I recently came across this fascinating and historic book in the mosque’s book depot. It drew my attention, as the term ‘New World Order’ is now synonymous with a plan for a fascist world government which desires to annihilate 90% of the world population and enslave the rest.
Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad (ra), the second Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, noticed the phrase ‘New World Order’ when he visited England in 1924. It appears from his notes that the term denoted an intellectual challenge which was broadly felt to formulate a solution for problems faced by the international community; more about this in later posts.
In 1942, the Caliph gave a speech to give his opinion on the proposals for a ‘New World Order’ he had seen, and the alternative which was already offered by the message of the Promised Messiah (a). I will quote from this speech in the coming days, inshallah to examine the history of the phrase as well as the Ahmadiyya viewpoint on the subject.
Today in this series: The League of Nations. The organisation had just been founded. The Caliph studied the principles of the League and criticized it for defects we have seen the dire consequences of in the past decades.
The Foundation of the League of Nations, later known as the United Nations Organisation
When I went to England in 1924 to participate in a Conference of Religions, the League of Nations had only recently been organised. Russia and Germany were then anxious to become members of the League. I pointed out the defects from which the League suffered in the light of the very principles to which I have just made reference:
(1) If two or more States should fall out among each other, the other states should intervene and try to compel the States between whom a dispute has arisen to submit their dispute to arbitration.
(2) If any of them should embark upon aggression, all the others should combine to resist the aggressor.
(3) When the aggressor is defeated, all the States should settle the terms of peace, and in this settlement there should be no element of revenge or punishment.
(4) The matter in dispute is to be settled equitably. It may be that the aggressor State was actually in the right. The mere fact of aggression should not operate to deprive it of its right.
(5) The word ‘equitably’ indicates that the intervening States should not seek any benefit for themselves at the expense of the victor or the vanquished.
I made it quite clear that unless these five principles were kept in view the League was bound to fail. I then stated:
If these defects are removed, a League of Nations could be constituted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Holy Qur’an. It is only such a League which can do any good, not a League which for its very existence is dependent upon the courtesy of different nations. (Op. cit. p. 337)
Again, I said:
So long as people do not realise in accordance with the Islamic teachings that all mankind are one people, and that all nations are subject to the law of rise and fall, and that no nation has continued always in one condition, it will be impossible to establish peace. We must remember that the volcanic forces which raise and bring down nations have not ceased to operate. Nature continues to be active as it has been through the centuries. A nation that treats another nation with contempt initiates an unending circle of tyranny and oppression. (Op. cit p 360)
People at that time seemed very pleased and proud about the League of Nations. I insisted that peace could not be secured unless all States were under an obligation to go to war with an aggressor, but this was not an acceptable proposition at the time. It was pointed out that any obligatory undertaking of this kind would lay the foundations of war rather than of peace. Not only this principle, but all the other Islamic principles that I have today expounded have been opposed during this period by all the new movements that have been started as bases of a New World Order.
But after the unfortunate experience of the last twenty years, nations are beginning to turn in the direction indicated by Islam. Many people are beginning to advocate that under the security system to be established after the war there should be a compulsory obligation to oppose an aggressor by force. Even now I declare that if this security system is not based on Islamic principles it will end in failure.
Categories: Ahmadiyyat: True Islam
The Veto powers of the UN security Council make this the most un-democratic organization in the world, and totally hypocritical, as they pretend to spread democracy and human rights.
If UN genuinely promotes and upholds the thirty articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then it will be a good thing.
Or one would hope other organizations and governments will start championing the thirty articles in an honest and sincere manner.
Are you a true American, do you believe in the constitution of the United States, or are you ready for a new world order, do you like the idea of the law just coming in to your house as they please, or do you think that your privacy is important?
We have editors from all over the world. People may have different views about USA. But, I as USA citizen am all for USA constitution, which enshrines the human right including the religious freedom of each and every citizen. Please see one of my articles about Separation of Mosque-Church and State, Solomonic wisdom needed to establish Separation of Mosque-Church-Synagogue and State.