The Khawarij and the Rulers of the Muslim world

With the beginning of the uprisings in the Arab world some scholars now and again issued fatawa against the revolutionaries and the groups active in the uprisings and declared it haram to rebel against the rulers, some even termed them as "Khawarij". This article will discuss the "Khawarij" and its meaning and its application in detail and reality and the ruling of rebelling against the ruler and whether those who protest/rebel are be considered as "Khawarij".

Who are the Khawarij ?

As the word "Khawarij" denotes, It is a group that is involved in the disruption of the unity of the Muslims, so they rebel against the Khaleefah who has been given the Bai'ah (pledge of allegiance) by the people of power (ahlul halli wal aqd) and has been appointed as the Imam for the Muslims.

قال الشهرستاني في كتابه الملل والنحل : كلّ من خرج على الإمام الحقّ الذي اتّفقت الجماعة عليه يُسَمّى خارجيّاً سواء كان الخروج في أيّام الصحابة على الأئمة الراشدين أو ( من) كان بعدهم على التابعين لهم بإحسان والأئمة في كلّ زمان 

Shahrastani says in his book "al malal wan nahal": "Everyone who rebels against the right Imam who has been appointed by the Muslims is called "Khariji" "rebel" , be it the rebellion against the righteous Khulafaa during the era of the companions or the tabieen or those who succeeded them" [Vol 1/page 144]

وزاد عليه ابن حزم رحمه الله في كتابه الفصل في الملل والنحل : ويلحق بهم مَن شايعهم على أفكارهم أو شاركهم في آرائهم في أيّ زمان

Ibn Hazm adds on to the definition in his book "al Fasal fil malal wan nahal" : And those who adhere to their thought and hold their opinions are also part of them i.e "the Khawarij".

Origins

As for when did the "Khawarij" came into existence, their origin was during the time of the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, it is reported in a hadith in Bukhari:

Narrated by Abu Sa'id: While the Prophet was distributing something, 'Abdullah bin Dhil Khawaisira At-Tamimi came and said, "Be Just, O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet said, "Woe to you ! Who would BE JUST if I were not?" 'Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "Allow me to cut off his neck ! " The Prophet said, "Leave him, for he has companions, and if you compare your prayers with their prayers and your fasting with theirs, you will look down upon your prayers and fasting, in comparison to theirs. Yet they will go out of the religion as an arrow darts through the game's body in which case, if the Qudhadh of the arrow is examined, nothing will be found on it, and when its Nasl is examined, nothing will be found on it; and then its Nadiyi is examined, nothing will be found on it. The arrow has been too fast to be smeared by dung and blood. The sign by which these people will be recognized will be a man whose one hand (or breast) will be like the breast of a woman (or like a moving piece of flesh). These people will appear when there will be differences among the people (Muslims)." Abu Sa'id added: I testify that I heard this from the Prophet and also testify that 'Ali killed those people while I was with him. The man with the description given by the Prophet was brought to 'Ali. The following Verses were revealed in connection with that very person (i.e., 'Abdullah bin Dhil-Khawaisira At-Tarnimi): '

وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يَلْمِزُكَ فِي الصَّدَقَاتِ

"And among them are men who accuse you (O Muhammad) in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms.'"(9.58)

As for their formation as a group with specific ideas and opinions, this happened after the matter of arbitration which they had requested that occurred between Ali (Ra) and Muawiyah (Ra), they were in the army of Ali (ra) and they had requested him to accept the arbitration upon which they rebelled saying that Ali (ra) had accepted the rule of man instead that of Allah سبحانه وتعالى by accepting arbitration.

With time they divided into groups and only a few exist today who follow their views.

With regards to the opinion of the companions (ra) regarding them,

وكان إبن عمر رضي الله عنهما يَراهم شِرارخلق الله، وقال: "إنطلقوا إلى آيات نزلت في الكفار فجعلوها على المؤمنين

Ibn Umar (ra) would call the "Khawarij" as the evilest of the creatures of Allah سبحانه وتعالى and he said that "they studied the ayaat that Allah revealed regarding the disbelievers and they applied them on the believer"

عن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه، أنه قال: سمعت رسول الله صلّى الله عليه وسلّم يقول: سيخرج قوم في آخر الزمان، أحداث الأسنان سفهاء الأحلام، يقولون من خير قول البريّة لا يجاوز إيمانهم حناجرهم، يمرقون من الدّين كما يمرق السّهم من الرّمية، فأينما لقيتموهم فاقتلوهم فإن في قتلهم أجراً لمن قتلهم يوم القيامة

Imam Bukhari reports in his isnad from Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) that he said "I heard the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم say : There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of Judgment."

From this it is evident that the term Khawarij applied on those individuals and the group of people who rebelled and disobeyed the Khaleefah of the Muslims.

Obligation of obeying the ruler

The obedience of the Khaleefah or the Ameer is an important matter. The Shari'ah obliges the obedience of the legitimately appointed ruler through Bai'ah and that is the Khaleefah.

Muslim narrated from 'Abdullah Ibnu 'Amru Ibnul A'as that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Whoever gave Bai'ah to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can. If another comes to dispute with him, you must strike the neck of that man."

Naf'i said 'Abdullah Ibnu 'Umar told me: I heard the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم say: "Whoever takes off his hand from allegiance (Bai'ah) to Allah, he will meet Allah on the Resurrection Day without having any proof to show for himself; and whoever dies while having no allegiance (Bai'ah) on his neck he dies the death of the days of ignorance (Jahiliyyah)", narrated by Muslim.

Ibnu 'Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "If anyone sees in his Ameer something that displeases him let him remain patient, for behold! He who separates himself from the Sultan (authority of Islam) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, he has died the death of Jahiliyyah", narrated by Muslim.

Abu Hurayra reported that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel. Whenever a Prophet died, another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafa'a'a, and they will number many." They asked: 'What then do you order us ?' He صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Fulfil (Bai'ah) allegiance to them one after the other, and give them their dues, for verily Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with", narrated by Muslim.

These 'Ahadith demonstrate two important matters, first that the Khaleefah only takes the authority by this Bai'ah, second that Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم has commanded his obedience: "Whoever pledged allegiance to an Imam ... shall obey him." So, he is appointed Khaleefah through the Bai'ah, and his obedience becomes compulsory because he is a pledged Khaleefah. Thus he took the authority from the Ummah by giving her Bai'ah and her obedience to the one whom she pledged to i.e. to the one who has a Bai'ah on her neck.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم forbade the Muslims from disobeying the Khaleefah and considered disobedience similar to rebellion.

He صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "If anyone sees in his Ameer something that displeases him, let him remain patient, for behold! He who separates himself from the Sultan (authority of Islam) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon he has died the death of Jahiliyyah."

Therefore it is clear from the text that it is not allowed for the Muslim to rebel against the Khaleefah. This brings us to another question and that is what is the limit of obedience? Is the Muslim obliged to obey the ruler even in the case he is an oppressor or does not rule by the Qur'an and the sunnah.

Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Junada b. abi Umayyah who said: We went to 'Ubadah b. as-Samit when he was sick and we said: May Allah سبحانه وتعالى guide you. Inform us of a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم so Allah may benefit you from it. He said, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم called upon us and we gave him the Bai'ah, and he said, of that which he had taken from us, that we should give him the pledge to listen and obey, in what we like and dislike, in our hardship and ease, and that we should not dispute the authority of its people unless we saw open Kufr (kufr buwah) upon which we had a proof (burhan) from Allah.

The hadith was reported by At-Tabarani as "kufran Surahan (open kufr)", and as "unless the disobedience of Allah is bawahan". It was also reported by Ahmad as "unless they order you of ithmin bawahan (open sin)".

'Awf Ibnu Malik Al-Ashja'i said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم say: 'The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you and whom you pray for and they pray for you, and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.' We asked: 'O Messenger of Allah, shall we not then declare war on them?' He said: 'No, as long as they establish the prayer among you', [Muslim]

Muslim reported on the authority of Umm Salama that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Ameers will be appointed over you, you recognise some of what they do and you disown some. Whoever recognised he is absolved from blame. Whoever disapproved (of their bad deeds) he is safe, but whoever consented and followed them (he is doomed.)" They said: "Should we not fight against them?" He صلى الله عليه وسلم replied: "No, as long as they prayed."

What is meant by establishing the prayer is to rule by Islam, that is to implement the rules of Shari'ah . This is because the whole of Islam is denoted here by naming part of it. This is common in Arabic, for instance Allah سبحانه وتعالى says: "To free a neck" [4:92] which means to free the slave i.e. all of him and not just his neck. In this Hadith he صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "As long as they establish the prayer among you." This means the establishment of all the rules not just the prayer and is a figurative form (kinayah) where basically the part is mentioned to refer to the whole.

Also in another hadith the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Aiesha (r.a.) that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Whoever inserted anything in this our matter (Deen) that is not part of it, it is rejected.", this text is general its address and includes every person including the amir of an area, a Khaleefah, the head of a family and so on.

Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler in things he likes and dislikes, as long as he is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience." (Sunan Tirmidhi)

So a ruler who rules by other than what Allah has revealed or a ruler who becomes an apostate is illegitimate. In that case a Muslim should not obey him rather he is obliged to work to remove him.

What is a legitimate authority in Sharī'ah?

A state becomes Islamic when its rules and policies derive from the Islamic 'Aqīdah (creed) i.e. when their basis is the Qur'ān and Sunnah; meaning the sovereignty lies with the Sharī'ah. That is why obedience to the rulers is restricted and not unqualified. Allāh سبحانه وتعالى says:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ۖ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا

"O you who believe! Obey Allāh, Obey His Messenger and those in authority from amongst you; and if you differ, then refer it to Allāh and His Messenger, if you believe in Allāh and the Last Day. That is the best thing to do and gives the best result." [Al-Nisā: 4:59]

This noble verse in Surah al-Nisā comes after verse 58, which focused on the rulers when they were enjoined to rule by justice – which is nothing other than what Allāh سبحانه وتعالى has revealed (i.e. the Qur'ān and the Sunnah). In this verse, the focus is on the Muslims under the authority of the rulers, and their responsibility. In this respect the message of this ayah is addressed to the Ummah at large and we can learn from it the following matters:

The āyah (verse) begins with the imperative (command) form verb atī'ū ('obey'): the subject of obedience (i.e. those who obey) is in plural form, meaning 'ALL those who believe in Islām'; and the object of obedience (i.e. the one who is obeyed) is Allāh سبحانه وتعالى. The verse then repeats the command atī'ū (obey) and this time the object of obedience is the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. The repetition of the word 'obey' and the order indicates the two basic reference points that Muslims have: the Qur'ān and Sunnah. Therefore anything in contravention of Qur'ān and Sunnah must be disobeyed, and anything from the Qur'ān and Sunnah must be obeyed. This is the principle upon which Muslims are told to live by and this is the principle on which Muslims are instructed to view their rulers. Here the word for rulers, or those in authority, is ūlul- amr (literal translation: 'the people of Command'). It is not restricted to the Khalīfah, but also includes the wāli's (governors), wazīrs (assistants) and all those who have authority, especially since the word has been used in the plural form (ūlul-amr and not the singular waliyul-amr).

It is significant that the āyah does not repeat the verb atī'ū when it comes to the Rulers, as it did in respect to Allāh and His Messenger; this is an additional indication alongside the clear verses and hadīth that state that rulers must obey Allāh and His Messenger in their ruling and exercise of authority. For example the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said: 'There is no obedience (when this results) in disobedience of the Creator.' [Sahīh Bukhārī]

Here the mantūq (directly apparent meaning) is an absolute prohibition of following an order that goes against the order of Allāh سبحانه وتعالى – whosoever makes that order. This hadīth came specifically in the context of authority and ruling. Its mafhūm (implied meaning) indicates that just as the person cannot obey a ruler who commanded disobedience to Allāh سبحانه وتعالى; so in the same way, a ruler or amīr cannot order, enact laws or rule by anything that is in violation of what Allāh سبحانه وتعالى has ordered.

Consider for example the following hadīth: It has been reported that 'Alī (ra) said, "The Messenger of Allāh sent a troop under the command of a man from Al-Ansār. When they left, he became angry with them for some reason, and said to them, 'Has not the Messenger of Allāh commanded you to obey me?' They said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Collect some wood,' and then he started a fire with the wood, saying, 'I command you to enter the fire.' The people almost entered the fire, but a young man among them said, 'You ran away from the Fire to Allāh's Messenger. Therefore, do not rush until you go back to Allāh's Messenger, and if he commands you to enter it, then enter it.' When they went back to Allāh's Messenger, they told him what had happened, and the Messenger said, 'Had you entered it, you would never have departed from it. Obedience is only in righteousness.'" (Reported by Bukhārī volume 9, book 91, number 363). Here the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم stated that obedience is only in the 'ma'rūf' (good) and not in the 'munkar' (evil).

So the one in authority cannot command anything but ma'rūf, and people cannot obey anything but ma'rūf. What is ma'rūf is what Islām has defined as good, and munkar is what Islām has defined as evil. It is not left to the discretion of man to decide these matters.

The verse also obliges the obedience to the command of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and links that to the rulers. As long as the rulers or those in authority obey the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم then there is the obedience to him, otherwise there is no obedience. It is ludicrous after saying that there is no obedience in the disobedience to the Creator, that there can be obedience in the disobedience to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم as the āyah obliges obedience to Allāh and His Messenger. That is why the Messenger of Allāh, may Allāh bless him and grant him peace, said in a ḥadīth reported by Abū Hurayrah, 'Whoever obeys me has obeyed Allāh and whoever disobeys me has disobeyed Allāh. Whoever obeys the amīr has obeyed me and whoever disobeys the amīr has disobeyed me' [Agreed upon].

As for the statement:

'whoever obeys the amīr has obeyed me and whoever disobeys the amīr has disobeyed me'

In the above hadīth or the following one: 'Anyone who dislikes something from his amīr should be patient. Anyone who abandons obedience to the amīr for even a short time dies the death of the Jāhiliyyah (ignorance)' [Agreed upon]:

This does not mean absolute obedience to the rulers. These ahādīth are about not rebelling against the rulers due to their misappropriation of the people's rights, but not about obeying the rulers in the matters which are a clear violation of the Sharī'ah. Rather, when the ruler commands a clear munkar, the Muslim must disobey that command and cannot say he was following orders.

The verse then concludes that if there is a dispute over a matter, between the Muslims and their rulers, then the final arbiter must be Allāh and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. It states:

فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ

"If you differ, then refer it to Allāh and His Messenger, if you believe in Allāh and the Last Day."

Just as the young man in the above hadīth disputed with his amīr when he commanded them to enter the fire, and referred the matter to the Messenger; we are also obliged to refer to the Islamic reference point i.e. the Qur'ān and Sunnah when there is a dispute. The last words of the āyah enjoin on the believers the importance of referring to Allāh and His Messenger in ruling, by drawing attention to the fact that not to do so is a negation of imān; hence it says: '...if you believe in Allāh and the Last Day."

This is how the Sahābah (ra) understood this matter and nothing shows this more clearly than the speech of Abū Bakr al-Siddīq when he assumed the post of Khalīfah: "Help me if I am in the right; set me right if I am in the wrong. The weak among you shall be strong with me until Allāh willing, his rights have been vindicated. The strong among you shall be weak with me until, if Allāh wills, I have taken what is due from him. Obey me as long as I obey Allāh and His Prophet; when I disobey Him and his Prophet, obey me not."

The conclusion therefore is that a ruler becomes legitimate only when he bases his rule on the Kitāb and Sunnah, ie sovereignty is for the Sharī'ah, and it is for this reason that obedience becomes obligatory. We are not asked by the ahādīth to give 'our backs and property' for no reason, i.e. if a ruler oppresses people, but rules by Islām, we are still obliged to obey such rulers, and not obey them in a sin; while at the same time accounting and advising them to stop their injustice. (The obligation to obey and not rebel against a ruler who commits oppression whilst accounting him will be clarified in detail in a separate article inshā Allāh.)

However, when we look to the case of the Saudi regime, we find that the basis of its rule is not the Sharī'ah, as indicated by its persistent and constant explicit contravention of the Sharī'ah; here are a few examples:

• Permission of usury (ribā) and banks trading in usury, which is category prohibited in Islām

• Submission to man-made international law as members of the UN and other international bodies, whose charters and rules are not in accordance with Islām

• The flagrant and persistent violation of Sharī'ah by the Saudi regime, even after having been accounted by the 'ulamā and the da'wah carriers means that the above constitute explicit kufr (kufr buwāh).

Consequently, their rule is not legitimate and they need to be removed by the people of power (nusrah) and a just ruler appointed in their place.

So to claim that demonstrations against the Saudi rulers is prohibited, is misplaced as the Saudi regime does not enjoy any legitimacy whatsoever from the Sharī'ah perspective. Holding on to the rope of Allāh, and unity of the Jamā'ah arises only when Muslims gather under the leadership of a ruler who rules by the book of Allāh and Sunnah of the Messenger, not under the leadership of those who betray the interests of the Ummah and are only interested in being the khādims (servants) of America. A more detailed discussion on the issue of 'Sharī'ah rules regarding legitimacy of Rulers' will occur in a separate article inshā Allāh

Again, it is important not to confuse the issue of legitimacy, with the issue of accounting the rulers, since that is an independent obligation in Islām. Suffice to say, as the following section will show; if public accounting was permitted in the time of our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Khulafā Rāshidah (the rightly-guided Caliphs), who represent the pinnacle of legitimacy and just Islamic leadership, then by greater reasoning (min bāb al-awlā) such accounting is needed in the time oppressive and corrupt rulers, whether they are legitimate or illegitimate.

Evidences for permissibility of demonstrations and protests

As for the proofs (adillah) for the permissibility of demonstration, there are both general and specific:

A demonstration or protest is a public display of opinion, and it is usually carried out by a group, though an individual can demonstrate or protest. So the manāt (reality) of protests and demonstrations is the public display of opinions. The general evidences which allow people to meet and express opinions would permit people to demonstrate their opinions, as long as the opinions expressed are permitted by Islām. As such protests and demonstrations are merely a permissible style, which takes its hukm (ruling) dependent on the reasons and aims of the demonstrations; thus these must be assessed before a hukm can be given for how can a style be labeled harām without consideration of its aims and purpose? For example, if Muslims come out on a demonstration calling for the legalisation of ribā, such a demonstration would not be halāl (permissible), as it calls for something that is harām. However, if people come out to account the rulers for their oppression, and neglecting the people's legitimate rights (given by Islām); then such a demand – whether via a letter, meeting or demonstration – is ḥalāl, because it is regarding a matter that is not only permitted, but obliged by the Sharī'ah.

Another form of general evidences are the 'umūmāt (generality) and unrestricted (mutlaq) import of the multitude of āyāt and aḥādīth that enjoin Muslims to speak the Ḥaqq (truth), enjoin the good and forbid the evil. For example:

Hudhayfah reported that the Prophet, may Allāh bless him and grant him peace, said, 'By the One in whose hand is my soul, you shall command the right and forbid the wrong, or else Allāh may send His punishment on you; then you will call on Him and He will not answer you.' [Muslim]

Or consider the following ayah:

وَلْتَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ ۚ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

"Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islām), enjoining Al-Ma'rūf (good) and forbidding Al-Munkar (evil); and it is they who are the successful." (Āli 'Imrān: 104)

This ayah even includes the permissibility of collective action to forbid a munkar as it is a group that is commanded to enjoin the good and forbid the evil. This means if a group can forbid amunkar as a group and then there is no restriction on collectively accounting the rulers ie forbidding the munkar in the form of a demonstration. Thus these examples, due to the umūmāt (generality) and unrestricted form (mutlaq) of their meaning, allow the option of any style (for accounting) that the Sharī'ah has not expressly forbidden.

To elaborate further, consider the following hadīth:

'The best struggle (jihād) is the word of truth spoken to a tyrant ruler.' (Al-Nasā'ī).

This hadīth encouraging political struggle does not specify the manner in which the truth should be spoken to the tyrant ruler, which means any style that has not been prohibited by another text is permitted. So whether by a letter, distribution of leaflets, publication of a book, article in a newspaper or speaking directly to the ruler, these are all permissible means of fulfilling the obligation. This is similar to the hadīth of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم when he said: 'Convey from me, even if it be one verse.' (Bukhārī) This hadīth enjoins on us to convey Islamic knowledge or carry da'wah to others, but nowhere in the language of this hadīth did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم restrict it to any particular style or means. Therefore, it is permissible to impart knowledge via one to one teaching, group lessons or even via the internet. These are all permissible style as the command ballighū (convey) is unrestricted (mutlaq): so whatever action will realise this is permitted, as long as there is no specific nass (text) to the contrary.

The above hadīth for example says 'the best struggle (jihād)': this fits a reality where the accounting is done publicly, since that is truly a struggle, whereas it is easier to account privately. It is when the ruler is accounted in front of everyone that he is likely to kill or imprison the person accounting him. This is also the import (mafhūm) of the following hadīth:

"The tyrant ruler to advise him and was killed" (Reported by al-Hākim and declared sound (sahīh) by al-Albānī in hisSahīh al-Targhīb no. 2308)

The fact that ruler was accounted publicly is the most likely reason for the accounting-person being killed; and therefore such evidences can also be considered as specific evidences in their own right by their implicit meaning (mafhum).

Therefore, the uprisings against the oppressive rulers who have not been legitimately appointed by the Ummah and have been oppressing the ummah and ruling her by other than the Quran and the Sunnah is actually recommended for the Ummah rather than prohibited.

Application of the term "Khawarij" in today's reality

As for the applicability of the term Khawarij today, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said in a hadith:

يقتلون أهل الإسلام ويدعون أهل الأوثان

"They will kill Muslims and spare Idol-worshippers."

Hafiz Ibn Hajr al Asqalani writes in his book "al fath"

أما الخوارج فهم جمعُ خَارجة أي طائفة، وهم قوم مُبتَدِعُون، سُمّوا بذلك لخروجهم عن الدّين، وخروجهم على خيار المسلمين

"As for the Khawarij this is the plural of the word 'kharija''rebel' and they are group of bida'a (innovation) and they have been called as such because of their inventions in the deen and their rebellion against the opinion of the Muslims"

He further writes in the same book:

وعَظُمَ البلاء بهم - أي الخوارج - وتوسّعوا في معتقدهم الفاسد، فأبطلوا رَجْمَ المحصن وقطعوا يد السارق من الإِبط

"And the biggest disaster due to the Khawarij is the expansion in their false beliefs, so they abolished the stoning of the adulterer and they cut the hand of the thief from the arm"

These characteristics truly apply to the rulers of the Muslim world today who came to power after killing thousands and still support the kuffar in butchering the Muslims as we have seen in Iraq & Afghanistan. Had it not been the support of the Arab countries like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others, the Americans would never have made the progress they made in occupying Iraq and Afghanistan during which they killed over 2 million innocent Muslims. It is clear that it is these rulers who are fulfilling the characteristic of killing their fellow Muslims and supporting the Kuffar as mentioned in the hadith.

It is clear as day and night that the rulers in the Muslim lands have abandoned the Quran and Sunnah and adopted the western secular laws and they should be called the "Khawarij" for they are the ones who are rebelling against the Ummah and its demand to rule by the Quran and Sunnah.

Maulana Abu Khalid al-Hejazi

Characteristics of the Islamic Way of Thinking

The following is a chapter from the book 'The Islamic Way of thinking' by Hasan Abdullah published by Revival Publications.

With the emergence of the many problems that resulted from the absence of the Islamic way of thinking, some members of the Muslim Ummah attempted to define the course of revival. Any attempt to revive the Muslim Ummah cannot succeed without reconstructing the Islamic way of thinking among the Muslims. Without a clear picture of what the Islamic way of thinking consists of, reviving the Muslims would be doomed to failure and would repeat the same mistakes of past attempts which failed. Thus, fully comprehending these unique characteristics is vital to the revival process in order to keep the revival detached from the emotions, reactions, and factors that precipitated the decline. After addressing the factors and causes that resulted in corrupting the Islamic way of thinking, it is necessary to mention some distinguishing characteristics of the Islamic way of thinking. These characteristics can be deduced by examining the wahi, which defines the source of the Islamic culture, and by studying how the Sahabah dealt with the issues that faced them. Following are some of these characteristics:

The Existence of Truth and Falsehood as Absolute and Not Relative

The objective of the Islamic way of thinking is to reach the truth, which necessitates believing in the existence of truth and falsehood and in the correct and incorrect as absolute, and not relative, facts.  The most distinguishing feature of this life is that it consists of facts and not illusions. Any objective and serious study or thought must acknowledge the undeniable fact that absolute realities exist; otherwise, such a study would degenerate into fanciful storytelling and speculation that cannot construct any sustainable concepts. With this in mind, any research, study, or thinking cannot be devoid of purpose or for entertainment; any such study or research would be in vain and would bear no productive concepts aside from superficial thoughts and abstract philosophies. 

Reaching the truth must be the sole motive behind any study or research, and once the truth is reached and is proven conclusively, Muslims must abide by it and adopt it as part of their thinking.  No attention should be given to the opinions and traditions of the masses, or to any cost or benefit that may be associated with adhering to the truth. The truth must be accepted only based on its merits. Anyone who realizes the truth and failed to abide by it has willingly labelled himself a hypocrite and has cheated and deceived himself, which suffices to classify such a person as ignorant.

The existence of absolute truth is easily recognizable upon examining the manner in which the human being develops his thinking capacity. The human being from early childhood begins to sense his surroundings, and the images of these realities will be firmly entrenched in his brain. The human being at an early age feels the existence of these realities although he is unable to explain or define them. Upon repetitive feeling and sensation, the existence of these realities becomes definite and conclusive, and the notion that such realities are merely illusions quickly dissipates. The moon or mountain which the human being senses remains the same moon or mountain every time he senses them. If these realities were merely illusions that emanated from his imagination, then the human being, who has full control over his imagination, can alter the shape and nature of such illusions as he pleases.

However, these realities exist regardless of his or anyone else’s imagination, which means that the existence of these realities does not depend upon the imagination and is not a relative issue like the subject of one’s imagination.

Furthermore, as the human being develops in his childhood, he develops the ability to connect some of his instincts and needs to these objects. Initially, such a connection during the early stages is merely instinctive or emotional, but not intellectual and such connections exist even among the animals. For example, the infant would connect between his mother’s aroma, her voice and the breast milk. These connections are not imaginary or illusory but are real outcomes of the interaction between his instincts and needs with the objects and realities surrounding him. Food and water always satisfy his need to eat and drink, and this satisfaction occurs in every human being and animal without exception.

With further maturation, the human child beings to comprehend these realities and initiates the process of classifying things by terms. Initially, this process occurs through imitation, starting with tangible things in his immediate vicinity such as his parents and bodily organs. He then begins the process of building relationships between these tangible realities, such as categorizing different realities on the basis of size or shape. In addition, the child starts to comprehend the attributes of certain actions, such as eating, walking, and sleeping. What must be noted is that the realities which the human being senses exist regardless of the terms he attributes to them. A mountain exists regardless of whether someone refers to it as a mountain or a small hill. Furthermore, the attributes that exist in objects are realities which the human being senses from his early childhood. Fire has the attribute of burning, and everyone observes this phenomenon without exception.

Alongside these processes, the child develops the ability to listen to the different sounds, which is the first linguistic skill that man develops and will later shape the development of his vocal system.  All of these sounds and images will be stored as information, which will further reinforce the already conclusive existence of the realities that he has repeatedly observed throughout the years. The child starts communicating using very simple language usually composed of one or two phonetics. With time, his vocal system develops to the extent that he begins to utilize language and express his ideas in a spoken form, whereas before he would express himself primarily through emotions (laughing, crying, etc.) or bodily movements. Once the child acquires the ability to speak, he begins the process of questioning the realities surrounding him as well as their relationship to one another. This questioning proceeds naturally, and usually his parents assist him in answering these questions. The answers he receives will serve as information that will later serve as a basis for his thinking. In addition to questioning, the child also begins the process of issuing his own opinions and judgments. This thinking process will be crude and have numerous errors in its initial stages. By the time his reservoir of information increases and his senses become more refined; his thinking will become more sophisticated and accurate.

The human being, from the onset of his ability to rationalize and comprehend his surroundings, realizes that there is a stark difference between the existence of certain realities and their explanation. The existence of these realities is connected directly to the human being’s senses and is, therefore, conclusive. Since the onset of the development of his ability to sense his surroundings, the human being has sensed the different realities, and what he senses is consistent time and again.  However, the information which explains these realities may differ. Man begins to associate the information provided to him with the realities that he senses. If the information corresponds to the reality, then it will concentrate within him and naturally evolve into a concept, which he refers to as a reference for measuring other ideas and issues by.

For example, the parent would tell their child that playing with electrical items is dangerous and could result in injury or death. They would also inform him that crying in a loud voice at night would attract ghosts which would kidnap him.  Initially, the child would trust both statements because of the bond of trust and emotional link between him and his parents. However, the human being by his nature is curious, and this curiosity entices him to explore. With time, he will realize accuracy of the first statement and the inherent fallacy of the second by comparing both statements to the reality which he senses and to the many incidents and experiences. He will realize the correctness of the first statement either by news of others who were injured or killed by electrocution, or by directly experiencing an electric shock.  When he begins contemplating the second statement and compares it to the reality, he will realize its falsehood through the accounts of many children, including himself, who would cry at night without ever being kidnapped by ghosts. As a result, he would consider the first statement as a concept and conviction that cannot be changed without the need to search for any further evidence to support it. As for the second statement, he would abandon it after realizing its falsehood. 

Therefore, the truth is what matches with the reality, and because the reality is the same for everyone, then this correspondence is absolute and not relative. For example, the issue of whether Allah exists is not relative because either Allah exists or He does not. No one can claim that Allah exists and does not exist at the same time on the basis that some people deny His existence and others acknowledge it. The existence of the reality is something that people sense and not something that people create in their minds or imaginations. Thus, the reality exists in this life because of the fact that the reality itself exists and not because man wanted it to exist or imagined it to exist. The human being arrives at this conclusion from the moment that he begins to sense these realities.

Claiming that the realities which people sense are merely illusions and not the reality is a false claim which has no basis. Those who claim such a hallucination contradict their assertion simply by their conduct in daily life. If a human being were to doubt that everything surrounding him is real including the food he eats, the items that he uses to carry out specific actions, and the words that he speaks and hears from others he would be unable to live. Thus, the ideas and thoughts which either affirm the existence of a specific reality or attribute some descriptions to it are correct if the reality proves their correctness and false if the reality proves their falsehood. Saying that there exists a force called gravity which pushes matter to the centre of the earth is correct and absolute because the reality proved its existence millions of times, and everyone observes the same phenomenon continuously and without exception.

Thus, the existence of truth is a conclusive issue that every human being realizes, and this realization is firmly entrenched. Once a human being realizes the truth, then he must abide by it because thinking is the noblest characteristic the human being possesses. Through this ability to think, the human being comprehends his surroundings, builds concepts that shape his personality and outlook, and develops plans and objectives to guide him through life. The human being can avoid many dangers, whether physical or intellectual, and overcome many obstacles that impede his progress through this ability. Furthermore, thinking renders the person legally accountable and responsible for his actions and their consequences. Without this capacity, the person would be considered insane or mentally dysfunctional and cannot be held legally accountable for his actions.  Thus, the natural course for any human being to pursue is to proceed in this life according to his convictions, which he arrives at through the thinking process.

The most debased of people are those who identify the truth and then avert themselves from it and fail to abide by it. Anyone who chooses this course of action defeats the very purpose of the most honourable characteristic that Allah has granted him, and he begins training himself in the fields of lying and hypocrisy. Stubbornness and argument based on falsehood become distinguishing features of his character.

While thinking is the most venerable characteristic that a human being has, the process itself is time and energy-consuming. Thus, the human being should not engage in thinking for entertainment like the Greek philosophers would do, nor should it be done for show as some people try to do when they argue an issue that is clearly incorrect. The Prophet (saw) said, “I guarantee a house in the Jannah to the one who abandons (the miraah) even if he is correct.”[1]  

The word “miraah” in the hadith refers to the sophistic or pointless argument, or any argument initiated out of stubbornness and not for the purpose of reaching the truth in order to abide by it. Thus, it is mandatory upon all Muslims to abide by the truth and make reaching the truth the objective of any discussion, while ridding themselves of any loyalty aside from loyalty to the truth. The truth should serve as the frame of reference to measure things with. Muslims should never refer to anything whether an individual, emotion, benefit, or institution as a frame of reference for assessing the truth. Anyone who does so has betrayed himself and has sold his personality and independence for a very cheap price. It is expected for a Muslim to consistently refer to the truth, and he should not insist on the falsehood regardless of the reasons or justifications for doing so.

Recognizing the Daleel, its Types, and its Domain

Human beings encounter many issues in their daily lives, ranging from political and economic to intellectual and cultural. In order to proceed through life with its myriad of issues, the human being must develop or adopt certain opinions and thoughts related to these issues, and this adoption will serve as the basis for pursuing a specific course of action in addressing or resolving these issues.  The most accurate and correct opinion or thought will doubtless lead to the most effective course of action in resolving an issue. And the accuracy or correctness of any thought or opinion will depend solely upon the strength of evidence that supports the thought or opinion. Therefore, no idea, opinion, rule or thought should be taken without its daleel (evidence). The process of adopting opinions or thoughts should not be done out of convenience or fascination (either with the opinion itself or with the one who carries it). No one should adopt any thought or opinion on the basis of personal benefit, emotion, reaction, or imitation. Ultimately, the daleel is the sole criterion for determining which opinion is correct.

The reason for placing the evidence as the sole basis for adopting any thought, action, opinion, or rule, is that Muslims will be held accountable for their actions when they face Allah (swt). This accountability will proceed on an individualistic basis in which everyone will be asked about only his or her actions. Parents, siblings, family, friends, shaykhs, leaders, teachers, government, country, or personal benefits and desires, will not avail any individual on the Day of Judgment.  Allah (swt) will ask each person about their obedience to the wahi He sent. Therefore, awareness of the Shar’i rules along with their evidences is critical for the Muslims.

Furthermore, the behaviour of the human being is based on the concepts and convictions which he carries. A concept, which the human being is convinced of to the extent that he will refer to it as a basis for his personality and outlook, cannot emerge unless it is built upon convincing evidence.  Without any evidence to substantiate it, a concept will be reduced to superficial information which cannot define a consistent behaviour. One should not adopt or defend any opinion, thought, or rule, without being convinced of its evidence (with the notable exception of Taqleed, where the person is unable to evaluate the evidences or opinion). This is because the process of adoption renders whatever a person adopted an integral component of his mentality which will define his thinking.  And anything that a person is not convinced with cannot define the thinking. Shallow thinking will be the inevitable outcome of adopting opinions without conviction.

One would say that a person who is part of a party or group is expected to adopt what the group adopts even if he is not convinced with the group’s adoption. However, the evidence for adoption in this case is the same evidence which obligates the Muslim to establish and join a group, which is the ayah:

وَلْتَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

“And let there arise from among you an Ummah that calls for Khayr (Islam), commands Al-Ma’ruf (good, what Islam ordains) and forbids Al-Munkar (evil, what Islam prohibits), and those are the ones who will attain success.” [TMQ 3:104]

The group cannot exist as a distinct entity without adopting a set of thoughts. It cannot even interact with the people without adoption. In order to maintain a pure and strong entity, which would translate into effective communication with the people, the group is expected to adopt its thoughts based on study, thought and research. Furthermore, the group or party should present its adopted opinions with its evidence to its members and to the Ummah, and leave the doors open for any discussion in order for the adoption to produce its fruits. Thus, the adoption in the group in no way should be associated with blindly following opinions or taking opinions without an evidence.

---

[1] Sahih Al–Jami’ As–Saghir, Vol. 2, no. 1477, Abu Dawud Book No. 41, Hadith No.4782

Tafsir - The Sealed Hearts of the Disbelievers

The following is from abridged tafsir of Surah Al-Baqarah based on the book ‘tayseer ila usul it-tafsir’ by Shaykh Ata bin Khalil Abu Rishta.

Tafseer of verses 6 to 7

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنذِرْهُمْ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ 6
خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهمْ وَعَلَى سَمْعِهِمْ وَعَلَى أَبْصَارِهِمْ غِشَاوَةٌ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عظِيمٌ 7

6. “Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.

7. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment.”

After Allah had explained in the previous verses that the book is from Allah in truth and that there is no doubt in it, and after He (subhaanahu) explained the status of those who are guided by it and have taqwa, that they are from the successful ones. Then He (subhaanahu) explained in these two verses the situation of those who reject; that warning does not benefit them, as Allah has sealed their hearts.

As if it was an answer to one in confusion about his command, asking why did He not guide the disbelievers? That is because if the Arabs said “inna ‘Abdallah qaaim” “verily, Abdullah is standing”, then that was an answer to one questioning about Abdullah’s standing and he is doubtful about it. So, when Allah (subhaanahu) begins the verse with إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ سَوَاءٌ , that will linguistically be according what was mentioned.

[your saying: “Abdullah qaaim” (Abdullah is standing) is information about his standing. Your saying: “inna Abdullah qaaim” (verily Abdullah is standing) is an answer to one questioning about his standing and he is doubtful about it. And your saying: “inna Abdullah la-qaaim” is an answer to one questioning and he is denying the standing. … Mubarad said this.]

The appearance of the hamzat ut-tasweeyah (أ) along with أَمْ (or) makes them free from the meaning of enquiry, to establish the equality between them both. i.e. with regards to the disbelievers, it is the same whether you warn them or not, they won’t believe – thus, equalising between the two situations.

[If the word سَوَاءٌ ‘whether’ has the alif al-istifhaam (alif of enquiry) after it, then it must come with أَمْ (or) e.g. سَوَاءٌ عليّ أقمت أم قعدت ’it is the same to me whether you stood or sat’. If one of two names were joined (عطف) after it, they are عطف joined with و ‘and’, none other, e.g. سَوَاءٌ عندي زيد وعمرو ‘Zaid and Amr are the same to me’. If there was after it two verbs and no istifhaam, then they are عطف joined together with أَوْ (or) e.g. سَوَاءٌ عليّ قمت أو قعدت ’it is the same to me whether you stood or sat’. If there were two verbal nouns after it, e.g.
سَوَاءٌ عليّ قيامك و قعودك ’it is the same to me your standing or your sitting’, then they are عطف joined with و ‘and’ or with أَوْ (or).]

Here there arises the following issues:

1. The term الَّذِينَ (those who) is from the forms of generality, so with this meaning Allah (subhaanahu) informs us that those who disbelieve will not become a believer, whatever the warning or bringing Islam to them. So, is this matter left general or is it specified at all?

It is certain that this matter is not left general, as Rasul Allah (saw) was sent with Islam to bring it to the people who are disbelievers. Whoever believed from them became a believer and whoever remained, remained on kufr. Therefore, this general text is specified, with the specification being completed here with the mind. The mind can specify the shariah text if the subject matter was the aqeedah, i.e. kufr and iman, because the mind is the way to iman. Similarly, the mind specifies His (ta’ala) saying:

ذَلِكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّكُمْ خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ لَّا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ فَأَنَّى تُؤْفَكُونَ
“That is Allah, your Lord, the Creator of all things, none has the right to be worshipped but He, where then you are turning away” [ghafir:62]

So, كُلِّ شَيْءٍ “all things” is general, but it is specified by the mind to other than Allah (swt).

From here, the verse إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ “those who disbelieve” is specified, by the mind, to the tribes of the disbelievers whom Rasul Allah (saw) was told that they would never become believers. It is authentically narrated from Ibn Abbas (ra) that he said: “this verse is about the learned Jews who were at the time of Rasul Allah (saw) and did not become believers.” Ar-Rabee’ bin Anas said: “it was sent down about some men from Quraysh who were killed at Badr.”
Others said that it is about specific kuffar like Abu Lahab and Abu Jahl …
[Tafsir at-Tabari 1:109]

2. Referring the ‘sealing’ back to Allah خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهمْ is from the mutashabih (having more than one interpretation). The stronger opinion is that the meaning is that those specific kuffar insisted on their kufr, objecting to the truth, so that was cemented in their hearts, such that it was as if they were created with locked closed hearts that do not accept iman nor guidance. It follows then, that the meaning is majaz metaphorical for solidifying their hearts’ insistence on kufr, as though Allah created them with that attribute.

The الخَتَمَ seal and الغِشَاوَةٌ the covering can be used to indicate their dominant determination to disbelieve, so it is as though they are deaf dumb and blind, as in the verse:
صُمٌّ بُكْمٌ عُمْيٌ فَهُمْ لاَ يَعْقِلُونَ
“deaf, dumb and blind. So they do not understand” [al-baqarah:171]

Allah (subhaanahu) mentioned الخَتَمَ the seal for القلب the heart and السمع the hearing, and mentioned الغِشَاوَةٌ the covering for the sight, due to the suitability of الخَتَمَ, which is locking and stamp with a seal, for the heart (the mind).

[because of that, the complete pause after سَمْعِهِمْ:
خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهمْ وَعَلَى سَمْعِهِمْ وَعَلَى أَبْصَارِهِمْ غِشَاوَةٌ
is preferred rather than continuing the recitation, because الخَتَمَ is for السمع and القلوب, with
the و ‘and’ after it is for initiating a new statement, hence غِشَاوَةٌ has two Damma (the grammatical indicator of the beginning part of a new sentence)]

[القلب is used metaphorically here to mean the mind, due to their similarity in importance to the body. In the language of the Arabs the heart is used metaphorically to mean the mind in more than one situation. The Qur'an was sent down in the language of the Arabs and this usage was in more than one verse. Allah talked of the mind by mentioning the heart in verses. From them is:
فَتَكُونَ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ يَعْقِلُونَ بِهَا
“and have they hearts wherewith to understand” [al-hajj:46] ]

Because, comprehending with these two is not limited to only one angle such as the sight is. You hear matters from more than one angle and understand from more than one side, yet you see with your two eyes what is in front of you, i.e. only one angle. So, الخَتَمَ was suitable for القلب and السمع to lock from more than one angle, while الغِشَاوَةٌ the covering was suitable for الأبصار the sight to lock from one angle. Therefore, الخَتَمَ is not used to describe the eyes at all in the book of Allah, nor in the narrations of Rasul Allah (saw), nor does it exist in the language of anyone of the Arabs, as far as I know.

3. Allah (jalla sha’nahu) repeated the word عَلَى “upon”

خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهمْ وَعَلَى سَمْعِهِمْ وَعَلَى أَبْصَارِهِمْ غِشَاوَةٌ
to emphasise the severity of الخَتَمَ, as though الخَتَمَ was completed in two places, القلب the heart and السمع the hearing, which is stronger than الخَتَمَ in one place. Like the one who protects something by putting it into a locked container inside a locked house, which is stronger protection than putting it into a locked container inside an unlocked house. It is here like that. Repeating عَلَى necessitates noticing the meaning of the related action (خَتَمَ), as though it was mentioned twice (i.e. خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهمْ وخَتَمَ َعَلَى سَمْعِهِمْ). Therefore, they said about the sentence “مررتُ بزيد وعمرو I happened upon Zayd and Amr” that it is one occasion, whereas the sentence “مررتُ بزيد وبعمرو I happened upon Zayd and upon Amr” that they are two occasions, as though when you repeated the particle you said “مررتُ بزيد ومررتُ بعمرو I happened upon Zayd and I happened upon Amr.” That is stronger in meaning the two occasions than using just the عطف joining together without repeating the genitive particle, due to what is in the عطف joining together of meaning one occasion or two.

4. Allah brought the words القلوب hearts and الأبصار sight in their plural forms, while He (subhaanahu) brought the word السمع hearing in the singular. The word السمع does not come in the whole of the Qur’an al-kareem except in the singular. Some said about that: “السمع is a verbal noun in origin: it is said سمعت الشيئ سمعا وسماعا and the verbal nouns do not come as plurals as they are the names of categories”, except that this is not precise, because “الاسماع” did come in the language of the Arabs, but it is rare, seldom heard.

The preferred opinion is that the differences between people’s thinking and minds in relation to matters, and also their differences in seeing things with the eyes, is more common than their differences in hearing these matters, so the hearts (minds) and sight were made plural, while the hearing was left singular.

Because of that, when العلم i.e. اليقين certainty is mentioned in another verse, such that العلم indicates the lack of differences, so, the hearing, sight and the heart all come in the singular:

وَلاَ تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ إِنَّ السَّمْعَ وَالْبَصَرَ وَالْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُولـئِكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْؤُولاً
“And follow not that of which you have no knowledge of. Verily! The hearing, and the sight, and the heart, about each of those you will be questioned.”

* * *

On the subject of the heart, hearing and sight:

1. In the Qur’an al-kareem comes the mentioning of the hearts first, then the hearing and the sight when the matter is linked to iman, as the mind is its tool

خَتَمَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهمْ وَعَلَى سَمْعِهِمْ وَعَلَى أَبْصَارِهِمْ غِشَاوَةٌ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عظِيمٌ
Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment.” [al-baqarah:7]
after
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَأَنذَرْتَهُمْ أَمْ لَمْ تُنذِرْهُمْ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ
“Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.” [al-baqarah:6]

ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمُ اسْتَحَبُّواْ الْحَيَاةَ الْدُّنْيَا عَلَى الآخِرَةِ وَأَنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ 107 أُولَـئِكَ الَّذِينَ طَبَعَ اللّهُ عَلَى قُلُوبِهِمْ وَسَمْعِهِمْ وَأَبْصَارِهِمْ وَأُولَـئِكَ هُمُ الْغَافِلُونَ
107. “That is because they loved and preferred the life of this world over that of the Hereafter. And Allah guides not the people who disbelieve.
108. They are those upon whose hearts, hearing and sight Allah has set a seal. And they are the heedless!” [an-Nahl:107-108]

2. If the matter was about other than iman and was about following the warning and guidance, hearing was brought forward, because it is the direct tool for the transmission. Allah (subhaanahu) says:

أَفَرَأَيْتَ مَنِ اتَّخَذَ إِلَهَهُ هَوَاهُ وَأَضَلَّهُ اللَّهُ عَلَى عِلْمٍ وَخَتَمَ عَلَى سَمْعِهِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَجَعَلَ عَلَى بَصَرِهِ غِشَاوَةً فَمَن يَهْدِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ اللَّهِ أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ
“Have you seen him who takes his own lust as his god, and Allah knowingly, left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart, and put a cover on his sight. Who then will guide him after Allah? Will you not then remember?” [al-jathiyah:23]

It is transgression due to not heeding the warnings, therefore the end of the verse came with أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ, so it was suitable here to bring forward the hearing.

3. When Allah (subhaanahu) mentioned His favours for his servants, by creating them, He mentioned the hearing, the sight and the heart in order, which points to the order of creating these organs. He (subhaanahu) says:

وَاللّهُ أَخْرَجَكُم مِّن بُطُونِ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ الْسَّمْعَ وَالأَبْصَارَ وَالأَفْئِدَةَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ
“And Allah has brought you out from the wombs of your mothers while you know nothing. And He gave you hearing, sight, and hearts that you might give thanks.” [an-Nahl:78]

وَهُوَ الَّذِي أَنشَأَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ قَلِيلًا مَّا تَشْكُرُونَ
“It is He, Who has created for you hearing, sight, and hearts. Little thanks you give.” [al-mu’minoon:78]

قُلْ هُوَ الَّذِي أَنشَأَكُمْ وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ قَلِيلًا مَّا تَشْكُرُونَ
“Say it is He Who has created you, and endowed you with hearing, seeing, and hearts. Little thanks you give.” [al-mulk:23]

ثُمَّ سَوَّاهُ وَنَفَخَ فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِهِ وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ قَلِيلًا مَّا تَشْكُرُونَ
“Then He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him the soul, and He gave you hearing, sight and hearts. Little is the thanks you give!”

The Reality (Waqi’) and the Concept (Mafhoom) are what agitates the Instincts

The following is the translation of a chapter from the Arabic book 'Al-Fikr al-Islami' (The Islamic Thought) by Sheikh Mohammad Mohammad Ismael Abduh, an Assistant Professor at the Egyptian University (now known as Cairo University) in the past.

The instinct is different from the organic need, though each of them is  natural life energy. The organic need requires inevitable satisfaction, and man dies if it is not satisfied. This is different to the instinct, which only requires satisfaction; and if it was not satisfied; man becomes worried, but he does not die, he rather remains alive. So, if man did not eat or answer his natural call he dies, but if he did not satisfy his instinct he does not die. If he did not have a sexual communication with a woman or did not pray he does not die, because the instinct does not need inevitable satisfaction. Moreover, the organic need is agitated for satisfaction from inside by itself, and it is stirred for satisfaction from outside. This is different to the instinct, it is never agitated from inside, and the feeling for need of satisfaction does not occur except by a external motive. If there is anything that agitates it from outside it is stirred, and the feeling that requires satisfaction exist. If there is nothing outside to provoke it, it remains latent, and there would be no feeling for satisfaction. Thus, hunger comes from inside naturally, and it does not need an external motive to exist. Then the feeling that requires satisfaction for the organic need comes from man himself, so he feels with hunger, even if there is nothing from outside that made it happen. However, the external motive might agitate the hunger. So the pleasant food might stir the feeling of hunger; and the talk about the pleasant food might also stir the feeling of hunger. While the sexual feeling is not agitated from itself at all; it rather needs something from outside to provoke it. Thus, the feeling that requires the satisfaction of the instinct does not arise from man himself at all; and man does not feel it unless there is an external motive that agitates it. So, there will be no wish for sexual communication, nor a feeling for that unless man saw a tangible reality that initiates this feeling; or a person spoke before him about some realities that agitate such feeling; or some meanings came to his mind, which initiated some concepts that agitate this feeling. So, unless there is a tangible reality or thought, this feeling can’t be agitated. Therefore, the presence of instinct does not create by itself worry in man. It is rather the agitation of the feeling that requires satisfaction that causes the worry when satisfaction is not attained. If there were no feeling for satisfaction for the absence of what provokes it, then there will never be worry. Therefore, there is no worry for man due to the lack of satisfying his sexual instinct; and there will be no suppression (of it) if there were no reality or a thought that stirs it. So, it is foolishness and short sight to place amidst people the thoughts that give concepts about sex like the books and plays about sex. It is also stupidity and short sight to make room for initiating the tangible reality that agitates the reproduction instinct through the free mixing of men with women. This is because that means creating that which provokes the sexual feeling; and creating the worry until this feeling is satisfied; then creating such reality which provokes it again, so it is agitated for satisfaction always. Thus he becomes preoccupied with work to achieve satisfaction, or worried when he does not achieve such satisfaction. This is indeed the intellectual decline and the permanent distress. Therefore, the free mixing of men with women is the most harmful matter on society, for it turns the effort for satisfaction and keeps the mind busy with the concepts of satisfaction, or place man in permanent worry. The wide circulation of the sexual books is also one of the most harmful matters on society.

Islam came with concepts that organise the sex in a positive way by the system of marriage and whatever expands from it relates to it. It came to prevent between man and whatever provokes the feeling of reproduction and does not achieve its satisfaction; and between man and whatever might make him use most of his time in thinking or in work to satisfy the reproduction instinct. So it prohibited the khulwah between the man and the woman that is not maharram (ie, marriageable) other than his wife. This is because it provokes the reproduction instinct and he can’t satisfy it according to the system he embraces. This would cause worry for him, or indecently violate the system. The evidence of this prohibition came clear in the authentic hadeeth, where Rasool Allah (saw) said:

”No one of you should be alone with a woman unless (she is) with somebody mahram (not marriageable to her).”

He (saw) also said:

“No man, from this day, should be alone secretly with hidden (woman) except with one man or two with him.”

In another hadeeth, he (saw) explained that the shaytan tempts the man and the woman in case of khulwa, for it will be the third with them.

Rasool Allah (saw) said: ”No man is alone with a woman, then indeed shaytan is their third.”

Therefore, men must remove away from what incites the reproduction instinct and what provokes their feelings, in response to the order of Islam.

Audio: The Reality of Gradualism from An Islamic Perspective

A Circle delivered by The Late Sheikh Imam Ali Syed Abul Hassan (May Allah rest his soul), former Spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Sudan and Imam of Masjid as Sahabah in Khartoum, Sudan.

Obituary of Ustaadh Abu Hishaam

من المؤمنين رجالٌ صدقوا ما عاهدوا الله عليه، فمنهم من قضى نحبه، ومنهم من ينتظر، وما بدّلوا تبديلاً

"And from among the believing men there are those who have been true to their covenant of them some have fulfilled their obligations; and some of them are still waiting, but they have never changed in the least."(Al-Ahzaab, 23)

Hizb-ut-Tahrir Jordan makes an obituary for one of its active and persevering Shabab Al-Ustaadh 'Muhammad Khair' Ahmad Mahmood Al-Asmar (Abu Hishaam) who passed away at the time of Zuhr today after 75 years of life which he spent in the obedience of Allah, carrying the Islaamic Da'wah, working to resume the Islaamic way of life via the establishment of the Islaamic Khilaafah and preferring the next life to the temporary life of this world. We ask Allah سبحانه وتعالى to place our lost one among those whom He has said about:

وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يَشْرِي نَفْسَهُ ابْتِغَاءَ مَرْضَاتِ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ رَءُوفٌ بِالْعِبَادِيقاً

"And of mankind is he who would sell himself, seeking the Pleasure of Allah. And Allah is full of Kindness to (His) slaves." (Al-Baqarah, 207)

So may Allah be merciful upon Abu Hisham and give him an abode in the widest gardens with the Prophets, the truthful and Martyrs and these are the best of those to be in the company of.

The Media Office of Hizb-ut-Tahrir

Wilayah of Jordan

24th Dhul Hijjah 1432

20/11/2011

Source

Anti-capitalism rattles the world: Making sense of the “Occupy Movement”

Dissatisfaction with the systems of capitalism in the West is about to reach a tipping point. Only two months ago a relatively small group of around 2.000 people marched unto Wall Street in New York to protest against political and economic inequality in America. Since then, this “Occupy Movement” has spread worldwide, organizing protests against the control of super-rich over politics and the economy in over 1.500 cities around the world.

When the Nobel-price economist Joseph Stiglitz in May of this year wrote an article to criticize the political and economic state-of-affairs in America, he named it “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”. A title which aptly plays on Abraham Lincoln’s famous description of America’s democracy as being “government of the people, by the people, for the people” to describe the reality of the political system in the United States. Stiglitz’s criticism, in short, is that the “democratic” political process in America is fully controlled by only a small group of people, the 1% of super-rich, who use their political influence to ensure that the American economy is organized in such a way that they are its main beneficiaries.

As an economist familiar with economic statistics, Stiglitz knows what he is talking about.

Between 1979 and 2007 the income of middle-class America grew by 40%, and the income of poor America by 20%. At the same time, however, the income of the richest 1% of Americans grew by a staggering 275%! The result of this is that today, the income received by the richest 20% of Americans is higher than the income of the remaining 80% of the population.  And while America remains the richest country in the world, this has left a large number of Americans in deep poverty. For instance, around 17 million American households (14,5%) are “food insecure”, meaning their income is not sufficient to properly feed the member of the family.

It is impossible to imagine that this concentration of wealth could have been achieved without government support. Or in other words, without the enactment of legislation that benefits the already rich and wealthy. Probably the best and most recent examples of such legislation are the Bush II tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which significantly lowered the tax burden for the super-rich. Already before Bush II the American super-rich were favoured by US tax legislation as that uses a much lower tax rate for income from investments (from which the rich get the bulk of their income) than for income from labour (from which the rest of society gets the bulk of its income). Bush II further expanded this preferential treatment of the rich, giving the American middle class an average tax cut of $647 and America’s millionaires, 0,2% of the population, an average tax cut of $123.600.

According to the theory of democracy, “one person, one vote”, legislation should of course not favour the rich. Rather, it should be expected to favour the poor and the middle class as they usually make up the masses. That the reality of the democratic system is nevertheless different is easily understood.

In the democratic system, after all, official positions are handed out based on the outcome of elections. This means that politicians aspiring an official position need to organize an election campaign in order to convince the voters that they are the right person for the job. Usually, these election campaigns cost large amounts of money. To get a sense of just how much, for the 2008 American presidential elections more than $5 billion was spent on campaigning and the expectation is that this number will rise to over $6 billion for the 2012 elections. This means that in the democratic system, every politician is reliant on money to get elected. So he or she is under constant pressure to please the people who have the money, making democracy the system of “one dollar, one vote” rather than “one person, one vote”.

This concentration of wealth and power in the hands of just a few is not a strictly American phenomenon.

In its recent Global Wealth Report the Swiss bank Credit Suisse calculated that globally the richest 0,5% own 38,5% of all wealth, while that the poorest 68% own just 3,3%. This makes clear that capitalist Indonesia, where the news that the richest 40 individuals own as much as the poorest 60 million sparked much outrage,  is not an exceptional case but rather a typical example of a capitalist country.

It is generally acknowledged, also, that while aspiring politicians promise the masses a lot during election campaigns, they usually only care for the well being of their super-rich sponsors once they are in office. For this reason back in2005 a global opinion poll by the BBC found that 65% of the world population feels their countries are not being run for their interest and that only 13% of the people trust their politicians.

On the 17^th of October, 2011, these facts regarding democratic capitalism brought a group of around 2,000 people to streets of New York. They said that to represent the 99% of Americans whose interests are currently not being considered in politics or in the economy they would march onto Wall Street, the epicenter of America’s financial sector, and would not leave from there until the iron grip of the super-rich over politics and the economy had been broken. That is why the movement they started has been named “Occupy Wall Street” as well as the “99% Movement”.

The protestors and their complaints stroke a cord with mainstream America and almost immediately found support amongst them. In the very early stages of the protest roughly 54% of Americans indicated they essentially agreed with the protestors.  This support only grew once the New York Police Department (NYPD) began confronting the protestors. On October 1^st, for instance, NYPD used pepper-spray to disburse the protestors and arrested around 700 (!) of them. The revelation shortly thereafter that NYPD had been given a $4,6 million grant by the large Wall Street bank JP Morgan Chase just before the protests began helped the Occupation Movement to go global. And today, demonstration similar to the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstration are being held or have been held in over 1,500 cities around the world, such as Washington D.C., Paris, London, Amsterdam, Berlin and Tokyo.

The question may be asked why the people in the West have only now come to the streets to protest against capitalism, while the injustice in capitalism has been know for much longer already.

Firstly, this is because for a long time the consequences of wealth concentration were kept hidden from the people.

While for many years the rich grew richer and – consequently – everyone else grew poorer, the poor and middle class increased their lending in order to maintain or even increase their standards of living. From the outside, therefore, it looked as though most people were doing very well. And most people probably felt like they were doing very well. So most people in the West only really began to feel the impact of wealth concentration when this became untenable, which was in 2007. At that moment, the decades long increase in lending came to a sudden halt as many people began to struggle with their debt. This caused the financial industry in the West to become insolvent, so they stopped lending to the people. Overnight, therefore, the masses had to go from a situation where they could spend more than their income, to a situation where they had to spend much less than their income. This caused the people to really feel the impact of capitalism’s tendency towards wealth concentration. And this brought about in them strong dissatisfaction with capitalism.

Secondly, this is because the response of the governments of the West to this credit crisis left no doubt as to where their loyalty lies.

Considering the role that the financial industry – especially banks – plays in capitalist economies, the debt problems of the masses threatened the western world with wholesale, 1929 Great Depression like, economic collapse. As in the capitalist economies by far most investment and consumption is financed through bank loans, the insolvency of the financial industry caused investment and consumption to all but dry up. The governments of the West therefore felt forced to intervene in the market, and for this were left with a choice. They could either help the citizens whose backs were being broken by loans they could not carry, and thereby help the banks. Or they could bypass the citizens and directly help the banks. From the perspective of society the first option was clearly preferable, as all would be helped. From the perspective of the banks, however, the second option was preferable. For after all, if the government would take the people out of debt then the profit of the banks would be hurt for years to come. So when the governments of the West acted, they acted to save only the banks, leaving the people to carry their unbearable debt. This was one of the most obvious acts of preferential treatment for the super-rich by the governments of the West ever. But as if this were not enough, no sooner had the banks been “bailed out” by their governments or they started paying billion dollar bonuses again to their chief executives. And these two occurrences together filled the masses with disgust for the capitalist system that brought this about.

For as far as Europe is concerned, there is the added cause that after the banks had been bailed out by their governments, they turned around and began to threaten these same governments. Under no circumstance would they accept a government defaulting on its loans, they made clear, and they would punish any government who would do so by stopping all lending to it. In response the European governments quickly presented new policy to ensure that whatever happened, the banks would continue to receive the payments due on government debt. So they drastically cut back on various types of expenditure, such as social security, health care and education. But as in the capitalist economies government spending makes up a large part of total spending, the result of this was an economic downturn. So people began to lose their jobs, just as life became more expensive and government support for the employed was cut.

It is beyond doubt, therefore, that the global Occupy Movement is an expression of anti-capitalist sentiment. Yet it is very unlikely that the Occupy Movement will cause any meaningful change. The Occupy Movement is unclear, namely, on how to correct the present situation.

Some people call for less capitalism, or more government control over the economy. But this request is unrealistic. It is abundantly clear that the governments in the capitalist world are under the control of the super-rich, so how could one expect the these governments to really reign in the power and influence of these same super-rich? At most what could happen is that the super-rich will agree to some cosmetic measures to limit their own freedom, but only in order to appease the protestors and preserve the system they then continue to control.

Other people in the Occupy Movement call for more capitalism as a solution to the current problems. But as concentration of political and economic power are characteristics of capitalism, this will only serve to make matters worse.

However, as the current political and economic problems of the world are a natural outcome of the capitalist system, anything short of a complete and radical change to the way the world is organized, meaning a complete and radical change of ideology and systems, will leave the world in its present state in which the masses are exploited for the benefit of a few.

Idries de Vries is an economist who writes on economics and geopolitics for various publications. As a management professional he has lived and worked in Europe, America and Asia.

Source