Question 1: Turkey's Armed Forces Chief Of Staff General, Isik Kosaner along with General Erdal Ceylanoglu, the Chief of Army, Admiral Ashraf Ugur Yigit, the Chief of Navy and General Hasan Aksay, the Chief of Air Force announced their resignation on July 29th , 2011 and requested for retirement. They represent the highest level of the military leadership, along with military police chief, General Necdet Ozel, who did not resign. He has been announced to be the next chief of army and is now the acting chief of staff.
So what have been the motivations for this? Is it an internal matter of Turkey, i.e. the conflict between the armed forces and the government over power sharing, or is it due to international conflicts? Furthermore, what are the possible ramifications of these resignations?
Answer: By observing the situation and the relevant events, it becomes clear that this is caused by international conflict but spurred by the local situation... to explain it further, we wish to mention the following:
1: These resignations have come when intense tension surfaced recently between the military and political leadership of the country, represented by the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister and his government. One of the main reasons for this was the continued arrests of military generals accused of attempting to topple the government. The latest of this was today. 29th July, 2011, coinciding with the resignation of these officers when the Attorney General of the Tribunal's thirteenth session in Istanbul pressed the court for harsh punishments, and according to its announcement, after taking the approval of the members of the court, issued orders for the arrest of 22 persons including, 7 generals which include General Nusret Tasdeler, the commander of Turkey's Aegean Army, former commander of the First Army, retired General Hasan Igsiz, under article 312 of the Turkish Penal Law which states: "Anyone who attempts to use force and coercion to topple the government of the Turkish Republic or to disrupts work in full or in part, shall be liable for life-imprisonment." The court announced that it ordered their arrest so that all evidences pertaining to them may be gathered, and also because there is a possibility of such punishment being meted out to them, that court has issued orders for their arrest and imprisonment, since these men are still serving officers in the armed forces. It may be mentioned that the arrests of retired military personnel along with politicians, journalists and writers affiliated to Kemalst fronts had been initiated in mid-2007, with respect to officers participating in the "Ergenekon" conspiracy to overthrow the government by force. This was exposed in early 2010, during the investigations into another conspiracy against the government, which had taken place in the year 2003 under the Balyoz, or the so-called "Sledgehammer" conspiracy. The implications of this case are still under way and arrests of serving senior military officers continue along with retired officers of the armed forces.
2: Last year, just nine days prior to the Supreme Military Council (YAŞ)'s meeting in August 2010, on the issue of promotions and retirements, which is an annual affair, Istanbul's 10th Court for Serious Crimes issued warrants for the arrest of 102 serving and retired officers, which included 11 generals who were expecting promotions. On the same day, a compromise was struck about certain high-ranking officers, whereby they were neither to be arrested nor retired, only their promotions were stopped. These included General Hassan Igsiz, commander of the First Army, who was one of the most important persons accused in the case. The military leadership was insisting on his promotion to become the Chief of Army Staff but Abdullah Gul, the President of the Republic and Erdoğan, the Prime Minister had flatly refused to promote him. Now today, i.e. on July 29th, 2011, the Attorney General issued arrest warrant to arrest General Hassan Igsiz along with other generals. It may be mentioned that the former chief of staff Mehmet İlker Başbuğ, who retired last year, had advised for the commander of the First Army, General Hassan Igsiz to be promoted to become Chief of Army Staff. so that later on he could become the Chief of General Staff in accordance with the Turkish military hierarchy. According to some well-informed military sources, the reason for this advice was the former chief of staff, Mehmet İlker Başbuğ, mentioned that "he wanted to ensure progress in the ‘plan to fight reactionary forces' in which General Hassan Igsiz is with us as a member of our group, and therefore we should work for his promotion so that he becomes the next Chief of General Staff." in keeping with the practice as mentioned earlier. But General Mehmet İlker Başbuğ's planning failed last year, through accusations levelled by Erdoğan, with which General Hassan Igsiz was charged by the Attorney General along with others. The Attorney General's issuing of arrest warrants today to arrest this general along with others is a decisive blow to the pro-British Kemalist forces. These generals know and have learnt that the British have bestowed their bounties upon them and that they were the ones to have founded and supported the republic and had helped Kemal Atatürk come to power after having destroyed the Khilafah "Caliphate" and established the Republic. The generals are aware that Kemal Atatürk was aligned with and fascinated with the Britishers, as was his associate İsmet İnönü, who was considered second only to Ataturk and was likewise loyal to the British. It was the British who placed him in a position of power and backed him after death of Atatürk. This is what they have learnt about these two men who are held in great esteem by them. Thus the loyalty of these generals lay automatically with the British and they look upon Erdoğan's government and its pro-US stance as their rivals...
3: The British agents in the military and other agencies tried to topple the pro-US Erdoğan government and thus strike a blow to Erdoğan party and scuttle his moves in the ‘Operation Sledgehammer' as well as the ‘Ergenekon' conspiracy, through the Constitution Court, which in 2007 warned Erdoğan of being banned, if he violated the Kemalist secular principles again. This was due to the law enacted in the parliament by Erdogan and his AKP party, which calls for ‘not denying the rights of those studying in universities and higher educational institutions due to their dress or general appearance'. Thus Erdogan's links to the US, as well as that of his party, and the government is well-known to every one. Erdoğan implements American policies in foreign affairs and works to support US interests both internally as well as externally, whilst working to consolidate American influence internally. Erdoğan worked to incorporate constitutional amendments to bring about a presidential form of government, with wide ranging powers for the republic's president. He also planned to curtail military powers to prevent it from interfering in political affairs, and to make the political apparatus control the military set up and not the reverse of it, which is the reality even today. Erdoğan also tried to convert Turkey into a federal structure in order to solve the Kurdish conflict, in accordance with the American vision. Under such federal system, it was envisaged that the Kurd-majority provinces will be given autonomy or a federal system similar to what the US implemented in Iraq, when it formulated a new constitution during its civilian rule under Bremer. Whilst Britain, in order to safeguard its influence in Turkey, tried to topple the Erdoğan government or overthrow it through its Kemalist loyalists in the military, justice and other sectors...
4: Along with all of this, of late, the Turkish soldiers were exposed to attacks by elements from the Kurdish PKK which included the Silvan, Diyarbakir attack on 14th July 2011 which left 13 soldiers dead and 7 other soldiers injured. The media, loyal to the government, stoked public opinion against the military leadership by posing questions implying complicity of the military leadership in the attacks for the political objectives against the government. In the aftermath of this attack, Erdoğan, along with the president of the republic, met with the Chief of Staff and walked out of the meeting in anger and declared that he would increase the number of police force equipped to fight the so-called war on terror to 15,000, as well as increase its effectiveness and capabilities so that its worked with the gendarmerie force. He also declared that he would authorise the governors of Turkey's provinces to seek the help of land forces, and all of this would be accomplished under the aegis of the Interior Ministry, so that the forces are able to engage in combative action with the elements of the Kurdish PKK rebels. Erdoğan thus ensured that this scepticism grows into a lack of confidence in the military leadership and exploited this event to announce strengthening of a special police force equipped to fight terrorism, which would be a special force under his control. This was similar to what Turgat Ozal did, whose model Erdoğan said he follows. He said that Ozal formed rapid deployment police forces during his era, but after Ozal's departure from power, the armed forces were able to weaken this force and destroy ts effectiveness. Through such manoeuvres, Erdoğan also aims to bring the army under the governmental control by linking it with the Interior Minstry and placing the land forces under the command of the regional governors in the interior. Thus the conflict between Erdoğan's government and the armed forces intensified.
5: The en-masse resignations of those who are in the higher echelons of the military leadership came as a surprise after the conflicts and tensions. It appears that these men intended to embarrass and pressurise the government in order to demonstrate their stance opposed to government policies and thus win public sympathy. It may be noted that the army, air force and the navy commanders had already reached the age of superannuation and would be retiring anyway by the time of the military's consultative council, which is scheduled to be held after two days, i.e. on August 1st, 2011. Furthermore, certain well-informed sources have reported that at the recent meetings between the military leadership and Gul and Erdogan, the military leadership demanded the promotions of General Saldaray Berak, the Commander of the Third Army as the Chief of Army Staff and that of General Aslan Guner, Deputy Chief of the General Staff, to be promoted as Commander of the gendarmerie force, and this was turned down by Abdullah Gul and Erdogan in no uncertain terms. They declared that they would not sign upon the promotions of these commanders, rather with the indications of the accusations levelled against these officers in the conspiracy to over throw the government, their retirement could not be ruled out. Thus it appears that those generals realised that in the future meetings of the military council, they would not be able to achieve their aims and hence they resorted to use the last available means in order to pressurise the government, as well as motivate their friends in the military against the regime, and thus they submitted their resignations. The Army Chief has been succeeded by the Gendarmerie Forces Commander, Gen. Necdet Özel who is known to be close to the present government and its political dispositions. It also appears that Gen. Necdet Özel does not actually belong to their camp and the military leadership did not want him to be the commander of the Gendarmerie Forces last year, and in fact were working to scuttle his chances at this years meeting, which is to be held within days, but they failed. Erdogan and Abdullah Gul had worked for Gen. Necdet Özel's promotion at the cost of others, so that he could replace them, Gen. Necdet Özel was expected to become the army chief at the next scheduled appointments, so that after two years he could become the Chief of General Staff when General Isik Kosaner reaches the retirement age, which will force him to leave as head of the general staff under the army's promotions and retirement rules. Moreover, it appears that General Isik Kosaner realised that when commanders of his group resign, he would be left alone since none of his close circles would be promoted, and he would be surrounded by generals from other factions loyal to the government or those who have some understanding with it, particularly Gen. Necdet Özel. This is why General Isik Kosaner opted to resign instead of being rendered almost incapacitated thus he would be rendered lame and almost powerless to take decisions of his liking, especially if he had to go against the wishes of the present government. This is why, General Kosaner resigned, and requested retirement two years before it was formally due.
6: As for the consequences of these resignations, it is expected that after being made the acting chief within two hours of these resignations, after an emergency meeting between Gul, Erdogan and Gen. Necdet Özel, he would be declared as the next Chief of General Staff as well as the Chief of Army Staff, by the president of the republic. Also the political system of Turkey, as represented by the government, the republic's presidency and the parliament, which is under the control of the AKP, may now have the chance to exercise control over the armed forces by appointing those it wishes to, and those who demonstrate their closeness to the policies of the political establishment, and those whom the political establishment observes to be pro-America or treading its line.
This regime will keep working to purge all the people who oppose this trend and that will appear after two days when the military supreme consultative council meets to discuses the promotions of the officers and their retirement. Thus we can say that America began tightening its control over the army and strike the most important strongholds of the British in Turkey.
7 - The initial comment of the BBC was, "mass resignations of the leaders of the military as a result of the continuing tensions in years between the government and the army." The Guardian on its site stated similar to that. So the British and their agents express their concern for the outcome of the situation in Turkey as a result of their defeat in one of the battles of the conflict with the pro-American political regime. As for the reaction of the Americans, it was normal not to show their concern, rather reflect satisfaction at what is happening in Turkey. Mark Toner, US State Department Spokesman, described the resignations as, "an internal Turkish matter." He expressed the US administration's confidence in the current Turkish political system, saying, "our confidence in Turkey's institutions is absolute." (Voice of America site 29/07/2011)
Thus, we can say that what happened is a result of an international conflict, with a domestic trigger.
28 of Sha'ban 1432 H
29/7/2011
Question 2: On Friday, 22/7/2011, bombings occurred in Oslo and in Otoba island, that resulted the killing of about ninety people and a large number of wounded ... The responsibility for these bombings has been claimed by a Norwegian citizen, described as a right-wing Christian extremist ... The Prime Minister described the attack as the greatest Norwegian national tragedy since World War II ....
What motivated this? What of accusing the Muslims directly, before it was proved to be a Christian right-wing extremist? Does exposing the truth, that the bomber is not a Muslim, eased hatred toward Muslims, or it is the latent malice deep rooted in the West in general?
Answer: What happened is a major sign of the contempt and hatred which the West harbors against Islam and Muslims. as Allah says: ﴿قَدْ بَدَتِ الْبَغْضَاءُ مِنْ أَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَمَا تُخْفِي صُدُورُهُمْ أَكْبَرُ﴾ "Hatred has already appeared from their mouths and what their breasts conceal is greater." This shown in the review of the following:
1- Breivik's vilification of Islam is not an isolated event as the Western media would like to portray. On the contrary, Breivik's demagoguery and Islamophobic views are a product of the Western civilization, that resonate with many in the West. This could be clearly seen in the way the Western media and her ‘experts' quickly branded Islam and Muslims for the attack. Spurred on by this media frenzy against Islam, several Muslims in Norway were physically assaulted. As reported by BBC, Mehtab Afsar, Secretary-General of the Islamic Council of Norway, said, "We heard some Muslims had already been beaten up in Oslo, and women who were scared phoned me, asking for help". The attacks against Norwegian Muslims only abated when the true horror of the terror crimes committed by the Christian fundamentalist, Anders Behring Breivik, emerged.

2- Nevertheless, this did not prevent some European politicians from publicly expressing support for Breivik's anti-Muslim views. Jacques Coutela, a member of France's right-wing National Front party, wrote, "The reason for the Norway terror attacks: fighting the Muslim invasion, that's what people don't want you to know." Coutela also called Breivik, "the main defender of the West." In Italy, Francesco Speroni, a leading member of Italy's Northern League and an ally in Berlusconi's conservative coalition, said, "Breivik's ideas are in defence of Western civilization." Also, European parliamentarian, Mario Borghezio, told Il Sole-24 Ore radio station, "Some of the ideas he expressed are good, barring the violence. Some of them are great." This is not the first time Italian politicians have endorsed disparaging remarks directed towards Islam. A few years ago, Italy's Defense Minister, Antonio Martino praised Fallaci, who wrote a book entitled 'Anger and Pride,' in which she described Muslims as 'vile creatures who urinate in baptisteries' and 'multiply like rats'. No doubt such views are a conveyor belt towards radicalization, which eventual leads to the shaping of the Western government's domestic policy against Muslims. The banning of hijab, the restriction on building of mosques, the blatant spying of Muslim communities and the incarceration of Muslims without trial are just some of the draconian measures taken by Western governments.

3- The West claims that individuals are free to worship whatever deity they choose But in practice, this leads to perpetual conflicts amongst people, as religious beliefs and practices professed by some can be interpreted as offensive and insulting to others. Hence, Western governments are constantly intervening in the disputes and resort to legislation to protect the religious rights of some people, whilst at the same time depriving others. Often, the real benefactors of freedom of religion are those individuals, or groups, whose beliefs coincide with the interests of the government, or those who possess the ability to exert influence over the government. That is why so many institutions in the West are allowed to attack Islam because their fiery rhetoric and discriminatory policies are in full harmony with West's unfinished war on Islam. However, if the Western media, or its numerous institutions, were to insult Jews, or the Zionist state of Israel, Western governments would swiftly adopt stern measures to restrict their insults. Likewise, Western governments manipulate religious freedom as part of their foreign policy agenda to either pry open societies closed to Western values, or totally ignore religious freedom when it does not concur with their interests. In the case of the Arab uprising and the massacre of Muslims at the bloody hands of Western agents, the West has chosen to water down its response, as the protestors are avid supporters of Islam and not democracy. Such hypocrisy only serves to underscore the perception amongst Muslims that the America and Europe are solely interested in the utter destruction of Islamic values and practices.

4- On the other hand Islam stipulates that life, honour, blood, property, belief, race and the mind are to be protected by the Islamic State. All the citizens of this ‘Caliphate' are guaranteed these rights, irrespective of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims. Islam also protects the rights of non-Muslims to worship without any fear of retribution or vilification of their beliefs. The messenger (saw) of Allah said: «مَنْ كَانَ عَلَى يَهُودِيَّتِهِ أَوْ نَصْرَانِيَّتِهِ فَإِنَّهُ لاَ يُفْتَنُ عَنْهَا...» "Whoever was on his Christianity or Judaism shall not be persecuted." Therefore it is prohibited for any Muslim to insult the beliefs of a non-Muslim, or to damage their places of worship. Islamic history is unrivalled in its ability to guarantee the religious rights of non-Muslims under the shade of the Caliphate. One only has to look at Spain and Palestine, to find that in the past Jews and Christians lived peacefully with Muslims. As for Muslims living in the West or residing in the Muslim world, they must redouble their efforts to support the re-establishment of the Islamic state. For only the Islamic state is capable of protecting the rights of Muslims, whether they choose to live within the confines of the state or outside.

Here is the video of the last speech delivered by Imran Yusufzai, Deputy Spokesman of Hizb ut tahrir  in Pakistan, before his abduction on 12 July 2011 CE. His speech was at the Day of the Fall of the Khilafah "Caliphate", 28 Rajab, seminar in Islamabad. His whereabouts remain unknown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0kaVdU-BC0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI23Y4xa5a8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVqMMyD_Eis

      The Post colonial era saw Muslim World being introduced to governance structures and ideas which were born and developed in Western Europe and which were introduced to the Muslim world as a legacy of the colonial rulers. Decades since colonialists ended their physical occupation of Muslim Lands, the Muslim World finds itself engaged in the fundamental debate about governance models and structures and the political, economic and social ideas on which these structures should be built. To the frustration of many the debate seems to linger on endlessly and an intellectual stalemate seems to have dominated the debate for decades. Hence the intellectual progression in the Muslim World has been held hostage to this stalemate leaving the Muslim World in a state of confusion and uncertainty due to lack of clear vision and direction. This in turn has lead to the economic, political and social stagnation and instability in the Muslim World.

At one end of the debate are a small group of liberal elite who are impressed with the West's extra-ordinary material progress. They have attributed Western progress to the evolution in Western political, social and economic thought during the renaissance period. They believe that for the Muslim World to achieve the same progress they need to divorce religion from public life as the Europeans did in the Post Middle Ages Era. They want the Muslim World to adopt Western ideals of secularism, pluralism, women empowerment, rights of minorities, nationalism, human sovereignty, private ownership, free markets, free speech, religious and personal freedom (libertarianism) and democracy. It is these themes which resound day and night in the Muslim World from the liberal circles. It is these ideals which serve as benchmarks to assess the societies in the Muslim World today. The level of Civility and Modernity of Muslim societies is determined based on the degree of their conformity to these ideals. It is worthwhile to note that the West encourages and insists on the same. So Western government and non-government organizations routinely issue progress reports, sharing their assessments about how civilized or uncivilized the Muslim World is based on its performance which is judged in line with these ideals.

However the liberals have erred in their judgment and in choosing the path for revival of the Muslim World. In adopting the solutions for the Muslim World and charting its way forward, the liberals have not utilized deep thinking rather have followed a superficial and empirical approach. They saw the extraordinary material progress of the Western World and wanted to replicate it. They saw the evolution in the political thought in the Western World and correctly concluded that West's material progress is connected to it. However they empirically (and incorrectly deduced), without studying their own societies, that by adopting Western Ideals, they would be able to usher in the same progress in the Muslim World. So what the liberals want to do is to borrow the intellectual experience of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Europe and apply it to the Muslim World without caring to regard for the particular factors which gave birth to European Secularism.
And herein lies the superficiality of their approach. Firstly because in charting out the intellectual path for the Muslim World, the liberals did not study Muslim society and its realities, rather they were content with the idea that European Secularism is not "European" rather "Universal" and insisted on its implementation throughout the Muslim World.

They ignored the fact that European secularism is a reactionary political ideology which is a direct result of the repressive Christian rule which governed much of Europe throughout the Middle Ages (Or as they are now called). It was when the European population's frustration and anger at their miserable socio-economic and political conditions exploded in to a fierce struggle with the incumbent political authority, which happened to be the Church, that secularism emerged as "the new" thinking. The idea was to deprive the Church from its political power by depriving it off its legitimacy, "divine inspiration". So the liberals (free thinkers) of the time severely attacked religion, arguing it is without a factual foundation, that human reason triumphs over divine thinking and that human reason, being superior to the divine, should be the only source of legislation. So at the heart of Europe's intellectual revolution was the idea of the sovereignty of the human mind and the rejection (or relegation) of the divine which claimed, and was till then considered, the sovereign authority. Describing the liberal temperament Political Philosopher John Gray claimed:"It (liberalism) has been inspired by skepticism and by fideistic certainty of divine revelation" (Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths). So the soul of liberal thought was anti-religious and anti divine.

It was the absence of the "contextualization" of the European intellectual experience which was overlooked by the liberals in the Muslim World which lead them to the false idea of "Universalism" of liberal thought. Secondly the liberals totally ignored the history of the Muslim World in their attempt to repeat the European experience. The European experience with religion was in sharp contrast to that of the Muslim World. Muslims under the banner of the caliphate enjoyed stupendous progress in all realms of collective and individual life and the Islamic state from the time of the Second Caliph Umar bin Khattab till the great Osamni Caliph Suleiman Al Qanooni was the leading State of the World. Although it was a state which was governed by divine laws, science and technology prospered, the economy thrived and the basic right of its citizenry, that of food, clothing, shelter and health, education and security was guaranteed.

As for knowledge and education, the Islamic State was renowned for its excellent centers of learning and the Islamic State directly supervised and encouraged intellectual discourse and learning. Jonathan Lyons in his book, "The House of Wisdom, How Arabs Transformed the Western Civilization" states:" Throughout much of the period in question, Arabic served as the global language of scholarship, and learned men of all stripes could travel widely and hold serious and nuanced discussions in this lingua franca. Medieval Western scholars who wanted access to the latest findings also needed to master the Arabic Tongue or work from translations by those who had done so." So unlike Christian Europe, there existed in the Muslim world, no frustration or anger with the divine, neither any desire to get rid of its rule nor any massive uprising against the "Islamic" character of the caliphate. There were of course feuds, uprisings and disputes within the Islamic State but none were aimed at challenging the divine basis of the state. Even when the caliphate was finally abolished, Mustapha Kamal used fierce Turkish nationalism and brute force to achieve it and it is no secret that this could not be achieved without the direct help and supervision of the allies (France and Britain).

Moreover from the time the Arabian Prophet Muhammad (SAW) first presented Islam to the World, till today, never have the Muslims ever questioned the divinity of Islam and the sovereignty of the Islamic Code (Shariah) over all other such codes. Infect the Muslim World never abandoned human reason, as the extraordinary scientific and educational accomplishments under the caliphate testify; rather it limited its role to science and administrative matters while the legislative matters were solely derived from the Islamic Texts. Even when liberal ideas and democracy were introduced in the Muslim World under the direct rule of the colonialists, it was not presented by the colonialists as anti-religious and anti-divine, rather the colonialists sought to legitimize these ideas from Islam knowing well that the Muslim World can never be convinced to accept the supremacy of the human mind over that of the divine.

 The nineteenth and twentieth century's saw the appearance of a new brand of reformist Islamic scholars, who were mentored, sponsored and promoted by Western Powers, and who sought to legitimize liberal ideas by providing their justifications from Islamic text. Such an approach was a tacit admission by the West of the incompatibility of the Western ideals, which were deeply and fiercely anti-religious, with that of the Muslim World. The Constitutions of many secular Muslim countries today derive their legitimacy from the political support which Islamic Scholars provided in their passage, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan being a few examples. The perception that the Muslim World was "deceived" in to accepting liberal ideals is further enhanced by the huge support which Islamic Political Parties enjoy across the Muslim World, including those who had chosen to operate within the secular constitutional frameworks. The Justice and Development Party of Turkey (AKP), the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt Jordan and Syria, Hamas in Palestine, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in Algeria, Hizbullah in Lebanon and Al Nahda Movement of Tunisia are just a few of the many political parties in the Muslim world who openly espouse the idea that Islam should play a central role in the collective life of the Society. The existence of such movements with varying, yet considerable degree of public support further cements the belief that the Muslim World, even in this era of decline, has no inclinations in divorcing Islam from public life and adopting secularism.

Whether these movements tacitly do so, and may have actually done so, is another matter and is not relevant to the present debate.
So the Muslim World is torn apart in an intellectual tug of War which has been described by some in the simplistic notions of an "identity crisis". There was never an identity crisis of the sort in the Muslim World. The Muslim World never abandoned its Islamic identity, even after it was introduced to the ideal of Westphalian sovereignty, although it had remained confused about her Islamic identity, and this identity remained dormant for some decades creating an impression of the embracement of Westphalian ideal of nation state. Moreover "identity crisis" is too simple a conclusion to approach a much more complex problem of intellectual stagnation. At the heart of the problem of intellectual stagnation in the Muslim World lies the forceful imposition of liberal ideas and solutions which emanate from the belief in the sovereignty of the human mind over that of the divine, on a population which is deeply conservative with a staunch and un-shaky belief in the divine code (Shariah) and whose experience with the unity of the state and religion reminds of her exalted status in the World.

The revival of the Muslim World, as so many thinkers in the Muslim World have correctly concluded, lies not in material progress or in investing in education, military or morally uplifting the society, rather the path to revival lies in the power of ideas which defines what a group of people and a society stands for and how its political and governance structures should be organized. It is indeed intellectual progression which precedes and which eventually results in the revival of a nation. At a time when the debate about the role of religion in society and the intellectual foundations of the Muslim World are in full swing, the boundaries of such a debate should be broadened to include new ideas. Until now this debate has been forcefully limited to how the Muslim World should be reformed according to liberal ideas and how the role of religion in public policy can be reduced and ultimately eliminated. And it appears that this approach has locked the Muslim mind and stopped it from progression as one finds this debate and its basic arguments being discussed by thinkers as back as two centuries ago when the West first introduced this debate to the Muslim intelligentsia.

 It is no secret that after such a long period this reformation hasn't taken place and the Muslim World has inched further from it rather marched towards it. It is time the basic questions are included in the debate which puts the liberal ideas on the table as well and which broadens the horizon of the debate to bring liberalism under scrutiny and challenge as opposed to the assumption of its universality and exclusion from rational scrutiny. That governance structures based on liberal ideals are the incumbent political structures which have failed to revive the Muslim World is ample justification for such an approach. Questions such as whether Islam and Democracy are compatible, whether a democracy would allow the abolishment of the idea of separation of state and church if the majority demands it, whether a liberal pluralistic society would tolerate a public debate within itself which advocates a role of religion in public life, whether the idea of Westphalia Sovereignty is indeed limited to Westphalia and its neighbors, whether free markets is a form of colonial exploitation should be asked alongside those of whether the caliphate is a totalitarian and unaccountable system, whether modernity and Islam can co-exist, whether Islam is a universal ideology and whether a comprehensive adoption of the Islamic ideology by the state, as was done by the caliphate of the past is the way forward for the Muslim World.

Those who believe in a rational discourse and a sincere debate should have no objection to such a "broadening of the debate". For the strongest advocate, which is already forcing this broadening of the debate, upon the Muslim intelligentsia, is the Muslim Street which is roaring for change suggesting that its patience with the stagnation in the Muslim World, has eventually run out.

By; Moez Mobeen

    As per the party's announcement, Hizb ut Tahrir led the march by the Muslims of Bangladesh today at the centre of the capital city Dhaka. Since 27^th July (2011), the day when Hizb ut Tahrir announced its Public Meeting and March, the government issued threats that the Muslims will not be allowed to come out to do the programme. The party ignored the government's threats and issued unequivocal statements that Muslims of the country will march with Hizb ut Tahrir. The party members and activist worked tirelessly in mobilizing the people, solely to earn the pleasure of Allah (swt). And today the event happened. The Ummah ignored government threats. They proceeded in large groups, from various routes, without fear and reached the Polton intersection adjacent to Muktangon. They raised high the flag of Shahadah and at the top of their voice they conveyed a simple message to Sheikh Hasina- the Muslims of this country are resolute in their struggle to remove her government and establish the ruling system of the Qur'an, the Khilafah "Caliphate" state. They demanded the arrest and punishment of the Mushriks who made derogatory remarks about the Prophet (saw). They made it clear that the Hasina government's criminal policies of consolidating US-Indian domination over the Muslim Army of Bangladesh and surrendering the country's sovereignty, land and resources to the imperialists will not go without strong and determined resistance from the people.

The Muslims were prepared to face any and all brutalities of the government forces, whether baton charges, water canons and arrests. And they did that. The government unleashed all its forces, in plain clothes and in green and black but the Muslims bravely stood their ground, following the footsteps of their forefathers, Hamza ibn Abdul Muttalib, Umar ibn Khattab, and Hussein ibn Ali (ra). The government made 15-20 arrests but they have achieved nothing from this. Why don't they take lessons from the Muslims of al-Quds al-Shareef, Bilad al-Sham and al-Maghreb? Have the Jews, Fira'uns and despots in these countries achieved anything by arresting, torturing and killing the sons, the daughters, the old and the young of the Noble Ummah of Muhammad (saw)? Jets are roaring in the skies and tanks are rolling in the streets but the Muslims are undeterred. The Muslims of Bangladesh share the same blood and their resolve has been strengthened this day, the 13^th of August, 2011. The Hasina government's arrests and brutalities will not succeed in stopping the Muslims from struggling, even by one iota.

Hizb ut Tahrir calls upon the people of power in Bangladesh to take inspiration from the Muslims and the leaders, members and activists of the party.

Oh Muslim Army! How long will you remain in your barracks? Will you just sit by, polishing your boots and cleaning the barrels of your guns? Give your nusrah (support) to Hizb ut Tahrir and hasten to remove Hasina, the killer of army officers, the agent of kafir-mushrik imperialists, and the traitor to Islam and the believers. Take the side of the Allah (swt), His Messenger (saw), and the Believers.

for more photo click here