When citizens of a nation are exiled on the whim of a single politician, without a possibility of challenging the decision, which itself was made without a trial, one would expect the people to be enraged? Where is the principle of innocent until proven guilty, or the right to a fair trial?
Shamima Begum’s case represents such a problem for the British establishment that they are finding that they cannot avoid exposing the failure of their secular ideology whichever way they turn.
There are many troubling questions and inconsistencies in the British government stance towards Shamima Begum. Some in the media support her right to a fair trial and question the wisdom of outsourcing her detention to a foreign entity and the obvious racial bias such decisions are a precedent for. The BBC on the other hand, as the government mouthpiece that it is and in complete contradiction to its often alleged impartiality, has published gushing praise of the decision, which is entirely justified by the vague national security considerations.
The British Supreme Court decision in the case of Shamima Begum being allowed to return to Britain to challenge her removal of citizenship is based upon the Home Secretary having the right to make such a decision and did not question whether he should have such a right.
Muslims in Britain should not be drawn into either of the straw-man arguments that are proposed by the government and media – either you support her and therefore support Baghdadi’s ISIS group and terrorism, or you must condemn her if you don’t support ISIS group and terrorism. We should not fall for such shallow ploys to get ordinary Muslims to unwittingly align themselves with the British campaign against Islam.
According to the anti-Muslim media, grooming exists and is rife in the Muslim community and the targeted young people are victims of such grooming; but at the same time some targeted young people, if they are Muslims who were “radicalised” with Islam, cannot be victims and must suffer the consequences of the choices they made. That Shamima, as a young adolescent was groomed, is not in question, but who were the groomers and who was behind them?
A trial in Britain would have to delve into the murky British relationship with those who do the bidding of the colonialists overseas, which itself would start to unravel the carefully manufactured narrative that “radicalised” and politically extreme Muslims are behind such activities. However, due to national security concerns, even that trial could be held mostly in secret, as the public cannot be trusted to know the truth of the nefarious activities of British agents. It is a risk that the establishment hopes to avoid in either case.
The notion of secret evidence, denial of fair trials, manufactured enemies, and even the need to curb extremist and radical ideas are completely at odds with the secular capitalist creed and its fragile democratic system. The apologists for it have found that they must behave undemocratically in order to preserve democracy. They perversely believe that they must be unjust to preserve justice.
Such contradictions obviously do not sit well with ordinary people, who will naturally question whether there ever was any justice in such a weak system. Is democracy such a good thing to preserve, if you have to openly behave like a dictator to save it?
The carefully crafted government and media campaign to demonise Islam and Muslims is their last-ditch effort to conceal their contradictory behaviour in the hope that they have built enough bigoted hatred for Muslims, that ordinary people start to agree that Muslims do not deserve rights as other people do, due to national security concerns. Everyone knows that the group neither represented Islam nor did it work for Islam and Muslims. No mention is ever made of the Western allies and agents who fueled the violence in Syria to protect the Asad regime. Such is the hypocrisy of the apologists for the secular ideology.
Such is the contradictory nature of any man-made system, especially as it is originally founded on a narrow historical compromise between the European church and intellectuals. Islam is built upon the rational belief that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad ﷺ is the last and final Messenger. As the true way of life revealed by the creator, Islam does not suffer contradictions and the need to break its rules to save it. The fact that the secular capitalists must continually go against their own standards when confronted with Muslims is an admission of the fallacy of their way of life, which is something that Muslims should be prepared to talk about openly. We are not on the back foot, no matter what accusations are levied against us.
It has been one hundred years that the Muslims have been without a Khaleefah to protect us. We have endured all the slander and accusations imaginable because we had no Khilafah to expose the lies and demonstrate the truth of Islam. For the same period, the world has only known deception and injustice, without knowing any other way. Now that the secular hegemony is being put on the back foot every day it is time for the Muslims to establish the Khilafah on the way of Prophethood to show the world what integrity, honesty and justice really mean.