"And if anyone of the Mushrikûn seek your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and then escort him to where he can be secure..." 9:6 Interpretation of Meaning

"A Muslim is a brother to fellow Muslims. He neither does them injustice, nor lets them down, nor surrenders them." (Hadith)

"Our stand on this issue, as with any other, is based on Islamic Law, and we call on all to abide by the Shariah. There is no possibility of us changing our position on this." (Mullah Muhammad Omar (hafidhahullah), Ameer-ul-Mumineen of Afghanistan and leader of Taliban)
 

The New World Order - the Zionist-Crusader alliance - is basically the rule of a collection of Western capitalist nations whose way of life is that of a material consumerism.
 

The Tyranny of the New World Order:
 

The plan of this New World Order (NWO) is quite simple. They want any and all of those nations who are part of the NWO to have similar laws, and there to be not only extensive co-operation between the Police force and intelligence agencies of those nations, but also the ability to extradite any person they want from any country and have them tried in the Courts of those nations according to the laws of those nations.

This plan is really the beginning - the precursor - of a world-government, with its own international Police force, its own Courts, its own army, all of which claim jurisdiction in any country in the world.

One of the principles of true freedom is that a person can choose exile, or flee from one country and seek sanctuary elsewhere, or at the very least there exists the possibility of that person beginning a new life elsewhere. This principles means that it is the individual who can decide, or who at least has a choice: that is, they can still escape from difficult situations, tyrannical rulers, wrong accusations, or even the mistakes of their own past. All honourable societies, rulers and governments allow this, and in this respect the society created by the Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) at Madinah is the prefect example, as were those of Al-Khulafa'Ar-Rashidun.

However, this freedom is unacceptable to the tyrants of the NWO who desire to create a tyrannical world-government. They want to be able to "go after" any person who they consider is or may be a threat to them and their plans, and to the way of life on which the NWO is based, just as they want to eliminate by any means the government of any nation which does or which may offer sanctuary.

Of course, being deceitful, manipulative, hypocrites, the people behind the NWO, and their lackeys, speak and write about the need to "counter terrorism and terrorists" when what they really mean is that they want to give to themselves, and themselves only, the right to decide who or who is not a "terrorist", which countries are "acceptable" and "civilised" and even which laws are "right" or "acceptable". That is, they want to dictate to other people, and to other nations, as they want to make the whole world a prison from which there is no escape from the Police forces of the NWO.

This is sheer, abject, tyranny, albeit covered over with fine sounding rhetoric and a lot of "double-speak". Such a world-wide, unlimited, unrestrained, right to decide - backed up by naked force and the desire and willingness to use that force to get their own way - is overwhelmingly arrogant and overwhelmingly oversteps the bounds of what is fair and honourable. It is, in truth, the way of the bully made law.
 

True Justice:

The counter-argument, by those who uphold the principles on which the NWO is based, is that the system being developed in the West is just and "civilised" because it seeks to ensure that people "do not or cannot escape justice". However, according to Islam, true justice belongs to Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) alone and the only system which can intimate this justice is the Shari'ah, which, because it is a revelation from Allah, is a human reflection of true justice and thus far superior any system based upon fallible human-derived laws.
 

Hence, Islam accepts the principle of sanctuary - whatever a person may have done or is alleged to have done - because Islam accepts that every individual will ultimately by judged and sentenced by Allah. That is, Muslims accept that Allah is the final Judge, that His decision is always right and just, and that whatever punishment an individual receives on The Last Day will be a fitting one.

Thus, Islam is not particularly concerned if a person seems, by Western standards, to be "evading justice": for that is only the fallible justice of the kaffir Courts of this world based on fallible man-derived laws, and they know that the person cannot escape the justice of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala).
 

There is a fundamental and importance difference here. Muslims view the world, and people, not only in a different way from the West, but in fact in opposition to the West. This difference can be simply but descriptively expressed by one word: Insha'Allah.

The West accepts and believes that justice can reside in some Court, some Judge, some law, and in some decision reached by some Court, just as the West accepts that its officials have some kind of "right" to judge a person, and imprison them, and extradite them from anywhere.

They believe this "right" is given to them by the people who, in theory at least, elect the government which makes their laws, appoints their officials and gives its Police and other forces the "authority" to act in their name.

According to Islam, no government, no person, no people have the right to decide what is or is not just, or what is, or is not, unlawful. According to Islam, only Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) has the right to do this, and has done this, in the revelation given to the Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) which revelation is manifest in the Quran and the Sunnah and thus in Shariah.

In a simple, but correct sense, the officials of Western governments, from their Police, to their Courts, to their armed forces, act in the name of "the people" or some appointed official such as a President, whereas in an Islamic community ruled according to Shariah, authority derives from the representative of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) - the Khalifah or Ameer - who acts "in the Name of Allah".

The West and especially America, in its arrogance - in its overstepping of the bounds of what is honourable - demands that Muslims and others adopt the fallible and tyrannical kaffir system, just as these kuffar demand the right to attack or invade any country in the world in pursuit of anyone it deems to be a criminal or a "terrorist". That is, the West has allotted to itself the role that rightly belongs to Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) alone.
 

The Taliban and Sheikh Osama bin Laden (hafidhahullah):
 

The facts are not open to dispute: America demanded that the Taliban hand-over Sheikh Osama bin Laden (hafidhahullah) in order for him to be tried in an American Court of law in connection with the attacks in America. This demand, the Americans made clear, was not open to negotiation: "You either surrender him, or we will attack you."

The Taliban - in accordance with their Islamic principles and Islamic law - refused, since Sheikh Osama bin Laden (hafidhahullah) was under their protection, having sought sanctuary in Afghanistan. However, they did say that if America provided them with evidence, their Islamic scholars would consider it, and if these scholars concluded there was evidence against Sheikh Osama bin Laden (hafidhahullah), they would allow him to be tried by an Islamic Court according to Islamic law either in Afghanistan, or another Islamic country.

America contemptuously dismissed this offer from the Taliban, and continued pouring forth invective both against the Taliban and Sheikh Osama bin Laden (hafidhahullah). American officials said many times that they considered Sheikh Osama bin Laden (hafidhahullah) guilty as their President pronounced him "an evil man." The American government then also declared that it wanted Sheikh Osama bin Laden  (hafidhahullah) "alive or dead". That is, they had judged him guilty, and sentenced him to death.

The Americans then proceeded to bribe and blackmail the governments of various Islamic countries into supporting them, and launched their attacks against Afghanistan in order, in their own words, to "destroy the Taliban, remove them from power and put in their place a government sympathetic to America and the West." This new American-installed government would be firmly based on Western principles such as "democracy" just as its law would be based on Western law.
 

In truth, as several Islamic scholars have explained  (Footnote 1) the Taliban were the only government in the world which was based on Muslim principles and which insisted on upholding these principles in practice, and this alone sufficed to bring the wroth of the NWO down upon them:
 

Our system is a true example of an Islamic system. For the enemies of our way of life and our Ummah, this system is like a thorn in their eyes, and they are trying to destroy it under various pretexts. (Mullah Mohammad 'Umar.)

Having failed to oust the Taliban by economic sanctions, and having failed to get the so-called Northern Alliance to oust them despite supplying that alliance with weapons, funds, advisers and much else, the NWO decided on a more direct interventionist, imperialist, approach. To this end, they prepared the way by increasing their propaganda offensive against the Taliban in order to try and discredit them and the Islamic community they had created. In this dishonourable propaganda campaign no lie was too great, no scheme too devious, and no propaganda trick was missed.

Many, many Muslims world-wide should be ashamed that they did nothing while the infidels of the NWO succeeded in their aim of removing the one true Islamic community in the world. Why did they not rise up against their corrupt, hypocritical rulers when those rulers sided with the infidels? Why did they not offer Qunot-e-Naazila? Why did they not counter the lying, dishonourable, anti-Islamic propaganda of the infidels? Why did they not participate in the Jihaad to defend a Muslim land? Why did the scholars, the Imaams, that advised and guided them not explain the difference between true Islam and the "Islam" of the hypocrites who imitate the kuffar and who ally themselves with the kuffar? Why are these Muslims not now striving to organize themselves and begin the work of Dawah that will enable others to resist the decadence of the West?

Who has betrayed Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) and His Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam)? Who will stand under the banner of La ilaha il Allah,
Muhammad-ur-Rasool-Allah, and who under the banner inscribed with the symbol of that kuffar organization, the United Nations whose role is to give a man-made, infidel, legitimacy to the work of the Crusader New World Order imperialists?

For there is a clear distinction between Haq and Batil, between Imaan and Kufr, between oppressors and the oppressed, between the alliance of infidels and that of those who freely submit to Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala).
 

Wa Allahu Alam.

Abdul-Aziz

1422  AH
 

(1) For instance, Sheikh 'Abdullah al-Ghunayman and Shaykh AbdurRahman bin Barraak