By Abid Mustafa
November 12, 2006
On November 9th the political landscape in Washington dramatically changed, as Democrats regained control of both the Senate and the Congress, and ended 12 years of Republican domination. Democrats now have 51-49 majority in the upper house and 229-197 majority in the lower house. On the surface it appears that the Democrat victory will make it harder for Bush to foster consensus over his domestic and overseas agenda. While this may hold true for domestic issues on international issues a completely different story is unfolding in Washington— especially over Iraq and the wider Muslim world.
At home House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (soon to become the first female speaker) vowed to use the first 100 hours of the new Congress to push through what Democrats call their “Six for ’06” agenda. This includes calls to raise the minimum wage, repeal subsidies for oil companies and incentives for companies to send jobs overseas, cut interest rates on student loans, give the government the authority to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower prescription drug prices, and expand opportunities for embryonic stem cell research. Bush has already indicated that there is room for agreement on two of the issues namely: minimum wage and stem cell research— the remainder are up for contention.
However on Iraq both the Democrats and the Republicans realise that on the strategic front there can be no room for disagreement- even a modicum of difference will spell disaster for America’s credibility in the region and the rest of the Muslim world. This was aptly highlighted by Richard Haass the Chairman of the Council of Foreign Affairs who in a recent article warned that the American age in the Middle East is coming to an end. What has brought this era to an end, after less than two decades, Haass wrote,” is the Bush administration’s decision to attack Iraq in 2003 and its conduct of the operation and resulting occupation.
Hence to ensure America’s strategic survival in the Middle East and the Muslim world, the Iraqi issue has to be solved. In strategic terms this means that America must continue to be in a position to control the flow of oil and its price, maintain military bases in the region and counter the emergence of any power that threatens these interests. This means that America can only afford a shift in tactics over Iraq.
To this end, an agreement between the two parties on how to resolve Iraq was evolving well before the election. In essence both the Democrats and the Republicans agree that Iraq should be partitioned but differ in how precisely this should be accomplished.
Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the lead Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, advocates decentralising Iraq and giving the country's three major sectarian groups, the Kurds, Shi'is and Sunnis, their own regions, distributing oil revenue to all.
However the Iraq commission chaired by Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democrat Congressman Lee H. Hamilton have indicated that both Syria and Iran should have a role in any dismemberment of Iraq. Another notable personality that shares the views of the Iraq commission is Robert M. Gates who was recently nominated as the new US Defence Secretary.
Gate’s appointment is noteworthy. He is close to James Baker and Bush Senior, and played a pivotal role in the Iran-Contra affair during the eighties. More than likely Gates, as Bush’s new defence chief will use his Iranian connections to placate Tehran and to encourage it to play a constructive role in annexation of Southern Iraq. Little wonder then that Bush described Gates’s nomination in such glowing terms. He said,” The Secretary of Defence must be a man of vision who can see threats still over the horizon and prepare our nation to meet them. Bob Gates is the right man to meet both of these critical challenges.”
The departure of Rumsfeld and the mounting speculation that Bolton will no longer be around at the UN, underscores Bush’s attempt to mend relations with the Democrats at home and Europeans abroad. But more significantly it demonstrates the failure of Bush’s neoconservative policies, which have fractured politics at home and damaged US relations abroad.
But all of this is too little to late. America will be defeated in Iraq. Her pre-eminence will come to an end. And Bush will go down as the worst President in US history. The only credit to his name in history will be that he was the one who ushered in the Caliphate.
Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specialises in Muslim affairs
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Q&A: Woman riding in car alone without a Mahram?
The following is a draft translation from Arabic.
Question: Is a woman allowed to ride a private car alone -without a Mahram (unmarriageable person), if the driver was an acquaintance of her family?
Answer:
1. What applies on the home applies on the private car, because both need a permission to enter (ride).
2. Therefore no one is allowed to be in it with the woman, other than her Mahram or husband, similar to the home.
3. Nothing is excluded from that, except what the text had excluded in the homes, such as the relation of kinship for the relatives, whether they were Mahram such as the uncle or not Mahram without Khulwah (private) such as the cousin, it is allowed to visit their kinship in feasts for example and so on, because general texts were mentioned in the kinship relation: necessity of the bond for the kinships, recommend relationship for the kinships who are not Maharem without Khulwah (private).
And any other case, if it has a text which allows Ijtima’ (the meeting) of men and women at home.
4. Another exception was mentioned in the private means of transportation (which is similar to the home, because it needs permission) which is to allow a woman to ride with her driver if he has a kinship with her, but not in Khulwah (seclusion), meaning there should be others in the car from her acquaintance or those of the driver, whether they were Mahram for her or not.
The proof on this exception is the Hadith narrated by Asma -may Allah be content with her- and reported by Al-Buhkari from Asma Bint Abi Bakr -may Allah be content with them- she said:
«تَزَوَّجَنِي الزُّبَيْرُ ... وَكُنْتُ أَنْقُلُ النَّوَى مِنْ أَرْضِ الزُّبَيْرِ الَّتِي أَقْطَعَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- عَلَى رَأْسِي وَهِيَ مِنِّي عَلَى ثُلُثَيْ فَرْسَخٍ فَجِئْتُ يَوْمًا وَالنَّوَى عَلَى رَأْسِي فَلَقِيتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- وَمَعَهُ نَفَرٌ مِنْ الْأَنْصَارِ فَدَعَانِي ثُمَّ قَالَ إِخْ إِخْ لِيَحْمِلَنِي خَلْفَهُ فَاسْتَحْيَيْتُ أَنْ أَسِيرَ مَعَ الرِّجَالِ وَذَكَرْتُ الزُّبَيْرَ وَغَيْرَتَهُ وَكَانَ أَغْيَرَ النَّاسِ فَعَرَفَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- أَنِّي قَدْ اسْتَحْيَيْتُ فَمَضَى ...»
“I got married to Al-Zubair…. And I used to carry seeds on my head from the land of Al-Zubair which Rasulallah (saw) gave to him, the land is about one third of a Farsakh (parasang) away, one day while carrying the seeds on my head, I met Rasulallah (saw) with some men of the Ansar, he called me and asked me to ride behind him, I was shy to walk with the men and remembered Al-Zubair, who was a very jealous man, so Rasulallah knew that I was shy so he went along….” (the Farsakh (parasang) is about three miles, about 5.5 kilometers).
We understand from this Hadith that:
Rasulallah (saw) allowed Asma to ride behind him on his horse which is a private one and not for public transport.
Rasulallah (saw) was going with a number of his Sahabah -may Allah be content with them- in a caravan, going on together.
It is obvious that the traveling was a short one and not a long one to necessitate a Mahram.
That Rasulallah stopped to let her ride, because she is related to him in kinship, because she is the sister of Aisha –Um-ul Mu’mineen- wife of Rasulallah (saw).
We understand from the stopping of Rasulallah (saw) for her, that he knows her well because she is related to him in kinship, and she is a woman whose family has friendship with the owner of the horse or the private car, relying on the Ayat which included the friend with the kinships in the issue of eating from houses (private life) Allah (swt) said:
((...أَنْ تَأْكُلُوا مِنْ بُيُوتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ ءَابَائِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ إِخْوَانِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أَخَوَاتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أَعْمَامِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ عَمَّاتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أَخْوَالِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ خَالاَتِكُمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكْتُمْ مَفَاتِحَهُ أَوْ صَدِيقِكُمْ))
“…that ye should eat in your own houses, or those of your fathers, or your mothers, or your brothers, or your sisters, or your father's brothers or your father's sisters, or your mother's brothers, or your mother's sisters, or in houses of which the keys are in your possession, or in the house of a sincere friend of yours.” [Al-Nur: 61]. The friend is the one in whom friendship is realized, meaning intimacy and affection.
The Conclusion: A woman is allowed to ride in a private car if she has kinship with the driver or her family are in true friendship with the driver, but there should not be Khulwah (seclusion), meaning that the driver must have others with him (from her or his relations) who are trustworthy, because those who were with Rasulallah (saw) were from his Sahabah taking into consideration that if the driver had only one of his or her relations in the car, then he should be a Mahram for her, or else there should be more than one of her or his trusted relations, that is gathering the evidences: Rasulallah (saw) in the hadith of Asma had a number of the Ansar -more than one- but there was no Mahram in them to Asma, but in the hadith of Rasulallah to cut Khulwah by one, he conditioned that this one should be a Mahram, where he says:
«لا يخلون رجل بامرأة إلا ومعها ذو محرم»
“A man is not allowed to sit in Khulwah with a woman, without a Mahram” reported by Muslim.
So, if a man sits with a woman in a private car, she should be a kinship to him or he should be a friend of her family, but to cut the Khulwah, there should be more than one of the driver’s trusted relations or her trusted relations in the car, or one Mahram for her. And it should be a short traveling and not a long one to necessitate a Mahram.
This is in the case were men are together with (the driver and the woman) in the car. So it must like above.
But if there are women together with the (driver and the woman) in the car, (i.e. if there are women with them) then cutting khalwa in this case is discussed by (fuqaha) before, some say that if there is with the driver his wife or woman Mahram to him, then no khalwa considered, some say even if there is another trusted woman with them, then there is no khalwa ... so this case (cutting khalwa by women) can be revised in the books of the fuqaha.
By Sheikh Ata ibn Khaleel Abu al-Rashta
Arabic source
Question: Is a woman allowed to ride a private car alone -without a Mahram (unmarriageable person), if the driver was an acquaintance of her family?
Answer:
1. What applies on the home applies on the private car, because both need a permission to enter (ride).
2. Therefore no one is allowed to be in it with the woman, other than her Mahram or husband, similar to the home.
3. Nothing is excluded from that, except what the text had excluded in the homes, such as the relation of kinship for the relatives, whether they were Mahram such as the uncle or not Mahram without Khulwah (private) such as the cousin, it is allowed to visit their kinship in feasts for example and so on, because general texts were mentioned in the kinship relation: necessity of the bond for the kinships, recommend relationship for the kinships who are not Maharem without Khulwah (private).
And any other case, if it has a text which allows Ijtima’ (the meeting) of men and women at home.
4. Another exception was mentioned in the private means of transportation (which is similar to the home, because it needs permission) which is to allow a woman to ride with her driver if he has a kinship with her, but not in Khulwah (seclusion), meaning there should be others in the car from her acquaintance or those of the driver, whether they were Mahram for her or not.
The proof on this exception is the Hadith narrated by Asma -may Allah be content with her- and reported by Al-Buhkari from Asma Bint Abi Bakr -may Allah be content with them- she said:
«تَزَوَّجَنِي الزُّبَيْرُ ... وَكُنْتُ أَنْقُلُ النَّوَى مِنْ أَرْضِ الزُّبَيْرِ الَّتِي أَقْطَعَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- عَلَى رَأْسِي وَهِيَ مِنِّي عَلَى ثُلُثَيْ فَرْسَخٍ فَجِئْتُ يَوْمًا وَالنَّوَى عَلَى رَأْسِي فَلَقِيتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- وَمَعَهُ نَفَرٌ مِنْ الْأَنْصَارِ فَدَعَانِي ثُمَّ قَالَ إِخْ إِخْ لِيَحْمِلَنِي خَلْفَهُ فَاسْتَحْيَيْتُ أَنْ أَسِيرَ مَعَ الرِّجَالِ وَذَكَرْتُ الزُّبَيْرَ وَغَيْرَتَهُ وَكَانَ أَغْيَرَ النَّاسِ فَعَرَفَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- أَنِّي قَدْ اسْتَحْيَيْتُ فَمَضَى ...»
“I got married to Al-Zubair…. And I used to carry seeds on my head from the land of Al-Zubair which Rasulallah (saw) gave to him, the land is about one third of a Farsakh (parasang) away, one day while carrying the seeds on my head, I met Rasulallah (saw) with some men of the Ansar, he called me and asked me to ride behind him, I was shy to walk with the men and remembered Al-Zubair, who was a very jealous man, so Rasulallah knew that I was shy so he went along….” (the Farsakh (parasang) is about three miles, about 5.5 kilometers).
We understand from this Hadith that:
Rasulallah (saw) allowed Asma to ride behind him on his horse which is a private one and not for public transport.
Rasulallah (saw) was going with a number of his Sahabah -may Allah be content with them- in a caravan, going on together.
It is obvious that the traveling was a short one and not a long one to necessitate a Mahram.
That Rasulallah stopped to let her ride, because she is related to him in kinship, because she is the sister of Aisha –Um-ul Mu’mineen- wife of Rasulallah (saw).
We understand from the stopping of Rasulallah (saw) for her, that he knows her well because she is related to him in kinship, and she is a woman whose family has friendship with the owner of the horse or the private car, relying on the Ayat which included the friend with the kinships in the issue of eating from houses (private life) Allah (swt) said:
((...أَنْ تَأْكُلُوا مِنْ بُيُوتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ ءَابَائِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ إِخْوَانِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أَخَوَاتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أَعْمَامِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ عَمَّاتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أَخْوَالِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ خَالاَتِكُمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكْتُمْ مَفَاتِحَهُ أَوْ صَدِيقِكُمْ))
“…that ye should eat in your own houses, or those of your fathers, or your mothers, or your brothers, or your sisters, or your father's brothers or your father's sisters, or your mother's brothers, or your mother's sisters, or in houses of which the keys are in your possession, or in the house of a sincere friend of yours.” [Al-Nur: 61]. The friend is the one in whom friendship is realized, meaning intimacy and affection.
The Conclusion: A woman is allowed to ride in a private car if she has kinship with the driver or her family are in true friendship with the driver, but there should not be Khulwah (seclusion), meaning that the driver must have others with him (from her or his relations) who are trustworthy, because those who were with Rasulallah (saw) were from his Sahabah taking into consideration that if the driver had only one of his or her relations in the car, then he should be a Mahram for her, or else there should be more than one of her or his trusted relations, that is gathering the evidences: Rasulallah (saw) in the hadith of Asma had a number of the Ansar -more than one- but there was no Mahram in them to Asma, but in the hadith of Rasulallah to cut Khulwah by one, he conditioned that this one should be a Mahram, where he says:
«لا يخلون رجل بامرأة إلا ومعها ذو محرم»
“A man is not allowed to sit in Khulwah with a woman, without a Mahram” reported by Muslim.
So, if a man sits with a woman in a private car, she should be a kinship to him or he should be a friend of her family, but to cut the Khulwah, there should be more than one of the driver’s trusted relations or her trusted relations in the car, or one Mahram for her. And it should be a short traveling and not a long one to necessitate a Mahram.
This is in the case were men are together with (the driver and the woman) in the car. So it must like above.
But if there are women together with the (driver and the woman) in the car, (i.e. if there are women with them) then cutting khalwa in this case is discussed by (fuqaha) before, some say that if there is with the driver his wife or woman Mahram to him, then no khalwa considered, some say even if there is another trusted woman with them, then there is no khalwa ... so this case (cutting khalwa by women) can be revised in the books of the fuqaha.
By Sheikh Ata ibn Khaleel Abu al-Rashta
Arabic source
Q&A: Going to cinema & watching licentious films?
The following is a draft translation from Arabic.
Question: Is it allowed to go to the cinema and watch ordinary films? Is it allowed to watch sexy licentious films, knowing that it is watching pictures and not real bodies? What is our duty towards the Muslim who watches such films: do we order and forbid him, or leave him to do what he wants?
Answer: It is allowed to go to the cinema to watch serious beneficial films, on condition that the rows of women in the hall should be separated from those of the men. This would be similar to attending a lecture or a seminar, it is allowed to do that, on condition of separating the rows of men from those of women.
But this -which is allowed- with the mentioned conditions, is better to be abandoned, so that the eye would not fall upon the private parts of some women who are present in the hall, and so that the ear would not hear un-correct voices from the audience in the hall. Watching sexy dissolute films is not allowed, even if they were pictures and not real bodies, because the Shariah principle -in this subject- is that الوسيلة إلى الحرام حرام “the means to Haram is Haram”, it is not a condition for the means to lead necessarily to what is Haram, but to be probable is enough.
These films generally lead those who watch them to what is Haram, so the principle applies to such films. That is why it is not allowed to watch or buy them.
As for how should the Shabab behave towards the Muslims who watch such films; most of those who watch such films are low people who do not listen to orders or demands, except for a few who have the mercy of Allah. Yet, if the Shabab could find a strong, preventive and rational method, let them use it. Maybe the person who asked the question means some of his relatives, for whom he feels sad to be in this sick behavior, then he should drive them away from such a behavior -if this is the case- he must order and forbid them, and choose the correct method, hoping that Allah will guide them to the correct path, and he will be rewarded for that, by the will of Allah.
Today, the Muslims are surrounded by miseries from all sides, because of the absence of the Khilafah, a Muslim should not have time for the allowed amusement, so how is it if he spends his time in what is not allowed, Allah forbids? Oh brothers, it is your duty to direct the Muslims strongly but wisely, in order to fill their time by doing good things, by working and persevering to re-establish the Khilafah, and rescue the Ummah from these miseries .
By Sheikh Ata ibn Khaleel Abu al-Rashta
Arabic source
Question: Is it allowed to go to the cinema and watch ordinary films? Is it allowed to watch sexy licentious films, knowing that it is watching pictures and not real bodies? What is our duty towards the Muslim who watches such films: do we order and forbid him, or leave him to do what he wants?
Answer: It is allowed to go to the cinema to watch serious beneficial films, on condition that the rows of women in the hall should be separated from those of the men. This would be similar to attending a lecture or a seminar, it is allowed to do that, on condition of separating the rows of men from those of women.
But this -which is allowed- with the mentioned conditions, is better to be abandoned, so that the eye would not fall upon the private parts of some women who are present in the hall, and so that the ear would not hear un-correct voices from the audience in the hall. Watching sexy dissolute films is not allowed, even if they were pictures and not real bodies, because the Shariah principle -in this subject- is that الوسيلة إلى الحرام حرام “the means to Haram is Haram”, it is not a condition for the means to lead necessarily to what is Haram, but to be probable is enough.
These films generally lead those who watch them to what is Haram, so the principle applies to such films. That is why it is not allowed to watch or buy them.
As for how should the Shabab behave towards the Muslims who watch such films; most of those who watch such films are low people who do not listen to orders or demands, except for a few who have the mercy of Allah. Yet, if the Shabab could find a strong, preventive and rational method, let them use it. Maybe the person who asked the question means some of his relatives, for whom he feels sad to be in this sick behavior, then he should drive them away from such a behavior -if this is the case- he must order and forbid them, and choose the correct method, hoping that Allah will guide them to the correct path, and he will be rewarded for that, by the will of Allah.
Today, the Muslims are surrounded by miseries from all sides, because of the absence of the Khilafah, a Muslim should not have time for the allowed amusement, so how is it if he spends his time in what is not allowed, Allah forbids? Oh brothers, it is your duty to direct the Muslims strongly but wisely, in order to fill their time by doing good things, by working and persevering to re-establish the Khilafah, and rescue the Ummah from these miseries .
By Sheikh Ata ibn Khaleel Abu al-Rashta
Arabic source
Q&A: Guardianship of convert woman for marriage?
The following is a draft translation from arabic.
Question: A woman was an atheist (unbeliever) then she adopted Islam, a Muslim wanted to marry her, so is her atheist father allowed to be her guardian in the marriage contract? If not, who then will be her guardian (Wali)?
The Answer: An atheist has no guardianship on the Muslim woman, if a woman adopts Islam then her father has no guardianship to get her married. As for your question about how would the atheist woman -who adopts Islam- get married, and who will be her guardian, the answer is as follows:
If she has a relative from her blood relationship (her brother, uncle….) and he already adopted Islam like her, then he will be her guardian, if she has more than one relative -from her blood relationship- who adopted Islam, the nearest in relationship to her will be her guardian in marriage, her Muslim brother is more entitled than her Muslim uncle….
If she has no blood relationship who adopted Islam like her, and she is not living in a country which rules by Islam -as is the case in the question- then the Muslim Shar’i judge if present in the country, on condition that he will be trusted to encourage her in her adoption of Islam and does not hinder her Islam or help her atheist family against her, but if he is not trusted, then the man who made her adopt Islam could be her guardian in marriage, or she could choose a Muslim man who acts justly, whom she is content to be pious, then he could be her guardian in marriage, he can finish the marriage contract for her according to Shari’ah, then the husband can notarize the contract to maintain the rights.
For knowledge -if the country of the woman rules by Islam, then the Sultan is her guardian, if she has no blood relationship, because Rasulallah (saw) says:
«لا نكاح إلا بولي والسلطان ولي من لا ولي له»
“There is no marriage without a guardian (Wali), and the Sultan is the guardian of he who has no guardian” reported by Ahmad from Ibn Abbas and Aisha –may Allah be content with them- the sultan is more entitled than the judge and who comes after him from those mentioned before.
By Sheikh Ata ibn Khaleel Abu al-Rashta
Arabic source
Question: A woman was an atheist (unbeliever) then she adopted Islam, a Muslim wanted to marry her, so is her atheist father allowed to be her guardian in the marriage contract? If not, who then will be her guardian (Wali)?
The Answer: An atheist has no guardianship on the Muslim woman, if a woman adopts Islam then her father has no guardianship to get her married. As for your question about how would the atheist woman -who adopts Islam- get married, and who will be her guardian, the answer is as follows:
If she has a relative from her blood relationship (her brother, uncle….) and he already adopted Islam like her, then he will be her guardian, if she has more than one relative -from her blood relationship- who adopted Islam, the nearest in relationship to her will be her guardian in marriage, her Muslim brother is more entitled than her Muslim uncle….
If she has no blood relationship who adopted Islam like her, and she is not living in a country which rules by Islam -as is the case in the question- then the Muslim Shar’i judge if present in the country, on condition that he will be trusted to encourage her in her adoption of Islam and does not hinder her Islam or help her atheist family against her, but if he is not trusted, then the man who made her adopt Islam could be her guardian in marriage, or she could choose a Muslim man who acts justly, whom she is content to be pious, then he could be her guardian in marriage, he can finish the marriage contract for her according to Shari’ah, then the husband can notarize the contract to maintain the rights.
For knowledge -if the country of the woman rules by Islam, then the Sultan is her guardian, if she has no blood relationship, because Rasulallah (saw) says:
«لا نكاح إلا بولي والسلطان ولي من لا ولي له»
“There is no marriage without a guardian (Wali), and the Sultan is the guardian of he who has no guardian” reported by Ahmad from Ibn Abbas and Aisha –may Allah be content with them- the sultan is more entitled than the judge and who comes after him from those mentioned before.
By Sheikh Ata ibn Khaleel Abu al-Rashta
Arabic source
Thursday, November 9, 2006
Oh! Muslim Soldiers: Is there not a wise person amongst you?
The following is a translation from Arabic with some ammendments.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Oh! Muslim Soldiers: Is there not a wise person amongst you, who is concerned about the condition of Islam & Muslims, their modesty and honour?
The Israelis despatched their Air force to fire bullets on Muslim women in Beit Hanoun that killed and injured them and attacked the mosques and damaged them. They destroyed farms and killed the young ones and elderly alike in their homes….The Muslim rulers are surveying the damage and counting the dead and the injured. These Muslim rulers are relaxedly watching the brutality of the Israelis as they kill the Muslim women with bullets. These Muslim rulers are neither shaken nor are their hearts pounding. Their tongues move only to blame the Muslim women protestors at the killing but these rulers do not blame the Israelis who killed the women!
Oh Muslims!
Oh Muslim Soldiers!
Has the time not come that you come out of the bonds of these rulers who have turned you to the humiliation and disgrace, instead of moving you to the battle fields? How the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are camping at the borders of Palestine in silence that resembles the silence of death, and watching with their own eyes the Israelis chasing the Muslim women? Egypt shamelessly seeks permission from the Israelis to send its border forces to Egypt’s own district of Rafah, only to prevent those in Rafah from helping their brothers who reside in the Palestinian part of Rafah! Whereas these very soldiers should have protected the residents from the brutal and barbaric attacks of the Israelis.
Is there not amongst you one who is eager to seek the pleasure of Allah (swt) and Jannah? Is there not amongst you one who is keen for the honour of this world and the hereafter? Is there not amongst you one who is eager to seek and is willing to sell himself in exchange for the pleasure of Allah (swt) and is willing to stand up against these rulers and their evil and thus help Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw) and thus have his reward with Allah (swt) written in the white books with Him? Is there not a Mu’tasim among you for these women to avenge the brutality of the enemy?
Oh Muslims!
Oh Muslim Soldiers!
Your enemy is not all powerful; his strength is only because of the betrayal of those who command authority over you. The Israelis have never won a battle that was fought as it should be, but were ‘victorious’ only in staged managed battles. The book of Allah (swt) also testifies:
[وَإِنْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ يُوَلُّوكُمُ الأَدْبَارَ ثُمَّ لاَ يُنْصَرُونَ ]
“If they come out to fight you, they will show their backs and no help shall they get.” (TMQ: Al Imran:111)
And the hadith of our Prophet (saw) stands as a witness to this, as reported by Muslim:
«لَتُقَاتِلُنَّ الْيَهُودَ وَلَتَقْتُلُنَّهُمْ» وفي رواية «تُقَاتِلُكُمُ الْيَهُودُ فَتُسَلَّطُونَ عَلَيْهِمْ»
“When you fight the Israelis, it will overwhelm them.” Or as in another riwayah (narration), “You fight Israelis and will overwhelm them.”
As also the testimony of the so called battles stand as a witness to these mock battles:
- In the 1948 war, a group of soldiers who truly believed in Allah, refused to surrender and pull back from the wall of Al Quds and were persistent and finally victorious.
In the 1968 battle of Al Karamah, a group of soldiers rebelled against the order of their ruler and entered the battle to help the resistance in Al Karamah, they won and forced the enemy to flee leaving behind a few battle tanks in which the operating soldiers were tied in seats to prevent them from deserting!
- At the start of the 1973 war, a group of Egyptian soldiers ran through the Jewish forts at the Bar Lev line. Also the Syrian soldiers penetrated border 48 in Golan despite the huge arsenal of the heavily-armed Israelis. But for the betrayal by Sadat of the Dafurs war, and the letting down of soldiers by Hafez al Assad in Golan who allowed the Americans to enter the war through the negotiations table and not in the actual battle front. If it had not been for this backroom maneuvering, the results of the battle would certainly have been different.
- And of course the events of July 2006, the Israeli attacks, when a few believing soldiers confronted the violent Israelis in spite of the enormous difference in preparedness and equipment.
The Israelis are covered in humiliation and misery, if the Israelis had ever expected that a single country and not all the surrounding countries was able to confront and humble them. They would have not dared to mount an attack on it and their occupation of Palestine would have shaken by the tremor, and their fate would have been the fate of their similar ones earlier. Their dwellings destroyed by their own hands and by the believers; and the luckier ones among them who escaped bodily harm would have ran away from Palestine.
Truly, Oh Muslims, The strength of your enemies is due to the betrayal of your leaders, this is not the case in Palestine alone, but holds true for the Muslim lands that are occupied by the Kuffar. In fact they could occupy these lands only because of the treachery of these rulers and their associates who failed to help the Muslims. Take Kashmir for instance which is occupied by India and Pakistan fails to liberate it. On the contrary Pakistan is now coming down heavily on the Mujahideen movements in Kashmir! Take Chechnya which is under Russian occupation while the Central Asian countries and Azerbaijan are sitting pretty doing nothing about liberating it from the clutches of brutal Russia. And Afghanistan could only be occupied because of the complicity, conspiracy and betrayal by the ruler of Pakistan. Then, was it possible for America to occupy the rich land of Iraq if Syria, Iran and Turkey moved to help Iraq? Would the Gulf statelets be what they are without having surrendered their lands and making them the storehouse for the American and British arsenal and launching pads for the enemy to attack?
Oh Muslims!
Oh Muslim Soldiers!
The Muslim armies are the sons of the Muslims, their ardour and strength springs from the Muslims. How is it that you are unable to stand up with the Muslims in rooting out these rulers who kneel shamelessly before the enemy? Why do you not act to liberate your lands and restore your honour and protect the sanctities of Muslims? Your desire and the aspirations of Muslims looking to this life alone is only leading to a life of shame, humiliation, disgrace and subjugation. It’s a miserable life if only you realise it.
Oh soldiers, answer the distressing cries of women and yelling of the children and the elderly. This will save you from the wrath of Allah (swt) and his punishment on the day when no wealth and sons will be of help except those who come to Allah (swt) with a pure and untainted heart.
We urge you to support the work to re-establish the Khilafah…..so that you become the rightly guided. The first leadership of the Khulafa’ al Rashiddoon, al Mu’tasim and Salahudeen. Will then the kuffar cast a dirty eye on the women and remain safe? Let alone kill them with their bullets. Only then will you become the best of Ummah who are raised for the people.
[يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا اسْتَجِيبُوا لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ ]
“O ye who believe! Give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when he calleth you to that which will give you life.” (TMQ Anfal:24)
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Oh! Muslim Soldiers: Is there not a wise person amongst you, who is concerned about the condition of Islam & Muslims, their modesty and honour?
The Israelis despatched their Air force to fire bullets on Muslim women in Beit Hanoun that killed and injured them and attacked the mosques and damaged them. They destroyed farms and killed the young ones and elderly alike in their homes….The Muslim rulers are surveying the damage and counting the dead and the injured. These Muslim rulers are relaxedly watching the brutality of the Israelis as they kill the Muslim women with bullets. These Muslim rulers are neither shaken nor are their hearts pounding. Their tongues move only to blame the Muslim women protestors at the killing but these rulers do not blame the Israelis who killed the women!
Oh Muslims!
Oh Muslim Soldiers!
Has the time not come that you come out of the bonds of these rulers who have turned you to the humiliation and disgrace, instead of moving you to the battle fields? How the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are camping at the borders of Palestine in silence that resembles the silence of death, and watching with their own eyes the Israelis chasing the Muslim women? Egypt shamelessly seeks permission from the Israelis to send its border forces to Egypt’s own district of Rafah, only to prevent those in Rafah from helping their brothers who reside in the Palestinian part of Rafah! Whereas these very soldiers should have protected the residents from the brutal and barbaric attacks of the Israelis.
Is there not amongst you one who is eager to seek the pleasure of Allah (swt) and Jannah? Is there not amongst you one who is keen for the honour of this world and the hereafter? Is there not amongst you one who is eager to seek and is willing to sell himself in exchange for the pleasure of Allah (swt) and is willing to stand up against these rulers and their evil and thus help Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw) and thus have his reward with Allah (swt) written in the white books with Him? Is there not a Mu’tasim among you for these women to avenge the brutality of the enemy?
Oh Muslims!
Oh Muslim Soldiers!
Your enemy is not all powerful; his strength is only because of the betrayal of those who command authority over you. The Israelis have never won a battle that was fought as it should be, but were ‘victorious’ only in staged managed battles. The book of Allah (swt) also testifies:
[وَإِنْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ يُوَلُّوكُمُ الأَدْبَارَ ثُمَّ لاَ يُنْصَرُونَ ]
“If they come out to fight you, they will show their backs and no help shall they get.” (TMQ: Al Imran:111)
And the hadith of our Prophet (saw) stands as a witness to this, as reported by Muslim:
«لَتُقَاتِلُنَّ الْيَهُودَ وَلَتَقْتُلُنَّهُمْ» وفي رواية «تُقَاتِلُكُمُ الْيَهُودُ فَتُسَلَّطُونَ عَلَيْهِمْ»
“When you fight the Israelis, it will overwhelm them.” Or as in another riwayah (narration), “You fight Israelis and will overwhelm them.”
As also the testimony of the so called battles stand as a witness to these mock battles:
- In the 1948 war, a group of soldiers who truly believed in Allah, refused to surrender and pull back from the wall of Al Quds and were persistent and finally victorious.
In the 1968 battle of Al Karamah, a group of soldiers rebelled against the order of their ruler and entered the battle to help the resistance in Al Karamah, they won and forced the enemy to flee leaving behind a few battle tanks in which the operating soldiers were tied in seats to prevent them from deserting!
- At the start of the 1973 war, a group of Egyptian soldiers ran through the Jewish forts at the Bar Lev line. Also the Syrian soldiers penetrated border 48 in Golan despite the huge arsenal of the heavily-armed Israelis. But for the betrayal by Sadat of the Dafurs war, and the letting down of soldiers by Hafez al Assad in Golan who allowed the Americans to enter the war through the negotiations table and not in the actual battle front. If it had not been for this backroom maneuvering, the results of the battle would certainly have been different.
- And of course the events of July 2006, the Israeli attacks, when a few believing soldiers confronted the violent Israelis in spite of the enormous difference in preparedness and equipment.
The Israelis are covered in humiliation and misery, if the Israelis had ever expected that a single country and not all the surrounding countries was able to confront and humble them. They would have not dared to mount an attack on it and their occupation of Palestine would have shaken by the tremor, and their fate would have been the fate of their similar ones earlier. Their dwellings destroyed by their own hands and by the believers; and the luckier ones among them who escaped bodily harm would have ran away from Palestine.
Truly, Oh Muslims, The strength of your enemies is due to the betrayal of your leaders, this is not the case in Palestine alone, but holds true for the Muslim lands that are occupied by the Kuffar. In fact they could occupy these lands only because of the treachery of these rulers and their associates who failed to help the Muslims. Take Kashmir for instance which is occupied by India and Pakistan fails to liberate it. On the contrary Pakistan is now coming down heavily on the Mujahideen movements in Kashmir! Take Chechnya which is under Russian occupation while the Central Asian countries and Azerbaijan are sitting pretty doing nothing about liberating it from the clutches of brutal Russia. And Afghanistan could only be occupied because of the complicity, conspiracy and betrayal by the ruler of Pakistan. Then, was it possible for America to occupy the rich land of Iraq if Syria, Iran and Turkey moved to help Iraq? Would the Gulf statelets be what they are without having surrendered their lands and making them the storehouse for the American and British arsenal and launching pads for the enemy to attack?
Oh Muslims!
Oh Muslim Soldiers!
The Muslim armies are the sons of the Muslims, their ardour and strength springs from the Muslims. How is it that you are unable to stand up with the Muslims in rooting out these rulers who kneel shamelessly before the enemy? Why do you not act to liberate your lands and restore your honour and protect the sanctities of Muslims? Your desire and the aspirations of Muslims looking to this life alone is only leading to a life of shame, humiliation, disgrace and subjugation. It’s a miserable life if only you realise it.
Oh soldiers, answer the distressing cries of women and yelling of the children and the elderly. This will save you from the wrath of Allah (swt) and his punishment on the day when no wealth and sons will be of help except those who come to Allah (swt) with a pure and untainted heart.
We urge you to support the work to re-establish the Khilafah…..so that you become the rightly guided. The first leadership of the Khulafa’ al Rashiddoon, al Mu’tasim and Salahudeen. Will then the kuffar cast a dirty eye on the women and remain safe? Let alone kill them with their bullets. Only then will you become the best of Ummah who are raised for the people.
[يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا اسْتَجِيبُوا لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ ]
“O ye who believe! Give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when he calleth you to that which will give you life.” (TMQ Anfal:24)
Monday, November 6, 2006
America plans to give Southern Iraq to Iran
By Abid Mustafa
November 6, 2006
Over the past few months talk about the division of Iraq has gained currency amongst America’s political establishment. Most notable is the plan advocated by Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden purports to decentralise Iraq and give the country's three major sectarian groups, the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, their own regions, distributing oil revenue to all. Another US official Peter Galbraith, a former State Department employee who's advised Iraqi Kurdish leaders on political issues and is the author of “The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War without End” , said in an interview, “The country has already broken up. And actually, I'm opposed to using U.S. resources to try to put it back together again. Kurdistan in the north is already a de facto independent state. It has its own elected government. It has its own army. It flies its own flag. The Iraqi army is not allowed to go to Kurdistan. The Iraqi flag is banned there. The Shiite south is governed by the Shiite religious parties who enforce an Iranian-style Islamic law with militias. It's also not governed from Baghdad. Baghdad itself is the front line of a civil war divided between a Shiite east and a Sunni west, and the Sunni center is a battleground between the coalition and Sunni insurgents. So the country has already broken up, and this result is actually incorporated into the Iraqi constitution. The constitution creates a virtually powerless center…”
Others like the former secretary of State James Baker who is currently the Republican co-chairman of a bipartisan panel that is reassessing Iraq strategy for President George W. Bush is critical of Biden’s plan, but is open to the prospect of dividing Iraq between Syria and Iran. In an interview to ABC News television Baker said, “I believe in talking to your enemies.”
The debate amongst America’s political establishment to partition Iraq has caused consternation amongst some Arab states who are avid supporters of the old British policy to preserve Iraq’s integrity. Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal in a speech delivered in Washington on 30/10/06 said,” To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale and uprooting of families and even the divorce rate in Iraq will shoot up 300 percent.”
King Abdullah long ago forewarned that the partition of Iraq would create a Shiite Crescent stretching from Iran to Lebanon. In an article entitled’ Iraq, Jordan See Threat To Election From Iran’ published by the Washington Post on 8/11/04, King Abdullah warned that If pro-Iran parties or politicians dominate the new Iraqi government a new "crescent" of dominant Shiite movements or governments stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon could emerge, alter the traditional balance of power between the two main Islamic sects and pose new challenges to U.S. interests and allies. He further went to state that Iran was the main beneficiary from the chaos in Iraq. He said that Iranians are paying salaries and providing welfare to unemployed Iraqis to build pro-Iranian public sentiment. Some Iranians, he added, have been trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and are members of militias that could fuel trouble in Iraq after the election. “It is in Iran's vested interest to have an Islamic republic of Iraq . . . and therefore the involvement you're getting by the Iranians is to achieve a government that is very pro-Iran.", he said. Ever since the Shiite rose to power in Iraq, King Abdullah has often repeated that American policy is bolstering Shiite power across the region.
Hitherto Washington has not officially endorsed the plan to divide Iraq and give Southern Iraq to Iran, but the facts on the ground speak volumes about America’s intentions.
Since the first gulf war, America has worked tirelessly to isolate Baghdad from the Kurdish areas to the North of Iraq and Shiite dominated areas to the South of Iraq. America instigated the infamous Operation Northern Watch to enforce the no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel in Iraq and monitor Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687, and 688. Operation Southern Watch was enforced to protect the no-fly zone south of the 33rd parallel in Iraq and monitor compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687, 688, and 949.
After the fall of Saddam, America has become the chief perpetrator in fostering sectarian violence through employing military operations and promoting defunct political processes that by their very nature engender sectarian strife.
In the aftermath of Baath regime’s sudden collapse, America sure of Kurdish support for autonomous rule began to garner support amongst the Shias for a pseudo federalist state. To accomplish this feat, America enlisted the help of Ayatollah Sistani and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution. Both Ayatollahs’ have close ties with Iran; the only difference between the two is that the latter has 10,000 soldiers at his disposal. The Badr army as they are known is tolerated by the Americans and conduct operations under American tutelage. Hakim has aggressively pushed for federalism for the southern regions, calling for nine provinces to merge.
In October 2006, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution after a controversial vote, agreeing to revisit how to create a federalist state in 18 months. Sunni parliamentarians boycotted the vote, saying it would divide the country, and the measure passed 140-to-0 by the largely Shiite and Kurdish members still present. Shortly after the parliament vote, Hakim said in a news conference that dividing Iraq into three regions would stop the violence, citing the relatively peaceful Kurdish regions. "There is a clear point of view gleaned from our Kurdish brothers, and that is, the Iraq problem can only be solved with regions," Hakim said.
Hakim’s declaration for greater Shiite autonomy coincides with Bush’s abandonment of promoting democracy in the region, drawing Iraq—Vietnam parallels and signaling US troop withdrawal to start as early as 2007. Unsurprisingly then that Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, recently said that the unity government of Nouri al-Maliki, had only two months left to get a grip on the situation. It appears that the option of cut and run will be replaced by cut Iraq and watch Iran take southern Iraq.
But Washington has three major problems with this scheme. Firstly, Europe led by Britain has considerable influence over the various Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite factions- So any partitioning of Iraq may not result in oil rich regions falling completely under America’s hegemony. Secondly, Ahmadinejad is proving to be a real nuisance towards American policy in the region, despite US attempts to curb his ambitions through the likes of Khatami and Rafsanjani. Thirdly, the most worrisome matter for Washington— is what if the division of Iraq fails and leaves a vacuum only to be filled in by the Caliphate- something which Bush and his acolytes have profusely warned about.
Source
November 6, 2006
Over the past few months talk about the division of Iraq has gained currency amongst America’s political establishment. Most notable is the plan advocated by Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden purports to decentralise Iraq and give the country's three major sectarian groups, the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, their own regions, distributing oil revenue to all. Another US official Peter Galbraith, a former State Department employee who's advised Iraqi Kurdish leaders on political issues and is the author of “The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War without End” , said in an interview, “The country has already broken up. And actually, I'm opposed to using U.S. resources to try to put it back together again. Kurdistan in the north is already a de facto independent state. It has its own elected government. It has its own army. It flies its own flag. The Iraqi army is not allowed to go to Kurdistan. The Iraqi flag is banned there. The Shiite south is governed by the Shiite religious parties who enforce an Iranian-style Islamic law with militias. It's also not governed from Baghdad. Baghdad itself is the front line of a civil war divided between a Shiite east and a Sunni west, and the Sunni center is a battleground between the coalition and Sunni insurgents. So the country has already broken up, and this result is actually incorporated into the Iraqi constitution. The constitution creates a virtually powerless center…”
Others like the former secretary of State James Baker who is currently the Republican co-chairman of a bipartisan panel that is reassessing Iraq strategy for President George W. Bush is critical of Biden’s plan, but is open to the prospect of dividing Iraq between Syria and Iran. In an interview to ABC News television Baker said, “I believe in talking to your enemies.”
The debate amongst America’s political establishment to partition Iraq has caused consternation amongst some Arab states who are avid supporters of the old British policy to preserve Iraq’s integrity. Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal in a speech delivered in Washington on 30/10/06 said,” To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale and uprooting of families and even the divorce rate in Iraq will shoot up 300 percent.”
King Abdullah long ago forewarned that the partition of Iraq would create a Shiite Crescent stretching from Iran to Lebanon. In an article entitled’ Iraq, Jordan See Threat To Election From Iran’ published by the Washington Post on 8/11/04, King Abdullah warned that If pro-Iran parties or politicians dominate the new Iraqi government a new "crescent" of dominant Shiite movements or governments stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon could emerge, alter the traditional balance of power between the two main Islamic sects and pose new challenges to U.S. interests and allies. He further went to state that Iran was the main beneficiary from the chaos in Iraq. He said that Iranians are paying salaries and providing welfare to unemployed Iraqis to build pro-Iranian public sentiment. Some Iranians, he added, have been trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and are members of militias that could fuel trouble in Iraq after the election. “It is in Iran's vested interest to have an Islamic republic of Iraq . . . and therefore the involvement you're getting by the Iranians is to achieve a government that is very pro-Iran.", he said. Ever since the Shiite rose to power in Iraq, King Abdullah has often repeated that American policy is bolstering Shiite power across the region.
Hitherto Washington has not officially endorsed the plan to divide Iraq and give Southern Iraq to Iran, but the facts on the ground speak volumes about America’s intentions.
Since the first gulf war, America has worked tirelessly to isolate Baghdad from the Kurdish areas to the North of Iraq and Shiite dominated areas to the South of Iraq. America instigated the infamous Operation Northern Watch to enforce the no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel in Iraq and monitor Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687, and 688. Operation Southern Watch was enforced to protect the no-fly zone south of the 33rd parallel in Iraq and monitor compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687, 688, and 949.
After the fall of Saddam, America has become the chief perpetrator in fostering sectarian violence through employing military operations and promoting defunct political processes that by their very nature engender sectarian strife.
In the aftermath of Baath regime’s sudden collapse, America sure of Kurdish support for autonomous rule began to garner support amongst the Shias for a pseudo federalist state. To accomplish this feat, America enlisted the help of Ayatollah Sistani and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution. Both Ayatollahs’ have close ties with Iran; the only difference between the two is that the latter has 10,000 soldiers at his disposal. The Badr army as they are known is tolerated by the Americans and conduct operations under American tutelage. Hakim has aggressively pushed for federalism for the southern regions, calling for nine provinces to merge.
In October 2006, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution after a controversial vote, agreeing to revisit how to create a federalist state in 18 months. Sunni parliamentarians boycotted the vote, saying it would divide the country, and the measure passed 140-to-0 by the largely Shiite and Kurdish members still present. Shortly after the parliament vote, Hakim said in a news conference that dividing Iraq into three regions would stop the violence, citing the relatively peaceful Kurdish regions. "There is a clear point of view gleaned from our Kurdish brothers, and that is, the Iraq problem can only be solved with regions," Hakim said.
Hakim’s declaration for greater Shiite autonomy coincides with Bush’s abandonment of promoting democracy in the region, drawing Iraq—Vietnam parallels and signaling US troop withdrawal to start as early as 2007. Unsurprisingly then that Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, recently said that the unity government of Nouri al-Maliki, had only two months left to get a grip on the situation. It appears that the option of cut and run will be replaced by cut Iraq and watch Iran take southern Iraq.
But Washington has three major problems with this scheme. Firstly, Europe led by Britain has considerable influence over the various Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite factions- So any partitioning of Iraq may not result in oil rich regions falling completely under America’s hegemony. Secondly, Ahmadinejad is proving to be a real nuisance towards American policy in the region, despite US attempts to curb his ambitions through the likes of Khatami and Rafsanjani. Thirdly, the most worrisome matter for Washington— is what if the division of Iraq fails and leaves a vacuum only to be filled in by the Caliphate- something which Bush and his acolytes have profusely warned about.
Source
America in a difficult predicament over North Korea
2006/11/04
By Abid Mustafa
On October 31, 2006 US envoy Christopher Hill said six-party talks could resume soon. The announcement came after the Chief US negotiator, met North Korean officials in Beijing for their first discussions since the North Korea’s test of a nuclear weapon in October. This would mark the fifth round of talks between US, Japan, China and Russia, North and South Korea. And it represents the continuation of the saga between the US and North Korea, where Pyongyang is seeking security and financial guarantees from the US in return for abandoning its nuclear programme.
The first round of talks began in 2003 to find a way to resolve the crisis over North Korea’s nuclear programme. In September 2005, North Korea announced that it would give up its nuclear activities and rejoin the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, America failed to provide any meaningful security and economic incentives. Consequently, North Korea withdrew from the talks in protest at US financial sanctions, under which about $24m of funds were frozen. Since then the relationship between Washington and Pyongyang has deteriorated with both sides making acrimonious remarks regarding each other. In December 2005, a senior US diplomat branded North Korea a "criminal regime" involved in arms sales, drug trafficking and currency forgery. Consequently America began to squeeze North Korea’s commercial and financial interests abroad.
In July 2006 the economic suffocation prompted North Korea to test fire ballistic missiles including a long-range Taepodong-2, despite repeated warnings from the international community. In September 2006, North Korea blamed US financial sanctions for the deadlock in multilateral talks on its nuclear programme. In a speech to the UN General Assembly, envoy Choe Su-Hon said that North Korea was willing to hold talks, but the US stance had created an impasse. The US financial sanctions plus the absence of a security pact led North Korea to issue a warning about an impending nuclear test. On October 3, 2006 the North Korean Foreign Ministry issued a statement where it said,” North Korea would carry out the test in the future... where safety is firmly guaranteed.” On October 9, 2006 North Korea carried out its first ever test of a nuclear bomb and described it as an historic event.
Both Russia and America confirmed that a nuclear weapon of low yield had been detonated. Ocotber 14, 2006 the US led the UN Security Council to impose weapons and financial sanctions on North Korea. Resolution 1718 demands that North Korea eliminate all its nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. The resolution also allows nations to inspect cargo moving in and out of North Korea to check for non-conventional weapons but is not backed by the threat of force. It also calls for Pyongyang to return "without precondition" to stalled six-nation talks on its nuclear programme.
So the tightening of North Korea’s economic activities abroad together with the absence of a firm pledge by the US not to attack North Korea, contributed to Pyongyang’s decision to test a nuclear weapon. The low grade yield of the weapon also keeps America and the West guessing as to what is real strength of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, and makes it next to impossible for America to take any offensive action.
However, North Korea’s willingness to return to the multilateral talks has more to do with easing financial sanctions then giving up nuclear weapons. David Asher, the U.S. State Department's expert on North Korea said, “They're not coming back because they want to give up nuclear weapons. They are feeling the financial pressure and the cutoff from the international financial system, so they are trying to make nice.” But as long as China and Russia buoyed by America’s failure to control Iraq and Afghanistan continue to support North Korea financially— Kim Jong will certainly survive.
As for America, the nuclear test by North Korea is indicative of the Bush administration’s total failure to control Pyongyang’s nuclear programme. In short, like with Iraq, the Bush administration has run out of viable options to deal with North Korea. Furthermore, it also makes a mockery of Bush’s efforts to paint Iran as the number one threat to world security, while North Korea continues to prove it has the ability to hurt the US. Apart from conducting further talks there is little the US can do right now.
-Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specializes in Muslim affairs-
Source
By Abid Mustafa
On October 31, 2006 US envoy Christopher Hill said six-party talks could resume soon. The announcement came after the Chief US negotiator, met North Korean officials in Beijing for their first discussions since the North Korea’s test of a nuclear weapon in October. This would mark the fifth round of talks between US, Japan, China and Russia, North and South Korea. And it represents the continuation of the saga between the US and North Korea, where Pyongyang is seeking security and financial guarantees from the US in return for abandoning its nuclear programme.
The first round of talks began in 2003 to find a way to resolve the crisis over North Korea’s nuclear programme. In September 2005, North Korea announced that it would give up its nuclear activities and rejoin the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, America failed to provide any meaningful security and economic incentives. Consequently, North Korea withdrew from the talks in protest at US financial sanctions, under which about $24m of funds were frozen. Since then the relationship between Washington and Pyongyang has deteriorated with both sides making acrimonious remarks regarding each other. In December 2005, a senior US diplomat branded North Korea a "criminal regime" involved in arms sales, drug trafficking and currency forgery. Consequently America began to squeeze North Korea’s commercial and financial interests abroad.
In July 2006 the economic suffocation prompted North Korea to test fire ballistic missiles including a long-range Taepodong-2, despite repeated warnings from the international community. In September 2006, North Korea blamed US financial sanctions for the deadlock in multilateral talks on its nuclear programme. In a speech to the UN General Assembly, envoy Choe Su-Hon said that North Korea was willing to hold talks, but the US stance had created an impasse. The US financial sanctions plus the absence of a security pact led North Korea to issue a warning about an impending nuclear test. On October 3, 2006 the North Korean Foreign Ministry issued a statement where it said,” North Korea would carry out the test in the future... where safety is firmly guaranteed.” On October 9, 2006 North Korea carried out its first ever test of a nuclear bomb and described it as an historic event.
Both Russia and America confirmed that a nuclear weapon of low yield had been detonated. Ocotber 14, 2006 the US led the UN Security Council to impose weapons and financial sanctions on North Korea. Resolution 1718 demands that North Korea eliminate all its nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. The resolution also allows nations to inspect cargo moving in and out of North Korea to check for non-conventional weapons but is not backed by the threat of force. It also calls for Pyongyang to return "without precondition" to stalled six-nation talks on its nuclear programme.
So the tightening of North Korea’s economic activities abroad together with the absence of a firm pledge by the US not to attack North Korea, contributed to Pyongyang’s decision to test a nuclear weapon. The low grade yield of the weapon also keeps America and the West guessing as to what is real strength of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, and makes it next to impossible for America to take any offensive action.
However, North Korea’s willingness to return to the multilateral talks has more to do with easing financial sanctions then giving up nuclear weapons. David Asher, the U.S. State Department's expert on North Korea said, “They're not coming back because they want to give up nuclear weapons. They are feeling the financial pressure and the cutoff from the international financial system, so they are trying to make nice.” But as long as China and Russia buoyed by America’s failure to control Iraq and Afghanistan continue to support North Korea financially— Kim Jong will certainly survive.
As for America, the nuclear test by North Korea is indicative of the Bush administration’s total failure to control Pyongyang’s nuclear programme. In short, like with Iraq, the Bush administration has run out of viable options to deal with North Korea. Furthermore, it also makes a mockery of Bush’s efforts to paint Iran as the number one threat to world security, while North Korea continues to prove it has the ability to hurt the US. Apart from conducting further talks there is little the US can do right now.
-Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specializes in Muslim affairs-
Source
Saturday, November 4, 2006
Exposing the call for the reformation of Islam - Part 3
The following is a continuation from Exposing the call for the reformation of Islam - Part 1 and Exposing the call for the reformation of Islam - Part 2 and is the final part of this chapter.
Example 4: The punishment for apostasy
Many of the modernists attempt to cast doubt on the hudud (penal) laws of Islam and argue that they are inapplicable today. One such clear command that they dispute is the death penalty for Muslims who apostasise from Islam. Proponents of this view include S. A. Rahman, a former Chief justice of Pakistan and Dr. Hassan al-Turabi of Sudan.
S. A. Rahman, a former Chief justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty in the Quran. He said, "that not only is there no punishment for apostasy provided in the Book but that the Word of God clearly envisages the natural death of the apostate. He will be punished only in the Hereafter…" [Punishment of apostasy in Islam, S. A. Rahman, p. 54, Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore, l972].
Other writers like Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed argue that the law of apostasy and its punishment by death in Islamic law conflicts with a variety of fundamentals of Islam. They contend that the early development of the law of apostasy was essentially a religio-political tool, and that there was a large diversity of opinion among early Muslims on the punishment
Unfortunately Dr. Hassan al-Turabi is seen as a scholar of Islam by some and therefore people give more weight to his words. He also believes in the religious freedom for Muslims to apostasies, he says:
“The religious freedom not just of non-Muslims, but even of Muslims who have different views, is going to be guaranteed. I personally have views that run against all the orthodox schools of law on the status of women, on the court testimony of non-Muslims, on the law of apostasy. Some people say that I have been influenced by the West and that I border on apostasy myself, but I don't accept the condemnation of Salman Rushdie. If a Muslim wakes up in the morning and says he doesn't believe any more, that's his business. There has never been any question of inhibiting people's freedom to express any understanding of Islam. The function of government is not total.” [Quoted in Milton Viorst, "Sudan's Islamic Experiment", Foreign Affairs, Washington DC, Volume 74, Number 3, May/June 1995, p.53.]
Before demonstrating how this view cannot be considered ijtihad we need to appreciate that his mindset is of a modernist and not of a mujtahid. This is apparent if one reads through his book, ‘Tajdeed Usul Al Fiqh Al Islamiyyah’ (Modernising the Islamic principles of jurisprudence). He claims that the setup of the traditional Usul ul-Fiqh does not fit our contemporary needs. He argues that we are in need for a new outlook or understanding for rules of divorce and marriage in which we will benefit from the current social sciences and will build upon our inherited Fiqh, look into Quran and Sunnah equipped with all contemporary needs, sciences, and all Islamic and comparative Fiqh experiences. After this we will find a new way to what Allah's Shariah mandates within the context of our situation.
For example he says, “The Muslims are in need of new laws for divorce and marriage and we must take advantage of what the west has to offer…” [Tajdeed Usul Al Fiqh Al Islamiyyah , Hassan Turabi, p. 20]
More recently he has sanctioned mixed prayers so long as men and women did not sit too close to each other, in order to avoid “arousing sexual feelings” that could distract worshippers from their praying. He also promoted the permission of Muslim women to marry Christians and Jews even though this is expressly forbidden in the Quran. [Sudan Tribune, 24 April, http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=15219]
Let us now look at the issue of apostasy. The evidence for imposing the punishment of death for the apostate is established by the Sunnah and Ijma as-Sahaba (consensus of the companions), these are also definitive sources of law. Therefore the argument of S. A. Rahman is inapplicable.
Ikrimah narrated, "Heretics (zanadiqah) were brought to Amir Al-Mu’mineen Ali (ra) so he burnt them. That news reached Ibn Abbas who said: If it were me, I would not have burnt them due to the Messenger of Allah (saw)'s saying: 'Do not punish with the punishment of Allah', no doubt I would kill them due to the Messenger of Allah (saw)'s saying: 'If somebody (Muslim) changes his deen, kill him.'" [Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57]
The Prophet (saw) said, “The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.” [Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 83, No. 17]
Jabir narrated, “Umm Marwan apostatised and the Prophet (saw) commanded to offer her Islam: Either she repents or she is killed.” [Ad-Daraqutni & Al-Bayhaqi]
Narrated Abu Burda that Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Musa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'" [Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No 58]
Narrated Abu Musa: “A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle." [Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 89, No. 271]
It is narrated that, “Abu Bakr asked a woman named Umm Firqah to repent. She disbelieved after her Islam and she did not repent, so he killed her." [Ad-Daraqutni & Al-Bayhaqi]
There is a consensus (ijma) of the Mujtahideen from the different schools of thought that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi school and by Shi'a scholars. One the reasons why the Hanafi’s believe this due to the narration from Abu Yusuf, quoting from Abu Hanifa, from Aasem Ibn Abi al-Junood, from Abi Razeen who narrated that Ibn Abbas (ra) said, "Do not kill women if they apostatise from Islam. They must be imprisoned, offered the chance to return to the faith, and then forced to do so."
As for the invalidity of apostasy from the child and insane, this is because they are not legally accountable. It was narrated by ‘Ali Ibnu Abi Talib that the Prophet (saw) said, "The pen is lifted from three: The child until he matures, the one sleeping until he awakes and the insane until he recuperates." [Abu Dawud]
As for the evidence for the apostate being asked to repent, this is due to the hadith of Umm Marwan that the Prophet (saw) commanded that she be asked to repent. Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) continued in asking the apostate to repent before imposing the punishment. As for asking him to repent thrice, thrice is not a restriction but the least wherein an excuse occurs normally. Otherwise it is allowed to ask for repentance more times because the objective is offering him Islam to return to it and to be given sufficient time to return. It is narrated that Abu Musa asked the apostate whom Muadh demanded he kill and he killed to repent for two months before the arrival of Muadh. It was narrated from Umar (ra) that the period of asking to repent is three days; if he repents, his repentance is accepted and he is not killed.
Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abd Al-Qari narrated: "A man came forward to Abu Musa so he asked him: Is there any news from the west? He said: Yes, a man disbelieved after his Islam. He said: What did you do with him? He said: We brought him close and struck off his neck. Umar said: If only you imprisoned him three (days) and fed him a loaf of bread daily and asked him to repent. Perhaps he would have repented and return to the command of Allah? O Allah, I was neither present nor was I pleased when it was conveyed to me.” [Muwatta of Imam Malik]
Some modernists confuse between the evidences regarding rebellion against the ruler and apostasy, thus claiming that the Prophet (saw) and the Khulafah ar-Rashidoon accepted for apostates not to be killed. There is a clear distinction in Islam for the ahkam for rebellion (bughat) against the ruler are different to those of apostasy. Rebels against the Islamic state are still Muslims and effort must be made to bring them back under its authority and if they comply then they are not punished, if they do not they are fought until they submit. Allah (swt) says:
"And if two parties of the believers fight, reconcile between them. If one transgresses against the other, fight the one that rebels until it complies with the command of Allah. Then if it complies, reconcile between them justly and be equitable. Verily Allah loves those who are equitable." [TMQ 49:9]
This ayah considered those rebels believers so they did not leave their Iman by their rebellion.
Mohamed El-Awa argues that the punishment for apostasy should be categorised as a Ta’zir crime, meaning a crime for which the Qadi may exercise a discretionary sentence instead of a hudud crime for which Allah (swt) has stipulated a specific punishment. The evidences he attempts to present demonstrate that modernists often infer meanings from the texts which are completely contradictory to the actual meaning of them. He says:
”Secondly, the Prophet who said these words about apostates never himself had an apostate put to death. There were some cases in which people apostasized after converting to Islam, but the Prophet never ordered any of them to be killed. On the contrary, Bukhari and Muslim related that "an Arab (a bedouin) came to the Prophet and accepted Islam; then fever overtook him while he was still at Madina, so he came to the Prophet and said, 'Give back my pledge,' but the Prophet refused; then he came the next day and said to the Prophet, ‘Give me back my pledge,' and the Prophet refused. The Arab did the same a third day and the Prophet refused." The report goes on to say that the man afterwards left Madina unharmed. This is a clear case of apostasy in which there was no punishment. It is clear from the words of the report that the bedouin was seeking to return to his old religion, or at least to leave Islam, but in spite of this he went away unharmed.” [Punishment in Islamic Law: A Comparative Study, Mohamed S. El-Awa, Markazi Maktaba Islami, Delhi, India, 1st Edition 1983]
The hadith which quotes is actually about a bedouin asking to be relieved from the Bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) to the Prophet (saw) as a ruler and is nothing to do with apostasy. The hadith is narrated from Jabir ibn Abdullah (ra) who said that a bedouin gave Bay’ah to the Messenger of Allah (saw), but he became ill, so he said: "Relieve me of my Bay’ah", the Messenger of Allah (saw) refused; he then came back and said: "Relieve me of my Bay’ah!" He (saw) refused, so the man left. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Al-Madina is like the bellows, she banishes her bad odours and manifests her sweet scent." [Bukhari]
Why would the bedouin ask to apostasise from Islam just because he became ill? Of course one can understand why he may have wanted to relieve himself from the obligations of being bound to the authority. The Bay’ah in Islam is a contract between the people and the ruler for him to rule by Islam and for them to obey him. This is clear from the multiplicity of texts upon this issue. For example, Abu Hurayra reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
"There are three types of people whom Allah would not talk to nor would He praise or purify them on the Day of Judgement, and they will be subjected to severe punishment: A man who has water to spare and would not give it to the wayfarer, and a man who gives his Bay’ah to an Imam for his own good, if he gave him what he wanted he would be loyal to him, otherwise he would not, and a man who offers another man goods for sale after Asr prayer, swearing by Allah that he was given so much price for it, and so he believed him and took the goods, while he was not given that price for it." [Bukhari & Muslim]
It is clear from this and many other texts that Bay’ah is a pledge of allegiance to an Imam (Khalifah) and it has no relationship with the issue of apostasy which is to do with rejecting the Islamic belief. Once the Bay’ah has been legitimately given those who gave it must be committed to it and have no right to take it back, this is confirmed by the refusal of the Messenger (saw) to relieve the bedouin from his Bay’ah. The Messenger (saw) did not question the belief of the man in Islam nor punish him he simply refused his request.
The enemies of Islam often use the issue of the punishment of apostasy in order to attack Islam. They misportray the ahkam shariah relating to apostasy and give the impression that the apostate is an innocent victim and that anyone has the right to kill him. This is not true. It is worth mentioning that in most societies in the world they have death penalties for certain crimes such as treason. Although apostasy from Islam is technically different to treason, the punishment for it is applied when it is done in an open manner in a society where the punishment of it is known. In reality if someone wanted to commit apostasy individually without creating an impact in society, they could either hide their disbelief in which case they would be a munafiq (hypocrite) and would not be punished as their disbelief would not be known. Or they would leave the country and move to a non Muslim country and apostatise, even the Khalifah cannot punish those living outside the authority of the Islamic state. The fact that someone would commit open apostasy in a country where the punishment for it is well known highlights that its nature as a deliberate action like a statement of rebellion against the ideology of society. Contrary to how it is portrayed in the media only the state has the authority to execute the punishment of apostasy and according to Islamic law if an ordinary citizen killed an apostate they would be punished just as if they had killed any non-Muslim citizen.
There are many other examples apart from the ones mentioned where the modernists are attempting to change Islam by claiming ijtihad in areas of law where difference of opinion is not possible. Some other prominent examples are the obligation of the khimar (headscarf) for the Muslim woman, the definitive prohibition of making peace with an occupier of Muslim land such as the illegal Israeli state, the prohibition of nationalism and the prohibition of Muslim women marrying non-Muslims.
We must take heed from the words of our master Muhammad (saw) who warned us of such people.
It is narrated by the Istinad (chain) of the men of Sahih that Awf b. Malik al-Ashja'i narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “My Ummah will become divided into some seventy sects, the greatest will be the test of the people who make analogy to the deen with their own opinions, with it forbidding what Allah has permitted and permitting what Allah has forbidden.” [Al-Tabarani in Al-Kabeer wal-Bazaar & Al-Haithami in Majma' Al-Zawaa'id]
The Prophet (saw) said, “The thing that I fear the most for my Ummah is a hypocrite with an eloquent tongue who argues with the Quran.” [Ahmed, Bazaar, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr. P. 439]
The Prophet (saw) said, “Whoever speaks about the Quran without any knowledge, then let him seek his place in the fire of hell.” [Tirmidhi & Abu Dawud]
Abu Shamah had narrated, via the Sanad of Abi Ziyad bin Hudayr, saying: "Omar said to me: Do you know what destroys Islam? I said, No! He said: A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray."
It was narrated by Anas that the Prophet (saw) said, "Whoever cheats my Ummah has the curse of Allah, the Angels and the people combined, upon him. They asked: What is cheating, oh Prophet of Allah? He said: If he invented an innovation for them, and they acted upon it." [Al-Daraqtuni in Al-Afrad]
Abu Ismael al-Beirawi
Example 4: The punishment for apostasy
Many of the modernists attempt to cast doubt on the hudud (penal) laws of Islam and argue that they are inapplicable today. One such clear command that they dispute is the death penalty for Muslims who apostasise from Islam. Proponents of this view include S. A. Rahman, a former Chief justice of Pakistan and Dr. Hassan al-Turabi of Sudan.
S. A. Rahman, a former Chief justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty in the Quran. He said, "that not only is there no punishment for apostasy provided in the Book but that the Word of God clearly envisages the natural death of the apostate. He will be punished only in the Hereafter…" [Punishment of apostasy in Islam, S. A. Rahman, p. 54, Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore, l972].
Other writers like Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed argue that the law of apostasy and its punishment by death in Islamic law conflicts with a variety of fundamentals of Islam. They contend that the early development of the law of apostasy was essentially a religio-political tool, and that there was a large diversity of opinion among early Muslims on the punishment
Unfortunately Dr. Hassan al-Turabi is seen as a scholar of Islam by some and therefore people give more weight to his words. He also believes in the religious freedom for Muslims to apostasies, he says:
“The religious freedom not just of non-Muslims, but even of Muslims who have different views, is going to be guaranteed. I personally have views that run against all the orthodox schools of law on the status of women, on the court testimony of non-Muslims, on the law of apostasy. Some people say that I have been influenced by the West and that I border on apostasy myself, but I don't accept the condemnation of Salman Rushdie. If a Muslim wakes up in the morning and says he doesn't believe any more, that's his business. There has never been any question of inhibiting people's freedom to express any understanding of Islam. The function of government is not total.” [Quoted in Milton Viorst, "Sudan's Islamic Experiment", Foreign Affairs, Washington DC, Volume 74, Number 3, May/June 1995, p.53.]
Before demonstrating how this view cannot be considered ijtihad we need to appreciate that his mindset is of a modernist and not of a mujtahid. This is apparent if one reads through his book, ‘Tajdeed Usul Al Fiqh Al Islamiyyah’ (Modernising the Islamic principles of jurisprudence). He claims that the setup of the traditional Usul ul-Fiqh does not fit our contemporary needs. He argues that we are in need for a new outlook or understanding for rules of divorce and marriage in which we will benefit from the current social sciences and will build upon our inherited Fiqh, look into Quran and Sunnah equipped with all contemporary needs, sciences, and all Islamic and comparative Fiqh experiences. After this we will find a new way to what Allah's Shariah mandates within the context of our situation.
For example he says, “The Muslims are in need of new laws for divorce and marriage and we must take advantage of what the west has to offer…” [Tajdeed Usul Al Fiqh Al Islamiyyah , Hassan Turabi, p. 20]
More recently he has sanctioned mixed prayers so long as men and women did not sit too close to each other, in order to avoid “arousing sexual feelings” that could distract worshippers from their praying. He also promoted the permission of Muslim women to marry Christians and Jews even though this is expressly forbidden in the Quran. [Sudan Tribune, 24 April, http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=15219]
Let us now look at the issue of apostasy. The evidence for imposing the punishment of death for the apostate is established by the Sunnah and Ijma as-Sahaba (consensus of the companions), these are also definitive sources of law. Therefore the argument of S. A. Rahman is inapplicable.
Ikrimah narrated, "Heretics (zanadiqah) were brought to Amir Al-Mu’mineen Ali (ra) so he burnt them. That news reached Ibn Abbas who said: If it were me, I would not have burnt them due to the Messenger of Allah (saw)'s saying: 'Do not punish with the punishment of Allah', no doubt I would kill them due to the Messenger of Allah (saw)'s saying: 'If somebody (Muslim) changes his deen, kill him.'" [Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57]
The Prophet (saw) said, “The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.” [Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 83, No. 17]
Jabir narrated, “Umm Marwan apostatised and the Prophet (saw) commanded to offer her Islam: Either she repents or she is killed.” [Ad-Daraqutni & Al-Bayhaqi]
Narrated Abu Burda that Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Musa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'" [Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No 58]
Narrated Abu Musa: “A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle." [Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 89, No. 271]
It is narrated that, “Abu Bakr asked a woman named Umm Firqah to repent. She disbelieved after her Islam and she did not repent, so he killed her." [Ad-Daraqutni & Al-Bayhaqi]
There is a consensus (ijma) of the Mujtahideen from the different schools of thought that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi school and by Shi'a scholars. One the reasons why the Hanafi’s believe this due to the narration from Abu Yusuf, quoting from Abu Hanifa, from Aasem Ibn Abi al-Junood, from Abi Razeen who narrated that Ibn Abbas (ra) said, "Do not kill women if they apostatise from Islam. They must be imprisoned, offered the chance to return to the faith, and then forced to do so."
As for the invalidity of apostasy from the child and insane, this is because they are not legally accountable. It was narrated by ‘Ali Ibnu Abi Talib that the Prophet (saw) said, "The pen is lifted from three: The child until he matures, the one sleeping until he awakes and the insane until he recuperates." [Abu Dawud]
As for the evidence for the apostate being asked to repent, this is due to the hadith of Umm Marwan that the Prophet (saw) commanded that she be asked to repent. Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) continued in asking the apostate to repent before imposing the punishment. As for asking him to repent thrice, thrice is not a restriction but the least wherein an excuse occurs normally. Otherwise it is allowed to ask for repentance more times because the objective is offering him Islam to return to it and to be given sufficient time to return. It is narrated that Abu Musa asked the apostate whom Muadh demanded he kill and he killed to repent for two months before the arrival of Muadh. It was narrated from Umar (ra) that the period of asking to repent is three days; if he repents, his repentance is accepted and he is not killed.
Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abd Al-Qari narrated: "A man came forward to Abu Musa so he asked him: Is there any news from the west? He said: Yes, a man disbelieved after his Islam. He said: What did you do with him? He said: We brought him close and struck off his neck. Umar said: If only you imprisoned him three (days) and fed him a loaf of bread daily and asked him to repent. Perhaps he would have repented and return to the command of Allah? O Allah, I was neither present nor was I pleased when it was conveyed to me.” [Muwatta of Imam Malik]
Some modernists confuse between the evidences regarding rebellion against the ruler and apostasy, thus claiming that the Prophet (saw) and the Khulafah ar-Rashidoon accepted for apostates not to be killed. There is a clear distinction in Islam for the ahkam for rebellion (bughat) against the ruler are different to those of apostasy. Rebels against the Islamic state are still Muslims and effort must be made to bring them back under its authority and if they comply then they are not punished, if they do not they are fought until they submit. Allah (swt) says:
"And if two parties of the believers fight, reconcile between them. If one transgresses against the other, fight the one that rebels until it complies with the command of Allah. Then if it complies, reconcile between them justly and be equitable. Verily Allah loves those who are equitable." [TMQ 49:9]
This ayah considered those rebels believers so they did not leave their Iman by their rebellion.
Mohamed El-Awa argues that the punishment for apostasy should be categorised as a Ta’zir crime, meaning a crime for which the Qadi may exercise a discretionary sentence instead of a hudud crime for which Allah (swt) has stipulated a specific punishment. The evidences he attempts to present demonstrate that modernists often infer meanings from the texts which are completely contradictory to the actual meaning of them. He says:
”Secondly, the Prophet who said these words about apostates never himself had an apostate put to death. There were some cases in which people apostasized after converting to Islam, but the Prophet never ordered any of them to be killed. On the contrary, Bukhari and Muslim related that "an Arab (a bedouin) came to the Prophet and accepted Islam; then fever overtook him while he was still at Madina, so he came to the Prophet and said, 'Give back my pledge,' but the Prophet refused; then he came the next day and said to the Prophet, ‘Give me back my pledge,' and the Prophet refused. The Arab did the same a third day and the Prophet refused." The report goes on to say that the man afterwards left Madina unharmed. This is a clear case of apostasy in which there was no punishment. It is clear from the words of the report that the bedouin was seeking to return to his old religion, or at least to leave Islam, but in spite of this he went away unharmed.” [Punishment in Islamic Law: A Comparative Study, Mohamed S. El-Awa, Markazi Maktaba Islami, Delhi, India, 1st Edition 1983]
The hadith which quotes is actually about a bedouin asking to be relieved from the Bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) to the Prophet (saw) as a ruler and is nothing to do with apostasy. The hadith is narrated from Jabir ibn Abdullah (ra) who said that a bedouin gave Bay’ah to the Messenger of Allah (saw), but he became ill, so he said: "Relieve me of my Bay’ah", the Messenger of Allah (saw) refused; he then came back and said: "Relieve me of my Bay’ah!" He (saw) refused, so the man left. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Al-Madina is like the bellows, she banishes her bad odours and manifests her sweet scent." [Bukhari]
Why would the bedouin ask to apostasise from Islam just because he became ill? Of course one can understand why he may have wanted to relieve himself from the obligations of being bound to the authority. The Bay’ah in Islam is a contract between the people and the ruler for him to rule by Islam and for them to obey him. This is clear from the multiplicity of texts upon this issue. For example, Abu Hurayra reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
"There are three types of people whom Allah would not talk to nor would He praise or purify them on the Day of Judgement, and they will be subjected to severe punishment: A man who has water to spare and would not give it to the wayfarer, and a man who gives his Bay’ah to an Imam for his own good, if he gave him what he wanted he would be loyal to him, otherwise he would not, and a man who offers another man goods for sale after Asr prayer, swearing by Allah that he was given so much price for it, and so he believed him and took the goods, while he was not given that price for it." [Bukhari & Muslim]
It is clear from this and many other texts that Bay’ah is a pledge of allegiance to an Imam (Khalifah) and it has no relationship with the issue of apostasy which is to do with rejecting the Islamic belief. Once the Bay’ah has been legitimately given those who gave it must be committed to it and have no right to take it back, this is confirmed by the refusal of the Messenger (saw) to relieve the bedouin from his Bay’ah. The Messenger (saw) did not question the belief of the man in Islam nor punish him he simply refused his request.
The enemies of Islam often use the issue of the punishment of apostasy in order to attack Islam. They misportray the ahkam shariah relating to apostasy and give the impression that the apostate is an innocent victim and that anyone has the right to kill him. This is not true. It is worth mentioning that in most societies in the world they have death penalties for certain crimes such as treason. Although apostasy from Islam is technically different to treason, the punishment for it is applied when it is done in an open manner in a society where the punishment of it is known. In reality if someone wanted to commit apostasy individually without creating an impact in society, they could either hide their disbelief in which case they would be a munafiq (hypocrite) and would not be punished as their disbelief would not be known. Or they would leave the country and move to a non Muslim country and apostatise, even the Khalifah cannot punish those living outside the authority of the Islamic state. The fact that someone would commit open apostasy in a country where the punishment for it is well known highlights that its nature as a deliberate action like a statement of rebellion against the ideology of society. Contrary to how it is portrayed in the media only the state has the authority to execute the punishment of apostasy and according to Islamic law if an ordinary citizen killed an apostate they would be punished just as if they had killed any non-Muslim citizen.
There are many other examples apart from the ones mentioned where the modernists are attempting to change Islam by claiming ijtihad in areas of law where difference of opinion is not possible. Some other prominent examples are the obligation of the khimar (headscarf) for the Muslim woman, the definitive prohibition of making peace with an occupier of Muslim land such as the illegal Israeli state, the prohibition of nationalism and the prohibition of Muslim women marrying non-Muslims.
We must take heed from the words of our master Muhammad (saw) who warned us of such people.
It is narrated by the Istinad (chain) of the men of Sahih that Awf b. Malik al-Ashja'i narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “My Ummah will become divided into some seventy sects, the greatest will be the test of the people who make analogy to the deen with their own opinions, with it forbidding what Allah has permitted and permitting what Allah has forbidden.” [Al-Tabarani in Al-Kabeer wal-Bazaar & Al-Haithami in Majma' Al-Zawaa'id]
The Prophet (saw) said, “The thing that I fear the most for my Ummah is a hypocrite with an eloquent tongue who argues with the Quran.” [Ahmed, Bazaar, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr. P. 439]
The Prophet (saw) said, “Whoever speaks about the Quran without any knowledge, then let him seek his place in the fire of hell.” [Tirmidhi & Abu Dawud]
Abu Shamah had narrated, via the Sanad of Abi Ziyad bin Hudayr, saying: "Omar said to me: Do you know what destroys Islam? I said, No! He said: A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray."
It was narrated by Anas that the Prophet (saw) said, "Whoever cheats my Ummah has the curse of Allah, the Angels and the people combined, upon him. They asked: What is cheating, oh Prophet of Allah? He said: If he invented an innovation for them, and they acted upon it." [Al-Daraqtuni in Al-Afrad]
Abu Ismael al-Beirawi
Friday, November 3, 2006
New Islamic Strategic Studies Center - Sheikh Yousuf Badarani
Check out http://www.nexuss.info/
It's an Islamic strategic studies center headed by Sheikh Yusuf Badarani from Lebanon, it also has an english section on the site with some useful literature on it. The following are details from the site:
Counsel of Trustees
Mr. Yousuf Badarani
Head of Counsel of Trustees
Mr. Yousuf Badarani was born during late thirties of past century, to engage so early in the political work targeting the revival of the Muslim Ummah and saving her from the neckband of colonialism, through the full liberation of everything that does not relate to its Islam. Thus, he was nominated for the Lebanese parliament in 1964, but the political regime failed him due to the intellect he carries and the strategic project he represents that returns to the Ummah its natural right of authority. Mr. Yousuf Badarani authored many intellectual, political and Islamic books that illustrate the standards and measures of deep objective research, as dictated by the norms of looking after the truth in any topic. Amongst his books: "The Family, A Castle Shielded by Allah and His Messenger" in two parts, in Arabic, English and Turkish, "Europeans Hatred of Islam, A Conspiracy in Its Second Millennium" in Arabic, English, French, and Italian, "Christianity, A Roman Political Scheme" in Arabic, English, and French, "Hijacking The World, An American Plan" in Arabic, English, and French, "The Black Hole in the Intellect of Western Philosophy" in Arabic and English, "The Choice of Heaven and Hell in the Philosophy of Democracy" in Arabic and English, and "Crisis of Western Intellect" in Arabic and English. Mr. Badarani is from the city of Beirut.
Dr. Mohammad Malkawi
Member of Counsel of Trustees
Dr. Mohammad Malkawi was born during late fifties of past century, to engage so early in the political work targeting the revival of the Muslim Ummah and saving her from the neckband of colonialism, through the full liberation of everything that does not relate to its Islam. Dr. Mohammad Malkawi holds a PhD degree in Computer Sciences, has authored many publications and delivered many political, intellectual, technical and Islamic lectures. He also worked as university professor, holds patents and is fluent in many languages. Dr. Malkawi is from the city of Irbid.
Dr. Musab Hamid
Member of Counsel of Trustees
Dr. Musab Hamid was born during early seventies of past century, to engage so early in the political work targeting the revival of the Muslim Ummah and saving her from the neckband of colonialism, through the full liberation of everything that does not relate to its Islam. Dr. Musab Hamid holds a PhD degree in Islamic Studies, has authored many publications and delivered many lectures. Dr. Hamid is from the city of Al-Madina Al-Monawwara.
Introductory Letter
All praises be to Allah SWT who has guided us to Islam as a system of the entire relationships of life in all its stages, necessities and conditions. Islam is indeed a political culture; a political system with its creed as a political thought in its basis, implementation and purposes. The spiritual creed restricts its rulings to worships and ethics, and it differs among non-Muslim species. Some of which is sent by Allah SWT in its origin, but politician idolaters had foisted into it to establish their own authority as if it is the order of Allah SWT, while some is pure product of human imagination.
Spiritual creeds that are wide spread on Earth due to the processes of distortion, interpretation and compromise became very similar to each other in their idolatrousness, implementation and realities. No one claims that they have political thoughts, rather they renounce any relationship with politics, despite the fact that all distortion and foisting into these creeds had taken place on the hands of political authority or for the sake of political goal.
The human creed, or the political one, is the base life thought from which all thoughts of life emerge. These thoughts of life are the thoughts of deeds, the thoughts of ethics, the thoughts of relationships and their systems and solutions, the thoughts of ruling system and its instruments and implementations, the thought of life economy that relates to the needs of the person, the fortune of the nation and the economy of the state, the thoughts of worships including those related to creed protection, practical ways of implementing its rulings amongst people and countries in peace and war, foreign policy, interior policy and the policy of Jihad.
Islam; the creed of life and the creed of humans, is a political thought to administer life and its affairs in order to guide the life of person, nation and state on the path that fulfils Allah's purpose of creation, Allah's rulings' purposes of implementation and person's purpose of action. The political thought in the creed of Islam is manifested in the life being created by a creator, in Quran being the rulings of Allah SWT for the system of life, and in the human being the slave of Allah SWT thus is committed to obey His rulings in the Quran and in the traditions of Prophet Mohammad SAW. The creed of Islam in itself is a political thought; the thoughts of the creed of Islam are political thoughts and its rulings are political thoughts. All of Islam is political intellect, including its worships that are built upon the basis of total and unrestricted obedience and submission to The Almighty Allah SWT and His Lordship; it is submission to the idea of taking care of the people's affairs in accordance to the rulings of Islam; all this is political intellect. To impose the necessity of obedience to Allah's rulings and taking care of people's affairs and solving life's problems in accordance to Islam's rulings, the imposition of all this dictates beyond doubt that the creed of Islam is a political thought, and the rulings and ideas of this creed are all political. This is how Allah SWT imposed it in the Quran and in the traditions of His Messenger SAW, this is how the Prophet SAW practiced Islam as a political system, called to it as a political intellect and fought for it as a political entity. This is how his caliphs followed his footsteps afterwards; this is our reality in our history: we are a political nation; a principal political state established on the creed of Islam and implements the rulings of Islam. This is our tradition and our civilization; our religion, Islam, is a religion of life, a religion of state, a religion of peace and a religion of war, and the thoughts of life, nation and state cannot be anything but political thoughts.
Islam is a self-integrated political thought as it includes the solutions of all people's necessities in all stages of life. This imposes the axiom of Islam that every person must administer his life affairs in accordance to Islam, make the priorities of Islam his own life's priorities and work to accomplish the obligation of having his own and everyone else's daily affairs taken care of according to the rulings of Islam. If a Muslim rules over his brothers, he must administer the affairs of those under his auspices with Islam's relevant rulings, and those under his auspices must hold him accountable: does he rule them with Islam's rulings or his own fancies, and when he deviates, they must advise him with Islam's arguments and rulings. All the thoughts of Islam's rulings and creed are political thoughts, and all the deeds of Muslims are political deeds, as the thoughts and rulings of Islam are all related to the deeds of life that were allowed by Allah SWT and the methodologies of these deeds that Allah SWT set permissible to satisfy the needs.
The Muslim that does not understand Islam as a political thought, does not understand the rulings of its creed and this creed's thoughts as political thoughts and does not understand his daily duty as a politician is one of this century's Muslims; the century of absence of Islam despite numerous Muslim intellectuals and callers, Islamic movements, sites, mosques, pulpits, schools, assemblies and even heads with turbans.
The Muslim is intuitively politician by default, the establishment of Allah's governance on Earth is a political deed, seeking to establish this obligation in the absence of the state that implements the rulings of Allah SWT and the system of Islam with all its details is an obligatory political deed that every single Muslim must do until the efforts are satisfactory to realize it, and this satisfaction would be manifested in the realization itself. Holding the ruler accountable, as obeying him, assisting him and advising him with rulings of Allah SWT, is an obligatory political deed every Muslim must do until fulfillment. The mentality of every single Muslim must be molded by Islam, similar to its disposition. Islam is a political thought that molds the mentality of Muslim to become politician as Islam has determined the meaning of politics: organizing and order of life in accordance with the life of Islam. The ideas of Islam in governance, economy, Jihad, ethics, sociology, all are ideas of rulings related to taking care of the affairs of people, all are political ideas and rulings, no man can adopt the ideas of Islam, comprehend its rulings and the purposes of these rulings and carry their duties and not be a politician, unlike any other politician.
The culture of West, the culture of infidelity, the culture of no Islam, this culture has overwhelmed us with ideas that has blinded the vision of many Muslims away from the ideas of Islam and has misguided many others off the way of comprehension of Islam. The ideas of delusion and getting others astray have convinced a lot of Muslims that politics is the art of lying thus it is against Islam, that politics is a way to compromise thus is not allowable in Islam, that politics has no religion; it permits the forbidden because it is the game of winning by any means possible and at any price, thus it is the work of Satan. This led the dissolute in our societies to control the elements of political work and to be in charge of the theatre of politics, getting his path smoothen by the ignorant scholar and crook scholar like Saeed Al-Norisi who said: "I seek Allah's protection from Satan and politics". Like this, thanks to many scholars of ignorance and hypocrisy, the dissolute, the unjust and the infidel gained control of the political authority that is the authority of governance to build the authority of idol over us while Muslims are inattentive and forbidden from thinking or knowing that the right of political work is their own natural right and the obligation of every Muslim since the very first moment of belief and comes with the very first moment of talking the very first letters of witnessing that there is no God but Allah SWT.
Our center; "Neologising Epic of X Universal Strategic Studies Center" is a political center that we will brag describing it with attributes we may not be able to achieve due to our scarce or weak or limited potential in case the Muslim youth do not step ahead to get involved with purposeful contributions. On the other hand, we hope it will fill a gap in the intellectual strategic research for Muslims, as it is one of the rare sites that build its strategic thoughts on the strategy of Islam, in its creed intellect that dictates its rulings and the rulings of its own protection, which can not be done by Muslims unless with the State of Islam that governs with the System of Islam.
A political center cannot be a political center if it is theorist cultural center or propaganda center of Islam even by illustrating its rulings and evidences and proofs against infidelity and oppression and misguidance that are being conducted day and night by human Satans with all their tremendous powers and with the help of a lot of Muslims who we assume to be constituted of many misguided individuals who we hope guidance for. A political center is the center that adopts an intellect for the political work and a clear comprehension of the political incidents in light of Islam's political vision. Muslims have lost the political vision of Islam, thank to many intellectuals and sheikhs who have been influenced by the cultural and political intellect of the West, which requires discarding those corrupt and re-culturing the Muslims with such vision. All thanks to Allah SWT that He destined few believers for such task.
Politics; taking care of the affairs of people, means arranging the affairs of people, every human who arranges his affairs conducts a political deed but it is a selfish deed related to his own interest, arranging others' affairs is basically helping others to arrange their own affairs and is a superior work, it even can reach the most superior level among life works because it relates to realizing a value that is a result itself, not realizing a result. The work that realizes a result only is a materialist worldly work. The work that combines the realization of a result with the realization of an ethical or social or human or spiritual value is the most superior human work. Taking care of the affairs of people is helping people in arranging their own lives' affairs, Islam requires the believer to help people in order to arrange their own lives' with Islam and its rulings and how to commit to its rulings. The believer who does this obligation is obeying Allah's order to work with others for the rise of the authority that executes the governance of Allah SWT because the individual cannot do this order alone, thus has been the obligation of Allah SWT on every person who has been guided to the obligation of working with His rulings and executing them in real life by the establishment of the authority that can do that to combine his effort with others' efforts to reach the success of the establishment of Allah's governance. This work all along with the commitment to Allah's Sharia in the establishment of His governance is the process of taking care of the affairs of Muslims in accordance to Islam's rulings mixing the materialistic work that realizes a materialistic value, which is the revival of the System of Islam through authority that implements its rulings, with the spiritual work that realizes a spiritual value when committed to Allah's rulings regarding how to conduct the work to establish the governance of Quran, thus it does not allow the forbidden like killing, lying or cheating for the sake of realizing an obligation Allah SWT has set on all Muslims. The target of a believe out of political work in accordance to Islam's rulings is to acquire the consent of Allah SWT and to succeed through the methodology that pleases Allah SWT and not His slaves, thus comes the definition of benefit as the realization of the goal of Sharia or the goal of the individual that has been approved by the Sharia in the way that has been approved or enforced by the Sharia, and not acquiring the goal by any means. Realization of the goal with the Sharia-approved methodology is the only benefit and interest of the individual and not the result of the work itself because the reward and punishment relates to that and not this. Our political work is a work to acquire the consent and pleasure of Allah SWT and is unrelated to what follows it or to what it realizes of glory and honor in this life and the hereafter, thus we are committed while conducting it to the rulings of Allah SWT and pray to Him, all praise be to Him, to guide us to His obedience and help us to truly obey Him, as we cannot handle the burden of such work without His help, support, guidance and care.
This center is not ours nor does it belong to a certain group because it is a permanent center that we hope men will inherit even after the establishment of Allah's governance on Earth, and as world gets larger with construction it gets larger with the efforts that cooperate in the political work, a part of which is the political standing up against the schemes to prevent the return of life to Islam or the return of Islam to life and what it requires of confrontation with politicians and hypocrites with their known names, not to accuse them or slander them, rather to state the righteousness with just words and in hope to deter them and others thus leading them to better destination in this life and the hereafter, Allah's Willing. The "Neologising Epic of X Universal Strategic Studies Center" is the center of evidence struggle and truth proof, it is a center of the intellect of Islam's creed in the reality of life, which refutes the intellect in the creed of infidelity whatever that creed is, and we ask Allah SWT to help us to make the center's pulpit a site of the intellect of the strategy of the ideology of Islam that contradicts and refutes the intellect of the strategy of the ideology of democratic capitalism that has taken hold of all false thoughts in this era that lacks the State of Caliphate that implements the System of Islam on Muslims in an Islamic Society.
We wait for your contributions, the Muslim youth who seeks to arbitrate the Sharia of Allah on this Earth, to assist His religion, to execute the righteousness and defuse the falseness of ideologies other than Islam, and if you do not engage in our effort for a reason acceptable by Allah, then pray for our success, and all praise and thanks to Allah SWT… peace be upon you.
Counsel of Trustees
Neologising Epic of X Universal Strategic Studies Center
Beirut
5-5-2006
http://www.nexuss.info/
It's an Islamic strategic studies center headed by Sheikh Yusuf Badarani from Lebanon, it also has an english section on the site with some useful literature on it. The following are details from the site:
Counsel of Trustees
Mr. Yousuf Badarani
Head of Counsel of Trustees
Mr. Yousuf Badarani was born during late thirties of past century, to engage so early in the political work targeting the revival of the Muslim Ummah and saving her from the neckband of colonialism, through the full liberation of everything that does not relate to its Islam. Thus, he was nominated for the Lebanese parliament in 1964, but the political regime failed him due to the intellect he carries and the strategic project he represents that returns to the Ummah its natural right of authority. Mr. Yousuf Badarani authored many intellectual, political and Islamic books that illustrate the standards and measures of deep objective research, as dictated by the norms of looking after the truth in any topic. Amongst his books: "The Family, A Castle Shielded by Allah and His Messenger" in two parts, in Arabic, English and Turkish, "Europeans Hatred of Islam, A Conspiracy in Its Second Millennium" in Arabic, English, French, and Italian, "Christianity, A Roman Political Scheme" in Arabic, English, and French, "Hijacking The World, An American Plan" in Arabic, English, and French, "The Black Hole in the Intellect of Western Philosophy" in Arabic and English, "The Choice of Heaven and Hell in the Philosophy of Democracy" in Arabic and English, and "Crisis of Western Intellect" in Arabic and English. Mr. Badarani is from the city of Beirut.
Dr. Mohammad Malkawi
Member of Counsel of Trustees
Dr. Mohammad Malkawi was born during late fifties of past century, to engage so early in the political work targeting the revival of the Muslim Ummah and saving her from the neckband of colonialism, through the full liberation of everything that does not relate to its Islam. Dr. Mohammad Malkawi holds a PhD degree in Computer Sciences, has authored many publications and delivered many political, intellectual, technical and Islamic lectures. He also worked as university professor, holds patents and is fluent in many languages. Dr. Malkawi is from the city of Irbid.
Dr. Musab Hamid
Member of Counsel of Trustees
Dr. Musab Hamid was born during early seventies of past century, to engage so early in the political work targeting the revival of the Muslim Ummah and saving her from the neckband of colonialism, through the full liberation of everything that does not relate to its Islam. Dr. Musab Hamid holds a PhD degree in Islamic Studies, has authored many publications and delivered many lectures. Dr. Hamid is from the city of Al-Madina Al-Monawwara.
Introductory Letter
All praises be to Allah SWT who has guided us to Islam as a system of the entire relationships of life in all its stages, necessities and conditions. Islam is indeed a political culture; a political system with its creed as a political thought in its basis, implementation and purposes. The spiritual creed restricts its rulings to worships and ethics, and it differs among non-Muslim species. Some of which is sent by Allah SWT in its origin, but politician idolaters had foisted into it to establish their own authority as if it is the order of Allah SWT, while some is pure product of human imagination.
Spiritual creeds that are wide spread on Earth due to the processes of distortion, interpretation and compromise became very similar to each other in their idolatrousness, implementation and realities. No one claims that they have political thoughts, rather they renounce any relationship with politics, despite the fact that all distortion and foisting into these creeds had taken place on the hands of political authority or for the sake of political goal.
The human creed, or the political one, is the base life thought from which all thoughts of life emerge. These thoughts of life are the thoughts of deeds, the thoughts of ethics, the thoughts of relationships and their systems and solutions, the thoughts of ruling system and its instruments and implementations, the thought of life economy that relates to the needs of the person, the fortune of the nation and the economy of the state, the thoughts of worships including those related to creed protection, practical ways of implementing its rulings amongst people and countries in peace and war, foreign policy, interior policy and the policy of Jihad.
Islam; the creed of life and the creed of humans, is a political thought to administer life and its affairs in order to guide the life of person, nation and state on the path that fulfils Allah's purpose of creation, Allah's rulings' purposes of implementation and person's purpose of action. The political thought in the creed of Islam is manifested in the life being created by a creator, in Quran being the rulings of Allah SWT for the system of life, and in the human being the slave of Allah SWT thus is committed to obey His rulings in the Quran and in the traditions of Prophet Mohammad SAW. The creed of Islam in itself is a political thought; the thoughts of the creed of Islam are political thoughts and its rulings are political thoughts. All of Islam is political intellect, including its worships that are built upon the basis of total and unrestricted obedience and submission to The Almighty Allah SWT and His Lordship; it is submission to the idea of taking care of the people's affairs in accordance to the rulings of Islam; all this is political intellect. To impose the necessity of obedience to Allah's rulings and taking care of people's affairs and solving life's problems in accordance to Islam's rulings, the imposition of all this dictates beyond doubt that the creed of Islam is a political thought, and the rulings and ideas of this creed are all political. This is how Allah SWT imposed it in the Quran and in the traditions of His Messenger SAW, this is how the Prophet SAW practiced Islam as a political system, called to it as a political intellect and fought for it as a political entity. This is how his caliphs followed his footsteps afterwards; this is our reality in our history: we are a political nation; a principal political state established on the creed of Islam and implements the rulings of Islam. This is our tradition and our civilization; our religion, Islam, is a religion of life, a religion of state, a religion of peace and a religion of war, and the thoughts of life, nation and state cannot be anything but political thoughts.
Islam is a self-integrated political thought as it includes the solutions of all people's necessities in all stages of life. This imposes the axiom of Islam that every person must administer his life affairs in accordance to Islam, make the priorities of Islam his own life's priorities and work to accomplish the obligation of having his own and everyone else's daily affairs taken care of according to the rulings of Islam. If a Muslim rules over his brothers, he must administer the affairs of those under his auspices with Islam's relevant rulings, and those under his auspices must hold him accountable: does he rule them with Islam's rulings or his own fancies, and when he deviates, they must advise him with Islam's arguments and rulings. All the thoughts of Islam's rulings and creed are political thoughts, and all the deeds of Muslims are political deeds, as the thoughts and rulings of Islam are all related to the deeds of life that were allowed by Allah SWT and the methodologies of these deeds that Allah SWT set permissible to satisfy the needs.
The Muslim that does not understand Islam as a political thought, does not understand the rulings of its creed and this creed's thoughts as political thoughts and does not understand his daily duty as a politician is one of this century's Muslims; the century of absence of Islam despite numerous Muslim intellectuals and callers, Islamic movements, sites, mosques, pulpits, schools, assemblies and even heads with turbans.
The Muslim is intuitively politician by default, the establishment of Allah's governance on Earth is a political deed, seeking to establish this obligation in the absence of the state that implements the rulings of Allah SWT and the system of Islam with all its details is an obligatory political deed that every single Muslim must do until the efforts are satisfactory to realize it, and this satisfaction would be manifested in the realization itself. Holding the ruler accountable, as obeying him, assisting him and advising him with rulings of Allah SWT, is an obligatory political deed every Muslim must do until fulfillment. The mentality of every single Muslim must be molded by Islam, similar to its disposition. Islam is a political thought that molds the mentality of Muslim to become politician as Islam has determined the meaning of politics: organizing and order of life in accordance with the life of Islam. The ideas of Islam in governance, economy, Jihad, ethics, sociology, all are ideas of rulings related to taking care of the affairs of people, all are political ideas and rulings, no man can adopt the ideas of Islam, comprehend its rulings and the purposes of these rulings and carry their duties and not be a politician, unlike any other politician.
The culture of West, the culture of infidelity, the culture of no Islam, this culture has overwhelmed us with ideas that has blinded the vision of many Muslims away from the ideas of Islam and has misguided many others off the way of comprehension of Islam. The ideas of delusion and getting others astray have convinced a lot of Muslims that politics is the art of lying thus it is against Islam, that politics is a way to compromise thus is not allowable in Islam, that politics has no religion; it permits the forbidden because it is the game of winning by any means possible and at any price, thus it is the work of Satan. This led the dissolute in our societies to control the elements of political work and to be in charge of the theatre of politics, getting his path smoothen by the ignorant scholar and crook scholar like Saeed Al-Norisi who said: "I seek Allah's protection from Satan and politics". Like this, thanks to many scholars of ignorance and hypocrisy, the dissolute, the unjust and the infidel gained control of the political authority that is the authority of governance to build the authority of idol over us while Muslims are inattentive and forbidden from thinking or knowing that the right of political work is their own natural right and the obligation of every Muslim since the very first moment of belief and comes with the very first moment of talking the very first letters of witnessing that there is no God but Allah SWT.
Our center; "Neologising Epic of X Universal Strategic Studies Center" is a political center that we will brag describing it with attributes we may not be able to achieve due to our scarce or weak or limited potential in case the Muslim youth do not step ahead to get involved with purposeful contributions. On the other hand, we hope it will fill a gap in the intellectual strategic research for Muslims, as it is one of the rare sites that build its strategic thoughts on the strategy of Islam, in its creed intellect that dictates its rulings and the rulings of its own protection, which can not be done by Muslims unless with the State of Islam that governs with the System of Islam.
A political center cannot be a political center if it is theorist cultural center or propaganda center of Islam even by illustrating its rulings and evidences and proofs against infidelity and oppression and misguidance that are being conducted day and night by human Satans with all their tremendous powers and with the help of a lot of Muslims who we assume to be constituted of many misguided individuals who we hope guidance for. A political center is the center that adopts an intellect for the political work and a clear comprehension of the political incidents in light of Islam's political vision. Muslims have lost the political vision of Islam, thank to many intellectuals and sheikhs who have been influenced by the cultural and political intellect of the West, which requires discarding those corrupt and re-culturing the Muslims with such vision. All thanks to Allah SWT that He destined few believers for such task.
Politics; taking care of the affairs of people, means arranging the affairs of people, every human who arranges his affairs conducts a political deed but it is a selfish deed related to his own interest, arranging others' affairs is basically helping others to arrange their own affairs and is a superior work, it even can reach the most superior level among life works because it relates to realizing a value that is a result itself, not realizing a result. The work that realizes a result only is a materialist worldly work. The work that combines the realization of a result with the realization of an ethical or social or human or spiritual value is the most superior human work. Taking care of the affairs of people is helping people in arranging their own lives' affairs, Islam requires the believer to help people in order to arrange their own lives' with Islam and its rulings and how to commit to its rulings. The believer who does this obligation is obeying Allah's order to work with others for the rise of the authority that executes the governance of Allah SWT because the individual cannot do this order alone, thus has been the obligation of Allah SWT on every person who has been guided to the obligation of working with His rulings and executing them in real life by the establishment of the authority that can do that to combine his effort with others' efforts to reach the success of the establishment of Allah's governance. This work all along with the commitment to Allah's Sharia in the establishment of His governance is the process of taking care of the affairs of Muslims in accordance to Islam's rulings mixing the materialistic work that realizes a materialistic value, which is the revival of the System of Islam through authority that implements its rulings, with the spiritual work that realizes a spiritual value when committed to Allah's rulings regarding how to conduct the work to establish the governance of Quran, thus it does not allow the forbidden like killing, lying or cheating for the sake of realizing an obligation Allah SWT has set on all Muslims. The target of a believe out of political work in accordance to Islam's rulings is to acquire the consent of Allah SWT and to succeed through the methodology that pleases Allah SWT and not His slaves, thus comes the definition of benefit as the realization of the goal of Sharia or the goal of the individual that has been approved by the Sharia in the way that has been approved or enforced by the Sharia, and not acquiring the goal by any means. Realization of the goal with the Sharia-approved methodology is the only benefit and interest of the individual and not the result of the work itself because the reward and punishment relates to that and not this. Our political work is a work to acquire the consent and pleasure of Allah SWT and is unrelated to what follows it or to what it realizes of glory and honor in this life and the hereafter, thus we are committed while conducting it to the rulings of Allah SWT and pray to Him, all praise be to Him, to guide us to His obedience and help us to truly obey Him, as we cannot handle the burden of such work without His help, support, guidance and care.
This center is not ours nor does it belong to a certain group because it is a permanent center that we hope men will inherit even after the establishment of Allah's governance on Earth, and as world gets larger with construction it gets larger with the efforts that cooperate in the political work, a part of which is the political standing up against the schemes to prevent the return of life to Islam or the return of Islam to life and what it requires of confrontation with politicians and hypocrites with their known names, not to accuse them or slander them, rather to state the righteousness with just words and in hope to deter them and others thus leading them to better destination in this life and the hereafter, Allah's Willing. The "Neologising Epic of X Universal Strategic Studies Center" is the center of evidence struggle and truth proof, it is a center of the intellect of Islam's creed in the reality of life, which refutes the intellect in the creed of infidelity whatever that creed is, and we ask Allah SWT to help us to make the center's pulpit a site of the intellect of the strategy of the ideology of Islam that contradicts and refutes the intellect of the strategy of the ideology of democratic capitalism that has taken hold of all false thoughts in this era that lacks the State of Caliphate that implements the System of Islam on Muslims in an Islamic Society.
We wait for your contributions, the Muslim youth who seeks to arbitrate the Sharia of Allah on this Earth, to assist His religion, to execute the righteousness and defuse the falseness of ideologies other than Islam, and if you do not engage in our effort for a reason acceptable by Allah, then pray for our success, and all praise and thanks to Allah SWT… peace be upon you.
Counsel of Trustees
Neologising Epic of X Universal Strategic Studies Center
Beirut
5-5-2006
http://www.nexuss.info/
Wednesday, November 1, 2006
Quotes praising Islam by non-Muslims
The following are some good quotes:
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad (saw) in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.” [Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936]
“Our use of phrase ‘The Dark ages’ to cover the period from 699 to 1,000 marks our undue concentration on Western Europe... From India to Spain, the brilliant civilization of Islam flourished…To us it seems that West-European civilization is civilization, but this is a narrow view.” [Bertrand Russel in ‘History of Western Philosophy,’ London, 1948, p. 419]
“The Islamic teachings have left great traditions for equitable and gentle dealings and behavior, and inspire people with nobility and tolerance. These are human teachings of the highest order and at the same time practicable. These teachings brought into existence a society in which hard-heartedness and collective oppression and injustice were the least as compared with all other societies preceding it....Islam is replete with gentleness, courtesy, and fraternity.” [H.G. Wells.]
“…Science owes a great deal more to Arab culture (Islam), it owes its existence” [Robert Briffault in the “Making of Humanity”]
“I have to deplore the systematic manner in which the literature of Europe has continued to put out of sight our obligations to the Muhammadans. Surely they cannot be much longer hidden. Injustice founded on religious rancour and national conceit cannot be perpetuated forever. The Arab has left his intellectual impress on Europe. He has indelibly written it on the heavens as any one may see who reads the names of the stars on a common celestial globe.” [John William Draper in the “Intellectual Development of Europe”]
“History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated” [De Lacy O’Leary in ‘Islam at the Crossroads,’ London, 1923]
“Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term…and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam....A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvelous power of winning its way into the consciences of men.” [Edward Montet, ‘La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries Musulmans,’ Paris 1890. (Also in T.W. Arnold in ‘The Preaching of Islam,’ London 1913)]
Also:
Carly Fiorina, ex-CEO of Hewlett-Packard comment on the Islamic Caliphate
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad (saw) in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.” [Sir George Bernard Shaw in ‘The Genuine Islam’ Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936]
“Our use of phrase ‘The Dark ages’ to cover the period from 699 to 1,000 marks our undue concentration on Western Europe... From India to Spain, the brilliant civilization of Islam flourished…To us it seems that West-European civilization is civilization, but this is a narrow view.” [Bertrand Russel in ‘History of Western Philosophy,’ London, 1948, p. 419]
“The Islamic teachings have left great traditions for equitable and gentle dealings and behavior, and inspire people with nobility and tolerance. These are human teachings of the highest order and at the same time practicable. These teachings brought into existence a society in which hard-heartedness and collective oppression and injustice were the least as compared with all other societies preceding it....Islam is replete with gentleness, courtesy, and fraternity.” [H.G. Wells.]
“…Science owes a great deal more to Arab culture (Islam), it owes its existence” [Robert Briffault in the “Making of Humanity”]
“I have to deplore the systematic manner in which the literature of Europe has continued to put out of sight our obligations to the Muhammadans. Surely they cannot be much longer hidden. Injustice founded on religious rancour and national conceit cannot be perpetuated forever. The Arab has left his intellectual impress on Europe. He has indelibly written it on the heavens as any one may see who reads the names of the stars on a common celestial globe.” [John William Draper in the “Intellectual Development of Europe”]
“History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated” [De Lacy O’Leary in ‘Islam at the Crossroads,’ London, 1923]
“Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term…and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam....A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvelous power of winning its way into the consciences of men.” [Edward Montet, ‘La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries Musulmans,’ Paris 1890. (Also in T.W. Arnold in ‘The Preaching of Islam,’ London 1913)]
Also:
Carly Fiorina, ex-CEO of Hewlett-Packard comment on the Islamic Caliphate
Monday, October 30, 2006
Exposing the call for the reformation of Islam - Part 2
The following is a continuation from Exposing the call for the reformation of Islam - Part 1
Example 3: The claim that Islam doesn’t have a ruling system
Ali Abdul Raziq (1888-1966 CE) of Egypt, a student of Muhammad Abduh attempted to confine Islam to ritual spiritual issues. He claimed that Islam did not define a ruling system or form of government thus denying the clear obligation of Khilafah (caliphate). He wrote in his book ‘al-Islam Wa Usul al Hukm’ (Islam and the principles of government):
"Islam is innocent of this insitution of the caliphate as Muslims commonly understand it. Religion has nothing to do with one form of government rather than another and there is nothing in Islam which forbids Muslims to destroy their old political system and build a new one on the basis of the newest conceptions of the human spirit and the experience of nations."
Islam, according to him, is a religion whose religious precepts are binding only on individual conscience and have nothing to do with power and politics. Thus religion and Siyasa (politics) are worlds apart. He claims the political history of the Muslims under the Khilafah contradicts the teachings of Islam which aims at personal salvation and operates within the confines of individual morality. This is why the extension of religion to political domain in the guise of what he calls ‘the theory of caliphate’ is taken by him to be the innovations of jurists and theologians.
It is clear that he was influenced by the orientalist, Sir Thomas Arnold. For example in 'al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm' after attempting to prove that there is no daleel (evidence) for Khilafah in the Ayah:
''O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you'' [TMQ 4:59]
He says on page 11, “If you want to find out more on this discussion then please refer to the book 'The Caliphate' by the scholar Sir Thomas Arnold. The explanation in chapter two and three of that book is excellent and convincing”.
The book of Sir Thomas Arnold is in fact full of contradictions and attempts to cast doubt on the definitive evidences of Islam. For example he says:
“When ten years later Umar received a mortal wound at the hand of an assassin, he is said to have appointed a body of electors, six in number, to choose a successor. Doubt has been cast on the truth of this story, and there is reason for thinking that Umar, like the Prophet Muhammad himself, left this matter entirely in the hands of those concerned.
The greatest living historian of Islam, Prince Caetani, has suggested that this story of Umar having nominated a body of electors was an invention of later times. In order to justify the practise that prevailed during the Abbasid period of first having a private proclamation of the Khalif in the presence of the magnates of the empire, at which they swore allegiance to the new sovereign, and following it up by the public proclamation, in which the populace received the communication of the election and gave assent by acclamation.” [The Caliphate, Sir Thomas W. Arnold, p. 21, Adams Publishers, New Delhi]
This is a ridiculous claim which contradicts accepted authentic narrations. The renowned scholar and historian Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (838–923) as well as others have reported the narrations about what occurred when Umar (ra) was wounded, Umar (ra) said:
"O group of Muhajireen! Verily, the Apostle of God died, and he was pleased with all six of you. I have, therefore, decided to make it (the selection of Khalifa) a matter of consultation among you, so that you may select one of yourselves as Khalifa. If five of you agree upon one man, and there is one who is opposed to the five, kill him. If four are one side and two on the other, kill the two. And if three are on one side and three on the other, then Abdur Rahman ibn Auf will have the casting vote, and the khalifa will be selected from his party. In that case, kill the three men on the opposing side. You may, if you wish, invite some of the chief men of the Ansar as observers but the khalifa must be one of you Muhajireen, and not any of them. They have no share in the Khilafah. And your selection of the new Khalifa must be made within three days." [Tareekh (History) of Al Tabari, Vol 3, pp. 294-295]
Raziq’s book quite opportunely it seems, was published a year after the Khilafah was destroyed in 1925. In it he went to great pains to argue that the verse mentioned earlier and other such hadith and ayat which command the obedience to a Khalifah do not establish the obligation to appoint a Khalifah. He argues that they apply only when an Imam (Khalifah) exists and if he does not exist then there is no obligation to appoint one. To prove this he adduced the following nonsensical argument: “Are we not ordered by the Shar’iah to be generous to beggars, respect the poor and treat them well and show kindness to them? So can anyone who has any intelligence say that this means the Shar’iah has obliged us to bring about paupers and orphans?” [al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm, p.125-126, in edition published by al-Mu`assasa al-'Arabiyyah lid dirasaat wan nashr]
The argument he uses is irrational and demonstrates his lack of understanding of the Shariah evidences. Essentially he attempts to negate the obligation of establishing am Islamic authority on the pretext that if it does not exist we are not obliged to establish it as to claim such a think would analogous to claiming that the Shariah has obliged us to bring about beggars and orphans to fulfil the Islamic commands.
Such arguments to say the least are highly fatuous and cannot be considered as scholarly opinions for they disregard the fact that the ahkam (rules) come with their asbaab (causes). The sabab (cause) of obedience to parents is their existence and hence upon their death the sabab (cause) ceases which means the hukm of obedience also ceases. The same also applies to beggars and orphans in respect to the ahkam (rules) which came pertaining to them. But this is different when it comes to appointing a Khalifah because the sabab (cause) of the presence of a Khalifah is the presence of the jama'ah i.e. Ummah or community which has to look after its affairs by Islam. So if the community exists then Khalifah must exist to look after their affairs.
The Prophet (saw) said: ''It is not allowed for three people to be in a journey (fulaatin) without appointing one of them as an Ameer.'' [Musnad Ahmad]
This hadith makes it clear that whenever a collection of Muslims exist i.e. jama'ah it is prohibited for them to exist except with an ameer. Therefore it is an obligation to appoint an Ameer when there is any jama'ah. The existence of the jama'ah is the sabab (cause) of the obligation of appointing a Khalifah.
Imam Shawkani said, “If Islam prohibited any three Muslims to remain without an ameer, then how the whole Islamic ummah can remain without an Ameer?”
In fact the term jama'ah in the Islamic text means state, authority, and Khalifah. Let us look at the following hadith: Ibn Abbas narrated that Messenger (saw) said:
''The one who sees in his Ameer something which displeases him, let remain patient, for he who separates himself from the community (jama'ah) by even so much as a hand span and dies (in this state), he will die the death of Jahiliyyah.'' [Bukhari & Muslim]
Here disobedience and rebellion against the Khalifah is synonymous with separation from the jama'ah. This is because it is obligatory on the jama'ah to look after their affairs by Islam. Having a Khalifah present means this duty is being fulfilled. But if he is disobeyed this means the obligation of looking after their affairs by Islam is being neglected since he is the one who undertakes this task. So the jama'ah has to obey a Khalifah so that their affairs can be looked after. The reason why a Khalifah needs to exist is because the affairs cannot be looked after except by him. Thus, the sabab (cause) of the presence of a Khalifah is the presence of jamaa'ah which is obliged to look after its affairs by Islam. Hence, when the Messenger of Allah (saw) orders us to obey the Khalifah this means by Ishaarah (alluded meaning) it is obligatory to appoint a Khalifah. For how can the Fard (obligation) of ruling by Islam be accomplished if he did not exist. So it is wrong to say a Khalifah does not exist so we are not sinful for not appointing and obeying the Khalifah.
We can see the same point much more clearly in another narration by Ibn 'Abbas which uses the word Sultan instead of jamaa'ah:
''If anybody sees in his Ameer something which displeases him, he should remain patient, for he who separates himself from the authority (Sultan) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, he would die the death of the days of ignorance.'' [Muslim]
Here we can see that separation from jamaa'ah and authority (sultan) are used synonymously. Authority (sultan) means the body which looks after the affairs. Jamaa'ah refers to the community whose affairs are looked after by the Khalifah. The key thing in both is the obligation of looking after of the affairs which necessitates the presence of a Khalifah.
It is reported that 'Umar b. al-Khattab said:
''There is no Islam without jamaa'ah and there is not jamaa'ah without Imaarah (leadership). And there is no Imaarah (leadership) without obedience.'' [Sunan of Darimi]
Meaning there is no looking after of the affairs of the jamaa'ah or authority (sultan) without an ameer (Imaarah) and naturally there can be no Ameer when there is no obedience to him. So the jamaa'ah in order to exist i.e. for its affairs to be looked after must appoint an Ameer. Consequently obedience to this Ameer is obligatory because the obligation of looking after the affairs is not possible without an Ameer. Thus, when the Prophet (saw) ordered us to give allegiance (bay'ah) or obey the Khalifah it has a greater meaning than when he orders us to feed the poor or look after our parents. We feed the poor because they are poor and we obey parents because they are parents. Thus when they cease to exist the hukm ceases. But our obedience to the Khalifah is because he looks after the affairs of the jamaa'ah which itself is an obligation. Thus when the Khalifah dies the obligation of obedience to him does not cease because the sabab (cause) of the obedience still exists which is the looking after of the affairs. This is the reason why the order to obey the Khalifah by Ishaarah (alluded meaning) means the order to appoint him.
Let us consider the following ayah:
''O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you.” [4:59]
Here we are obliged to obey those in authority because they are the ones who look after the affairs. So obedience is due as long the ruler looks after the affairs of the people by Islam. Since looking after affairs by Islam is Fard then the obedience to them indicates by Ihsraah that they need to exist. In another hadith this point is made even more clearer:
The Prophet (saw) said: ''Even if a slave was appointed over you who leads you with the Book of Allah then hear and obey.'' [Muslim]
Here to emphasise the obedience to the one who looks after the affairs we are commanded in the style of mubaalagha (exaggeration) to obey even if the ameer is a slave i.e. obedience is due because he looks after the affairs which is an obligation. Hence the order to obey indicates by ishaarat an-nass (alluded meaning from the text) the obligation of his presence.
Furthermore there are clear evidences from the Quran, Sunnah and Ijma as-Sahaba that establish the obligation of having a Khilafah, the Islamic government. Allah (swt) says:
"But no, by your Lord, they will not have Eeman until they make you (O Prophet) rule between them in that wich they dispute, and they find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction." [TMQ 4:65]
"Indeed, we have revealed to you the book with the truth so that you may rule between mankind by that which Allah has shown you." [TMQ 4:105]
"So rule between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you." [TMQ 4:49]
"Whosoever does not rule by that which Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers (Kafiroon).....the thaalimoon (oppressors)....the fasiqoon (evil doers)." [TMQ 5:44-47]
These ayaat (verses) of Qur'an, and many others, prove beyond doubt the obligation of ruling by what Allah has revealed. The first one in particular refers to the Muslims directly by stating that we have no real Imaan (belief) until we make them judge between us by Allah's revelation. This is an indication of the obligation for all Muslims to establish Allah's ruling system.
Abu Hazim said: I was with Abu Hurairah for five years and I heard him narrate from the Prophet (saw) that he said: "The Prophets used to rule Bani Israel. Whenever a prophet died another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophets after me; instead there will be Khulafaa' (Khalifahs) and they will number many". They asked: what then do you order us? He said: "fulfil allegiance to them one after the other. Give them their dues. Verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with.” [Muslim]
This hadith is a clear statement of the fact that the form of government in Islam, after the Prophet (saw) is the Khilafah, and not an Islamic Republic, Islamic Socialist Republic or Islamic emirate. This understanding is supported by numerous other hadith that indicate the only system of government in Islam is the Khilafah.
It is narrated from Abdullah bin 'Umar that the Prophet (saw) said, "One who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to a Khalifah) will die the death of one belonging to the days of ignorance (Jahiliyah)". [Muslim]
It is narrated on the authority of Umar that the Prophet (saw) said, "Whosoever dies and he does not have over him an Imaam, he dies the death of Jahilyyah". [Ahmad, Ibn Abi 'Asim, Tabarani & Abu Nu'aym]
It is narrated from Ibn Umar that the Prophet (saw) said, “Whoever dies while there was no Imaam of a Jamaa'ah ruling over him, his death would be that of the days of Jahiliyyah.” [Mustadrak of al-Hakim]
Thus the Prophet (saw) made it compulsory that every Muslim should have over him an Imam, which is also represented by having a pledge of allegiance (bayah) on his or her neck. From the texts we know that the pledge of allegiance is not given to anyone except the Khalifah. The Ahadeeth inform us that those who run the affairs of Muslims are Khulafah (sometimes referred to as Amir ul-Mu'mineen or the Imam). Therefore, these texts clearly indicate a command to establish or appoint them.
The reputed scholar al-Taftazani (d. 1389 CE) said, “There is ijma (consensus) that appointing an Imam is wajib (obligatory)…The adoption (i.e. correct position) is that it is obligatory upon the servants by textual evidence because of the saying of the Messenger (saw), "Whoever dies not having known the Imam of his time, dies the death of the days of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance)." Also, the ummah agreed that this was the most important duty following the death of the Messenger (saw), so important in fact that they considered it more important than the matter of his burial, and so also has it been after the death of each Imam. And they must appoint someone, for so many Shari‘ah obligations depend on this duty.”
He then quotes the noted Hanafi scholar al-Nasafi (d. 1142 CE), “as he (i.e. al-Nasafi) indicated by his statement: ‘The Muslims simply must have an Imam, who will execute the rules, establish the hudud (penal system), defend the frontiers, equip the armies, collect the zakah, punish those who rebel (against the state) and those who spy and highwaymen, establish jumu‘ah and the two ‘Eids, settle the disputes among the servants (of Allah), accept the testimony of witnesses in matters of legal rights, give in marriage the young and the poor who have no family, and distribute the booty’
Taftazani adds: and similar matters which other individuals from the ummah are not allowed to be in charge of.” [Sharh al-Aqa'id al-Nasafiyyah (Commentary of Nasafi’s Essay on the Creed), Translated from the Cairo edition of 1335 AH, p. 142-143]
Al-Haythami (d. 1405 CE) said, “It is known that the Sahabah (ra) consented that selecting the Imaam after the end of the era of Prophethood was an obligation (Wajib). Indeed they made it (more) important than the (other) obligations whilst they were busy with it over the burial of the Prophet (saw).” [Sawaa'iq ul-haraqah: 17, al-Haythami]
In fact this obligation has not been disputed by any accepted Mujtahid in history.
Imam an-Nawawi (d. 1278 CE) said, "(The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khaleefah.” [Sharhu Sahih Muslim, An-Nawawi, Vol 12, p. 205]
Al-Qurtubi (d. 1273 CE) said, "The Khilafah is the pillar upon which other pillars rest.”
Imaam al-Ghazali (d. 1111 CE) when writing of the potential consequences of losing the Khilafah said, "The judges will be suspended, the Wilayaat (provinces) will be nullified, ... the decrees of those in authority will not be executed and all the people will be on the verge of Haraam.” [Al Iqtisaad fil Itiqaad, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, p. 240]
Sharastani said, “It never came to his mind or the mind of anybody that it is allowed for the earth to have no Imam.”
Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE) said, "It is obligatory to know that the office in charge of commanding over the people (ie. the Khilafah post) is one of the greatest obligations of the Deen. In fact, there is no establishment of the Deen except by it....this is the opinion of the salaf (pious predecessors), such as al-Fadl ibn 'Iyaad, Ahmed ibn Hanbal and others.” [Siyaasah Shariyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah]
Al-Amidi (d. 1233 CE) said, “The legal view of the people of truth amongst Muslims is that appointing an Imam and following him is obligation upon Muslims.”
Al-Mawardi (d. 1058 CE) said, "The contract of the Imamah (leadership) for whoever is standing with it, is an obligation by Ijmaa'a (consensus)". [al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Abu al-Hasan al-Mawardi, Arabic edition, p. 56]
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855 CE) said, "The Fitna (mischief and tribulations) occurs when there is no Imaam established over the affairs of the people".
Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406 CE) said in al-Muqadimmah, “The appointment of an Imam is obligatory, and this obligation is understood in the shar’ through the ijmaa’ of the Sahabah and tabi’een.”
One of the most respected scholars of the Indian subcontinent, Shah Waliullah Dehlavi (d. 1762 CE) said in ‘Izalat al Khafa’, "Khilafah is the leadership of people united in a commonwealth which comes into existence for the establishment of the Deen including revival of religious branches of learning, institution of Islamic ritual observances, organization of jihad… marshalling an army, remunerating the combatants, creating a judicial system and enforcing the laws, curbing of crimes… All these functions have to be performed by it as if it were deputising and representing the Prophet (saw).”
Imam Al-Juzayri, an expert on the Fiqh of the four great schools of thought said regarding the four Imams, "The Imams (scholars of the four schools of thought- Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali)- may Allah have mercy on them- agree that the Imamah (Leadership) is an obligation, and that the Muslims must appoint an Imam who would implement the deen's rites, and give the oppressed justice against the oppressors." [Fiqh ul-Mathahib ul- Arba'a (the Fiqh of the four schools of thought), Al-Juzayri, Vol 5, p. 416]
The obligation of having an Islamic state or Khilafah is a definitive obligation in Islam just as the obligations of Salah, Zakah and Hajj, the rejection of which is apostasy from Islam. The ruling system of Islam is unique and is enshrined in the Islamic texts especially in the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).
Dr. Taha Hussain (1889-1973 CE) from Egypt also rejected that Islam had a revealed political system. He said there was nothing divine in the Khilafah system except that the Khilafah was a contract between the Khulafah and the general body of Muslims and that Allah (swt) has commanded the Muslims to fulfil their contracts. According to him, beyond this the political system of early Islam had no divine sanction behind it.
He argued that the Quran and Sunnah did not lay down any political system either in outline or in detail. It laid down only general limits and then left the Muslims free to order their state affairs as they liked. The only condition was that they should not transgress the limits laid down in the Quran. In his view the Prophet (saw) did not give any specific political system to the Muslims. This view clearly contradicts the clear evidences, it is difficult to see how modernists today still see his views as credible.
The Prophet (saw) established the Islamic state in Madinah Munawwara, together with the basis it was built upon, its foundations, pillars, institutions, army and its domestic and foreign relationships. From the moment he arrived at Madinah he ruled over the Muslims, looked after their affairs, managed their matters and created the Islamic society. He also made a treaty with the Jews, Banu Dhamra and Banu Madlij, then with the Quraysh, with the people of Elat, Girba and Azrah. He gave the people a covenant that no one will be prevented from performing Hajj, and that no one is to be afraid in the month of Haram. He sent Hamza ibn `Abdul-Muttalib, ’Ubaydah ibn Harith, and Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas in expeditions to fight the Quraysh. He sent Zayd ibn Harithah, Ja‘far ibn Abi Talib, ‘Abdullah ibn Ruwahah to fight the Romans. He sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to fight the Domma of Jandal, and he (saw) himself led the army in numerous battles (Ghazwat), where he engaged in severe fighting.
He appointed Walis (governors) for the provinces, and ‘Amils (mayors) for the cities. He appointed Attab ibn Aseed over Makkah as well after its opening, and Bazan ibn Sasan as Wali over Yemen, after he became Muslim. He appointed Mu‘az ibn Jabal the Khazraji over Jund, and he appointed Khalid ibn Said ibn al-Aas as ‘Amil over San’aa, and Zayd ibn Labeed ibn Tha’laba Al-Ansari over Hadramut. He appointed Abu Musa Al-Ashari over Zabeed and Aden. He appointed Amr ibn Al-A’ass over Oman. Abu Dujana was ‘Amil for the Messenger (saw) over Madinah. When he (saw) would appoint Walis he would choose them from those who were suitable for the job they were responsible for, and they would infuse the hearts of their subjects with Iman, and he (saw) used to ask them about the way they would act in their ruling.
It is narrated, “that when the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Mu’az to Yemen he (saw) said to him: “How would you judge if a matter was raised to you?” He said: ‘By the Book of Allah.’ He (saw) said: “If you do not find it in the Book of Allah?” He said: ‘I would judge by the Sunnah of Rasool Allah (saw).’ He (saw) said: “If you did not find it in the Sunnah of Rasool Allah? He said: I would perform my own Ijtihad, sparing no effort in doing that.” He said: ‘He (the Messenger of Allah (saw)) hit his hand on my chest and said: “Praise be to Allah who helped the messenger of the Messenger of Allah in that which pleases Rasool Allah.” [Al Baihaqi, Ahmad & Abu Dawud]
It was narrated from Saad from Amru ibn Awf that the Messenger (saw) appointed Iban ibn Said ibn Al-Aas over Bahrain and he said to him: “Take care of Abdul Qais and respect their leaders.”
He (saw) used to send Walis from the best of those who embraced Islam. He used to order them (the Walis) to teach Islam to those who had accepted Islam, and to take Sadaqat from them. He would delegate the Wali, on numerous occasions, the job of levying of taxes, and He (saw) would command him to exhort the people with good, teach them the Qur’an, educate them in the Deen, and he advised him to be lenient with the people in the truth and be hard against them in situations of injustice. He (saw) also ordered the Walis to forbid the people from calling to their tribes when there was agitation between the people, so that their call be to Allah alone without partner. He (saw) told the Walis to take a fifth of the wealth and what was obliged upon the Muslims of Sadaqat. And that whoever accepted Islam sincerely from the Jews or the Christians and submitted to the Deen of Islam, he would be a believer whose rights are like their rights and his obligations are like their obligations; and whoever remained a Jew or a Christian, he should not be tempted from his Deen.
Muslim and Al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn Abbas that when the Messenger of Allah (swt) sent Mu’az to Yemen he said: “You will be appointed over tribes from the people of the Book so let the first matter you call them to be the worship of Allah (swt). If they recognised Allah (swt) then inform them that Allah (swt) has obliged on them five prayers in the day and night. If they did that tell them that Allah (swt) obliged on them Zakat which is taken from their wealthy people and paid to their poor people. If they obeyed, take (Zakat) from them and stay away from their best property”
In another narration, they added: “And protect yourself of the prayer (du’a) of the wronged (person), for there is no barrier between it and Allah (swt).”
He (saw), on some occasions, appointed specific people to deal with financial matters. Every year he (saw) would send ‘Abdullah ibn Ruwahah to the Jews of Khayber to assess their fruits. Al-Muwatta mentioned, “that the Messenger (saw) used to send Abdullah ibn Ruwahah to assess their fruits between him and them. Then he would say: if you would like, this is for you, or if you like it is for me. They used to take it”
Salman ibn Yassar said, ‘They gathered some of their women’s jewellery. Then they said: “This is for you and reduce from us and tolerate in the division”. Abdullah ibn Ruwahah said, “O’ people of the Jews! By Allah, from amongst the creatures of Allah (swt) hate you most, but this will not drive me to oppress you. As for the bribe you offered me it is illegal property (Suht) and we do not eat (take) it”. They said: By this (justice) the heavens and the Ardh (earth) stand.”
He (saw) used to inquire about the situation of the Walis and ‘Amils and he used to listen to what is reported to him of their news. He removed ‘Alaa ibn Al-Hadhrami who was his ‘Amil over Bahrain because a delegate from ‘Abd Qays complained about him. Ibn Sa’ad said, Mohammed Ibn Omar said: I was told from Amru ibn Awf, the ally of Bani Aamer ibn Luai that the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Al-Alaa ibn Al-Hadhrami to Al-Bahrain, then he removed him from it, and sent Iban ibn Said as an Amil over it. Mohammed ibn Omar said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) had written to Al-Alaa ibn Al-Hadhrami to come to him together with twenty men of Abd Qais, so he came to him with them. Their leader was Abdullah ibn Awf Al-As and Al-Alaa appointed over Al-Bahrain after him Al-Munzir ibn Sawa. The delegation complained of Al-Alaa ibn Al-Hadhrami. So the Messenger of Allah (saw) removed him and appointed Iban ibn Said Al-Aas and said to him, “take care of Abd Al-Qais and respect their leaders”
He (saw) used to receive the full (financial) accounts of the Amils and would enquire about their revenues and expenses.
Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Abi Hammeed As-Saidi that the Prophet (saw) appointed Ibn Al-Lutbiyyah over the Sadaqat of Bani Saleem. When he returned back to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he revised accounts with him, he said: ‘This is what is yours, and this is a gift to me.’ The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Won’t you stay in your parents’ home and see if you get your present, if you say the truth ?”
Then the Messenger of Allah (saw) stood preaching to the people. So he praised Allah and glorified Him and said: “After all I appoint some men of you over some affairs in which Allah gave me authority. Then someone amongst you comes and says: This is for you and this is a gift given to me. Had he not sat in his fathers’s and mother’s home so as his gift comes to him if he says the truth. By Allah, no one of you would take of them (the Sadaqat) anything unduly but comes to Allah carrying it on the Day of Judgement. Beware, I will know any man who comes to Allah with a camel that brays and a cow that is mooing and a sheep that bleats. Then he raised his hands till I could see the whiteness of his armpits. Didn’t I convey?” Abu Dawud narrated from Bareeda from the prophet (saw), he said: “Whoever we appointed in his job and we provided him (some funds), so whatever he took unduly would be ghalool (misappropriation).
The people of Yemen complained of the length of Mua’z’s prayer, so the prophet (saw) restrained him. Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Abi Masoud Al-Ansari, he said: A man said: ‘O Messenger of Allah (saw) I hardly attend the (Jama’a) prayer, because so and so person makes it long. As a response I have never seen the Prophet (saw) in any preaching more angry than he was then. He said: O people! You drive the people away. So whoever becomes Imam to the people let him lighten (the prayer), for there are amongst them the sick, the weak and the one who has a pressing need.’ In another narration by Muslim from Jabir, he (saw) said, “… O’ Mua’z! Are you a seducer (Fattan)…?”
He (saw) used to appoint judges to judge between the people. He appointed Ali ibn Abi Talib as a judge over Yemen. He also dispatched Mu‘az ibn Jabal and Abu Musa Al-Ashari as judges to Yemen. He asked the two of them: “By what would you judge? They replied that if they did not find the rule in the Book or the Sunnah then they would measure the matter with another, and they would act with that which is closer to the truth.” The Prophet (saw) consented with that, which indicates that he (saw) chose the judges and checked their method of judging.
He (saw) used to look after the affairs of the people and he appointed secretaries as heads of the departments. So Ali ibn Abi Talib was the secretary of agreements and peace treaties. Muaiqeeb ibn Abi Fatima was in charge of the Prophet’s official seal and he was the secretary for booty. Huzayfah ibn Al-Yaman used to assess the fruits of the Hijaz and Zubair ibn Al-Awaam used to record the funds of the Sadaqat, and Al-Mughira ibn Shu’abah used to record the debts and transactions, and Shurahbeel ibn Hasanah used to write the letters to the leaders of other States. So he appointed a secretary for each of the interests, however numerous these were. He (saw) used to make many consultations with his companions and he did not prevent himself from consulting the people of opinion and vision and those whom he witnessed of their intellect and honour, and showed their strong Iman and sacrifice in calling for Islam. There were seven people from the Quraish and seven from the Muhajireen who were: Hamza, Abu Bakr, Jafar, Umar, Ali, Ibn Masood, Salman, Amaar, Huzayfah, Abu Dharr, Al-Miqdad and Bilal. Ahmed narrated from Ali, he said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah (swt) say: “There was no prophet before me who was not given seven intelligent assistant chiefs, and I was given fourteen intelligent assistant chiefs, seven from Quraish and seven from Al-Muhajireen.” In another narration by Ahmed from Ali, he mentioned the names …Hamzah, Jafar, Ali, Hassan, Hussein, Abu-Bakr, Umar, Al-Miqdad, Abdullah ibn Masood, Abu Dharr, Huzaifah, Salmaan, Ammar and Bilal.
He (saw) also used to seek advice from other than these people, but these people mentioned are the ones he sought opinion from extensively. They were effectively the Majlis Ash-Shura (Consultative assembly). He (saw) put on the Muslims and others certain funds, on fruits and livestock which are: Zakat, Ushr, Fai, Kharaj, Jizya. The funds of spoils and booties were due to the Bait-Ul-Mal. Zakat was distributed on the eight types of people mentioned in the Qur’an and it was not given to other than them nor was it used to manage the affairs of the state. Funds for looking after the affairs of the people used to be from the revenues of Fai, Kharaj, Jizya and Booty, which were sufficient for running the state and preparing the army, thus the state did not feel that it had a shortage of funds.
In this way the Prophet (saw) established the structure of the Islamic state and he completed it in his life. He was the leader of the state and had assistants, Walis, judges, army, directors of departments, and a Majlis for Shura. This framework in its structure and functions is a method that must be followed. As a whole, it is proved by Tawatur (definitive transmission). The Prophet (saw) performed the actions of the leader of a state from the moment he arrived in Madina until his death, and Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were his assistants. The Sahabah consented after him on establishing a leader for the state who would succeed the Prophet (saw) in the leadership of the state only, and not in Messengership or Prophethood because he (saw) was the seal of the Prophets. Thus the Messenger (saw) established the whole structure of the state in his lifetime and he left behind the shape of ruling and complete structure of the state.
Abu Ismael al-Beirawi
Exposing the call for the reformation of Islam - Part 3
Example 3: The claim that Islam doesn’t have a ruling system
Ali Abdul Raziq (1888-1966 CE) of Egypt, a student of Muhammad Abduh attempted to confine Islam to ritual spiritual issues. He claimed that Islam did not define a ruling system or form of government thus denying the clear obligation of Khilafah (caliphate). He wrote in his book ‘al-Islam Wa Usul al Hukm’ (Islam and the principles of government):
"Islam is innocent of this insitution of the caliphate as Muslims commonly understand it. Religion has nothing to do with one form of government rather than another and there is nothing in Islam which forbids Muslims to destroy their old political system and build a new one on the basis of the newest conceptions of the human spirit and the experience of nations."
Islam, according to him, is a religion whose religious precepts are binding only on individual conscience and have nothing to do with power and politics. Thus religion and Siyasa (politics) are worlds apart. He claims the political history of the Muslims under the Khilafah contradicts the teachings of Islam which aims at personal salvation and operates within the confines of individual morality. This is why the extension of religion to political domain in the guise of what he calls ‘the theory of caliphate’ is taken by him to be the innovations of jurists and theologians.
It is clear that he was influenced by the orientalist, Sir Thomas Arnold. For example in 'al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm' after attempting to prove that there is no daleel (evidence) for Khilafah in the Ayah:
''O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you'' [TMQ 4:59]
He says on page 11, “If you want to find out more on this discussion then please refer to the book 'The Caliphate' by the scholar Sir Thomas Arnold. The explanation in chapter two and three of that book is excellent and convincing”.
The book of Sir Thomas Arnold is in fact full of contradictions and attempts to cast doubt on the definitive evidences of Islam. For example he says:
“When ten years later Umar received a mortal wound at the hand of an assassin, he is said to have appointed a body of electors, six in number, to choose a successor. Doubt has been cast on the truth of this story, and there is reason for thinking that Umar, like the Prophet Muhammad himself, left this matter entirely in the hands of those concerned.
The greatest living historian of Islam, Prince Caetani, has suggested that this story of Umar having nominated a body of electors was an invention of later times. In order to justify the practise that prevailed during the Abbasid period of first having a private proclamation of the Khalif in the presence of the magnates of the empire, at which they swore allegiance to the new sovereign, and following it up by the public proclamation, in which the populace received the communication of the election and gave assent by acclamation.” [The Caliphate, Sir Thomas W. Arnold, p. 21, Adams Publishers, New Delhi]
This is a ridiculous claim which contradicts accepted authentic narrations. The renowned scholar and historian Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (838–923) as well as others have reported the narrations about what occurred when Umar (ra) was wounded, Umar (ra) said:
"O group of Muhajireen! Verily, the Apostle of God died, and he was pleased with all six of you. I have, therefore, decided to make it (the selection of Khalifa) a matter of consultation among you, so that you may select one of yourselves as Khalifa. If five of you agree upon one man, and there is one who is opposed to the five, kill him. If four are one side and two on the other, kill the two. And if three are on one side and three on the other, then Abdur Rahman ibn Auf will have the casting vote, and the khalifa will be selected from his party. In that case, kill the three men on the opposing side. You may, if you wish, invite some of the chief men of the Ansar as observers but the khalifa must be one of you Muhajireen, and not any of them. They have no share in the Khilafah. And your selection of the new Khalifa must be made within three days." [Tareekh (History) of Al Tabari, Vol 3, pp. 294-295]
Raziq’s book quite opportunely it seems, was published a year after the Khilafah was destroyed in 1925. In it he went to great pains to argue that the verse mentioned earlier and other such hadith and ayat which command the obedience to a Khalifah do not establish the obligation to appoint a Khalifah. He argues that they apply only when an Imam (Khalifah) exists and if he does not exist then there is no obligation to appoint one. To prove this he adduced the following nonsensical argument: “Are we not ordered by the Shar’iah to be generous to beggars, respect the poor and treat them well and show kindness to them? So can anyone who has any intelligence say that this means the Shar’iah has obliged us to bring about paupers and orphans?” [al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm, p.125-126, in edition published by al-Mu`assasa al-'Arabiyyah lid dirasaat wan nashr]
The argument he uses is irrational and demonstrates his lack of understanding of the Shariah evidences. Essentially he attempts to negate the obligation of establishing am Islamic authority on the pretext that if it does not exist we are not obliged to establish it as to claim such a think would analogous to claiming that the Shariah has obliged us to bring about beggars and orphans to fulfil the Islamic commands.
Such arguments to say the least are highly fatuous and cannot be considered as scholarly opinions for they disregard the fact that the ahkam (rules) come with their asbaab (causes). The sabab (cause) of obedience to parents is their existence and hence upon their death the sabab (cause) ceases which means the hukm of obedience also ceases. The same also applies to beggars and orphans in respect to the ahkam (rules) which came pertaining to them. But this is different when it comes to appointing a Khalifah because the sabab (cause) of the presence of a Khalifah is the presence of the jama'ah i.e. Ummah or community which has to look after its affairs by Islam. So if the community exists then Khalifah must exist to look after their affairs.
The Prophet (saw) said: ''It is not allowed for three people to be in a journey (fulaatin) without appointing one of them as an Ameer.'' [Musnad Ahmad]
This hadith makes it clear that whenever a collection of Muslims exist i.e. jama'ah it is prohibited for them to exist except with an ameer. Therefore it is an obligation to appoint an Ameer when there is any jama'ah. The existence of the jama'ah is the sabab (cause) of the obligation of appointing a Khalifah.
Imam Shawkani said, “If Islam prohibited any three Muslims to remain without an ameer, then how the whole Islamic ummah can remain without an Ameer?”
In fact the term jama'ah in the Islamic text means state, authority, and Khalifah. Let us look at the following hadith: Ibn Abbas narrated that Messenger (saw) said:
''The one who sees in his Ameer something which displeases him, let remain patient, for he who separates himself from the community (jama'ah) by even so much as a hand span and dies (in this state), he will die the death of Jahiliyyah.'' [Bukhari & Muslim]
Here disobedience and rebellion against the Khalifah is synonymous with separation from the jama'ah. This is because it is obligatory on the jama'ah to look after their affairs by Islam. Having a Khalifah present means this duty is being fulfilled. But if he is disobeyed this means the obligation of looking after their affairs by Islam is being neglected since he is the one who undertakes this task. So the jama'ah has to obey a Khalifah so that their affairs can be looked after. The reason why a Khalifah needs to exist is because the affairs cannot be looked after except by him. Thus, the sabab (cause) of the presence of a Khalifah is the presence of jamaa'ah which is obliged to look after its affairs by Islam. Hence, when the Messenger of Allah (saw) orders us to obey the Khalifah this means by Ishaarah (alluded meaning) it is obligatory to appoint a Khalifah. For how can the Fard (obligation) of ruling by Islam be accomplished if he did not exist. So it is wrong to say a Khalifah does not exist so we are not sinful for not appointing and obeying the Khalifah.
We can see the same point much more clearly in another narration by Ibn 'Abbas which uses the word Sultan instead of jamaa'ah:
''If anybody sees in his Ameer something which displeases him, he should remain patient, for he who separates himself from the authority (Sultan) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, he would die the death of the days of ignorance.'' [Muslim]
Here we can see that separation from jamaa'ah and authority (sultan) are used synonymously. Authority (sultan) means the body which looks after the affairs. Jamaa'ah refers to the community whose affairs are looked after by the Khalifah. The key thing in both is the obligation of looking after of the affairs which necessitates the presence of a Khalifah.
It is reported that 'Umar b. al-Khattab said:
''There is no Islam without jamaa'ah and there is not jamaa'ah without Imaarah (leadership). And there is no Imaarah (leadership) without obedience.'' [Sunan of Darimi]
Meaning there is no looking after of the affairs of the jamaa'ah or authority (sultan) without an ameer (Imaarah) and naturally there can be no Ameer when there is no obedience to him. So the jamaa'ah in order to exist i.e. for its affairs to be looked after must appoint an Ameer. Consequently obedience to this Ameer is obligatory because the obligation of looking after the affairs is not possible without an Ameer. Thus, when the Prophet (saw) ordered us to give allegiance (bay'ah) or obey the Khalifah it has a greater meaning than when he orders us to feed the poor or look after our parents. We feed the poor because they are poor and we obey parents because they are parents. Thus when they cease to exist the hukm ceases. But our obedience to the Khalifah is because he looks after the affairs of the jamaa'ah which itself is an obligation. Thus when the Khalifah dies the obligation of obedience to him does not cease because the sabab (cause) of the obedience still exists which is the looking after of the affairs. This is the reason why the order to obey the Khalifah by Ishaarah (alluded meaning) means the order to appoint him.
Let us consider the following ayah:
''O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you.” [4:59]
Here we are obliged to obey those in authority because they are the ones who look after the affairs. So obedience is due as long the ruler looks after the affairs of the people by Islam. Since looking after affairs by Islam is Fard then the obedience to them indicates by Ihsraah that they need to exist. In another hadith this point is made even more clearer:
The Prophet (saw) said: ''Even if a slave was appointed over you who leads you with the Book of Allah then hear and obey.'' [Muslim]
Here to emphasise the obedience to the one who looks after the affairs we are commanded in the style of mubaalagha (exaggeration) to obey even if the ameer is a slave i.e. obedience is due because he looks after the affairs which is an obligation. Hence the order to obey indicates by ishaarat an-nass (alluded meaning from the text) the obligation of his presence.
Furthermore there are clear evidences from the Quran, Sunnah and Ijma as-Sahaba that establish the obligation of having a Khilafah, the Islamic government. Allah (swt) says:
"But no, by your Lord, they will not have Eeman until they make you (O Prophet) rule between them in that wich they dispute, and they find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction." [TMQ 4:65]
"Indeed, we have revealed to you the book with the truth so that you may rule between mankind by that which Allah has shown you." [TMQ 4:105]
"So rule between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you." [TMQ 4:49]
"Whosoever does not rule by that which Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers (Kafiroon).....the thaalimoon (oppressors)....the fasiqoon (evil doers)." [TMQ 5:44-47]
These ayaat (verses) of Qur'an, and many others, prove beyond doubt the obligation of ruling by what Allah has revealed. The first one in particular refers to the Muslims directly by stating that we have no real Imaan (belief) until we make them judge between us by Allah's revelation. This is an indication of the obligation for all Muslims to establish Allah's ruling system.
Abu Hazim said: I was with Abu Hurairah for five years and I heard him narrate from the Prophet (saw) that he said: "The Prophets used to rule Bani Israel. Whenever a prophet died another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophets after me; instead there will be Khulafaa' (Khalifahs) and they will number many". They asked: what then do you order us? He said: "fulfil allegiance to them one after the other. Give them their dues. Verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with.” [Muslim]
This hadith is a clear statement of the fact that the form of government in Islam, after the Prophet (saw) is the Khilafah, and not an Islamic Republic, Islamic Socialist Republic or Islamic emirate. This understanding is supported by numerous other hadith that indicate the only system of government in Islam is the Khilafah.
It is narrated from Abdullah bin 'Umar that the Prophet (saw) said, "One who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to a Khalifah) will die the death of one belonging to the days of ignorance (Jahiliyah)". [Muslim]
It is narrated on the authority of Umar that the Prophet (saw) said, "Whosoever dies and he does not have over him an Imaam, he dies the death of Jahilyyah". [Ahmad, Ibn Abi 'Asim, Tabarani & Abu Nu'aym]
It is narrated from Ibn Umar that the Prophet (saw) said, “Whoever dies while there was no Imaam of a Jamaa'ah ruling over him, his death would be that of the days of Jahiliyyah.” [Mustadrak of al-Hakim]
Thus the Prophet (saw) made it compulsory that every Muslim should have over him an Imam, which is also represented by having a pledge of allegiance (bayah) on his or her neck. From the texts we know that the pledge of allegiance is not given to anyone except the Khalifah. The Ahadeeth inform us that those who run the affairs of Muslims are Khulafah (sometimes referred to as Amir ul-Mu'mineen or the Imam). Therefore, these texts clearly indicate a command to establish or appoint them.
The reputed scholar al-Taftazani (d. 1389 CE) said, “There is ijma (consensus) that appointing an Imam is wajib (obligatory)…The adoption (i.e. correct position) is that it is obligatory upon the servants by textual evidence because of the saying of the Messenger (saw), "Whoever dies not having known the Imam of his time, dies the death of the days of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance)." Also, the ummah agreed that this was the most important duty following the death of the Messenger (saw), so important in fact that they considered it more important than the matter of his burial, and so also has it been after the death of each Imam. And they must appoint someone, for so many Shari‘ah obligations depend on this duty.”
He then quotes the noted Hanafi scholar al-Nasafi (d. 1142 CE), “as he (i.e. al-Nasafi) indicated by his statement: ‘The Muslims simply must have an Imam, who will execute the rules, establish the hudud (penal system), defend the frontiers, equip the armies, collect the zakah, punish those who rebel (against the state) and those who spy and highwaymen, establish jumu‘ah and the two ‘Eids, settle the disputes among the servants (of Allah), accept the testimony of witnesses in matters of legal rights, give in marriage the young and the poor who have no family, and distribute the booty’
Taftazani adds: and similar matters which other individuals from the ummah are not allowed to be in charge of.” [Sharh al-Aqa'id al-Nasafiyyah (Commentary of Nasafi’s Essay on the Creed), Translated from the Cairo edition of 1335 AH, p. 142-143]
Al-Haythami (d. 1405 CE) said, “It is known that the Sahabah (ra) consented that selecting the Imaam after the end of the era of Prophethood was an obligation (Wajib). Indeed they made it (more) important than the (other) obligations whilst they were busy with it over the burial of the Prophet (saw).” [Sawaa'iq ul-haraqah: 17, al-Haythami]
In fact this obligation has not been disputed by any accepted Mujtahid in history.
Imam an-Nawawi (d. 1278 CE) said, "(The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khaleefah.” [Sharhu Sahih Muslim, An-Nawawi, Vol 12, p. 205]
Al-Qurtubi (d. 1273 CE) said, "The Khilafah is the pillar upon which other pillars rest.”
Imaam al-Ghazali (d. 1111 CE) when writing of the potential consequences of losing the Khilafah said, "The judges will be suspended, the Wilayaat (provinces) will be nullified, ... the decrees of those in authority will not be executed and all the people will be on the verge of Haraam.” [Al Iqtisaad fil Itiqaad, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, p. 240]
Sharastani said, “It never came to his mind or the mind of anybody that it is allowed for the earth to have no Imam.”
Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE) said, "It is obligatory to know that the office in charge of commanding over the people (ie. the Khilafah post) is one of the greatest obligations of the Deen. In fact, there is no establishment of the Deen except by it....this is the opinion of the salaf (pious predecessors), such as al-Fadl ibn 'Iyaad, Ahmed ibn Hanbal and others.” [Siyaasah Shariyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah]
Al-Amidi (d. 1233 CE) said, “The legal view of the people of truth amongst Muslims is that appointing an Imam and following him is obligation upon Muslims.”
Al-Mawardi (d. 1058 CE) said, "The contract of the Imamah (leadership) for whoever is standing with it, is an obligation by Ijmaa'a (consensus)". [al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Abu al-Hasan al-Mawardi, Arabic edition, p. 56]
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855 CE) said, "The Fitna (mischief and tribulations) occurs when there is no Imaam established over the affairs of the people".
Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406 CE) said in al-Muqadimmah, “The appointment of an Imam is obligatory, and this obligation is understood in the shar’ through the ijmaa’ of the Sahabah and tabi’een.”
One of the most respected scholars of the Indian subcontinent, Shah Waliullah Dehlavi (d. 1762 CE) said in ‘Izalat al Khafa’, "Khilafah is the leadership of people united in a commonwealth which comes into existence for the establishment of the Deen including revival of religious branches of learning, institution of Islamic ritual observances, organization of jihad… marshalling an army, remunerating the combatants, creating a judicial system and enforcing the laws, curbing of crimes… All these functions have to be performed by it as if it were deputising and representing the Prophet (saw).”
Imam Al-Juzayri, an expert on the Fiqh of the four great schools of thought said regarding the four Imams, "The Imams (scholars of the four schools of thought- Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali)- may Allah have mercy on them- agree that the Imamah (Leadership) is an obligation, and that the Muslims must appoint an Imam who would implement the deen's rites, and give the oppressed justice against the oppressors." [Fiqh ul-Mathahib ul- Arba'a (the Fiqh of the four schools of thought), Al-Juzayri, Vol 5, p. 416]
The obligation of having an Islamic state or Khilafah is a definitive obligation in Islam just as the obligations of Salah, Zakah and Hajj, the rejection of which is apostasy from Islam. The ruling system of Islam is unique and is enshrined in the Islamic texts especially in the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).
Dr. Taha Hussain (1889-1973 CE) from Egypt also rejected that Islam had a revealed political system. He said there was nothing divine in the Khilafah system except that the Khilafah was a contract between the Khulafah and the general body of Muslims and that Allah (swt) has commanded the Muslims to fulfil their contracts. According to him, beyond this the political system of early Islam had no divine sanction behind it.
He argued that the Quran and Sunnah did not lay down any political system either in outline or in detail. It laid down only general limits and then left the Muslims free to order their state affairs as they liked. The only condition was that they should not transgress the limits laid down in the Quran. In his view the Prophet (saw) did not give any specific political system to the Muslims. This view clearly contradicts the clear evidences, it is difficult to see how modernists today still see his views as credible.
The Prophet (saw) established the Islamic state in Madinah Munawwara, together with the basis it was built upon, its foundations, pillars, institutions, army and its domestic and foreign relationships. From the moment he arrived at Madinah he ruled over the Muslims, looked after their affairs, managed their matters and created the Islamic society. He also made a treaty with the Jews, Banu Dhamra and Banu Madlij, then with the Quraysh, with the people of Elat, Girba and Azrah. He gave the people a covenant that no one will be prevented from performing Hajj, and that no one is to be afraid in the month of Haram. He sent Hamza ibn `Abdul-Muttalib, ’Ubaydah ibn Harith, and Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas in expeditions to fight the Quraysh. He sent Zayd ibn Harithah, Ja‘far ibn Abi Talib, ‘Abdullah ibn Ruwahah to fight the Romans. He sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to fight the Domma of Jandal, and he (saw) himself led the army in numerous battles (Ghazwat), where he engaged in severe fighting.
He appointed Walis (governors) for the provinces, and ‘Amils (mayors) for the cities. He appointed Attab ibn Aseed over Makkah as well after its opening, and Bazan ibn Sasan as Wali over Yemen, after he became Muslim. He appointed Mu‘az ibn Jabal the Khazraji over Jund, and he appointed Khalid ibn Said ibn al-Aas as ‘Amil over San’aa, and Zayd ibn Labeed ibn Tha’laba Al-Ansari over Hadramut. He appointed Abu Musa Al-Ashari over Zabeed and Aden. He appointed Amr ibn Al-A’ass over Oman. Abu Dujana was ‘Amil for the Messenger (saw) over Madinah. When he (saw) would appoint Walis he would choose them from those who were suitable for the job they were responsible for, and they would infuse the hearts of their subjects with Iman, and he (saw) used to ask them about the way they would act in their ruling.
It is narrated, “that when the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Mu’az to Yemen he (saw) said to him: “How would you judge if a matter was raised to you?” He said: ‘By the Book of Allah.’ He (saw) said: “If you do not find it in the Book of Allah?” He said: ‘I would judge by the Sunnah of Rasool Allah (saw).’ He (saw) said: “If you did not find it in the Sunnah of Rasool Allah? He said: I would perform my own Ijtihad, sparing no effort in doing that.” He said: ‘He (the Messenger of Allah (saw)) hit his hand on my chest and said: “Praise be to Allah who helped the messenger of the Messenger of Allah in that which pleases Rasool Allah.” [Al Baihaqi, Ahmad & Abu Dawud]
It was narrated from Saad from Amru ibn Awf that the Messenger (saw) appointed Iban ibn Said ibn Al-Aas over Bahrain and he said to him: “Take care of Abdul Qais and respect their leaders.”
He (saw) used to send Walis from the best of those who embraced Islam. He used to order them (the Walis) to teach Islam to those who had accepted Islam, and to take Sadaqat from them. He would delegate the Wali, on numerous occasions, the job of levying of taxes, and He (saw) would command him to exhort the people with good, teach them the Qur’an, educate them in the Deen, and he advised him to be lenient with the people in the truth and be hard against them in situations of injustice. He (saw) also ordered the Walis to forbid the people from calling to their tribes when there was agitation between the people, so that their call be to Allah alone without partner. He (saw) told the Walis to take a fifth of the wealth and what was obliged upon the Muslims of Sadaqat. And that whoever accepted Islam sincerely from the Jews or the Christians and submitted to the Deen of Islam, he would be a believer whose rights are like their rights and his obligations are like their obligations; and whoever remained a Jew or a Christian, he should not be tempted from his Deen.
Muslim and Al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn Abbas that when the Messenger of Allah (swt) sent Mu’az to Yemen he said: “You will be appointed over tribes from the people of the Book so let the first matter you call them to be the worship of Allah (swt). If they recognised Allah (swt) then inform them that Allah (swt) has obliged on them five prayers in the day and night. If they did that tell them that Allah (swt) obliged on them Zakat which is taken from their wealthy people and paid to their poor people. If they obeyed, take (Zakat) from them and stay away from their best property”
In another narration, they added: “And protect yourself of the prayer (du’a) of the wronged (person), for there is no barrier between it and Allah (swt).”
He (saw), on some occasions, appointed specific people to deal with financial matters. Every year he (saw) would send ‘Abdullah ibn Ruwahah to the Jews of Khayber to assess their fruits. Al-Muwatta mentioned, “that the Messenger (saw) used to send Abdullah ibn Ruwahah to assess their fruits between him and them. Then he would say: if you would like, this is for you, or if you like it is for me. They used to take it”
Salman ibn Yassar said, ‘They gathered some of their women’s jewellery. Then they said: “This is for you and reduce from us and tolerate in the division”. Abdullah ibn Ruwahah said, “O’ people of the Jews! By Allah, from amongst the creatures of Allah (swt) hate you most, but this will not drive me to oppress you. As for the bribe you offered me it is illegal property (Suht) and we do not eat (take) it”. They said: By this (justice) the heavens and the Ardh (earth) stand.”
He (saw) used to inquire about the situation of the Walis and ‘Amils and he used to listen to what is reported to him of their news. He removed ‘Alaa ibn Al-Hadhrami who was his ‘Amil over Bahrain because a delegate from ‘Abd Qays complained about him. Ibn Sa’ad said, Mohammed Ibn Omar said: I was told from Amru ibn Awf, the ally of Bani Aamer ibn Luai that the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Al-Alaa ibn Al-Hadhrami to Al-Bahrain, then he removed him from it, and sent Iban ibn Said as an Amil over it. Mohammed ibn Omar said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) had written to Al-Alaa ibn Al-Hadhrami to come to him together with twenty men of Abd Qais, so he came to him with them. Their leader was Abdullah ibn Awf Al-As and Al-Alaa appointed over Al-Bahrain after him Al-Munzir ibn Sawa. The delegation complained of Al-Alaa ibn Al-Hadhrami. So the Messenger of Allah (saw) removed him and appointed Iban ibn Said Al-Aas and said to him, “take care of Abd Al-Qais and respect their leaders”
He (saw) used to receive the full (financial) accounts of the Amils and would enquire about their revenues and expenses.
Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Abi Hammeed As-Saidi that the Prophet (saw) appointed Ibn Al-Lutbiyyah over the Sadaqat of Bani Saleem. When he returned back to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he revised accounts with him, he said: ‘This is what is yours, and this is a gift to me.’ The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Won’t you stay in your parents’ home and see if you get your present, if you say the truth ?”
Then the Messenger of Allah (saw) stood preaching to the people. So he praised Allah and glorified Him and said: “After all I appoint some men of you over some affairs in which Allah gave me authority. Then someone amongst you comes and says: This is for you and this is a gift given to me. Had he not sat in his fathers’s and mother’s home so as his gift comes to him if he says the truth. By Allah, no one of you would take of them (the Sadaqat) anything unduly but comes to Allah carrying it on the Day of Judgement. Beware, I will know any man who comes to Allah with a camel that brays and a cow that is mooing and a sheep that bleats. Then he raised his hands till I could see the whiteness of his armpits. Didn’t I convey?” Abu Dawud narrated from Bareeda from the prophet (saw), he said: “Whoever we appointed in his job and we provided him (some funds), so whatever he took unduly would be ghalool (misappropriation).
The people of Yemen complained of the length of Mua’z’s prayer, so the prophet (saw) restrained him. Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Abi Masoud Al-Ansari, he said: A man said: ‘O Messenger of Allah (saw) I hardly attend the (Jama’a) prayer, because so and so person makes it long. As a response I have never seen the Prophet (saw) in any preaching more angry than he was then. He said: O people! You drive the people away. So whoever becomes Imam to the people let him lighten (the prayer), for there are amongst them the sick, the weak and the one who has a pressing need.’ In another narration by Muslim from Jabir, he (saw) said, “… O’ Mua’z! Are you a seducer (Fattan)…?”
He (saw) used to appoint judges to judge between the people. He appointed Ali ibn Abi Talib as a judge over Yemen. He also dispatched Mu‘az ibn Jabal and Abu Musa Al-Ashari as judges to Yemen. He asked the two of them: “By what would you judge? They replied that if they did not find the rule in the Book or the Sunnah then they would measure the matter with another, and they would act with that which is closer to the truth.” The Prophet (saw) consented with that, which indicates that he (saw) chose the judges and checked their method of judging.
He (saw) used to look after the affairs of the people and he appointed secretaries as heads of the departments. So Ali ibn Abi Talib was the secretary of agreements and peace treaties. Muaiqeeb ibn Abi Fatima was in charge of the Prophet’s official seal and he was the secretary for booty. Huzayfah ibn Al-Yaman used to assess the fruits of the Hijaz and Zubair ibn Al-Awaam used to record the funds of the Sadaqat, and Al-Mughira ibn Shu’abah used to record the debts and transactions, and Shurahbeel ibn Hasanah used to write the letters to the leaders of other States. So he appointed a secretary for each of the interests, however numerous these were. He (saw) used to make many consultations with his companions and he did not prevent himself from consulting the people of opinion and vision and those whom he witnessed of their intellect and honour, and showed their strong Iman and sacrifice in calling for Islam. There were seven people from the Quraish and seven from the Muhajireen who were: Hamza, Abu Bakr, Jafar, Umar, Ali, Ibn Masood, Salman, Amaar, Huzayfah, Abu Dharr, Al-Miqdad and Bilal. Ahmed narrated from Ali, he said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah (swt) say: “There was no prophet before me who was not given seven intelligent assistant chiefs, and I was given fourteen intelligent assistant chiefs, seven from Quraish and seven from Al-Muhajireen.” In another narration by Ahmed from Ali, he mentioned the names …Hamzah, Jafar, Ali, Hassan, Hussein, Abu-Bakr, Umar, Al-Miqdad, Abdullah ibn Masood, Abu Dharr, Huzaifah, Salmaan, Ammar and Bilal.
He (saw) also used to seek advice from other than these people, but these people mentioned are the ones he sought opinion from extensively. They were effectively the Majlis Ash-Shura (Consultative assembly). He (saw) put on the Muslims and others certain funds, on fruits and livestock which are: Zakat, Ushr, Fai, Kharaj, Jizya. The funds of spoils and booties were due to the Bait-Ul-Mal. Zakat was distributed on the eight types of people mentioned in the Qur’an and it was not given to other than them nor was it used to manage the affairs of the state. Funds for looking after the affairs of the people used to be from the revenues of Fai, Kharaj, Jizya and Booty, which were sufficient for running the state and preparing the army, thus the state did not feel that it had a shortage of funds.
In this way the Prophet (saw) established the structure of the Islamic state and he completed it in his life. He was the leader of the state and had assistants, Walis, judges, army, directors of departments, and a Majlis for Shura. This framework in its structure and functions is a method that must be followed. As a whole, it is proved by Tawatur (definitive transmission). The Prophet (saw) performed the actions of the leader of a state from the moment he arrived in Madina until his death, and Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were his assistants. The Sahabah consented after him on establishing a leader for the state who would succeed the Prophet (saw) in the leadership of the state only, and not in Messengership or Prophethood because he (saw) was the seal of the Prophets. Thus the Messenger (saw) established the whole structure of the state in his lifetime and he left behind the shape of ruling and complete structure of the state.
Abu Ismael al-Beirawi
Exposing the call for the reformation of Islam - Part 3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)