The following is the transcript of a talk delivered on this subject:
“When it is said to them do not make mischief on the earth, they say ‘we are only peace makers’” [TMQ al-Baqara: 11]
Recently we have seen the visit of the modern day Firawn to India. This verse describes the reality of him and America very well. Under the guise of peace and security he goes every where in the world – where in reality they create the fitna and corruption every where. As Allah (swt) said about Firawn:
“Firawn was an arrogant tyrant on the earth indeed he was one of the Musrifeen (transgressors)” [TMQ 10:83]
We know some of the reasons for Bush’s visit to India was to guarantee Nuclear co-operation for Nuclear energy with India – as we know India faces a massive energy problem as doesn’t have much oil, gas or energy. India was going to build a pipeline from Iran for gas, there are factions in India that wanted to oppose referring Iran to the UN.
Of course America doesn’t want this, even though Iran does not rule by Islam, it wants to pressurize Iran, even directly intervene in it – to remove any type of Islamists and to make sure it has direct control of the region – to ensure that it doesn't develop nuclear weapons in case it were to fall into the hands of the Islamic Khilafah state when it returns.
America acts according to its own interests, it also wants to open up the Indian economy through privitisation for its own companies to dominate the markets. They use the issue of ‘Free Trade’ to achieve this, even though the US is the most protectionist of economies.
India is the world's fasted growing economy, and predicted to soon be the world's most populous country. It has escalating energy needs, and an insatiable desire for consumer goods. More electricity, to more people means more I-pods and X-boxes to sell them. America's assistance in getting power into India, be it nuclear or non-nuclear, will benefit none save America in the long run. US-India economic ties are growing rapidly. In 2005, US exports to India rose by 30%, compared with 20% growth in Indian exports to the US. Bilateral merchandise trade amounted to nearly $27 billion. Currently this is seen by officials as way below the potential of the two economies. India needs electricity to drive its silicon plateau. Presently it only has 14 reactors in commercial operation and nine under construction. Nuclear power supplies about 3% of India's electricity. By 2050, nuclear power is expected to provide 25% of the country's electricity. India has limited coal and uranium reserves. Its huge thorium reserves - about 25% of the world's total - are expected to fuel this proposed nuclear power programme.
America like the Shaytan uses deception and deceptive styles every where. For example the recent attack on Sammarra in Iraq which a sanctuary for the Shia Muslims. We must understand clearly that this attack like most of the other attacks against Muslims in Iraq are not done by Muslims – rather are done by the colonialist occupier to blame on the Muslims and fragment them
The occupation forces in Iraq are in trouble, they are almost drowning in their defeat and the killing of their soldiers. Each time they fall in a crisis, they commit one crime here and another there after they prepare the scene of the crime so that it seems that the Sunnis are behind what happens to the Shiites and the Shiites behind what happens to the Sunnis. In this way, they create problems between the 2 sides and they stay on the safe side watching what’s happening from far away. It is no coincidence that the crime of Samarra’ took place after the declaration of the American ambassador about sectarianism in the ministry of defence and of interior affairs.
Anyone who examines the explosion of the sanctuary of the two imams in Samarra’ would see clearly that this explosion was not executed by normal people but via machines that belong to professional countries because the destruction caused by the explosion indicates that the explosions were fabricated in a technical way both in quantity and quality. In addition to that, they were placed in a place that wouldn’t miss the target. Not to mention that the sanctuary isn’t a normal place but one that is frequented and that is highly guarded, so how was it possible to execute the explosion so well and then withdrawing safely unless some responsible strong apparatus supervised the country?
What happened in Samarra’ is due to the planning and execution of occupation forces and it’s a tragedy, but what is worse and more terrible is that occupation forces were able to attain their goal which is creating riots between Sunnites and Shiites. After this crime, rumours went on and some kidnapping and killing took place among the Sunnites scholars and their mosques were attacked, also it was heard that some prisoners and journalists were killed, all this pleased occupation forces and especially America because it serves their interest to cause chaos in the country.
Neither America nor Britain cares about the well being of any Muslim, and we believe that they were behind the explosion of the sanctuary and also they might be involved in other attacks so that they will make it appear that all this is the result of the fighting between different doctrines in Islam. We must be aware of certain facts:
First: Occupation forces and especially America are behind the killings of civilians, explosions in markets and mosques, kidnapping scholars and killing those who are loyal to their religion and Ummah. A Muslim is he who resists occupation and doesn’t harm his people, market and mosque because it is greater for Allah to kill a Muslim without a reason than to destroy the Kaaba and the vanishing of life. Moreover, a Muslim while fighting with his enemy doesn’t kill an old man or a baby or a woman, and doesn’t destroy a place of worship or a person who is praying. Rasulullah (saw) said:
«لَزَوَالُ الدُّنْيَا أَهْوَنُ عَلَى اللَّهِ مِنْ قَتْلِ مُؤْمِنٍ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ»
“The vanishing of life is easier on Allah than killing believer without a reason.” (Narrated by Ibn Majah). Also He (saw) says:
«انْطَلِقُوا بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ وَبِاللَّهِ وَعَلَى مِلَّةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَلاَ تَقْتُلُوا شَيْخًا فَانِيًا وَلاَ طِفْلاً وَلاَ صَغِيرًا وَلاَ امْرَأَةً وَلاَ تَغُلُّوا وَضُمُّوا غَنَائِمَكُمْ وَأَصْلِحُوا وَأَحْسِنُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ»
“Go on in the name of Allah and following the example of Rasulullah and don’t kill an old man or a baby or a child or a woman. Collect your gain and be good because Allah likes people who do good deeds” (Narrated by Abu Dawoud)
Second: Muslims, even if they disagree on the issue of the Imammet, do not disagree on their love for Rasulullah nor in their love for all pure Muslims, this is one of the highest degrees for all Muslims. Any Muslim who considers Rasulullah and Muslims as enemies will be severely punished in the judgment day when no son and no money will do him any good and all those with a clean heart will survive. In addition, Muslims do not say to another Muslim that he is Kafer; this is a big issue for Allah, his Rasul and all Muslims. Rasulullah (saw) says:
«لاَ يُؤْمِنُ أَحَدُكُمْ حَتَّى أَكُونَ أَحَبَّ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ وَالِدِهِ وَوَلَدِهِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ»
“No one of you becomes a true believer unless I become dearer to him than his father, his son and all people.” Narrated by Bukhari. He (saw) also says:
«مَنْ كَفَّرَ أَخَاهُ فَقَدْ بَاءَ بِهَا أَحَدُهُمَا»
“If any of you tells another Muslim that he is a Kafer, then one of you is Kafer.” (Narrated by Ahmad)
Third: the resentment of the occupiers colonist Kuffars, especially America and Britain, towards Muslims and Islam and their conspiracies against them is well known and they say it clearly in their declarations, and their acts prove this like what happened in Abu Ghreib, Guantenamo and Jangi fort, and what is hidden inside of them is still worse. Their evil deeds don’t differentiate between a Muslim and another, whatever his doctrine was and wherever he lived.
((كَيْفَ وَإِنْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ لاَ يَرْقُبُوا فِيكُمْ إِلاًّ وَلاَ ذِمَّةً))
"How (can there be such a covenant), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant." [Al-Tawbah: 8]
O Muslims, these 3 facts should make you look towards occupation forces and their agents whenever a crime takes place in your markets or mosques or when one of your scholars is killed or kidnapped, because it’s them who are behind the crime while you ignore occupation forces and look towards each other and by doing so you do a big favor to the occupation forces and encourage them to go on with their plots.
((وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ))
"Oppression are worse than slaughter." [Baqarah: 191]
We should not to allow them to create turmoil between us which might lead to a civil war which will make Allah, his Rasul and all Muslims angry. The tragedy of Samarra’ motivate Mulims of Iraq to consider the occupier as an enemy.
"And those who disbelieve are allies of one another. (and) if you (muslims of the whole world collectively) do not do so there will be fitnah and oppression on the earth" [al-Anfal: 73]
In Tafsir-at-Tabari vol. 10 page 56: “That if you do not do what Allah has ordered you to do [i.e. all the Muslims of the world] do not become allies as a united block to make Allah’s Deen victorious, there will be a great Fitnah. And it is Fitnah to have many Khulafah, as it is mentioned in Sahih Muslim by Arfajah : "Whoso comes to you while your affairs has been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him."
There is also another narration in Sahih Muslim by Abu Sa'id al-Khudri who said that the Prophet (saw) said: "When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the latter of them".
So it is a legal obligation (fard), from the above mentioned proofs, that there shall not be more than one Khalifah for the whole Muslim world or otherwise there will be a great Fitnah amongst the Muslims, the ultimate results of which will not be worthy of praise.
It was reported in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal that the Prophet (saw) said, "The knots of Islam will be broken one by one until everyone of them is undone. The first to be undone will be the knot of ruling and the last will be the knot of Salah"
Yesterday was 3rd March, the anniversary of destruction of Khilafah which occurred in 1924
The European powers endured the consequences of this hadith. The Khilafah ably protected the Islamic Lands from the designs of the kuffar. These designs remained unfulfilled for centuries. Disraeli and Bismarck conferred in Berlin (1887) to divide the Islamic Lands. Plans reiterated in the Sykes-Picot (British-French) secret agreement of 1916. They had already occupied many of the Islamic Lands. However, they still harboured the same fears that filled the hearts of the original Crusaders. They succeeded in occupying Islamic Lands, although it was short-lived. Within years, they were completely routed as Khaleefah Nur-ud-Deen launched a jihad against them. The defeat of the Crusaders showed that while the Khilafah existed, the latent power within the Muslims could always be unleashed.
Therefore, Britain demanded that Muslims abolish the Khilafah at the Lausanne conference (20th November 1922 to 4th February 1923). Also previously, in 1915 the Russian ambassador to Britain, sent a message back to St Petersburg: "The Italian Government supports the Russian Government's opinion. The Italian government wholeheartedly supports wresting the Khilafah from the Turks and abolishing it if necessary". Their ground work was laid long before when the Europeans sponsored missionary activity within the Khilafah. Missionary centres sprang up around, and even within, the borders of the decaying Islamic State such as those in Malta (end of 16th Century), ash-Sham (1725) and Beirut (1820). Their objective was not to convert Muslims to Christianity, this idea was as ludicrous as it was unlikely. Rather it was to dupe Muslims into adopting Islam as the Europeans had adopted Christianity. Specifically, they wished that Muslims followed their example, by having a secular Reformation. That is that the Muslims would separate the deen from the State. They formed many associations and parties for this purpose. Through this and other means, they recruited Muslims to their secular crusade. Now all that remained was the implementation of the secular vision. Time proved that this was not to be an easy task.
By the early 1920’s the ‘Union and Progress’ and the ‘Young Turks’ manoeuvred towards implementation of secularism. Their boldest initiative was a proposal for a secular constitution, presented to the National Assembly. This evoked an angry response. Kathim Qara Bakir, the ‘Uthmani Khilafah General , said, "I have vowed to prevent any steps undertaken with the aim of transforming the country from a Sultanate to a republic, no matter how dear the sacrifice were." A leading secularist, Mustafa Kemal retorted, "The constitution drafted by the National Assembly is not final...There is nothing in these laws to suggest that the sacred Sultanate and the sacred Khilafah would be undermined, or to suggest an incitement towards adopting a republican ruling system. Those who imagine that we wish to destroy the Sultanate and substitute the Sultanic rule by the republican rule are in fact living in another planet than the one we live in, that is the planet of fiction and imagination." History has shown how empty these words were. Their ensuing actions showed that they wished to bring this planet from the realm of fiction and imagination, into bitter reality. The real motive for this apparent climb-down was that they realised Bakir was well respected for his sound reasoning by the Ummah. His views represented the view of the Ummah of the time. Indeed, the Ummah was aware that Islam dealt with all life's affairs, including that of the government. They held no concept of a secular government i.e. a government that looked outside of Islam for its form and detail.
This was all but spelled out to the secularists when they later showed their true colours. In the midst of debate in the National Assembly, Kemal suggested the separation between the Sultanate and the Khilafah, thus abolishing the Sultanate and removing the Khaleefah, Wahid-ud-Deen. A foreign affairs committee was called upon to examine this matter the following day. It included in its ranks Islamic scholars. The committee spent hours studying the issue of separating the Sultanate from the Khilafah. The committee rejected the proposal unanimously, citing texts from the Qur’an and the Sunnah forbidding a secular government.
The secularists were up against the word of Allah (swt), and an Ummah that held them sacred. Thus a conflict between the Ummah and the secularists ensued. The following quotes and events demonstrate the intensity of that conflict. One can clearly see that the Ummah of the time proved to be a worthy example, for the present generation of Muslims that face secular rule in the Islamic Lands.
November 1922. "The Sultanate must be separated from the Khilafah and abolished. This will happen whether you agree to it or not. All there is to it is that some of your heads will roll in the process." Mustafa Kemal’s response to hearing the rejection by the foreign affairs committee. The National Assembly rejected the proposal, despite the fact that Mustafa Kemal’s supporters rested their hands on pistols. Yet, the speaker announced that the Assembly had endorsed the proposal by a general consensus. Upon this a number of deputies jumped on top of their seats protesting and shouting, "This is not true, we did not agree to this.’ Kemal dissolved the National Assembly and hold fresh elections, hoping to acquire a majority. However, this new Assembly was also against secularism.
29th October 1923. Mustafa Kemal addressed the National Assembly, "...I have decided that Turkey should become a republic with an elected president." When the voting took place, fewer than 40% of the deputies took part. However, the decree had been prepared beforehand by the secularists. It declared that there was approval for the formation of a secular Turkish Republic, with Kemal as its first President. The masses turned against the secular proposals. The word was spread everywhere that the new rulers of Ankara were kuffaar. Many prominent orators started to attack Mustafa Kemal. Leaflets and caricatures which attacked him fiercely were distributed. Many of the deputies and prominent figures left Ankara and headed towards Istanbul, to rally around the Khaleefah Abdul-Majid. Kemal then gauged opinion amongst the army. He attended the annual military manoeuvres near Izmir and spent days reviewing the situation, with Fawzi and Ismat, probing the low ranking officers and soldiers. He found a strong opposition to secularism. Secularists resorted to brutality. The National Assembly endorsed a bill declaring that any opposition to the republic and any inclination towards the deposed Sultan, would be considered an act of treason, punishable by death. Kemal ordered the assassination of one of the staunchest critiques of secularism, as he was returning from the National Assembly. When yet another deputy delivered a speech in support of the Khaleefah, Kemal threatened him with hanging.
1st March 1924. The Greater National Assembly convened. Mustafa Kemal demanded the abolition of the Khilafah. Again there was fierce opposition.
2nd March 1924. The National Assembly convened once more in order to review this decree; the session went on all night until 6.30 a.m. Again nothing was resolved.
3rd March 1924. In spite of the opposition from the Assembly and the Ummah, the abolition of the Khilafah was announced, and with it the separation of the deen from the state.
The Prophet (saw) said, "Your enemies will eat of you as guests eat at a dinner."
With the Khilafah destroyed, indeed the enemies feasted without any fear of reprisal. As now Britain’s condition was fulfilled, Lausanne was reconvened on 23rd April 1924. The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24th July 1924. The British Foreign Secretary, Curzon announced in the House of Commons, "The point at issue is that Turkey has been destroyed and shall never rise again, because we have destroyed her spiritual power: the Khilafah and Islam."
The foreign powers continued dividing up the Islamic Lands according to the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Berlin Conference. Unlike the Crusaders of the past, these modern day secular crusaders had no Khilafah to confront them. Within years of the Khilafah’s abolition, they were able to extend their colonial hegemony over the resources of the Islamic Lands. Within decades, Britain was able to extend their support of the Zionists, culminating in the formation of Israel (May, 1948). To this day the Islamic Lands are divided and fall under the shadow of secular rule.
Imam Tahawi also narrates a Hadith from Muslim ibn Yasar that the Prophet (saw) said, “The (collection of the) Zakah, the (implementation of the) Hudood the (distribution of the) spoils and the (appointment of the) Jumu.ah are for the Sultan..” (A similar narration has been narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musanaf and also by Imam Narghiyani. They have been deemed acceptable.)
Fatwa of Sheikh ul Hind, Maulana Mahmud ul Hassan who was imprisoned by the British in Malta for 3 years due to him sticking to the truth and not disowning the Uthmani (Ottoman) Khilafah. Shaikhul Hind and his student Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni (later klnown as Shaikhul Islam) were arrested by the traitor Sharif Hussein in Hijaz (Makkah) on 23 Safar, 1335 A.H. They were sent to Malta via Cairo by a ship on 29 Rabius Thani 1335 A.H. corresponding to 21 February 1917 and clamped in the prison by the British for 3 years and 4 months. They were released and reached Bombay on June 8, 1920. This time of returning from Malta synchronized with the period of the beginning of the Khilafat Movement in India.
Sheikh ul Hind was the head of Dar al ulum Deoband at his time, he directly supported the Khilafah and worked hard for its maintenance. He had met the Wali (governor) of the Khilafah in Makkah and the assistants of the Khalifah. The Wali gave documents to the Sheikh to help in the struggle of Muslims of India against the tyranny of the British. The foremost of these documents was an appeal from the Wali to the Muslims of India. In his appeal, the Wali of Makkah praised Sheikh ul Hind for launching the struggle against the colonial British rule and also exhorted Muslims of India to extend their full support. He also assured the Muslims of India of material support from this movement from the Khilafah. The document written by the Governor of Makkah is known in history as Ghalib Namah. After performing Hajj in 1334 AH, the Sheikh also met with Anwar Pasha and Jamal Pasha, who were officials of the Khilafah. Anwar Pasha too wrote a letter of appeal for the Muslims of India, appreciating their constant struggle against the British tyranny. The wording of the letter was similar to the Ghalib Namah, assuring the material support of the Uthmani Khilafah to the Muslims of India in their struggle against the British. The letter also exhorted all citizens and employees of the Uthmani Khilafah to have full confidence in Sheikh ul Hind and prove men and material support to his movement. Copies of these letters were made, smuggled to India in the face of all the challenges posed by the British intelligence services and later distributed in the whole of Yaghestan.
Most of the Ulema in India stood up for the issue of the Khilafah in the beginning of the 20th Century, unfortunately today it has become forgotten by many.
The text of the Fatwa demonstrates how Sheikh ul Hind used to see the duty of Khilafah and his view towards co-operating with the colonialists.
Taken from the book English translation of the book, ‘The Prisoners Of Malta (Asira'n-e-Malta)’ by Maulana Syed Muhammad Mian. Published by Jamiat Ulama -I-Hind in Association with Manak Publications Pvt. Ltd.
“The enemies of Islam have left no stone unturned to strike against and harm the honour and prestige of Islam. Iraq, Palestine and Syria that were won over by the Prophet’s companions and his followers, after innumerous sacrifices, have once again become the targets of greed of the enemy of Islam. The honour of Khilafat is in tatters. Khalifat-ul-Muslimin (Muslim Caliph), who used to unite the entire community on this planet; who as vice-regent of Allah on this earth used to implement the universal law of Islam; who used to protect the rights and interests of Muslims and who used to preserve and ensure that the glory of the words of the Creator of this universe be preserved and implemented, has been surrounded by the enemies and made redundant.” [16th Safar 1339 Hijri (corresponding to October 29, 1920, Gregorian year)]
Let us work to re-establish this Khilafah once again.
“When it is said to them do not make mischief on the earth, they say ‘we are only peace makers’” [TMQ al-Baqara: 11]
Recently we have seen the visit of the modern day Firawn to India. This verse describes the reality of him and America very well. Under the guise of peace and security he goes every where in the world – where in reality they create the fitna and corruption every where. As Allah (swt) said about Firawn:
“Firawn was an arrogant tyrant on the earth indeed he was one of the Musrifeen (transgressors)” [TMQ 10:83]
We know some of the reasons for Bush’s visit to India was to guarantee Nuclear co-operation for Nuclear energy with India – as we know India faces a massive energy problem as doesn’t have much oil, gas or energy. India was going to build a pipeline from Iran for gas, there are factions in India that wanted to oppose referring Iran to the UN.
Of course America doesn’t want this, even though Iran does not rule by Islam, it wants to pressurize Iran, even directly intervene in it – to remove any type of Islamists and to make sure it has direct control of the region – to ensure that it doesn't develop nuclear weapons in case it were to fall into the hands of the Islamic Khilafah state when it returns.
America acts according to its own interests, it also wants to open up the Indian economy through privitisation for its own companies to dominate the markets. They use the issue of ‘Free Trade’ to achieve this, even though the US is the most protectionist of economies.
India is the world's fasted growing economy, and predicted to soon be the world's most populous country. It has escalating energy needs, and an insatiable desire for consumer goods. More electricity, to more people means more I-pods and X-boxes to sell them. America's assistance in getting power into India, be it nuclear or non-nuclear, will benefit none save America in the long run. US-India economic ties are growing rapidly. In 2005, US exports to India rose by 30%, compared with 20% growth in Indian exports to the US. Bilateral merchandise trade amounted to nearly $27 billion. Currently this is seen by officials as way below the potential of the two economies. India needs electricity to drive its silicon plateau. Presently it only has 14 reactors in commercial operation and nine under construction. Nuclear power supplies about 3% of India's electricity. By 2050, nuclear power is expected to provide 25% of the country's electricity. India has limited coal and uranium reserves. Its huge thorium reserves - about 25% of the world's total - are expected to fuel this proposed nuclear power programme.
America like the Shaytan uses deception and deceptive styles every where. For example the recent attack on Sammarra in Iraq which a sanctuary for the Shia Muslims. We must understand clearly that this attack like most of the other attacks against Muslims in Iraq are not done by Muslims – rather are done by the colonialist occupier to blame on the Muslims and fragment them
The occupation forces in Iraq are in trouble, they are almost drowning in their defeat and the killing of their soldiers. Each time they fall in a crisis, they commit one crime here and another there after they prepare the scene of the crime so that it seems that the Sunnis are behind what happens to the Shiites and the Shiites behind what happens to the Sunnis. In this way, they create problems between the 2 sides and they stay on the safe side watching what’s happening from far away. It is no coincidence that the crime of Samarra’ took place after the declaration of the American ambassador about sectarianism in the ministry of defence and of interior affairs.
Anyone who examines the explosion of the sanctuary of the two imams in Samarra’ would see clearly that this explosion was not executed by normal people but via machines that belong to professional countries because the destruction caused by the explosion indicates that the explosions were fabricated in a technical way both in quantity and quality. In addition to that, they were placed in a place that wouldn’t miss the target. Not to mention that the sanctuary isn’t a normal place but one that is frequented and that is highly guarded, so how was it possible to execute the explosion so well and then withdrawing safely unless some responsible strong apparatus supervised the country?
What happened in Samarra’ is due to the planning and execution of occupation forces and it’s a tragedy, but what is worse and more terrible is that occupation forces were able to attain their goal which is creating riots between Sunnites and Shiites. After this crime, rumours went on and some kidnapping and killing took place among the Sunnites scholars and their mosques were attacked, also it was heard that some prisoners and journalists were killed, all this pleased occupation forces and especially America because it serves their interest to cause chaos in the country.
Neither America nor Britain cares about the well being of any Muslim, and we believe that they were behind the explosion of the sanctuary and also they might be involved in other attacks so that they will make it appear that all this is the result of the fighting between different doctrines in Islam. We must be aware of certain facts:
First: Occupation forces and especially America are behind the killings of civilians, explosions in markets and mosques, kidnapping scholars and killing those who are loyal to their religion and Ummah. A Muslim is he who resists occupation and doesn’t harm his people, market and mosque because it is greater for Allah to kill a Muslim without a reason than to destroy the Kaaba and the vanishing of life. Moreover, a Muslim while fighting with his enemy doesn’t kill an old man or a baby or a woman, and doesn’t destroy a place of worship or a person who is praying. Rasulullah (saw) said:
«لَزَوَالُ الدُّنْيَا أَهْوَنُ عَلَى اللَّهِ مِنْ قَتْلِ مُؤْمِنٍ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ»
“The vanishing of life is easier on Allah than killing believer without a reason.” (Narrated by Ibn Majah). Also He (saw) says:
«انْطَلِقُوا بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ وَبِاللَّهِ وَعَلَى مِلَّةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَلاَ تَقْتُلُوا شَيْخًا فَانِيًا وَلاَ طِفْلاً وَلاَ صَغِيرًا وَلاَ امْرَأَةً وَلاَ تَغُلُّوا وَضُمُّوا غَنَائِمَكُمْ وَأَصْلِحُوا وَأَحْسِنُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ»
“Go on in the name of Allah and following the example of Rasulullah and don’t kill an old man or a baby or a child or a woman. Collect your gain and be good because Allah likes people who do good deeds” (Narrated by Abu Dawoud)
Second: Muslims, even if they disagree on the issue of the Imammet, do not disagree on their love for Rasulullah nor in their love for all pure Muslims, this is one of the highest degrees for all Muslims. Any Muslim who considers Rasulullah and Muslims as enemies will be severely punished in the judgment day when no son and no money will do him any good and all those with a clean heart will survive. In addition, Muslims do not say to another Muslim that he is Kafer; this is a big issue for Allah, his Rasul and all Muslims. Rasulullah (saw) says:
«لاَ يُؤْمِنُ أَحَدُكُمْ حَتَّى أَكُونَ أَحَبَّ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ وَالِدِهِ وَوَلَدِهِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ»
“No one of you becomes a true believer unless I become dearer to him than his father, his son and all people.” Narrated by Bukhari. He (saw) also says:
«مَنْ كَفَّرَ أَخَاهُ فَقَدْ بَاءَ بِهَا أَحَدُهُمَا»
“If any of you tells another Muslim that he is a Kafer, then one of you is Kafer.” (Narrated by Ahmad)
Third: the resentment of the occupiers colonist Kuffars, especially America and Britain, towards Muslims and Islam and their conspiracies against them is well known and they say it clearly in their declarations, and their acts prove this like what happened in Abu Ghreib, Guantenamo and Jangi fort, and what is hidden inside of them is still worse. Their evil deeds don’t differentiate between a Muslim and another, whatever his doctrine was and wherever he lived.
((كَيْفَ وَإِنْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ لاَ يَرْقُبُوا فِيكُمْ إِلاًّ وَلاَ ذِمَّةً))
"How (can there be such a covenant), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant." [Al-Tawbah: 8]
O Muslims, these 3 facts should make you look towards occupation forces and their agents whenever a crime takes place in your markets or mosques or when one of your scholars is killed or kidnapped, because it’s them who are behind the crime while you ignore occupation forces and look towards each other and by doing so you do a big favor to the occupation forces and encourage them to go on with their plots.
((وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ))
"Oppression are worse than slaughter." [Baqarah: 191]
We should not to allow them to create turmoil between us which might lead to a civil war which will make Allah, his Rasul and all Muslims angry. The tragedy of Samarra’ motivate Mulims of Iraq to consider the occupier as an enemy.
"And those who disbelieve are allies of one another. (and) if you (muslims of the whole world collectively) do not do so there will be fitnah and oppression on the earth" [al-Anfal: 73]
In Tafsir-at-Tabari vol. 10 page 56: “That if you do not do what Allah has ordered you to do [i.e. all the Muslims of the world] do not become allies as a united block to make Allah’s Deen victorious, there will be a great Fitnah. And it is Fitnah to have many Khulafah, as it is mentioned in Sahih Muslim by Arfajah : "Whoso comes to you while your affairs has been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him."
There is also another narration in Sahih Muslim by Abu Sa'id al-Khudri who said that the Prophet (saw) said: "When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the latter of them".
So it is a legal obligation (fard), from the above mentioned proofs, that there shall not be more than one Khalifah for the whole Muslim world or otherwise there will be a great Fitnah amongst the Muslims, the ultimate results of which will not be worthy of praise.
It was reported in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal that the Prophet (saw) said, "The knots of Islam will be broken one by one until everyone of them is undone. The first to be undone will be the knot of ruling and the last will be the knot of Salah"
Yesterday was 3rd March, the anniversary of destruction of Khilafah which occurred in 1924
The European powers endured the consequences of this hadith. The Khilafah ably protected the Islamic Lands from the designs of the kuffar. These designs remained unfulfilled for centuries. Disraeli and Bismarck conferred in Berlin (1887) to divide the Islamic Lands. Plans reiterated in the Sykes-Picot (British-French) secret agreement of 1916. They had already occupied many of the Islamic Lands. However, they still harboured the same fears that filled the hearts of the original Crusaders. They succeeded in occupying Islamic Lands, although it was short-lived. Within years, they were completely routed as Khaleefah Nur-ud-Deen launched a jihad against them. The defeat of the Crusaders showed that while the Khilafah existed, the latent power within the Muslims could always be unleashed.
Therefore, Britain demanded that Muslims abolish the Khilafah at the Lausanne conference (20th November 1922 to 4th February 1923). Also previously, in 1915 the Russian ambassador to Britain, sent a message back to St Petersburg: "The Italian Government supports the Russian Government's opinion. The Italian government wholeheartedly supports wresting the Khilafah from the Turks and abolishing it if necessary". Their ground work was laid long before when the Europeans sponsored missionary activity within the Khilafah. Missionary centres sprang up around, and even within, the borders of the decaying Islamic State such as those in Malta (end of 16th Century), ash-Sham (1725) and Beirut (1820). Their objective was not to convert Muslims to Christianity, this idea was as ludicrous as it was unlikely. Rather it was to dupe Muslims into adopting Islam as the Europeans had adopted Christianity. Specifically, they wished that Muslims followed their example, by having a secular Reformation. That is that the Muslims would separate the deen from the State. They formed many associations and parties for this purpose. Through this and other means, they recruited Muslims to their secular crusade. Now all that remained was the implementation of the secular vision. Time proved that this was not to be an easy task.
By the early 1920’s the ‘Union and Progress’ and the ‘Young Turks’ manoeuvred towards implementation of secularism. Their boldest initiative was a proposal for a secular constitution, presented to the National Assembly. This evoked an angry response. Kathim Qara Bakir, the ‘Uthmani Khilafah General , said, "I have vowed to prevent any steps undertaken with the aim of transforming the country from a Sultanate to a republic, no matter how dear the sacrifice were." A leading secularist, Mustafa Kemal retorted, "The constitution drafted by the National Assembly is not final...There is nothing in these laws to suggest that the sacred Sultanate and the sacred Khilafah would be undermined, or to suggest an incitement towards adopting a republican ruling system. Those who imagine that we wish to destroy the Sultanate and substitute the Sultanic rule by the republican rule are in fact living in another planet than the one we live in, that is the planet of fiction and imagination." History has shown how empty these words were. Their ensuing actions showed that they wished to bring this planet from the realm of fiction and imagination, into bitter reality. The real motive for this apparent climb-down was that they realised Bakir was well respected for his sound reasoning by the Ummah. His views represented the view of the Ummah of the time. Indeed, the Ummah was aware that Islam dealt with all life's affairs, including that of the government. They held no concept of a secular government i.e. a government that looked outside of Islam for its form and detail.
This was all but spelled out to the secularists when they later showed their true colours. In the midst of debate in the National Assembly, Kemal suggested the separation between the Sultanate and the Khilafah, thus abolishing the Sultanate and removing the Khaleefah, Wahid-ud-Deen. A foreign affairs committee was called upon to examine this matter the following day. It included in its ranks Islamic scholars. The committee spent hours studying the issue of separating the Sultanate from the Khilafah. The committee rejected the proposal unanimously, citing texts from the Qur’an and the Sunnah forbidding a secular government.
The secularists were up against the word of Allah (swt), and an Ummah that held them sacred. Thus a conflict between the Ummah and the secularists ensued. The following quotes and events demonstrate the intensity of that conflict. One can clearly see that the Ummah of the time proved to be a worthy example, for the present generation of Muslims that face secular rule in the Islamic Lands.
November 1922. "The Sultanate must be separated from the Khilafah and abolished. This will happen whether you agree to it or not. All there is to it is that some of your heads will roll in the process." Mustafa Kemal’s response to hearing the rejection by the foreign affairs committee. The National Assembly rejected the proposal, despite the fact that Mustafa Kemal’s supporters rested their hands on pistols. Yet, the speaker announced that the Assembly had endorsed the proposal by a general consensus. Upon this a number of deputies jumped on top of their seats protesting and shouting, "This is not true, we did not agree to this.’ Kemal dissolved the National Assembly and hold fresh elections, hoping to acquire a majority. However, this new Assembly was also against secularism.
29th October 1923. Mustafa Kemal addressed the National Assembly, "...I have decided that Turkey should become a republic with an elected president." When the voting took place, fewer than 40% of the deputies took part. However, the decree had been prepared beforehand by the secularists. It declared that there was approval for the formation of a secular Turkish Republic, with Kemal as its first President. The masses turned against the secular proposals. The word was spread everywhere that the new rulers of Ankara were kuffaar. Many prominent orators started to attack Mustafa Kemal. Leaflets and caricatures which attacked him fiercely were distributed. Many of the deputies and prominent figures left Ankara and headed towards Istanbul, to rally around the Khaleefah Abdul-Majid. Kemal then gauged opinion amongst the army. He attended the annual military manoeuvres near Izmir and spent days reviewing the situation, with Fawzi and Ismat, probing the low ranking officers and soldiers. He found a strong opposition to secularism. Secularists resorted to brutality. The National Assembly endorsed a bill declaring that any opposition to the republic and any inclination towards the deposed Sultan, would be considered an act of treason, punishable by death. Kemal ordered the assassination of one of the staunchest critiques of secularism, as he was returning from the National Assembly. When yet another deputy delivered a speech in support of the Khaleefah, Kemal threatened him with hanging.
1st March 1924. The Greater National Assembly convened. Mustafa Kemal demanded the abolition of the Khilafah. Again there was fierce opposition.
2nd March 1924. The National Assembly convened once more in order to review this decree; the session went on all night until 6.30 a.m. Again nothing was resolved.
3rd March 1924. In spite of the opposition from the Assembly and the Ummah, the abolition of the Khilafah was announced, and with it the separation of the deen from the state.
The Prophet (saw) said, "Your enemies will eat of you as guests eat at a dinner."
With the Khilafah destroyed, indeed the enemies feasted without any fear of reprisal. As now Britain’s condition was fulfilled, Lausanne was reconvened on 23rd April 1924. The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24th July 1924. The British Foreign Secretary, Curzon announced in the House of Commons, "The point at issue is that Turkey has been destroyed and shall never rise again, because we have destroyed her spiritual power: the Khilafah and Islam."
The foreign powers continued dividing up the Islamic Lands according to the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Berlin Conference. Unlike the Crusaders of the past, these modern day secular crusaders had no Khilafah to confront them. Within years of the Khilafah’s abolition, they were able to extend their colonial hegemony over the resources of the Islamic Lands. Within decades, Britain was able to extend their support of the Zionists, culminating in the formation of Israel (May, 1948). To this day the Islamic Lands are divided and fall under the shadow of secular rule.
Imam Tahawi also narrates a Hadith from Muslim ibn Yasar that the Prophet (saw) said, “The (collection of the) Zakah, the (implementation of the) Hudood the (distribution of the) spoils and the (appointment of the) Jumu.ah are for the Sultan..” (A similar narration has been narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musanaf and also by Imam Narghiyani. They have been deemed acceptable.)
Fatwa of Sheikh ul Hind, Maulana Mahmud ul Hassan who was imprisoned by the British in Malta for 3 years due to him sticking to the truth and not disowning the Uthmani (Ottoman) Khilafah. Shaikhul Hind and his student Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni (later klnown as Shaikhul Islam) were arrested by the traitor Sharif Hussein in Hijaz (Makkah) on 23 Safar, 1335 A.H. They were sent to Malta via Cairo by a ship on 29 Rabius Thani 1335 A.H. corresponding to 21 February 1917 and clamped in the prison by the British for 3 years and 4 months. They were released and reached Bombay on June 8, 1920. This time of returning from Malta synchronized with the period of the beginning of the Khilafat Movement in India.
Sheikh ul Hind was the head of Dar al ulum Deoband at his time, he directly supported the Khilafah and worked hard for its maintenance. He had met the Wali (governor) of the Khilafah in Makkah and the assistants of the Khalifah. The Wali gave documents to the Sheikh to help in the struggle of Muslims of India against the tyranny of the British. The foremost of these documents was an appeal from the Wali to the Muslims of India. In his appeal, the Wali of Makkah praised Sheikh ul Hind for launching the struggle against the colonial British rule and also exhorted Muslims of India to extend their full support. He also assured the Muslims of India of material support from this movement from the Khilafah. The document written by the Governor of Makkah is known in history as Ghalib Namah. After performing Hajj in 1334 AH, the Sheikh also met with Anwar Pasha and Jamal Pasha, who were officials of the Khilafah. Anwar Pasha too wrote a letter of appeal for the Muslims of India, appreciating their constant struggle against the British tyranny. The wording of the letter was similar to the Ghalib Namah, assuring the material support of the Uthmani Khilafah to the Muslims of India in their struggle against the British. The letter also exhorted all citizens and employees of the Uthmani Khilafah to have full confidence in Sheikh ul Hind and prove men and material support to his movement. Copies of these letters were made, smuggled to India in the face of all the challenges posed by the British intelligence services and later distributed in the whole of Yaghestan.
Most of the Ulema in India stood up for the issue of the Khilafah in the beginning of the 20th Century, unfortunately today it has become forgotten by many.
The text of the Fatwa demonstrates how Sheikh ul Hind used to see the duty of Khilafah and his view towards co-operating with the colonialists.
Taken from the book English translation of the book, ‘The Prisoners Of Malta (Asira'n-e-Malta)’ by Maulana Syed Muhammad Mian. Published by Jamiat Ulama -I-Hind in Association with Manak Publications Pvt. Ltd.
“The enemies of Islam have left no stone unturned to strike against and harm the honour and prestige of Islam. Iraq, Palestine and Syria that were won over by the Prophet’s companions and his followers, after innumerous sacrifices, have once again become the targets of greed of the enemy of Islam. The honour of Khilafat is in tatters. Khalifat-ul-Muslimin (Muslim Caliph), who used to unite the entire community on this planet; who as vice-regent of Allah on this earth used to implement the universal law of Islam; who used to protect the rights and interests of Muslims and who used to preserve and ensure that the glory of the words of the Creator of this universe be preserved and implemented, has been surrounded by the enemies and made redundant.” [16th Safar 1339 Hijri (corresponding to October 29, 1920, Gregorian year)]
Let us work to re-establish this Khilafah once again.
Comments
no more can be said!
Salam