The following is a Q&A related to Usul al-Fiqh. It is basically about what is considered to be shubhat ad-daleel (semblence of evidence) which serves as a basis to consider something a legitimate Islamic opinion in Fiqh. It is a draft translation from Arabic.
Question: What is the shubhat ad-daleel (semblance of evidence)? The one who says that cutting off the hand of the thief means to prevent stealing or it means to wound and scar and not to sever it from the body. Does the one who says those have a shubhat ad daleel? And does the one who says that the Islamic state was not established until after the treaty of Hudaybiyah have a shubhat daleel?
Answer: The shubhat ad-daleel is ascertained in the following:
A.. Evidences for which definite general evidence has been provided to consider then as Shariah evidences and they are the Kitab, Sunnah, ijmaah as-sahabah and Qiyas in the event that their meaning is speculative (zanniyah) and outweighed (murjuha) i.e. not definite (qatiyyah) or preponderant (rajiha).
B Evidences for which speculative general evidences has been provided for their recognition/consideration. They are; Istihsan (juristic preference), al-masalih al mursala (unqualified interests), mazhab as-sahabhi etc all the same whether their meanings are definite (qatiyyah) or speculative (zanniyah).
C That the angle of deductive reasoning (istidlal) regarding these evidences must have been on studies of the Arabic language and studies of sections of the Quran and Sunnah.
If these issues are not met then there will be no shubhat ad daleel, and definitely no daleel.
Example A: those who permit the muzara’ah (leasing land for the purpose of cultivating crops) relied on the Sunnah. From the Sunnah it is what ibn Umar narrated. He said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) made a deal with the people of Khaybar that they would get half of what it (the land Khaybar) produces of crops and fruit’ they understood this to mean that the land was cultivated for payment of half the produce. So this understanding depends on a Shari’ a evidence, the Sunnah but the meaning here is speculative. It can mean leasing land for the faming of arable crops (muzara’ah) or irrigating (existing) tree plantations (musaaqaah) because the hadith says (half of what it produces of crops and fruit). The word crops’ indicates that a part of the produce was obtained through muzara’ah i.e. the land was cultivated from arable crops. And the word ‘fruit’ indicates that another part was obtained through musaaqaah i.e. the land was planted with (fruit bearing) trees.
However, by bringing together all the evidences concerning the land of Khaybar, it becomes clear that the land was planted with trees (mushajjarah), and that there were areas between the trees that used to be planted with crops i.e. within the gaps between the trees. Accordingly, the land of Khaybar was planted with trees (musaaqaah) and only a small area between the trees was farmed for crops, therefore the ruling will be for what was predominant i.e. for musaaqaah. This is clear in the hadiths which explained the shares of the wives of the Messenger (saw) from the produce of the land. The hadith mentions that he (saw) used to give his wives one hundred wasq each (one wasq = 130.56kg), eighty wasq of dates and twenty wasq of barley. It is clear that the trees were predominant. Therefore, the preponderant speculative meaning of the hadith will be that the land was planted with trees. So the outweighed speculative meaning will be that there was a separate part of the land which was cultivated for crops and that should take the rule of muzara’ah. Consequently, the one who permits muzara’ah based on this understanding can be said to have a shubhat ad-daleel (There are other evidences which prohibit muzara’ah but the intension here is to explain the shubhat ad-daleel).
Example B: Those who said that the private employees (ajeer khas) does not guarantee/insure the damage to a shirt he has been hired to tailor, if the damage was not considered to be from him. As for the freelance worker (ajeer aam), he must guarantee. And that is based on Istihsan as they claim, so that the freelance worker does not accept jobs that are beyond his capacity. This view of theirs does not rely on an evidence, rather the evidence is contrary to that. The messenger (saw) said: “There is no (obligation of) guarantee on the one who has been entrusted’. It includes anyone entrusted with something whether he is a freelance worker or a private worker. However with regards to those who advocate Istihsan, it is a shubhat ad-daleel for them.
Example C: The verse: “Cut the hand of the thief, male or female” [al-Maidah:38]
If it is said that the meaning of cutting is to prevent him from stealing through any means, it is not necessary to really cut off his hand, prevention can happen by imprisonment, exhortation or by this and that. Or if it claimed that the word “qata” (to cut) is an ambivalent term (lafz al mujmal) regarding cutting by separating the limb (amputation) or cutting by only wounding or scarring. And that both cases are allowed: amputation or scarring.
If this is claimed, then it cannot be said that those who hold the view of only metaphorical prevention and wounding that they have a shubhat ad-daleel. That cannot be claimed, because the angle of deductive reasoning in this manner regarding the noble ayah does not accord with the Arabic language or sections of the Kitab and Sunnah. As regards the language, one does not proceed to the metaphorical meaning (majazi) except when the real meaning is impossible. Here there is no question of impossibility. So the real cutting is what is made recourse to, it is not allowed to extend beyond it to another meaning.
As regards sections of the Kitab and Sunnah, if we consider the word qata (to cut) is an ambivalent term , lafz mujmal, regarding cutting by separating the limb amputation or cutting by only wounding or scarring. If this is what is considered , then the messenger (saw) has explained this ambivalence (mujmal). When a mujmal has been explained it comes to have a fixed meaning and one does not refer to a meaning contradicting it. Abu Hurairah (ra) narrated that ‘a thief who had stolen a turban was brought to the Messenger of Allah. They (the people who brought him) said; Oh Rasoolallah, this man has committed theft. So Rasoolallah (saw) said; I don’t think he did. The thief replied saying that he did, so Rasoolallah (saw) said; go and cut off his hand, then stop his bleeding (ihsimu)’. The word ‘haam’ means to prepare boiling oil. When the hand is cut it is immersed in the oil to block of openings of the blood veins so that he does not lose too much blood and die. Similarly, the hadith narrated by Aisha (ra); “The Prophet (saw) cut of the hand of a women.”
That is why Abu Bakr and Umar followed without any objection from any of the sahabah.
That is why the one who says cutting the hand of the thief means to prevent him using any means or to wound him only without actually cutting his hand off. It cannot be said about then that they have a Shubhat daleel. Rather what is said is that punishing the thief with anything other than the actual cutting of the hand is a Kufr rule. It has no evidence, or semblance of evidence.
Similarly, one cannot claim about an understanding of historical or political events that does not rely on the Shariah evidences (Kitab, Sunnah, ijmaah as sahabah and Qiyas) and other evidences (Istihsan, al masalih ar mursala). It cannot be said that this understanding has an evidence or a semblance of an evidence because of the term has a terminological meaning as set down by the mentioned except in the manner we have explained, i.e. political and historical incidents as such can’t stand to be evidence by themselves.
Accordingly as for the one who says that the first Islamic state was established after the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. It cannot be said that he has a shubhat ad-daleel. Rather we should say: his statement is a mistake, the correct view is that the Islamic state existed after the Hijra (migration) of the Messenger (saw) to Madinah. The rules were indeed applied and Islam was conveyed through Dawa and Jihad. The authority of Islam did exist and the state was an actual and real entity.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Political Concepts Part 5 - Motives of struggle between states
The following is an extract of the draft english translation of an excellent recent book entitled 'Political Concepts' which was published in the Arab world in 2005. I will be posting more sections of the book in future.
Motives of struggle between states
There is no other than two motives behind international struggle since start of history till the Hour time. These are either love of supremacy and pride or competition over material benefits. Love of supremacy could be for loving the supremacy of the nation or the people, as it was the case of Germany the Nazi and Italy the Fascist. It might also be for loving the supremacy and propagation of the ideology, as it was the case of the Islamic state throughout about thirteen centuries, as well as the case of the communist state during its thirty years age, and before it collapsed at the beginning of the nineties of last century, seventy years after its formation.
As regarding the motive of restricting the build up of another’s state power, as it happened with the states in restricting Napoleon, restricting the Islamic state, as well as restricting Germany the Nazi, all of this comes under loving the supremacy, because it is challenge for the supremacy of others.
After the removal of the Islamic state and the collapse of the Soviet state, the motive that dominates the entire world became competition over material benefits. This motive will continue as such till the return of the Islamic state to the world once again as a superpower that influences the international struggle. At that time, the motive of loving the supremacy and propagation of the ideology will come back.
The most dangerous motive behind struggle between the states is colonialism, including all of its forms. This is because this is the motive that caused the small wars, the two world wars, the Gulf wars and wars in Africa, besides the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq. It is also still responsible about the disturbances and crises in the world.
The present competition, conflict and struggle between America, Britain, France and Russia, whether the open or hidden, over the issues of Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East and other areas, besides other international issues, all of this is for the sake of colonialism and for controlling the benefits and resources. Colonialism controls nowadays the international struggle, over the resources and influence, besides competition over domination in all of its forms and types.
It is a fact that competition over material benefits, particularly the colonial greed, is the reason behind the political struggle between the great states. This indeed led to the breakout of local as well world wars. In order to avoid such destructive struggle, they invented the so called world peace and security, and came out with the pretext of safeguarding peace and security.
The pretext of safegaurding peace is not new in the world. It is rather old, and existed since the beginning of nineteenth century. The X-Lachaple treaty signed in 1818 by the five powers at that time was under the pretext of safeguarding peace. In accordance with this treaty, or alliance, the five great states appointed themselves a guardian over peace and order in the international community, and they interfered in the affairs of other states every time they noticed – according to their claim – there is a threat to peace or order. This pretext of safeguarding peace and order in the international community was later on used as excuse for the intervention of the great states and for war. It became as well an international slogan that is used as a tool to maintain colonialism and influence.
Peace used to be safeguarded according to their claims through alliance between great states, or through international conferences. After World War I, peace became maintained through international organisations, where it was stipulated in the peace treaties of 1919 the formation of an international organisation for safeguarding peace, which was called League of Nations. It was supposed to maintain peace by this organisation. However, the states that formed such organisation broke their pledges and violated the purpose aimed of this organisation. It was supposed these states concede their colonies, and the organisation by itself looks after safeguarding peace and preventing wars. Instead of that, the great states did not concede their colonies and nor changed their situation. They rather made their main interest maintaining the balance of powers, and protection of their interests. Furthermore, they divided amongst them the territories of Germany and the Ottoman state, where England took the lion’s share. This led to threatening the peace, for whose sake the organisation was formed, and the breakout of many wars that ended with World War II. After this world war, the attempt to create a global organisation for safeguarding international peace and security was repeated. So, the great states; England, America, and SU discussed, after including France the necessity of establishing a new post war world, by following a new way that guarantees stable peace and prevention of war. They added to this facilitating economic cooperation between the different and various systems, besides protection of human rights. Since then, the United Nations (UN) became the guardian over peace; and the word of peace and international peace became an international slogan repeated by every body and used by the great states as pretext for safeguarding peace and preventing other states from liberation and emancipation from the noose of colonialism. Thus, the concept of safeguarding peace developed to its current form.
The issue of safeguarding peace by an international organisation developed into the fable of disarmament. So, the League of Nations tried to proceed with the issue of disarmament, and England used it as a means to weaken France. It also encouraged the armament of Germany so as to create balance in Europe between Germany and France. However, the issue of disarmament failed, leading to World War II.
When the UN was established it also proceeded in the subject of disarmament. However, until now no one of the great states managed to deceive another state as England did with France in the League of Nations. UN could not also create any effect on this subject, so hardly people feel of it, leaving it as a name without substance.
Struggle between the great states has created what is called international conferences as well that which is called alliances. As regards the conferences, the first conference in this regard was that of Vienna that was held in 1815. Before World War I there were also some conferences, which included Berlin conference that was held for agreeing on abolishing the Islamic state and dividing its territories. After World War II, there were also many conferences that included Berlin conference, Geneva conference and Paris conference. However, after the agreement between America and SU and after forming together a world power, there were no more conferences, except that held in 1969, where the envoys of the great powers: France, England, SU and America held a conference within the functions of UN to study the crisis of the Middle East. However, this is not considered a conference, for it was held within the functions of the UN.
Conferences were held after World War II for discussing the problems present between the Eastern and Western camps. This is because the Eastern camp was weak in the UN; therefore Russia tried to take the initiative from the Western camp and worked to shift America from the leading state post. Thus, it tried to discuss the problems outside the UN. It succeeded in Berlin conference to increase the gap of differences between Britain and France on one side and America on the other, as well as it succeeded in taking a decision for holding Geneva conference, where it succeeded there. Thus, holding conferences weakened America and strengthened SU. England tried as well to hold conferences between it and America to solve problems outside the UN, where Bermuda conference was held but with England being successful in it. Later on there were no conferences amongst the states of Western camp, except traditional meetings between America and England. America realised then that holding conferences outside UN weakens her situation and her post internationally. Therefore, she did not agree after that to holding conferences outside UN, particularly after the agreement, or say after the alliance between her and SU in their meeting in Vienna 1961.
As regards alliances between states, these were very old in history, where states undertook them to strengthen themselves in face of others, or to prevent some states from disturbing the balance of power between them. So, the X-Lachaple treaty held in 1815 was an alliance. Likewise, the alliances that were held between England and France and between Austria and Germany were for gaining strength and maintaining balance of power. While, the alliance held between France and England against Germany in World War I, and the alliance held between America, England, France and SU against Germany in World War II, were alliances against a great power. NATO alliance held after World War II against SU, and Warsaw pact held after World War II against the Western camp were alliances against other powers. Thus, alliances as well as international conferences are means for getting strength against other powers or for maintaining balance of power. Such alliances are considered of the tools of international struggle.
There are alliances and treaties, which the great powers sign between the small states, or between them and the small states. Such alliances are not considered of the tools of direct international struggle. They are rather considered colonial means or means by which the great powers that sign them strengthen themselves. As an example, the treaty signed between Iraq and Turkey, and that signed before World War I under the name of Sa’dabad pact, England has done them to strengthen its influence in such countries and to shift the international balance of power in its advantage before the other great powers, like France and SU. The treaties that England held between it and Iraq, and between it and Egypt, before World War II were means to consolidate its colonialism rather than for war. Likewise, the alliances that England held after World War II, such as Baghdad pact, or that America held such as South-East Asia pact, besides America naming Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco, Argentina, South Korea, Bahrain, Australia, New Zeeland, Philippines, Thailand as well as (Israel), as strategic allies outside NATO pact, are colonial means for consolidating her influence and not alliances for war. All of such alliances are not considered of the tools of direct international struggle; rather the alliances that are made between the great powers themselves are considered of the tools of direct international struggle.
The role of the NATO pact was supposed to cease by the collapse of the SU and the Eastern camp. However, America preserved the alliance; she rather tried to expand it, and even expanded it. So, she annexed to it many of the East European states, and tries to add much more. All of this because the aim of the alliance has changed, for it was no more directed against the Eastern camp. It rather became directed against the member states of Western camp; because America felt the attempt of the European states to escape her grip. So she kept the alliance in order to keep them under her guardianship, particularly she dominates the NATO, and in order to keep their security and defences linked with her.
Nowadays, the states that associated America in the second Gulf war, and in the occupation of Iraq, which they were the alliance states are considered a model of the alliances used to strengthen the American influence and strengthen the unilateral trend of the American administration, besides they are of the means of new American colonialism.
These are the foundations upon which the international policy is generally built; besides they are the foundations upon which the policy of each internationally effective state is built. In the light of these foundations it is possible to understand the political actions that occur in the world, in a way close to truth and in agreement, as much as possible with the reality. Political actions undertaken by any state, whether great or small, cannot be understood except based on these foundations, or whatever branches from them or is linked with them. In such case, the action is understood, in terms of its nature, place of its occurrence, and its circumstances. Then all of this is linked to one of these foundations so as to understand its nature, its motives and lastly its results.
Motives of struggle between states
There is no other than two motives behind international struggle since start of history till the Hour time. These are either love of supremacy and pride or competition over material benefits. Love of supremacy could be for loving the supremacy of the nation or the people, as it was the case of Germany the Nazi and Italy the Fascist. It might also be for loving the supremacy and propagation of the ideology, as it was the case of the Islamic state throughout about thirteen centuries, as well as the case of the communist state during its thirty years age, and before it collapsed at the beginning of the nineties of last century, seventy years after its formation.
As regarding the motive of restricting the build up of another’s state power, as it happened with the states in restricting Napoleon, restricting the Islamic state, as well as restricting Germany the Nazi, all of this comes under loving the supremacy, because it is challenge for the supremacy of others.
After the removal of the Islamic state and the collapse of the Soviet state, the motive that dominates the entire world became competition over material benefits. This motive will continue as such till the return of the Islamic state to the world once again as a superpower that influences the international struggle. At that time, the motive of loving the supremacy and propagation of the ideology will come back.
The most dangerous motive behind struggle between the states is colonialism, including all of its forms. This is because this is the motive that caused the small wars, the two world wars, the Gulf wars and wars in Africa, besides the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq. It is also still responsible about the disturbances and crises in the world.
The present competition, conflict and struggle between America, Britain, France and Russia, whether the open or hidden, over the issues of Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East and other areas, besides other international issues, all of this is for the sake of colonialism and for controlling the benefits and resources. Colonialism controls nowadays the international struggle, over the resources and influence, besides competition over domination in all of its forms and types.
It is a fact that competition over material benefits, particularly the colonial greed, is the reason behind the political struggle between the great states. This indeed led to the breakout of local as well world wars. In order to avoid such destructive struggle, they invented the so called world peace and security, and came out with the pretext of safeguarding peace and security.
The pretext of safegaurding peace is not new in the world. It is rather old, and existed since the beginning of nineteenth century. The X-Lachaple treaty signed in 1818 by the five powers at that time was under the pretext of safeguarding peace. In accordance with this treaty, or alliance, the five great states appointed themselves a guardian over peace and order in the international community, and they interfered in the affairs of other states every time they noticed – according to their claim – there is a threat to peace or order. This pretext of safeguarding peace and order in the international community was later on used as excuse for the intervention of the great states and for war. It became as well an international slogan that is used as a tool to maintain colonialism and influence.
Peace used to be safeguarded according to their claims through alliance between great states, or through international conferences. After World War I, peace became maintained through international organisations, where it was stipulated in the peace treaties of 1919 the formation of an international organisation for safeguarding peace, which was called League of Nations. It was supposed to maintain peace by this organisation. However, the states that formed such organisation broke their pledges and violated the purpose aimed of this organisation. It was supposed these states concede their colonies, and the organisation by itself looks after safeguarding peace and preventing wars. Instead of that, the great states did not concede their colonies and nor changed their situation. They rather made their main interest maintaining the balance of powers, and protection of their interests. Furthermore, they divided amongst them the territories of Germany and the Ottoman state, where England took the lion’s share. This led to threatening the peace, for whose sake the organisation was formed, and the breakout of many wars that ended with World War II. After this world war, the attempt to create a global organisation for safeguarding international peace and security was repeated. So, the great states; England, America, and SU discussed, after including France the necessity of establishing a new post war world, by following a new way that guarantees stable peace and prevention of war. They added to this facilitating economic cooperation between the different and various systems, besides protection of human rights. Since then, the United Nations (UN) became the guardian over peace; and the word of peace and international peace became an international slogan repeated by every body and used by the great states as pretext for safeguarding peace and preventing other states from liberation and emancipation from the noose of colonialism. Thus, the concept of safeguarding peace developed to its current form.
The issue of safeguarding peace by an international organisation developed into the fable of disarmament. So, the League of Nations tried to proceed with the issue of disarmament, and England used it as a means to weaken France. It also encouraged the armament of Germany so as to create balance in Europe between Germany and France. However, the issue of disarmament failed, leading to World War II.
When the UN was established it also proceeded in the subject of disarmament. However, until now no one of the great states managed to deceive another state as England did with France in the League of Nations. UN could not also create any effect on this subject, so hardly people feel of it, leaving it as a name without substance.
Struggle between the great states has created what is called international conferences as well that which is called alliances. As regards the conferences, the first conference in this regard was that of Vienna that was held in 1815. Before World War I there were also some conferences, which included Berlin conference that was held for agreeing on abolishing the Islamic state and dividing its territories. After World War II, there were also many conferences that included Berlin conference, Geneva conference and Paris conference. However, after the agreement between America and SU and after forming together a world power, there were no more conferences, except that held in 1969, where the envoys of the great powers: France, England, SU and America held a conference within the functions of UN to study the crisis of the Middle East. However, this is not considered a conference, for it was held within the functions of the UN.
Conferences were held after World War II for discussing the problems present between the Eastern and Western camps. This is because the Eastern camp was weak in the UN; therefore Russia tried to take the initiative from the Western camp and worked to shift America from the leading state post. Thus, it tried to discuss the problems outside the UN. It succeeded in Berlin conference to increase the gap of differences between Britain and France on one side and America on the other, as well as it succeeded in taking a decision for holding Geneva conference, where it succeeded there. Thus, holding conferences weakened America and strengthened SU. England tried as well to hold conferences between it and America to solve problems outside the UN, where Bermuda conference was held but with England being successful in it. Later on there were no conferences amongst the states of Western camp, except traditional meetings between America and England. America realised then that holding conferences outside UN weakens her situation and her post internationally. Therefore, she did not agree after that to holding conferences outside UN, particularly after the agreement, or say after the alliance between her and SU in their meeting in Vienna 1961.
As regards alliances between states, these were very old in history, where states undertook them to strengthen themselves in face of others, or to prevent some states from disturbing the balance of power between them. So, the X-Lachaple treaty held in 1815 was an alliance. Likewise, the alliances that were held between England and France and between Austria and Germany were for gaining strength and maintaining balance of power. While, the alliance held between France and England against Germany in World War I, and the alliance held between America, England, France and SU against Germany in World War II, were alliances against a great power. NATO alliance held after World War II against SU, and Warsaw pact held after World War II against the Western camp were alliances against other powers. Thus, alliances as well as international conferences are means for getting strength against other powers or for maintaining balance of power. Such alliances are considered of the tools of international struggle.
There are alliances and treaties, which the great powers sign between the small states, or between them and the small states. Such alliances are not considered of the tools of direct international struggle. They are rather considered colonial means or means by which the great powers that sign them strengthen themselves. As an example, the treaty signed between Iraq and Turkey, and that signed before World War I under the name of Sa’dabad pact, England has done them to strengthen its influence in such countries and to shift the international balance of power in its advantage before the other great powers, like France and SU. The treaties that England held between it and Iraq, and between it and Egypt, before World War II were means to consolidate its colonialism rather than for war. Likewise, the alliances that England held after World War II, such as Baghdad pact, or that America held such as South-East Asia pact, besides America naming Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco, Argentina, South Korea, Bahrain, Australia, New Zeeland, Philippines, Thailand as well as (Israel), as strategic allies outside NATO pact, are colonial means for consolidating her influence and not alliances for war. All of such alliances are not considered of the tools of direct international struggle; rather the alliances that are made between the great powers themselves are considered of the tools of direct international struggle.
The role of the NATO pact was supposed to cease by the collapse of the SU and the Eastern camp. However, America preserved the alliance; she rather tried to expand it, and even expanded it. So, she annexed to it many of the East European states, and tries to add much more. All of this because the aim of the alliance has changed, for it was no more directed against the Eastern camp. It rather became directed against the member states of Western camp; because America felt the attempt of the European states to escape her grip. So she kept the alliance in order to keep them under her guardianship, particularly she dominates the NATO, and in order to keep their security and defences linked with her.
Nowadays, the states that associated America in the second Gulf war, and in the occupation of Iraq, which they were the alliance states are considered a model of the alliances used to strengthen the American influence and strengthen the unilateral trend of the American administration, besides they are of the means of new American colonialism.
These are the foundations upon which the international policy is generally built; besides they are the foundations upon which the policy of each internationally effective state is built. In the light of these foundations it is possible to understand the political actions that occur in the world, in a way close to truth and in agreement, as much as possible with the reality. Political actions undertaken by any state, whether great or small, cannot be understood except based on these foundations, or whatever branches from them or is linked with them. In such case, the action is understood, in terms of its nature, place of its occurrence, and its circumstances. Then all of this is linked to one of these foundations so as to understand its nature, its motives and lastly its results.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
The importance of Fiqh (jurisprudence) & its study
Fiqh linguistically means understanding as in His (swt) saying:
“We do not comprehend (la nafqahu) much of what you say.” [TMQ 11:91] i.e. we do not understand. Many scholars including al-Amidi and Shawkani have defined fiqh as, ‘the knowledge of the practical Shar’ai matters that are derived from their elaborated evidences (al-adillah al-tafsiliyy ah)’. [Amidi, Ihkam, I, 6; Shawkani, Irshad, P. 3.]
Knowledge of the Shari'a rules began the day when they started began to be revealed from Allah (swt). This took place mostly after the migration (hijra) of the Prophet (saw) from Makkah to Madina. The Messenger of Allah (saw) stayed in Makkah for thirteen years, then he resided in Madina for about ten years, the Quran was revealed since the beginning of revelation in Makkah and continued throughout the Prophet’s stay in Madina. Many of the verses of ahkam used were revealed in Madina, in this period when the verses from the Qur'an were revealed the Messenger (saw) used to talk about the ahkam relating to whatever they included in terms of events and relating to the solution for whatever problems that arose.
The portion that was revealed in Makkah approximates to about two thirds of the Qur'an and they are designated as the Makkan verses (makki). In their totality they barely deal with few ahkam, rather they are confined to explaining the fundamentals of the deen and calling people to them, such as the belief in Allah and His Messenger, the Day of Judgement, the command to perform Salah, characterisation with moral attributes such as honesty, truthfulness, and forbidding evil actions such as fornication, murder, burying girls alive, deficiency in the measure and scales etc. The second portion that was revealed in Madina is close to a third of the Qur'an and they are designated as the Madinan verses (madani). These are verses of mu'amalat (transactions) such as selling, renting and usury. They also include the hudud, such as the hadd of zina (fornication) and stealing. From the jinayat (capital punishments) such as killing the one who killed someone intentionally or punishment of highway robbers. And from the bayyinat (testimonial evidences) such as the testimony of zina and the rest of the testimonies. The remaining rules concerning the worships ('ibadat) such as fasting, zakah, hajj and jihad were revealed were also revealed during this period.
From this it becomes clear that even though rules of prayer were revealed in Makkah they do not form a body of rules but knowledge of a type of rule. As for what was revealed in Madina, they consisted of all the ahkam. That is why knowledge of such rules is considered fiqh. Therefore, it is more accurate for us to say that fiqh began in Madina. And since fiqh constitutes practical rules, they have been revealed to treat incidents that have taken place. The verses of ahkam, more often than not were in connection to events that took place. So the disputants would refer judgment to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he would judge between them according to the rules Allah (swt) has revealed to him, or on the occasion of problems requiring solutions, so an ayah or ayaats stating the hukm would be revealed. In this manner the Qur'an was revealed gradually (munajjaman). The legislative aspect used to be quite evident in the revelation of the Qur'an. The ayaats did not treat assumptions that may or may not happen. Rather, they treated issues that actually took place and real problems that people face. The Qur'an continued to be revealed until the year in which the Messenger of Allah (saw) passed away. So, Allah perfected and completed the deen and He revealed to him the last ayah which is His (SWT) saying in Sura al-Baqara:
“O you who believe! Be afraid of Allah and give up what remains (due to you) from riba (usury).” [TMQ 2:278]
With that, the ahkam were completed in their capacity as ahkam. The Qur'an and the actions, sayings and consent of the Messenger (saw) contain the rulings for all the types of actions that ensue from human beings; from the worships ('ibadat) like prayer (salah) and zakat, from the morals such as honesty and trust, from the societal transactions (mu'amalat) such as murder and theft, from the testimonial evidences (bayyinat) such as the rules of testimonies and the rules of written documents, and from the political affairs relating to the domestic policy such as the rules of the khalifah and the rules of the judiciary, or relating to the foreign policy such as the rules of combatants and treaties. Through this Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) existed due to the presence of the Shari'a rules, because the fiqh is the knowledge of a body of Shari'a rules.
Studying Fiqh
Knowing the Shari’ah rules with which a Muslim is obliged with in his life is an individual duty upon every Muslim because he is commanded to undertake all his actions according to the Shari’ah rules. This is so as the address of accountability (takleef) with which the Legislator (Ash-Shar’i) addressed mankind, and addressed believers, is a decisive address giving to option to anyone whether it was about the creed (iman) or human actions. Allah’s (swt) statement: “Believe in Allah and His Messenger” is like His (swt) statement: “Allah permitted trade and forbade riba” [TMQ 2:275], in that they are both addresses of accountability. They are both decisive addresses in relation to their address, not in relation to the subjects we were addressed with, due to the evidence from the Quran:
“It is not for any believer, male or female, to have any option in any matter upon which Allah and His Messenger have judged.” [TMQ 33:36].
Also due to the evidence of the accountability of every action as the Supreme said: “Whoever performs a particle’s weight of good will see it, and whoever performs a particle’s weight of evil will see it.” [TMQ 99:8-9] and the Supreme said:
“The Day that every soul will be confronted with all the good it has done and all the evil it has done, it will wish that there was a great distance between it and (its evil). But Allah cautions you about Himself.” [TMQ 3:30] and He (swt) said:
“And each soul will be recompensed for all its actions.” [TMQ 16:111].
Accountability (takleef) came in a decisive manner so a Muslim is accountable in a decisive manner to restrict himself to the Shar’a rules when he undertakes any action. As for the subject of accountability i.e. the thing which Allah made him accountable for by command to do (talab), to leave or making it optional, this can be obligatory, recommended or allowed, or it can be prohibited or disliked. As for the essence of accountability (nafs at-takleef), it is decisive without any choice in it; so there is only one situation, namely the obligation of restricting oneself to it. Hence it becomes obligatory upon every Muslim to know the Shari’ah rules with which he is bound in earthly life. As for knowing what is in excess of the Shari’ah rules with which he is bound in this life, this is a collective obligation (Fard ul Kifaya) not an individual duty (Fard ul Ayn) i.e. if some fulfil this, then it falls away from the rest. This is strengthened by what was narrated by Anas bin Malik who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Seeking knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim.” Even though what is meant here is every knowledge with which a Muslim is bound in his life, jurisprudence (fiqh) is part of it in respect of the rules with which a Muslim is bound in his life such as ritual worships (ibadat), social transactions (mu’amalat) etc. Hence studying fiqh is among the compulsory matters for Muslims; rather it is of the rules that Allah obliged upon them, whether it is an individual or collective duty. We have noble ahadith encouraging the studying of fiqh and the Messenger (SAW) encouraged the study of fiqh. Al-Bukhari narrated through Mu’awiyya bin Abu Sufyan: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “The one for whom Allah wills good (khayr), He grants him fiqh in the deen.” Said bin al-Musayyab narrated from Abu Hurayra who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “The one for whom Allah wills good, He grants him fiqh in the deen” [Ibn Majah].
Hazzam bin Hakeem narrated from his uncle from the Messenger of Allah (SAW) who said: “You are in a time of many jurisprudents (fuqaha), few speakers, many who give and few who ask; so action in this time is better than knowledge. There will soon come a time of few jurisprudents, many speakers, many who beg and few who give; so knowledge in this time is better than action.” These ahadith are explicit in the virtue of fiqh and encouraging its study. It was narrated that Umar bin al-Khattab said: ‘The death of one thousand worshippers who pray at nigh and worship in the day is less serious than the death of one intelligent knower (baseer) of the halal and haram of Allah.’
Some have misinterpreted a verse of the Quran to justify an understanding that studying the fiqh is only a collective duty (Fard ul Kifaya) and not an individual duty (Fard ul Ayn), they quote the verse:
“And the believers should not all go out to fight. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth ,that they (who are left behind) may gain sound knowledge in the Deen and that they warn their folk when they return to them, so that they may beware.” [TMQ At-Tawba:122]
They interpreted this Ayah to mean that some people of each group should set off to acquire knowledge and to return to their people to teach them. Through this, they made learning of the Deen a collective duty (Fard ul Kifaya), thus conflicting with the Hukm Shar’ai and the meaning of the Ayah. With regards with their contradiction to the meaning of this Ayah - the verse is about jihad, which means that Muslims should not all go out to jihad. When a group sets out for jihad another group should remain to learn the Ahkam at the hands of the Messenger (saw), so once the mujahideen returned back, those who stayed behind would teach them what they had missed of the rules of Allah in a w ay that would produce an effect on them. This is also indicated by the example of the Sahabah (ra), who were so careful to learn the Ahkam of the Deen, and to be in the company of the Messenger (saw). Some of them would set out on an expedition for jihad, and some would stay behind to learn the Ahkam of the Deen. When the mujahideen returned, those who remained would teach them the Ahkam they had missed. Therefore, it is clear from the established evidences and the correct meaning of the verse that the claim of those who said that the study of fiqh is not an individual duty is false.
The Sahabah (ra) were Arabs and the Arabic language was their (saleeqa), and they were scholars with a precise and comprehensive understanding of the Arabic tongue. They used to accompany the Messenger of Allah (saw) with the Qur’an being revealed while they were with the Messenger. The Messenger would clarify the rule of Allah in the incident before their eyes and hearing, so they were also scholars of the Shari’ah with a comprehensive understanding of it. When an incident (waqi’ah) occurred before them requiring a clarification (bayan) of the rule of Allah, they would clarify its Shari’ah rule (hukm shar’i) through elucidating their opinion that they deduced from the text of the understanding of the text (ma’qul an-nass). Often they would limit themselves to giving the rule without clarifying its evidence, thus the companions’ judgement was transmitted in the form of their opinions. This is what led some to understand that the Sahabah would give their (own) opinions in judgements. The reality is that the Sahabah would give the Shari’ah rule which they deduced from their understanding of the Shari’ah texts, but they did not (shafi’u) it with evidence or clarify the legislative reason (‘‘illah) for the rule or the evidence for the legislative reason.
This led to the speculation (eeham) that this opinion is from the Sahabah and that it is allowed for a person to give his opinion in a matter (qadhiya) as long as his mind is full of Islam and knowledgeable in Arabic.
When the periods came in which corruption (fasad) happened upon the Arabic tongue, principles of Arabic came to be taught in order to preserve the tongue. And when falsehood (tassarraba) in the narrators, and there were ahadith narrated from the Messenger which he (SAW) never said, the hadith became a specific expertise (fann) taught with its principles (usul). Therefore, deducing rules came to require knowledge of the Arabic language and Shari’ah texts such that the Shari’ah rule came to be accompanied by evidence and even the way of deduction (istidlal). Fiqh developed a new existence (takawwan) in research resulting in a specific type of arrangement in (tabweeb). With the different styles of (tabweeb) and arrangement, it became necessary to clarify the Shari’ah rule together with clarifying the rule as well as clarifying the way of deduction where the rule is one with different opinions. Islamic libraries (maktaba) were filled with hundred of thousands of fiqh writings.
However, when the kuffar succeeded in invading Muslims after the 18th century CE, they began misleading them about the Islamic sciences and made them detest fiqh books like the sophists who made people detest honey when they told them it was the excrement of flies. Islamic fiqh was placed in a bad light until Muslims turned their back on it. When Muslims turn their backs on fiqh, they turn their backs on knowing the Islamic rules thereby falling into ignorance about Allah’s deen; and this is what actually happened. It is unfortunate today that some amongst the Muslims are unaware of the Shariah rules relating to many areas of their lives especially amongst the societal issues such as the relationship between men and women, the rules of contracts and rules relating to politics. Hence it is a must to encourage Muslims to come forward to study fiqh.
“We do not comprehend (la nafqahu) much of what you say.” [TMQ 11:91] i.e. we do not understand. Many scholars including al-Amidi and Shawkani have defined fiqh as, ‘the knowledge of the practical Shar’ai matters that are derived from their elaborated evidences (al-adillah al-tafsiliyy ah)’. [Amidi, Ihkam, I, 6; Shawkani, Irshad, P. 3.]
Knowledge of the Shari'a rules began the day when they started began to be revealed from Allah (swt). This took place mostly after the migration (hijra) of the Prophet (saw) from Makkah to Madina. The Messenger of Allah (saw) stayed in Makkah for thirteen years, then he resided in Madina for about ten years, the Quran was revealed since the beginning of revelation in Makkah and continued throughout the Prophet’s stay in Madina. Many of the verses of ahkam used were revealed in Madina, in this period when the verses from the Qur'an were revealed the Messenger (saw) used to talk about the ahkam relating to whatever they included in terms of events and relating to the solution for whatever problems that arose.
The portion that was revealed in Makkah approximates to about two thirds of the Qur'an and they are designated as the Makkan verses (makki). In their totality they barely deal with few ahkam, rather they are confined to explaining the fundamentals of the deen and calling people to them, such as the belief in Allah and His Messenger, the Day of Judgement, the command to perform Salah, characterisation with moral attributes such as honesty, truthfulness, and forbidding evil actions such as fornication, murder, burying girls alive, deficiency in the measure and scales etc. The second portion that was revealed in Madina is close to a third of the Qur'an and they are designated as the Madinan verses (madani). These are verses of mu'amalat (transactions) such as selling, renting and usury. They also include the hudud, such as the hadd of zina (fornication) and stealing. From the jinayat (capital punishments) such as killing the one who killed someone intentionally or punishment of highway robbers. And from the bayyinat (testimonial evidences) such as the testimony of zina and the rest of the testimonies. The remaining rules concerning the worships ('ibadat) such as fasting, zakah, hajj and jihad were revealed were also revealed during this period.
From this it becomes clear that even though rules of prayer were revealed in Makkah they do not form a body of rules but knowledge of a type of rule. As for what was revealed in Madina, they consisted of all the ahkam. That is why knowledge of such rules is considered fiqh. Therefore, it is more accurate for us to say that fiqh began in Madina. And since fiqh constitutes practical rules, they have been revealed to treat incidents that have taken place. The verses of ahkam, more often than not were in connection to events that took place. So the disputants would refer judgment to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he would judge between them according to the rules Allah (swt) has revealed to him, or on the occasion of problems requiring solutions, so an ayah or ayaats stating the hukm would be revealed. In this manner the Qur'an was revealed gradually (munajjaman). The legislative aspect used to be quite evident in the revelation of the Qur'an. The ayaats did not treat assumptions that may or may not happen. Rather, they treated issues that actually took place and real problems that people face. The Qur'an continued to be revealed until the year in which the Messenger of Allah (saw) passed away. So, Allah perfected and completed the deen and He revealed to him the last ayah which is His (SWT) saying in Sura al-Baqara:
“O you who believe! Be afraid of Allah and give up what remains (due to you) from riba (usury).” [TMQ 2:278]
With that, the ahkam were completed in their capacity as ahkam. The Qur'an and the actions, sayings and consent of the Messenger (saw) contain the rulings for all the types of actions that ensue from human beings; from the worships ('ibadat) like prayer (salah) and zakat, from the morals such as honesty and trust, from the societal transactions (mu'amalat) such as murder and theft, from the testimonial evidences (bayyinat) such as the rules of testimonies and the rules of written documents, and from the political affairs relating to the domestic policy such as the rules of the khalifah and the rules of the judiciary, or relating to the foreign policy such as the rules of combatants and treaties. Through this Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) existed due to the presence of the Shari'a rules, because the fiqh is the knowledge of a body of Shari'a rules.
Studying Fiqh
Knowing the Shari’ah rules with which a Muslim is obliged with in his life is an individual duty upon every Muslim because he is commanded to undertake all his actions according to the Shari’ah rules. This is so as the address of accountability (takleef) with which the Legislator (Ash-Shar’i) addressed mankind, and addressed believers, is a decisive address giving to option to anyone whether it was about the creed (iman) or human actions. Allah’s (swt) statement: “Believe in Allah and His Messenger” is like His (swt) statement: “Allah permitted trade and forbade riba” [TMQ 2:275], in that they are both addresses of accountability. They are both decisive addresses in relation to their address, not in relation to the subjects we were addressed with, due to the evidence from the Quran:
“It is not for any believer, male or female, to have any option in any matter upon which Allah and His Messenger have judged.” [TMQ 33:36].
Also due to the evidence of the accountability of every action as the Supreme said: “Whoever performs a particle’s weight of good will see it, and whoever performs a particle’s weight of evil will see it.” [TMQ 99:8-9] and the Supreme said:
“The Day that every soul will be confronted with all the good it has done and all the evil it has done, it will wish that there was a great distance between it and (its evil). But Allah cautions you about Himself.” [TMQ 3:30] and He (swt) said:
“And each soul will be recompensed for all its actions.” [TMQ 16:111].
Accountability (takleef) came in a decisive manner so a Muslim is accountable in a decisive manner to restrict himself to the Shar’a rules when he undertakes any action. As for the subject of accountability i.e. the thing which Allah made him accountable for by command to do (talab), to leave or making it optional, this can be obligatory, recommended or allowed, or it can be prohibited or disliked. As for the essence of accountability (nafs at-takleef), it is decisive without any choice in it; so there is only one situation, namely the obligation of restricting oneself to it. Hence it becomes obligatory upon every Muslim to know the Shari’ah rules with which he is bound in earthly life. As for knowing what is in excess of the Shari’ah rules with which he is bound in this life, this is a collective obligation (Fard ul Kifaya) not an individual duty (Fard ul Ayn) i.e. if some fulfil this, then it falls away from the rest. This is strengthened by what was narrated by Anas bin Malik who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Seeking knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim.” Even though what is meant here is every knowledge with which a Muslim is bound in his life, jurisprudence (fiqh) is part of it in respect of the rules with which a Muslim is bound in his life such as ritual worships (ibadat), social transactions (mu’amalat) etc. Hence studying fiqh is among the compulsory matters for Muslims; rather it is of the rules that Allah obliged upon them, whether it is an individual or collective duty. We have noble ahadith encouraging the studying of fiqh and the Messenger (SAW) encouraged the study of fiqh. Al-Bukhari narrated through Mu’awiyya bin Abu Sufyan: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “The one for whom Allah wills good (khayr), He grants him fiqh in the deen.” Said bin al-Musayyab narrated from Abu Hurayra who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “The one for whom Allah wills good, He grants him fiqh in the deen” [Ibn Majah].
Hazzam bin Hakeem narrated from his uncle from the Messenger of Allah (SAW) who said: “You are in a time of many jurisprudents (fuqaha), few speakers, many who give and few who ask; so action in this time is better than knowledge. There will soon come a time of few jurisprudents, many speakers, many who beg and few who give; so knowledge in this time is better than action.” These ahadith are explicit in the virtue of fiqh and encouraging its study. It was narrated that Umar bin al-Khattab said: ‘The death of one thousand worshippers who pray at nigh and worship in the day is less serious than the death of one intelligent knower (baseer) of the halal and haram of Allah.’
Some have misinterpreted a verse of the Quran to justify an understanding that studying the fiqh is only a collective duty (Fard ul Kifaya) and not an individual duty (Fard ul Ayn), they quote the verse:
“And the believers should not all go out to fight. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth ,that they (who are left behind) may gain sound knowledge in the Deen and that they warn their folk when they return to them, so that they may beware.” [TMQ At-Tawba:122]
They interpreted this Ayah to mean that some people of each group should set off to acquire knowledge and to return to their people to teach them. Through this, they made learning of the Deen a collective duty (Fard ul Kifaya), thus conflicting with the Hukm Shar’ai and the meaning of the Ayah. With regards with their contradiction to the meaning of this Ayah - the verse is about jihad, which means that Muslims should not all go out to jihad. When a group sets out for jihad another group should remain to learn the Ahkam at the hands of the Messenger (saw), so once the mujahideen returned back, those who stayed behind would teach them what they had missed of the rules of Allah in a w ay that would produce an effect on them. This is also indicated by the example of the Sahabah (ra), who were so careful to learn the Ahkam of the Deen, and to be in the company of the Messenger (saw). Some of them would set out on an expedition for jihad, and some would stay behind to learn the Ahkam of the Deen. When the mujahideen returned, those who remained would teach them the Ahkam they had missed. Therefore, it is clear from the established evidences and the correct meaning of the verse that the claim of those who said that the study of fiqh is not an individual duty is false.
The Sahabah (ra) were Arabs and the Arabic language was their (saleeqa), and they were scholars with a precise and comprehensive understanding of the Arabic tongue. They used to accompany the Messenger of Allah (saw) with the Qur’an being revealed while they were with the Messenger. The Messenger would clarify the rule of Allah in the incident before their eyes and hearing, so they were also scholars of the Shari’ah with a comprehensive understanding of it. When an incident (waqi’ah) occurred before them requiring a clarification (bayan) of the rule of Allah, they would clarify its Shari’ah rule (hukm shar’i) through elucidating their opinion that they deduced from the text of the understanding of the text (ma’qul an-nass). Often they would limit themselves to giving the rule without clarifying its evidence, thus the companions’ judgement was transmitted in the form of their opinions. This is what led some to understand that the Sahabah would give their (own) opinions in judgements. The reality is that the Sahabah would give the Shari’ah rule which they deduced from their understanding of the Shari’ah texts, but they did not (shafi’u) it with evidence or clarify the legislative reason (‘‘illah) for the rule or the evidence for the legislative reason.
This led to the speculation (eeham) that this opinion is from the Sahabah and that it is allowed for a person to give his opinion in a matter (qadhiya) as long as his mind is full of Islam and knowledgeable in Arabic.
When the periods came in which corruption (fasad) happened upon the Arabic tongue, principles of Arabic came to be taught in order to preserve the tongue. And when falsehood (tassarraba) in the narrators, and there were ahadith narrated from the Messenger which he (SAW) never said, the hadith became a specific expertise (fann) taught with its principles (usul). Therefore, deducing rules came to require knowledge of the Arabic language and Shari’ah texts such that the Shari’ah rule came to be accompanied by evidence and even the way of deduction (istidlal). Fiqh developed a new existence (takawwan) in research resulting in a specific type of arrangement in (tabweeb). With the different styles of (tabweeb) and arrangement, it became necessary to clarify the Shari’ah rule together with clarifying the rule as well as clarifying the way of deduction where the rule is one with different opinions. Islamic libraries (maktaba) were filled with hundred of thousands of fiqh writings.
However, when the kuffar succeeded in invading Muslims after the 18th century CE, they began misleading them about the Islamic sciences and made them detest fiqh books like the sophists who made people detest honey when they told them it was the excrement of flies. Islamic fiqh was placed in a bad light until Muslims turned their back on it. When Muslims turn their backs on fiqh, they turn their backs on knowing the Islamic rules thereby falling into ignorance about Allah’s deen; and this is what actually happened. It is unfortunate today that some amongst the Muslims are unaware of the Shariah rules relating to many areas of their lives especially amongst the societal issues such as the relationship between men and women, the rules of contracts and rules relating to politics. Hence it is a must to encourage Muslims to come forward to study fiqh.
How to establish the Islamic State - Part 8
The following is an extract from the draft translation of the arabic book entitled 'Dawa ilal Islam' (Dawa to Islam) by Sheikh Ahmad Mahmoud, published by Al-Waie Publications in Lebanon. I will be posting the sections of the book related to this subject.
Should the movement be regional or global?
There are some Muslims who suggest that the Islamic movement should be universal, because Islam is a universal deen, and Muhammad (saw) was sent to the whole of mankind. Besides that, in reality the Islamic movement faces universal movements. Moreover the enormity of the tasks required by the Islamic change imposes the need for universality. People who hold this view cite the following Qur’anic proofs; “Thus We have made you a just nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger (saw) be a witness over you.”[TMQ 2:143]. And “Say:(O Muhammad [saw]): ‘O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah.’” [TMQ 7:158]. And also “And We have not sent you (O Muhammad [saw]) except as a giver of glad tidings and a warner to all mankind, but most men know not.” [TMQ 34:28]. Hence we find the Messenger (saw) directed his da’wah to the whole world, to every force, camp or King. Thus, he wrote to Najashi (the King of Abysinnia), Heraclius (the emperor of Rome), Muqawqis (the emperor of the Copts) and Kisra (the emperor of Persia). It is not allowed for the Islamic work to remain isolated like the work in a single shop or a single field and to let the Islamic effort remain a cry coming from only one valley.
Indeed, Islam as a deen is universal in its ‘Aqeedah and system.
Allah (swt) is the Creator of everything, the Manager of affairs, the Most Knowledgeable and Most Informed, to whom the weak and needy human being, who has been created from a worthless fluid (semen), must turn. Thus, Allah (swt) is the Creator of man and he is the Rabb (Lord) of every human being. Man’s existence is linked to the purpose of his creation, which is worship. His existence is also linked with that which comes after life, the Resurrection, Paradise, Hellfire, requital for Iman, Kufr, obedience and disobedience. The truth of the ‘Aqeedah must be transmitted and conveyed to everyone; “So that those who were destroyed (for their rejection of Iman) might be destroyed after a clear evidence, and thsoe who were to live (believers) might live after a clear evidence.” [TMQ 8:42]
The system that Allah (swt) revealed to His Messenger that emanates from the Islamic ‘Aqeedah, is the system for man as a man, irrespective of his colour, race or position.
Indeed, Islam is a universal deen. It obliges that the seed of establishing the Islamic State be a universal seed. Consequently, Islam obliges the group to prepare itself to take up this task. That is why, in origin, the group must not look at its work in a narrow manner or restrict itself to the country in which it works. It must not accept patchwork or gradual proposals, which accept the truth in parts only and deprive the truth of its radicalism. Rather, the group should see that it must save mankind from the stupidity of kufr, and the falsehood of shirk, whatever forms they may take to the truth, which can only be one. In the past people used to look upon idols as benefiting them and that benefit and harm was in their hands. Today people look upon certain thoughts as bringing benefit and containing good, while seeing others as causing harm. The group should look at the matter and adopt its culture on this basis. Its work and path are drawn on this basis, so if it followed it without deviation and remained patient on what may confront it and did not falter, compromise or be pliant, then Allah (swt) will have prepared it (practically and theoretically) to undertake this task universally, which will be after establishing the Islamic State. The group, in terms of thought, is universal, and in terms of work, it cannot go beyond the fact that it is a group that works in a particular place to establish the Khilafah State. Consequently, it is the Khilafah State that will undertake this great task.
One point remains to be mentioned. It is the fact that the Muslim lands are intentionally divided into many states and the Muslims in these lands generally live in similar atmospheres, though there are differences in some partial issues that do not change the method or prevent the expansion of one organised work to more than one country. This expansion gives strength to the group and increases its awareness and more effective. It also makes the establishment of the Khilafah State in one area liable to expansion and spread. This helps the group to undertake the task that will follow the establishment of the State. It will prepare the State to enter the stage of global struggle. In both these situations, the group would rely on the Help of Allah (swt).
Should the work be partial or comprehensive and balanced?
There are also Muslim activists who put forward the idea of integration and balance required in the present Islamic work, whilst others suggest the partial approach or the excessive approach.
The integral approach means the impermissibility of restricting it to one aspect or partial thing to the exclusion of other parts and aspects. Part of the characteristics of the Islamic methodology is that it has a system of worship, an economic system, a social system, a political system and a military system. The first Islamic work in the time of the Prophethood was also complete. Thus, the Rasool of Allah (saw) adhered to and followed the Islamic work in all its aspects. Whether in the field or in moral instruction, he was a Murabbi (educator), in the field of education he was a teacher, in the field of Jihaad he was a leader, and in planning he was a guide. The Islamic work obliges us to follow the footsteps of the Rasool (saw) in all times and places, and there is no choice in whether to follow his way or not.
In contrast to this is the partial approach in the Islamic work, which is to restrict oneself to one aspect of the Islamic work. They adhere to this only, and do not overstep it. They only believe in this partial work and reject everything else. Partial work causes plurality and fragmentation in the work, and scatters the efforts of the people. The Qur’an rejected the partial work for the Children of Israel. He (swt) says; “Do you believe in a part of the scripture and reject a part? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in this life, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment.” [TMQ 2:85]. The protagonists also add that the challenge of Jahilliyah and its solidarity obliges integration in the Islamic work.
This group of Muslim activists thinks that there should be a balance in giving every part of the integrated Islamic work its due weight and measure, otherwise it will lead to deficiency in some things and excessiveness in others. This balance requires the consideration of the logic of priorities.
In short, the idea of integration deals with Islam as a whole. Thus the group’s work must be characterised by comprehensiveness. Balance obliges that one be concerned with every aspect, according to values and measures suitable for each one. There should be no increase in it, otherwise this will lead to exaggeration, neither should there be deficiency, otherwise this will lead to defects.
The laws of integration and balance control the nature of things and actions. They are laws that are observed by the Muslim and the non-Muslim. He feels the importance of their presence in his life, and he works to realise them, so that the results come as intended.
However one must notice that judgement on the integration of things and achieving their balance depends on the mind, as opposed to judgement on actions, which relies on the Shar’a.
That is because the mind comprehends the reality of things and the elements that make up the reality and fixed ratios. This is the area of the people of expertise, and the following hadith of the Messenger (saw) applies to it; “You are are more knowledgeable about the affairs of your dunya.” [Reported by Muslim].
So the farmer, doctor, engines and mechanic, each one of them is expert in his field and its rules. Each one tries to achieve this law (of integration and balance).
As for the actions, they are determined by Allah (swt), and the following hadith of the Messenger (saw) applies to them; “Every action which is not based on our matter (deen) is rejected.” [Reported by Bukhari and Muslim]. The following Shar’ee principle also applies to them: ‘In origin, actions are adhered to according the Shar’ee rule.’ That is because judging upon actions as hasan (good) or qubh (reprehensible) is subject to man’s consideration of this action and not from the action itself. The Muslim will judge upon his actions according to the thoughts he believes in. If the action is according to the orders and prohibitions of Allah (swt) then it is hasan (good), otherwise it is qabeeh (reprehensible). The Shar’ee principle states: ‘The hasan is what the Sharee’ah has defined as hasan and qubh is what the Shar’a has defined as qubh.’
Therefore, when the Muslim wishes to realise integration and balance in things, he depends upon his mind like any other human being. As for when he wishes to realise it in actions, it must be according to the Shar’ee rule.
There is another issue that is, the law of integration and balance takes into consideration the size of the work required by the Shar’a without being exceeded. This requires the following details;
Islam is complete. All Muslims, ie the Islamic Ummah, undertake the whole of Islam.
The Islamic Ummah consists of individuals, groups and the Khaleefah.
Each one of these has been entrusted with rules specific to them.
Thus, the individual Muslim undertakes what the Shar’a requires of him as an individual. The group undertakes what is required from it as a group. The Khaleefah undertakes what he has been ordered to undertake as a Khaleefah.
If the Muslims, as individuals, undertook all that they are required to undertake, just like the jama’ah (group/s) and the Khaleefah, then the completeness and comprehensiveness of the work will have been realised. Any shortcoming (in the individual, group or Khaleefah) regarding the obligations will make the one with the shortcoming deficient in regards to what was required from him and he will be sinful.
Complete Islam cannot exist completely without the presence of a Khaleefah. The fact that many of the rules of the deen depend upon his presence makes his presence an obligation, and the work to establish a Khaleefah an obligation. Consequently having a group that works to establish the Khaleefah is a Shar’ee obligation. Thus, the group undertakes everything required to establish the deen through the establishment of the Khilafah State. This is what is known as the work to resume the Islamic way of life. This is the totality required from it by Shar’a, and it is not the whole of the deen, which it cannot deal with, neither is it entrusted to undertake it. Rather it is prohibited by the Shar’a from undertaking the implementation of many rules, like the Hudood for example. Thus the group does not take up the role of the Khaleefah; it rather works to establish the Khaleefah so that he can undertake what is required of him; “The Ameer for the people is a Shepherd and he is responsible for his flock.” [Reported by Muslim] “...Indeed Allah will ask about what He has entrusted them with.” [Reported by Muslim]
Here we would like to draw attention to the fact that the Muslim believes in Islam completely and calls to it in general. However, he adopts in detail what he needs in order to perform what is required of him by the Shar’a, and what is required of him from the group that he works with. He will be accounted for any deficiency in these details by Allah (swt). Similarly, the Khaleefah will undertake what is required by the Shar’a as an individual. So he prays, fasts, makes Hajj, gives zakah and looks after his parents, and he abstains from adultery, usury, lying and deception. He also undertakes what the Shar’a requires from him as Khaleefah. So, he passes laws, declares Jihaad, protects the Muslims, rules by what Allah (swt) has revealed and applies the Hudood. Allah (swt) will account him for any deficiency in any of these.
This is the reality on which the Shar’ee rules apply. It must be clear for the group so that it can distinguish between what is required from it and what is not required. Hence what is required from the Khaleefah is not required from the group. If the group defined its reality, it will be able to define the magnitude of what is required from it, and hence will be accounted for it. This is from the angle of integration.
After the group has defined what is required from it, it will lose the required balance if it restricted itself to one aspect of what is required, to the exclusion of another aspect, or it only concentrated on one aspect, and gave it more attention than it deserves at the expense of another aspect, or if it did not consider the priorities in its work. However we must remember that it is the Shar’a and not the mind that decides what the priorities are. Thus the work of the group is political, and it is established on an ideology which it wishes to be implemented upon the Islamic Ummah. The ‘Aqeedah takes the prime position in the da’wah, because it is the basis upon which every branch is established, and to which all the Shar’ee rules are related. Concentrating on the establishment of the Khilafah must have a wide scope, because many rules are dependent on it, and that is why it is known as the ‘Crown of the Furood (obligations).’
Therefore, if the group strives to realise its integration and balance outside this viewpoint, then it has charged itself with what Allah (swt) has not charged it with. It will continue to complain of deficiency and inbalance as it complains of plurality. It will become a group that complains and weeps, and loses its way because it has lost its compass of direction.
If the characteristics of the Islamic methodology are that it has a system of worship, economic system, social system, political system and military system, then what is the group’s linkage with all these systems?
The group has been established to establish the Rule of Allah (swt). When the Rule of Allah (swt) has been established, then the various Islamic systems have been established.
In the economic system, there are Shar’ee rules relating to land and ownership, and other rules relating to manufacture, and domestic and foreign trade. The Legislator has entrusted all of these rules and other such rules to the Khaleefah. It is the Khaleefah and not the group that assumes the responsibility of looking after them.
In the political system, the State is established on principles and pillars laid down by the Shar’a, such as the Khaleefah, the mu’awineen (assisstants) to the wulaah (governors), qudaah (judges), administrative system and the majlis al-Ummah (Council of the Ummah). The Khaleefah has his mandatory powers and so do the mu’awineen (assisstants) and the wulaah (governors). The army has its tasks, and the administrative system has its area. What has the group got to do with any of these things?
The Islamic armies and their preparation are to realise the aim for which they exist, which is to convey the Islamic da’wah to the world. The preparation has to be on the global level and not just on the tactical level, where the Muslim learns how to disassemble his machine gun, use it and throw a grenade. It is well known that there are weapons that an individual possesses, and weapons that only states can possess. This necessitates that the training be of a sophisticated level using tanks, artillery, aeroplanes, nuclear power, and outer space. Laboratories, arms factories, airports, and training centres should also be established; and many other things beside what we have mentioned. So what has the group got to do with any of these things? The Messenger (saw), when he used to prepare and train his Sahabah, did not do that as someone responsible for a group; rather he did that as a ruler of a State. The emulation of the Messenger (saw) should not go beyond this view.
It is not the duty of the group to assume the responsibility for these systems. Rather the group has to establish the Khaleefah who, in his role, realises these systems because that is his responsibility. If the Ummah neglected the establishment of the Khaleefah, and tried to undertake his tasks, then it has distorted the Shar’a.
The group is obliged to adopt intellectually the systems which it wishes the people to be ruled by when Allah (swt) grants them the ability to to this. Thus the group sets out the structure of the Islamic system and the constitution of the State. It gives a general picture of the rules of Islam to the people, so that they can see its ability to solve their problems. They then proceed towards achieving the worship of Allah (swt), by implementing the pure Sharee’ah rules and enjoying their blessing.
As for the small part (of Islam) mentioned by those who hold an opinion about carrying only a small part; if they are charitable or ethical societies, or societies that are established on a single Shar’ee rule, such as taking care of the Qur’an, then such associations are acceptable, as long as their members come together on a Shar’ee rule. However, if they claim that through this work they want to establish the deen, then we say to them they have deviated from the planned Shar’ee method, and their partial work becomes rejected.
The group that works to restore the ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed should fulfill what is necessary for it, namely: it should not take the rules of the Khaleefah, or the rules of the individual for itself, and not consider itself to be the whole Muslim community but rather a group from the Muslim community, and define its objective as the establishment of Allah’s (swt) rule and the resumption of the Islamic way of life. It should adopt then everything it needs in the work to achieve its objective, so it should adopt the correct understanding of the Islamic ‘Aqeedah and the thoughts that relate to it, and prepare its shabab properly with the ‘Aqeedah it adopts. It should also adopt the method that will help it to achieve the objective, the constitution with which the people would be ruled, and also the thoughts that help to show clearly the fallacy of the false thoughts prevalent amongst Muslims, corrected the erroneous concepts. It should also demand that the individual who works with the group should fulfil his individual requirements so as to become a pious Muslim individual. So he should fulfil the requirements in things such as the beliefs, worships, societal transactions and morals. It should focus its work on establishing the Islamic society, whose relationships are based on Islam, and guarded by the Khilafah State. Then it should monitor the actions of the rulers and their masters so as to know what is planned for the Muslims. The group should expose this to the people, and in its place it should adopt what is good for the Ummah; the Shar’ee rules. It should work to practically seize the power from those Taghut who treat the Muslims ruthlessly. If all this has been done then this group would have fulfilled all that is necessary for it.
The culture of the group should be extensive, and the field of its work should be wide. Consequently, the group must undertake everything that is required, and this encompasses many things. It should perform the actions with the required balance, so it does not turn into an athletic, ethical association or an economic institution... rather it preserves its political approach and political work. Thus, its thoughts are those of looking after the affairs and the adoption of the Ummah’s interests.
Therefore, partial work in the aforementioned manner is rejected. The wide approach of the group that encompasses what is required and what is not required from it, is also an erroneous understanding that is rejected.
Should the movement be regional or global?
There are some Muslims who suggest that the Islamic movement should be universal, because Islam is a universal deen, and Muhammad (saw) was sent to the whole of mankind. Besides that, in reality the Islamic movement faces universal movements. Moreover the enormity of the tasks required by the Islamic change imposes the need for universality. People who hold this view cite the following Qur’anic proofs; “Thus We have made you a just nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger (saw) be a witness over you.”[TMQ 2:143]. And “Say:(O Muhammad [saw]): ‘O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah.’” [TMQ 7:158]. And also “And We have not sent you (O Muhammad [saw]) except as a giver of glad tidings and a warner to all mankind, but most men know not.” [TMQ 34:28]. Hence we find the Messenger (saw) directed his da’wah to the whole world, to every force, camp or King. Thus, he wrote to Najashi (the King of Abysinnia), Heraclius (the emperor of Rome), Muqawqis (the emperor of the Copts) and Kisra (the emperor of Persia). It is not allowed for the Islamic work to remain isolated like the work in a single shop or a single field and to let the Islamic effort remain a cry coming from only one valley.
Indeed, Islam as a deen is universal in its ‘Aqeedah and system.
Allah (swt) is the Creator of everything, the Manager of affairs, the Most Knowledgeable and Most Informed, to whom the weak and needy human being, who has been created from a worthless fluid (semen), must turn. Thus, Allah (swt) is the Creator of man and he is the Rabb (Lord) of every human being. Man’s existence is linked to the purpose of his creation, which is worship. His existence is also linked with that which comes after life, the Resurrection, Paradise, Hellfire, requital for Iman, Kufr, obedience and disobedience. The truth of the ‘Aqeedah must be transmitted and conveyed to everyone; “So that those who were destroyed (for their rejection of Iman) might be destroyed after a clear evidence, and thsoe who were to live (believers) might live after a clear evidence.” [TMQ 8:42]
The system that Allah (swt) revealed to His Messenger that emanates from the Islamic ‘Aqeedah, is the system for man as a man, irrespective of his colour, race or position.
Indeed, Islam is a universal deen. It obliges that the seed of establishing the Islamic State be a universal seed. Consequently, Islam obliges the group to prepare itself to take up this task. That is why, in origin, the group must not look at its work in a narrow manner or restrict itself to the country in which it works. It must not accept patchwork or gradual proposals, which accept the truth in parts only and deprive the truth of its radicalism. Rather, the group should see that it must save mankind from the stupidity of kufr, and the falsehood of shirk, whatever forms they may take to the truth, which can only be one. In the past people used to look upon idols as benefiting them and that benefit and harm was in their hands. Today people look upon certain thoughts as bringing benefit and containing good, while seeing others as causing harm. The group should look at the matter and adopt its culture on this basis. Its work and path are drawn on this basis, so if it followed it without deviation and remained patient on what may confront it and did not falter, compromise or be pliant, then Allah (swt) will have prepared it (practically and theoretically) to undertake this task universally, which will be after establishing the Islamic State. The group, in terms of thought, is universal, and in terms of work, it cannot go beyond the fact that it is a group that works in a particular place to establish the Khilafah State. Consequently, it is the Khilafah State that will undertake this great task.
One point remains to be mentioned. It is the fact that the Muslim lands are intentionally divided into many states and the Muslims in these lands generally live in similar atmospheres, though there are differences in some partial issues that do not change the method or prevent the expansion of one organised work to more than one country. This expansion gives strength to the group and increases its awareness and more effective. It also makes the establishment of the Khilafah State in one area liable to expansion and spread. This helps the group to undertake the task that will follow the establishment of the State. It will prepare the State to enter the stage of global struggle. In both these situations, the group would rely on the Help of Allah (swt).
Should the work be partial or comprehensive and balanced?
There are also Muslim activists who put forward the idea of integration and balance required in the present Islamic work, whilst others suggest the partial approach or the excessive approach.
The integral approach means the impermissibility of restricting it to one aspect or partial thing to the exclusion of other parts and aspects. Part of the characteristics of the Islamic methodology is that it has a system of worship, an economic system, a social system, a political system and a military system. The first Islamic work in the time of the Prophethood was also complete. Thus, the Rasool of Allah (saw) adhered to and followed the Islamic work in all its aspects. Whether in the field or in moral instruction, he was a Murabbi (educator), in the field of education he was a teacher, in the field of Jihaad he was a leader, and in planning he was a guide. The Islamic work obliges us to follow the footsteps of the Rasool (saw) in all times and places, and there is no choice in whether to follow his way or not.
In contrast to this is the partial approach in the Islamic work, which is to restrict oneself to one aspect of the Islamic work. They adhere to this only, and do not overstep it. They only believe in this partial work and reject everything else. Partial work causes plurality and fragmentation in the work, and scatters the efforts of the people. The Qur’an rejected the partial work for the Children of Israel. He (swt) says; “Do you believe in a part of the scripture and reject a part? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in this life, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment.” [TMQ 2:85]. The protagonists also add that the challenge of Jahilliyah and its solidarity obliges integration in the Islamic work.
This group of Muslim activists thinks that there should be a balance in giving every part of the integrated Islamic work its due weight and measure, otherwise it will lead to deficiency in some things and excessiveness in others. This balance requires the consideration of the logic of priorities.
In short, the idea of integration deals with Islam as a whole. Thus the group’s work must be characterised by comprehensiveness. Balance obliges that one be concerned with every aspect, according to values and measures suitable for each one. There should be no increase in it, otherwise this will lead to exaggeration, neither should there be deficiency, otherwise this will lead to defects.
The laws of integration and balance control the nature of things and actions. They are laws that are observed by the Muslim and the non-Muslim. He feels the importance of their presence in his life, and he works to realise them, so that the results come as intended.
However one must notice that judgement on the integration of things and achieving their balance depends on the mind, as opposed to judgement on actions, which relies on the Shar’a.
That is because the mind comprehends the reality of things and the elements that make up the reality and fixed ratios. This is the area of the people of expertise, and the following hadith of the Messenger (saw) applies to it; “You are are more knowledgeable about the affairs of your dunya.” [Reported by Muslim].
So the farmer, doctor, engines and mechanic, each one of them is expert in his field and its rules. Each one tries to achieve this law (of integration and balance).
As for the actions, they are determined by Allah (swt), and the following hadith of the Messenger (saw) applies to them; “Every action which is not based on our matter (deen) is rejected.” [Reported by Bukhari and Muslim]. The following Shar’ee principle also applies to them: ‘In origin, actions are adhered to according the Shar’ee rule.’ That is because judging upon actions as hasan (good) or qubh (reprehensible) is subject to man’s consideration of this action and not from the action itself. The Muslim will judge upon his actions according to the thoughts he believes in. If the action is according to the orders and prohibitions of Allah (swt) then it is hasan (good), otherwise it is qabeeh (reprehensible). The Shar’ee principle states: ‘The hasan is what the Sharee’ah has defined as hasan and qubh is what the Shar’a has defined as qubh.’
Therefore, when the Muslim wishes to realise integration and balance in things, he depends upon his mind like any other human being. As for when he wishes to realise it in actions, it must be according to the Shar’ee rule.
There is another issue that is, the law of integration and balance takes into consideration the size of the work required by the Shar’a without being exceeded. This requires the following details;
Islam is complete. All Muslims, ie the Islamic Ummah, undertake the whole of Islam.
The Islamic Ummah consists of individuals, groups and the Khaleefah.
Each one of these has been entrusted with rules specific to them.
Thus, the individual Muslim undertakes what the Shar’a requires of him as an individual. The group undertakes what is required from it as a group. The Khaleefah undertakes what he has been ordered to undertake as a Khaleefah.
If the Muslims, as individuals, undertook all that they are required to undertake, just like the jama’ah (group/s) and the Khaleefah, then the completeness and comprehensiveness of the work will have been realised. Any shortcoming (in the individual, group or Khaleefah) regarding the obligations will make the one with the shortcoming deficient in regards to what was required from him and he will be sinful.
Complete Islam cannot exist completely without the presence of a Khaleefah. The fact that many of the rules of the deen depend upon his presence makes his presence an obligation, and the work to establish a Khaleefah an obligation. Consequently having a group that works to establish the Khaleefah is a Shar’ee obligation. Thus, the group undertakes everything required to establish the deen through the establishment of the Khilafah State. This is what is known as the work to resume the Islamic way of life. This is the totality required from it by Shar’a, and it is not the whole of the deen, which it cannot deal with, neither is it entrusted to undertake it. Rather it is prohibited by the Shar’a from undertaking the implementation of many rules, like the Hudood for example. Thus the group does not take up the role of the Khaleefah; it rather works to establish the Khaleefah so that he can undertake what is required of him; “The Ameer for the people is a Shepherd and he is responsible for his flock.” [Reported by Muslim] “...Indeed Allah will ask about what He has entrusted them with.” [Reported by Muslim]
Here we would like to draw attention to the fact that the Muslim believes in Islam completely and calls to it in general. However, he adopts in detail what he needs in order to perform what is required of him by the Shar’a, and what is required of him from the group that he works with. He will be accounted for any deficiency in these details by Allah (swt). Similarly, the Khaleefah will undertake what is required by the Shar’a as an individual. So he prays, fasts, makes Hajj, gives zakah and looks after his parents, and he abstains from adultery, usury, lying and deception. He also undertakes what the Shar’a requires from him as Khaleefah. So, he passes laws, declares Jihaad, protects the Muslims, rules by what Allah (swt) has revealed and applies the Hudood. Allah (swt) will account him for any deficiency in any of these.
This is the reality on which the Shar’ee rules apply. It must be clear for the group so that it can distinguish between what is required from it and what is not required. Hence what is required from the Khaleefah is not required from the group. If the group defined its reality, it will be able to define the magnitude of what is required from it, and hence will be accounted for it. This is from the angle of integration.
After the group has defined what is required from it, it will lose the required balance if it restricted itself to one aspect of what is required, to the exclusion of another aspect, or it only concentrated on one aspect, and gave it more attention than it deserves at the expense of another aspect, or if it did not consider the priorities in its work. However we must remember that it is the Shar’a and not the mind that decides what the priorities are. Thus the work of the group is political, and it is established on an ideology which it wishes to be implemented upon the Islamic Ummah. The ‘Aqeedah takes the prime position in the da’wah, because it is the basis upon which every branch is established, and to which all the Shar’ee rules are related. Concentrating on the establishment of the Khilafah must have a wide scope, because many rules are dependent on it, and that is why it is known as the ‘Crown of the Furood (obligations).’
Therefore, if the group strives to realise its integration and balance outside this viewpoint, then it has charged itself with what Allah (swt) has not charged it with. It will continue to complain of deficiency and inbalance as it complains of plurality. It will become a group that complains and weeps, and loses its way because it has lost its compass of direction.
If the characteristics of the Islamic methodology are that it has a system of worship, economic system, social system, political system and military system, then what is the group’s linkage with all these systems?
The group has been established to establish the Rule of Allah (swt). When the Rule of Allah (swt) has been established, then the various Islamic systems have been established.
In the economic system, there are Shar’ee rules relating to land and ownership, and other rules relating to manufacture, and domestic and foreign trade. The Legislator has entrusted all of these rules and other such rules to the Khaleefah. It is the Khaleefah and not the group that assumes the responsibility of looking after them.
In the political system, the State is established on principles and pillars laid down by the Shar’a, such as the Khaleefah, the mu’awineen (assisstants) to the wulaah (governors), qudaah (judges), administrative system and the majlis al-Ummah (Council of the Ummah). The Khaleefah has his mandatory powers and so do the mu’awineen (assisstants) and the wulaah (governors). The army has its tasks, and the administrative system has its area. What has the group got to do with any of these things?
The Islamic armies and their preparation are to realise the aim for which they exist, which is to convey the Islamic da’wah to the world. The preparation has to be on the global level and not just on the tactical level, where the Muslim learns how to disassemble his machine gun, use it and throw a grenade. It is well known that there are weapons that an individual possesses, and weapons that only states can possess. This necessitates that the training be of a sophisticated level using tanks, artillery, aeroplanes, nuclear power, and outer space. Laboratories, arms factories, airports, and training centres should also be established; and many other things beside what we have mentioned. So what has the group got to do with any of these things? The Messenger (saw), when he used to prepare and train his Sahabah, did not do that as someone responsible for a group; rather he did that as a ruler of a State. The emulation of the Messenger (saw) should not go beyond this view.
It is not the duty of the group to assume the responsibility for these systems. Rather the group has to establish the Khaleefah who, in his role, realises these systems because that is his responsibility. If the Ummah neglected the establishment of the Khaleefah, and tried to undertake his tasks, then it has distorted the Shar’a.
The group is obliged to adopt intellectually the systems which it wishes the people to be ruled by when Allah (swt) grants them the ability to to this. Thus the group sets out the structure of the Islamic system and the constitution of the State. It gives a general picture of the rules of Islam to the people, so that they can see its ability to solve their problems. They then proceed towards achieving the worship of Allah (swt), by implementing the pure Sharee’ah rules and enjoying their blessing.
As for the small part (of Islam) mentioned by those who hold an opinion about carrying only a small part; if they are charitable or ethical societies, or societies that are established on a single Shar’ee rule, such as taking care of the Qur’an, then such associations are acceptable, as long as their members come together on a Shar’ee rule. However, if they claim that through this work they want to establish the deen, then we say to them they have deviated from the planned Shar’ee method, and their partial work becomes rejected.
The group that works to restore the ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed should fulfill what is necessary for it, namely: it should not take the rules of the Khaleefah, or the rules of the individual for itself, and not consider itself to be the whole Muslim community but rather a group from the Muslim community, and define its objective as the establishment of Allah’s (swt) rule and the resumption of the Islamic way of life. It should adopt then everything it needs in the work to achieve its objective, so it should adopt the correct understanding of the Islamic ‘Aqeedah and the thoughts that relate to it, and prepare its shabab properly with the ‘Aqeedah it adopts. It should also adopt the method that will help it to achieve the objective, the constitution with which the people would be ruled, and also the thoughts that help to show clearly the fallacy of the false thoughts prevalent amongst Muslims, corrected the erroneous concepts. It should also demand that the individual who works with the group should fulfil his individual requirements so as to become a pious Muslim individual. So he should fulfil the requirements in things such as the beliefs, worships, societal transactions and morals. It should focus its work on establishing the Islamic society, whose relationships are based on Islam, and guarded by the Khilafah State. Then it should monitor the actions of the rulers and their masters so as to know what is planned for the Muslims. The group should expose this to the people, and in its place it should adopt what is good for the Ummah; the Shar’ee rules. It should work to practically seize the power from those Taghut who treat the Muslims ruthlessly. If all this has been done then this group would have fulfilled all that is necessary for it.
The culture of the group should be extensive, and the field of its work should be wide. Consequently, the group must undertake everything that is required, and this encompasses many things. It should perform the actions with the required balance, so it does not turn into an athletic, ethical association or an economic institution... rather it preserves its political approach and political work. Thus, its thoughts are those of looking after the affairs and the adoption of the Ummah’s interests.
Therefore, partial work in the aforementioned manner is rejected. The wide approach of the group that encompasses what is required and what is not required from it, is also an erroneous understanding that is rejected.
It is obligatory to obey the Amir and it is haram to betray him or break the oath given to him
The following is a translation of an Arabic article.
It is obligatory to obey the Amir, and it is haram to betray him or break the oath given to him
Obedience (taa’ah) means compliance and submission; whilst Amir is the one who takes charge of a matter, whether this matter was general like that related to an ummah or a people. Or it might be specific like that related to a group that gathered over a common issue. Thus, the one who looks after the general affairs of Muslims is considered an Amir. Likewise, the one who looks after the affairs of a group structured over a common issue is considered an Amir as well; and the one who looks after the affairs of a group in travel is an Amir also.
Amir, chairman and leader hold the same meaning. Likewise, imarah, chairmanship and leadership have the same meaning as well.
Amir can be a ruler such as amir ul-mu’mineen (leader of the believers), and amir of wilaya (governor). He might be other than a ruler, such as amir of an army, an expedition, amir of a party (hizb) and amir of travel. So, the word of amir is general (‘aamm) that includes the amir who is a ruler, and the amir who is not a ruler.
Obedience (taa’ah) is obliged to every amir, by those whom he is amir to them, within the issue/matter he is made an amir over. Thus, it is obliged to obey the amir ul-mu’mineen, to comply with him and to execute his decrees and decisions, by all the citizens who live under his imarah. It is also obliged to obey the amir of the army, comply with him and execute his orders and decisions, by all the soldiers of the army, which he leads, regarding the matters which he was made an amir over. It is as well obliged to obey the amir of a hizb (party), comply with him and execute his orders and decisions, by all the members of the hizb, which he presides over, regarding the responsibilities given to him, in accordance with the hizb rules and adoptions, which the hizb members gave an oath on; this is as long as the person remained a member in it.
The obligation of obedience and compliance with the amir has been proved in Qur’an and Sunnah. Allah (swt) says:
يا أيها الذين آمنوا أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول وأولي الأمر منكم
“O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and people of authority from among you”. [TMQ 4: 59]
Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Aby Hurairah that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
«من أطاعني فقد أطاع الله، ومن عصاني فقد عصى الله، ومن أطاع الأمير فقد أطاعني ومن عصى الأمير فقد عصاني»
“Whoever obeyed me he would have obeyed Allah, and whoever disobeyed me he would have disobeyed Allah. And whoever obeyed the amir he would have obeyed me, and whoever disobeyed the amir he would have disobeyed me”.
The hadith was narrated in another form as:
«ومن أطاع أميري فقد أطاعني، ومن عصى أميري فقد عصاني»
“And whoever obeyed my amir he would have obeyed me, and whoever disobeyed my amir he would have disobeyed me”.
The words of amir and my amir that came in this hadith include the amir who is a ruler and the amir who is not a ruler, such as the amir of an army and the amir of an expedition. The Messenger of Allah (saw) had appointed amirs as rulers, such as Mu’adh bin Jabal as an amir over al-Jand, Ziyad bin Labid and Alaa’ bin al-Hadhrami over Hadramout, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari over Zubayd and Eden. He (saw) appointed also amirs other than rulers over armies and expeditions. He appointed Sa’d bin aby Waqqas amir over an expedition he sent towards Makkah, and appointed Zayd bin Haritha, Ja’far bin Aby Talib, and Abdullah bin Aby Ruwaha as amirs over the army of Mu’ta, one after the other. The mentioned hadith of Al-Bukhari and Muslim applies to these amirs he appointed as rulers over the countries and the amirs other than rulers, whom he appointed over the armies and expeditions. The Messenger of Allah (saw) considered obedience to them as obedience to him and obedience to Allah; and disobedience to them as disobedience to him and disobedience to Allah.
There are many verses and ahadith that command with obedience and urge to do it, so that obedience among Muslims becomes one of the natural dispositions. This is because obedience and compliance are fundamental and necessary for discipline and for the protection of the entity of the state, the ummah, the party and group. Without obedience and compliance there would be no discipline; besides disorder would prevail and the entity would be shattered and collapse.
Obedience came in the ahidith in an absolute form (mutlaq) and without being restricted to a specific amir or a specific matter. Thus, obedience is obliged to every Muslim amir, who is committed to the shar’, even if he was unjust, and even if he used to take property illicitly. There are sound ahadith that indicate this matter. Al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn Abbas, he said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«مَن رأى من أميره شيئاً فكرهه فليصبر عليه، فإن من فارق الجماعة شبراً فمات إلاّ مات ميتة جاهلية»
“Whoever saw a matter he hates from his amir let him be patient about it. This is because whoever dissociated himself from the community (jamaa’ah), even by the measure of a hand span, and then he died as such he would have died a death of jahiliyya”.
It is also narrated from Hudhayfa bin Al-Yaman that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«....، قال: تسمع وتطيع وإن ضرب ظهرك، وأخذ مالك فاسمع وأطع»
“…….He said: You have to listen and obey even if he hit your back and took your property (illegally); you have to listen and obey”.
The Messenger of Allah (saw) stressed on the obligation of obedience to the amirs to the extent that he considered the one who dissociates himself from the community (jamaa’a), even by the measure of a hand span, he would have broken the pledge to Islam from his neck until he restored it back, and considered the one who withdrew his hand from obedience he would meet Allah on Day of Judgment without having a proof for himself, as it was narrated by Muslim and Al-Hakim through Ibn Omer.
There is one matter excluded from the obligation of absolute obedience that is when the amir, whether he is ameer ul-mu’mineen, amir of an army or amir of a party or group, orders of a sin. If he ordered of a sin, then obedience to him is not allowed regarding that sin, which he ordered of it. However, this is not the case if the person just doubted that matter was a sin. Rather, the sin that the amir ordered of it is considered a sin by the amir, where he had no evidence or a possible evidence to allow it. This issue of ordering of a sin came in a hadith narrated by Muslim through Ibn Omer from the Prophet (saw), he said:
«على المرء المسلم السمع والطاعة فيما أحب وكره إلاّ أن يؤمر بمعصية، فإن أُمر بمعصية فلا سمع ولا طاعة» .
“The Muslim has to listen and obey regarding matters which he loves or hates, unless he was ordered of a sin. If he was ordered of a sin, then he has not to listen or obey”.
The obligation of absolute obedience to the amir regarding his authority does not mean absence of accounting of him. Allah (swt) had obliged the accounting of the amirs, whether they were rulers or otherwise, when they mistreat the rights of the people, fail to accomplish their (amirs) responsibilities, neglect any of the affairs of those under their leadership within their responsibilities, disagree with rules of Islam or judge/rule with other than the revelation of Allah. Muslim narrated from Umm Salama that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«ستكون أمراء فتعرفون وتنكرون، فمن عرف برئ، ومن أنكر سلم، ولكن من رضي وتابع....»
“There will be amirs, where you will acknowledge (some of what they do as right) and refuse to acknowledge (some other). Whoever acknowledged (what is right) he would be cleared (of the sin), and whoever rejected (what is wrong) he would be blameless; however he whoever accepted and complied with (he would not be so)…”.
It is also narrated from Abu Said Al-Khudry, he said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«من رأى منكم منكراً فليغيره بيده، فإن لم يستطع فبلسانه، فإن لم يستطع فبقلبه وذلك أضعف الإيمان» .
“Whoever of you has seen a munkar (evil) let him change it with his hand. If he could not, then (let him change it) with his tongue. If he could not, then (let him hate it) by his heart; and this is the weakest iman”.
Accounting of the amirs, whether they were rulers, amirs of armies, leaders of parties or leaders of groups, consists of discussing with them so as to show the error of the actions they did, the error of the orders and decisions they issued, the error of the rules they executed, and the error of the ideas and opinions they derived. The amirs must listen to those who account them and discuss with them the issues over which they carry this accounting. If the amirs were convinced of that which was discussed with them and found it to be right then they must return to it. If they however were not convinced of that which was discussed with them, and found it to be wrong, they have to explain to them the validity of the actions they did, and the correctness of the orders and decisions they issued, the rules they executed and the ideas and opinions they deduced.
After the amirs had explained their position, those who accounted, discussed and objected have to accept the views of the amirs after they (accounting people) did their utmost effort in persuading them. This is necessary for continuing abidance by the obedience, continuity of discipline, and maintaining the unity of the entity of the state and party. This is different to the case when the amir shows kufr bawah, over which we have proof from Allah, where this has a different rule.
It is not allowed for the accounting and objection to follow whims or be for achieving a special interest. Allah (swt) says:
ومن أضلّ ممن اتّبع هواه بغير هدى من الله
“And who goes farther astray than he who follows his whims without guidance from Allah”. [TMQ 28:50]
And He says:
ولا تطع من أغفلنا قلبه عن ذكرنا واتبع هواه وكان أمره فرطاً
“And do not obey the one whose heart We made heedful of Our remembrance, who followed his own whims and whose case had been abandoned”. [TMQ 18:28]
And He says:
فأما من طغى . وآثر الحياة الدنيا . فإن الجحيم هي المأوى . وأما من خاف مقام ربه ونهى النفس عن الهوى . فإن الجنة هي المأوى.
“As for him who rebelled. And preferred the worldly life. Lo! Hell will be his home. As for him who fear to stand before his Lord and restrained his soul from whims. Lo! The Garden will be his home”. [TMQ 79: 37-41]
Those who account and object are not allowed, in case the amir did not agree with them, to withdraw their hands from his obedience, to dispute with him over his imarah (leadership), to betray him, or to break their pledge to him or their oath they gave to him. All of these matters have been totally prohibited by Islam.
As regards prohibition of withdrawing the hand from obedience, Muslim narrated from Abdullah bin Omer, he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
«من خلع يداً من طاعة لقي الله يوم القيامة لا حجة له....»
“Whoever withdrew a hand from obedience he would meet Allah on Day of Judgment without having a proof for himself…”
In another narration that came in Al-Hakim, the Messenger (saw) said:
«من خرج من الجماعة قيد شبر فقد خلع ربقة الإسلام من عنقه حتى يراجعه»
“Whoever dissociated himself from the community (jamaa’a) by the measure of a hand span he would have removed the pledge of Islam from his neck until he returns it back”.
It is also narrated from Awf bin Malik Al-Ashja’I, he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
«.... ألا من وَلِيَ عليه والٍ فرآه يأتي شيئاً من معصية الله فليكره ما يأتي من معصية
الله ولا ينزعنّ يداً من طاعة» .
“Behold! Whoever had any governor (waaly) appointed over him, and he saw him commits a sin, let him dislike the sin he commits and do not withdraw a hand from obedience”.
As regards the prohibition of disputing the authority of the amirs unless they have seen kufr bawah, which they have proof from Allah upon it. Muslim narrated from Ubada bin As-Samit, he said:
«دعانا رسول الله فبايعناه فكان فيما أخذ علينا أن بايَعَنا على السمع والطاعة في منشطنا ومكرهنا، عسرنا ويسرنا، وأثرة علينا، وأن لا ننازع الأمر أهله، قال: إلا أن تروا كفراً بواحاً عندكم من الله فيه برهان» .
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) called upon us and we gave him bai’ah. Of the matters that we pledged ourselves to is that we gave bai’ah to listen and obey during our zeal and laziness, our hardship and our ease, and giving preference over ourselves, besides we must not dispute the authority with its people. He (saw) said: Unless you see kufr bawah you have upon it a proof from Allah”.
As regards the prohibition of betraying the amirs, Al-Bukhari narrated from Abu Huraira from the Prophet (saw):
«قال الله تعالى: ثلاثة أنا خصمهم يوم القيامة: رجل أعطى بي ثمّ غدر....»
“Allah (swt) said: I am an opponent to three (types of people) on Day of Judgment: A man who gave (something) using Me (ie My name as assurance) then he betrayed..”
Al-Bukhari narrated from Abdullah bin Omer, he said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«أربع من كُنّ فيه كان منافقاً خالصاً: من إذا حدّث كذب وإذا وعد أخلف، وإذا عاهد غدر، وإذا خاصم فجر، ومن كانت فيه خَصلة منهنّ كانت فيه خَصلة من نفاق حتى يدعها»
“Four (characteristics), any one who has them would be an utter hypocrite: The one who speaks and makes lies, he gives a promise but fails to observe it, he makes a covenant but betrays it, and he disputes (with some one) but exceeds the limit. He who has one of these characteristics he would have a characteristic of hypocrisy until he gives it up”.
Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Ibn Omer, he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
«لكل غادرٍ لواءٌ يُنْصَبُ له يوم القيامة بغدرته» .
“Every traitor would have a flag raised to him on the Day of Judgment that points to his treachery”.
As regards prohibition of breaking the pledge (‘ahd) he gave to the amir and breaking the oath he took to him, this is proved in His (swt) saying:
إن الذين يبايعونك إنما يبايعون الله يد الله فوق أيديهم فمن نكث فإنما ينكث على نفسه ومن أوفى بما عاهد عليه الله فسيؤتيه أجراً عظيماً.
“Lo! Those who swore allegiance to you (Muhammad), swear allegiance to Allah. The Hand of Allah is above their hands. So whoever broke his oath, he broke it only to himself hurt; while whoever kept his covenant with Allah, He will bestow upon him immense reward”. [TMQ 48: 10]
And He said:
وأوفوا بعهد الله إذا عاهدتم ولا تنقضوا الأيمان بعد توكيدها وقد جعلتم الله عليكم كفيلاً إن الله يعلم ما تفعلون. ولا تكونوا كالتي نقضت غزلها من بعد قوة أنكاثاً تتخذون أيْمانكم دخلاً بينكم.
“Fulfill the covenant of Allah when you gave a covenant, and do not break your oaths after their assertion and after you made Allah custodian/responsible over you. Lo! Allah knows what you do. And do not be like her who tattered the thread after she had made it strong, to thin filaments, making your oaths a deceit between you”. [TMQ 16: 91-92]
And He said:
الذين يوفون بعهد الله ولا ينقضون الميثاق.
“Those who keep the pledge of Allah and do not break the covenant”. [TMQ 13: 20]
And He said:
وأوفوا بالعهد إن العهد كان مسؤولاً.
“And keep the pledge. Lo! You will be asked about the pledge”. [TMQ 17:
34]
It is obligatory to obey the Amir, and it is haram to betray him or break the oath given to him
Obedience (taa’ah) means compliance and submission; whilst Amir is the one who takes charge of a matter, whether this matter was general like that related to an ummah or a people. Or it might be specific like that related to a group that gathered over a common issue. Thus, the one who looks after the general affairs of Muslims is considered an Amir. Likewise, the one who looks after the affairs of a group structured over a common issue is considered an Amir as well; and the one who looks after the affairs of a group in travel is an Amir also.
Amir, chairman and leader hold the same meaning. Likewise, imarah, chairmanship and leadership have the same meaning as well.
Amir can be a ruler such as amir ul-mu’mineen (leader of the believers), and amir of wilaya (governor). He might be other than a ruler, such as amir of an army, an expedition, amir of a party (hizb) and amir of travel. So, the word of amir is general (‘aamm) that includes the amir who is a ruler, and the amir who is not a ruler.
Obedience (taa’ah) is obliged to every amir, by those whom he is amir to them, within the issue/matter he is made an amir over. Thus, it is obliged to obey the amir ul-mu’mineen, to comply with him and to execute his decrees and decisions, by all the citizens who live under his imarah. It is also obliged to obey the amir of the army, comply with him and execute his orders and decisions, by all the soldiers of the army, which he leads, regarding the matters which he was made an amir over. It is as well obliged to obey the amir of a hizb (party), comply with him and execute his orders and decisions, by all the members of the hizb, which he presides over, regarding the responsibilities given to him, in accordance with the hizb rules and adoptions, which the hizb members gave an oath on; this is as long as the person remained a member in it.
The obligation of obedience and compliance with the amir has been proved in Qur’an and Sunnah. Allah (swt) says:
يا أيها الذين آمنوا أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرسول وأولي الأمر منكم
“O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and people of authority from among you”. [TMQ 4: 59]
Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Aby Hurairah that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
«من أطاعني فقد أطاع الله، ومن عصاني فقد عصى الله، ومن أطاع الأمير فقد أطاعني ومن عصى الأمير فقد عصاني»
“Whoever obeyed me he would have obeyed Allah, and whoever disobeyed me he would have disobeyed Allah. And whoever obeyed the amir he would have obeyed me, and whoever disobeyed the amir he would have disobeyed me”.
The hadith was narrated in another form as:
«ومن أطاع أميري فقد أطاعني، ومن عصى أميري فقد عصاني»
“And whoever obeyed my amir he would have obeyed me, and whoever disobeyed my amir he would have disobeyed me”.
The words of amir and my amir that came in this hadith include the amir who is a ruler and the amir who is not a ruler, such as the amir of an army and the amir of an expedition. The Messenger of Allah (saw) had appointed amirs as rulers, such as Mu’adh bin Jabal as an amir over al-Jand, Ziyad bin Labid and Alaa’ bin al-Hadhrami over Hadramout, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari over Zubayd and Eden. He (saw) appointed also amirs other than rulers over armies and expeditions. He appointed Sa’d bin aby Waqqas amir over an expedition he sent towards Makkah, and appointed Zayd bin Haritha, Ja’far bin Aby Talib, and Abdullah bin Aby Ruwaha as amirs over the army of Mu’ta, one after the other. The mentioned hadith of Al-Bukhari and Muslim applies to these amirs he appointed as rulers over the countries and the amirs other than rulers, whom he appointed over the armies and expeditions. The Messenger of Allah (saw) considered obedience to them as obedience to him and obedience to Allah; and disobedience to them as disobedience to him and disobedience to Allah.
There are many verses and ahadith that command with obedience and urge to do it, so that obedience among Muslims becomes one of the natural dispositions. This is because obedience and compliance are fundamental and necessary for discipline and for the protection of the entity of the state, the ummah, the party and group. Without obedience and compliance there would be no discipline; besides disorder would prevail and the entity would be shattered and collapse.
Obedience came in the ahidith in an absolute form (mutlaq) and without being restricted to a specific amir or a specific matter. Thus, obedience is obliged to every Muslim amir, who is committed to the shar’, even if he was unjust, and even if he used to take property illicitly. There are sound ahadith that indicate this matter. Al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn Abbas, he said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«مَن رأى من أميره شيئاً فكرهه فليصبر عليه، فإن من فارق الجماعة شبراً فمات إلاّ مات ميتة جاهلية»
“Whoever saw a matter he hates from his amir let him be patient about it. This is because whoever dissociated himself from the community (jamaa’ah), even by the measure of a hand span, and then he died as such he would have died a death of jahiliyya”.
It is also narrated from Hudhayfa bin Al-Yaman that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«....، قال: تسمع وتطيع وإن ضرب ظهرك، وأخذ مالك فاسمع وأطع»
“…….He said: You have to listen and obey even if he hit your back and took your property (illegally); you have to listen and obey”.
The Messenger of Allah (saw) stressed on the obligation of obedience to the amirs to the extent that he considered the one who dissociates himself from the community (jamaa’a), even by the measure of a hand span, he would have broken the pledge to Islam from his neck until he restored it back, and considered the one who withdrew his hand from obedience he would meet Allah on Day of Judgment without having a proof for himself, as it was narrated by Muslim and Al-Hakim through Ibn Omer.
There is one matter excluded from the obligation of absolute obedience that is when the amir, whether he is ameer ul-mu’mineen, amir of an army or amir of a party or group, orders of a sin. If he ordered of a sin, then obedience to him is not allowed regarding that sin, which he ordered of it. However, this is not the case if the person just doubted that matter was a sin. Rather, the sin that the amir ordered of it is considered a sin by the amir, where he had no evidence or a possible evidence to allow it. This issue of ordering of a sin came in a hadith narrated by Muslim through Ibn Omer from the Prophet (saw), he said:
«على المرء المسلم السمع والطاعة فيما أحب وكره إلاّ أن يؤمر بمعصية، فإن أُمر بمعصية فلا سمع ولا طاعة» .
“The Muslim has to listen and obey regarding matters which he loves or hates, unless he was ordered of a sin. If he was ordered of a sin, then he has not to listen or obey”.
The obligation of absolute obedience to the amir regarding his authority does not mean absence of accounting of him. Allah (swt) had obliged the accounting of the amirs, whether they were rulers or otherwise, when they mistreat the rights of the people, fail to accomplish their (amirs) responsibilities, neglect any of the affairs of those under their leadership within their responsibilities, disagree with rules of Islam or judge/rule with other than the revelation of Allah. Muslim narrated from Umm Salama that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«ستكون أمراء فتعرفون وتنكرون، فمن عرف برئ، ومن أنكر سلم، ولكن من رضي وتابع....»
“There will be amirs, where you will acknowledge (some of what they do as right) and refuse to acknowledge (some other). Whoever acknowledged (what is right) he would be cleared (of the sin), and whoever rejected (what is wrong) he would be blameless; however he whoever accepted and complied with (he would not be so)…”.
It is also narrated from Abu Said Al-Khudry, he said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«من رأى منكم منكراً فليغيره بيده، فإن لم يستطع فبلسانه، فإن لم يستطع فبقلبه وذلك أضعف الإيمان» .
“Whoever of you has seen a munkar (evil) let him change it with his hand. If he could not, then (let him change it) with his tongue. If he could not, then (let him hate it) by his heart; and this is the weakest iman”.
Accounting of the amirs, whether they were rulers, amirs of armies, leaders of parties or leaders of groups, consists of discussing with them so as to show the error of the actions they did, the error of the orders and decisions they issued, the error of the rules they executed, and the error of the ideas and opinions they derived. The amirs must listen to those who account them and discuss with them the issues over which they carry this accounting. If the amirs were convinced of that which was discussed with them and found it to be right then they must return to it. If they however were not convinced of that which was discussed with them, and found it to be wrong, they have to explain to them the validity of the actions they did, and the correctness of the orders and decisions they issued, the rules they executed and the ideas and opinions they deduced.
After the amirs had explained their position, those who accounted, discussed and objected have to accept the views of the amirs after they (accounting people) did their utmost effort in persuading them. This is necessary for continuing abidance by the obedience, continuity of discipline, and maintaining the unity of the entity of the state and party. This is different to the case when the amir shows kufr bawah, over which we have proof from Allah, where this has a different rule.
It is not allowed for the accounting and objection to follow whims or be for achieving a special interest. Allah (swt) says:
ومن أضلّ ممن اتّبع هواه بغير هدى من الله
“And who goes farther astray than he who follows his whims without guidance from Allah”. [TMQ 28:50]
And He says:
ولا تطع من أغفلنا قلبه عن ذكرنا واتبع هواه وكان أمره فرطاً
“And do not obey the one whose heart We made heedful of Our remembrance, who followed his own whims and whose case had been abandoned”. [TMQ 18:28]
And He says:
فأما من طغى . وآثر الحياة الدنيا . فإن الجحيم هي المأوى . وأما من خاف مقام ربه ونهى النفس عن الهوى . فإن الجنة هي المأوى.
“As for him who rebelled. And preferred the worldly life. Lo! Hell will be his home. As for him who fear to stand before his Lord and restrained his soul from whims. Lo! The Garden will be his home”. [TMQ 79: 37-41]
Those who account and object are not allowed, in case the amir did not agree with them, to withdraw their hands from his obedience, to dispute with him over his imarah (leadership), to betray him, or to break their pledge to him or their oath they gave to him. All of these matters have been totally prohibited by Islam.
As regards prohibition of withdrawing the hand from obedience, Muslim narrated from Abdullah bin Omer, he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
«من خلع يداً من طاعة لقي الله يوم القيامة لا حجة له....»
“Whoever withdrew a hand from obedience he would meet Allah on Day of Judgment without having a proof for himself…”
In another narration that came in Al-Hakim, the Messenger (saw) said:
«من خرج من الجماعة قيد شبر فقد خلع ربقة الإسلام من عنقه حتى يراجعه»
“Whoever dissociated himself from the community (jamaa’a) by the measure of a hand span he would have removed the pledge of Islam from his neck until he returns it back”.
It is also narrated from Awf bin Malik Al-Ashja’I, he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
«.... ألا من وَلِيَ عليه والٍ فرآه يأتي شيئاً من معصية الله فليكره ما يأتي من معصية
الله ولا ينزعنّ يداً من طاعة» .
“Behold! Whoever had any governor (waaly) appointed over him, and he saw him commits a sin, let him dislike the sin he commits and do not withdraw a hand from obedience”.
As regards the prohibition of disputing the authority of the amirs unless they have seen kufr bawah, which they have proof from Allah upon it. Muslim narrated from Ubada bin As-Samit, he said:
«دعانا رسول الله فبايعناه فكان فيما أخذ علينا أن بايَعَنا على السمع والطاعة في منشطنا ومكرهنا، عسرنا ويسرنا، وأثرة علينا، وأن لا ننازع الأمر أهله، قال: إلا أن تروا كفراً بواحاً عندكم من الله فيه برهان» .
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) called upon us and we gave him bai’ah. Of the matters that we pledged ourselves to is that we gave bai’ah to listen and obey during our zeal and laziness, our hardship and our ease, and giving preference over ourselves, besides we must not dispute the authority with its people. He (saw) said: Unless you see kufr bawah you have upon it a proof from Allah”.
As regards the prohibition of betraying the amirs, Al-Bukhari narrated from Abu Huraira from the Prophet (saw):
«قال الله تعالى: ثلاثة أنا خصمهم يوم القيامة: رجل أعطى بي ثمّ غدر....»
“Allah (swt) said: I am an opponent to three (types of people) on Day of Judgment: A man who gave (something) using Me (ie My name as assurance) then he betrayed..”
Al-Bukhari narrated from Abdullah bin Omer, he said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«أربع من كُنّ فيه كان منافقاً خالصاً: من إذا حدّث كذب وإذا وعد أخلف، وإذا عاهد غدر، وإذا خاصم فجر، ومن كانت فيه خَصلة منهنّ كانت فيه خَصلة من نفاق حتى يدعها»
“Four (characteristics), any one who has them would be an utter hypocrite: The one who speaks and makes lies, he gives a promise but fails to observe it, he makes a covenant but betrays it, and he disputes (with some one) but exceeds the limit. He who has one of these characteristics he would have a characteristic of hypocrisy until he gives it up”.
Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Ibn Omer, he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
«لكل غادرٍ لواءٌ يُنْصَبُ له يوم القيامة بغدرته» .
“Every traitor would have a flag raised to him on the Day of Judgment that points to his treachery”.
As regards prohibition of breaking the pledge (‘ahd) he gave to the amir and breaking the oath he took to him, this is proved in His (swt) saying:
إن الذين يبايعونك إنما يبايعون الله يد الله فوق أيديهم فمن نكث فإنما ينكث على نفسه ومن أوفى بما عاهد عليه الله فسيؤتيه أجراً عظيماً.
“Lo! Those who swore allegiance to you (Muhammad), swear allegiance to Allah. The Hand of Allah is above their hands. So whoever broke his oath, he broke it only to himself hurt; while whoever kept his covenant with Allah, He will bestow upon him immense reward”. [TMQ 48: 10]
And He said:
وأوفوا بعهد الله إذا عاهدتم ولا تنقضوا الأيمان بعد توكيدها وقد جعلتم الله عليكم كفيلاً إن الله يعلم ما تفعلون. ولا تكونوا كالتي نقضت غزلها من بعد قوة أنكاثاً تتخذون أيْمانكم دخلاً بينكم.
“Fulfill the covenant of Allah when you gave a covenant, and do not break your oaths after their assertion and after you made Allah custodian/responsible over you. Lo! Allah knows what you do. And do not be like her who tattered the thread after she had made it strong, to thin filaments, making your oaths a deceit between you”. [TMQ 16: 91-92]
And He said:
الذين يوفون بعهد الله ولا ينقضون الميثاق.
“Those who keep the pledge of Allah and do not break the covenant”. [TMQ 13: 20]
And He said:
وأوفوا بالعهد إن العهد كان مسؤولاً.
“And keep the pledge. Lo! You will be asked about the pledge”. [TMQ 17:
34]
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Q&A: Muslim woman marrying a Kafir?
Question: Is the prohibition of Muslim women marrying Kuffar qat'i (definitive) or open to difference of opinion? According to Qardawi Umar b. Khattab gave the option to a woman whose husband had become murtadd to either stay with him or to separate. He reference he gives is the ahkaam ahl zimmah by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah. What would you say about this?
Answer: The marriage of a Muslim woman to a Kafir is definitely baatil (void). Allah (swt) says:
فإن علمتموهن مؤمنات فلا ترجعوهن إلى الكفار لا هن حل لهم ولا هم يحلون لهن
“Then if you ascertain that they are true believers, send them not back to the disbelievers, they are not lawful (wives) for the disbelievers nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them.” [al-Mumtahinah:10] T
This is a definite text in terms of its authenticity and meaning. Its not open except to one meaning which is that a Muslim woman is not allowed for a Kafir and Kuffar are not allowed for Muslim women. The husband’s disbelief does not allow the nikaah (marriage) to be contracted between him and a Muslim woman. Allah (swt) mentioned the word Kuffar to include all Kafir whether Jew, Christian, Zoroastrian or idolater i.e. any type of kufr which is included by the hukm.
However, the issue over which there was disagreement between the Fuqaha is the issue of the apostasy of the husband when he remains and is not killed after repenting (i.e. if he was outside the Islamic state and his wife was in the Islamic state or if the situation is like today where the ahkam are not implemented). After that the husband returns to Islam during her ‘iddah period i.e. before the end of the wife’s waiting period (‘iddah). The Fuqaha differed over this situation: some said if he returns to Islam before the end of his wife’s waiting period then she is his wife and she will return to him. But if he returns after the end of the ‘iddah then he will require a new contract if he wishes to marry his wife but she will have a choice whether to accept or reject. Others said that if the husband returns to Islam whether during or after the iddah, he will require a new contract and the wife has the option either to accept the marriage contract or to refuse.
Perhaps the incident you mentioned where ‘Umar (ra) gave the choice to a woman whose husband had committed apostasy (if the narration is authentic) is in this vein i.e. after the husband has returned to Islam.
Answer: The marriage of a Muslim woman to a Kafir is definitely baatil (void). Allah (swt) says:
فإن علمتموهن مؤمنات فلا ترجعوهن إلى الكفار لا هن حل لهم ولا هم يحلون لهن
“Then if you ascertain that they are true believers, send them not back to the disbelievers, they are not lawful (wives) for the disbelievers nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them.” [al-Mumtahinah:10] T
This is a definite text in terms of its authenticity and meaning. Its not open except to one meaning which is that a Muslim woman is not allowed for a Kafir and Kuffar are not allowed for Muslim women. The husband’s disbelief does not allow the nikaah (marriage) to be contracted between him and a Muslim woman. Allah (swt) mentioned the word Kuffar to include all Kafir whether Jew, Christian, Zoroastrian or idolater i.e. any type of kufr which is included by the hukm.
However, the issue over which there was disagreement between the Fuqaha is the issue of the apostasy of the husband when he remains and is not killed after repenting (i.e. if he was outside the Islamic state and his wife was in the Islamic state or if the situation is like today where the ahkam are not implemented). After that the husband returns to Islam during her ‘iddah period i.e. before the end of the wife’s waiting period (‘iddah). The Fuqaha differed over this situation: some said if he returns to Islam before the end of his wife’s waiting period then she is his wife and she will return to him. But if he returns after the end of the ‘iddah then he will require a new contract if he wishes to marry his wife but she will have a choice whether to accept or reject. Others said that if the husband returns to Islam whether during or after the iddah, he will require a new contract and the wife has the option either to accept the marriage contract or to refuse.
Perhaps the incident you mentioned where ‘Umar (ra) gave the choice to a woman whose husband had committed apostasy (if the narration is authentic) is in this vein i.e. after the husband has returned to Islam.
The Da'wah Carrier is not Responsible for Achieving the Results
Carrying the da'wah is the task of Prophets. It is of the best and most honourable deeds. Allah (SWT) says: "Who is better in speech than the one who calls (men) to Allah, works righteousness, and says I am one the Muslims ?"(41:33). The recompense for that deed is the best reward and the most abundant gift. Those who perform such a noble deed enjoy the highest rank and the best place with their lord in the hereafter. This is the case if they acted properly, perfected their work and did it only for the sake of Allah (SWT).
In order for the carrier of the da'wah to be aware of his affair, confident in his march, not to be stricken with frustration, grief and despair, in order that his situation does not reach the point where he gives up his da'wah and abandons his duty, he must inspire his course of action and his method from the Book of his Lord and the Sunnah of His Prophet. This makes him aware of his matter as Allah (SWT) says:
"Say this is my way. I invite to Allah with a certain knowledge, I and whoever follows me. Glory be to Allah, and I will never be from those who join Gods with Allah". (12:108).
The issue which must be manifest, the truth of which must be understood and comprehended is the duty and nature of the da'wah carrier. Is it to carry out the duty of propagation (tableegh) only, and the matter ends at that point ? Or is the da'wah carrier responsible for achieving the results which his da'wah is aimed at achieving, and is he accounted for that ?
To answer such questions, it is necessary to explain the following matters:
1 ) There are tens of Qur'anic ayaat which confirm the complete separation between the duty of tableegh together with carrying the da'wah on one side and achieving its results on the other, though the person wishes for the success of his da'wah and the acceptance of the guidance by his people. These are some of the ayaat:
"If you turn away, know that it is our messenger's duty to proclaim the message (Al-Balaagh al Mubeen)" (5:92).
"The messenger's duty is only to preach the clear message." (24:54).
"If then they turn away, we have not sent you as a guard over them, your duty is but to convey (the message)." (42:48).
The Qur'anic ayaat explained that the matter of their (the people's) guidance and acceptance is left to Allah (SWT); the da'wah carrier has no control over that. These are some of the verses:
"Not for you , (but for Allah) is the decision, whether he turns in mercy to them or punishes them, for they are indeed wrong-doers." ( ),
"Therefore do remind for you are one to remind. You are not to manage (their) affairs." (88-21/22).
2 ) To adhere to Iman and the righteous deeds - indicated by the words of Allah (SWT);
"Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that he will surely grant them inheritance in the land." (24:55).
This does not necessarily lead to the immediate granting of inheritance ( istikhlaf) or the speedy victory, just because of the involvement in the da'wah's deeds and executing them. The evidences for that are the following .
a. The delay of the victory of the Prophets, including Muhammad (SAW), though they were completely committed to the Iman and the righteous deeds and were far from doubts. Allah (SWT) says : "(They were reprieved) Until , when the messengers gave up hope (in their people), and thought that they were treated as liars, then came to them our help" (12;110) . "Or do you think that you shall enter the gardens of Bliss (al-jannah) without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you ? They encountered suffering and adversity and they were shaken, that even the messenger and those who believed with him cried ; When will come the help of Allah . And verily, the help of Allah is near !" (2:214).
b. The necessity of the da'wah carrier to show patience and perseverance until Allah (SWT) fulfils his promise of help and grants inheritance. In this, Allah (SWT) says: "You shall certainly be tried and tested in your possessions and in yourselves. And you shall certainly hear much that will grieve you, from those who received the book before you and from those who worship partners besides Allah. But if you persevere patiently , and guard against evil, then that indeed is a determining factor.... " (3:186). "Messengers before you were rejected , so they showed patience and constancy towards their rejection and their persecution until our help reached them. And there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah" (6:34).
c. Warning against feelings of impatience, anger, heartlessness and grief . Many ayaat and hadith warn against this. Allah SWT says: "So wait with patience for the command of your Lord, and be not like the companions of the fish... " (68:48) The command of Allah is in the following context, that he gave time to the people of Quraish and delayed the help to the messenger of Allah (SAW) against them. He (SWT) also said "If their turning away is hard on you, then if you were able to seek a tunnel in the ground or a ladder in the sky to bring them a sign, (what good ?). If it were Allah's will, he could gather them together on true guidance. So don't be of those who are ignorant." (6:35) And He (SWT) said "Is he, then, to whom the evil of his conduct is made alluring, so that he looks upon it as good, (equal to the one who is rightly guided) ? For Allah leaves to stray whom he wills and guides whom he wills. So let not your soul be vested in regret for them. For Allah knows well all that they do." (35:8). The Prophet (SAW) said talking to Khabab bin al Aratt at the end of a hadith: ". . . . but you are in Haste."
3 ) It is very necessary for the da'wah carrier to be aware of the burden of his responsibility. It is the burden of the revival and the change, and he has to be aware of the great size of the obstacles, obstructions and challenges that he will face in carrying the da'wah. This is part of the necessary enlightenment to examine the way and to comprehend the actual facts that can't be overlooked.
It can't be denied that the carriers of the da'wah today who are committed to the true idea and clear method, have inherited a huge legacy of ambiguities that befell the Islamic idea (Al Fikrah Al Islamiyah) since the second Hijrih century up until this time. These clouding veils concealed the image of Islam as it was revealed upon Muhammad (saw) who said the truth when he said "Islam started strange, and it will return as strange. So may Allah bless the strangers." Besides that, since the carriers of the da'wah started the plan of revival and the change, and resuming the Islamic way of life, they face the question of the way for revival and the method of change when they deal with those who deviated from the method of the Prophet (SAW) in establishing the Islamic State and implementing the rule of Allah (SWT) on the earth. Furthermore, the international situation is different today than it was when the messenger of Allah (SAW) established his state. The state was established in Madinah without drawing any attention from the Persians or the Romans. The first military encounter between the Islamic State and the Roman empire was in the 8th year of Hijrah. Today, the kufr states in the world work together in attacking us. They also work directly and through their puppets, the rulers of the Muslims, to prevent the re-establishment of the Khilafah. They also fight against political Islam after they succeeded in destroying the Khilafah state over seventy years ago.
As for the challenges that face the Muslims in general and the da'wah carrier in particular, they are many. These are some of them.
a. Physical challenges: These are reflected in the destruction the Khilafah, the establishment of an entity for the Jews in Palestine, chasing the sincere workers for Islam using brutal means unmatched before, working to prevent the Ummah from getting the advanced fighting capabilities including Nuclear and chemical weapons and also foiling and attacking the attempts at unifying the Muslims any.
b. Intellectual challenges: These are represented in defaming the image of Islam and circulating distortion about Islam everywhere, particularly from the bad scholars. Also in creating the racial and national calls, focusing on the idea of a compromise solution, glorifying the liberties and democracy. Further, they are manifest in the attempt to destroy the social system in Islam and the attempt to show that Islam is incapable of solving modern problems, and much more.
The presence of such obstacles, obstructions and challenges which face the da'wah carrier, beside the great burden, are natural and normal in the course of the true da'wah. Accordingly it is not allowed for the da'wah carrier to be overwhelmed by distress and frustration, or to leave the da'wah when he notices the obstacles in the march and the delay of victory. He must know that the inaction and the inactive response of the society and the people's turning away from the da'wah and the delay of victory; all this does not necessarily mean a shortcoming in the work or deviation from the proper path. There is no better proof of that than the condition of the Islamic da'wah at the end of the Makkan era. The rest is dependent on the command of Allah (SWT). Ibn Hisham reported in his Seerah of the Prophet(SAW) , "And when Allah SWT wanted to help his deen, support his messenger and fulfil His promise to him, the messenger of Allah (SAW) went out in the season in which he met those few people of al-Ansaar."
This favour from Allah (SWT) upon His Prophet came after the Makkan society had frozen and after Thaqeef had rebuffed the Prophet (SAW) badly, and after the Arab tribes had rejected the seeking of their help. The situation was the harshest and despair reached its highest level.
So after explaining these previous matters the da'wah carrier is assured that he is proceeding in the true path, no matter how much time it takes. Though he has the best hope in Allah (SWT) that the victory comes soon and the way-out is near, he does not relate the carrying of the da'wah with the achievement of its aims.
There is one more matter, the presence of which the da'wah carrier has to make sure of all the time, that his action should be righteous. In order to be so, it should be pure and correct. The correct action is that which depends on the Sharia' and does not deviate from it at all. The pure action is that which is done only for the sake of Allah (SWT), and not for any worldly ornament. Once the matter is such, then the da'wah carrier should be assured that the promise of Allah (SWT) is true, and that the Islamic State will be established, even if it took time.
Translated from an arabic article published in Al-Waie magazine published in Lebanon
In order for the carrier of the da'wah to be aware of his affair, confident in his march, not to be stricken with frustration, grief and despair, in order that his situation does not reach the point where he gives up his da'wah and abandons his duty, he must inspire his course of action and his method from the Book of his Lord and the Sunnah of His Prophet. This makes him aware of his matter as Allah (SWT) says:
"Say this is my way. I invite to Allah with a certain knowledge, I and whoever follows me. Glory be to Allah, and I will never be from those who join Gods with Allah". (12:108).
The issue which must be manifest, the truth of which must be understood and comprehended is the duty and nature of the da'wah carrier. Is it to carry out the duty of propagation (tableegh) only, and the matter ends at that point ? Or is the da'wah carrier responsible for achieving the results which his da'wah is aimed at achieving, and is he accounted for that ?
To answer such questions, it is necessary to explain the following matters:
1 ) There are tens of Qur'anic ayaat which confirm the complete separation between the duty of tableegh together with carrying the da'wah on one side and achieving its results on the other, though the person wishes for the success of his da'wah and the acceptance of the guidance by his people. These are some of the ayaat:
"If you turn away, know that it is our messenger's duty to proclaim the message (Al-Balaagh al Mubeen)" (5:92).
"The messenger's duty is only to preach the clear message." (24:54).
"If then they turn away, we have not sent you as a guard over them, your duty is but to convey (the message)." (42:48).
The Qur'anic ayaat explained that the matter of their (the people's) guidance and acceptance is left to Allah (SWT); the da'wah carrier has no control over that. These are some of the verses:
"Not for you , (but for Allah) is the decision, whether he turns in mercy to them or punishes them, for they are indeed wrong-doers." ( ),
"Therefore do remind for you are one to remind. You are not to manage (their) affairs." (88-21/22).
2 ) To adhere to Iman and the righteous deeds - indicated by the words of Allah (SWT);
"Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that he will surely grant them inheritance in the land." (24:55).
This does not necessarily lead to the immediate granting of inheritance ( istikhlaf) or the speedy victory, just because of the involvement in the da'wah's deeds and executing them. The evidences for that are the following .
a. The delay of the victory of the Prophets, including Muhammad (SAW), though they were completely committed to the Iman and the righteous deeds and were far from doubts. Allah (SWT) says : "(They were reprieved) Until , when the messengers gave up hope (in their people), and thought that they were treated as liars, then came to them our help" (12;110) . "Or do you think that you shall enter the gardens of Bliss (al-jannah) without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you ? They encountered suffering and adversity and they were shaken, that even the messenger and those who believed with him cried ; When will come the help of Allah . And verily, the help of Allah is near !" (2:214).
b. The necessity of the da'wah carrier to show patience and perseverance until Allah (SWT) fulfils his promise of help and grants inheritance. In this, Allah (SWT) says: "You shall certainly be tried and tested in your possessions and in yourselves. And you shall certainly hear much that will grieve you, from those who received the book before you and from those who worship partners besides Allah. But if you persevere patiently , and guard against evil, then that indeed is a determining factor.... " (3:186). "Messengers before you were rejected , so they showed patience and constancy towards their rejection and their persecution until our help reached them. And there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah" (6:34).
c. Warning against feelings of impatience, anger, heartlessness and grief . Many ayaat and hadith warn against this. Allah SWT says: "So wait with patience for the command of your Lord, and be not like the companions of the fish... " (68:48) The command of Allah is in the following context, that he gave time to the people of Quraish and delayed the help to the messenger of Allah (SAW) against them. He (SWT) also said "If their turning away is hard on you, then if you were able to seek a tunnel in the ground or a ladder in the sky to bring them a sign, (what good ?). If it were Allah's will, he could gather them together on true guidance. So don't be of those who are ignorant." (6:35) And He (SWT) said "Is he, then, to whom the evil of his conduct is made alluring, so that he looks upon it as good, (equal to the one who is rightly guided) ? For Allah leaves to stray whom he wills and guides whom he wills. So let not your soul be vested in regret for them. For Allah knows well all that they do." (35:8). The Prophet (SAW) said talking to Khabab bin al Aratt at the end of a hadith: ". . . . but you are in Haste."
3 ) It is very necessary for the da'wah carrier to be aware of the burden of his responsibility. It is the burden of the revival and the change, and he has to be aware of the great size of the obstacles, obstructions and challenges that he will face in carrying the da'wah. This is part of the necessary enlightenment to examine the way and to comprehend the actual facts that can't be overlooked.
It can't be denied that the carriers of the da'wah today who are committed to the true idea and clear method, have inherited a huge legacy of ambiguities that befell the Islamic idea (Al Fikrah Al Islamiyah) since the second Hijrih century up until this time. These clouding veils concealed the image of Islam as it was revealed upon Muhammad (saw) who said the truth when he said "Islam started strange, and it will return as strange. So may Allah bless the strangers." Besides that, since the carriers of the da'wah started the plan of revival and the change, and resuming the Islamic way of life, they face the question of the way for revival and the method of change when they deal with those who deviated from the method of the Prophet (SAW) in establishing the Islamic State and implementing the rule of Allah (SWT) on the earth. Furthermore, the international situation is different today than it was when the messenger of Allah (SAW) established his state. The state was established in Madinah without drawing any attention from the Persians or the Romans. The first military encounter between the Islamic State and the Roman empire was in the 8th year of Hijrah. Today, the kufr states in the world work together in attacking us. They also work directly and through their puppets, the rulers of the Muslims, to prevent the re-establishment of the Khilafah. They also fight against political Islam after they succeeded in destroying the Khilafah state over seventy years ago.
As for the challenges that face the Muslims in general and the da'wah carrier in particular, they are many. These are some of them.
a. Physical challenges: These are reflected in the destruction the Khilafah, the establishment of an entity for the Jews in Palestine, chasing the sincere workers for Islam using brutal means unmatched before, working to prevent the Ummah from getting the advanced fighting capabilities including Nuclear and chemical weapons and also foiling and attacking the attempts at unifying the Muslims any.
b. Intellectual challenges: These are represented in defaming the image of Islam and circulating distortion about Islam everywhere, particularly from the bad scholars. Also in creating the racial and national calls, focusing on the idea of a compromise solution, glorifying the liberties and democracy. Further, they are manifest in the attempt to destroy the social system in Islam and the attempt to show that Islam is incapable of solving modern problems, and much more.
The presence of such obstacles, obstructions and challenges which face the da'wah carrier, beside the great burden, are natural and normal in the course of the true da'wah. Accordingly it is not allowed for the da'wah carrier to be overwhelmed by distress and frustration, or to leave the da'wah when he notices the obstacles in the march and the delay of victory. He must know that the inaction and the inactive response of the society and the people's turning away from the da'wah and the delay of victory; all this does not necessarily mean a shortcoming in the work or deviation from the proper path. There is no better proof of that than the condition of the Islamic da'wah at the end of the Makkan era. The rest is dependent on the command of Allah (SWT). Ibn Hisham reported in his Seerah of the Prophet(SAW) , "And when Allah SWT wanted to help his deen, support his messenger and fulfil His promise to him, the messenger of Allah (SAW) went out in the season in which he met those few people of al-Ansaar."
This favour from Allah (SWT) upon His Prophet came after the Makkan society had frozen and after Thaqeef had rebuffed the Prophet (SAW) badly, and after the Arab tribes had rejected the seeking of their help. The situation was the harshest and despair reached its highest level.
So after explaining these previous matters the da'wah carrier is assured that he is proceeding in the true path, no matter how much time it takes. Though he has the best hope in Allah (SWT) that the victory comes soon and the way-out is near, he does not relate the carrying of the da'wah with the achievement of its aims.
There is one more matter, the presence of which the da'wah carrier has to make sure of all the time, that his action should be righteous. In order to be so, it should be pure and correct. The correct action is that which depends on the Sharia' and does not deviate from it at all. The pure action is that which is done only for the sake of Allah (SWT), and not for any worldly ornament. Once the matter is such, then the da'wah carrier should be assured that the promise of Allah (SWT) is true, and that the Islamic State will be established, even if it took time.
Translated from an arabic article published in Al-Waie magazine published in Lebanon
Thursday, September 7, 2006
Bush afraid of Caliphate in Iraq
Read the following news article below. If the 'War on terror' is not a war on Islam then why is Bush attacking the concept of Caliphate (Khilafah) which is a definitive fundamental part of Islam, the obligation of which is established by the Quran, the Sunnah and Ijma as-Sahaba (consensus of the companions of the Prophet)? The desire for the return of the caliphate is not limited to a few militants as some attempt to portray, it is an essential part of Islam which every Islamic scholar in history has agreed upon. [The following article gives many quotes from leading scholars in history about it Clear Evidences for the Obligation of the Khilafah ].
Bush warns of Iraqi caliphate
Tue Sep 5, 2006 10:35 PM BST
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush vowed on Tuesday to prevent al Qaeda from setting up a violent, radical Islamic empire based in Iraq, which he said was Osama bin Laden's ultimate goal.
"We know what the terrorists intend to do because they've told us -- and we need to take their words seriously," Bush said in a speech liberally laced with quotes from bin Laden, architect of the September 11 attacks five years ago which killed around 3,000 people.
As he sought to bolster support ahead of November elections, Bush also released a White House national strategy for combating terrorism that said Americans are safer five years after the attacks but "we are not yet safe."
Delaware Democratic Sen. Joe Biden said release of the new report showed that even the White House now acknowledged its previous strategy had failed.
"The president has squandered the opportunity to unite the country and the world, instead he has divided both," he said.
White House officials denied Bush's speech and the report were driven by election politics. Recently, the president has returned to one of his time-tested themes, accusing Democrats of being soft on terrorism as he tries to help Republicans retain control of the U.S. Congress.
Addressing the Military Officers Association of America, Bush said Islamic radicals would like to obtain nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in order to "blackmail the free world and spread their ideologies of hate."
"If we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty 50 years from now, history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know why we did not act," Bush said.
"I'm not going to allow this to happen and no future American president can allow it either," he said.
Bush quoted extensively from bin Laden's videotaped messages and writings, comparing him to 20th century dictators like Russia's Vladimir Lenin and Germany's Adolf Hitler.
BIN LADEN LETTER
He cited in particular a letter from bin Laden to the former Taliban ruler, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces found in Afghanistan in 2002.
Bin Laden wrote that al Qaeda should launch a media campaign to tell Americans "their government would bring them more losses, in finances and in casualties," and that they are being sacrificed for big investors, "especially the Jews."
Bush said al Qaeda's vision was to create a "unified totalitarian Islamic state that can confront and eventually destroy the free world."
Bin Laden has declared Iraq "the capital of the caliphate," said Bush, who has often faced criticism for trying to tie Iraq into the broader "war on terrorism."
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the losing presidential candidate in 2004, responded that if Bush had killed bin Laden in late 2001, "he wouldn't have to quote this barbarian's words today."
"Afghanistan is slipping back into chaos, Pakistan is one coup away from becoming a radical Islamic state with nuclear weapons, Iran is closer to a nuclear arsenal, and Iraq has become a recruitment poster for terror," Kerry said.
Bush also repeated his contention that Iran was the world's most active state sponsor of international terrorism and must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.
He said the international community had made a "reasonable offer" to Iran to give up its nuclear program.
"We will continue to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution, the world's free nation will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," Bush said. (Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria and Caren Bohan)
Source: Reuters
_______________________________
We should take motivation from the following hadith which mentions Iraq and al-Shaam which includes Palestine & Lebanon. The hadith also states that the Khilafah will exist in the future.
Abu Nadhrah said: "We were sitting in the company of Jabir bin Abdullah (ra) when he said: 'Soon the people of Iraq will neither receive any food (grain) nor any money.'" We asked, "Why would such a thing happen?" He replied, "Because of the non-Arabs." He then said: "Soon the people of Shaam (the area encompassing Syria, Palestine, Lebanon today) will neither receive any money nor grain." We asked as to why this would happen. He replied: "Because of the Romans (some scholars interpret the Romans to mean the people of the West)."
He (Jabir ibn Abdullah) kept quiet for a while and then reported Allah's Apostle (saw) having said: “There would be a Khalifah (caliph) in the last (period) of my Ummah who would freely give handfuls of wealth to the people without counting it.” [Sahih Muslim: Book No: 40 No: 6961]
Bush warns of Iraqi caliphate
Tue Sep 5, 2006 10:35 PM BST
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush vowed on Tuesday to prevent al Qaeda from setting up a violent, radical Islamic empire based in Iraq, which he said was Osama bin Laden's ultimate goal.
"We know what the terrorists intend to do because they've told us -- and we need to take their words seriously," Bush said in a speech liberally laced with quotes from bin Laden, architect of the September 11 attacks five years ago which killed around 3,000 people.
As he sought to bolster support ahead of November elections, Bush also released a White House national strategy for combating terrorism that said Americans are safer five years after the attacks but "we are not yet safe."
Delaware Democratic Sen. Joe Biden said release of the new report showed that even the White House now acknowledged its previous strategy had failed.
"The president has squandered the opportunity to unite the country and the world, instead he has divided both," he said.
White House officials denied Bush's speech and the report were driven by election politics. Recently, the president has returned to one of his time-tested themes, accusing Democrats of being soft on terrorism as he tries to help Republicans retain control of the U.S. Congress.
Addressing the Military Officers Association of America, Bush said Islamic radicals would like to obtain nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in order to "blackmail the free world and spread their ideologies of hate."
"If we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty 50 years from now, history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know why we did not act," Bush said.
"I'm not going to allow this to happen and no future American president can allow it either," he said.
Bush quoted extensively from bin Laden's videotaped messages and writings, comparing him to 20th century dictators like Russia's Vladimir Lenin and Germany's Adolf Hitler.
BIN LADEN LETTER
He cited in particular a letter from bin Laden to the former Taliban ruler, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces found in Afghanistan in 2002.
Bin Laden wrote that al Qaeda should launch a media campaign to tell Americans "their government would bring them more losses, in finances and in casualties," and that they are being sacrificed for big investors, "especially the Jews."
Bush said al Qaeda's vision was to create a "unified totalitarian Islamic state that can confront and eventually destroy the free world."
Bin Laden has declared Iraq "the capital of the caliphate," said Bush, who has often faced criticism for trying to tie Iraq into the broader "war on terrorism."
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the losing presidential candidate in 2004, responded that if Bush had killed bin Laden in late 2001, "he wouldn't have to quote this barbarian's words today."
"Afghanistan is slipping back into chaos, Pakistan is one coup away from becoming a radical Islamic state with nuclear weapons, Iran is closer to a nuclear arsenal, and Iraq has become a recruitment poster for terror," Kerry said.
Bush also repeated his contention that Iran was the world's most active state sponsor of international terrorism and must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.
He said the international community had made a "reasonable offer" to Iran to give up its nuclear program.
"We will continue to work closely with our allies to find a diplomatic solution, the world's free nation will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," Bush said. (Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria and Caren Bohan)
Source: Reuters
_______________________________
We should take motivation from the following hadith which mentions Iraq and al-Shaam which includes Palestine & Lebanon. The hadith also states that the Khilafah will exist in the future.
Abu Nadhrah said: "We were sitting in the company of Jabir bin Abdullah (ra) when he said: 'Soon the people of Iraq will neither receive any food (grain) nor any money.'" We asked, "Why would such a thing happen?" He replied, "Because of the non-Arabs." He then said: "Soon the people of Shaam (the area encompassing Syria, Palestine, Lebanon today) will neither receive any money nor grain." We asked as to why this would happen. He replied: "Because of the Romans (some scholars interpret the Romans to mean the people of the West)."
He (Jabir ibn Abdullah) kept quiet for a while and then reported Allah's Apostle (saw) having said: “There would be a Khalifah (caliph) in the last (period) of my Ummah who would freely give handfuls of wealth to the people without counting it.” [Sahih Muslim: Book No: 40 No: 6961]
Sunday, September 3, 2006
More activists for Khilafah arrested in Jordan - 19th Aug 06
The following is the draft translation of some points taken from a release issued on 26 Rajab 1427 AH/20 August 2006 CE:
The workers for Khilafah expressed loudly the words of truth and the call of faith after the Friday prayer on 19.08.2006 for the crowds of Muslims in different Masjids in Amman, Zarqa, Ruseifa and Irbid, reminding the Muslims of the demolishment of the Khilafah state on 28 Rajab 1342 AH, and making them aware that the elimination of the Khilafah state is the cause of all the disasters which inflicted them, and calling them to work with to restore the Khilafah state which Rasulallah (saw) gave glad tidings of.
The oppression apparatus in Jordan arrested a number of the Shabab and pursued others, the arrest of Dr. Ramzi Sawalha -who gave the speech in Al-Tillawi Masjid in Sweileh- was confirmed, when the coward security men pursued him after leaving the Masjid, they pointed their weapons at the worshippers and threatened to shoot at them if they tried to protect him, the worshippers from the public Muslims -who were walking behind those oppressors- raised their voices with Allahu Akbar and described the security men as cowards and treacherous and guards for the rulers and Jews, the worshippers were greatly moved and some were crying while saying (what did this young man do, he merely uttered the truth, let them go to Jews if they were real men) the oppressors also arrested Hatem Omar while trying to help his brother Ramzi, while in other Masjids the worshippers did not allow the security men to arrest the youth, and addressed them saying, go to Jews if you were men. The system in Jordan showed its 'courage' in oppression by arresting an old man Abu Hamza Al-Aneed, as well as a number of fathers and children because of the guilt of their sons and brothers.
We say to the system in Jordan, that all of its oppression, arresting and harming will not weaken us, and that the Shabab who will continue their Dawah and won’t be affected -by the will of Allah- by those who contradict them from criminals, until Allah carries out his will.
The workers for Khilafah expressed loudly the words of truth and the call of faith after the Friday prayer on 19.08.2006 for the crowds of Muslims in different Masjids in Amman, Zarqa, Ruseifa and Irbid, reminding the Muslims of the demolishment of the Khilafah state on 28 Rajab 1342 AH, and making them aware that the elimination of the Khilafah state is the cause of all the disasters which inflicted them, and calling them to work with to restore the Khilafah state which Rasulallah (saw) gave glad tidings of.
The oppression apparatus in Jordan arrested a number of the Shabab and pursued others, the arrest of Dr. Ramzi Sawalha -who gave the speech in Al-Tillawi Masjid in Sweileh- was confirmed, when the coward security men pursued him after leaving the Masjid, they pointed their weapons at the worshippers and threatened to shoot at them if they tried to protect him, the worshippers from the public Muslims -who were walking behind those oppressors- raised their voices with Allahu Akbar and described the security men as cowards and treacherous and guards for the rulers and Jews, the worshippers were greatly moved and some were crying while saying (what did this young man do, he merely uttered the truth, let them go to Jews if they were real men) the oppressors also arrested Hatem Omar while trying to help his brother Ramzi, while in other Masjids the worshippers did not allow the security men to arrest the youth, and addressed them saying, go to Jews if you were men. The system in Jordan showed its 'courage' in oppression by arresting an old man Abu Hamza Al-Aneed, as well as a number of fathers and children because of the guilt of their sons and brothers.
We say to the system in Jordan, that all of its oppression, arresting and harming will not weaken us, and that the Shabab who will continue their Dawah and won’t be affected -by the will of Allah- by those who contradict them from criminals, until Allah carries out his will.
From Syria: If Not Ashamed, Do Whatever You Wish
The following is a draft translation of an Arabic leaflet issued in Syria by Islamic activists working for the re-establishment of Khilafah.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
If Not Ashamed, Do Whatever You Wish
The president of the Syrian system said in his last speech on 15.08.2006 that the peace process had failed or died “Lately we are talking continuously about the death of the peace process…. And before that we talked about the failure of the peace process…. And all this talk is correct and undoubted” hence it is the resistance which liberates the land! “We are convinced that the natural path to achieve peace is negotiations, but when this path fails or is originally unavailable… then the resistance with all its aspects is the alternative for achieving the rights” he mentioned the liberating of the Islamic resistance in Lebanon for Southern Lebanon in the year 2000, as an example on that “We used to tell them that this resistance will liberate Lebanon… some said, that it is nothing more than the scratch of a cat,... and in 2000 Lebanon was liberated thanks to the resistance, and it was proved that they were wrong and we were right”. This president forgot that the Syrian Golan is occupied, and not a single bullet was shot to liberate it for over than thirty years, it was the system which paved the way for the occupation of the Golan in 1967, by announcing beforehand that Al-Kuneitrah -capital of Golan- fell into the hands of the enemy before it really did, the soldiers were ordered to withdraw from the front lines in Golan to the back lines behind Al-Kuneitrah, to declare that it fell before it really did, the Syrian broadcasting service announced that then, now, he says that it is the resistance which liberates the land, but he runs away from it in Golan! Won’t he be ashamed from Allah His Rasul and the Believers?!
Then, the above mentioned president tried to justify -in his speech- why he did not use the armed resistance to liberate the occupied lands in Golan, by saying that armed resistance is not the only one, there is another resistance such as the culture of resistance… “It is not necessary for resistance to be an armed one only…. It could be a cultural or political or opposing one and other different kinds” he goes back to misleading and to silly excuses to justify his defeat, won’t he be ashamed from Allah and the people?!
The third disaster is that he made resistance for the sake of peace with state of Jews, he said that resistance does not mean to abandon peace “Hence, resistance is not contradictory for peace and not an alternative for it, it is… at least… in our circumstances… necessary in order to achieve peace”! He wants the blood of the martyrs which was shed for the sake of Allah, to be a path to negotiate with Jews, similar to what his father Hafez and the Sadat did by initiating from the war of October into the resolution of 338 then the Camp David agreement with Egypt and the resolution of disengagement with Syria, and keeping complete quietness and tranquility in Golan so that Jews will enjoy its occupation in safety and security. This president did not leave the issue to be deducted but he manifested it by saying: “At least we have to change the military triumph into a political profit… at least in the peace process”. He wants the victory on Jews in Lebanon to be the path to a political triumph by a compromise with Jews, won’t he be ashamed from those who watch or listen to him?!
This is how the speech of the Syrian president was full of falsity and misguidance, but to say the truth he was honest in one thing only, when he said: “Experience taught us that the international dominating powers, which some may rely upon, these powers utilize the authorized and the governments for their own interests… against the interests of those governments, and sometimes for the interest of the enemy of those governments. Then they throw all of these into the abyss after making use of them is over… by that they had lost the exterior after already losing the interior” This is true, because the agents are spit out by the states -which used them as agents to whom they bend and kneel- after they finish their role, these states end renting them in a humiliating manner similar to what happened to those before them, so won’t the Syrian President have a lesson from this true statement, and realize how the system served America for thirty years in Lebanon, and when its role was over, America sent it out in disgrace and humiliation? Won’t he unbind the rope of America which is tied around his neck -which he clings to voluntarily- and be faithful for his country to save his face? We wonder about that, while we are aware that he won’t do that, because he got used to hypocrisy, he said a statement of truth but he meant falsity by it.
Oh Muslims;
Jews are wandering and enjoying themselves in Golan, they eat from its fruits and shade under its trees and sleep in content that the ruling system in Syria is only expert in fraud and misguidance to people, but keeps silent about the occupation of Golan since a long time! The Syrian system -since the conference of Madrid before 15 years- is practically acknowledging state of Jews, it tried several times to negotiate with it, but it refused, because it doesn’t want to return Golan to Syria nearly disarmed as it did in Sinai with Egypt, and it doesn’t want to return Golan to Syria and keep part of it as being rented from Syria, as it did in Wadi Araba with Jordan, Syria is running behind a compromise as long as it could, but Jews refuse, it even gives advices for Jews to accept compromise with it today, warning them that new faithful generations may come later, which will not accept other than eliminating entity of Jews, this is how Syria advices Jews to accept negotiating with the system! The compromise which he speaks about is dead, yet he runs breathless behind it night and day, this is not a secret, it is mentioned in the declarations of the officials, “Al-Haya” newspaper issued on 05.08.2006 reported after “Yedeu’t Ahranut” newspaper on 04.08.2006, that the Syrian ambassador in Washington Imad Mustafa had declared in an interview which Orli Uzulai -the reporter of the (Israeli) newspaper- had with him in the American capital in the Syrian Embassy that: “Syria admits the right of Israel in existence and living in peace, and although we look at Israel and not the United States -as an enemy, yet we invited Israel three times in the last few years for peaceful negotiations, but got no answer…”. The newspaper says as was reported by Al-Haya, that the ambassador Imad Mustafa is the secretary of the Syrian President! The Syrian System did not issue any denial of this news!
Oh Muslims;
We know that the Syrian system had resorted to fraud and misleading in a competition with many political classes in Lebanon, which practice like him, the policy of fraud and misleading, it criticizes the Syrian System for its relation with America, at the time when its drowning is felt and tangible in its relations with America, France and Britain, but all of that does not justify for the Syrian System to (make fun of people) by making them believe that it is fighting with Jews, at the time when its front with Jews in Golan is quiet and in peace!
We realize that the rulers in the Muslim countries, and not only Syria, are not concerned in liberating the occupied Muslim countries from Jews, not to mention their serious thinking, mere thinking, of eliminating entity of Jews, we realize that these systems are like puppets in the hands of the Kafer colonist countries, which keeps them away from Jihad in order to eliminate entity of Jews, and leads them to fraud and misleading and imprisoning the armies in their camps to salute the honest leader! Instead of rushing out to liberate Palestine, we know that they are liars in every speech about fighting Jews or just (scratching) them, because if they really want to fight, they would have moved with their soldiers to triumph the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, while teaching Jews a lesson and make them shiver in front of its strikes, had any front been opened on them, especially from Golan, state of Jews would be about to vanish.
We realize that and know that advice and sermon is of no good with these rulers, they need to be eliminated and driven away, in this statement we address the people of power and whoever has impact to get ready and shout seriously: soldiers of Allah be ready, because this is its time, to drive away these rulers before it is too late, and before they bring more catastrophes, shame and disgrace for this nation by handing the country and the people to America and its spoiled foster child Jews state.
Oh Muslims;
It is not permitted, we swear by Allah, for these rulers to stay in control of your necks, without accounting them for their bad deeds and grave sins.
It is not permitted, we swear by Allah, for the nation -which was the best nation sent to people- to become the lowest of all nations, which the Kafer colonists have control of its affairs, and sell and buy as they wish.
Citizens of Sham, people of the good blessed land, people of the center of Islam, you whom Rasulallah had praised, so be worthy of his praise, (saw), eliminate this deceitful treacherous system, which is not ashamed of Allah or His Rasul and the believers, return the state of Islam, the state of the Rashidi Khilafah, so that your Khalifah would lead your army, and bring back glory to Islam and Muslims, and disgrace Kufur and Kuffar, destroy entity of Jews and return Palestine completely to the Islamic lands, then you will be again;
((خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ))
"Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong and believe on Allah." [Al-Imran: 110]
((وَبَشِّرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ))
“So proclaim the glad tidings to the Believers.” [Al-Tawbah: 112]
25 Rajab 1427 AH
19 August 2006CE
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
If Not Ashamed, Do Whatever You Wish
The president of the Syrian system said in his last speech on 15.08.2006 that the peace process had failed or died “Lately we are talking continuously about the death of the peace process…. And before that we talked about the failure of the peace process…. And all this talk is correct and undoubted” hence it is the resistance which liberates the land! “We are convinced that the natural path to achieve peace is negotiations, but when this path fails or is originally unavailable… then the resistance with all its aspects is the alternative for achieving the rights” he mentioned the liberating of the Islamic resistance in Lebanon for Southern Lebanon in the year 2000, as an example on that “We used to tell them that this resistance will liberate Lebanon… some said, that it is nothing more than the scratch of a cat,... and in 2000 Lebanon was liberated thanks to the resistance, and it was proved that they were wrong and we were right”. This president forgot that the Syrian Golan is occupied, and not a single bullet was shot to liberate it for over than thirty years, it was the system which paved the way for the occupation of the Golan in 1967, by announcing beforehand that Al-Kuneitrah -capital of Golan- fell into the hands of the enemy before it really did, the soldiers were ordered to withdraw from the front lines in Golan to the back lines behind Al-Kuneitrah, to declare that it fell before it really did, the Syrian broadcasting service announced that then, now, he says that it is the resistance which liberates the land, but he runs away from it in Golan! Won’t he be ashamed from Allah His Rasul and the Believers?!
Then, the above mentioned president tried to justify -in his speech- why he did not use the armed resistance to liberate the occupied lands in Golan, by saying that armed resistance is not the only one, there is another resistance such as the culture of resistance… “It is not necessary for resistance to be an armed one only…. It could be a cultural or political or opposing one and other different kinds” he goes back to misleading and to silly excuses to justify his defeat, won’t he be ashamed from Allah and the people?!
The third disaster is that he made resistance for the sake of peace with state of Jews, he said that resistance does not mean to abandon peace “Hence, resistance is not contradictory for peace and not an alternative for it, it is… at least… in our circumstances… necessary in order to achieve peace”! He wants the blood of the martyrs which was shed for the sake of Allah, to be a path to negotiate with Jews, similar to what his father Hafez and the Sadat did by initiating from the war of October into the resolution of 338 then the Camp David agreement with Egypt and the resolution of disengagement with Syria, and keeping complete quietness and tranquility in Golan so that Jews will enjoy its occupation in safety and security. This president did not leave the issue to be deducted but he manifested it by saying: “At least we have to change the military triumph into a political profit… at least in the peace process”. He wants the victory on Jews in Lebanon to be the path to a political triumph by a compromise with Jews, won’t he be ashamed from those who watch or listen to him?!
This is how the speech of the Syrian president was full of falsity and misguidance, but to say the truth he was honest in one thing only, when he said: “Experience taught us that the international dominating powers, which some may rely upon, these powers utilize the authorized and the governments for their own interests… against the interests of those governments, and sometimes for the interest of the enemy of those governments. Then they throw all of these into the abyss after making use of them is over… by that they had lost the exterior after already losing the interior” This is true, because the agents are spit out by the states -which used them as agents to whom they bend and kneel- after they finish their role, these states end renting them in a humiliating manner similar to what happened to those before them, so won’t the Syrian President have a lesson from this true statement, and realize how the system served America for thirty years in Lebanon, and when its role was over, America sent it out in disgrace and humiliation? Won’t he unbind the rope of America which is tied around his neck -which he clings to voluntarily- and be faithful for his country to save his face? We wonder about that, while we are aware that he won’t do that, because he got used to hypocrisy, he said a statement of truth but he meant falsity by it.
Oh Muslims;
Jews are wandering and enjoying themselves in Golan, they eat from its fruits and shade under its trees and sleep in content that the ruling system in Syria is only expert in fraud and misguidance to people, but keeps silent about the occupation of Golan since a long time! The Syrian system -since the conference of Madrid before 15 years- is practically acknowledging state of Jews, it tried several times to negotiate with it, but it refused, because it doesn’t want to return Golan to Syria nearly disarmed as it did in Sinai with Egypt, and it doesn’t want to return Golan to Syria and keep part of it as being rented from Syria, as it did in Wadi Araba with Jordan, Syria is running behind a compromise as long as it could, but Jews refuse, it even gives advices for Jews to accept compromise with it today, warning them that new faithful generations may come later, which will not accept other than eliminating entity of Jews, this is how Syria advices Jews to accept negotiating with the system! The compromise which he speaks about is dead, yet he runs breathless behind it night and day, this is not a secret, it is mentioned in the declarations of the officials, “Al-Haya” newspaper issued on 05.08.2006 reported after “Yedeu’t Ahranut” newspaper on 04.08.2006, that the Syrian ambassador in Washington Imad Mustafa had declared in an interview which Orli Uzulai -the reporter of the (Israeli) newspaper- had with him in the American capital in the Syrian Embassy that: “Syria admits the right of Israel in existence and living in peace, and although we look at Israel and not the United States -as an enemy, yet we invited Israel three times in the last few years for peaceful negotiations, but got no answer…”. The newspaper says as was reported by Al-Haya, that the ambassador Imad Mustafa is the secretary of the Syrian President! The Syrian System did not issue any denial of this news!
Oh Muslims;
We know that the Syrian system had resorted to fraud and misleading in a competition with many political classes in Lebanon, which practice like him, the policy of fraud and misleading, it criticizes the Syrian System for its relation with America, at the time when its drowning is felt and tangible in its relations with America, France and Britain, but all of that does not justify for the Syrian System to (make fun of people) by making them believe that it is fighting with Jews, at the time when its front with Jews in Golan is quiet and in peace!
We realize that the rulers in the Muslim countries, and not only Syria, are not concerned in liberating the occupied Muslim countries from Jews, not to mention their serious thinking, mere thinking, of eliminating entity of Jews, we realize that these systems are like puppets in the hands of the Kafer colonist countries, which keeps them away from Jihad in order to eliminate entity of Jews, and leads them to fraud and misleading and imprisoning the armies in their camps to salute the honest leader! Instead of rushing out to liberate Palestine, we know that they are liars in every speech about fighting Jews or just (scratching) them, because if they really want to fight, they would have moved with their soldiers to triumph the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, while teaching Jews a lesson and make them shiver in front of its strikes, had any front been opened on them, especially from Golan, state of Jews would be about to vanish.
We realize that and know that advice and sermon is of no good with these rulers, they need to be eliminated and driven away, in this statement we address the people of power and whoever has impact to get ready and shout seriously: soldiers of Allah be ready, because this is its time, to drive away these rulers before it is too late, and before they bring more catastrophes, shame and disgrace for this nation by handing the country and the people to America and its spoiled foster child Jews state.
Oh Muslims;
It is not permitted, we swear by Allah, for these rulers to stay in control of your necks, without accounting them for their bad deeds and grave sins.
It is not permitted, we swear by Allah, for the nation -which was the best nation sent to people- to become the lowest of all nations, which the Kafer colonists have control of its affairs, and sell and buy as they wish.
Citizens of Sham, people of the good blessed land, people of the center of Islam, you whom Rasulallah had praised, so be worthy of his praise, (saw), eliminate this deceitful treacherous system, which is not ashamed of Allah or His Rasul and the believers, return the state of Islam, the state of the Rashidi Khilafah, so that your Khalifah would lead your army, and bring back glory to Islam and Muslims, and disgrace Kufur and Kuffar, destroy entity of Jews and return Palestine completely to the Islamic lands, then you will be again;
((خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ))
"Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong and believe on Allah." [Al-Imran: 110]
((وَبَشِّرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ))
“So proclaim the glad tidings to the Believers.” [Al-Tawbah: 112]
25 Rajab 1427 AH
19 August 2006CE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)