Electing someone to rule by Kufr

Sahl b. Sa’d as-Saa’idi (ra) who said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Islam began as something strange, and it shall return to being something strange, so give glad tidings to the strangers.” It was asked, "Who are those strangers, O Messenger of Allah?" He replied, “Those that correct the people when they become corrupt.” [At-Tabarani in al-Kabeer]

The resurgence of the Islamic Ummah and her demands to return to the Islamic way of life on all her affairs has become apparent for all the people to witness. This has manifest itself in revival of Islam as a political Deen, which seeks to implement itself. In fact the discussion that Islam is political and the need for an Islamic State in order to apply the Islamic rules and laws that have been detailed in the Quran and the Sunnah are foregone conclusions. The revival of Islam started as something “strange” in the new secular world order but is now whole-heartedly adopted by the Muslim Ummah as her cause.

However certain confusions still exist within certain elements of the Muslim Ummah who whilst sincere in their efforts and noble in there goals have failed to understand their error of the path they are upon. They are those who cannot distinguish between the Elections as a process of determining the consent of the masses in its selection of a ruler and Democracy.

Democracy: The Rule of Man versus the Rule of Allah

Democracy in principle means that man has a free hand at determining rules and laws as he pleases and he is in total control of this i.e. he is sovereign master of himself. Hence man can decided to enact a piece of legislation that pleases him, so for example in some Muslim countries (including Indonesia) they closed down the nightclubs for Ramadhan and re-open them after Ramadhan was over! Or there is legislation that is still being considered in Bangladesh as to whether to legalise prostitution. Or in the West they have been having trouble deciding whether to permit Homosexual relationships at sixteen or eighteen, whether to have an unelected chamber that can accept or reject legislation, etc.

The point is the principle that that they feel they have the right to decide whether man should interact with the opposite sex and fornicate freely or not, how to we regulate the rules and laws that Man determines etc. The fundamental principle here being that man possesses the right to legislate and make rules and laws. Practically individuals are appointed in Parliaments and legislative houses to debate, scrutinise and enact law. The basis of legislation is the majority decision of these selected people, who will vote according to their own personal experiences, their party line, their business interests (More often than not) and the like.

This is something that is contradictory to the very foundations of Islam and its basic beliefs i.e. that Allah is the sovereign master and the only one with the right of determining legislation and rules and laws as He pleases and the rest of creation including mankind had no right except to Hear and Obey the orders of Allah.

Allah (swt) says in the holy qu'ran:

إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ

“The right of Rule is solely for Allah.”(Surah Yusuf verse 40).

Establishing clearly that He is the sole legislator. In fact it is a principle of Aqeeda that Allah is the source of all of Ahkam (laws).

Allah (swt) states Surah al Maida verse 44:

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

“And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then such are the kafireen (disbelievers) ”

Ibn Abbas (ra) stated in his Tafseer of this verse that anybody who denies a definitive judgement of Allah contained in the Shariah then such a person is a Kafir. Ibn Jarir at Tabari says that this is agreed upon. Ibn Abbas (ra) went on to say that anyone who says that the Rule of Allah does not have to be established then he is a Kafir. The one who says that the rule of man is better than the Rule of Allah then he is a Kafir. The one who states that the rules of man are just as good as the Rule of Allah then he is a Kafir. He also said that the one who does not deny Allah’s (swt) Hukm but believes that it is allowed to rule by other than what Allah has revealed then he is a Kafir because he is denying that the right of Rule is solely for Allah. This is the case even if he says that the rule of Allah is better than the rule that such a person is implementing. However if someone rules by the rules of Kufr i.e. by other than Islam and does not believe in them but rather he hates them and believes what he is doing is a major sin. Then such a person has committed Kufr doon Kufr a Kufr which is less than Kufr i.e. a major sin which is definitely haram but is not a Kafir. This is the soundest position in my view but others have held different positions.

Ibn al-Qayyim said: "The correct view is that ruling according to something other than that which Allah has revealed includes both major and minor Kufr, depending on the position of the judge. If he believes that it is obligatory to rule according to what Allah has revealed in this case, but he turns away from that out of disobedience, whilst acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment, then this is lesser Kufr. But if he believes that it is not obligatory and that the choice is his even though he is certain that this is the ruling of Allah, then this is major Kufr." [Madaarij as-Saaliheen, 1/336-337]

Al Hafidh Ibn Katheer (ra) in his tafseer of verse 151 of Surah an Nisa made reference to the Tarters at his time, “…who put together for them a law book extracted from different laws of the Jews, the Christians and the Deen of Islam. It also contained many rules taken only from their own opinion and desires that later became a system of law followed by the people and given precedence over the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of his Messenger (saw) so the ruler who does that is a Kafir.” [Tafseerul Quran ul Atheeem, Ibn Kathir]

Ibn Taymiyyah said: "Undoubtedly, whoever does not believe that it is obligatory to rule according to that which Allah has revealed to His Messenger is a Kafir, and whoever thinks it is permissible to rule among people according to his own opinions, turning away and not following which Allah has revealed is also a Kafir...So in matters which are common to the Ummah as a whole, it is not permissible to rule or judge according to anything except the Quran and Sunnah. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE PEOPLE FOLLOW THE WORDS OF A SCHOLAR OR AMEER OR SHAYKH OR KING. Whoever believes that he can judge between people according to any such thing, and does not judge between them according to the Quran and Sunnah is a Kafir." [Minhaj as-Sunnah, 5/130-132]

Ash-Shawkani said in one of his essays:

a)That referring for judgement to Taghoot (evil i.e. non Islam) constitutes major Kufr.

b) That referring for judgement to Taghoot is just one of a number of actions of Kufr, each of which in its own is sufficient to condemn the one who does it as a Kafir.

c) He gives examples of Kufr, such as people agreeing to deny women their rights of inheritance and their persisting in co-operating in that, and he states that is major kufr. [Ar-Rasaa'il as-Salafiyah by Ash-Shawkani, pg. 33-34]

Whilst the position that we adopt is not quite as harsh as that adopted by Ibn Katheer it makes it clear that any notion of ruling or supporting a ruler or ruling authority, or voting for political party that will endorse the rules or legislation of other than Islam is something definitely haram.

This should make it clear that voting or taking part in elections in a democratic system for any of the Kufr parties is something that is Haram and Kufr regardless of the benefit (Maslaha) or the perceived fruits of doing so. This is something that in principle is in conflict with the very Aqeeda of the Muslim.

Imam Shatibi (ra) said in his al Muwaffaqaat fee Usul al Ahkam volume page 25, “The Objective behind the Shariah is to liberate the individuals from his desires in order to be a true slave of Allah and that is the legitimate Maslaha (Benefit)…Violating the Shariah under the pretext of following the basic objectives or values (maqasid) of the Shariah is like the one who cares about the spirit without the body, and since the body without the spirit is useless, therefore the spirit without the body is useless to.”

Elections

Hence voting for any political party which is going to work within a democratic framework and vote for or against legislation in a parliament regardless of the apparent credentials is haram. As for voting a secular party in the Western systems then regardless of noble goal and the correctness of the intention this is something that contradicts the foundations of what it means to being a Muslim and without shadow of a doubt is something that is Haram.

This does not mean that in principle elections are not permitted but rather election in order to gain the consent of the Ummah or the representation of the Muslims as a whole in selecting the Majlis of the Ummah (the consultative body of the Muslims, which is one element of the ruling framework of Islam) or in the election of the Khaleefah, the leader of the Muslims.

The Bayah tul Harb (the Pledge of War) that instituted the Prophet (saw) in authority in Madinah demonstrates this point.

According to the narration’s in Ibn Hisham as authenticated by Ibn Katheer the Prophet (saw) asked the twelve tribes of the Aws and the Khazraj to, “Bring forth for me twelve representatives from amongst yourselves”.

They then appointed their twelve Nuqabah (representatives) who gave the Prophet their support (Nussrah) and allegiance (saw) on behalf of the rest of the people. So it is a permitted style to utilise elections as a mechanism to appoint the Khaleefah as the leader of the Muslims.

Indeed it would more than likely be one of the mechanisms the Khilafah whose return is imminent insha-Allah, would utilise as it facilitates the expression of the opinion of the masses. Imam Muslim narrates in his Saheeh that Umar ibn al Khattab (ra) when he was the Khaleefah of the Muslims was returning from an expedition when he overheard the Muslims saying that when Umar (ra) passes away that they would appoint such and such to which concerned him. So he called for a gathering of all the Muslims including the Sahabah (ra) in which he stated that the one appoints someone in authority without consulting the Muslims then kill him and kill the one who he appointed!

This was something which all the Muslims including the Sahabah (ra) witnessed yet although he permitted the spillage of Muslim blood they acknowledged the truth of the statement, which demonstrated the Ijma of the Sahabah (Agreement of the companions that the statement was a Shariah rule which the prophet [saw] informed them of). This made it clear that the masses must select the ruler and not the opinion of a minority faction.

Today however we are living without the Khilafah and the right of Muslims in appointing and selecting the Amir of the Mumineen has been taken away and the tyrant rulers have been appointed by the Kuffar who promote the secular democratic and autocratic systems in our land.
So we are required to work to remove them and give Bayah to Khaleefah so that this right of selecting the ruler can be returned to the Ummah.

Imam al Ghazali (ra) when writing of the consequences of losing the Khilafah stated

“The Judges are suspended, the wilayaat (authorities) are nullified, marriages are void, the decrees of those in authority can not be executed and all humans are on the verge of Haram”. [al Iqtisad fil Itiqad page 240]

Allah (swt) says in the Quran:

وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ

أَنْ يَفْتِنُوكَ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ

“So rule between them by what Allah has revealed and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that has come to you”[Al Maidah 5:49]

Clarifying the issue of Taqleed

Taqleed

Taqleed linguistically is following others without scrutiny. It is said 'he imitated him in such and such' i.e. he followed him without scrutiny or examination. Legally, Taqleed is acting according to the statements of others without a binding proof or argument, such as the layman's adoption of the opinion of a Mujtahid. Or the Mujtahid's adoption of the opinion of someone of the same stature as him.

Taqleed is forbidden in Aqeeda

Taqleed (imitation) in the 'Aqeeda (creed) is not allowed because Allah (swt) has censured the Muqallids (imitators) in 'Aqeeda. This is a censure for imitation in belief and not in the adoption of the Shari'ah rules. This is because the subject matter of the verses concerns belief. Its text is specific to the subject of belief and they have no 'illah (reason). He (swt) said:

“When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah has sent down." They say: "Nay! We shall follow what we found our fathers following." (Would they do that!) even though their fathers did not understand anything nor were they guided?” [TMQ 2:170]

And He (swt) said:

'And when it is said to them: "Come to what Allah has revealed and unto the Messenger (Muhammad [saw] for the verdict of that which you have made unlawful)." They say: "Enough for us is that which we found our fathers following," even though their fathers had no knowledge whatsoever and no guidance.” [TMQ 5:104]

“And similarly, We sent not a warner before you (O Muhammad [saw]) to any town (people) but the luxurious ones amongst them said: "We found our fathers following a certain way and religion, and indeed we will indeed follow their footsteps." (The warner) said: "Even if I bring you better guidance than that which you found your fathers following?" They said: “verily, we disbelieve in that with which you have been sent.”’ [TMQ 43:23-24]

And His (swt) saying:

“When those who were followed disown (declare themselves innocent of) those who followed (them), and they see the torment, then all their relations will be cut off from them. When those who followed will say: "if only we had one more chance to return (to the worldly life), we would disown (declare themselves ourselves as innocent from) them as they have disowned (declared themselves as innocent from) us." Thus Allah will show them their deeds as regrets for them. And they will never get out of the Fire.” [TMQ 2:166-167]

And Allah (swt) saying:

“When he said to his father and his people: “what are these images, to which you are devoted?” They said: "we found our fathers worshipping them."' [TMQ 21:52]

These verses are texts clearly concerning the subject of belief (Iman) and disbelief (Kufr) and nothing else. This text does not include any 'illah nor is there any reasoning found in any other text. Therefore, it should not be said that what matters is the generality of the wording and not the specificity of the cause. This principle is correct with respect to the cause (Sabab). It is the incident that is the cause of revelation but it is not correct regarding the subject matter of the verse. The consideration is the subject matter of the verse and the generality ('Umum) is restricted to the subject of the verse only. It is general to everything concerning the subject matter in the meaning of the verse and not to anything that the verse does not include. Nor should it be said it concerns belief and disbelief, but it is correct to interpret it as applicable to the Muqallidin considering that the Hukm revolves around the presence or absence of an illah. This cannot be claimed since no 'illah can be found in the Ayah and no 'illah can be found for the Ayah. There is no justification and no justification has come for it in any of the texts of the Kitab and Sunnah. Thus no text can be found which prohibits Taqleed. Rather the texts and the reality of the Muslims in the time of the Messenger (saw) and Sahaba indicate the permissibility of practising Taqleed.

Taqleed is not the basis

Islam has forbidden us from following any path other than the path of ‘Ilm: “And follow not that of which you have no knowledge. Verily! The hearing, and the sight, and the heart, of each of those you will be questioned (by Allah).” [TMQ 17:36]

From this it becomes clear that the basis in every matter of the Sharee’ah, whether we are ordered to do something or forbidden from a matter, is that we should arrive at knowledge of its hukm through one of the paths of knowledge. If the mukallaf (legally responsible) is unable to do that then he is obliged to study the matter to arrive at a preponderant view in an issue.

Taqleed does not bring us to any definite knowledge or preponderant view and that is why many scholars did not allow it except for the weak and compelled. He is the layman who does not have the tools of ijtihad. This is what they obliged and permitted him to ask for a fatwa and imitate that.

As for the rest the basis is they should exert the effort to deduce the Hukm, this is better though it is allowed for him to make taqleed as we have clarified previously.

Those who do not have the ability for ijtihad are of two types:

1. Muqallid Muttabi’ (follower): He is the one who has knowledge of the some of the recognized disciplines in the Sharee’ah and evidences but it is not enough for him to make ijtihad. That is why it is allowed for him to make taqleed but with knowledge of the daleel used by the Mujtahid he follows.

2. Muqallid Ammi (layman): The layman who does not have the knowledge of the evidences and even some of the recognized disciples in legislation, for him the fatwah of an Imam is sufficient. He can ask him for hukm and get an answer as to ether it is halal or haram.

The evidence for Taqleed in the Shariah rules

Taqleed in the Shar’ai rules is legally permitted for every Muslim. Allah (SWT) said:

“So ask the people of the Reminder (ahl al-zikr) if you do not know.” [TMQ 21:7]

He (swt) has ordered the one who does not have the knowledge to ask the one who is more knowledgeable than him. Even though these verses came in the context of replying to those who rejected the Messenger (saw) as a human being. However the wording of the Ayah is general and what matters are the generality of the wording and not the specificity of the cause (Al-'ibra bi 'umum al-lafz laa bi khususiyyat al-sabab). Moreover, it is not about a specific subject, it is general about the request from those who do not know to ask those who do know. For it requests the Mushrikeen to ask the People of the Book to teach them that Allah (swt) has not sent to previous nations messengers who were not human beings. They were ignorant of this information so He (swt) ordered them to ask those who know. The Ayah states:

“And We sent not before you (O Muhammad [saw]) but men to whom We revealed. So ask the people of the Reminder (Scriptures – the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel) if you do not know.” [TMQ 21:7]

The word 'fas'alu' (ask!) has come with a general import i.e. ask in order to learn that Allah (swt) has not sent anyone to preceding nations other than human beings. It is related to knowledge and not to belief (Iman). Although the people of Zikr mentioned in the verse are the People of the Book, the term came in a general manner and it includes all people of Zikr, whether Muslims or non-Muslims. The Muslims are the people of Zikr because the Qur'an is a Zikr. He (swt) said:

“And We have also sent down to you (O Muhammad [saw]) the Zikr (reminder and advice [i.e. the Qur’an]), that you may explain clearly to men that which was sent down to them, and that they may give thought.” [TMQ 16:44]

So those who know the Shari'ah rules are the people of Zikr whether they had gained knowledge by Ijtihad or acquired knowledge. Ahl al-zikr in this ayah refers to the people of knowledge, regardless as to whether they actually know the correct ruling of an issue or not, provided they have the capacity to investigate and find out. [Amidi, Ihkam, IV, 206; Kassab, Adwa', p. 121.]

The Muqallid only asks for the rule of Allah (swt) in an issue or issues. Therefore, the ayah indicates the permissibility of practising Taqleed.

It has also been narrated on the authority of Jabir (ra): “a man was struck by a stone that fractured his skull. Then he had a wet dream. He asked his companions - do you know of a permit (Rukhsa) for me to perform Tayammum (dry ablution)? - They said - we do not find any permit for you and you can use water. He then had a bath and died. The Prophet (saw) said: “Verily, it would have sufficed for him to make Tayammum, so tie a piece of cloth around his head and wipe over it and wash the rest of his body.' And the Prophet (saw) said: 'why did they not ask when they did not know. Indeed, the cure for inability and lack of knowledge is to ask.” [Abu Dawud: 275, Ibn Majah: 565, Ahmad: 2898] The Messenger (saw) instructed them to ask about the Hukm Shar'ai.

It has been authentically reported that al-Sha'bi said: ‘there were six companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) who used to deliver legal opinions to the people. Ibn Mas'ud (ra), 'Umar b. al-Khattab (ra), 'Ali b. Abi Talib (ra), Zayd b. Thabit (ra), Ubayy b. Ka'b (ra), and Abu Musa (ra). Three used to leave their opinion for the opinion of the other three. Ibn Mas’ud used to leave his opinion for 'Umar's opinion, Abu Musa used to leave his opinion for the opinion of 'Ali and Zayd used to leave his opinion for the opinion of Ubayy b. Ka’b.’ This also indicates that the Muslims used to imitate the Sahaba and some of them used to imitate each other.

Allah (swt) said: “And it is not (proper) for the believers to go out to fight (jihad) all together. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they (who are left behind) may get instructions in the Deen, and that they may warn their people when they return to them, so that they may beware (of evil).” [TMQ 9:122]

Ordering them to beware when they warned by their scholars would not be possible if taqleed was not allowed. Thus, taqleed is allowed in every matter without specification except in beliefs which must be definite and not speculative.

Taqleed is applicable to the follower (Muttabi') and to the layman ('Ammi) irrespective. That is because Allah (swt) has defined Taqleed as following the opinion of someone else. He (swt) said:

“When those who were followed disown (declare themselves innocent of) those who followed (them).” [TMQ 2:166]

The Hukm Shar'ai that a person adopts, either he has deduced it himself or someone else has deduced it. If he himself deduces it then he is a Mujtahid and if someone else deduces it and he adopts it then he has adopted the opinion of someone else i.e. followed the opinion of someone else. This is Taqleed whether he adopted the Hukm without proof or with a non-binding proof, the Muttabi' (follower) therefore is a Muqallid. Ittiba'a (following someone else) means that you follow the opinion of a Mujtahid based on what has become clear to a Muslim in terms of evidence without passing judgement on this evidence i.e. without being bound by this proof. If the Muslim passes judgement on the evidence, knows the method of deducing the Hukm from it and agrees to the inference of the Hukm and the Hukm itself then the proof on which the Hukm rests has become binding on him. Then the opinion has been adopted as the opinion of that Muslim as it is the opinion of a Mujtahid. In this case the Muslim has become a Mujtahid and not a Muqallid. From this it becomes clear that Ittiba'a (following) is Taqleed and that the follower (Muttabi') is a Muqallid even though he knows the evidence.


The reality of Taqleed

The definition of Taqleed, linguistically and legally, indicates that anyone who follows others in a particular matter is a Muqallid. So what matters is following others. Therefore, there are two types of people regarding knowledge of the Shari'ah rules - the Mujtahid and the Muqallid and no other as the reality of the Muslim is that he either adopts what he has arrived at himself by his Ijtihad or what the other has arrived at by his Ijtihad. The issue is limited to these two cases. Therefore, anyone who is not a Mujtahid is a Muqallid of whatever category. The issue in Taqleed is the adoption of the rule from others irrespective of whether the one who adopted is a Mujtahid or not. It is acceptable for the Mujtahid to imitate other Mujtahidin in a particular issue even if he is qualified to do Ijtihad. Then he would be considered a Muqallid in this issue. Thus, in a single Hukm the imitator (Muqallid) may or may not be a Mujtahid, but the same person may be Mujtahid and Muqallid at the same time.

When the Mujtahid gains complete competence (Ahliyya) for Ijtihad in any issue and performs Ijtihad on it that leads him to derive a Hukm, he is not allowed to imitate other Mujtahidin in a matter contrary to what his Ijtihad has led him to. He cannot abandon his opinion in this matter except in four cases:

(1) When it appears that the evidence (Daleel) on which he relied in his Ijtihad is weak (Da'if) and the evidence of another Mujtahid is stronger than the evidence he used. In such a case he is obliged to leave at once the Hukm to which his Ijtihad had led and adopt the Hukm proven stronger by evidence. It is forbidden for him to continue adopting the first Hukm, which he had reached, by his own Ijtihad. He is not prevented from adopting a new Hukm simply because a new Mujtahid was the only one to hold such an opinion, or because this Hukm has not been expounded by anyone before. That goes against Taqwa (the fear of Allah [swt]) because the consideration is the strength of evidence, not the number of Mujtahidin who held it or how ancient they are. There have been many an Ijtihad derived by the Sahaba whose errors later became apparent to the Tabi'in or Tabi'-Tabi'in. W­­hen the weakness of his evidences and the strength of someone else’s evidences becomes apparent through outweighing (Tarajjuh), without considering all evidences and the inference from them, in such a situation the Mujtahid will be considered a Muqallid, because he has adopted the opinion of someone else through outweighing evidences (Tarjeeh). This example is that of the Muqallid who is confronted with two Hukms, so he gives preference to one of them according to a Shari'ah qualification (Murajjih Shar'ai). If the weakness of his evidence and the strength of someone else's evidence becomes apparent through judgement (Muhakama), pursuance (Tatabbu') and inference (Istinbat) through which he arrives at an opinion which is the opinion of another person he is not a Muqallid but a Mujtahid to whom the errors within the first Ijtihad became apparent. So he retracts it in preference to another opinion that he has deduced as happened with Imam al-Shafi'i on a number of occasions.

(2) When it appears that another Mujtahid has a greater capacity to link or has better awareness of the reality, or stronger comprehension of the evidences or is more acquainted with the textual evidences (Adilla Sam'iyya) etc. He takes the preference that the other Mujtahid is closer to the truth in understanding a specific issue or issues as they are. It is then allowed for him to leave the Hukm he has reached through his Ijtihad and follow the Mujtahid in whose Ijtihad he has greater confidence than his own. As was mentioned earlier it has been reported on the authority of al-Sha'bi that Abu Musa (ra) used to leave his opinion for the opinion of 'Ali (ra), that Zayd (ra) used to leave his opinion for the opinion of Ubay b. Ka'b (ra) and that 'Abdullah (ra) used to leave his opinion for the opinion of 'Umar (ra). Incidents have been reported about Abu Bakr (ra) and 'Umar (ra) that they used to leave their opinion for the opinion of 'Ali (ra). This indicates the retraction of a Mujtahid from his opinion for the opinion of someone else based on his trust in the Ijtihad of the other Mujtahid. However, this is permitted for the Mujtahid and not obligatory.

(3) If the Khalifah adopts a Hukm which conflicts with the Hukm arrived at through his Ijtihad, then he is obliged to leave the conclusion of his Ijtihad and take the Hukm which the Imam (leader) has adopted, because the Ijma'a of the Sahaba has taken place on the fact that 'the order of the imam settles disputes' and that his order is to be implemented on all Muslims.

(4) If there is an opinion by which it is intended to unify the Muslims, for their own good, in such a situation it is then allowed for the Mujtahid to leave the conclusion of his Ijtihad, as happened with Uthman (ra) when he was given the Bay'ah. It has been reported about 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Awf (ra) that after he consulted the people individually and in twos, together and separately, secretly and openly he then gathered the people in the Mosque, ascended the Minbar and made a long supplication. He then called 'Ali (r.a), took hold of his hand and said: ‘do you pledge to me that you will rule according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) and the opinions held after him (saw) by Abu Bakr And 'Umar?’ Ali (ra) replied: ‘I pledge to you on the basis of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger but I will exercise my own Ijtihad.’ So ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Awf (ra) let go of his hand and called for 'Uthman (ra) and said to him: ‘do you pledge to me that you will rule according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger and the opinions held after him (saw) by Abu Bakr And 'Umar?' Uthman (ra) replied: ‘By Allah yes!’ So 'Abd al-Rahman (ra) raised his head towards the roof of the Mosque, his hand in Uthman's hand, and said three times: ‘O Allah, hear and bear witness!’ Then he gave Uthman (ra) the pledge and the people thronged to the mosque to give Bay'ah to him making Ali (ra) push his way through the people until he gave his pledge to 'Uthman (ra). Thus, 'Abd al-Rahman (ra) demanded from a Mujtahid, 'Ali and 'Uthman that they leave their own Ijtihad and follow the Ijtihad of Abu Bakr (ra) and 'Umar (ra), irrespective of whether or not each exercised his own Ijtihad with regards it and had opinions which contradicted the opinions of both or one of them, or he had not exercised Ijtihad as yet. The Sahaba concurred with this and they gave Bay'ah to 'Uthman (ra) on that basis. Even 'Ali (ra) who refused to leave his Ijtihad, gave Bay'ah to 'Uthman (ra) on that basis. However, this is permitted for the Mujtahid and not obligatory as evidenced by the refusal of Ali (ra) to leave his Ijtihad for the Ijtihad of Abu Bakr (ra) and 'Umar (ra). No one rebuked him for that, which indicates that it is permitted and not obligatory.

All of this is with respect to the Mujtahid who has actually exercised Ijtihad and his Ijtihad has led to a ruling on an issue. As for the Mujtahid who has not exhausted Ijtihad on an issue, it is allowed for him to follow other Mujtahidin and not make Ijtihad on the issue since Ijtihad is an obligation of sufficiency (Fard 'ala al-kifaya) and not an individual obligation (Fard 'ayn). If he already knows the Hukm of Allah (swt) on an issue then it is not an obligation on the Mujtahid to make Ijtihad with regards to it. It has been correctly reported about 'Umar (ra) that he said to Abu Bakr (ra): 'We hold opinions in accordance with your opinion.' It has also been correctly reported about 'Umar (ra) that when he found himself completely at a loss to find in the Qur'an and Sunnah what was needed when two disputing parties come to him, he would see if Abu Bakr (ra) had made a decision in the matter. If he found that Abu Bakr (ra) had passed a certain judgement on the issue he would pass the same judgement. It has been authentically reported about Ibn Mas'ud (ra) that he used to adopt the opinion of 'Umar (ra). This often occurred before the eyes and ears of the Sahaba in numerous incidents and no one objected. Thus, it became a tacit Ijma'a (Ijma'a sukuti).

This is the reality of the Mujtahid's practice of Taqleed. As for the Taqleed of the non-Mujtahid whether he is a learned person or a layman, when an issue presents itself to him, he is not permitted do anything other than ask about it since Allah (swt) is not worshipped by His creation through ignorance, rather their worship is through knowledge. He (swt) said:

“So be afraid of Allah; and Allah teaches you.” [TMQ 2:282]

i.e. Allah (swt) teaches you whatever the case may be, so fear Him. So knowledge comes before the Taqwa (fear of Allah), since the order to fear Allah (swt) follows from the acquisition of knowledge in a natural manner, that knowledge is given precedence over action. Just as when He (swt) said: “Fear Allah.”

Thus it comes to the mind of the Muslim what Taqwa should be like. He (swt) said: “And Allah teaches you so fear Him.”

As knowledge must be given precedence over action, it becomes Fard on the Muslim to learn those rules of Allah (swt) are necessary for action before he acts since it is not possible for the Muslim to act upon these rules without knowledge. This knowledge of the rules requires the Muslim to ask about them in order to adopt the Hukm and act upon it, and through this knowledge he will follow that Hukm. He (swt) said:

“So ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know.” TMQ 21:7]

This is general instruction to all those who have been addressed. The Messenger (saw) said in the Hadith about the person whose skull had been fractured: “Indeed, the cure for inability and lack of knowledge.” During the time of the Sahaba the Ummah continued to ask the Mujtahidin for their opinions and followed them in the Shar’ai rules. The Mujtahidin continued to answer the questions of the Ummah without reference to any textual evidences and they were not forbidden from doing so nor were any objections raised to these actions. Thus it was an Ijma'a. This was common practice in the time of the Tabi'in and Tabi-tabi'in, and thousands of incidents have been reported to that effect.

Just as it is allowed for the learned person or layman to follow others in the Shar’ai rule i.e. it is permitted to ask others, so it is permitted for him to teach this Shar’ai rule to others as he understands it once he is sure that he has understood it correctly, and he has adopted this Shar’ai rule to act upon it himself. If he does not trust this rule due to lack of confidence in the authenticity of the evidence or lack of trust in the character (Deen) of the one who has taught it to him, then he cannot teach it to others in order to act upon it. Rather he should state that which he knows about the rule when he discusses it. It is permitted for the one who learns a Hukm to teach it to others because anyone who has knowledge of even a single issue is considered knowledgeable about that issue, when the trust in his knowledge of the Hukm and the veracity of what he has said about the issue is confirmed. The concealment of knowledge is forbidden. The Prophet (saw) said: “Whosoever hides the knowledge which he knows, he will be restrained on the Day of Judgement with a bridle of fire.” This is general and is applicable to knowledge of one or many issues.

However, the learned person (Muta'allim) is not considered a follower of the one who has taught him the Hukm. He is seen as a Muqallid of the Mujtahid who has deduced the Shari'ah rule, and the learning of this Hukm is considered only as learning, as Taqleed can only be made to a Mujtahid and not to someone who only has knowledge of a Hukm. However much a non-Mujtahid attains in terms of knowledge, it is not permitted to make Taqleed to him in his capacity as learned person because he is not a Mujtahid.

The Muqallid is not given a choice when a difference of opinion arises, when for instance the Mujtahidun differ on two opinions. Some people think that two opinions with respect to a Muqallid are tantamount to one opinion. They think he has the right to choose between them, follow his whims and desires and thus choose whatever he wants rather than whatever goes against it. However, the situation is not like that since the Muslim is ordered to adopt Hukm Shar’ai. The Hukm Shar'ai is the address of the Legislator. There is only one (address) and there cannot be more than one. Where there is more than one understanding of the address then each understanding constitutes a Shari'ah rule with respect to the one who understands it and the one who makes Taqleed to him. Anything other than that is not considered Hukm Shar'ai with respect to him. So how is it possible then for the Muqallid to adopt two different opinions? When a Muqallid finds two opinions from the Mujtahidin that conflict with each other, then each Mujtahid is a follower of evidence that demands something different from what the evidence of the other Mujtahid demands i.e. they possess two conflicting evidences. Following one of them according to personal whims is explicitly forbidden. He (swt) said:

“Follow not the desires of your hearts.” [TMQ 4:135]

The Muqallid has no option but to perform Tarjeeh (weighing up of evidences). Two Mujtahids with respect to the layman ('Ammi) are like two evidences with respect to the Mujtahid. Just as it is obligatory for the Mujtahid to weigh up two conflicting evidences, likewise it is also incumbent on the Muqallid to weigh up two contradictory rulings. If whims and motives were allowed to arbitrate in something like this then this would also have been allowed for the judge. It is invalid according to the Ijma'a of the Sahaba. In the issues of the Qur'an there is a general control that clearly forbids the following of personal whims and desires, as in the saying of Allah (swt):

“(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger (saw).” [TMQ 4:59]

This Muqallid must refer the matter to Allah (swt) and the Messenger (saw), and this is done by referring to a qualification that Allah (swt) and the Messenger (swt) are pleased with from the Muqallid, just as the Mujtahid returns to the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw). Returning to what Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw) are pleased with has nothing to do with following personal whims and desires. The Muqallid must choose one of the two opinions and this choice must be based on a qualification which Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw) are pleased with. It is not possible for the Muqallid to act upon both opinions since they conflict. Choosing one of the two Mazhabs or one of the two different rulings without qualification is a choice based on personal whims and desires. It is contrary to returning to Allah (swt) and the Messenger (saw). The qualifications (Murajjahat) by which the Muqallid chooses one Mujtahid over another, or one Hukm over many others are - the question of best knowledge (A'lamiyya) and understanding (Fahm). It has come in the Hadith of Ibn Mas'ud that the Messenger (saw) said: 'O Abdullah b. Mas'ud. I said I am at your service and here I am.’ He (saw) said: “Do you know who are the most knowledgeable of people?” I replied: “Allah and His Messenger (saw) know best.” He (saw) said: “the most knowledgeable of people is the one most well-versed in the truth when the people differ even if he lacks in deeds and crawls on his buttocks.” Therefore, the Muqallid weighs up what he knows of the Mujtahid's knowledge and trustworthiness because trustworthiness is a condition in accepting the testimony of a witness. Giving a Hukm Shar'ai in his teaching is a testimony this is a Hukm Shar'ai. So in accepting a Hukm the integrity and trustworthiness of the teacher who teaches it is essential and the integrity of the one who deduces it is essential. So A'adala (integrity) is a stipulation required in the person from whom the hukm Shar'ai whether he is a Mujtahid or teacher. It is inevitable. As for knowledge it is a correct qualification. Whoever believes that Imam Shafi'i was more knowledgeable and his Mazhab more likely to be correct does not have the right to adopt a conflicting Mazhab according to his whims and desires. Whoever believes Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq to be more knowledgeable and his Mazhab more likely to be correct does not have the right to go against it based on his whims. He has the right, even obligatory on him to adopt that which conflicts with his Mazhab when the preponderant opinion becomes apparent after weighing up the evidence. Tarjeeh (weighing up of evidences) is certain. That this weighing up of evidences should not be based on whims and desires is also certain. The Muqallid does not have the right to pick and choose from different Mazhabs those issues more agreeable to him. Rather the required Tarjeeh is like the weighing up of two conflicting evidences for the Mujtahid. To perform Tarjeeh, the Mujtahid relies on the veracity of the information that comes with the Qara'in (indications).

The qualifying factors in Taqleed are two:

First: the general qualification, which relates to the person he wishes to follow such as Ja'far as-Sadiq and Malik b. Anas for example.

Second: the specific qualification regarding a particular one Hukm Shar'ai that he wishes to follow.

The question of best knowledge (A'lamiyya) comes in the second category. For example, if an incident had taken place in Medina in the time of Imam Malik he would be regarded as more knowledgeable about it than Imam Abu Yusuf, and an incident that took place in Kufa in the time of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq, he would be considered more knowledgeable about it than Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal. This is the case regarding particular incidents. However, regarding the one to whom the Muqallid makes Taqleed, the Muqallid will refer to the information which he has received regarding the Mujtahid.

Having the best knowledge (a'lamiyya) is not the only qualification and nor is it the qualification for taqleed in itself. Rather it is the general qualification for the one who wishes to make taqleed. And in general terms for the hukm which is intended to be followed. As for the true qualification with regards to the hukm, it is the strength of the evidence on which reliance is put. However, because the muqallid cannot understand the evidence then the criterion of best knowledge (a'lamiyya) is considered. There are many recognised qualifications which vary according to the states of the muqallids.
The states of muqallidin and their qualifications

Taqleed is the adoption of another person's opinion without a binding proof (hujja mulzima). So the acceptance of another person's opinion without a binding proof is considered taqleed just as acting according to the opinion of another without a binding proof is considered taqleed. That is like the layman's adoption of the opinion of a mujtahid, or the adoption of the mujtahid of an opinion from someone like him. Referring to the Messenger (saw) is not taqleed to him and nor is referring to the ijma' of the Sahaba taqleed to them. Because, that constitutes referring to the evidence itself and not adopting the opinion of another. Likewise, the laymen's reference to a mufti is not considered taqleed to him, rather it constitutes seeking a legal opinion and learning and not adoption. So he either refers to him, to seek a legal verdict (fatwa) or to learn, ie the reference of a layman to a learned person is not considered taqleed to him because it constitutes either inquiring about a hukm Shar'i or learning it. As for the adoption of an opinion with knowledge of its evidence, it will be looked into. If the knowledge of the evidence is mere knowledge, like knowing that visiting the graves is permitted because the Messenger (saw) said: “I used to forbid you from visiting the graves, (but now) visit them.” Then in this situation he is considered a muqallid because he has adopted the opinion of another without a binding proof even if he knew the evidence. However, he himself did not use this evidence as proof so it is not a binding proof with respect to him. As for if an understanding of the evidence was arrived at after judging it and deducing the hukm from it, it is then regarded as an ijtihad which agrees with the ijtihad of the one who initially held this opinion. Because judging the evidence and deducing the hukm from it can only be done by the mujtahid since it depends on the knowledge of outweighing the evidence and on the scrutiny of the evidences. No one has the ability to do this except the mujtahid. Therefore, the muqallid is not a mujtahid. People with regards to the hukm Shar'i are either mujtahid or muqallid and there no other category i.e. either he deduces the hukm himself whether someone else had deduced it before or he himself deduced it from the onset. Or he adopts the deduction of another mujtahid. Therefore, whoever does not have the capacity (ahliyya) for ijtihad he is a muqallid irrespective of whether he had knowledge of some of the legally recognised disciplines in ijtihad or not. So he falls under the category of muqallid 'ammi (layman) or muttabi' (one who follows a hukm with the knowledge of the evidence).

It is permitted for the muqallid, whether follower or 'ammi to adopt the opinion of any mujtahid when it is established that this opinion of his is an ijtihad, even if it was according to a solitary narration (khabar ahad). When he is confronted with an issue and he has not acquainted himself with the opinions of the mujtahidin but he knows the opinion of a single mujtahid. It is permitted for him to adopt the shari'a rule which this mujtahid had deduced because what is required from him is the adoption of a shari'a rule in an issue and not the pursuance of the opinions of mujtahids. In such an instance outweighing is not required from him. As for if he is familiar with the opinions of the mujtahidin and he wishes to adopt one of them then it will not be correct for him to do anything other than perform tarjeeh (outweighing). And this tarjeeh (outweighing) should not be according to the conformity of the hukm to his whims or apparent benefit. Since the intention of the Shari'a is to take the mukallaf (legally responsible) from the motive of his whims and desires until he is a true servant of Allah. Indeed, the tarjeeh should be according to a Shari'a qualification ie the qualification should be linked to Allah and the Messenger of Allah (saw). He (SWT) said: “(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger (saw).” [TMQ 4:59]

Referring to Allah and to His Messenger (saw) is either to the word of Allah or the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) i.e. to the shari'a evidence, either to what Allah or His Messenger (saw) has ordered. Consequently, the qualifications differ according to the different states of the muqallids. Yes, the general qualification for the layman is, subsequent to the evidence, the one who has the best knowledge (a'lamiyya) and comprehension (fahm). And this is the primary qualifications for all muqallids. However, there are different qualifications which people use to outweigh, with or without the qualification of best knowledge (a'lamiyya). So the layman follows a mujtahid according to his trust of the understanding and taqwa (God fearing) of the ones who follow him, from the people he knows, like when he trusts his father or one of the 'Ulama, so he follows the ones who follow him. This outweighing (tarjeeh) for the 'ammi (layman) is from the perspective of the deen and not the perspective of his whims. Or, another qualification is that the layman knows the shari'a rules and the evidences by attending lessons on fiqh, hadith etc. At that point he is able to distinguish between rules and their evidences. This person outweighs in taqleed according to his acquaintance with the evidence. So he follows the hukm the evidence for which he is familiar with when it contradicts a hukm the evidence for which he is not acquainted with. He will, then, have a hukm which is linked to an evidence which is preferable to a hukm which is not linked to an evidence. Those two situations apply to the layman, who is anyone who does not have knowledge of some of the recognised disciplines in ijtihad. Therefore, the layman in all of these situations when an evidence becomes manifest to him, he must leave the taqleed that is based on his trust of the knowledge and taqwa of those who follow the mujtahid whom he follows and adopt the hukm which is linked to evidence, because now he has a stronger qualification. So whoever used to follow Shafi'i or others because his father used to follow him, when the evidence of a hukm Shar'i, which had been deduced by a mujtahid other than the one he followed, becomes manifest and he believed in it. Then he must adopt that hukm due to the presence of a stronger qualification which is the Shari'a evidence. As for if he did not believe in it, then he does not have the right to leave the hukm he has been following since he has no qualification to warrant it. In the outweighing (tarjeeh), he relies on the hearing of indications (qara'in). He does not have the right – i.e. the layman - to adopt different mazhabs based on whims. And nor does he have the right to follow the mazhabs in every issue which is easier for him, rather he must seek a qualification when there is more than one understanding for the ahkam.
Moving (tanaqqul) from one mujtahid to another

Allah has not ordered us to follow any mujtahid, Imam or mazhab. Rather He ordered us to adopt the hukm Shar'i. He ordered us to adopt what the Messenger (saw) brought and to abstain from what he has forbidden us. He (SWT) said: “And whatsoever the Messenger (saw) gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it).” [TMQ 59:7] Therefore, the Shari'a does not deem it right for us except to follow the rules of Allah and not the people. However, the reality of taqleed has led to the Muslims to follow the rulings certain mujtahids whom they have assigned as imams for themselves and they adopted the rules these mujtahids have deduced by their ijtihad, as a mazhab for themselves. So the Shafi'is, Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis, Ja'faris and Zaidis etc have an actual presence amongst the Muslims. Even though these people follow the shari'a rules which have been deduced by these mujtahids, their action is legitimate because it constitutes following a Shari'a rule. As for if they followed the mujtahid as person and not his deduction, then their action is not lawful and what they follow is not considered a shari'a rule because the statement of a person is not from the orders and prohibition of Allah which have been brought to us by the Messenger of Allah Muhammad (saw). Consequently, all those who follow mazhabs must understand that they are following only the rules of Allah which have been deduced by those imams. If they have a contrary understanding, then they will be answerable to Allah for leaving the rules of Allah and following people who are themselves the servants of Allah.

This is from the perspective of following the rules of a mazhab. As for the perspective of leaving these rules, it has to be looked into. If someone adopted a hukm but has not acted upon it yet, then he has the right to leave it and adopt another hukm based on one of the qualifications which is linked to seeking the pleasure of Allah. If he, in actuality, practised it then this hukm has become a ruling of Allah with respect to him. It is not permitted for him to leave it and adopt another hukm except when the second hukm is linked with an evidence and the first hukm is not linked to an evidence. Or it was proven to him by way of instruction that the evidence of the second hukm is stronger than the first and he is convinced of that. Then it is incumbent on him to leave the first hukm and because his conviction and trust of the shari'a evidence has made it the rule of Allah with respect to him. Which is analogous to the mujtahid, when he finds an evidence stronger than the evidence from which he deduced the hukm. Then he must leave the previous opinion and adopt the new opinion due to the strength of the evidence. In any other situation, it is not allowed for the muqallid to leave the hukm he has made following and adopt a different hukm after he had already practised that first hukm.

As for making taqleed to another mujtahid for another hukm that is permitted due to the ijma' of the Sahaba which has taken place on allowing the muqallid to seek legal verdicts from any learned person in an issue. As for when the muqallid selects a mazhab such as the mazhab of Shafi'i or Ja'far for example, and he says: ‘I follow his mazhab and adhere to it’, there are some details for this. He is not allowed to follow any other mujtahid in a question he has already practised according to the mazhab he is following. In questions that he has not yet practised the relevant actions, he is allowed to follow other mujtahidin in those questions.

However, it should be made clear that the issue for which it is allowed for him to leave the hukm which he has been following for another hukm, then it is stipulated that the issue should be separate from other issues, and that leaving it does not entail infringement of other Shari'a rules. As for when the issue is connected to other issues then it is not allowed for him to leave it until he leaves all the issues connected to it, because they are all considered as one issue. For instance, if it was a condition in another hukm, or one of the pillars (arkan) of a complete action such as the prayer (salah), wudu (ablution) and pillars (arkan) of the Salah. Thus, it is not correct for a Shafi'i to follow Abu Hanifah's opinion that touching the women does not invalidate the wudu and continue praying according to the mazhab of al-Shafi'i. It is not right for him to follow the one who takes the opinion that constantly moving in prayer (to whatever extent this may be) does not invalidate the prayer. Or that the recitation of the Fatihah is not one of the pillars of prayer and then he continues to pray as a muqallid of the one who holds the opinion that constantly moving in prayer does invalidate it or that the Fatihah is one of the pillars of the prayer. The hukm which is allowed to leave is that hukm whose relinquishment does not affect the actions which are undertaken according to other shari'a rules.

Learning the Shari'a Rule

The one who seeks a legal verdict (mustafti) is not a muqallid, because the muqallid is the one who adopts the Shari'a rule and acts upon it. As for the mustafti (one who seeks a legal verdict), he is the one who learns the hukm Shar'i from a person who knows this hukm whether that person was a mujtahid or not and whether the mustafti learned it in order to practise it or just for the sake of knowledge. The mustafti is anyone who seeks to know the rule of Allah pertaining to an issue. So anyone who is not a mujtahid with regard to a hukm is seeker of a legal verdict in regard to that hukm. So the one who is not a mujtahid in any issue he is a mustafti (seeker of a legal verdict) in all issues. Whoever is a mujtahid in certain issues he is a mustafti in the issues he has not exercised ijtihad in. As for the one who explains the ruling of Allah to a mustafti (seeker of a legal verdict) he is a mufti. It is said in the Arabic language: He gave a legal verdict pertaining to an issue, he clarified its ruling. And he sought a legal opinion from an 'alim regarding an issue, he requested him to give a legal opinion about it. The legal opinions of the Sahaba and the Tabi'in are the rulings they clarified to the people. And since having knowledge of Allah's rule is fard there must be people, whether mujtahids or not, who can teach the Shari'a rules to others, irrespective of whether they teach the people the rules with or without the evidences. Since it is not stipulated that the one who teaches the rules should be a mujtahid just as it is not stipulated for the Muslim who teaches others to clarify the evidences. It is allowed for someone who knows a hukm to teach it to others when he becomes conversant about that hukm. Since it is not stipulated for the one who gives legal opinions to people regarding the shari'a rules or teaches them himself to be a mujtahid. On the contrary this is permitted for a non-mujtahid. It is allowed for a non-mujtahid who is acquainted with the shari'a rule of a mujtahid to deliver a legal opinion using that hukm because he is a carrier of the hukm even if he did not make that known. In performing this action there is no difference between an expert and others, such as in the reporting of ahadith. Just as it is not stipulated that the transmitter of a hadith be an expert it is not stipulated either for the one who conveys a hukm Shar'i to others to be an expert. So it is by greater reason (min bab awla) that there should be no stipulation for him be a mujtahid. Even though it is stipulated that he should know, the hukm that he conveys, in a clear and accurate manner since he cannot convey it to others if he is not precise and unable to convey it properly. Likewise, it is not stipulated for the person who teaches people the hukm Shar'i or gives them legal opinions to teach them the evidence or convey it to them. Rather it is allowed for him to limit himself just to conveying the hukm Shar'i without quoting the evidence i.e. it is permitted for him to give fatwa with the hukm Shar'i and teach it to people without clarifying to them the evidence. However, he is required to explain to them that what he transmits to them is a hukm Shar'i or the inference (istinbat) of someone else ie of a certain mujtahid. However if he conveys an opinion and he says to them: 'This is my opinion' or he conveys to them an opinion and says : 'This is the hukm because so-and-so mujtahid said such and such thing'. What he imparts is not considered a shari'a evidence since the statement of a mujtahid is not a shari'a evidence. Using their speech as an evidence for a hukm invalidates its status as a hukm Shar'i. However, if he ascribes the hukm to a mujtahid's deduction. It is a hukm a Shar'i even if he does not expound the evidence.

This was common practise in the time of the Sahaba. The people used to seek legal opinions from the mujtahidin and follow them in the shari'a rules. The learned among them used to respond to their questions without alluding to the evidence and they were not forbidden from doing that. Not one Sahaba objected. Thus it became an ijma' (consensus) on the legality of a layman to follow a mujtahid without mentioning the evidence. It was also an ijma' on the permissibility of learning the rules of Allah and teaching them without learning or teaching the evidence. The layman ('ammi) and the follower (muttabi') are the same with regards to that. It is allowed for any one of them to seek verdicts from the other and teach the hukm shar'i he correctly understands to the other. Whether he knew the evidence or not. That is because anyone who gains knowledge of a hukm he is considered to be knowledgeable about that hukm. So it is allowed for him to teach it to others. However, the layman ('ammi) limits himself to conveying what he knows exactly as he learnt it. As for the follower (muttabi') he teaches what he knows and he gives verdicts according to what he knows because he possess some of the recognised disciplines in ijtihad. He comprehends the rules and he knows how to teach them and how to give legal opinions with them. However, learning the rules and giving opinions with them does not constitute making taqleed to the teacher or the mufti. This is considered only as the giving of opinions or learning a hukm. Taqleed should be made to the one who deduced the hukm and not the one who teaches it or gives verdicts by it. However, it has been stipulated that the teacher, in analogy to the witness, be just ie without manifesting any transgressions of the Shari'a. Since, the witness informs about an incident and the teacher also informs about the hukm of Allah. So both inform about something, for which trustworthiness ('adala) is a stipulation. Also, Allah has forbidden the Muslims to accept the statement of a fasiq (transgression) and ordered them to check it. He (swt) said: “O you who believe ! If a fasiq (rebellious person) comes to you with a news, verify it” [TMQ 49:6] The use of the word 'fasiq' (transgressor) and 'news' (naba') in their indefinite (verbal noun) forms indicate that when any fasiq (transgressor) comes with any news, the people should desist from adopting what he says and seek to verify the matter and discover the true reality and not simply accept what he says. The opposite understanding (mafhum al-mukhalafa) of this verse is that the statement of the upright and just person is taken whether for the purpose of giving legal opinions or learning etc.

Urdu

You can now download various excellent books, leaflets and articles in Urdu from:

http://www.khilafat.dk

Alhamdullulilah this site has everything downloadable in PDF which is very useful

And

http://www.esnips.com/web/urduliterature/

The files are available to download in inpage format (Urdu software). Some of these are translations from the original arabic or translations from english, please refer to the original versions for the exact meanings.

Oppressive arrest of Scholar in Yemen

The following information was taken from a press release issued on 3rd June 2006 in Arabic by the workers for Khilafah in the Wilayah of Yemen. It is a draft translation of the main points mentioned in it.

Before two weeks and before the feast (of dancing on the wounds of the nation) on the sixteenth anniversary of the Yemeni Unity, the political security apparatus in Hudeida made an abusive arrest for the sheikh and scholar Ibraheem Abdelbari Makbuli Al-Ahdal (58) years old, imam and preacher of Al-Nur Masjid in quarter of Alkal’a Alhamdi street in Hudeida, and the legitimate guardian of Alkal’a quarter, and an employee in the court of first instance in Hudeida.
The security apparatuses were not satisfied by arresting the mad!! It spread the space of its crimes to reach the scholars and preachers, it is afraid that they will disturb the spirit of celebration of the wealthy, and annoy their rich processions, and spoil the pleasure of the corrupt, what kind of a system is this, which has an army, security, news media and money and is afraid from a scholar who could give a speech or distribute a paper about the corruption and the corrupt on earth?!

The political security justified the arrest of the Sheikh to be (precautionary) so as not to attack the system on its celebration day, knowing that the sheikh is a man who says the word of truth and is not afraid to be blamed by anyone, that is why they arrested him!!
The sheikh was arrested on 27.09.2004, and this is the second arrest, he was called several times to the apparatus of intimidation and terrorization!! Without any guilt or any crime and without a legal warrant, those apparatuses violated their constitution which they claim to implement, according to the text of item (48) and items 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 73, 76, and 77 from the law of judicial penalties.

His only guilt is that he calls for Islam and implementing it in all aspects of life, he works to resume the Islamic life and to rule with what Allah has sent by establishing the state of Khilafah, he wages wars against the corrupt and who cause corruption on earth, by ordering goodness and forbidding what is abominable, since when -you best nation sent to people- was calling for Islam a crime, and the call for falsity a good thing, and those who do it are rewarded?!
The authority bragged too much about the call for democracy, multiplicity, and freedoms, the president repeated it in his speeches and that democracy is the choice of the system, and the ship of salvation for it, and that the time of political detention is over… etc, but the truth is quite the opposite of what they claim, arrests, pursuits, muzzling of mouths, silencing tongues, oppressive practices, pursuit of intellectuals, spying provocation of journalists and unjust lawsuits!!

We put the full responsibility on the ruling system, for what Sheikh Ibraheem Al-Ahdal is being exposed to, and for what his health is facing, knowing that he has diabetes, we challenge the system to bring him to court if he committed any crime, we reassure the oppressive apparatuses that these arrests will only make the Shabab of the party more decided to work and sacrifice, in order to uproot corruption and the corrupt from earth, and to rule with Islam, these arrests also will only make the citizens of Yemen -who are poor and hungry- to be more resentful and hateful for the system even more than what they already feel!!

We address the members of the Representative Council and the Sheikhs of Yemen, its scholars and people of intellect and impact in it and the human rights organizations:

To account those oppressive apparatuses for committing these violations of Shari'ah even those of law, and to bring those who hurt people to the court, to get the fair punishment, so that security, stability and content will prevail in Yemen, and we demand to set free the Sheikh and all the oppressed in the prisons of the unjust.

((وَلَا تَحْسَبَنَّ اللَّهَ غَافِلًا عَمَّا يَعْمَلُ الظَّالِمُونَ إِنَّمَا يُؤَخِّرُهُمْ لِيَوْمٍ تَشْخَصُ فِيهِ الْأَبْصَارُ))

"Think not that Allah doth not heed the deeds of those who do wrong. He but giveth them respite against a Day when the eyes will fixedly stare in horror." [Ibrahim: 42]

03 June 2006 CE
07 Jumada Al-Ula 1427 AH

“Creditors have better memories than Debtors”

The proverb in the title has an unfortunate reality. Many Muslims are finding themselves increasingly in debt. Creditors have to persistently remind the debtor of the loan they have ‘forgotten’ to pay. It is extremely rare, that you find the debtor reminding the creditor of his own debt. Often the relationship between the creditor and the debtor turns sour because Islamic principles are not the basis for their financial dealings and disputes.

This article discusses the Shariah rules pertaining to loans and debts. Indeed, Islam is very strict upon the Creditor’s motive and the Debtor repaying back what he has borrowed.

Characteristics of the Lender

The Prophet (saw) said: "Every loan is a sadaqah".

Islam encourages those who have enough wealth to give loans to those who request it. However it is important that the creditor or the lender should not seek any material benefit from giving a loan. He must seek the ethical value when advancing money as a loan and not expect anything material in return. Hence the lender is enhancing his personal quality of generosity and trying to remove any traits of stinginess from his soul. This is the definition of a loan in Islam. The motive is to help a person in need and seek only the reward and pleasure of Allah (swt).

This is often overlooked and sometimes the creditor may expect a material favour in return of his loan. Such a mentality by the lender is extremely dangerous, as the intent of a loan is not to seek the material value. This way of thinking produces a despicable being that thrives on personal greed and interests. This mentality of seeking a material benefit in every single action in life is a product of the Capitalist ideology that we unfortunately live under and sadly many Muslims are behaving in a similar manner.

The source of our inclinations must come from the pure Islamic Aqeedah and not the Secular Creed of Capitalism. Only by referencing the divine sources for our mentality and inclinations can we say that we have an Islamic personality.

Take the example of Abu Hanifah he indeed exhibited an Islamic personality. Once Imaam Abu Hanifah attended a Janaazah on an extremely hot day. The only shade in the vicinity was the shadow of a wall belonging to his debtor. However, Imaam Abu Hanifah remained standing in the blazing hot sun. When people insisted that he stand in the shade, he said: "The owner of the house is my debtor. It is not permissible for me to derive any gain from him because the benefit produced by every qardh (loan) is riba (interest)."


Characteristics of the Debtor

The Prophet(saw) said: “All the sins of a Shahid (martyr) are forgiven except debt.”

The above hadith clearly shows the severity of not paying back debts. The Muslim who dies before paying back his debt will be a sinner earning the displeasure of Allah(swt) in the life hereafter. The debtor or borrower must honour his promise of paying back what he has borrowed.

Borrowers must appreciate the help they receive and try as best as they can to ensure repayment on time. Unfortunately, it is often the case that friends or relatives abuse the kindness given to them. In financial dealings, people often do not honour their promises. Many of us can relate stories that we, or some close relatives of ours experienced, and all confirm that many people are ready to request loans and credits, but they shy away when it is time for them to settle such debts.

When trying to retrieve the loan back, some debtors act in a manner contrary to the etiquette of Islam. At times, the borrower is ready to insult the creditor who asks him for repayment and some will even go so far in persistently lying to the creditor to try and extend the repayment date or even not pay the debt at all.

Narrated by Aisha,

“Allah’s Messenger (saw) used to invoke Allah in the prayer saying, “ O Allah, I seek refuge with you from all sins, and from being in debt.” Someone said, O Allah’s Messenger! (I see you) very often you seek refuge with Allah from being in debt. He (saw) replied, “ If a person is in debt, he tells lies when he speaks, and breaks his promises when he promises.”

What can be upsetting to the creditor is when the borrower has agreed to pay on a particular date but does not pay the amount due on time nor even contact the creditor. Weeks and months or even years can pass by without the borrower picking up the phone and explaining why he has not paid back the money he had borrowed. Long periods of non-communication by the debtor will only build suspicion and ill feeling towards the borrower.

Such a mentality by the debtor is unacceptable and he must take the necessary steps to reassure the creditor that he is doing all he can to pay back what he has borrowed. He does not know when death will reach him and the debt will still be hanging on his neck even in the grave.

It has been narrated:

A dead person was brought to the Prophet so that he might lead the funeral prayer for him. He asked, "Is he in debt?" When the people replied in the negative, he led the funeral prayer.

Another dead person was brought and he asked, "Is he in debt?" They said, "Yes." He (saw) refused to lead the prayer and said, "Lead the prayer of your friend." Abu Qatada said, "O Allah's Apostle! I undertake to pay his debt." Allah's Apostle then led his funeral prayer.”

Unfortunately this has led many Muslims to refrain from the good deed of extending loans even to their immediate relatives because of their bitter experiences. When such a common mentality is widespread it clearly indicates a problem in society.

The business environment can be extremely hostile and even abusive when the creditor is trying to retrieve his money from the debtor. This often will lead to Muslims falling out with each other and perhaps never talking to one another again. Often both parties will slander one another to the point that the creditor will eventually take legal proceedings against the debtor.

This mentality of lying and giving excuse after excuse by the Muslim debtor is a result of the office environment that breeds the benefit mentality. Such atmospheres are driven to obtain the maximum amount of profit and benefit in any way they can, having no regard for honesty and fair-trading.

Take for example a Muslim who owes money to somebody but delays the payment because he ‘perceives‘ that the lender is rich and that he is not in need of it urgently.

The creditors financial status, i.e. whether he is rich or poor, should not be questioned nor should it be the reason for repaying a debt early or late. The moment the debtor has the capability of paying, he is obliged to do so from Shara’a. He would be sinful for holding onto something that doesn’t belong to him.

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger said: “ Procrastination (delay) in repaying debts by a wealthy person is injustice.”

This illustrates how society is moulding his inclinations and not the divine texts.

Thus if a lender anticipates that giving a loan to a Muslim will sow the seeds of discord then he would be prudent to refrain from giving a loan to such a person. Only until the borrower aligns his disposition in accordance with the divine text would it be safe to enter a loan agreement.


Divine Rules regarding loan (Al Qardh) Transactions

It is extremely important that the loan agreement fulfils the basic principles of contracts in Islam. These principles are as follows:
§ Both parties should be legally from Shar’a capable to enter into the qardh contract.

Islam obliges (fard) that the parties must fulfil the following requirements. Those entering the agreement must be:

Baligh ( reached the age of puberty )
'aqil ( sane )
rashid ( of sound judgement )

Allah (swt) says,
"Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then you find sound judgement in them, release their property to them." [Al-Nisa : 6].

This ayat states that the age of marriage and sound judgement is the age of maturity, and thereby a mature person is capable to enter into any transaction validly.

The Prophet (saw) said,
"The pen is raised for three groups (of people) that is, they will not be responsible for their actions: the insane until they become sane, those who are sleeping until they are awaken, and the youth until they reach puberty."

The above hadith makes it clear that a person, who has not attained the age of puberty, may not be a responsible party for al-qardh agreement.
§ Ijab (offer) and qabul (acceptance) of the qardh must be clearly made before entering into the loan contract:
Both parties must be extremely clear on their agreement i.e. what is being offered and what is being accepted. The ijab and qabul should be clearly expressed and indicated in the contract, otherwise the loan contract might create a dispute in the future.
§ The date of payment should be specified

It is recommended (mandoub) the date of payment should be mentioned in the loan agreement. If no date is specified, the transaction may lead to ambiguity and dispute in the future between the lender and the borrower.

"Whoever enters into a contract of salam should specify the date of delivery and the amount of subject matter."

§ The loan contract should be written down.

It is mandoub that both parties agree to write down the loan agreement. This will ensure that future disputes are avoided.
Allah(swt) says,

"O you who believe! When you deal with each other in transactions involving future obligations for a fixed period of time reduce them in writing." [Al-Baqarah : 282]

Unfortunately, some of us think that if they are requested to write down the loan agreement, then such a request means that the creditors do not trust them, when it is Allah(swt) that has made this a recommendation.

§ Getting two witnesses.

It is mandoub that both parties agree upon witnesses being present. This will ensure that future disputes are avoided.

Allah(swt) tells us that two male witnesses should be present, if two men are not available, then one man and two women will have the same effect.

"And get two witnesses out of your own men and if there are not two men, then a man and two women." [Al-Baqarah : 282]


Being patient with the struggling Debtor

The Prophet (saw) said, "Whoever relieves a believer from a difficulty in this world, Allah will relieve him from his difficulty and Allah will facilitate him in this world and the world hereafter."

Taking all the above considerations into account will not guarantee your loan being returned on time. A debtor may be struggling to repay his debt despite his promise to pay it back on a particular date. He is doing all he can within his capability to pay it back. He keeps in regular contact with the lender to update him on his efforts to pay back what he borrowed. He is conscious of the severity of not paying the loan back and he makes a plea to Allah(swt) to aid him in his difficult times. Such a person who exhibits ikhlas khalis (pure sincerity) deserves help and the lender must be patient with him and understanding of his difficult circumstances.

The Prophet (saw) said, "Once a man died and was asked, 'What did you use to say (or do) (in your life time)?' He replied, 'I was a businessman and used to give time to the rich to repay his debt and (used to) deduct part of the debt of the poor.' So he was forgiven (his sins.)"

The Debtor showing his appreciation towards the Creditor

The Creditor is forbidden to ask for anything extra from his loan, as this is clearly Riba (interest). However it is perfectly acceptable for the Debtor to give something more than he received, as a token of appreciation for the creditors good deed.

The Prophet(saw) said,
A man demanded his debts from Allah’s Messenger in such a rude manner that the Companions of the Prophet intended to harm him, but The Prophet (saw) said: “ Leave him, no doubt, for he (the creditor) has the right to demand it (harshly). Buy a camel and give it to him.” They said, “ The camel that is available is older than the camel he demands. The Prophet (saw) said “ Buy it and give it to him, for the best among you are those who repay their debts handsomely.”

Conclusion

Ethical trading is absent from the Capitalist mentality. This corrupt way of thinking is firmly embedded in the Aqeedah of Capitalism. Morality does not enter the financial world because there is nothing to gain materially from ethical trading in Capitalist societies. Hence the relationship between the Muslim Creditor and Muslim Debtor must at all times be based on the pure Islamic Aqeedah.

The Creditor must ensure his motive is free from any material gain, he must be patient and compassionate with the sincere struggling debtor if he wishes to earn a place in Jannah.

The Debtor must be honest, sincere and appreciative for the kindness shown to him. His attempt to repay his loan on time must be serious and genuine if he too wishes to enter Jannah.

Muslims must abandon this benefit mentality and adopt the Islamic mentality in their financial dealings. This is paramount when dealing with your Muslim brother or a Non-Muslim. Indeed the Muslim must adopt the purity of Islamic trading, as this will demonstrate to the non-Muslims the stark difference in our personality to that of the Capitalist personality.

By S. al-Baruchi

Political Analysis about tensions with Iran

The following is a draft translation from Arabic of a political analysis written by a brother

Question: It is known that Iraq used to perform nuclear researches during the monarchal system and that of the Republican system, things went along smoothly, even when fertilization of Uranium was suspended in 2003, the negotiations during the period of Khatami and before in the period of Rafsanjani, all move around discussions and negotiations which do not reach the limit of escalation. But during the period of Ahmadinajad the crisis was aggravated and was transferred from the International Agency to the Security Council, it is still interacting, can we deduct that the aggravation of the crisis is not because of the nuclear researches, as much as the fact that the president in Iran started to sing outside the flock, and that what was accepted by the previous rulers, concerning the dealing with the American policy similar to what took place during the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, is no more accepted by the present president Ahmadinajad? Therefore, is the crisis going to burst out, and the American attack on the Nuclear establishments in Iran is about to take place as was reported in some newspapers, or is the attack unlikely to happen and the crisis is liable to compromise? What about the punishments which the Security Council might impose on Iran as America is threatening?

The Answer:

In 1968 the treaty of (NPT) banning the spreading of Nuclear weapons was issued, and in 1970 Iran signed this treaty besides 185 other countries. During the era of the Shah, Iran started its nuclear activities with the co-operation of some German and French companies, when Iran bought 15% from the stocks of (Euro-Diff) a French company, and which is considered to be the biggest company for the fertilization of Uranium around the world. But after the Iranian revolution in 1979 all these programs were suspended and France continued to be denied this right. Ali Larjani said: “After the Islamic revolution in Iran, neither the French company (Euro-Diff) nor the German company (Siemens) complied with the contracts which they signed with Iran concerning the nuclear activities.

In 1995 Iran resumed its nuclear activities, after Al-Khomeini had suspended the Iranian nuclear program after his revolution, the program was re started according to the recommendations of Rafsanjani, in January 1995 the agreement of Moscow for nuclear co-operation was signed between Iran and Russia.

Working in the Iranian nuclear program was done when the Reformists -who were pro-Western headed by Khatami- were in authority between 1997-2005, they achieved successive successes in the elections at that period. But after the beginning of resistance in Iraq in summer 2003, the Iranian opposition uncovered some nuclear activities and some Iranian nuclear establishments which were hidden from the inspection of the International Agency for nuclear energy (IAEA). As a result of that Muhammad Al-Baradei -Chief of the nuclear agency- prepared a report about the Iranian nuclear program and presented it to the agency. This is how the Iranian nuclear crisis was stirred. After that, discussion about the Iranian nuclear program began between Iran and the European trio (Britain, France and Germany) besides Russia and China. So Iran during the era of Khatami and particularly on 25 October 2003 signed what is called the Extra Protocol of the (NPT) which allows an immediate inspection by the agency. (Bushahr), (Nantanz) and (Asfhan) were three establishments which caused a lot of debate, the dispute about two of them (Natanz) and (Asfhan) remained without any solution, the dispute about (Bushahr) -which was constructed by Russia- was solved by an agreement signed on 25 February 2005 between Russia and Iran. Yet the crisis continued once in tension and at other times in silence.
After appointing Muhammad Ahmadinajad president for the country, the international doubts and worries increased more and more. Besides that Iran resumed its fertilization of Uranium in (Asfhan) in August 2005, which led to the suspending of the Iranian-European nuclear negotiations. As a result of the pressure Iran stopped the operation of fertilization of uranium temporarily. After that Iran insisted on fertilization of the Uranium on its land, so the International Agency for nuclear energy made a resolution on 25 September 2005 which states that Iran should be transferred at once to the Security Council and with conditions. But Russia -which did not want Iran to be transferred to the Security Council- announced before the meeting of the International Agency for Nuclear Energy on 24 November 2005 that it will hand to Iran a new suggestion, Russia informed Iran about its suggestion through a written message in December 2005, and after that through a delegation which visited Tehran headed by the vice president of the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs on 7 January 2006. The suggestion was that Iran can exercise its nuclear activities on the Russian land, but on 10 January 2006 the Russian National Security Council announced that Iran had refused this suggestion.
Hence, the European Trio called the International Agency for nuclear energy to hold an immediate meeting in the period from 2-3 February 2006, to deal with the Iranian nuclear file. During that Ghulam Rida Ansari (the Iranian Ambassador in Moscow) announced that the suggestion of Putin is still valid and could be discussed. On the other hand -Iran declared that if the nuclear file was sent to the security Council- it will then withdraw from the (NPT) and will drive out the inspectors of the International Agency for nuclear energy (IAEA) from its land and put an end to its co-operation with it, and will insist as well on its right of fertilizing the uranium on its land. Although the Iranian file was sent to the Security Council as a resolution of the Board of Trustees of the International Agency for nuclear energy on 11.02.2006, with the majority of 27 votes out of the total members of 35, three countries (Cuba, Syria and Venezuela) objected the resolution, and five countries (Algiers, Byelorussia, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa) refused to vote, while Egypt voted for the resolution, yet Iran did not withdraw from the (NPT) and did not drive out the inspectors of the Agency and did not put an end to its co-operation with it, it was satisfied by declaring that it withdrew the extra Protocol of the (NPT) because the Iranian Parliament did not sanction it, and because it was implemented as an accomplished fact, and that it will prohibit the immediate inspection. It removed all the machines of inspection -such as video cameras- from its nuclear establishments, but it continued to allow non immediate inspection, meaning the permitted inspection.

At the time when the European Trio was busy in negotiating with Iran to find a solution for the crisis, America -which is the principle factor- was trying to lengthen the time of solution, while pretending that it supports the European solutions, the American authorities -whenever the European negotiations with Iran were about to be lenient- used to declare with an indirect threatening that all the alternatives are open to originate tension even when the European Trio made from the incentives -security re-assurements for Iran, Rice declared its refusal, and threatened by punishments- knowing that the punishments will affect most of all Europe, because it has economic interests with Iran, and also China the Asian side in the negotiations, that is because of the nuclear association of Russia with Iran, and the oil relations of China with Iran, add to this that half of the economy of the European countries depend on the oil of the Middle East.

America succeeded in making Europe busy with the Iranian issue, it did not join making excuse that it has no diplomatic relations with Iran, at the time when diplomatically this does not obstruct negotiations as long as there is an office of another country which represents it in Tehran, this is ascertained by the positive answer of America to the call of Iran to negotiate the issue of Iraq. America wants from being outside the negotiations, to make Europe busy in the issue, and to be free from the negotiations atmosphere and find it easy to hinder any solution due to any declaration or to stir a certain subject.

America wants the Iranian crisis to be a drifting mine in the region, Iran and the European trio are aware that any solution with Iran must have the consent of America on it so as to be executed, because it is the effective side in the crisis, yet it watches the negotiations without taking part in them so that alleviation of the issue will be only in its hands.

He who examines the process of this crisis notices the following:

1. Iran did not violate the agreement of banning the spreading of nuclear weapons, but it cooperated fully with the International Agency of Nuclear Energy (IAEA):
- 81 members from the International Agency of Nuclear Energy (IAEA) including America, did not sign the extra protocol of the (NPT) while Iran signed it voluntarily.
- Iran executed practically all the demands of the International Agency of nuclear energy (IAEA) and not only on papers similar to what other countries did.
- Iran prepared a complete document about its program, out of 1300 pages and handed it to the inspectors of the international Agency (IAEA).
- It allowed the inspectors of the International Agency of Nuclear Energy (IAEA) to meet the scientists and official personalities in the nuclear energy.
- Iran opened its nuclear establishments for inspection.
- Iran emphasized -in every occasion- that its nuclear program is peaceful, and that it does not intend at all to produce nuclear weapons.
- Iran suspended all of its nuclear activities last year, while the negotiations were still going on. It also voluntarily stopped the production of spare parts, and the work in each of the nuclear establishments of (Asfhan) and (Natanz), besides the nuclear activities in its other centers.
- It declared that the fertilization of Iran for the Uranium will be limited to its use for peaceful errands under the sponsorship of the agency of nuclear energy.

2. Any resolution which may be issued by the Security Council will not include sensitive economic penalties because the harm will fall upon Russia, China and the European Trio, more than that which will fall upon America and Iran itself, hence the probability of issuing sensitive punishments is far from being done due to the opposition of those countries.

3. Any military action -besides the far probability of its issuing because of the opposition of Russia and China to it- will confuse America because it is already in an actual critical situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially that this year is the year of the half elections of the Congress.

4. The Israeli factor, which is the real locomotive behind America to engage in a military action against the Iranian nuclear establishments, also because of the tight relation between the Neo-Conservatives in America and the Jewish state in Palestine, the situation of America -now- does not allow it to respond to this factor by making a military attack on Iran.

5. So it is more probable that America will try to aggravate the crisis of the negotiations between the European Trio and Iran, and make it fail, so as to win three things:

The First: a justification to establish basis for its missiles in Europe, and to increase its influence around the Black Sea and Kukaz. There are obvious incidents to prove this matter such as the project of transferring the NATO forces through the Black Sea, and the establishing of three new bases in Bulgaria, and basis for the missiles expected to be established in Poland and Check.

The Second: To keep the Gulf Region in tension which America makes use of by leaving its bases and even making more bases under the excuse of crisis.

The Third: To give an image that it is the one which holds the strings of the crisis, and that Iran to negotiate with it is the only way to find a solution and then to normalize the relations openly with Iran.

It is expected that these actions will be activated completely or partially before the elections of the Congress in November 2006, meaning that the curve of the crisis after reaching the top will start to decline whenever the time of election becomes nearer.

6. Some signs of solving the crisis started to be seen by the Iranian-American getting together to negotiations:

Last Wednesday Condoleezza Rice, the American minister for Foreign Affairs said: “Because of the opposition of Russian and China to impose punishments on Iran, the American administration decided to give a time limit (a few weeks) before continuing its pressure to issue an obligatory resolution by the Security Council”.

The message of Ahmadinajad, which points indirectly for an Iranian-American meeting.
The declaration of Anan, calling for the necessity of direct negotiations between Iran and America.

What the Washington Post newspaper reported on this morning 24.05.2006, that Sa’eed Lelaz the former official in the Iranian government said: That high Iranian officials asked some mediators to facilitate direct negotiations with Washington. At the time when a meeting is being held today in London between the countries which have permanent membership in the United Nations and Germany, to discuss the nuclear crisis. All these things point that matters are going in this direction.

As for Ahmadinajad, he is different from the former presidents (Rafsanjani and Khatami) for having excessive feelings about his beliefs in Islam, the idea of the return of Al-Mahdi is overwhelming him, he keeps repeating it in his assemblies, he even mentioned it in his first speech in September 2005 in front of the General Committee of the United Nations. He shows great respect for Ayatullah Muhammad Taji Misbah Yazdi, who shares him with these feelings. These feelings affected Ahmadinajad in his declarations and behaviors, yet he does not swerve from the general policy of the Iranian rule especially that the authority of the president is limited and does not enable him to change even if he wants to, even his declarations have comments from the chiefs of the system for example:

On 17.11.2005 Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported: "Rafsanjani condemns the purification policy which Ahmadinajad is exercising…. On another field Akbar Hashimi Rafsanjai -one of the principle personalities in the Iranian System- condemned, yesterday Wednesday, the political purification operations which the government of the conservative president Mahmud Ahmadinajad is exercising, emphasizing that it serves the goals of the enemies of Iran. Rafsanjani -the former Iranian President- whose declaration was reported by the official news media that; today someone is reconsidering the procedures taken in the past, and is implementing the policy of purification. They started the policy of general isolation on efficient personalities. Thus Rafsanjani will be the first Iranian official who criticizes the policy followed since Ahmadinajad was appointed in August. Rafsanjani who was the opponent of Ahmadinajad in the presidential elections said, these people stain the (reputation) of others, and if we allow them to do so, they will reconsider what was gained by the system and revolution".
Al-Haya also issued something similar on 18.11.2005.
Al-Kana issued on the internet page on 11.02.2006 the following:

(The news agency of the Iranian students (ISNA) mentioned on Thursday that Hasan Ruhani -the former chief of the Iranian nuclear negotiators- warned president Mahmud Ahmadinajad from the isolation of Iran worldwide, because of the continuous nuclear dispute. Ruhani told the Agency as an answer to a question about his point of view concerning the nuclear policies of the country by saying: "We have to take advantage of all the national methods so as not to isolate ourselves. We cannot realize our goals through repetition of slogans and adopting one simple strategy". Ruhani was the former secretary of the National Security Council and head of the nuclear delegation during the presidency of Muhammad Khatami, yet Ruhani refused to work under the presidency of Ahmadinajad successor of Khatinmi. Ruhani also said: "Those who are aware of the International affairs must be more eager not to commit any fault". The former Iranian president Akbar Hashimi Rafsanjani had warned last week, the government of Ahmadinajad from allowing the nuclear issue to go out of control.)

So after the declaration of Ahmadinajad that “Israel must be wiped out of the map” which is a duty for all Muslims and Iran being one of them, a high rank Iranian official declared as if he is correcting the slip of tongue of Ahmadinajad “the Palestinians have to eliminate system of Zionists”. And thus he put away the duty from the others.

So even though Ahmadinajad differs from those who preceded him in his strong feelings and being more near to the purity of the simple Muslims, yet concerning the general policy in the international relations, he is controlled by what the system was like since its establishment.
It is true that America (prefers) Rafsanjani and Khatami than Ahmadinajad, yet the change of presidents in Iran does not give them the authority to change the general policy of the state because their authority is limited.

That is why the nuclear crisis is not personal and related to the presence of Ahmadinajad in the presidency, it is connected with mingling international interests headed by America and the European Union and then Russia and China, all these countries deal with the crisis according to their interests and how far it affects the region.

The Conclusion:

Ahmadinajad has abundant feelings about Islam as he sees it, especially in the issue of the return of Al-Mahdi, this affects his behaviors and declarations. Yet he does not differ from Rafsanjani and Khatami in the general policy of the system, because the authority of the presidents to make changes is very limited according to the constitution of the state.

Iran did not violate the agreement of limitation of nuclear spreading, it allows the inspectors and implements the agreement more than any other country, its fertilization of Uranium is very little and far from producing nuclear weapons, this is besides the continuous re-assuring of Iran that the goal is peaceful and under the supervision of the International Agency.

America is behind the aggravation of the crisis and hindering the negotiations between Iran and the European Trio to solve it, because America wants to realize the following goals:
Make Europe busy in security issue so that America will find justification in establishing Missile bases in Europe.

To create a state of tension in the Gulf region allows America to have an increasing existence for it there.

To give an international and regional image that abating the heat of the crisis lies in its hands alone, so as to go into an open atmosphere of negotiations with Iran and normalize the relations with it, after the failure of the Europeans in solving it.

So, the response of America, in the near future ,to the stress of the Israeli factor on the Neo-Conservatives in spite of their tight relation with Jew entity -to attack the Iranian nuclear establishments- is a weak one, it will nevertheless reassure state of Jews by putting restrictions -during the negotiations- on the fertilization of uranium to a limited rate so as not to produce nuclear weapons, try also to fertilize the uranium outside Iran and then transfer it to Iran, under the supervision of the International Agency, this is besides the commitment of America to state of enemy to protect it.

Transferring the file to the Security Council is not expected to issue sensitive punishments on Iran, because its excessive harm will be upon Russia, the European Union and China, this make them object to the strong punishments or else it should be mild punishments in order not to harm those countries. As for the Council to issue a resolution which allows military action, is also far from taking place according to the visible international data.

26 Rabi'ul Awwal 1426 AH
24 May 2006 CE