I have three questions for the party. The first concerns the United Nations. I think Muslims, Muslim governments, and even the Islamic state, whenever it returns should be involved with this institution as far as it concerns the spreading of Islam and also of working with other nations in treaties, alliances, or making peace. But I do not think Muslims should allow this institution to control their destinies too much. It seems to me that according to many Quranic verses Muslims should not trust in non-Muslims to the point of giving them too much authority over Muslims. The institution seems to have failed Muslims in the past such as in Bosnia or Jenin, and all of its biggest missions seem to come when making inroads into Muslim countries. I don't think Muslims should ever support an attack on other Muslims backed by the UN or not and this is a policy the Islamic state should follow. The consequences of this seem to be that there are now U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia! I wanted to know the opinion of the Party on this.

I also wanted to know if the government of Iran was a stooge government like the others in the Middle East. The last question regards the war policies of the Khilafah. There are some who say the state can only fight wars if it is attacked, others say the Khilafah has a right to fight wars if there is a land in which the government doesn't at least allow Islam to be heard by the people of that state, and they base it on examples of the history of the Prophet (SAW). They also say the defense only idea came much later in Islam. I wanted to know what is the truth of this?

According to David Ben Gurion the UN is a Jewish ideal. It certainly isn't a fair representation of the nations of the world; its structure is carefully weighted in favour of existing powers structures. Very often its Security Council acts opposite to the will of its General Assembly. An unjust war does not, therefore, become just, simply because the nations represented on the Security Council have been convinced, bullied or bribed into giving a fig leave of credibility to an act of aggression which is in itself violating the Charter of the United Nations. The United Nations cannot authorise the use of force by any member state other than in clear self-defense of that state. At the present time, international institutions, like the UN are simply being used as required by the dominant states who will impose their will with or without them. Unfortunately, most governments of Muslim nations also take part in this horse-trading where they try to secure their safety or some financial benefit at the expense of other nations. 

None of the existing Muslim states, organised along the lines of nation states in contradiction to the Islamic prohibition of nationalism, can be regarded as an example of what is often referred to as the "Islamic State" (in itself an unfortunate term, because of the confusion it causes between Islamic models of governance and Western state philosophy). Islam permits military action as a last resort in defence both of people's land and property and their freedom of practising their faith. Today's Muslim states, on the other hand, will take their decisions very much based on the basis of international law as developed and controlled by their former colonial overlords.