The clash/struggle (sira'a) between religions and civilisations is ancient, and what concerns us is the clash between Islam and other religions and civilisations. The truth is that Islam is a deen of struggle from the time when Muhammad (PBUH) was commanded to come out openly with the truth until the Hour is established. When He (PBUH) was ordered to speak out openly what he was commanded, the intellectual struggle commenced between the concepts of Islam and the concepts of kufr. This intellectual struggle has continued until our time. It has not stopped nor is it allowed to stop, despite what was added to it of other types of struggle. The intellectual struggle is refuting thoughts with sharp styles, and with intensity and harshness. The Messenger (PBUH) performed it in execution of the command of Allah (SWTH). So He (SWTH) would say:

"Verily you and what you worship besides Allah are fuel for the Hellfire! Surely you will enter it" [TMQ Al-Anbiya: 98].

And:

"A slanderer, going about with calumnies. A hinderer of good, transgressor, sinful. Cruel, after all that, base-born" [TMQ Al-Qalam: 11-3].

And:

"Then, verily, you misguided, deniers. You will surely eat of the tree of Zaqqum. Then you will fill bellies therewith. Drink boiling water on top of it. So you will drink the drinking of thirsty camels. That will be their entertainment on the Day of Recompense! We created you, so why do you not believe?" [TMQ Al-Waqi’a: 51-7].

And:

"Verily the criminals are in misguidance and will burn!" [TMQ Al-Qamar: 47] And:

"Then we pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon the deniers" [TMQ Al- Imran: 61].

And:

"Perish the hands of Abu Lahab and he has perished" [TMQ Al-Masad: 1].

And:

"Verily the one who makes you angry will be cut off" [TMQ Al-Kauthar: 3]. This intellectual struggle does not contradict with His (SWTH) saying:

"Invite to the way of your Lord with (hikma) and fair preaching. And argue with them with what is better. Verily your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His way and He knows best those who are guided." [TMQ Al-Nahl: 125] This is because the (hikma) here is the intellectual proof (burhan 'aqli) and the irrefutable evidence (hujjat damigha); and the fair preaching is the beautiful reminder. The beautiful reminder is by impressing the thoughts and emotions collectively like His (SWTH) saying:

"Argue not with the People of the Book except with that which is better except those who do wrong among them." [TMQ Al-Ankabut: 46] That which is better is to turn away from their harm to you in the argument. As for those who do wrong through fighting or refusing the enforcement of the rule upon them and the paying of jizyah, arguing with them is by the sword. As an example of intellectual struggle narrated regarding Him
is what ibn Abi Sheeba and Abdurrazaq reported in their Musnads,as well as the writers of the Seerah and others, from Qatadah that "the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said to a man:

'Embrace Islam, Abu Al-Harith.' The Christian said: 'I have embraced Islam.' So he said: 'Embrace Islam, Abu Al-Harith.' The Christian said: 'I have embraced Islam.' So he said to him the third time: 'Embrace Islam, Abu Al-Harith.' The Christian said: 'I have embraced Islam before you.' So he became angry and said: 'you lie. Three matters barred between you and Islam: Your purchasing of wine (he did not say: 'Your drinking wine'), your eating the pig and your invoking a child for Allah.'" And As-Sana'ni reported in his 'Tafseer' from Abdurrazaq from Qatadah that Ubayy bin Khalaf came with a decaying tooth while scattering it in the wind and said: Will Allah give life to this, O Muhammad? The Prophet (PBUH) said:

"Yes, Allah will give life to it and cause you to die and enter you into the Fire!" And Al-Hakim reported in 'Al-Mustadrak' and authenticated it from Jabir bin Abdullah (ra) who said:

"Quraysh convened one day and Utbah bin Rabi'ah came to him and said: O Muhammad, are you better or Abdullah?...The Messenger of Allah
was silent. Then the Messenger of Allah
said: Have you finished? He said: Yes. So the Messenger of Allah
recited: 'Bismillah ir-Rahmaan ir-Raheem. Ha Meem. A revelation from Allah, ir- Rahmaan, ir-Raheem' until he reached: 'But if they turn away, then say: 'I have warned you of a lightning bold like the lightning bolt of 'Ad and Thamud' [TMQ Fussilat: 1-13] Utbah said to him: It is enough, it is enough. Have you anything other than this? He said: No.So he returned to Quraysh and they said: What is behind you? He said: I did not leave anything that I thought you would say to him except that I said to him. They said: Did he answer you? He said: Yes. By the One who set upright the structure, I understood nothing of what he said except that he warned you of a lightning bolt of 'Aad and Thamud. They said: Woe unto you, a man spoke to you in Arabic and you do not know what he said? He said: No, by Allah, I understood nothing except mentioning the lighting bolt." This is some of what was narrated from him
of intellectual struggle.

Likewise, some of the Sahabah would do this. Of this is what ibn Ishaq narrated with his chain from Az-Zubair who said: "The first to loudly recite the Qur'an in Makkah after the Messenger of Allah
was 'Abdullah bin Mas'oud (ra). He said: The companions of the Messenger of Allah
assembled one day and said: By Allah, the Quraysh have not heard the Qur'an being loudly recited yet, so which man will make them hear it? 'Abdullah bin Mas'oud said: Me. They said: Verily we fear them against you. We intend a person who has kinsfolk who protect him from the people if they have evil designs upon him. He said: Leave me. Allah (SWTH) will protect me. He said: On the morrow, bin Mas'oud came to the maqam (of Ibrahim at the Ka'aba) in the forenoon and recited:

'Ar-Rahmaan. Has taught the Qur'an' [TMQ Ar-Rahman: 1-2]. Then he faced them reciting it. He said: They contemplated it then began asking: What is ibn Umm 'Abd saying? He said: Then they said: He is reciting some of what Muhammad came with. So they stood and began striking upon his face and he maintained reciting what Allah willed that he reaches. Then he left to his companions, and he had been affected in the face. They said to him: This is what we feared for you. He said: The enemies of Allah were no more contemptible to me than now, and if you wish I will awake for the like tomorrow. They said: No, it is enough for you, what you said. You have made them hear what they detest." And ibn Kathir reported in 'Jami' Al-Masaneed wa As-Sunan': "From Hatib whom the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) had sent to Juraij bin Mina who was the Muqawqis of Alexandria who said to him: Why does your Prophet not invoke against those who expelled him from his land? He said to him: Just as your Prophet did not invoke against those who intended to kill him until Allah raised him to Him. He said to him: You have acted well. You are a wise man coming from a wise man." And Al- Hakim reported in 'Al-Mustadrak' and said (it is) saheeh upon the conditions of the two Sheikhs (Al-Bukhari and Muslim): "From Abu Musa (ra) who said: The Messenger of Allah
commanded us to depart to the land of An-Najashi. That reached Quraysh and they sent Amru bin Al-As and 'Amara bin Al-Waleed, and they collected gifts for An- Najashi. They came to us and advanced to An-Najashi, arrived to him with gifts, kissed him and prostrated to him. Then Amru bin Al-As said: Verily a folk from us disliked our religion and they are in your land. An- Najashi said to him: In my land? He said: Yes? He said: Send them to me. Ja'far said to us: Let none of you speak. I am your speaker today. So we reached An-Najashi while he was sitting in his assembly, Amru at his right and 'Amara at his left, and the priests and monks seated (samatin). Amru and Amara said to him: They do not prostrate to you. When we reached him, the priests and monks with him chided us: Prostrate to your king. Ja'far said: We do not prostrate except to Allah. An-Najashi said to him: And who is that? He said: Verily Allah (SWTH) sent among us His (SWTH) Messenger, and he is the Messenger that Isa prophesied (to come) after him whose name is Ahmad. He commanded us to worship Allah without associating anything with Him, to establish the prayer, pay the zakat,

and he commanded us the good and forbade us from the evil. He said:

His words amazed the people. When Amru saw that, he said to him: Allah prosper the king. They oppose you in Isa bin Maryam. So An- Najashi said to Ja'far: What does your companion say about the son of Mary? He said: He says about him the saying of Allah: He is the spirit of Allah and His word that He brought forth from the maiden virgin whom no man had approached. He said: Then An-Najashi picked a stick from the ground, then raised it and said: O priests and monks, these do no exceed the width of this, what you say about Isa bin Maryam. Welcome to you and to the one whom you came from. Verily I bear witness that he is the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), and that he is the one Isa bin Maryam prophesied of. Were it not for what I am on of kingship, I would go to him until I carry his shoes. Dwell in my land as long as you wish, and he commanded food and clothing for them. And he said: Return to these two their gifts." And Ahmad reported this hadith in greater length from Umm Salamah (ra), and it is more detailed than the hadith of Abu Musa (ra). Al-Haithami reported it in 'Al-Majma'a'' and said: Its men are the men of the saheeh (ahadith) apart from ibn Ishaq, and he explicitly stated that he heard it. Muslims remained struggling with the religions and civilisations of kufr after his death
in an intellectual and military struggle - as will follow - until Islam spread across the regions of the ancient world save a little thereof. People entered into Islam in crowds, and they shed their previous religions and civilisations and became a single new Ummah, its ‘aqeedah one, its thoughts one, its viewpoint in life one, its system one, its interest one, and its highest ideal one namely raising high the word of Allah. It assumed the position of the leading state in the world, and its towns became the centres of radiance for the enlightened thought, the ‘aqeedah of tawheed and the just Shari'ah. They carried the Book and Sunnah, and the Arabic language, to the world so Islam became the ideology of all, and the interest in the Arabic language became great, until there emerged among them mujtahidoon and scholars of language, without difference between Arab and non-Arab, until they became brothers by the favour of Allah. Today, we see a vicious campaign against the Arabic language to detach it from Islam through wicked styles such as the call to colloquialism, writing the other languages of Muslims in the Latin alphabet, and considering local colloquial languages as Arabic. It is known that it is impossible for the one who does not know Arabic to understand Islam, not to mention performing ijtihad with it. They want the Arabic to become like Latin and Syriac such that none understands Islam except experts in this unused language. In reality, they want it to become a dead language. How would the one who does not understand Arabic be able to understand the news (khabar), composition (insha'a), command ('amr), prohibition (nahy), the literal (haqeeqa) and metaphoric (majaz), the reason ('illah), cause (sabab), condition (sharT), preventive (maan'i), general (a'amm), specific (khaas), absolute (mutlaq), restricted (muqayyad), the indications of the explicit wording (mantooq) and the understood (mfhoom) and necessity (iltizam), the meanings of the letters, conjugation, grammar etc? All of these are necessary to understand the Shari'ah texts. Whoever calls to this is an enemy of Islam, and whoever among the Muslims is fooled by these falsehoods is stupid.

However, the embracing of the deen of Allah (SWTH) was not general in a complete perfected way, even among the Arabs themselves. The defeated religions and civilisations remained present. They were weak at the beginning due to the disappearance of the environment that allowed their growth. Thus the movement of heretics (zanadiqa) failed and was suppressed. However, the negligence of the Arabic language afterwards led to the closure of the gates of ijtihad and confusion in understanding the rules, which weakened the State until it became petty states. Some thoughts of the ancient civilisations intruded to Muslims like the idea of asceticism and punishing the body from Hindu philosophy, tribalism among some, the ideas of hidden secret meanings (batiniyya) in others, and the inclination to separate from the centre of the Khilafah, weakened the State and stopped the conquests. Rather the Crusaders and Tatars coveted it until the Ottomans came and unified most of the regions of the State under their authority and resumed the conquests. However, the military character dominated it without carrying the ideology in the correct manner, so the peoples of the conquered lands were not melted into the crucible of Islam as occurred in the first conquests. It is possible to perceive the difference between the Uzbek, Tajik, Pushtun, Turkish, Berber, Indian, (Ad-Deelam), Turkmen and Kurdish peoples, their love for Islam and adherence to it, and the peoples conquered in the period of the Ottomans like the Serbs, Greeks, Hungarians, Croats, Romanians and others. These quickly conspired with the West against Islam and their State, and they never abstained whenever offered an opportunity for vengeance. Then the cultural and missionary invasions against Islam started until the Western civilisation achieved the destruction of the Islamic State, fragmented it, and divided the community (jama’ah) of Muslims. Nor did Western Capitalism stop at that limit; rather it worked to spread its concepts of nationalism, patriotism, democracy, freedom, man-made canons, and imaginary borders among Muslims. It appointed over these petty states corrupt rulers allied to them who consolidate its influence and concepts, protect its interests, preserve the division, deviate from the way of Allah and oppose every sincere person who attempts to free himself from their noose. They were assisted upon that by agent intellectuals who invite to Western thoughts with passion, defend them, and struggle against the Islamic civilisation, standing with blind sincerity to the side of the Ummah's enemy. The Crusader enemies and their agents among the influential people in the Muslim countries, put under their control the media means and education, thus they became misguided and misguiding. This intellectual assault did not stop so the call to the concepts of Western civilisation of what they call freedoms, democracy, pluralism, civil society, the state of institutions, human rights, women's rights, the patriotic bond, religious dialogue etc, is in full swing. Thus it is truly considered a violent intellectual struggle between the two civilisations; Islamic and Capitalist. This clash is so clear such that it requires no evidence, for we are living it daily, no matter how much some intellectuals and the influential Capitalists attempt to hide it, through distortion and deception. For example, we find the former American president Nixon say in 'The Favourable Opportunity (al-fursa as-saniha)': "Our isolation contradicts our values and religious beliefs, which call to spread virtue throughout the world." He also says in his book 'Victory without War': "The revolutionary Islamic ideology is a reaction against modernisation. Communism promises to rotate the hour of history forwards and Islamic fundamentalism returns it backwards…Communist and Islamic revolutionaries are ideological enemies adopting a common aim: Desire to achieve power by any necessary means with the aim of imposing a dominant dictatorship based upon their ideals which are unbearable." We find Berlusconi, the current Italian prime minister, say: "We must be aware of the superiority of our civilisation. The East will remain oriented towards the civilisation of the West and this orientation will increase. This occurred once in the communist world and, also occurred in parts of the Islamic world." Teri Larson, the coordinator of the Oslo process, welcomed the inclination of Muslims of Palestine towards normalization with the West. One member of the Jewish delegation in Oslo and Wye River, Ori Speer, mentioned in his book 'The Course (Al-Maseera)': "The scarves started to disappear from the heads of women, and the dresses started to be shortened from the lower part, a matter that Larson welcomed, considering it inclined towards normalization with the West." In fact women would not dare to do that during the first Intifada before Oslo. We find also Phyllis Oakley, former Under-Secretary of State say: "We agree with those who say that the clash of civilisations cannot be avoided." Madeleine Albright, former US foreign secretary, said: "We were attacked because of our identity. We adhere to globalisation and defend democracy, freedom and open society. This is the essence of America from which we cannot retreat" (Al-Quds magazine quoting from the translated words of Nathan Charles- Washington). Paul Kennedy, History professor at the American Yale University says: "It is difficult to avoid deducing that the danger of terrorist attacks will not cease. We have not as well realized great success in preventing the occurrence of these attacks. The genie got out of the bottle's neck and it carries the spirit of vengeance; and the car bomb has now become the airplane bomb" (Al-Quds magazine in translated words of 22.9/2001). The former Jewish president, Hertzog, said before the Polish parliament in 1992: "The epidemic of Islamic fundamentalism spreads quickly. Nor does it pose a danger to the Jewish people only; rather upon all of humanity" (Al-'Arabi magazine number 514). Shimon Peres said: "Fundamentalism has become the greatest danger of the age after the collapse of communism" (Al-'Arabi magazine number 514). Cyrus Vance, former American foreign secretary, said: "We must be careful and resolved in dealing with these fanatics whose actions are impossible to predict" (Al-'Arabi magazine number 514). The French cultural encyclopaedia states that Muhammad
is: "Anti-Christ, kidnapper of women, and the greatest enemy to the human intellect.".

These and their like explicitly state their enmity to Islam, and their statements are a clear indication that they practice with their Capitalist civilisation violent intellectual struggle against the Islamic civilisation. However, there is another group that attempts to blow ashes in the eyes and delude Muslims, in order to perpetuate their anaesthetisation and make them desist from generating change, while they are not less hostile to Islam and its people. So we find the former American president Clinton say: "Our enemy in the Middle East is extremism, and he rejected the idea of the clash of civilisations. Similarly he said that the current struggle has no relationship with Islam; it is however a struggle against extremist forces that hide with religion and nationalism. He added saying: that it contradicts with Islamic teachings and emphasised that Islam is a powerful force for tolerance and moderation in the world" (Al-'Arabi magazine number 514). Louis Mitchell, Belgian foreign secretary, says in comment upon the above-mentioned statements of Berlusconi: "When a prime minister of a member state of the European Union speaks with this logic, this is completely rejected. The view that any civilisation is better or of more advanced position than other civilisations is considered as contradicting European values in which we all believe" (above mentioned study circle of Al-Jazeera). Even Bush Jr. who declared openly the 'Crusade' and announced it, this did not prevent him from visiting the Islamic Centre in Washington and describing Islam as a deen of peace. Similar to him is his partner in this campaign, the British Prime Minister Blair, who described Islam as being a deen of peace, and he used as evidence the meaning of the noble ayah:

"Whoever kills a soul for other than a soul or (to spread) mischief in the earth, it is as if he killed all of mankind" [TMQ Al-Mai’dah: 32]. It is imperative that Muslims are not beguiled by deceptive words said by the like of these, for their deeds reveal their deep rooted feelings, not their false words, which do not fool a Muslim.

These people know Islam in its reality, rather even better than some Muslims. Nixon, the former American president, whose sayings we have already mentioned his sayings: "Their ideals which cannot be afforded…Fundamentalism turns it backwards…Islamists are ideological enemies", we find him say in his book 'The Favourable Opportunity': "Islam is not merely a religion; rather it is a basis for a great civilisation." So he distinguishes between Islam from Christianity, and he says in the same book in his discussion about fundamentalists: "They are determined to return the previous Islamic civilisation through reviving the past, and they aim to implement the Islamic Shari'ah and announce that Islam is a deen and a State." Furthermore he says: "However, our civilisation is not more advanced than their civilisation. The Islamic world fought communism with more strength than the Western world fought it, and their rejection of material things and the widespread immoral excesses in the Western world is a credit for them and not against them." Just as you see that he is sincere in such words; they, however, did not prevent him from announcing that we are ideological enemies. They also did not prevent him from conspiring against Muslims and assisting Jews against them. So he says in his book 'Victory without War': "Our commitment to the survival of Israel is a profound commitment. We are not official allies. Rather what binds us together is something greater than any paper scraps. It is a moral commitment, a commitment that no president in the past ever abandoned; and every future president will fulfil it with sincerity. America will never permit Israel's enemies who swore to inflict grievous damage upon her to realise their goal in destroying her." He also says in his book 'The Favourable Opportunity': "In order to protect the threatened democratic governments such as Israel and South Korea, we are prepared to use military power if necessary." He also says: "No American president or Congress will ever be able to permit the destruction of Israel." These people understand the reality of Islam and its civilisation; however they insist upon their kufr, enmity and tricks. This is not strange. The Muslim might understand the Western civilisation more than some of its sons, yet still he remains sincere to his deen and civilisation, just as the contrary can occur. So it is imperative that Muslims are not fooled by these types of statements.

The existence of the rightly guided Khilafah upon the way of Prophethood is the fundamental cornerstone in the clash between Islam and kufr. It is naivety and poor understanding to confine the struggle with its various forms to mere da'wah in the various types of media, writing books and individual contacts, at the time wherein Islam is not implemented and the situation of Muslims is deplorable in weakness, disgrace, backwardness and division. Once the State existed, then justice, dignity, happiness, humanity and every type of goodness will be manifested in it; and the near and distant, Muslim and kafir will notice that. Its existence will replace the millions of books and contacts, and thousands of types of media. If what was mentioned before is added to its existence, you will see people entering the deen of Allah in crowds.