As we are now within the blessed month of Zull-Hajj the following are some useful articles related to Hajj:
The Magnitude of Hajj
Lessons from the story of Ibrahim (as)
Lessons from Hajj
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Views on the News - 28/11/08
Latin America: Russia Bolsters ties with Venezuela
Taking advantage of America’s waning influence in Latin America, leaders of Russia and Venezuela vowed closer cooperation to establish a “multi-polar” world. The pledge came ahead of planned Russian Naval exercises with Venezuela. Speaking about the closer military cooperation Russian President Medvedev said, “is not a market relationship or aimed at any other state but is based on partnership ... It should strengthen multi-polarity in the world including in South America and Latin America...We will develop our military cooperation.” Hugo Chavez the leader of Venezuela expressed harsher words about US hegemony. “We should fight to make a world of catastrophes caused by hegemony and unilateralism a thing of the past,” said Chavez, going on to denounce what he called the “dictatorship of the dollar” and announcing efforts to move away from dollar transactions in trade with Russia. On the commercial front the two countries inked an agreement on atomic energy and also signed an agreement on cooperation in the fossil fuel sector, aimed at stepping up existing exploration projects in Venezuela by companies such as Gazprom. The agreements are an unequivocal reminder that Russia is carefully manoeuvring itself in the region to offset NATO’s expansion eastward and American presence in the Black Sea.
Europe: In an unprecedented move China cancels its summit with EU
On 26/11/2008 China announced that it was to postpone a summit with the EU - planned for 1 December - because of European contacts with the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. EU diplomats say China has been angered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy's plans to meet the Dalai Lama. France holds the EU's rotating presidency. Mr Sarkozy has said he will meet the Dalai Lama in Poland on 6 December. A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said "we oppose any foreign leaders having any contact with the Dalai". The Chinese government has previously said Mr Sarkozy risks losing "hard-won" gains in ties with Beijing if he meets the Dalai Lama. This is the first time that the Chinese government has taken the unprecedented step of cancelling a summit meeting with the EU. The move is a growing sign of a confident China that is increasingly willing to put its national interests ahead of its commercial interests. In this case, Beijing regards Tibet an integral part of China and has eschewed any attempts by the West to suggest otherwise.
Middle East: Jewish state of terror
Gaza’s complete suffocation has already resulted in a human catastrophe not witnessed before even during the times of war. What kind of government in the 21st century can deny another people basic human rights— that is, the right to food, water, shelter, security and dignity? What kind of government imposes draconian sanctions on another people for electing a government not to its liking? What kind of government seals a heavily populated territory of 1.5 million people so that no person can enter or leave without permission, fishermen cannot fish in their own waters, and world food aid cannot be delivered to the starving population? What kind of government shuts off fuel, water and electricity and then rains down on the people, bombs and artillery fire? The brutal state Israel of course! And yet, government after government in Israel continues to demand recognition and accolades as a first world democracy superior to all others. Worse still, the world has acquiesced and has welcomed every Israeli administration into its fold as a favoured guest. The rulers of the Muslim world are by far the biggest culprits. Without their economic support, phoney wars and peace overtures the Jewish state would cease to exist.
Middle East: Dubai goes from Boom to Bust
On 24/11/2008 nervous property investors were told that the Government of the United Arab Emirates would stand behind Dubai's obligations. Dubai’s debt stands at $80 billion or $40,000 per person. To dispel the concerns of investors, a deal was done to bail out two struggling mortgage banks that dominate the city-state's overheated property market. Amlak Finance and Tamweel were folded into a shadowy government institution out of which emerged a new entity, Emirates Development Bank. Dubai and other oil rich gulf states were supposed to be rich, floating on a magic carpet of hydrocarbons. The oil is still there, but everyone is learning that the Gulf's economies are as connected to the global financial system. Across the region markets are falling in nations awash with petrodollars. This is not surprising as the capitalist economic system dominants the gulf countries with some dressing of Islamic finance. 2009 is going to be a tough year for the region as Western demands for dollars places heavy pressure on GCC countries to sacrifice their economies in preference for western economies.
South Asia: India again points the finger at Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks
On 27/11/2008 the Indian Prime Minister in collusion with the Indian media squarely held Pakistan responsible for the attacks that left 130 people dead and over 350 injured. However, pointing fingers at Pakistan does very little to masquerade the growing influence of secessionist and militant movements that routinely blame Indian governments for oppressing their people. Apart from the well known Kashmiri militants, India is beset with armed militant movements struggling for greater rights. Some of the notable ones are United Liberation Front of Asom, National Democratic Front of Bodoland, People's Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak, National Liberation Front of Tripura, Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council, Bru National Liberation Front, Arunachal Dragon Force, Khalistan Liberation Force etc. Added to the secessionist movements are a myriad of Hindu militant movements that seek to cleanse India of Muslims and Christians. To put it another way, India is a country teetering on the brink of dissolution. Given this reality, it is insidious for any Pakistani leader to give concessions to a belligerent India that regards Pakistan as a reneged province of mother India. Last week, Pakistani President Asif Zardari broke with tradition and delighted India with no nuclear first strike policy. His predecessor Musharraf broke another taboo by officially abandoning the Kashmiri people. Pandering to Indian demands will never allow the Pakistani establishment to overcome the nexus of American-Indian-Israeli cooperation.
28/11/2008
Taking advantage of America’s waning influence in Latin America, leaders of Russia and Venezuela vowed closer cooperation to establish a “multi-polar” world. The pledge came ahead of planned Russian Naval exercises with Venezuela. Speaking about the closer military cooperation Russian President Medvedev said, “is not a market relationship or aimed at any other state but is based on partnership ... It should strengthen multi-polarity in the world including in South America and Latin America...We will develop our military cooperation.” Hugo Chavez the leader of Venezuela expressed harsher words about US hegemony. “We should fight to make a world of catastrophes caused by hegemony and unilateralism a thing of the past,” said Chavez, going on to denounce what he called the “dictatorship of the dollar” and announcing efforts to move away from dollar transactions in trade with Russia. On the commercial front the two countries inked an agreement on atomic energy and also signed an agreement on cooperation in the fossil fuel sector, aimed at stepping up existing exploration projects in Venezuela by companies such as Gazprom. The agreements are an unequivocal reminder that Russia is carefully manoeuvring itself in the region to offset NATO’s expansion eastward and American presence in the Black Sea.
Europe: In an unprecedented move China cancels its summit with EU
On 26/11/2008 China announced that it was to postpone a summit with the EU - planned for 1 December - because of European contacts with the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. EU diplomats say China has been angered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy's plans to meet the Dalai Lama. France holds the EU's rotating presidency. Mr Sarkozy has said he will meet the Dalai Lama in Poland on 6 December. A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said "we oppose any foreign leaders having any contact with the Dalai". The Chinese government has previously said Mr Sarkozy risks losing "hard-won" gains in ties with Beijing if he meets the Dalai Lama. This is the first time that the Chinese government has taken the unprecedented step of cancelling a summit meeting with the EU. The move is a growing sign of a confident China that is increasingly willing to put its national interests ahead of its commercial interests. In this case, Beijing regards Tibet an integral part of China and has eschewed any attempts by the West to suggest otherwise.
Middle East: Jewish state of terror
Gaza’s complete suffocation has already resulted in a human catastrophe not witnessed before even during the times of war. What kind of government in the 21st century can deny another people basic human rights— that is, the right to food, water, shelter, security and dignity? What kind of government imposes draconian sanctions on another people for electing a government not to its liking? What kind of government seals a heavily populated territory of 1.5 million people so that no person can enter or leave without permission, fishermen cannot fish in their own waters, and world food aid cannot be delivered to the starving population? What kind of government shuts off fuel, water and electricity and then rains down on the people, bombs and artillery fire? The brutal state Israel of course! And yet, government after government in Israel continues to demand recognition and accolades as a first world democracy superior to all others. Worse still, the world has acquiesced and has welcomed every Israeli administration into its fold as a favoured guest. The rulers of the Muslim world are by far the biggest culprits. Without their economic support, phoney wars and peace overtures the Jewish state would cease to exist.
Middle East: Dubai goes from Boom to Bust
On 24/11/2008 nervous property investors were told that the Government of the United Arab Emirates would stand behind Dubai's obligations. Dubai’s debt stands at $80 billion or $40,000 per person. To dispel the concerns of investors, a deal was done to bail out two struggling mortgage banks that dominate the city-state's overheated property market. Amlak Finance and Tamweel were folded into a shadowy government institution out of which emerged a new entity, Emirates Development Bank. Dubai and other oil rich gulf states were supposed to be rich, floating on a magic carpet of hydrocarbons. The oil is still there, but everyone is learning that the Gulf's economies are as connected to the global financial system. Across the region markets are falling in nations awash with petrodollars. This is not surprising as the capitalist economic system dominants the gulf countries with some dressing of Islamic finance. 2009 is going to be a tough year for the region as Western demands for dollars places heavy pressure on GCC countries to sacrifice their economies in preference for western economies.
South Asia: India again points the finger at Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks
On 27/11/2008 the Indian Prime Minister in collusion with the Indian media squarely held Pakistan responsible for the attacks that left 130 people dead and over 350 injured. However, pointing fingers at Pakistan does very little to masquerade the growing influence of secessionist and militant movements that routinely blame Indian governments for oppressing their people. Apart from the well known Kashmiri militants, India is beset with armed militant movements struggling for greater rights. Some of the notable ones are United Liberation Front of Asom, National Democratic Front of Bodoland, People's Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak, National Liberation Front of Tripura, Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council, Bru National Liberation Front, Arunachal Dragon Force, Khalistan Liberation Force etc. Added to the secessionist movements are a myriad of Hindu militant movements that seek to cleanse India of Muslims and Christians. To put it another way, India is a country teetering on the brink of dissolution. Given this reality, it is insidious for any Pakistani leader to give concessions to a belligerent India that regards Pakistan as a reneged province of mother India. Last week, Pakistani President Asif Zardari broke with tradition and delighted India with no nuclear first strike policy. His predecessor Musharraf broke another taboo by officially abandoning the Kashmiri people. Pandering to Indian demands will never allow the Pakistani establishment to overcome the nexus of American-Indian-Israeli cooperation.
28/11/2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Analysis on G20 Summit
The following is a translation from Arabic.
1. From 14 to 15 of November the Group of Twenty (G20) met to discuss a variety of issues pertaining to the healthy of the world economy. Before elaborating on what was discussed and concluded, it is important to comprehend some background information.
2. The Global Financial System (GFS) unleashed a series of financial crisis in Mexico (1994-95), Asia (1997-98), Russia (1998), and Argentina (1999). It was in the aftermath of these crises that The G20 (more formally known as the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors) was formally established at the G7 Finance Ministers' meeting on September 26, 1999. The inaugural meeting took place on December 15-16, 1999 in Berlin.
3. G20 is a group that consists of finance ministers and central bank governors from 20 economies. This includes 19 of the world's largest national economies, plus the European Union (EU). Collectively, the G20 economies comprise 85% of global gross national product, 80% of world trade (including EU intra-trade) and two-thirds of the world population. Full membership of the G20 includes Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the US and the EU. In addition, to the financial ministers of these countries, the leaders of the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization (WTO) also attend G20 meetings.
4. The mandate of G20 is to protect the GFS and the economies of the major Western powers by strengthening the international financial architecture and providing opportunities for dialogue on national policies, international co-operation, and international financial institutions. G20 works with emerging economies through the IMF, WB and WTO to ensure that these economies are well integrated in the GFS.
5. The Washington meeting was called at the behest of European leaders including France's President Nicholas Sarkozy and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Europe’s leaders have been incensed at the way America allowed the credit crises to spread across the globe. For instance, the US manipulated oil, food and commodity prices to shore up the dollar. Subsequently, the cost of production and inflation soared in Europe; the European Central Bank (ECB) had little choice but to raise interest rates to tackle inflation. As a direct consequence of this policy the EU’s economy started to contract and investors switched from Euros to the Dollars. Investors felt that America’s low interest rates and economic growth was a more favorable investment as compared to the EU. Hence the value of the Euro plummeted and the EU’s economy started to tilt towards recession. Faced with poor growth the ECB was forced to slash interest rates. This further aggravated the value of the euro in comparison to the dollar. Amidst this, Sarkozy and Brown, later to be joined by Merkel and other EU leaders pressed Bush for an international summit to discuss the crisis. Associated Press reported on 5 October, that following an emergency meeting, four members of the G8 - Britain, France, Germany and Italy - “called for an international conference "as soon as possible" to consider sweeping reforms of the global finance system.” At an emergency meeting of the Eurogroup on 12 October, 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown presented a proposal to deal with the financial crisis. During a press conference at the 2 day EU summit in Brussels on 15-16 October 2008, European Commission chief Manuel Barosso said there will only be “a global agreement if Europe has a leadership role.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European Commission President Jose Manual Baroso visited President George Bush at Camp David on 18 October, 2008. Mr Sakozy said “We have a mandate from the 27 members of the European Union to come here and say first and foremost that this is a worldwide crisis and, therefore, we must find a worldwide solution”. Mr Baroso stated: “The international financial system - its basic principles and regulations and its institutions need reform. We need a new global financial order...This is why Europe wants the calling of an international summit as soon as possible to launch an effective world response to world crisis.” On 21 October, 2008 President Sarkozy told the European Parliament that “Europe must be the standard bearer for the idea of reforming world capitalism.” José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish Prime Minister said, “The EU must take over the leadership of change because that is what it has long been calling for while the US was not favorable…. There has to be regulation and limits to everything to do with incentives and rewards.”
6. EU leaders believe that the cause of the global financial crisis was inadequate regulation of the financial sector, especially in the US. In other words the real culprit behind the global financial crisis in their view is American capitalism. Europe’s leaders would like to see more coordinated action to revive the world economy, both by more interest cuts and more spending by governments to bring countries out of recession. They hope that the meeting will agree a blueprint for future reform, including changes to the international organizations charged with regulating the world economy, such as the International IMF and WB.
Against this backdrop, Bush finally agreed to convene an international summit in Washington from November 14 to November 15.
But From the outset the meeting of the G20 was not going to produce anything substantive, apart from agreement on lofty goals and general principles. These were mentioned in a fact sheet issued by the Whitehouse after the summit.
Goals
1. Reached a common understanding of the root causes of the global crisis
2. Reviewed actions countries have taken and will take to address the immediate crisis and strengthen growth
3. Agreed on common principles for reforming our financial markets
4. Launched an action plan to implement those principles and asked ministers to develop further specific recommendations that will be reviewed by leaders at a subsequent summit
5. Reaffirmed their commitment to free market principles
Principles
1. Strengthening transparency and accountability by enhancing required disclosure on complex financial products;
2. Enhancing sound regulation by ensuring strong oversight of credit rating agencies; prudent risk management;
3. Promoting integrity in financial markets by preventing market manipulation and fraud, helping avoid conflicts of interest
4. Reinforcing international cooperation by making national laws and regulations more consistent and encouraging regulators to enhance their coordination and cooperation across all segments of financial markets
5. Reforming international financial institutions (IFIs) by modernizing their governance and membership
The reason for a lack of consensus on detail solutions amongst EU, US and UK leaders at the summit is as follows:-
First, President George Bush does not possess the domestic clout or international legitimacy to carry out a comprehensive reform of the GFS. Besides, Bush is a lame duck president and leaders of many countries are waiting for president elect Obama to take office before seriously considering all the proposals on the table. Hence that is why George Bush launched a passionate defense of the free market on the eve of the summit, as he aimed to deflect European criticism about American capitalism. “While reforms in the financial sector are essential, the long-term solution to today's problems is sustained economic growth,” he told an audience in New York. "And the surest path to that growth is free markets and free people.” So the best George Bush could do was get consensus agreement on the free market (see goal nos. 5) which he did. The rest is left to his successor Obama to pursue.
Second, prior to the G20 meeting, some EU leaders had urged a complete rethink of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944 that created the post-war system of fixed exchange rates and established the IMF and the World Bank. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy said “Bretton Woods II” should bring about “genuine, all-encompassing reform of the international financial system”. On October 13, 2008, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said world leaders must meet to agree to a new economic system. “We must have a new Bretton Woods, building a new international financial architecture for the years ahead.”
However, Brown's approach is quite different than the original Bretton Woods System. Britain wants to carry on emphasizing the continuation of globalization and free trade and is opposed to a return to fixed exchange rates. Sarkozy disagrees with Brown and argues that the "Anglo-Saxon" model of unrestrained markets has failed. He is supported by Italian Economics Minister Giulio Tremonti has said that Italy will use its 2009 G7 chairmanship to push for a "New Bretton Woods.
Europe’s view is diametrically opposed to America’s view on Bretton Woods, as America does not want to cede control of IMF, WB and WTO. Moreover, America possesses very little appetite to abandon the world of floating exchange rates, as it has given Wall Street complete reign over the world markets. Britain is keen to pursue free trade but is looking to acquire greater control over the international financial institutions and also wants America to regulate its corporate masters who have hitherto escaped punishment.
Because of these two factors the G20 could only agree on goals and principles. This was acknowledged by several leaders, as being the first step in the reform GFS. Future meetings of the G20 and other forums will decide what will become of the GFS.
19 Zull-qedaa 1429
17-Nov-2008
1. From 14 to 15 of November the Group of Twenty (G20) met to discuss a variety of issues pertaining to the healthy of the world economy. Before elaborating on what was discussed and concluded, it is important to comprehend some background information.
2. The Global Financial System (GFS) unleashed a series of financial crisis in Mexico (1994-95), Asia (1997-98), Russia (1998), and Argentina (1999). It was in the aftermath of these crises that The G20 (more formally known as the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors) was formally established at the G7 Finance Ministers' meeting on September 26, 1999. The inaugural meeting took place on December 15-16, 1999 in Berlin.
3. G20 is a group that consists of finance ministers and central bank governors from 20 economies. This includes 19 of the world's largest national economies, plus the European Union (EU). Collectively, the G20 economies comprise 85% of global gross national product, 80% of world trade (including EU intra-trade) and two-thirds of the world population. Full membership of the G20 includes Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the US and the EU. In addition, to the financial ministers of these countries, the leaders of the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization (WTO) also attend G20 meetings.
4. The mandate of G20 is to protect the GFS and the economies of the major Western powers by strengthening the international financial architecture and providing opportunities for dialogue on national policies, international co-operation, and international financial institutions. G20 works with emerging economies through the IMF, WB and WTO to ensure that these economies are well integrated in the GFS.
5. The Washington meeting was called at the behest of European leaders including France's President Nicholas Sarkozy and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Europe’s leaders have been incensed at the way America allowed the credit crises to spread across the globe. For instance, the US manipulated oil, food and commodity prices to shore up the dollar. Subsequently, the cost of production and inflation soared in Europe; the European Central Bank (ECB) had little choice but to raise interest rates to tackle inflation. As a direct consequence of this policy the EU’s economy started to contract and investors switched from Euros to the Dollars. Investors felt that America’s low interest rates and economic growth was a more favorable investment as compared to the EU. Hence the value of the Euro plummeted and the EU’s economy started to tilt towards recession. Faced with poor growth the ECB was forced to slash interest rates. This further aggravated the value of the euro in comparison to the dollar. Amidst this, Sarkozy and Brown, later to be joined by Merkel and other EU leaders pressed Bush for an international summit to discuss the crisis. Associated Press reported on 5 October, that following an emergency meeting, four members of the G8 - Britain, France, Germany and Italy - “called for an international conference "as soon as possible" to consider sweeping reforms of the global finance system.” At an emergency meeting of the Eurogroup on 12 October, 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown presented a proposal to deal with the financial crisis. During a press conference at the 2 day EU summit in Brussels on 15-16 October 2008, European Commission chief Manuel Barosso said there will only be “a global agreement if Europe has a leadership role.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European Commission President Jose Manual Baroso visited President George Bush at Camp David on 18 October, 2008. Mr Sakozy said “We have a mandate from the 27 members of the European Union to come here and say first and foremost that this is a worldwide crisis and, therefore, we must find a worldwide solution”. Mr Baroso stated: “The international financial system - its basic principles and regulations and its institutions need reform. We need a new global financial order...This is why Europe wants the calling of an international summit as soon as possible to launch an effective world response to world crisis.” On 21 October, 2008 President Sarkozy told the European Parliament that “Europe must be the standard bearer for the idea of reforming world capitalism.” José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish Prime Minister said, “The EU must take over the leadership of change because that is what it has long been calling for while the US was not favorable…. There has to be regulation and limits to everything to do with incentives and rewards.”
6. EU leaders believe that the cause of the global financial crisis was inadequate regulation of the financial sector, especially in the US. In other words the real culprit behind the global financial crisis in their view is American capitalism. Europe’s leaders would like to see more coordinated action to revive the world economy, both by more interest cuts and more spending by governments to bring countries out of recession. They hope that the meeting will agree a blueprint for future reform, including changes to the international organizations charged with regulating the world economy, such as the International IMF and WB.
Against this backdrop, Bush finally agreed to convene an international summit in Washington from November 14 to November 15.
But From the outset the meeting of the G20 was not going to produce anything substantive, apart from agreement on lofty goals and general principles. These were mentioned in a fact sheet issued by the Whitehouse after the summit.
Goals
1. Reached a common understanding of the root causes of the global crisis
2. Reviewed actions countries have taken and will take to address the immediate crisis and strengthen growth
3. Agreed on common principles for reforming our financial markets
4. Launched an action plan to implement those principles and asked ministers to develop further specific recommendations that will be reviewed by leaders at a subsequent summit
5. Reaffirmed their commitment to free market principles
Principles
1. Strengthening transparency and accountability by enhancing required disclosure on complex financial products;
2. Enhancing sound regulation by ensuring strong oversight of credit rating agencies; prudent risk management;
3. Promoting integrity in financial markets by preventing market manipulation and fraud, helping avoid conflicts of interest
4. Reinforcing international cooperation by making national laws and regulations more consistent and encouraging regulators to enhance their coordination and cooperation across all segments of financial markets
5. Reforming international financial institutions (IFIs) by modernizing their governance and membership
The reason for a lack of consensus on detail solutions amongst EU, US and UK leaders at the summit is as follows:-
First, President George Bush does not possess the domestic clout or international legitimacy to carry out a comprehensive reform of the GFS. Besides, Bush is a lame duck president and leaders of many countries are waiting for president elect Obama to take office before seriously considering all the proposals on the table. Hence that is why George Bush launched a passionate defense of the free market on the eve of the summit, as he aimed to deflect European criticism about American capitalism. “While reforms in the financial sector are essential, the long-term solution to today's problems is sustained economic growth,” he told an audience in New York. "And the surest path to that growth is free markets and free people.” So the best George Bush could do was get consensus agreement on the free market (see goal nos. 5) which he did. The rest is left to his successor Obama to pursue.
Second, prior to the G20 meeting, some EU leaders had urged a complete rethink of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944 that created the post-war system of fixed exchange rates and established the IMF and the World Bank. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy said “Bretton Woods II” should bring about “genuine, all-encompassing reform of the international financial system”. On October 13, 2008, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said world leaders must meet to agree to a new economic system. “We must have a new Bretton Woods, building a new international financial architecture for the years ahead.”
However, Brown's approach is quite different than the original Bretton Woods System. Britain wants to carry on emphasizing the continuation of globalization and free trade and is opposed to a return to fixed exchange rates. Sarkozy disagrees with Brown and argues that the "Anglo-Saxon" model of unrestrained markets has failed. He is supported by Italian Economics Minister Giulio Tremonti has said that Italy will use its 2009 G7 chairmanship to push for a "New Bretton Woods.
Europe’s view is diametrically opposed to America’s view on Bretton Woods, as America does not want to cede control of IMF, WB and WTO. Moreover, America possesses very little appetite to abandon the world of floating exchange rates, as it has given Wall Street complete reign over the world markets. Britain is keen to pursue free trade but is looking to acquire greater control over the international financial institutions and also wants America to regulate its corporate masters who have hitherto escaped punishment.
Because of these two factors the G20 could only agree on goals and principles. This was acknowledged by several leaders, as being the first step in the reform GFS. Future meetings of the G20 and other forums will decide what will become of the GFS.
19 Zull-qedaa 1429
17-Nov-2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Analysis: Conflict in Congo
The following is a translation from Arabic.
There is no doubt that the rebel leader in the Eastern Congo General Laurent Nkunda is backed by neighbouring Rwanda since he is a descendent of the same Tutsi tribe that rules over Rwanda. The British newspaper Guardian reports that Nkunda had joined Rwanda’s National Patriotic Front (RPF) led by the current president Paul Kagame during the 1994 war time massacres.
The visits of the British & French foreign ministers to Rwanda immediately after their Congo visits confirms Rwanda’s involvement in supporting Nkunda, though Rwanda still denies it.
It must be remembered that Rwanda is a pro-American state eversince the Tutsi tribe took over the reigns of power after having expelled the Hutu tribe which was previously supported by France.
The current president of Congo, Joseph Kabila hired the Hutu tribesmen to resist the Rwandan backed Tutsis and this provided Rwanda the justification to to intervene under the excuse that the Hutu tribe is attempting to strike from Eastern Congo to stage a comeback to power in Rwanda. This explains the statement of Nkunda who refused to send a European force to the Eastern Congo, he said: “When the aim of this force is to consolidate the hold of Rwabdab rebels of Hutu tribes, then we will not agree to it.” His statement decries the Europeans for their support to Congo and the tribe of Hutu against the Tutsis and Rwanda.
The British and French governments have hinted sending European troops to Congo to prevent Nkunda from sweeping over Congolese territories especially since he has threatened to march over the capital Kinshasa if the government of Joseph Kabila refused to negotiate with him.
Meanwhile Kabila still refuses to negotiate with Nkunda and insists upon implanting the peace accord which was signed in Nairobi last year between Congo and Rwanda. He does not want to bestow recognition on the rebels movement and insists on dealing with Rwanda itself. Therefore it is not strange that the British Foreign Minister states: “the European Union would send troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo as a last resort if there is a need to reinforce the UN (MONUC) troops presently deployed there and the peace initiatives fail.”
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and his British counterpart David Miliband during their visit to Congo and Rwanda, focused on the need to implement the Nairobi Accord and sending armed forces in case of an attack by the rebels led by Nkunda on Congo.
All the statements from the Europeans on the current crisis were flavoured to reflect the worsening humanitarian crisis, in the joint statement issued by Miliband and Kouchner they spole of their conviction that the war must some to an end and the local residents’ living conditions must improve. This was a reference to the 1994 massacres which resulted in the death of 800,000 people belonging to the Tutsi & Hutu tribes of Rwanda.
As for the American policy, it clearly backs Rwanda in its stand on the Hutu rebels in the eastern Congo and does not necessarily support sending of European troops. The US is content with the helpless UN troops deployed in the region to protect the civilian residents. The American deputy secretary of state for African affairs Jendayi E. Frazer said that she favours the idea of “reinforcing the UN troops in Congo.”
Such quick moves by the British and French in dealing with this crisis and their foreign ministers calling for imedeate action indicates that the situation Congo has indeed become genuinely grim and dangerous for Europeeans to maintain their stronghold in the region and requires immediate action to defend their influence.
The eastern flank of Congo comprises three countries that are aligned to the US: Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi and are ruled by the Tutsi tribesmen backed by America since 1994 C.E. together these three states have built a formidable fortress of American influence in the heart of the African continent. Thus the rebels are able to launch their attacks on Congo from this region and uproot British and French influence there.
What has further aggravated the situation for the Europeans is that America is harnessing China
to resist European stronghold. It has observed that Chinese presence is evidently increasing in the areas where the US enjoys influence, especially like in Sudan etc.. including the areas east of Congo where the Rwandan backed rebels have their control. Tom Cargill, Director of the African Programmme at the Chatham House in England said: “Nkunda aides experienced in public relations are saying that the West is suspicious of the Chinese intentions. We can certainly thwart the efforts of our opponents by asserting that we deal with the Chinese on behalf of the Congolese people.” The Guardian newspaper reported that China largest deal in Africa is estimated at 5 billion dollars which is for mineral mining in exchange for infrastructure building projects.
To conclude, the central African nations are preparing opposition forces to overthrow Joseph Kabila in future and in turn bring Congo, the largest nation in Africa in terms of land area, under American influence with help of economic assistance from China. At the same time, Britain and France are doing whatever they, politically and militarily, can to prevent that. Meanwhile the conflict continues unabated between the two sides where Congo is seeking help from the southern African countries loyal to Britain such as Zimbabwe, Zambia and South Africa while Rwanda is being helped by the pro-US countries such as Uganda and Burundi in order to strengthen the Tutsi rebels.
6th Dhi Qaidah, 1429 A.H
4th November, 2009 C.E
There is no doubt that the rebel leader in the Eastern Congo General Laurent Nkunda is backed by neighbouring Rwanda since he is a descendent of the same Tutsi tribe that rules over Rwanda. The British newspaper Guardian reports that Nkunda had joined Rwanda’s National Patriotic Front (RPF) led by the current president Paul Kagame during the 1994 war time massacres.
The visits of the British & French foreign ministers to Rwanda immediately after their Congo visits confirms Rwanda’s involvement in supporting Nkunda, though Rwanda still denies it.
It must be remembered that Rwanda is a pro-American state eversince the Tutsi tribe took over the reigns of power after having expelled the Hutu tribe which was previously supported by France.
The current president of Congo, Joseph Kabila hired the Hutu tribesmen to resist the Rwandan backed Tutsis and this provided Rwanda the justification to to intervene under the excuse that the Hutu tribe is attempting to strike from Eastern Congo to stage a comeback to power in Rwanda. This explains the statement of Nkunda who refused to send a European force to the Eastern Congo, he said: “When the aim of this force is to consolidate the hold of Rwabdab rebels of Hutu tribes, then we will not agree to it.” His statement decries the Europeans for their support to Congo and the tribe of Hutu against the Tutsis and Rwanda.
The British and French governments have hinted sending European troops to Congo to prevent Nkunda from sweeping over Congolese territories especially since he has threatened to march over the capital Kinshasa if the government of Joseph Kabila refused to negotiate with him.
Meanwhile Kabila still refuses to negotiate with Nkunda and insists upon implanting the peace accord which was signed in Nairobi last year between Congo and Rwanda. He does not want to bestow recognition on the rebels movement and insists on dealing with Rwanda itself. Therefore it is not strange that the British Foreign Minister states: “the European Union would send troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo as a last resort if there is a need to reinforce the UN (MONUC) troops presently deployed there and the peace initiatives fail.”
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and his British counterpart David Miliband during their visit to Congo and Rwanda, focused on the need to implement the Nairobi Accord and sending armed forces in case of an attack by the rebels led by Nkunda on Congo.
All the statements from the Europeans on the current crisis were flavoured to reflect the worsening humanitarian crisis, in the joint statement issued by Miliband and Kouchner they spole of their conviction that the war must some to an end and the local residents’ living conditions must improve. This was a reference to the 1994 massacres which resulted in the death of 800,000 people belonging to the Tutsi & Hutu tribes of Rwanda.
As for the American policy, it clearly backs Rwanda in its stand on the Hutu rebels in the eastern Congo and does not necessarily support sending of European troops. The US is content with the helpless UN troops deployed in the region to protect the civilian residents. The American deputy secretary of state for African affairs Jendayi E. Frazer said that she favours the idea of “reinforcing the UN troops in Congo.”
Such quick moves by the British and French in dealing with this crisis and their foreign ministers calling for imedeate action indicates that the situation Congo has indeed become genuinely grim and dangerous for Europeeans to maintain their stronghold in the region and requires immediate action to defend their influence.
The eastern flank of Congo comprises three countries that are aligned to the US: Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi and are ruled by the Tutsi tribesmen backed by America since 1994 C.E. together these three states have built a formidable fortress of American influence in the heart of the African continent. Thus the rebels are able to launch their attacks on Congo from this region and uproot British and French influence there.
What has further aggravated the situation for the Europeans is that America is harnessing China
to resist European stronghold. It has observed that Chinese presence is evidently increasing in the areas where the US enjoys influence, especially like in Sudan etc.. including the areas east of Congo where the Rwandan backed rebels have their control. Tom Cargill, Director of the African Programmme at the Chatham House in England said: “Nkunda aides experienced in public relations are saying that the West is suspicious of the Chinese intentions. We can certainly thwart the efforts of our opponents by asserting that we deal with the Chinese on behalf of the Congolese people.” The Guardian newspaper reported that China largest deal in Africa is estimated at 5 billion dollars which is for mineral mining in exchange for infrastructure building projects.
To conclude, the central African nations are preparing opposition forces to overthrow Joseph Kabila in future and in turn bring Congo, the largest nation in Africa in terms of land area, under American influence with help of economic assistance from China. At the same time, Britain and France are doing whatever they, politically and militarily, can to prevent that. Meanwhile the conflict continues unabated between the two sides where Congo is seeking help from the southern African countries loyal to Britain such as Zimbabwe, Zambia and South Africa while Rwanda is being helped by the pro-US countries such as Uganda and Burundi in order to strengthen the Tutsi rebels.
6th Dhi Qaidah, 1429 A.H
4th November, 2009 C.E
Views on the news - 20/11/08
Britain ’s launches secularised Islamic awareness week
On 16/11/2008 leading British politicians, dignitaries, and community leaders joined in an “Islamic Awareness Week”. The campaign launched in the House of Commons aims to further promote communication and connectivity. The theme this year is “Celebrating the Best of Britain’s Shared Values.” Dr. Zahoor Qurashi, President of The Islamic Society of Britain said,” We feel that our role is more important than ever before for us to actually talk about a face of Islam which we understand to be the true face of Islam, which talks about tolerance and peace and patience and working with the wider society, with Muslims and non-Muslims, to promote values which are common.” Dr. Zahoor also discussed the importance of interfaith dialogue. Muslims in Britain should be proud of their Islamic ideology and should not be so apologetic. Rather than promoting Islam in the context of British secular values, Muslims must take the lead in exposing the fallacies of western liberalism and presenting Islam as the only alternative ideology.
Egypt continues to fuel the Israeli aggression against Palestinians
In the backdrop of Israeli aggression against the Palestinians, a court in Egypt has ordered the government to suspend gas exports to Israel . But it is very unlikely that the government will heed the warning. In fact Israel 's infrastructure ministry boldly said it had "no doubt" the gas deal remained valid. Israeli optimism is not surprising since both Israel and Egypt are working in tandem to boycott Gaza and starve the Palestinians to death
Russia pretends it cares about Muslims
On 18/11/2008 the Moscow Prosecutor's Office warned the Russian-language edition of the Newsweek magazine against vilification of Muslims. The magazine published two stories that were deemed by the prosecutor to be insulting Muslims. The Prosecutor’s office also stated that one of the articles included one of the 2005 Danish cartoons. It is ironic that Russia is concerned about offending its 20 million Muslims, but pays scant regard to destruction and slaughter of Muslims in Chechnya . Russia ’s support to dictators who routinely oppress Muslims and fight political Islam in Central Asia blights its sympathetic stance. In fact Russia ’s duplicity towards Muslims is akin to the double standards practiced by other major powers; their collective aim is to prevent their respective Muslim populations from expressing outrage at the repression of Muslims abroad.
Uzbekistan needs the Khilafah and not Malaysia ’s Hadhara
Uzbekistan is keen to adopt the Islam Hadhari concept pioneered by Malaysia, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. He said this was conveyed to him by Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov in private talks during his official visit here. “Both Malaysia and Uzbekistan are fully aware that at the international level, Islam promotes peace and friendship not only between Muslims but Muslims and non-Muslims as well. At the domestic or national level, Islam Hadhari promotes good governance as well as economic and social progress,” he said during a joint press conference with Karimov at the latter’s official residence. Malaysia ’s so called Islam Hadhari concept has only served to entrench corrupt governance and economic chaos. Malaysia ’s psuedo Islam Hadhari is not only unfit for Malaysians, but all Muslim countries including Uzbekistan .
Pakistan aids crusader forces in attacking targets on its soil
On 16/11/2008 the Pakistan military helped the western forces based in Afghanistan attack a position in Pakistan used by militants after an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) post was hit by two rockets fired allegedly by militants from inside Pakistan. According to a spokesman for ISAF, militants pounded an ISAF base in Paktika, leading to the coordinated artillery strike into Pakistan . The ISAF statement is just tip of the iceberg as far as complicity with America stands. Since Ramadan, the Pakistani civilian and military leadership has unashamedly aided and abetted American attacks on FATA, but has publicly denied any knowledge. Now the crusaders are becoming more and more vocal about the Pakistan ’s clandestine support, as America wants the Pakistani people to fully embrace America ’s war against Islam.
20/11/2008
On 16/11/2008 leading British politicians, dignitaries, and community leaders joined in an “Islamic Awareness Week”. The campaign launched in the House of Commons aims to further promote communication and connectivity. The theme this year is “Celebrating the Best of Britain’s Shared Values.” Dr. Zahoor Qurashi, President of The Islamic Society of Britain said,” We feel that our role is more important than ever before for us to actually talk about a face of Islam which we understand to be the true face of Islam, which talks about tolerance and peace and patience and working with the wider society, with Muslims and non-Muslims, to promote values which are common.” Dr. Zahoor also discussed the importance of interfaith dialogue. Muslims in Britain should be proud of their Islamic ideology and should not be so apologetic. Rather than promoting Islam in the context of British secular values, Muslims must take the lead in exposing the fallacies of western liberalism and presenting Islam as the only alternative ideology.
Egypt continues to fuel the Israeli aggression against Palestinians
In the backdrop of Israeli aggression against the Palestinians, a court in Egypt has ordered the government to suspend gas exports to Israel . But it is very unlikely that the government will heed the warning. In fact Israel 's infrastructure ministry boldly said it had "no doubt" the gas deal remained valid. Israeli optimism is not surprising since both Israel and Egypt are working in tandem to boycott Gaza and starve the Palestinians to death
Russia pretends it cares about Muslims
On 18/11/2008 the Moscow Prosecutor's Office warned the Russian-language edition of the Newsweek magazine against vilification of Muslims. The magazine published two stories that were deemed by the prosecutor to be insulting Muslims. The Prosecutor’s office also stated that one of the articles included one of the 2005 Danish cartoons. It is ironic that Russia is concerned about offending its 20 million Muslims, but pays scant regard to destruction and slaughter of Muslims in Chechnya . Russia ’s support to dictators who routinely oppress Muslims and fight political Islam in Central Asia blights its sympathetic stance. In fact Russia ’s duplicity towards Muslims is akin to the double standards practiced by other major powers; their collective aim is to prevent their respective Muslim populations from expressing outrage at the repression of Muslims abroad.
Uzbekistan needs the Khilafah and not Malaysia ’s Hadhara
Uzbekistan is keen to adopt the Islam Hadhari concept pioneered by Malaysia, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. He said this was conveyed to him by Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov in private talks during his official visit here. “Both Malaysia and Uzbekistan are fully aware that at the international level, Islam promotes peace and friendship not only between Muslims but Muslims and non-Muslims as well. At the domestic or national level, Islam Hadhari promotes good governance as well as economic and social progress,” he said during a joint press conference with Karimov at the latter’s official residence. Malaysia ’s so called Islam Hadhari concept has only served to entrench corrupt governance and economic chaos. Malaysia ’s psuedo Islam Hadhari is not only unfit for Malaysians, but all Muslim countries including Uzbekistan .
Pakistan aids crusader forces in attacking targets on its soil
On 16/11/2008 the Pakistan military helped the western forces based in Afghanistan attack a position in Pakistan used by militants after an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) post was hit by two rockets fired allegedly by militants from inside Pakistan. According to a spokesman for ISAF, militants pounded an ISAF base in Paktika, leading to the coordinated artillery strike into Pakistan . The ISAF statement is just tip of the iceberg as far as complicity with America stands. Since Ramadan, the Pakistani civilian and military leadership has unashamedly aided and abetted American attacks on FATA, but has publicly denied any knowledge. Now the crusaders are becoming more and more vocal about the Pakistan ’s clandestine support, as America wants the Pakistani people to fully embrace America ’s war against Islam.
20/11/2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Virtual Economy - Root Cause: Analysis of The Current Financial Crisis
In a statement made to a congressional committee on April 3, 2008, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bernanke said that “if Bear Stearns had been allowed to fail, it would have led to a “chaotic unwinding” of Bearn Stearns investments held by individuals and other financial institutions. Moreover, the adverse impact of a default would not have been confined to the financial system but would have been felt broadly in the real economy through its effects on asset values and credit availability”[1]. In an article published by Newsweek, October 11, 2008, Daniel Gross writes [3]: “Back in 2002, Apple’s stock was trading far below the level of cash on its books, ascribing a value of zero to its brands and products, compared with several billion at the height of the boom”. Both statements refer to the existence of two views of the economy: a real economy which is reflected by the level of cash on corporate books, and an inflated, exaggerated view which is reflected in the current stock values of the market. The second view of the economy will be referred to as a virtual economy in this article. Virtual economy, in this context, differs from what is being called virtual economy commerce [2], where customers trade in a virtual imaginary product with certain specifications and an imaginary value. However, this will not be the subject of this study.
The second type of virtual economy (VE) is the one that is important and is strongly related to the failure of the financial capitalist system as is being witnessed today. VE allows the economy to appear much larger than its real size. This economy is based on the assumption that the real money will not be tapped into and therefore, it is possible to deal with an assumed larger (virtual) value for the money. A good example of this scenario is the case with Donald Trump. He ran projects worth billions of dollars, while being more than 50 million dollars in debt. He was about to file for personal bankruptcy in 1989 when he was pressed to pay some of his debts.
A parallel concept to virtual economy exists in computer systems, where the concept of virtual memory is used. Virtual memory is a special type of organisation which allows the memory in the system to appear much larger than the real size of the memory. With this type of organisation, it is possible to execute program applications which require much larger memory than the system actually has. Virtual memory organisation in computer systems remains a smart way of running applications. However, there are some cases where an application may break the limits of virtual memory and cause the system to thrash, i.e. to fail. This happens when an application insists on using more than the size of real memory instantly, at one given time.
In a similar manner, virtual economy (organisation) provides two views of the economy. One is the real value of commodities and services in a given economy which corresponds to the real economic growth and production. The second view of the economy represents the imaginary value of stock prices and the accumulation of interest (usury) in the banks. A virtual economy system, similar to a virtual memory systems, is bound to crash (thrash) at any point when the instant demand for finance at any given time exceeds the real value of the real economy. The current financial crisis in the US and the world at large is a striking example of a virtual economy crashing (or thrashing).
The phenomenon of a virtual economy, where the money in transactions appears much larger than the real money, began to surface at the level of state economies at the end of the 19th century when financial markets began to take shape in New York. This phenomenon grew to be an integral part of capitalist economies, especially in the US and in Europe due to three major reasons, namely: stock markets, interest based economy, and the removal of gold as a basis for the monetary systems. At the political front, the cold war between the capitalist and socialist camps in the 2nd half of the 20th century further strengthened the virtual economies in the west. We will examine these three factors in some detail in the next few sections.
1. Stock Markets and the Virtual Economy
Stock market activities at the start of the 20th century created a new phenomenon in the economy, where the wealth associated with stock values grew at a much higher rate than the wealth associated with the real economy. When the stock market collapsed in New York in 1929, economists attributed the crash to the great difference between the inflated values of stocks and the values of the real assets of the economy.
The Economist magazine reported on 2/11/1929 that “there is warrant for hoping that the deflation of the exaggerated balloon of American stock values will be for the good of the world.” To understand this aspect it has been found that the prices of financial market increased during the preceding period from 1925 to 1929 by 120%, while economic growth for the same period did not exceed 17%. And when the market collapsed, it lost over 93% from its value, which means that the market returned to its real value which was obviously much lower than what the stock market indicated. The same scenario repeated itself in 1987 when the market collapsed again, and as observers again noted financial market had been grossly inflated compared with the real size of the economy, such that the difference between the virtual economy and the real economy was more than 200%. And by the end of the twentieth century the virtual economy was again three times the size of the real market value and this scenario came to be known as the Internet (or DOT COM) Bubble.
The result is that the nominal values of stocks do not reflect the reality of economic production. It is possible to increase the value of the shares of a given company without any real increase in production or profit achieved by that company; this was the case with Amazon, where its stock value exceeded $300 at a time when the company had not achieved any profits. Enron is another example, where the rising value of their stock was based on false information about fictitious profits.
These kind of financial activities, transactions and dealings create two faces for the economy: a real face linked to the economic growth and production which indicates the real strength of the economy. And an imaginary side, that reflects the image seen and observed by the local and global community. When the difference between the two sides is small, there does not appear to be a serious problem in the economy. When the difference, however, is vast as is the case now, in 1987 and in 1929 it is dangerous and may lead to devastating consequences for many years, as happened with the Asian Tiger economies in the late 1990’s.
The capitalist countries are aware of the magnitude of the problem, and its seriousness, and keep developing plans and alternatives to prevent or delay an inevitable devastating collapse, to mitigate the effects of the collapse, or to exit quickly in case a collapse happens. A good example of such plans is the recent bail out of the Bear Stern Bank, which almost collapsed after the drastic decline of its stock prices. (The most recent bailout of more than a trillion dollars in US and Europe occurred few months after this article was written).
The direct cause of a stock market collapse is the attempt made by some investors to transfer what they own from fictitious money to real money. As an example, let’s assume that the real money is 10% of the total virtual money. This means the amount that can be turned into real money, is no more than 10% of total capital, and the rest is equal to none. So when the owners of the shares notice that a major investor started selling his possessions (to convert them to real money), they panic and start selling their possessions hoping to cash in some real money before the collapse. Then a collapse takes place and brings everything to the foundation (real money).
Let’s work through the example more thoroughly. Assume that there are 1000 shares in a company. Also, assume that each share is worth $100. So the total stock value of the company is $100,000. For the sake of argument, assume that the real value of the company is $10,000. In other words, the real value of the company is 10% of the virtual value. Now assume that a major investor sells 50 stocks at $100 and cashes $5000. If the rest of the share holders start selling their shares hoping to get real money from the company, they will be able to get no more than $5000 at best, which translates into $5 per share. Now if one more person was able to sell 50 shares at say $50 and cashes $2500, then the rest of the crowd will have to share the remaining $2500 at $2.5 a share. Eventually when all $10,000 are gone, the share will go to zero. This is how the stock values of Enron and Martha Stewart companies collapsed.
The danger of the virtual economy is that it creates a state of delusion in the economy, which can deceive senior economists and politicians, and drives them to undertake projects larger than their real wealth. There could be a temporary positive effect from this delusion, especially when competing with others for large projects. America has benefited greatly while in a conflict with the Soviet Union during the cold war era, where the Soviet Union used real money to finance its projects, and America used the virtual economy for its own projects. But when a state is exposed to a financial or political crisis larger than the size of its real economy, the illusion may push the state into a losing gamble. The current wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and the devastating effects of hurricanes in the US must have contributed to the recent financial crisis in the west. Some countries may sometimes intentionally create real crisis for other countries that depend on the virtual economy, in an attempt to push them to the limits of their real economies. Note also that a sudden collapse of the virtual economy brings the economy to levels much lower than the real value of the economy.
2- The Usury and the Virtual economy
The objective of the financial policy in the capitalist economy, as stated by the bylaws of the Federal Reserve Bank in the USA, is to maintain the highest return on production and labor and to sustain price stability. This objective will be achieved through a mechanism that controls the value of usury (interest rate). During a recession in the economy, the state reduces the value of usury in order to encourage borrowing and increase the demands on goods and services. Conversely, the value of usury would be increased to curb inflation. The point here is to recognize the importance of usury for the capitalist economy as the most important tool to control the ups and downs of the economy. This explains the wide spread of financial institutions that offer loans to individuals, companies, institutions and even governments themselves.
Within this usury based economy, the money flows in two directions. In one direction, the money flows from the investors towards the bank in a form of deposit payments. The other direction is from the banks to the investors in a form of loan payments. Except for cases where the inflation rate is higher than the interest rate during the repayment period, the amount of money going towards the bank is steadily more than the amount of money going towards the investors. If the real money is the money which the investors deal with to increase production and to maintain price stability as required by the fiscal policy, this money will certainly be less than the money that accumulates in the banks. This is the main reason for the difference between the real money and the virtual money. And there are two cases that lead to this phenomenon.
The first case is when the bank performs the lending process. Let’s assume that the bank provided a loan of 100 million dollars with 5% usury for 1 year. Let’s assume also that the inflation during this period was 2%, the real interest rate becomes 3%. Now presume as well that the borrowed money (100 million) was spent on profitable projects and the total profit was 2%. Now the total value to be paid back to the bank = 103 million dollars, while the real money which is the sum of the initial money and the profit is equal to $102 million. This means that (1) $million accumulates in the bank account which does not correspond to actual value in reality. This surplus is the usury which is described in the Qur’an (That, which ye lay out by usury for increase through the property of (other) people, will have no increase with Allah). Note that the biggest borrowers in the world are governments which borrow money to pay for their operations and not for profit production. Consequently, the accumulated pure usury will be much higher than the ratio of (1%) in the above example. That is why usury money can reach during a specific period of time hundreds of billions of dollars and up to twice the amount of real money. It is worthwhile to know that the real economic growth rate in the US was no more than 3.5% during the last (30) years, while the actual interest rate was more than (8%). This means that virtual money over (30) years was (135%) of the actual value of money. So if the actual value of the US economy was 5 trillion dollars, the value of usury excess of the true value will be $6.75 trillion dollars. This makes the virtual money value (11.75) trillion dollars.
The second case that leads to an increase in the virtual money is when investors deposit their money in the banks for investment in usury. If investors deposit in the bank (100) million with (5%) interest after taking into account inflation, and for a period of (10) years. The value of the money invested becomes (150) million. For the bank not to lose money, it in turn invests the (100) million. Let’s say the bank gains (7%) by investing its money ($ 170 million); if (5%) of that investment was part of productive investment by the bank and the rest was pure usury, we will have (20) million usurious money which has no real value in reality. The reality is that most banks do not invest their money in production processes, but rather by investing in other banks and by recycling the loans to other borrowers. This makes the virtual money increase repeatedly and multiple times.
Either way, the resultant quantity of the money accumulated in the banks is much more than the quantity of the initial real money that represents the (real) production. However, what encourages and motivates the continuation of the increase in virtual money is the absence of the urgent need to withdraw large amount of funds from many banks at once. When one of these banks gets exposed to pressure from investors and depositors to withdraw amounts of money (Run On The Bank) that exceed the amount of the real money, the bank soon collapses for the lack of ability to meet customer needs, as happened with the Bank of Boston in the early eighties of the last century. If the Government does not intervene to save the bank and back it up by its funds, a collapse of the bank becomes imminent. When the problem becomes severe and has the potential of affecting several financial institutions, the big countries such as the US begin to print and pump money that could match the amount of the virtual money. This leads to massive inflation, decline in prices and weak production and may lead to a huge financial disaster. Sometimes a disaster may occur by withdrawing large amounts of investors’ money at the same time from the banks (similar to the real estate and credit crisis in the US – this occurred few months after writing this article).
3- Breaking away from the Gold Standard
The virtual economy would have not become a genuine trend, if the main currency (i.e. Dollar) remained linked to the gold standard as per the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944. The agreement established a clear base of exchange into gold within a fluctuation rate of not more than (1%); it also set the bases on how to convert currencies into gold. The existence of such a law can not permit any State economy to appear much larger than its real size. That would cost its stockpile of gold to deplete. There will not be sufficient gold to match the fictitious numbers of the virtual economy. But when the US turned against the Bretton Woods Agreement (in the early 1970’s) and broke the link between the dollar and the gold standard, it freed its economy from the rein of the market prices without any restrictions. The US was not satisfied with breaking the linkage between the dollar and the gold, but it also broke the link between the value of its currency and the economy. It made it possible for money to grow more rapidly and at much higher rates than the growth of the economy. It was this separation between money and gold on one hand, and between money and economic growth on the other that enabled the existence of the virtual economy and its tendency to grow at an alarming rate. (Recently the Prime Minister of Britain Gordon Brown called for the reconstruction of the Bretton Woods agreement – Report on Business.com Oct. 14-2008)”
4- Conclusions
Is the presence of a virtual economy a matter of strength or weakness for the State? There is no doubt that the presence of a virtual economy leads to the emergence of the state as a powerful state with an ability to maneuver, threaten and impact other countries. A virtual economy and strength may allow one country to destroy the economies of other countries especially if those countries rely on a real economy or have less ability than the attacking state. America is still using the virtual economy to influence Europe, Japan, China and others. However, the virtual economy is like an Achilles’ heel for these States. While it appears as a point of strength, it also could be a potential point of destruction for the state. When a state is exposed to real crisis, whether caused by disasters or wars, the crisis would drain up what is equivalent of the real economy of that State which in turn may lead to the bankruptcy of the State economy.
Today, the major capitalist countries in Europe and the US have built their enormous economies on the basis of the virtual economy. Most importantly, these countries cannot go back to rebuilding a more realistic economy. The financial politics are based on usury and exorbitant wealth, and the steady increase of the money has become the only goal of their economic and financial policies. And from here we cannot imagine rebuilding the economy in the capitalist countries to become closer to reality, and therefore they will remain vulnerable to destruction and collapse. And Allah SWT says: “Those who devour usury will not stand except as stands one whom the Evil One by his touch hath driven to madness. That is because they say: “Trade is like usury,” but Allah hath permitted trade and forbidden usury. Those who after receiving direction from their Lord, desist, shall be pardoned for the past; their case is for Allah (to judge); but those who repeat (the offence) are Companions of the Fire; they will abide therein (forever). “(Quran
Chapter 2; verse 275)
Dr. Mohammad Malkawi, USA
1. Bernanke Defends Bear Stearns Rescue, http://newsok.com/bernanke-defends-bear-stearns-rescue/article/3224837
2. http://virtual-economy
3. Daniel Gross, NEWSWEEK; Oct 11, 2008
Article 14, Explanation of the Draft Constitution of the Khilafah
The following is from the draft english translation of the Arabic book مقدمة الدستور
أو الأسباب الموجبة له (Introduction to the constitution and the evidences that make it obligatory) published by Hizb ut-Tahrir 1382 Hijri (1963 CE). Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings. Please note some of the adopted opinions of the Hizb have changed since the time the book was published so any of the adopted literature published after this book which contradicts what is mentioned in this book abrogates those specific points.
أو الأسباب الموجبة له (Introduction to the constitution and the evidences that make it obligatory) published by Hizb ut-Tahrir 1382 Hijri (1963 CE). Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings. Please note some of the adopted opinions of the Hizb have changed since the time the book was published so any of the adopted literature published after this book which contradicts what is mentioned in this book abrogates those specific points.
Article 14: The principle in actions is the abidance by the Shari'ah rule. Hence, no action should be undertaken unless its rule is known. The principle in things is Ibaha (permissibility) as long as there is no evidence stipulating prohibition.
Explanation and evidences:
The Muslim is commanded to conduct his actions according to the Shari'ah rules. Allah (swt) says: [4-65] "No by your God, they shall not have true belief until they make you judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against your decision, but accept it with the fullest conviction." T.M.Q.
He (swt) also says: [59-7] "Whatever the Messenger brought you take it and whatever he forbids you abstain from it and fear Allah." T.M.Q.
Therefore, the Muslim should in principle abide by the Shari'ah rules. Besides the Shari'ah principle states: “No rule before the advent of Shari'ah.” In other words, no matter should be given any rule whatsoever before the advent of the rule of Allah pertaining this matter. Hence, before the advent of Allah’s rule, no matter should be given any rule. This means that it should not be given the rule of Ibaha, for the Ibaha is a Shari'ah rule that must be established through the address of the Legislator; otherwise it cannot be considered a Shari'ah rule. This is so because the Shari'ah rule is: “The address of the Legislator related to the actions of the servants.” Therefore, anything that has not been mentioned in the address of the Legislator cannot be considered a Shari'ah rule. Therefore, Ibaha is not the non advent of a prohibition, it is rather the advent of a Shari'ah evidence stipulating the Mubah; i.e. the advent of the choice to either undertake or abstain from the Legislator. Therefore, the origin is the abidance by the address of the Legislator, not the Ibaha; because the rule of Ibaha itself requires a confirmation from the address of the Legislator. This principle is general, it includes the actions and the things. If a Muslim wanted to perform any action, it would be incumbent upon him to abide by the rule of Allah (swt) pertaining that action; thus, he must search for that rule until he recognises it and abides by it. This is what the verses and the Ahadith have indicated in letter and in spirit. Therefore, it is forbidden for a Muslim to undertake any action or to act towards anything in contradiction to the Shari'ah rule; he should rather abide by the Shari'ah rule in every action he undertakes and in every matter. After Allah (swt) revealed: [5-3] "Today, I have perfected your Deen for you, completed my favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as your Deen." T.M.Q.
and after He (swt) revealed: [16-89] "And We have sent down to you the Book explaining everything." T.M.Q., not one single action, nor one single thing has been left with no outlining of the evidence for its rule by Allah (swt); and it is forbidden for anyone, having perceived these two verses, to claim that some actions and some things or some situations are devoid of the Shari'ah rule, meaning that Shari'ah has completely ignored it, thus it failed to designate an evidence or a sign to draw the attention of the obligated to the presence of this Shari'ah rule, i.e. the presence of a Illah that leads the obligated to the rule; is it Wajib, or Mandub, or Haram, or Makruh or Mubah? Such a claim is considered a slander against Shari'ah. Therefore, it is forbidden for anyone to claim that such and such action is Mubah because no Shari'ah rule related to it has been mentioned; consequently the principle is Ibaha if no Shari'ah rule has been mentioned. It is forbidden to claim this because every action and every thing has its evidence in Shari'ah; thus one must search for the rule of Allah pertaining the action or the thing to take it and apply it as oppose to making it Mubah under the pretext that there is no evidence for it.
However, since the Shari'ah rule is the address of the Legislator related to the actions of the servants, the address has therefore come to deal with the action of the servant not to deal with the thing; this address has also come to deal with the thing in relation to the action of the servant; thus the address is originally directed at the action of the servant and the thing has come as an appendant to the action of the servant, whether the address has come to the action without any mention of the thing whatsoever, such as Allah (swt) saying: [2-60] "Eat and drink" T.M.Q., or it has come to the thing without any mention of the action whatsoever, such as Allah (swt) saying: [5-3] "Dead meat, blood and the flesh of the swine has been made forbidden to you." T.M.Q. The rule of prohibition in these three things is in fact in relation to the action of the servant in terms of eating, buying, selling and hiring and other. Therefore, the Shari'ah rule deals with the action of the servant, whether this were a rule for the action or a rule for the thing. This is why one should in principle abide by the rule, because the address is related to the action of the servant.
However, by scrutinising the elaborate evidences of the Shari'ah rules, it becomes clear that within the texts which have come as evidences of the rules, the state of the text that acts as an evidence for the action is different to the state of the text that act as evidence for the thing, in terms of the manner in which the address is directed. In the text related to the action, the address is directed to the action alone, regardless of whether the thing is mentioned or not. For instance, Allah (swt) says [5-3] "Dead meat, blood and the flesh of the swine has been made forbidden to you." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) says: [2-275] "And Allah has made trade lawful and He has forbidden usury." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) says: [9-123] "Fight the Kuffar who gird you about and let them find firmness and know that Allah is with those who fear Him." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) says: [65-7] "Let the man of means spend according to his means." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) says: [2-283] "Let the trustee discharge his trust and let him fear Allah his God ." Allah (swt) says: [2-60] "Eat and drink." T.M.Q.
Also, Bukhari extracted on the authority of Hakim Ibnu Hizam ® who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “The buyer and the vendor reserve the right to change their minds provided they do not separate.” Ibnu Maja reported on the authority of Abdullah Ibnu Omar who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Do give the employee his wage before his sweat dries.” Abu Dawood also reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Jihad is obligatory upon you with every Amir, whether he were just or tyrant.” In all of these texts, the address has been directed at the action, and the thing has not been mentioned. For instance also, Allah (swt) says: [35-12] "Yet from each kind you eat tender flesh." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) says: [16-14] "It is He Who has made the sea so that you may eat thereof tender flesh." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) says: [36-35] "So that they may enjoy its fruits." T.M.Q.
The address in here is also directed at the action, although the thing has been mentioned. Similar to this is the address related directly to the action of the servant. This state is different to the state of the text related to the thing, where the address is directed exclusively towards the thing, regardless of whether the action was mentioned alongside it or not. For instance Allah (swt) says: [5- 3] "Dead meat has been made forbidden to you." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) also says: [2-173] "He has forbidden to you dead meat, blood and the flesh of the swine." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) also says: [23-18] "And We have sent down water from the sky." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) also says: [21-30] "And We have made from water everything that is living." T.M.Q.
Also, the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw) pertaining the sea water: “Its water is pure and its dead flesh is Halal.” Here the address is directed at the thing without the mention of the action.
For instance, Allah (swt) says: [5-90] "O you who have believed, truly intoxicants, gambling, dedication of stones and divination of arrows are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork. Avoid such things that you may prosper." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) says: [56-68] "Did you see the water that you drink." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) says: [56-71] "Did you see the fire that you kindle." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) says: [16-67] "And from the fruit of the date palm and the vine you get out wholesome drink and food." T.M.Q.
Allah (swt) says: [16-66] "And truly in cattle will you find an instructive sign from what is within their bodies between excretions and blood We produce for your drink milk pure and agreeable to those who drink it." T.M.Q.
The address in all of these texts is directed at the thing, though the action has been mentioned. Such an address is related to the thing; thus it is an outlining of a rule pertaining a thing. However, the rule’s relation to the thing is reflected in the fact that it outlines the rule of the thing vis-à-vis the action of the servant, not vis-à-vis the thing detached from the action of the servant, for it is inconceivable for a thing to have a rule unless it is related to the servant. Therefore, the difference in the state of the text becomes clear with regard to the manner in which the address is targeted.
This difference indicates that although the Shari'ah rule is the address of the Legislator related to the actions of the servants, some rules specific to things have however come to outline the rule of these things in an unrestricted manner, even though their rule was in relation to the servant as oppose to being isolated from the servant. This indication outlines to us through scrutiny that the rules of things have come by way of general evidence, which in turn has come to outline the evidence of the actions, and that whatever came specifically to things is in fact an exception from the general rule which had come as evidence for them through the evidence of the actions. This is so because scrutiny has revealed that the Shari'ah text, in which the address was directly targeted at the action, has come in general terms; thus all the things related to it would be Mubah because the request to perform or the option was general, encompassing all that which is Mubah vis-à-vis this request and the prohibition of something requires a text. For instance, Allah (swt) says: [2-29] "It is He Who created for you everything that is on Earth." T.M.Q. This means that the things which Allah (swt) created for us on earth are Mubah.
Allah (swt) also says: [2-275] "And Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury." T.M.Q. This means that Allah (swt) has made the buying and selling of all things Mubah; thus the Ibaha of selling any of these things does not require an evidence, because the general evidence comprises everything; hence, the prohibition of selling something, such as alcohol for instance requires an evidence. Also, Allah (swt) says: [2 -168] "Eat of what is on Earth lawful and good." T.M.Q. This means that eating everything is Halal; thus the eating of a specific thing does not require an evidence to make it Halal, because the general evidence has made it Halal. As for the prohibition of eating something, such as dead meat for instance, this requires an evidence.
Allah (swt) says: [7-31] "Eat and drink but do not waste by excess." T.M.Q. This means that the drinking of everything is Mubah; thus the drinking of a specific thing does not require an evidence to make it Mubah, because the general evidence has made it Mubah. However, the prohibition of drinking a specific thing, such as intoxicants for instance, this requires an evidence. Similar to this, actions such as talking, walking, playing, smelling, inhaling, looking and other actions which man performs, the general evidences permitted everything related to them; thus the Ibaha of anything does not require an evidence, but the prohibition of anything related to these actions does require an evidence to make it forbidden.
Therefore, the evidences brought by the texts and targeted at the actions, have outlined the rule of things in a general and unrestricted manner; thus they do not require other texts to outline their rules. Therefore, the advent of specific texts related to things, once the general rule of these things had been outlined, serves as evidence stipulating that these specific rules have come to exclude the rule of these things from the general rule. Hence, the Shari'ah texts have come to outline the Shari'ah rule pertaining things, denoting that they are Mubah; hence, they are Mubah unless there exists a text to prohibit them. Hence the Shari'ah principle “The things are in principle Mubah.” These are the evidences of this article.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
To save disaster capitalism, Brown turns to Arab dictators
2 November 2008 – British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is currently visiting the Gulf asking oil-rich states to replenish the International Monetary Fund’s coffers and invest in British businesses as the country enters a recession. He said they had a responsibility to contribute “hundreds of billions” more to the IMF’s emergency bailout package “to lend to those countries at risk of financial collapse” and said he was keen on them investing in British business, following the example of Manchester City Football Club and Barclays Bank, which this week raised £5.8 billion from funds in Abu Dhabi and Qatar.
Commenting on Brown’s visit, Taji Mustafa, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain said, “The gall of Brown and other western leaders is amazing. This crisis originated in the US sub-prime market and has been magnified by the casino of the derivatives market . As people in the West fundamentally question the banking and finance system that has brought this disaster and profits in the hands of rich financiers, it is extraordinary that these Arab regimes are now buying up and bailing out a failed product. They are throwing good money after bad, wasting Muslim oil resources on bailing out the gambling debts of western banks.”
“The system brought obscene private profits for some in the banking industry but losses are to be shared between the tax payer and the oil rich Gulf states. Yet, only last week we saw third-quarter profits of £6.4 billion at BP and £5 billion at Shell. Why doesn’t Brown demand a bail out from these companies?”
“Gulf states have not raised a finger to help poorer Muslim countries facing huge fuel and food price hikes preferring to buy foreign football Clubs and pump money into Barclays bank despite the massive losses of previous bailout investments from these Sovereign Wealth Funds.”
“All the talk of bringing ‘freedom and democracy’ to the Muslim world is on hold as oppression and dictatorship make for more reliable ‘bankers’ when it comes to bailing out disaster capitalism.”
“Saudi Arabia refused help to Pakistan forcing it to turn to the IMF who demand humiliating conditions such as curbing the size of the armed forces, and who will further cripple the country with high interest rates. Yet, the largest supporter of the IMF and the world’s largest debtor - the US - does not follow IMF dictates.”
“Now is a time for real vision from the Islamic world, that can only come from the establishment of the Islamic Khilafah state. The Muslim world needs the Islamic economic system, distinct from other systems. A system that will:
1. See oil as a public property and as such oil revenues need to be used to help the poor and hungry and not bail out banks, football clubs or finance the oppression of the IMF.2. A finance system that does not run on interest, and a currency backed by gold and silver such that people have real confidence in the system.3. A market that has clear rules of trade defined by the Shariah, not subject to manipulation, that facilitates free trading within these rules in a real economy - not a casino economy”
Commenting on Brown’s visit, Taji Mustafa, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain said, “The gall of Brown and other western leaders is amazing. This crisis originated in the US sub-prime market and has been magnified by the casino of the derivatives market . As people in the West fundamentally question the banking and finance system that has brought this disaster and profits in the hands of rich financiers, it is extraordinary that these Arab regimes are now buying up and bailing out a failed product. They are throwing good money after bad, wasting Muslim oil resources on bailing out the gambling debts of western banks.”
“The system brought obscene private profits for some in the banking industry but losses are to be shared between the tax payer and the oil rich Gulf states. Yet, only last week we saw third-quarter profits of £6.4 billion at BP and £5 billion at Shell. Why doesn’t Brown demand a bail out from these companies?”
“Gulf states have not raised a finger to help poorer Muslim countries facing huge fuel and food price hikes preferring to buy foreign football Clubs and pump money into Barclays bank despite the massive losses of previous bailout investments from these Sovereign Wealth Funds.”
“All the talk of bringing ‘freedom and democracy’ to the Muslim world is on hold as oppression and dictatorship make for more reliable ‘bankers’ when it comes to bailing out disaster capitalism.”
“Saudi Arabia refused help to Pakistan forcing it to turn to the IMF who demand humiliating conditions such as curbing the size of the armed forces, and who will further cripple the country with high interest rates. Yet, the largest supporter of the IMF and the world’s largest debtor - the US - does not follow IMF dictates.”
“Now is a time for real vision from the Islamic world, that can only come from the establishment of the Islamic Khilafah state. The Muslim world needs the Islamic economic system, distinct from other systems. A system that will:
1. See oil as a public property and as such oil revenues need to be used to help the poor and hungry and not bail out banks, football clubs or finance the oppression of the IMF.2. A finance system that does not run on interest, and a currency backed by gold and silver such that people have real confidence in the system.3. A market that has clear rules of trade defined by the Shariah, not subject to manipulation, that facilitates free trading within these rules in a real economy - not a casino economy”
Friday, November 14, 2008
Article 13, Explanation of the Draft Constitution of the Khilafah
The following is from the draft english translation of the Arabic book مقدمة الدستور
أو الأسباب الموجبة له (Introduction to the constitution and the evidences that make it obligatory) published by Hizb ut-Tahrir 1382 Hijri (1963 CE). Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings. Please note some of the adopted opinions of the Hizb have changed since the time the book was published so any of the adopted literature published after this book which contradicts what is mentioned in this book abrogates those specific points.
أو الأسباب الموجبة له (Introduction to the constitution and the evidences that make it obligatory) published by Hizb ut-Tahrir 1382 Hijri (1963 CE). Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings. Please note some of the adopted opinions of the Hizb have changed since the time the book was published so any of the adopted literature published after this book which contradicts what is mentioned in this book abrogates those specific points.
Article 13: In essence, one is innocent. No one should be punished without a court ruling. It is absolutely forbidden to torture anyone and whoever does this will be punished.
Explanation and evidences:
This article covers three issues: The principle of innocence, the prohibition of imposing a penalty without a judge’s sentence and the prohibition of torture.
As for the first issue, its evidence is derived from what Abu Dawood reported on the authority of Simak on that of Alqama Ibnu Wa’il Ibnu Hajr Al-Hadhrami on that of his father who said: “A man from Hadhramout and a man from Kindah came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and the Hadhrami said: “O Messenger of Allah, this man has taken from a land which belonged to my father.” The Kindi said: “It is my land, it is in my possession and I am farming it. He has no claim over it.” the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to the Hadhrami: “Do you have any proof?” He said: “No.” Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “In this case you have his oath.” He said: “O Messenger of Allah! He is a rebel, he does not care what he swears and he does not fear of anything.” He (saw) said: “You have no other rights over him but this.” Al-Tirmithi also reported on the authority of Ibnu Abbas who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) has decreed that the onus of the oath lies with the defendant.” Abu Issa said that this Hadith is Hassan and Sahih; the learned scholars, from among the Sahaba of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and others, have been acting upon it; notably that tha onus of providing the proof lies with the plaintiff and that of the oath lies with the defendant.” In the first Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (saw) commissioned the plaintiff with the proof, and this means that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty; and in the second Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (saw) explained that in essence, the proof should be provided by the plaintiff. This serves as evidence that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
As for the second matter, its evidence is derived from the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw): “He whose wealth I have taken, here is my wealth, let him take from it, and he whose back I have lashed, here is my back, let him lash it.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said this in his quality as ruler; it means that he who has been wrongly punished, let him retaliate against me; this serves as evidence prohibiting the ruler from punishing any of the subjects without establishing the charge for which he deserves such punishment. Also, Ibnu Maja reported in his Sunan on the authority of Ibnu Abbas who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If I were to stone anyone without proof I would stone such and such woman. For doubts have been raised over the way she speaks, the way she dresses and over the people who go to her.” This means that the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not stone her because there was a lack of proof despite the doubts raised over her behaviour. This understanding is confirmed by what Imam Ahmed reported in his Masnad on the authority of Abu-z-Zinad on that of Al-Qassim Ibnu Mohammed who heard Ibnu Abbas say: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) ordered a “Mula’ana” i.e. a sworn allegation of adultery between Al-Ajlani and his wife. He said: “and she was pregnant. Al-Ajlani said: “By Allah I did not approach her since we made Afr (i.e.sprinkle the soil with dust), an Afr means that the palm trees are watered two months after pollination. He said that her husband had thin legs and arms and had red hair; the one she was accused to have committed adultery with was Ibnul Samha’. She gave birth to a black boy who had frizzy hair and chubby arms. So Ibnu Shaddad said to Ibnu Abbas: “Is she the woman about whom the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If I were to stone anyone without proof I would stone such and such woman?” He said: “No, that was a woman who used to display vice after Islam.” Meaning that she used to be indiscreet but it was not proven neither through evidence, nor through admission. This means that the suspicion of adultery was there, and despite this, the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not stone her, for this has not been confirmed. He (saw) said: “If I were to stone anyone, I would stone such and such woman.” The conjunction “if” in the Arabic language denotes abstention due to the absence of something; thus the stoning was not carried out due to the absence of evidence. This serves as evidence that the ruler is forbidden from imposing a penalty on anyone from among the subjects, unless he or she perpetrates a crime which Shari'ah deems it to be a crime, and once his or her perpetration of the crime has been proven before a competent judge and in a judiciary court; because the evidence could not admissible unless it is established before a competent judge and in a judiciary court.
However, the ruler reserves the right to take someone accused of a crime into custody before the charge is established, pending a court appearance to look into the charge brought against him. However, the detention should be for a limited period of time and it would be wrong to detained the accused for an indefinite period. This period must be short. Evidence about the permissibility of detaining the accused is derived from what Al-Tirmithi reported on the authority of Bahzi Ibnu Hakim on that of his father on that of his grandfather who said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) did detain a person accused of a crime and then he released him.” It has also been reported on the authority of Bahzi Inbu Hakim that “The Messenger of Allah (saw) detained someone accused of a crime for a day and a night.” Evidence about the obligation of specifying the period of detention is that the Messenger of Allah (saw) detained him and then released him and that he detained him for a day and a night. Besides, this detention is not a penalty; it is rather a detention aimed at helping with the enquiries.
As for the third matter, it denotes the prohibition of imposing a penalty upon the accused before the charge against him has been established; it also denotes the prohibition of imposing a penalty which Allah (swt) had made a punishment in the hereafter, that is Hell fire; i.e. the prohibition of punishing by burning with fire. As for the prohibition of inflicting a punishment before establishing the charge, its evidence is derived from the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in which he (saw) was reported to have said: “If I were to stone anyone, I would stone her..” Despite the fact that she was known to be an adulteress according to what Ibnu Abbas reported. If it were fitting to inflict punishment upon the accused in order to confess, the Messenger of Allah (saw) would have punished that woman to make her confess, knowing that she was indiscreet about her illicit behaviour. It is absolutely forbidden to punish the accused and it is absolutely forbidden to beat the accused before the charge has been established. It is also forbidden to insult him or to inflict upon him any punishment as long as his guilt has not been confirmed. This is backed by what Ahmed reported on the authority of Ibnu Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not in one occasion impose a penalty for drunkenness. “Ibnu Abbas said that a man consumed alcohol and got intoxicated; he was spotted staggering in a mountain pass so he was taken to the Messenger of Allah (saw). As he neared the house of Abbas, he gave his escort the slip and entered Abbas’s house and hid behind him. They mentioned this to the Messenger of Allah (saw), so he laughed and said: “He did it.” Then he (saw) did not order them with anything regarding him.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) did not punish that man because he did not confess, nor were the charges against him established in his presence. This means that he was accused of drunkenness but this was not confirmed, thus he was not punished in order to make him confess, and no penalty was imposed upon him just for the mere accusation. Therefore, it would be wrong to inflict any punishment on the accused prior to the establishment of the charge before a competent judge and in a court of law. As for the reports of “Al-Ifk” (the lie) incident, stipulating that Ali ® did beat the slave-girl before the Messenger of Allah (saw), that slave-girl was not accused, thus it cannot be used as evidence denoting the permissibility of beating the accused. Besides the Hadith of Ali’s beating of Burayrah, the Messenger of Allah’s (saw) slave-girl, was reported by Bukhari and he said that Ali said the Messenger of Allah (saw): “Ask the slave-girl.” And it was the Messenger of Allah (saw) who did the asking. Bukhari did not mention that Ali had beaten the slave-girl. To quote from the Hadith: “O Messenger of Allah, Allah has not made it hard upon you and there are plenty of other women apart from her, and if you asked the slave-girl she would tell you the truth.” So the Messenger of Allah (saw) summoned the slave-girl and said: “O Burayrah!…” In another narration of Bukhari, it was reported: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) came to my house and asked about my slave-girl, so she said: “No by Allah, I do not know of any blemish, apart from the fact that she would sleep until the ewe would enter and eat her dough. One of his Sahaba did rebuke her and said: “Tell the truth to the Messenger of Allah…” Bukhari did not mention that Ali had beaten the slave-girl. However, in other reports, it was mentioned that Ali ® had beaten the slave-girl. Ibnu Hisham mentioned that he did beat her. In the Sirah of Ibnu Hisham it was reported: “As for Ali, he said: “O Messenger of Allah (saw) Women are plentiful and you can easily change one for another. Ask the slave-girl, for she will tell you the truth.” So the Messenger of Allah (saw) called Burayrah to ask her, and Ali got up and gave her a violent beating, saying: “Tell the Messenger of Allah the truth.” To which She replied: “I know only good of her.” Assuming that this report is sound, it however does not stipulate the permissibility of beating the accused, because the slave-girl Burayrah, was not accused in this case and it cannot be said that she was a witness. She was not beaten for being a witness because the Messenger of Allah (saw) did ask other people but did not beat them. He (saw) asked Zaynab Bintu Jahsh nad he did not beat her, despite the fact that her sister Hamna Bintu Jahsh used to spread rumours about Aysha; Bukahri reported in the Hadith of Al-Ifk: “..And her sister Hamna set about fighting her battle, so she perished alongside those who perished.” Hence, Zaynab was suspected of knowing something and she was quizzed, but she was never beaten. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that Burayrah was beaten in her quality as a witness; she was rather beaten in her quality as the slave-girl of the Messenger of Allah (saw). The Messenger of Allah (saw) is entitled to beat his slave-girl and to order her beating. The Messenger of Allah (saw) did ask his slave-girl and he asked others as well, at the same time, he kept silent over Ali’s beating of the slave-girl and over the reprimand of the Sahaba; but he (saw) did not beat any other person, nor did he keep silent over the beating of any other person, which indicates that he (saw) permitted her beating because she was his slave-girl; and one is entitled to beat his slave-girl in order to discipline her or to investigate a matter. Therefore, this Hadith cannot be used as evidence about the permissibility of beating the accused and the evidence pertaining the prohibition of his beating stands; this is reflected in the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw): “If I were to stone anyone I would stone so and so..” Therefore, it is absolutely forbidden to beat, insult, reprimand, or torture the accused. It is however permitted to detain him because there exits an evidence about this.
This is as far as the prohibition of inflicting a penalty upon the accused prior to establishing the charge is concerned. As for the prohibition of inflicting a punishment which Allah (swt) has made a punishment in the Hereafter, its evidence is reflected in what Bukhari reported on the authority of Ikrimah who said: “A group of apostates were brought to the Amir of the believers Ali ® so he burnt them; Ibnu Abbas heard of this and said: If I had been him, I would not have burnt them because the Messenger of Allah (saw) has prohibited this by saying: “Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.” I would have killed them because the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who changes his Deen must be killed.” Bukhari also extracted on the authority of Abu Hurayrah ® who said: “the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent us in an expedition and said: “If you find so and so, burn them with fire.” As we were about to set off the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to us: “I had ordered you to burn so and so, and only Allah punishes with fire, so if you find them kill them.” Abu Dawood extracted from the Hadith of Abdul-Rahamn Ibnu Abdullah on that of his father who said: “We were with the Messenger of Allah (saw) on a journey, and while he (saw) went to the privy we came across a hen with two chicks; we its two chicks so it came and started spreading out its wing. Then the Messenger of Allah (saw) came and asked: “Who grieved this hen with its offspring? Give it back its offspring.” He (saw) also saw a colony of ants which we had burnt, so he asked: “Who burnt this?” We said: “Us.” He said: “No one should punish with fire except the Creator of fire.” Therefore, if the accused were proven to be guilty before a competent judge and before a court of law, he should not be punished by fire, nor by that which is similar, such as electricity, nor by anything which Allah (swt) punishes with. Furthermore, it is forbidden to inflict any punishment from among those not decreed by the Legislator. This is so because the Legislator has determined the penalties to be imposed upon the guilty parties. These are killing, lashing, stoning, banishment, cutting, imprisonment, destruction of property, imposing a fine, vilification and branding any part of the body. Apart from these, it is forbidden to inflict upon anyone any other type of punishment. Hence, no one should be punished by burning with fire, though it is permitted to burn his property, nor should anyone be punished by pulling his nails, nor by pulling his eyebrows, nor by electrocution, nor by drowning, nor by pouring cold water over him nor by starving him, nor by letting him go cold, nor by anything similar. Punishing the accused should be confined to the penalties decreed by Shari'ah and apart from these, the ruler is forbidden from applying any other form of punishment. Therefore, it is absolutely forbidden to torture anyone, and who does so will be violating Shari'ah. If it is established that someone has tortured anyone else, he will be punished. These are the evidences of this article.
Views on the news - 13/11/08
Obama chooses Muslim haters as his advisors
Recently Obama’s appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff has raised consternation amongst Arab nations. Emanuel is an avid Israeli supporter. He holds an Israeli passport and joined the Israeli army reserve during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. A prominent Israeli newspaper, Maariv described Mr. Emanuel’s appointment as "our man in the White House". No less has been attention attracted by Sonal Shah’s appointment as an advisor. Shah and her family have connections with religious Hindu parties including the Bahartia Janta Party (BJP). BJP is well known for its hatred for Muslims and played an instrumental role in the Gujrat massacre in 2002. Both appointments underscore that America will continue to look favorably towards Israel and India, and its position towards the Muslim world is not about to soften.
Minster says Britain’s parliament is too white
Harriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equality in Prime Minister Gordon Brown's cabinet, said the British parliament was too white and male to have "sensible" debates on a string of issues. Harman, the Leader of the House of Commons, warned that the legislature would have "no legitimacy" if it is seen as a "narrow and self-serving elite". "We cannot sensibly discuss the veil (in the Commons) when there is no Muslim woman MP; it was impossible to discuss domestic violence when there was 97% men in the Commons," she was quoted as saying by the Evening Standard. It appears that Obama’s victory in the US has forced many European countries, especially Britain to restructure their political landscapes and make it more appealing to domestic and international audiences.
Enemy of Muslims praises King Abdullah for his peace initiative
This week at an interfaith meeting at the United Nations, Shimon Peres the enemy of Muslims praised the king of Saudi Arabia for his Middle East peace initiative. "Your Majesty, the king of Saudi Arabia," he said. "I was listening to your message. I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people. It's right. It's needed. It's promising. The initiative's portrayal of our region's future provides hope to the people and inspires confidence in the nations." Peres was referring to the Saudi peace plan, proposed in 2002, which calls for Israel to withdraw from parts of occupied Palestine in exchange for Arab recognition. Peres’s overtures coincide with Israel’s inhumane blockade of Gaza. Once again the rulers of Saudi Arabia have betrayed the Palestinians by openly supporting the brutal occupation by the Jewish state. Allah says: “The Jews and Christians will never be pleased with you until you follow their belief”.
Russia’s constitutional reform points to Putin’s return as president
On 13/11/2008 the Times reported that Russia’s parliament is rushing through plans to extend the presidential term from four years to six. A constitutional amendment is to be fast-tracked through the Duma, the lower house of parliament, which will vote this week on all three readings of the Bill. Deputies usually take weeks to consider legislation over three readings before passing it into law. The speed of reading is leading to speculation that Vladimir Putin plans a dramatic return to the Kremlin. An unnamed Kremlin adviser was quoted in Vedomosti, a daily business newspaper, last week as saying that the reform was intended to restore Mr. Putin to the presidency as early as next year. He became Prime Minister after selecting Mr. Medvedev to be his successor in elections in March. Under such a scheme Mr. Medvedev would enact the amendment and some unpopular social reforms. He would then resign and call a snap election in 2009 to make way for Putin to return. This would allow Putin to govern for two more terms of six years each, until 2021, allowing him to continue with his aggressive policies against America and the West.
Pakistan raises interest rate to please IMF
On 12/11/2008 the state bank of Pakistan raised its interest rate from 13% to 15%. The rate increase comes at a time when all the major economies in the world are slashing interest rates to save their economies from recession. Pakistan is following in the footsteps of Ukraine and Vietnam; both increased interest rates to qualify for IMF bail out packages. Pakistan does not require the IMF loans to rescue its economy. Rather, Pakistan needs abandon wholesale the capitalist economic solutions it copies from the West and return to Islamic economics. This includes a return to the gold standard, taxation on wealth, restriction on the privatization of public utilities, default on international loans and pursuance of industrialization on a war footing. These solutions can only be implemented through the re-establishment of the Khilafah. The Khilafah is the only system that will ensure economy self-sufficiency for Pakistan and its people.
13/11/2008
Recently Obama’s appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff has raised consternation amongst Arab nations. Emanuel is an avid Israeli supporter. He holds an Israeli passport and joined the Israeli army reserve during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. A prominent Israeli newspaper, Maariv described Mr. Emanuel’s appointment as "our man in the White House". No less has been attention attracted by Sonal Shah’s appointment as an advisor. Shah and her family have connections with religious Hindu parties including the Bahartia Janta Party (BJP). BJP is well known for its hatred for Muslims and played an instrumental role in the Gujrat massacre in 2002. Both appointments underscore that America will continue to look favorably towards Israel and India, and its position towards the Muslim world is not about to soften.
Minster says Britain’s parliament is too white
Harriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equality in Prime Minister Gordon Brown's cabinet, said the British parliament was too white and male to have "sensible" debates on a string of issues. Harman, the Leader of the House of Commons, warned that the legislature would have "no legitimacy" if it is seen as a "narrow and self-serving elite". "We cannot sensibly discuss the veil (in the Commons) when there is no Muslim woman MP; it was impossible to discuss domestic violence when there was 97% men in the Commons," she was quoted as saying by the Evening Standard. It appears that Obama’s victory in the US has forced many European countries, especially Britain to restructure their political landscapes and make it more appealing to domestic and international audiences.
Enemy of Muslims praises King Abdullah for his peace initiative
This week at an interfaith meeting at the United Nations, Shimon Peres the enemy of Muslims praised the king of Saudi Arabia for his Middle East peace initiative. "Your Majesty, the king of Saudi Arabia," he said. "I was listening to your message. I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people. It's right. It's needed. It's promising. The initiative's portrayal of our region's future provides hope to the people and inspires confidence in the nations." Peres was referring to the Saudi peace plan, proposed in 2002, which calls for Israel to withdraw from parts of occupied Palestine in exchange for Arab recognition. Peres’s overtures coincide with Israel’s inhumane blockade of Gaza. Once again the rulers of Saudi Arabia have betrayed the Palestinians by openly supporting the brutal occupation by the Jewish state. Allah says: “The Jews and Christians will never be pleased with you until you follow their belief”.
Russia’s constitutional reform points to Putin’s return as president
On 13/11/2008 the Times reported that Russia’s parliament is rushing through plans to extend the presidential term from four years to six. A constitutional amendment is to be fast-tracked through the Duma, the lower house of parliament, which will vote this week on all three readings of the Bill. Deputies usually take weeks to consider legislation over three readings before passing it into law. The speed of reading is leading to speculation that Vladimir Putin plans a dramatic return to the Kremlin. An unnamed Kremlin adviser was quoted in Vedomosti, a daily business newspaper, last week as saying that the reform was intended to restore Mr. Putin to the presidency as early as next year. He became Prime Minister after selecting Mr. Medvedev to be his successor in elections in March. Under such a scheme Mr. Medvedev would enact the amendment and some unpopular social reforms. He would then resign and call a snap election in 2009 to make way for Putin to return. This would allow Putin to govern for two more terms of six years each, until 2021, allowing him to continue with his aggressive policies against America and the West.
Pakistan raises interest rate to please IMF
On 12/11/2008 the state bank of Pakistan raised its interest rate from 13% to 15%. The rate increase comes at a time when all the major economies in the world are slashing interest rates to save their economies from recession. Pakistan is following in the footsteps of Ukraine and Vietnam; both increased interest rates to qualify for IMF bail out packages. Pakistan does not require the IMF loans to rescue its economy. Rather, Pakistan needs abandon wholesale the capitalist economic solutions it copies from the West and return to Islamic economics. This includes a return to the gold standard, taxation on wealth, restriction on the privatization of public utilities, default on international loans and pursuance of industrialization on a war footing. These solutions can only be implemented through the re-establishment of the Khilafah. The Khilafah is the only system that will ensure economy self-sufficiency for Pakistan and its people.
13/11/2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Did the Rasool (saw) accept the Najashi to rule by the law of kufr?
The following is a chapter from the book 'The Da'wah to Islam' by Sheikh Ahmad Mahmoud which can be downloaded from http://www.khilafah.com/images/images/DawahToIslm.pdf
Did the Rasool (saw) accept the Najashi, who had embraced Islam, to rule by the law of kufr?
The one who carries Islam truthfully, and works with sincerity to re-establish it in ruling and life, whether as an individual or group, is not able to participate in any kufr rule, while claiming that he is working to destroy it. This is because participating in a kufr rule, which applies the systems and laws of kufr, is consolidation of the systems of kufr and not destruction of them. The proof that may be brought, to justify participation in a kufr rule, is nothing but self-deception, before deception to Allah (swt) and the believers. Especially when that proof is in conflict with the Shar’ee evidences, which are definite in meaning and authenticity.
It is indeed a severe test and a great sin, for the da’wah carrier to resort to taking a maslahah (interest), which his mind deduces, but the Shar’a did not consider, as an evidence to justify for himself his opposition to the text that is definite in meaning and authenticity. Or for him to resort to something not amounting to be a shubhat ad-daleel (semblance of an evidence), in order to justify participation in a kufr rule, which governs by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed; even though participation in kufr rule contradicts the evidences that are definite in meaning and authenticity. These evidences oblige ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed and prohibit ruling by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed.
They take the story of an-Najashi - whose death the Messenger (saw) announced to the Sahabah the day he died and then prayed Salatul Janazah for him - as an evidence to justify participation in a kufr rule that rules by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed. They take the view that the Najashi had embraced Islam in the time of the Messenger (saw) and continued to rule by the system that he used to rule with before he had embraced Islam, even though it was a non-Islamic system. To prove this, they cite six ahadith, reported by al-Bukhari, relating to Najashi’s death and the prayer that was performed for him. Three of them have been narrated by Jaabir b. ‘Abdullah al-Ansari and the other three by Abu Hurayra. Even though these six evidences cannot stand up as an evidence to justify participation in a kufr rule that rules by kufr systems and laws. The following points will explain this matter.
1- When Bukhari reported these ahadith, he placed five of them under the heading ‘Bab mawt an-najashi’ (Chapter on the death of an-Najashi) and he reported the sixth in ‘bab al-janaaiz’ (Chapter of funeral prayers). All six ahadith are to do with the death of an-Najashi, the Messenger’s (saw) informing of the Sahabah about his death, that he was a pious man, and he was their brother, then he (saw) ordered them to ask Allah (swt) to forgive him, and to pray with him the funeral prayer for an-Najashi. These indicate that he was a Muslim.
2- Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalaani, in his book ‘Fathul Baari’ (commentary on the Sahih of Bukhari), commented on Bukhari’s report (on the incident) under the title ‘death of an-Najashi’ rather than his report on his conversion to Islam. He said; “There was confusion that al-Bukhari did not report about his (ie an-Najashi) conversion to Islam, which is its true place, and instead he reported his death. This was because the story related to his embrace of Islam was not proved to him, while it is explicit in his death. So he reported his death story to understand that he (an-Najashi) embraced Islam from the prayer of janazah on him.”
3- The wording of the ahadith reported by al-Bukhari indicates that the Messenger (saw) knew of Najashi’s death and his embracing of Islam on the day of his death via revelation. It also indicates that the Sahabah did not know of his embracing of Islam and his death, except when the Messenger (saw) informed them of it. Thus, in the hadith of Jaabir, he said; “The Messenger (saw) said when the Najashi died: ‘Today a pious man has died. So stand and pray for your brother Ashimah.’” In the hadith of Abu Hurayra, it mentioned that; “The Rasool of Allah (saw) informed them of the death of Najashi, the ruler of Habasha, on the day that he died.” This indicates that the Messenger (saw) came to know of the Najashi’s death and embracing of Islam via revelation on the day that he died. The Messenger’s (saw) saying to to the Sahabah, as narrated by Jaabir b. ‘Abdullah, that, “Today a pious man has died”, and, “So stand and pray for your brother Ashimah”, indicates that they had not known of his embracing Islam, because if they had known that before, there would have been no need for the Messenger (saw) to use such expressions ‘a pious man’, ‘your brother’. This is because he (saw) did not use such expressions when he used to call them to the funeral prayer when one of the Sahabah died.
4- These ahadith indicate that the Najashi had embraced Islam shortly before his death, but they did not explain when he embraced Islam. The wording indicates that the Messenger (saw) came to know of his death and embracing of Islam through revelation on the day he died, as mentioned before. There is not any authentic report that mentions that the Messenger (saw) was informed of his embracing of Islam at any other instance.
5- These six ahadith contain nothing to indicate that the Najashi, whose death the Messenger (saw) informed the Sahabah of, was the same Najashi who was the ruler of Habasha (Ethiopia) when the Muslims migrated to it. As well, there is nothing to indicate that he is the same Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) sent a letter in which he invited him to Islam. This is because the word ‘Najashi’ is not a proper noun for a specific person. Rather it is a laqab (title) given to every ruler who ruled Habashah, as reported by an-Nawawi in the second volume of his book ‘Sharh Sahih Muslim’ and as reported by Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalaani in the third volume of his book ‘Al-Isaabah.’
6- In volume twelve of Sahih Muslim, An-Nawawi commented that the Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) sent a letter inviting him to Islam at the end of the sixth year of the Hijrah, after his return from the expedition of Hudaybiyyah, was not the Najashi for whom the prophet (saw) prayed the Janazah. The text of the hadith is as follows; “Narrated by Anas that the Prophet (saw) wrote to the Kisra, Qaysar, Najashi and every tyrant, inviting them to Allah (swt). But he was not the Najashi for whom the Prophet (saw) made the (Janazah) prayer.”
From this hadith it becomes clear that the Najashi for whom the Prophet (saw) prayed is not the Najashi to whom the Muslims migrated, in order to live under his protection, and he is not the Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) wrote a letter in the sixth year of the Hijrah inviting him to Islam. Rather he is the Najashi who came to power after the death of the Najashi to whom the Prophet (saw) sent a letter with ‘Amr b. Umayyah ad-Damri inviting him to Islam. He did not respond and did not embrace Islam, because if he had responded and embraced Islam, the Messenger (saw) would have informed the Sahabah of this and prayed for him, and Ja’far b. Abi Taalib and the immigrants would have known about his conversion. They returned to the Messenger (saw) in the seventh year, after the conquest of Makkah ie after the Messenger (saw) had sent the letter to the Najashi. If he had embraced Islam, then it would have been a cause for reverbation and celebration amongst the Muslims, especially after the conquest of Khaybar. The Messenger (saw) would then have informed them of his conversion, and not restricted his saying regarding the coming of Ja’far; “I do not know what gives me more joy; the conquest of Khaybar or the arrival of Ja’far.” [Sira of Ibn Hisham]. He should have added: ‘Or by the conversion of Najashi.’ But he did not mention Najashi in this hadith, even though the situation would have necessitated it, if he had responded to his (saw) da’wah and embraced Islam.
7- Those who took the opinion that the Najashi for whom the Messenger (saw) prayed the Janazah prayer is the same Najashi to whom the Muslims migrated and entered into his protection, and the same Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) sent the letter inviting him to Islam at the end of the sixth year of the Hijrah; they mistakenly took this view, because the Najashi to whom the Muslims made hijrah was the one whom the Messenger (saw) commended, praised and described to those who wished to emigrate to him by saying: “He is a King, under whom no one is oppressed, and his land is a land of truth.” [Ibn Hisham]. This is because he gave the best protection for those who migrated to him from the Muslims, and gave them security, so they were able to worship Allah (swt) not fearing anyone. He also refused to hand them over to the two delegates of the Quraysh who demanded this, against the wishes of his patriachs. He prevented them from this, protected them, and told them both; “You are safe in my land and whoever abused you will be fined (punished).” It is also because of his comment on Ja’far’s answer, when he asked him about what the Messenger (saw) had brought; “Indeed this matter and what ‘Isa has brought emanate from the one lamp”, beside his comment on Ja’far’s answer on the second day, when he asked him about their view of ‘Isa, where he took a stick from the ground and said; “By Allah, Isa bin Maryam did not exceed what you said more than (the width of) this stick” [Sirah Ibn Hisham]. From all this, they thought that he had embraced Islam even though the Messenger (saw) had not announced his embracing it. Similarly, Umm Salamah, the wife of the Prophet (saw) who was one of the immigrants to Habashah, did not mention that he had embraced Islam, when she talked about him and about what happened to them in the land of Habashah, when she said; “When we arrived in the land of Habashah, we had the best neighbour; The Najashi. We felt safe in regards of our deen, worshipped Allah (swt) without being harmed and did not hear anything we might hate…” She also said; “By Allah, we were in such a state, until a man emerged in the Habashah who challenged his authority.” She said; “We did not ever know a sadness such as happened to us at that time, fearing that man might defeat the Najashi, and hence another man might come who does not recognise of our right, as the Najashi did.” She said; “After Allah gave victory to the Najashi against his enemy, and strengthened him in his land, by Allah, we never knew a delight as we had then.” “The Najashi returned (from the battlefield) when Allah destroyed his enemy and strengthened him in his land, and the affair of al-Habashah put in good order. So we remained in his neighbourhood, in the best home until we arrived to the Rasool of Allah (saw) while he was in Makkah.” [Sirah Ibn Hisham]. This hadith of Umm Salamah does not indicate that the Najashi embraced Islam.
This is from one angle. From another angle, it is as if those who say that the Najashi for whom the Messenger prayed is the same Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) dispatched the Muhajireen, and the Najashi to whom a letter was sent inviting him to Islam; it is as if they are not familiar with the hadith of Anas b. Malik, which was reported by Muslim in his Sahih; “That the Prophet (saw) wrote to the Kisra, Qaysar, Najashi and every tyrant inviting them to Allah (swt). But he was not the Najashi for whom the Prophet (saw) made the (Janazah) prayer.”
As for the two letters mentioned by Muhammad Hamidullah in his book, ‘Political documents of the Prophetic Era.’ They state that the Najashi wrote a letter to the Messenger (saw) in which he states his conversion to Islam and his readiness to come to the Messenger (saw) if he orders him to do so; and that he has sent his son Arha b. al-Asham b. Abhar, and the letter was sent when the Messenger (saw) was in Makkah. As for the second letter, it was mentioned that the Najashi sent it with the Sahabah returning from Habashah whilst he (saw) was in Madinah.
There had been no mention of these two letters in the sound books of hadith. The author of, ‘Political documents of the Prophetic Era’, mentioned that he took these documents from the history books like Tabari, Qalqashandi, Ibn Kathir and others. He did not mention that he took any of them from the books of hadith. The books of history are not authentic, because they are not concerned with the transmission of the reports like the hadith books. They gather all the reports like the one who gathers wood at night, he does not know whether his hand is falling upon a branch or a snake. Hence, these two letters are of no value, not to mention their contradiction with the hadith of Anas as reported by Muslim, and the narration of Umm Salamah in her talk about Najashi, and the Muhajireen in Habashah, of whom the last was Ja’far, who did not mention that an-Najashi embraced Islam, though Ja’far returned to the Rasool (saw) in the seventh year, after the conquest of Khaybar, and after the Rasool (saw) sent the letters to the Kings and princes. Therefore, those two letters are not correct, and deducing them is not correct as well, so they are rejected. From all of this, it is clear the Najashi who embraced Islam, and on whom the Rasool (saw) made funeral prayer is not the same Najashi to whom the Muhajireen emigrated. He is also not the same Najashi to whom the Rasool (saw) sent a letter to, inviting him to Islam, between the end of the sixth year of Hijrah and the beginning of the seventh year, with Amru b. Umayyah ad-Damri. He is rather the Najashi who assumed the power in Habashah after the death of the Najashi to whom the Rasool (saw) sent the letter inviting him to Islam.
The Najashi who embraced Islam had taken power in the seventh year. This is because the Messenger (saw) had sent his messengers to the kings and rulers, including the Najashi, after his return from the expedition of Hudaybiyah. This was at the end of the sixth year of the Hijrah, in the month of the Zhul Qa’dah. This Najashi would have died in the seventh year, in which the Najashi who had embraced Islam assumed power, and he was the one for whom the Messenger (saw) prayed the Salatul Janazah, and whose death was before the conquest of Makkah in the eighth year of the Hijrah, as mentioned by al-Bayhaqi in his ‘Dalaa’il an-Nubuwwah’.
Hence the period of time between his assuming power, and conversion, and his death was a short time. He secretly embcraced Islam and no one knew of his conversion, not even the Messenger (saw). The Messenger (saw) was informed by revelation about his death and conversion, on the day that he died, as indicated by the wording of the six ahadith in Bukhari, which he reported about his death. The short period of time that he spent as a Muslim before he died did not enable him to know the rules of Islam. The Prophet’s (saw) lack of knowledge of this meant that he did not write to him about what he should do.
That is why this cannot be used as an evidence for those who permit participation in a kufr government, which rules by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed. Their argument is therefore invalidated.
Did the Rasool (saw) accept the Najashi, who had embraced Islam, to rule by the law of kufr?
The one who carries Islam truthfully, and works with sincerity to re-establish it in ruling and life, whether as an individual or group, is not able to participate in any kufr rule, while claiming that he is working to destroy it. This is because participating in a kufr rule, which applies the systems and laws of kufr, is consolidation of the systems of kufr and not destruction of them. The proof that may be brought, to justify participation in a kufr rule, is nothing but self-deception, before deception to Allah (swt) and the believers. Especially when that proof is in conflict with the Shar’ee evidences, which are definite in meaning and authenticity.
It is indeed a severe test and a great sin, for the da’wah carrier to resort to taking a maslahah (interest), which his mind deduces, but the Shar’a did not consider, as an evidence to justify for himself his opposition to the text that is definite in meaning and authenticity. Or for him to resort to something not amounting to be a shubhat ad-daleel (semblance of an evidence), in order to justify participation in a kufr rule, which governs by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed; even though participation in kufr rule contradicts the evidences that are definite in meaning and authenticity. These evidences oblige ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed and prohibit ruling by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed.
They take the story of an-Najashi - whose death the Messenger (saw) announced to the Sahabah the day he died and then prayed Salatul Janazah for him - as an evidence to justify participation in a kufr rule that rules by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed. They take the view that the Najashi had embraced Islam in the time of the Messenger (saw) and continued to rule by the system that he used to rule with before he had embraced Islam, even though it was a non-Islamic system. To prove this, they cite six ahadith, reported by al-Bukhari, relating to Najashi’s death and the prayer that was performed for him. Three of them have been narrated by Jaabir b. ‘Abdullah al-Ansari and the other three by Abu Hurayra. Even though these six evidences cannot stand up as an evidence to justify participation in a kufr rule that rules by kufr systems and laws. The following points will explain this matter.
1- When Bukhari reported these ahadith, he placed five of them under the heading ‘Bab mawt an-najashi’ (Chapter on the death of an-Najashi) and he reported the sixth in ‘bab al-janaaiz’ (Chapter of funeral prayers). All six ahadith are to do with the death of an-Najashi, the Messenger’s (saw) informing of the Sahabah about his death, that he was a pious man, and he was their brother, then he (saw) ordered them to ask Allah (swt) to forgive him, and to pray with him the funeral prayer for an-Najashi. These indicate that he was a Muslim.
2- Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalaani, in his book ‘Fathul Baari’ (commentary on the Sahih of Bukhari), commented on Bukhari’s report (on the incident) under the title ‘death of an-Najashi’ rather than his report on his conversion to Islam. He said; “There was confusion that al-Bukhari did not report about his (ie an-Najashi) conversion to Islam, which is its true place, and instead he reported his death. This was because the story related to his embrace of Islam was not proved to him, while it is explicit in his death. So he reported his death story to understand that he (an-Najashi) embraced Islam from the prayer of janazah on him.”
3- The wording of the ahadith reported by al-Bukhari indicates that the Messenger (saw) knew of Najashi’s death and his embracing of Islam on the day of his death via revelation. It also indicates that the Sahabah did not know of his embracing of Islam and his death, except when the Messenger (saw) informed them of it. Thus, in the hadith of Jaabir, he said; “The Messenger (saw) said when the Najashi died: ‘Today a pious man has died. So stand and pray for your brother Ashimah.’” In the hadith of Abu Hurayra, it mentioned that; “The Rasool of Allah (saw) informed them of the death of Najashi, the ruler of Habasha, on the day that he died.” This indicates that the Messenger (saw) came to know of the Najashi’s death and embracing of Islam via revelation on the day that he died. The Messenger’s (saw) saying to to the Sahabah, as narrated by Jaabir b. ‘Abdullah, that, “Today a pious man has died”, and, “So stand and pray for your brother Ashimah”, indicates that they had not known of his embracing Islam, because if they had known that before, there would have been no need for the Messenger (saw) to use such expressions ‘a pious man’, ‘your brother’. This is because he (saw) did not use such expressions when he used to call them to the funeral prayer when one of the Sahabah died.
4- These ahadith indicate that the Najashi had embraced Islam shortly before his death, but they did not explain when he embraced Islam. The wording indicates that the Messenger (saw) came to know of his death and embracing of Islam through revelation on the day he died, as mentioned before. There is not any authentic report that mentions that the Messenger (saw) was informed of his embracing of Islam at any other instance.
5- These six ahadith contain nothing to indicate that the Najashi, whose death the Messenger (saw) informed the Sahabah of, was the same Najashi who was the ruler of Habasha (Ethiopia) when the Muslims migrated to it. As well, there is nothing to indicate that he is the same Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) sent a letter in which he invited him to Islam. This is because the word ‘Najashi’ is not a proper noun for a specific person. Rather it is a laqab (title) given to every ruler who ruled Habashah, as reported by an-Nawawi in the second volume of his book ‘Sharh Sahih Muslim’ and as reported by Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalaani in the third volume of his book ‘Al-Isaabah.’
6- In volume twelve of Sahih Muslim, An-Nawawi commented that the Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) sent a letter inviting him to Islam at the end of the sixth year of the Hijrah, after his return from the expedition of Hudaybiyyah, was not the Najashi for whom the prophet (saw) prayed the Janazah. The text of the hadith is as follows; “Narrated by Anas that the Prophet (saw) wrote to the Kisra, Qaysar, Najashi and every tyrant, inviting them to Allah (swt). But he was not the Najashi for whom the Prophet (saw) made the (Janazah) prayer.”
From this hadith it becomes clear that the Najashi for whom the Prophet (saw) prayed is not the Najashi to whom the Muslims migrated, in order to live under his protection, and he is not the Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) wrote a letter in the sixth year of the Hijrah inviting him to Islam. Rather he is the Najashi who came to power after the death of the Najashi to whom the Prophet (saw) sent a letter with ‘Amr b. Umayyah ad-Damri inviting him to Islam. He did not respond and did not embrace Islam, because if he had responded and embraced Islam, the Messenger (saw) would have informed the Sahabah of this and prayed for him, and Ja’far b. Abi Taalib and the immigrants would have known about his conversion. They returned to the Messenger (saw) in the seventh year, after the conquest of Makkah ie after the Messenger (saw) had sent the letter to the Najashi. If he had embraced Islam, then it would have been a cause for reverbation and celebration amongst the Muslims, especially after the conquest of Khaybar. The Messenger (saw) would then have informed them of his conversion, and not restricted his saying regarding the coming of Ja’far; “I do not know what gives me more joy; the conquest of Khaybar or the arrival of Ja’far.” [Sira of Ibn Hisham]. He should have added: ‘Or by the conversion of Najashi.’ But he did not mention Najashi in this hadith, even though the situation would have necessitated it, if he had responded to his (saw) da’wah and embraced Islam.
7- Those who took the opinion that the Najashi for whom the Messenger (saw) prayed the Janazah prayer is the same Najashi to whom the Muslims migrated and entered into his protection, and the same Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) sent the letter inviting him to Islam at the end of the sixth year of the Hijrah; they mistakenly took this view, because the Najashi to whom the Muslims made hijrah was the one whom the Messenger (saw) commended, praised and described to those who wished to emigrate to him by saying: “He is a King, under whom no one is oppressed, and his land is a land of truth.” [Ibn Hisham]. This is because he gave the best protection for those who migrated to him from the Muslims, and gave them security, so they were able to worship Allah (swt) not fearing anyone. He also refused to hand them over to the two delegates of the Quraysh who demanded this, against the wishes of his patriachs. He prevented them from this, protected them, and told them both; “You are safe in my land and whoever abused you will be fined (punished).” It is also because of his comment on Ja’far’s answer, when he asked him about what the Messenger (saw) had brought; “Indeed this matter and what ‘Isa has brought emanate from the one lamp”, beside his comment on Ja’far’s answer on the second day, when he asked him about their view of ‘Isa, where he took a stick from the ground and said; “By Allah, Isa bin Maryam did not exceed what you said more than (the width of) this stick” [Sirah Ibn Hisham]. From all this, they thought that he had embraced Islam even though the Messenger (saw) had not announced his embracing it. Similarly, Umm Salamah, the wife of the Prophet (saw) who was one of the immigrants to Habashah, did not mention that he had embraced Islam, when she talked about him and about what happened to them in the land of Habashah, when she said; “When we arrived in the land of Habashah, we had the best neighbour; The Najashi. We felt safe in regards of our deen, worshipped Allah (swt) without being harmed and did not hear anything we might hate…” She also said; “By Allah, we were in such a state, until a man emerged in the Habashah who challenged his authority.” She said; “We did not ever know a sadness such as happened to us at that time, fearing that man might defeat the Najashi, and hence another man might come who does not recognise of our right, as the Najashi did.” She said; “After Allah gave victory to the Najashi against his enemy, and strengthened him in his land, by Allah, we never knew a delight as we had then.” “The Najashi returned (from the battlefield) when Allah destroyed his enemy and strengthened him in his land, and the affair of al-Habashah put in good order. So we remained in his neighbourhood, in the best home until we arrived to the Rasool of Allah (saw) while he was in Makkah.” [Sirah Ibn Hisham]. This hadith of Umm Salamah does not indicate that the Najashi embraced Islam.
This is from one angle. From another angle, it is as if those who say that the Najashi for whom the Messenger prayed is the same Najashi to whom the Messenger (saw) dispatched the Muhajireen, and the Najashi to whom a letter was sent inviting him to Islam; it is as if they are not familiar with the hadith of Anas b. Malik, which was reported by Muslim in his Sahih; “That the Prophet (saw) wrote to the Kisra, Qaysar, Najashi and every tyrant inviting them to Allah (swt). But he was not the Najashi for whom the Prophet (saw) made the (Janazah) prayer.”
As for the two letters mentioned by Muhammad Hamidullah in his book, ‘Political documents of the Prophetic Era.’ They state that the Najashi wrote a letter to the Messenger (saw) in which he states his conversion to Islam and his readiness to come to the Messenger (saw) if he orders him to do so; and that he has sent his son Arha b. al-Asham b. Abhar, and the letter was sent when the Messenger (saw) was in Makkah. As for the second letter, it was mentioned that the Najashi sent it with the Sahabah returning from Habashah whilst he (saw) was in Madinah.
There had been no mention of these two letters in the sound books of hadith. The author of, ‘Political documents of the Prophetic Era’, mentioned that he took these documents from the history books like Tabari, Qalqashandi, Ibn Kathir and others. He did not mention that he took any of them from the books of hadith. The books of history are not authentic, because they are not concerned with the transmission of the reports like the hadith books. They gather all the reports like the one who gathers wood at night, he does not know whether his hand is falling upon a branch or a snake. Hence, these two letters are of no value, not to mention their contradiction with the hadith of Anas as reported by Muslim, and the narration of Umm Salamah in her talk about Najashi, and the Muhajireen in Habashah, of whom the last was Ja’far, who did not mention that an-Najashi embraced Islam, though Ja’far returned to the Rasool (saw) in the seventh year, after the conquest of Khaybar, and after the Rasool (saw) sent the letters to the Kings and princes. Therefore, those two letters are not correct, and deducing them is not correct as well, so they are rejected. From all of this, it is clear the Najashi who embraced Islam, and on whom the Rasool (saw) made funeral prayer is not the same Najashi to whom the Muhajireen emigrated. He is also not the same Najashi to whom the Rasool (saw) sent a letter to, inviting him to Islam, between the end of the sixth year of Hijrah and the beginning of the seventh year, with Amru b. Umayyah ad-Damri. He is rather the Najashi who assumed the power in Habashah after the death of the Najashi to whom the Rasool (saw) sent the letter inviting him to Islam.
The Najashi who embraced Islam had taken power in the seventh year. This is because the Messenger (saw) had sent his messengers to the kings and rulers, including the Najashi, after his return from the expedition of Hudaybiyah. This was at the end of the sixth year of the Hijrah, in the month of the Zhul Qa’dah. This Najashi would have died in the seventh year, in which the Najashi who had embraced Islam assumed power, and he was the one for whom the Messenger (saw) prayed the Salatul Janazah, and whose death was before the conquest of Makkah in the eighth year of the Hijrah, as mentioned by al-Bayhaqi in his ‘Dalaa’il an-Nubuwwah’.
Hence the period of time between his assuming power, and conversion, and his death was a short time. He secretly embcraced Islam and no one knew of his conversion, not even the Messenger (saw). The Messenger (saw) was informed by revelation about his death and conversion, on the day that he died, as indicated by the wording of the six ahadith in Bukhari, which he reported about his death. The short period of time that he spent as a Muslim before he died did not enable him to know the rules of Islam. The Prophet’s (saw) lack of knowledge of this meant that he did not write to him about what he should do.
That is why this cannot be used as an evidence for those who permit participation in a kufr government, which rules by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed. Their argument is therefore invalidated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)