonment of Morsi mean that they have abandoned the idea of ​​facilitating the access of the so-called "moderate Islam" to power?

I hope that you bear with me through this long question and jazak Allahu khairan. I apologize in advance for the length and amount of questions, since we know the capacity of our Ameer in addition to the capacity of his knowledge. Let us find in him what dispels our confusion and heals our hearts.

Answer:

This dear brother is not a question but a stack of questions!! Nevertheless, here is the answer in brief though without inadequate, Inshallah:

There are broad guidelines concerning  British policy to help you understand what is happening:

1. Britain currently does not dare to overtly stand in the face of America, rather it appears to stand in line with it, but actually it interferes with and obstructs American policy covertly through its agents after having worked out an action plan to appear in a deceptive manner...

2.  Mainly the role prescribed to its agents by Britain is one of pretense - just like Britain itself - to be aligned with America without clashing with it. The relations between Jordan and America for example may seem to someone who does not possess political awareness as if it was standing in line with America, when actually Jordan is a bearing pillar of Britain, as this is with the Emirates and other agents... However, the British leave some of their agents to stand in the face of America, such as Qatar, their role being different from that of other agents and so on ... i.e. that its agents hold different roles: Most of them smile for America and boast their friendliness but harass it from behind the curtain, just like Britain who is the master of these agents, and only few of them carry the role of causing America inconvenience more obviously...

3. Britain is in harmony with France in confronting U.S. policy, as part of European policy, especially Britain and France, and the difference is that Britain acts with malice, subtleness with a deceptive soft voice towards America, while France behaves with a stark voice causing uproar ... Often Britain carries out its policy standing behind France! And the famous proverb goes: "Britain fights to the last French soldier". Although this was part of the times gone by, that impact is still there, but to a lesser extent.

4. The government in Saudi Arabia, although led by King Abdullah, is a follower of Britain, but the United States has an impact on some of the other princes, this impact is creating the gateway for America's policies...

In the light of this the answer to your question may become clearer:

A. As for Qatar, the former Emir of Qatar together with his Foreign Minister managed to make Qatar a center of focus for Britain in the Gulf, from there he dashed to intervene in several countries using two influential instruments: the media channel "Al-Jazeera", and "oil" money... His moves were influential in disrupting American politics in Syria and Palestine, even in Egypt and others... Since this disturbance of America did not go unnoticed by Britain, and because Britain is trying create the self-image that it does not disturb America, it has agreed to change that Emir, but they did not take it far away from him, rather his son became his alternative. Hence British policy has not changed, but this son needs time to become as effective as his father in causing America inconvenience, thus Britain has slowed down in disturbing America... Therefore what happened in a British manner to please America was by appearance but without substance!

B. The role of Qatar decreased slightly with this change because the men of the new rule are less experienced in influential political business than the men of the previous government, yet Qatar still remains within British politics, working cunningly and maliciously, but with a role of less declared effectiveness than it previously had, therefore their men in Syria have lost effectiveness in comparison to prior.

C. The Saudi men are more effective and more acceptable to the United States and Britain because the king's loyalty belongs to Britain, and America is working hard with some of the princes of the royal family.

As for Al-Jarba, albeit being close to Saudi Arabia, he is part of American politics. He cannot exit from America's influences voluntarily, no matter how great his support from Saudi Arabia is, the coalition as a whole is an American product, no one can remain in its presidency without being subordinate to America.

D. As for Mali, and the Emirati aid to Mali... You know that America was behind the first change in Mali that happened on 22/3/2012, which was a painful blow to France, and France worked diligently to regain its influence. And Britain understands that it has no influence in Mali as it is for France, and America rivals France, and naturally Britain supports France if the conflict is confined between America and France, and the Emirati financial aid to the administration which is loyal to France is in line with Britain's support of France.

E. As for the explanation of the British position on the visits of the Emirati delegation and the King of Jordan to Egypt, and the financial aid from Britain's agents to Egypt, this does not diverge from the above general outline ... As for the ambiguity caused by the difference between the Emirates' role and Qatar's role, it is the distribution of roles according to British policy, some draw near and some distance themselves pending the outcome of events in Egypt... And the Emirate's hosting of the men of Mubarak' regime likewise does not diverge from the outline, for the expectation of the return of Mubarak's men is an opening, even if it is narrow, for British policy by way of the Emirates, even if it is a matter of reciprocating favors!

F. As for whether America's abandonment of Mursi means that America has abandoned the facilitation of the return of the men who are called "moderate Islamists" to power; the issue is not about abandoned or the absence of abandonment, instead it is the realizing the stabilization of American influence in Egypt, and America's influence in Egypt has been strong in most of the political class for the past few decades, and America cares that Egypt remains a center of stable American influence, and the stability meant here is not for the good of Egypt, instead it is so that America can have a secure place for its influence and projects... and when the popular movements surprised America on 25/1/2011, and Mubarak could not handle these movements and return stability so that Egypt would be a suitable environment for maintaining the realization of America's interests, when America found him as such they set him aside, and rode the wave of the popular movements, and brought Mursi after he promised to carry out America's projects, especially the Camp David Accords with the Jewish entity, afterwards they supported him..., and America expected Mursi to achieve stability for it considering that the Brotherhood is the party of the President and the largest organized party after the disbanding of the National Party, and expected them to work to stabilize the situation just as the National Party had done with the deposed president... But Mursi could not so they abandoned him...and were behind the new rule on 3/7/2013 and in support of it...

Accordingly, America's abandonment of the people of "moderate Islam" in Egypt was due to a reason external to America's policy during recent years of facilitating the so- called "moderate Islamists" to power, as America undertook this policy to struck two birds with one stone as they say:

First: To deceive the Muslim masses who are looking for Islamic rule... for even though the "moderate Islamists" profess democracy and republicanism and swear by it! Because they are called "Islamists" they tickle the sentiments of the Muslim masses so they believe that those Islamists coming to power will bring Islam to power, and then their enthusiasm fades away from the correct work to bringing about the rule by Islam, which is the Khilafah "Caliphate" system... and the placating the Muslims' enthusiasm for the work for the Khilafah "Caliphate" is what America wants, for the Khilafah "Caliphate" keeps them awake at night...

Second: To provide stability for its influence by the Islamists taking advantage of the people's sentiment, as for if they could not provide stability for America's influence then America will abandon them, as they did with Mursi, and support someone else, especially since they have no shortage of political agents which they planted in Egypt throughout the past long years!

E. The people of the land of Kinana should fathom this matter, and that America is and was the possessor of actual influence in the toppled Mubarak's era, and in the deposed Mursi's era, and in the era of the present rule, and America is the disease and source of calamity, and the duty on every Muslim that believes in Allah and His Prophet is to work diligently to uproot American influence and eliminate America's agents, and return the rule of Islam, the Righteous Khilafah "Caliphate", to the land of Kinana to resume as the center of the Muslim to defeat the enemies of Islam and Muslims and to defeat the Jewish entity and to restore the Holy land to Islam and the Muslims as it did when it eradicated the Crusaders and Tatars, and this is not hard for Allah.