Saturday, May 27, 2006

Is Saudi Arabia an Islamic State?

In response to the question you raised about whether Saudi Arabia is an Islamic State (Dar al Islam) or not, we need to first define the meaning of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr (Land of Kufr) and then look to whether Saudi Arabia or any Muslim country today matches this definition.

The following article explains this subject in detail together with the evidences, please check it: Clarfiying the meaning of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr

1) According to Shariah terminology, Dar al-Islam is defined as the land which is governed by the laws of Islam and whose security (Aman) is maintained by the security of Islam, i.e. by the authority and protection of Muslims inside and outside the land, even if the majority of its inhabitants are non-Muslims.

Dar al-Kufr is the land which is governed by the laws of Kufr, and whose security is not maintained by the security (Aman) of Islam, i.e. by other than the authority and security of Muslims, even if the majority of its inhabitants are Muslims.

So what matters in determining whether the land is Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Kufr is neither the land itself nor its inhabitants, rather it is the laws and the security. So if its laws are Islamic and its security is maintained by Muslims then it is Dar al-Islam. When its laws are the laws of Kufr (disbelief) and its security is not maintained by Muslims then it is Dar al-Kufr. These definitions have been derived from the Islamic evidences and discussed by the Ulema (scholars) in history.

2) When we look to Saudi Arabia it fundamentally contradicts Islam in a Qati (definitive) manner in many areas such as:

- Being part of the United Nations - every member of which has to agree with international law set by the UN. This puts the law of man above the law of Allah.
- Allying with the Kuffar against the Muslims. Saudi Arabia allowed America to use it to attack the Muslims of Iraq in the Gulf wars. America also has a military base in Saudi which is well known.
- Accepting the legitimacy of the different countries in the Muslim world this is clear by the fact they are part of the OIC and Muslim League and have ambassadors in these different countries. This is definitively prohibited from different ahadith and the Ijma of the Sahaba:

The Prophet (saw) said: "When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the latter of them". (Narrated in Sahih Muslim by Sa'id al-Khudri)

The Prophet (saw) also said: "Whoso comes to you while your affairs has been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him." (Narrated in Sahih Muslim by 'Arfajah)

3) Just because Saudi Arabia may implement part of Islamic laws such as in the judiciary, it doesn’t mean that it is an Islamic state or Khilafah

"So rule between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you" (TMQ 4:49).

"Then it is only a part of the Book that you believe in and do you reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who believe like this but disgrace in this life and on the day of judgement they shall be consigned to the most grievest chastisement." [Al-Baqarah: 85]

4) We cannot compare Saudi Arabia and say it is similar to the Khilafah after the Khulafah ar-Rashideen. As in those periods it is unanimously accepted by the Sunni Ulema in history that they were Khilafah and Dar al Islam, some of them misapplied some of the Islamic rules but they never implemented open kufr. There is a difference between the mis-implementation of some of the Shariah rules and the non-implementation as we see in Saudi Arabia.

Some of the Khulafah were better than others and some of them were even oppressive, nevertheless the system of Islam remained implemented. Even though some of the rulers misapplied some rules and were oppressive, the Prophet (saw) foretold of this and instructed the Muslims to accept them as Khulafah and obey them as long as they did not implement open Kufr (Kufr bu’ah). Some of these ahadith are:

Muslim reported that Salama b. Yazid Al-Ja‘afi asked the Messenger of Allah (saw): "O Prophet of Allah, if we were to be ruled by Ameers who ask us for their dues and deny us our dues, what do you order us to do then?" The Messenger of Allah(saw) turned his face away; he asked him again and Allah’s Messenger (saw) avoided him; then he asked for the second or the third time and he (saw) was pulled by Al-Ash‘aath b. Qays, so the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Hear and obey, for they shall be accountable for their actions and you shall be accountable for yours."

Muslim reported from ‘Auf b. Malik who reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:"The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you and you pray for them and they pray for you; and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you." We asked: "O Messenger of Allah, shall we not then declare war on them?" He (saw) said: "No! As long as they establish prayer among you. Behold if anyone was ruled by a Wali and saw him committing a sin, let him hate the sin committed against Allah, but let him not withdraw his hand from obedience."

Muslim narrated from Huzayfah b. al-Yamaan that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "There will be Imams after me who will not be guided by my guidance, nor will they act according to my Sunnah; some men will rise amongst you with satans’ hearts in human bodies." Huzayfah asked: "What shall I do, if I were to reach that time?" He (saw) said: "You should hear and obey the Ameer even if he whipped your back and took your money; do hear and obey."

Ahmad and Abu Dawood reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "O Abu Dharr, what would you do if some Walis possessed the booty and deprived you of it?" He said: "By He Who sent you with the Truth, I would raise my sword and fight until I join you." Upon this he (saw) said: "Let me tell you something that would be better for you than that. Remain patient and bear it until you join me."

Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Junada b. abi Umayyah who said: We went to ‘Ubadah b. as-Samit when he was sick and we said: May Allah (swt) guide you. Inform us of a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah (saw) so Allah may benefit you from it. He said, the Messenger of Allah (saw) called upon us and we gave him the Bai’ah, and he said, of that which he had taken from us, that we should give him the pledge to listen and obey, in what we like and dislike, in our hardship and ease, and that we should not dispute the authority of its people unless we saw open Kufr upon which we had a proof from Allah. And it was also narrated by Tabarani. He said: “Unless you see open Kufr.”

The Khulafah ruled by Islam and did not implement Kufr Bu’ah (open Kufr) that is why we find the great scholars of Islam such as Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Shafi, Imam Malik, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Jafar as-Sadiq and the like accepted that they were Khalif’s but accounted them. In fact the two most famous students of Abu Hanifah who recorded his Fiqh, most of us in India follow the Fiqh they recorded - Qadi Abu Yusuf and Muhammad As-Shaybani were appointed as Qadi al Quda (the chief judge) in state in the time of the Khalifah Haroon ar-Rasheed.

Some of the great scholars wrote books about the history of the Khulafah such as Imam Suyuti known as al-Jalalayn, who died in 1505 CE – he wrote the book Tarikh al Khulafah, ‘History of the Khulafah’. Imam Mawardi who died in 1058 CE who was appointed as a Qadi and later an ambassador by the Abbasid Khalid Al-Qaim bi Amr Allah wrote the famous book, ‘Al Ahkam As-Sultaniya’, about the ruling system in Islam.

Whereas today all the countries in the Muslim world including Saudi Arabia implement Kufr Bu'ah in many areas such as those mentioned earlier.

History of Usul ul-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence)

Muhammad bin Idris Al-Shafi'i (d. 204AH) is reputed to be the one who delineated the principles of deduction (usul al-istinbat) and regulated it with general comprehensive principles. Thus, he was the originator of the science of usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence), even though many people came after him who were more knowledgeable about usul al-fiqh and its definitions. The Fuqaha (jurists) before al-Shafi'i used to perform ijtihad without having defined parameters for ijtihad. Rather, they used to depend on their understanding of the Shari'a meanings and purpose of the ahkam, their aims, whatever its texts point to and whatever its objectives (maqasid) indicated. Due to the experience of those Fuqaha (jurists) in their study of the Shari'a and their thorough familiarity with the Arabic language, this has caused them to be acquainted with their meanings, to comprehend their aims (ghayat) and objectives (maqasid). They used to reconcile its concepts and objectives in deducing rules from the texts without having any recorded defined parameters.

Yes, the Fuqaha before al-Shafi'i, from the time of Sahaba, Tabi'un and those after them, used to deal with issues of usul al-fiqh and educe and oppose (evidences). Such as the narration about 'Ali b' Abi Talib (r.a.) that he spoke about the mutlaq (absolute), muqayyad (restricted), khas (specific), 'amm (general), abrogator (nasikh) and the abrogated (mansukh). However, that was not in a defined, set out manner. And those Fuqaha who dealt with certain issues of usul al-fiqh did not possess general and comprehensive principles to which they referred in order to understand the indication of the Shari'a or to know how to oppose or outweigh them. But when al-Shafi'i came, he derived the science of usul al-fiqh. And he laid down comprehensive laws to which reference is made in knowing the levels of the Shari'a evidences. It has become widely known to people that al-Shafi'i set out the science of usul in his book entitled al-Risala, a work which is famous. But the reality is that the al-Risala contains only a part of the science of usul outlined by al-Shafi'i. Anyone who examines the books of al-Shafi'i will find that al-Risala contains only some of the topics in the science of usul al-fiqh, but it does not contain all of al-Shafi'i's discussion in usul. Al-Shafi'i has other books which contain discussions (on usul), such as the book of ‘The refutation of Istihsan’ (Ibtaal ul Istihsaan) and the book Jamma' al-'ilm. Even the book al-Umm within its pages there are discussion on the science of usul. In these he has mentioned comprehensive principles amidst the detailed rules.

What helped al-Shafi'i to lay down the science of usul was that he came at a time when Islamic jurisprudence had started to greatly flourish. In the Islamic lands juristic groups of mujtahidin began to take shape and they began to form into mazhabs (schools). The debate between the Mujtahidin and the proponents of mazahibs took various perspectives in fiqh and the evidences. So he plunged into debates with those who engaged in the debate, these discussions were what guided him to think about general and comprehensive principles, as regulatory criterions which should be the basis of study and inference. He brought together these principles as one body of knowledge which was the science of usul al-fiqh. The impressive thing about the usul of al-Shafi'i is that he proceeds, in the discussion of usul, in a legislative and not in a logical manner. Because, one of the greatest dangers for study and for the Ummah's revival especially in fiqh and usul, is the path of logic. Al-Shafi'i clearly distanced himself from the course of logic and adhered to the legislative course. He was not interested in theoretical methods or suppositions. He wanted to regulate real and existing issues i.e. he took the Shari'a texts and stopped at the limit of the text and at the limit of the reality which the text indicated and the people themselves witnessed. Regarding the issue of abrogation (nasikh wal mansukh), he established the principles of abrogation from the issues which, for him had been proven to contain abrogation’s, taken from what has been mentioned in the ayah or hadith itself, or from the indication (dilala) of abrogation, or what has been narrated about the Messenger (saw) in terms of hadith which indicate abrogation, or whatever has been reported about the Companions of the Messenger of Allah in terms of reports and judgements. Not like many who came after him, when they saw a contradiction between two verses or hadiths, they immediately moved to say that one has abrogated the other. To the point they ended up making terrible errors. When al-Shafi'i came with a principle he did not bring it from a logical premise (muqaddima mantiqiyya), rather he showed you the sources from which he took it. Either from a report about the Prophet (saw) or from legal verdicts (fatwas) of the Sahaba. His approach in extracting regulatory (qawa'd dabita) principles was a practical one, in which he relied on the reality, the evidences, and on the application of those things on tangible facts.

The most prominent aspect by which Shafi'is usul is distinguished, is that it contains general principles for the deduction (istinbat) of rules, regardless of what his specific methodology was. Rather, his usul is suitable for any methodology however different they may be. Thus, it is a measure by which one can know which opinions are correct and which are not correct. It is a comprehensive law which must be adhered to when deducing new rules, whatever methodology a person may set himself, in order to measure opinions and regulate the inference of rules by a comprehensive law. The usul of al-Shafi'i was not intended to be an usul for his mazhab (school) only, even though the mazhab adhered to it. It was not written to defend his mazhab and clarify its viewpoint. Rather, it contains general and comprehensive principles for istinbat (inference). The motive was not to tend towards a particular mazhab but rather it was a desire to regulate the procedures of ijtihad and put in place limits and guidelines for the mujtahidin. He was sincere in his intentions and he had the correct understanding when devising the science of usul al-fiqh, thereby influencing, without exception, those mujtahidin and Ulama that came after al-Shafi'i, whether they opposed or supported his opinions. Until, despite their different tendencies, they saw themselves proceeding according to the path al-Shafi'i had taken, in terms of setting out comprehensive principles (qawa'id kulliyya) and proceeding in fiqh and istinbat (inference) in a regulated manner according to comprehensive laws and general principles. Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) after him came to be based on established foundations not as an assortment of fatwas and individual judgements (aqdiya) as was the case before him.

Even though all of the 'Ulama proceed in the footsteps of al-Shafi'i in terms of the notion of usul al-fiqh, however the way in which they received what al-Shafi' had arrived at was different according to their different juristic approaches. There were those who followed his opinions and began to explain and expand on them and disagree with them. And they are like the followers of al-Shafi'i himself. There were those who took the major part of what al-Shafi'i had brought despite their disagreement with certain details of usul and but not the actual body of usul. Since they had no disagreements in terms of the body, framework and course of al-Shafi'is usul, like the Hanafis and those who followed their method. And there were those who disagreed with al-Shafi'i in this usul, like the Zahiris and Shi'a. Those who followed al-Shafi'i in his opinions were: the Hanbalis. They adopted the usul of al-Shafi'i even though they said the only (recognised) ijma' (consensus) is that of the Sahaba. The Malikis who came after al-Shafi'i combined their methodology with much of what was in al-Shafi'is usul though they took the practise of the people of Madina as proof and differed with him in certain details. As for those who proceeded according to his method and embraced his opinions. They are the followers of his mazhab, who were very active in the science of usul al-fiqh and wrote prolifically about the subject. Books were written according to the methodology of al-Shafi'i in usul al-fiqh which were, and still are, the pillars and support of this science. Of the most important three books that are known to be written by the old scholars: First, the book al-Mutamad of Abu al-Husayn Muhammad b. al-Basri (d.413 A.H.). Second, the book al-Burhan of 'Abd al-Malik b.'Abd Allah al-Juwayni commonly known as Imam al-Haramayn (d.478 A.H.). And third, the book al-Mustasfa of Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d.505 A.H.). After them came Abu al-Husayn 'Ali otherwise known as al-Amidi (d. 631 A.H.), he brought together all three books and expanded on it in his book al-ihkam fi usul al-ahkam. It is one of the most important works written in usul al-fiqh. As for those who adopted the major part of what al-Shafi'i brought and differed in some of the details, they are the Hanafis. That is because their method of istinbat (inference) agreed with the usul of al-Shafi'i, though the way in which they approached the science of usul was influenced by the furu' (branches of fiqh). They studied the principles of usul in order to support the furu'. So they made the furu' the basis. The general principles were based on it and made to support it. Perhaps what pushed them towards this approach was that their study of usul was for the purpose of supporting their mazhab and not in order to produce principles according to which their school should deduce rules. That is because Abu Hanifa, who had preceded al-Shafi'i, died the year in which al-Shafi'i was born. And his inferences were not according to general and comprehensive principles. Likewise after him came his students Abu Yusuf, Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Shaybani and Zufar. They did not concern themselves with writing about usul al-fiqh but it fell to the scholars of the Hanafi mazhab afterwards to pursue the inference of principles which would serve the furu' of the Hanafi mazhab. The principles came later than the furu' and did not precede it. Nevertheless, the Hanafi usul, on the whole, has been extracted from the usul of al-Shafi'i. And what they differed on with the Shafi'is in terms of the 'amm (general) being qat'i (definite) like the khas (specific), and the consideration is not for the understanding of the condition (shart) and description (wasf), and that there is no tarjeeh (outweighing) due to the great number of transmitters. They are detailed issues and not comprehensive principles. That is why it is possible to consider the Hanafi and Shafi'i usuls as one usul for fiqh. Its approach towards the furu' and disagreements in certain details is not another usul but they are one usul in its comprehensiveness, generality and principles. You hardly ever see any difference between a book in shafi'i usul and a book in Hanafi usul. Rather, all of them are a study of the same principles (usul) of al-fiqh. One of the most important books of usul for the Hanafis is the usul al-Bazdawi compiled by Fakhr al-Islam 'Ali b. Muhammad al-Bazdawi (d.483 A.H.)

As for those who disagreed with al-Shafi'i in usul, they are the Zahiris and Shi'a. They disagreed with al-Shafi'is usul in some of its basic elements and not just in the details. As for the Zahiris, they rejected Qiyas (analogical deduction) completely and depended solely on the apparent (zahir) (meaning) of the texts. Even what is termed as the qiyas jali (clear analogy), they did not consider it as a part of Qiyas but as text. Their consideration of the text is nothing other than a consideration of the apparent (zahir) (meaning) of the text. The imam of this mazhab is Abu Sulayman Dawud b. Khalaf al-Isfahani (d.270 A.H.) He was from the Shafi'iyya. He learnt fiqh from the students of al-Shafi'i. Then he left the mazhab of al-Shafi'i and chose a special mazhab for himself where he would only rely on the text. It is called the Zahiri mazhab (literalists), Ibn Hazm is one of the most well known scholars from amongst them. Certain people made him popular and gave a glowing description about him until people became interested in his books even though they were below the level of the books of fiqh and other usuls in terms of the jurisprudential discussion and angle of educing evidences.

As for the Shi'a, they disagreed with al-Shafi'is usul in a significant way, for they made the sayings of their imams a Shari'a daleel like the Kitab and Sunnah. For them it is considered a proof which follows the proof of the Kitab and that of the Sunnah at the very least. They permitted the speech of the imams to specify the Sunnah. They say: 'The wisdom (hikma) of legislation demands the exposition of a body of ahkam and requires the concealment of a body of ahkam. But he (Allah's peace be upon him) entrusted (the body of ahkam that is concealed) to his guardians (awsiya). Each guardian (wasi) delegates the other to spread it when it is appropriate for him, according to Hikma (wisdom), in terms of an 'amm (general) which is specified (mukhassas), a mutlaq (absolute) which is restricted (muqayyad) or a mujmal (ambivalent) which is clarified (mubayyan). So the Prophet (saw) may mention something which is 'amm (general) and mentions the specific after a while in his life. Or, he may not mention it originally, rather leaving his guardian (wasi) to do it on his behalf.' The Imami Shi'as place their imams in a position close to the Sunnah. Ijtihad for them is restricted to the mazhab. It is not permitted for the mujtahid to contradict the views of the mazhab i.e. it is not permitted for the mujtahid to make ijtihad with what contradicts the sayings of the Imam al-Sadiq. They rejected hadiths except if it came via their imams. They do not take Qiyas. It has been recurrently reported (tawatara) about their imams, as they have narrated in their books, that when analogy is made to the Shari'a the deen is destroyed.

This is the situation of the course of Muslim Ulama in the science of usul al-fiqh after al-Shafi'i in terms of their agreement or opposition to him. As for the science itself, after al-Shafi'i, it was discussed at great length and it had many commentators and writers. It is strange that in the ages that followed the age al-Shafi'i, ijtihad diminished and there was a scarcity of mujtahidin. And in the ages that followed that age, the door of ijtihad was closed. However, the science of usul al-fiqh thrived and flourished, the study of its principles increased and its issues became more elaborate. But all of this was from a theoretical and not practical perspective. As a result, it was ineffective in creating mujtahidin and breaking the notion of the closing of the door of ijtihad and bringing it to an end. Perhaps the reason for that is that usul al-fiqh, during those later periods, took a purely theoretical approach, where the theoretical discussion prevailed, and studies were inserted into it that had no relationship to usul al-fiqh. The attention of researchers was directed to examining and revising the principles, supporting them with evidences, and selecting the one with the strongest evidence regardless of whether there was a reality for it or not. Their theoretical assumptions multiplied and they studied the concept of dalala (textual implications) and classified it according to the classifications of the scholars of mantiq (logic). They raised discussions which had nothing to do with usul al-fiqh like husn (pretty) and qubh (ugly), or are they rational or legal? Or discussion such as; is thanking (shukr) the benefactor (mun'im) an obligation due to the Shari'a or the mind. They initiated studies that were from the science of Kalam (theology) and not from usul al-fiqh. Such as the infallibility of the Prophets, permissibility of the Prophets to make mistakes or forget in issues relating to (conveying) the Message. They made studies relating to the Arabic language and not to usul al-fiqh. The studied the origin of languages and studied particles (huruf) and nouns (asma). In that manner they made the science of usul al-fiqh rigid and transformed it from its legislative aspect, which produced mujtahidin and enriched fiqh, into a theoretical and philosophical study in which the scholar is unable to deduce the simplest of rules. Until, its usefulness was almost lost and it had not effect in legislation or deduction of rules (istinbat). And since the science of usul al-fiqh is indispensable, in relation to the deduction of rules and the growth of the legislative aspect. That is why it is essential to attend to the study of usul al-fiqh as a study which is based on reality and not theoretical. It is enough to undertake studies that relate to the deduction of rules, which are studied accompanied by evidences indicating the rules, and realities which apply to their meanings until mujtahidin are produced and a legislative wealth is generated to treat new issues which come up each day, in the Muslim world and in the rest of the world.

Besides the aforementioned some of the other books written on the science of Usul ul Fiqh include:

• al-Usul by Imam Abu-al-Hasan al-Karkhi (died 340 AH)
• al-Usul by Imam Ahmad bin Ali known as Al-Jassas (died 370 A.H.)
• al-Usul by Imam Ubaid Allah bin Umar the Judge Abu-Zayd Al-Daboosi (from the areas of Samarqand in today's Uzbekistan he died 430 A.H.)
• al-Usul by Shams al-A'ima Abu-Bakr Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abi Sahl Al-Sarkhasi (died 483 A.H.)
• al-Mahsul by Imam Fakhr ul-Deen Al-Razi Al-Shafi'(died 606 AH)
• al-Mukhtasar which summarised Muntaha al-Sa'ul wa al-Amal fi ilmay al-Usul wa al-Jadal which was summarised from Al-Aamidi's Ahkam by Imam Abu-'Amr Uthman bin Umar, known as Ibn-Hajib al-Maliki (died 646 AH)
• al-Minhaj by Imam Baydawi al-Shafi'(died 685 AH)
• al-Manar by Imam Abdullah bin Ahmad Al-Nasafi (died 710 A.H.)
• Badi'al-Nitham that gathered between the books of Bazdawi and al-Ahkam, by Imaam Muthafar al-Deen Ahmad bin Ali Al-Baghdadi Al-Hanafi
• Tanqih al-Usul Imam Sadr al-Shariah,Ubaid Allah bi n Mas'ud al-Bukhari al-Hanafi, who died (747 A.H.)
• Jam'al-Juwaami' by Imam Taj al-Deen Abdul-Wahab bin Ali al-Subki al-Shafi' (died 771 A.H)
• al-Muwafaqat Imam Abu-Ishaq Ibrahim bim Musa Al-Shatibi al-Maliki (ied 780A.H.)
• al-Tahrir by Imam Kamal al-Deen Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahad known as Ibn-Humam (died 861 A.H.)
• Muslim al-Tha-boot by Imam Muhib al-Deen bin Abdul Shakoor al-Hindi (died 1119 A.H.)
• Irshad al-Fuhul li Ilm al-Usul by Mohammad bin Ali Al-Shawkani (d.1255A.H./1839 CE)
• Taheel al-Wasul ila Ilm al-Usul by Sheikh Muhammad Abdul-Raahman Eid al-Muhlawi (died 1920 CE)
• Usul al-Fiqh by Sheikh Muhammad al-Khudri (died 1927 CE)
• Usul al-Fiqh by Abdul-Wahab Khalaf (died 1955 CE)
• Usul al-Fiqh by Muhammad Abu-Zahrah (died 1974 CE)
• Al-Shaksia al-Islamia by Sheikh Taqi ud-Deen al-Nabhani (died 1977 CE)
• Al-Waseet fi Usul al-Fiqh al-Hanafia by Sheikh Ahmad Fahmi Abu-Sinnah.
• Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami by Sheikh Shakir al-Hanbali printed in 1948 in Damascus.

Adapted from Chapter of Shaksiyyah Islamiyyah (The Islamic Personality) Volume 1 by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani

Evidences about the Return of the Khilafah

The following article by a brother includes a group of authenticated Ahadith and their chains of narration regarding the return of the Khilafah, Insha’Allah. In giving glad tidings of the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah, tranquillity and ease was brought to the hearts of the believers, driving the Muslims, especially those who are working to re-establish the Islamic State, to work more seriously and with greater sincerity.

Insha’Allah, may Allah (swt) honour them with the return of the Khilafah through their efforts so that they may achieve the great reward in both worlds: a mighty victory in this world and a noble residence in the Akhirah (the afterlife).

The Salaf Al-Saalih (our pious predecessors) would understand such Ahadith, which give tidings of victory and conquest, as a motivator for them. Such Ahadith drive us to achieve this victory; yet, we cannot use them to wholly depend on while we sit doing nothing. This is how the Muslims in the past understood the hadith that gave them glad tidings in the conquest of the city of Heraclius (Constantinople). The Khulafaa and their soldiers in the past were very intent on conquering Constantinople, in order that they be among those whom Allah (swt) honoured with the conquest. Finally, however, the honour was bestowed upon the Ottoman Sultan, Muhammed Al-Fatih. Heraclius then became the capital of the Islamic State known as Islam Bol, ‘the city of Islam.’ Lather this land would be known as Istanbul.

These Ahadith gathered by our dear brother must be used as a motivator for the Muslims, to be earnest and sincere in our work to re-establish the Islamic State, so that they may also be honoured with what these Ahadith indicate of conquest and victory. Inshallah, then they to may achieve the reward in both worlds; and that is the great success.

The kind brother said:
Before going into the subject of the Khilafah, and whether it is truly coming or a dream in the minds of the pious amongst the Ummah of Muhammed (saw), it is best that we first define the Khilafah, the Hukum (ruling) regarding the appointment of a Khalifah, and the evidences to support this, in summary:

The Khilafah is a general leadership of the Muslims. It is a worldly leadership to implement the Islamic Shari’a and to carry the Da’wa to the world. Therefore, it is a public leadership and not a private one. The Khalifah is the Amir (leader) of the believers who succeeds the Messenger of Allah (saw) in implementing Islam and not in conveying it, and thus, it is a worldly leadership and not a religious one. The Khalifah does not communicate a message from Allah (swt), nor has he been personally appointed by Allah (swt), rather he is appointed by the Muslims to represent them in the implementation of Islam within Dar Al-Islam (the land ruled by Islam), and in carrying the da’wa outside it.

Appointing a Khalifah is a Fard (obligation) of sufficiency, meaning that it is required from the Muslims as a whole, and the sin is not removed unless the obligation is met fully or the work to implement it is undertaken. In other words, no one is saved from sin before the Khilafah is re-established, unless serious work that would lead to its re-establishment is undertaken. The Messenger of Allah (saw) has drawn out a method for this work when he (saw) established the Islamic State the first time, but its details are another topic.

As for the evidences regarding the obligation of this work, these come from the Qur’an, the Sunnah and Ijmaa’ Sahaba (consensus of the Companions):

First, let us look to the evidences in the Qur’an. In doing this, we shall examine the following ayat:
“And rule between them with what Allah has revealed” [TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 48].
“But no, by your Lord, they do not believe until they make you judge between them in all their disputes” [TMQ An-Nisa’: 65] “And hold fast, all together, by the Rope of Allah and be not divided among yourselves” [TMQ Al-‘Imran: 103].

The first ayah addresses the Messenger of Allah (saw). An address to him (saw) is an address to his Ummah, unless there is an evidence to make it specific to him (saw); and, the rule by what Allah (swt) has revealed cannot be performed except by the ruler. Similarly, the second ayah, also cannot be fulfilled except by the ruler, and what is necessary to complete an obligation, is in itself an obligation. As for the third ayah, Allah (swt) orders us to be one Jama’a (group) and forbids us from separation. Since the Jama’a cannot be achieved except with the existence of a Khalifah, as is understood from all the evidences regarding the Jama’a, this makes appointing a Khalifah an obligation, based on the previously mentioned principle.
Secondly, let us look to the evidence in the Messenger’s (saw) Sunnah. Abdullah b. ‘Umar (ra) said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw): “Whosoever removes his hand from the obedience of Allah will meet Allah on the Day of Resurrection with no excuse for him, and whoever dies without a Bay’ah (pledgeof allegiance) on his neck, has died a death of Jahiliyyah (the days of Ignorance)” [Muslim].

The obligation imposed by this hadith is that every Muslim must have a Bay’ah on his neck, not that each Muslim must give the Khalifah the Bay’ah personally; rather, it is the existence of the Khalifah that establishes the Bay’ah upon every Muslims neck, whether he gave the Bay’ah personally or not. Therefore, the hadith is an evidence for the obligation of appointing a Khalifah, as the Bay’ah is not to be given to anyone but him. It was also narrated by Muslim, from the hadith of Abu Hurairah (ra), who said he heard the Prophet (saw): “The Imam is a shield; you fight from behind him and you seek protection with him.” This is a notification with the intent of an order; in other words, it informs us that the Imam is a Shield, but also makes it an obligation for this to exist. It was narrated by Imam Ahmad, Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Nisaa’i and Al-Tayalasi from the Hadith of Al-Harith Al-Ash’ari: “…and I order you five (things) that Allah has ordered me to do: to (stay with) the Jama’a, to listen and to obey, to emigrate (to Dar Al-Islam) and to perform Jihad for the sake of Allah; for whoever leaves the Jama’a, even the measure of an inch, has removed the rope of Islam from around his neck, unless he returns…” The Jama’a cannot be achieved except by having one man as the Imam, as is narrated in the hadith of Huthayfah, narrated by Muslim. In this hadith, the Prophet (saw) was recorded, “You keep to the Jama’a of the Muslims and their Imam…” This is further corroborated by a hadith by ‘Arfajah, narrated by Muslim, “Whoever comes to you while you are united upon one man, and wishes to sow dissension amongst you or break your unity, kill him.” In another hadith, the hadith of Fadhaalah b. ‘Ubayd, narrated by Ahmad and Al-Bayhaqi: “Three (people), do not ask of them: a man who abandoned the Jama’a, and disobeyed him Imam and died in (that state of) disobedience…” Thus, the Messenger of Allah (saw) orders us to have a Jama’a and clarifies that this cannot be achieved except by having one man as the Imam. Since the Jama’a cannot be achieved except by having an Imam, appointing one becomes an obligation based on the principle: what is necessary to complete an obligation is in itself an obligation.

Third we shall look to evidences from the Ijmaa’ (consensus). The Companions (ra) have established a consensus regarding the appointing of a Khalifah within three days, and there is no need for further detail in this area. Therefore, the work to re-establish the Khilafah is an obligation, and through it all other obligations are implemented. Whether the Khilafah is re-established or not has nothing to do with it being an obligation, nor is it permissible for the one upon whom the obligation falls to use the knowledge of Allah (swt) and His (swt) decree as an excuse to sit and not undertake this obligation. Just like one who has an obligation to support someone financially but does not possess the necessary funds to do so, it becomes obligatory upon him to work to attain the funds. Evidence for this may be found in the hadith, “It is enough of a sin for a person to neglect his family (under his care) or those who need financial support (who are his responsibility).” Thus, it is not permissible to sit idle, not seeking money and financial gain, based on the excuse that Allah (swt) will give one sustenance.

Victory is through the re-establishment of the Khilafah, and sustenance is in the hands of Allah (swt). Allah (swt) is the One who gives victory and sustenance, and this has nothing to do with the slave of Allah (swt). It is the slave’s duty to work to attain the necessary sustenance to meet the obligatory expenditures and undertake the necessary work to re-establish the Khilafah. Allah (swt) has not placed a burden upon us that we cannot bare. The fact that America and many other countries are powerful does not give us an excuse to sit idle, for as long as we are obligated to work, we must continue to work. Allah (swt) will take care of the victory.
Allah (swt), having revealed some of His (swt) knowledge of this issue through definite evidences that prove that the Khilafah will return, gave us hope for the impending justice. This knowledge should increase our Iman, determination and seriousness in our work, for the narrations have become Mutawaatir in meaning, which leaves no room for doubt, or to sit idle.

The following are the evidences of this:

Firstly: The hadith of the Khilafah on the way of the Prophet It was narrated by Ahmed in his Musnad, from Al-Nu’man b. Bashir, who said: “We were sitting in the mosque of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and Bashir was a man who did not speak much, so Abu Tha’labah Al-Khashnee came and said: ‘Oh, Bashir bin Sa’ad, have you memorised the words of the Messenger of Allah (saw) regarding the rulers?’ Huthayfah replied, ‘I have memorised his words’. So Abu Tha’labah sat down and Huthayfah said, ‘The Messenger of Allah (saw) said ‘Prophethood will be amongst you whatever Allah wishes it to be, then He will lift it up if He wished to lift it up. Then there will be a Khilafah on the way of the Prophet, and it will be whatever Allah wishes it to be, then He will lift it up if Allah wished to lift it up. Then there will be an inheritance rule, and it will be whatever Allah wishes it to be, then He will lift it up if He wished to lift it up. Then there will be a coercive rule, and it will be whatever Allah wishes it to be, then He will lift it up if He wished to lift it up. Then there will be a Khilafah on the way of Prophethood.’ Then he was silent.”

Secondly: The hadith regarding the entering of Islam into every home on the face of the Earth

It was narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad, from Tameem Al-Daari, who said that he heard the Prophet (saw) say: “Verily, this matter (Islam) will reach where day and night have reached, and it will not leave a house of Madar (mud or clay) or a house of Wabar (fur of camels and goats, i.e. tents) except Allah will bring it into this Deen, (either) with the honour of an honoured one, or the disgrace of a disgraced one; honour with which Allah honours Islam, and disgrace with which Allah disgraces Kufr.” Al-Haithami said: This was narrated by Ahmad and Al-Tabarani, and the men of the narration of Ahmad are the men of authentic Ahadith.
This hadith was also narrated by Al-Haakim in Al-Mustadrik, who declared it Sahih (authentic) according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim). Al- Haakim’s Al-Mustadrik is a work of Sahih Ahadith that met the conditions of both Bukhari and Muslim with regards to Ahadith. The Ahadith in discussion, was, however, omitted from both of their works.

It was also narrated by Al-Haakim in Al-Mustadrik, on the authority of Al-Miqdad b. Al-Aswad Al-Kindi (ra), who said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: “There will not be one house on the face of the earth, made of either Madar or Wabar (meaning all homes), except Allah will bring the word of Islam upon them, (either) with the honour of an honoured one, or the disgrace of a disgraced one; Where Allah will honour them and make them of its people, or He will disgrace them and they will not submit to it.” Al-Haakim declared this hadith to be Sahih according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs.

This hadith was also narrated by Al-Baihaqi in his book: “Al-Sunan Al-Kubrah.” In this narration, however, the end of it reads: “…or He will disgrace them and they will submit to its authority.”

This hadith by Al-Miqdad was also narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad, as well as Al-Tabarani in his book “Al-Kabeer.” Al-Haythami said that the men of the narration of Al-Tabarani are the men of authentic Ahadith. It was also narrated by Ibn Habban in his book of authentic Ahadith.

It was also narrated by Al-Haakim, from the Hadith of Abi Tha’labah Al-Khashni, who said: “When the Messenger of Allah (saw) would return from a battle or travel, he would first come to the mosque and pray two Rakahs, then he (saw) would go to his daughter Fatimah (ra), then he (saw) would go to his wives (ra). So after he (saw) returned, he left the mosque and was met by his daughter Fatimah (ra) at the door of his (saw) home, and she began kissing his mouth while her eyes cried, so he (saw) said to her: ‘My daughter, what makes you cry?’ She replied: ‘Oh, Messenger of Allah, it is because I see you all ruffled and exhausted, and your clothing are all worn out!’ He said: ‘Do not cry, for Allah, Azza Wa Jall, has sent your father with a matter that not one house made of Madar or Sha’ar (fur, i.e. tents), will be left on the face of the earth, except Allah will enter them into it, with honour or disgrace, until it reaches where night has reached.’” According to Al-Haakim, this hadith has a Sahih chain of narration, and it was not narrated by the two Shaykhs.

This hadith by Abi Tha’labah was also narrated by Al-Tabarani in ‘Musnad Al-Shamiyeen.’

The above hadith was narrated by three of the Sahaba (the companions of the Prophet (saw)), to at least three of the Tabi’een (those who followed the Sahaba, but did not meet the Prophet (saw)), to at least nine of the Tabi’ Tabi’een (those who followed the Tabi’een, but did not meet the Sahaba). It conveys information regarding the entering of Islam into every house on the face of the earth. Most of Western Europe has not entered into Islam, neither have the Americas, Australia, nor much of Africa. The meaning of the entering of Islam into every house in the hadith was interpreted as either becoming Muslim, or submitting to its authority. Their submission cannot be achieved except by ruling over them.

All the narrations speak of submission to Islam, except one hadith narrated by Al-Haakim. This hadith can be understood that they will not submit to the belief in Islam, but they will be degraded by paying the Jizyah and by submitting to its ruling authority. Thus, it does not have the same context as the other narrations. Furthermore, submission to the rule of Islam necessitates the existence of the Islamic State; therefore, the hadith indicates that the Islamic State is coming, and that it will bring the whole of the earth under its authority.

Thirdly: The Hadith of the hanging papers

It was narrated by Al-Haakim, in Al-Mustadrik, on the authority of ‘Umar (ra), who said that while sitting with the Prophet (saw), he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: “Do you know whom amongst the believers have the best Iman? He replied, ‘the angels, oh Messenger of Allah?’ The reply came, ‘They are so, and they have the right to be so, for what stops them when Allah has given them such a status that He has given them; but it is other than them.’ He then said, ‘Then it is the prophets whom Allah (swt) has honoured with prophethood and the message. The reply came, ‘They are so, and they have the right to be so, for what stops them when Allah has given them such a status that He has given them; but it is other than them.’ ‘Then who are they, oh Messenger of Allah?’ The answer came, ‘They are Aqwaam (groups of people) that come after me, in the loins of men (meaning that they have not been born yet); so they believe in me, (even though) they have never seen me, and they find the hanging papers, so they work according to what is in it; they are the best of the believers in Iman.’” According to Al-Haakim this hadith has a Sahih chain of narration, and was not narrated by the two Shaykhs.

It was narrated by Al-Bazzar, on the authority of ‘Umar (ra), “…they are the very best of creation in status and the very best of creation in Iman with Allah on the Day of Resurrection.”

This hadith was narrated by at least three Tabi’ Tabi’een, from three Tabi’een, from one of the Sahaba. It indicates that the Khilafah State will return after it has been destroyed. This indication lies in the words: “…so they work according to what is in it.” In the Arabic language, the word ‘Maa’ (in English: ‘what’) indicates generality (i.e. everything). This includes all the duties of an individual, such as Salat, fasting, carrying out the duties of the state, carrying the da’wa, forming treaties and implementing all the Ahkam that Allah (swt) has made the responsibility of the State. As for the indication that this will be after the destruction of the Islamic State, this comes from the words: “…and they find the hanging papers.” The hanging papers (Al-Waraq Al-Mu’allaq) include the Qur’an and the Sunnah. These papers existed during the time of the Sahaba (ra). Generally, these were Ayat written down and hung in homes. They were also hung in homes in the generations that followed the Sahaba, so what is the difference between them and us? The difference, and Allah (swt) knows best, is that they found the hanging papers and found the State which implements it, whereas we found nothing but the hanging papers, and did not find the State, so we worked to re-establish it and will work according to what the papers say when it returns, Insha’Allah (swt). Here, the meaning of the hadith becomes: ‘…and they find the hanging papers abandoned, so they begin to work according to it completely.’ In other words, the hanging papers were not implemented, so worked to implement it. The Believers will put the words of the hanging papers into practice.

There is an important point that must be clarified in this hadith, which is that these groups of people are not better than the angels and prophets. The Messenger of Allah (saw), when he spoke of the angels and the prophets used the words: “They are so.” This choice of words implies that they are the best of the believers in Iman, for it is clear to see that they are so, and such a question is unnecessary. The ones who should be asked about are those who are not given this status, rather the level of their Iman is what makes them deserving of this status that Allah (swt) has given them. These groups of people are the best of the believers in Iman, other than the angels and the prophets. Furthermore, their status as the best of the believers in Iman, however, does not make them better than the Sahaba. This is because their status is limited to their Iman and is not an unrestricted superiority. This is made clear by the Prophet (saw) mentioning: “…in Iman.” As superiority can be in Iman, Taqwa or actions, these groups of people are superior in Iman due to their believing in the hanging papers without ever seeing a prophet, revelation or a State. Thus, their status is restricted to this specific characteristic. If we were to gather all areas of superiority that a Muslim can be characterised with, i.e. superiority in general, we would find that the Sahaba are better than them, without argument.

Fourth: The hadith of the coming of the Khilafah to the land of Al-Quds

It was narrated by Abu Dawud, on the authority of Ibn Zughb Al-Ayadi, who said that Ali Abdullah b. Hawalah Al-Azdi came to him and said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) sent us to seek booty on foot, so we returned and did not find anything, and he (saw) could see the exhaustion in our faces, so he stood up and said: ‘Oh Allah, do not leave them for me, where I would be too weak for them, and do not leave them to themselves, where they would be too weak for themselves, and do not leave them for the people, where they would keep (the good) from them, keeping it for themselves.’ Then he (saw) placed his hand on my head…” (or he said: “…on my forehead): ‘Oh, Ibn Hawalah, if you see that the Khilafah has come to the sacred land (Al-Quds), then the earthquakes, the troubles, and the great happenings have come, and the hour on that day is nearer to the people than my hand here on your head.’”
Al-Haakim also narrated this hadith on the authority of Ibn Zughb Al-Ibaadi. He declared that this hadith has an authentic chain of narrators, and it was not narrated by the two Shaykhs. Ahmad narrated it with the same Isnad (chain of narrators) as Al-Haakim.

If Ibn Zughb is Abdullah, then he is one of the Sahaba, and if he is Abdul-Rahman, then he is one of the Tabi’een. Therefore, this hadith was narrated by two Sahaba if he is the first (Abdullah), or one of the Sahaba if he is the second (Abdul-Rahman); and one of the Tabi’een if he is the first, or two of the Tabi’een if he is the second; and three Tabi’ Tabi’een in both cases.

This hadith indicates that the Khilafah will come to the land of Al-Quds. It cannot be said that the Khilafah came to it during the Khilafah of ‘Umar (ra), because the earthquakes, troubles and tumultuous events did not come at that time. This means that there will be a second coming of the Khilafah in which these events will follow.

Fifth: The hadith regarding the ‘Uqr (origin) of the land of the believers (Dar Al-Islam) being in€ Al-Shaam

It was narrated by Ibn Habban in his book of Sahih Ahadith, that Al-Shaam (the region which covers Jordan, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and part of Iraq) will be the base of the land of the believers at the end of time. On the authority of Al-Nawas b. Sam’aan, who said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say, “…and the ‘Uqr (natural origin) of the land of the believers is Al-Shaam.”

It was also narrated by Ahmad from the hadith by Salamah b. Nufayl, “…verily, the ‘Uqr of the land of the believers is Al-Shaam…”

Furthermore, it was narrated by Al-Tabarani, in ‘Al-Kabeer,’ on the authority of Salamah b. Nufayl: “The ‘Uqr of Dar Al-Islam is in Al-Shaam.” According to Al-Haythami, this was narrated by Al-Tabarani, and his men (chain of narration) are trustworthy.

This hadith was narrated by five Tabi’ Tabi’een, from two Tabi’een, from two of the Sahaba. Due to the nature of the definite truthfulness of the speaker (the Messenger of Allah (saw)), this hadith is with regards to the second ‘Uqr of Dar Al-Islam, and not the ‘Uqr of the first, for the meaning of the ‘Uqr of the land is its centre and origin, and the ‘Uqr of the first Islamic State was in Al-Madina Al-Munawwarah; therefore, this means that what is meant here is the ‘Uqr of the second Islamic State.

Sixth: The hadith of justice and injustice It was narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad, on the authority of Mu’qal b. Yassaar: “Injustice will not remain dormant after me for long before it comes out; where every time something of injustice comes out, the same amount of justice disappears, until (people) will be born into (a world of) injustice who know nothing other than it. Then Allah (swt) will come with justice, where every time something of justice comes, the same amount of injustice disappears, until (people) will be born into (a world of) justice who know nothing other than it.”

Al-Shafi’i said in ‘Akham Al-Qur’an’ in the Tafseer of the following ayah means ‘to abide by His revealed legislation”:
“That you judge with justice” [TMQ An-Nisa’: 58].

This hadith was narrated by one Tabi’ Tabi’een, from two Tabi’een from one of the Sahaba. It indicates that there will come a time when the people will rule by Islam alone, after going through a period of ruling by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed. We have seen people born into this world who know of nothing but injustice, and Allah (swt) will soon come with justice, the Islamic State. Only then can the legislation revealed by Allah (swt) be implemented, and it will be untouched by foreign influences.

It is incorrect to say that justice will come gradually. It would be incorrect to say that there will be a time where people will rule with a mix of justice and injustice, then afterwards justice would be freed of all injustice and become pure. This is incorrect because justice cannot be combined with injustice, nor can it then be called ‘justice’. The ruler who seizes all public property but cuts the hand of the thief, is not a just ruler. The ruler that allows the existence of Islamic groups that calls to individual acts of worship and prints books on Islamic culture, but forbids the existence of political Islamic groups, is also not just. Neither is the ruler who buys weapons from foreign Kafir countries and forbids its production domestically just. Likewise, the ruler who encourages reviving dead land by permitting interest-based loans is also unjust. Furthermore, any ruler who permits free mixing between the sexes while permitting the seclusion of men and women, but implements the Hadd (prescribed punishment) for fornication, is unjust. Therefore, justice can come gradually to different places on earth, but cannot enter into its description and laws. Hence, every time a region is added to the State, justice is brought to it and injustice is removed.
Seventh: The hadith of the location of the Hijra of Ibrahim, and the Hijrah after the Hijrah
It was narrated by Abu Dawud in ‘Al-Sunan’, on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Amr (ra): “There will be a Hijrah after a Hijrah, so the best people on earth are those who keep to the (land of the) Hijrah of Ibrahim (i.e. Al-Shaam).”

This Hadith was also narrated by Al-Haakim, who said that it is Sahih according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs, and they have not narrated it. On the authority of Musa b. Ali b. Rabah, who said: I heard my father say: ‘…Abu Hurairah said, I was told by Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. Al-‘Aas (ra): I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say…’ and he mentioned the hadith.

It was also narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad, on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Amr, and said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say…’ and he mentioned the hadith. This hadith was narrated by at least five Tabi’ Tabi’een, from three Tabi’een, from two Sahaba. It indicates that there will be a Hijrah (emigration) to Al-Shaam after the Hijrah to Al-Madina. The purpose of Hijrah is to leave Dar Al-Kufr (land ruled by Kufr) and to emigrate to Dar Al-Islam (land ruled by Islam). The first emigration was to Al-Madina, and the second emigration will be to Al-Shaam. This understanding supports the hadith regarding the ‘Uqr of Dar Al-Islam.

Eighth: The hadith regarding the strangers, who separate away from their tribes
It was narrated by Muslim in his book of Sahih Ahadith, on the authority of Abu Hurairah (ra): “Islam began as a stranger and it will return as a stranger, so, blessed are the strangers.”

Ibn Majah, also narrated this hadith on the authority of Anas b. Malik (ra) of the Messenger of Allah (saw), who said…then he mentioned the hadith.

In the narration by Ibn Majah, from Abi Al-Ahwas, from Abdullah: “Islam began as a stranger and it will return as a stranger, so, blessed are the strangers. It was asked: And who are the strangers? He replied: Those who separate away from the tribes.”

In the narration of Ibn Majah also, on the authority of Abu Hurairah (ra), who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said…then he mentioned the hadith.

It was also narrated by Al-Tirmidhi from two different chains of narration, and said that they are Hasan Sahih:

The first: From Abi Al-Ahwas, from Abdullah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said…and mentioned the hadith; and in the same section from Sa’ad, and Ibn ‘Umar, and Jaber, and Anas, and Abdullah b. ‘Amr.

The second: On the authority of Katheer b. Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. ‘Awf b. Zayd b. Malha (ra), from his father (ra), from his grandfather (ra): “The Deen will slither its way to Al-Hijaz (region surrounding Makkah and Al-Madinah) the same as the snake slithers its way to its burrow; and the Deen will be linked to Al-Hijaz, the same as mountain goats are linked to the top of the mountain (i.e. place of return).”

This hadith was also narrated by Ahmad, from Abu Hurairah, of the Messenger of Allah(saw)…and mentioned the hadith.

The chains of narration of the above Ahadith include seven of the Sahaba, from nine of the Tabi’een, from nine of the Tabi’ Tabi’een. This hadith gives the news that Islam will come back, returning the same way it came the first time. The return of Islam means the return of its state.

In conclusion, the news of the coming of the Islamic State and its return has become Mutawaatir (firmly established due to recurring narrations). At least 25 of the Sahaba narrated to 39 Tabi’een, who narrated to 62 of the Tabi’ Tabi’een. This overrules the possibility of them conspiring to lie, and thus Tawaatur of the subject is established. There are other Ahadith and narrations in this section that do not need to be mentioned, which confirm the Tawaatur of this matter. These include narrations by Al-Haakim, which have been classified as Sahih. Of these is the narration from Abi Shareeh: “…I have heard those who say that they will be twelve banners, and under each banner twelve thousand (men), and the Muslims will gather to their comrade (or Imam) in Bait-ul-Maqdis (Al-Quds).” There are also others narrated by Ibn ‘Asaakir, which I did not include, from Maseerah b. Jaleese, where he heard the Prophet (saw): “This matter (the Khilafah) will continue after me in Al-Madina, then (move to) Al-Shaam, then to the peninsula, then to Iraq, then to the city, then to Bait-ul-Maqdis. So if it reaches Bait-ul-Maqdis, then it would have reached its (natural resting place); and no people who remove it (i.e. the capital of the Khilafah) from their land will ever get it back again (for them to be the capital again).” I believe that what he (saw) meant by ‘the city’ is the city of Heraclius. In addition there are others from Ibn ‘Asaakir, from Abdul Rahman b. Abi ‘Umayrah Al-Muzni, who said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw): “There will be, in Bait-ul-Maqdis, a (rightly guided) Bay’a.” Furthermore, there are other narrations by Al-Haakim such as the hadith from Abu Hurairah (ra), who said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw): “If the fierce battles take place, a delegation of supporters will come out of Damascus who are the best of the Arabs in riding and the most skilled in weaponry, and Allah will assist the Deen through them.”

It was narrated by Al-Haakim, and classified as Sahih, the narration of Abdullah b. ‘Amr, who said: “There will come a time when there will not be one believer left, but will rush to Al-Shaam.”

Hence, the happy one is he who begins to work with those working to re-establish the state by putting in sincere effort for the sake of Allah (swt). He does this work so that Allah (swt) may accept his actions and make him of the strangers who separate away from their tribes, whom Allah (swt) employs to serve this Deen. Miserable is the one who helps the Kuffar and the hypocrites in their work to obstruct the path of this Deen. Truly the loser is the one who follows his vain desires and stands watching, waiting to see to whom the tables will turn to next.

Received from A.A.

Did Khilafah only exist for 30 years?

Question: The need for Khilafah has become well established and many Muslims now call for it. However, some people claim that the Khilafah only lasted for 30 years and that thereafter the Khilafah ceased to exist. Does this understanding have any Islamic basis? And is it a valid justification for not establishing Khilafah today just because it only lasted 30 years?

Answer: There is no doubt that the Islamic State, which Muhammad al-Mustafa (as) established in Madinah existed until it was destroyed at the hands of Kamal Ataturk on the 3rd of March 1924. The continuity of the Islamic ruling system, the Khilafah system, beyond the time of the Khulafah Rashideen is established by historical reality and by the text. As for history we should bear in mind the structure of the ruling system so that we can asses historically whether if it existed or not. This structure is based on the following pillars: the Khaleefah, i.e., the head of State, the Khaleefah's delegated assistants (mo'aawin Tafweed), the Khaleefah’s executing assistants (mo'aawen Tanfeez), the Ameer of Jihad, the Governors (Wulah), the Judges (qudah)), state departments, and the state assembly (Majlis al-Ummah). If we analyze history we can see that all but one (the Shura) existed throughout the eras until its destruction in 1924. The absence or neglect of the Shura after the Khulafa Rashidun does not mean the ruling system changed because ruling is possible without Shura even though it is the right of the Muslims. As for the periods in history where no khaleefah existed whether due to civil war or occupation by foreign armies, the Khilafah still continued to exist as the rest of the stricture still existed. As regards the claim of hereditary rule, it is true that the bay’ah i.e. process of appointing a Khaleefah, was mal-administered but that did not affect the continuity of the Khilafah. This is because even though a Khaleefah might have taken the people’s bay’ah for his son before his death, it was always renewed afterwards. This bay’ah was usually given either by the people of influence and representation (ahl al-Halli wal- ‘aqd) or as we saw in the latter period by the Shaykh al-Islam.

The scholars accepted that the Khilafah continued after the Khulafah Rashidun, although some from the Salaf disliked to use the title Khaleefah for later rulers because of the following hadith reported by at-Tirmizi on the authority of Safeenah who said that the Messenger (saw) said: “The Khilafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be Mulkan ‘aduudan (hereditary rule) after that.” [Similar narrations are also to be found in the Sunan of Abu Dawud (2/264) and Musnad of Ahmad (1/169)] According to the scholars, this hadith does not mean the Khilafah ceased to exist after thirty years because it contradicts other authentic texts.

Jabir b. Samurah (ra) narrated that the Messenger (saw) said ‘The Islamic Deen will continue until the Hour has been established, or you have been ruled by twelve Khulafah, all of them being from the Quraish’ [Sahih Muslim]. This hadith indicates that the Ummah will have not four or five but twelve Khaleefah, indicating that the Khilafah could not have been restricted to only thirty years. Regarding this hadith Qadi ‘Iyad said: ‘…it has been mentioned in the latter hadith ‘The Khilafah after me will be for thirty years, then there will be a hereditary rule’ this contradicts the hadith regarding the twelve Khaleefah for in the thirty years there were only the Khulafah Rashidun and months in which the bay’ah was given to al-Hasan b. al-Ali. The answer to this is: What is meant by ‘the Khilafah will be for thirty years’ is the Khilafah of the Nubuwwah (prophethood)…’ [As quoted by an-Nawawi in his Sharh Sahih Muslim, 1821]

As for the reference to twelve Khulafah it does not mean it was restricted to that number as Qadi ‘Iyad explains: ‘Perhaps what is meant by twelve Khaleefahs in these hadiths and their like is that they were the Khulafah during the strong period of the Khilafah, the power of Islam, when the affairs were in order and the people were united on those who undertook the post of Khilafah.’ [Tarikh al-Khulafah of as-Sayuti, p.14].

Ibn Hajar said in sharh of al-Bukhari: ‘What Qadi ‘Iyad said is the best of what ash been said regarding the hadith I think it’s the strongest because it is supported by sayings of the Prophet through authentic lines of transmission: ‘And people will gather round all of them…’ [Fath al-Baari] and then Ibn Hajar gives a historical account of how people had gathered round and united under certain Khulafah after the Khulafah Rashidun; he mentions the likes of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz and he even mentions “khulafa bani Abbas” i.e. amongst the Abbasids.

Sayf ad-Deen al-Aamidi, the great Shafi’I scholar and Usuli, said in his book al-Imaamah min abkar al-afkar fi usul ad-din (p.306): ‘And his (saw) saying ‘After me the Khilafah will be for thirty years and then it will turn into a mulkan adooda (hereditary kingship)’ this hadith does not indicate that the Khilafah is restricted to the Khulafah Rashideen (they are Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali [may Allah be pleased with them]) since their Khilafah lasted for thirty years as stated by the Prophet (saw). And nor does the hadith mean that there is no Khilafah after the Khulafah Rashideen. Rather what is meant is: The Khilafah after me in terms of the responsibilities of the Imaamah and following my Sunnah without increase or neglect will be for thirty years, contrary to the period after this when most of the ruling will be of kings. Despite this the continuity of the Khilafah is indicated by the following two things:

The first: The Ijma’ of the Ummah in every age on the obligation to follow an Imam of that time and upon the fact that the Imaam and Khaleefah must be obeyed.

Second: He (saw) said: ‘then it will become (taseer) a mulkan’. The personal pronoun (dameer) in ‘taseeru milkan’ refers to the Khilafah. Since the mentioned (verb) cannot refer to anything other than the Khilafah, as if it is saying ‘and then the Khilafah becomes a mulk’ It judged that the Khilafah will becomes a mulk, the judgment on a thing requires that the thing itself exists.’ In the first point Imaam Amidi explains that the Ummah is agreed, and this of course is due to text, that the Imaam of that age must be followed and hence one cannot argue the hadith is restricting any Khilafah after it. And his second argument is linguistic, the hadith is saying an aspect of the Khilafah will change and not the Khilafah itself. It is like saying ‘and then Tariq became angry’ the transforming of Tariq to a state of anger does not mean Tariq has become Ali or ‘Umar. He is still Tariq but an aspect of his state has changed which is that he has become angry. Similarly when the hadith says ‘thumma taseeru mulkan’ (and then it became a hereditary rule’ it does not mean it ceases to be a Khilafah. In fact in one of the narrations of the above hadith says: ‘The Khilafah of the Prophethood will be thirty years and then it will become a kingship,’ In other words what will cease is the Khilafah of the prophethood, i.e. the perfect Khilafah and not the Khilafah itself.

Imaam at-Taftazani referring to the fact that the rulers after Imam ‘Ali were considered kings says: ‘This is a difficult problem, for the people of influence and representation (ahl halli wal ‘aqd) of the Muslim people were agreed on the Khilafah of the Abbasids and some of Banu Marwan, such as ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-Aziz, for example. Perhaps the meaning here (referring to the above hadith that the Khilafah will be thirty years) is rather that the perfect Khilafah, in which there is no dross due to difference [of opinion] or inclination away from following [the right Khaleefah], will be for a period of thirty years, and then after it there might be or there might not be a Khilafah...If objection is made that since the period of the Khilafah was thirty years, then the time subsequent to the rightly guided Khalifahs is devoid of the Imaam and whole of the Muslim people are thus disobedient an when they die, they die as in the days of ignorance, we reply that it has already been pointed out that the perfect Khilafah is what is meant.’ It is well known from the hadith that to die without a Khaleefah is to die the death of Jahiliyyah, so what about the Muslims after the thirty years? At-Taftazani replies by saying the Muslims in those days were not sinful because the Khilafah did exist as the hadith only refers to the perfect Khilafah.

Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (b.911 AH) in his Tarikh al-Khulafah (History of the Caliphs) recounts history of the Khulafah until his time with the death Khalifah Mutawakkil Abul ‘Izz in 903 AH and the appointment of his son al-Mustamsik Billah. He says in his introduction to the Tarikh: ‘This is a brief history in which I present the biography of the Khulafah, the Amirs of the Believers who looked after the affaires of the Ummah from the time of Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq – may Allah be pleased with him! – until this our time…’ and that was 900 years after the Hijrah!

The notable scholars throughout the ages had a relationship with the Khulafah, whether they accounted them, such as Abu Hanifah and al-Mansur, or they worked for them such as Qadi Abu Yusuf who was the Qadi al-Qudah (chief judge) under Harun ar-Rashid or they participated in the bay’ah of a Khaleefah such as ‘Izz b. Abd as-Salam, who gave bay’ah to Mustansir Billah after the defeat of the Tatars.

Towards the end of the Uthmani Khilafah when the big powers were conspiring against it, Sheikh ul Hind Maulana Mahmood Hassan (who was the then head of Darul Uloom Deoband and direct student of Maulana Qasim Nanautavi, the founding father of the Darul 'Uloom) in the 1920's,mentioned a fatwa regarding saving the Uthmani Khilafah from the enemies of Islam.

The respected Maulana said: ‘The enemies of Islam have left no stone unturned to strike against and harm the honor and prestige of Islam. Iraq, Palestine and Syria that were won over by the Prophet's companions and his followers, after in numerous sacrifices, have once again become targets of greed of the enemy of Islam. The honor of Khilafat is in tatters. Khalifa-tul-Muslimin, who used to unite the entire community on this planet; who is the 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 used to preserve and ensure the glory of the words of the Creator of this universe be preserved and implemented, has been surrounded by enemies and made redundant.’ [From the Fatwa of Sheikh ul Hind Maulana Mahmood Hassan, 16th Safar 1339 AH, October 29 1920 CE, page 78 of English translation of 'The Prisoners of Malta' by Maulana Syed Mohammad Mian, published by Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind]

Also, Maulana Mohammad Ali Johar, a founder of the Khilafat movement said about the Khilafah: 'The ruler of Turkey was the Khaleefah or successor of the Prophet and Amir -ul- Mu'mineen or chief of the believers and the Khilafah is as essentially our religious concern as the Quran or the Sunnah of the Prophet.' [Johar, Mohammed Ali, My Life a Fragment pg.41] Also Maulana Abul Kalam Azad wrote a book in 1920 called 'The Issue of Khilafat', where he stated: 'Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this.' In that book he listed all of the Khulafah from the time of Abu Bakr (ra) until the time when he wrote his book. Thus, we can see the 'Ulema were concerned to ensure the continuation of the Khilafah until the very end.

The continuity of the obligation of Khilafah after the Khulafah Rashideen is a pillar of Ahl as-Sunnah and hence at-Taftazaani (who incidentally was a Shafi’i scholar) in his commentary (sharh) of the Aqeedah of Imam an-Nasafi (who was a Hanafi) said: ‘The position of agreement is that it is obligatory to appoint an Imam. The difference of opinion is on the question whether the appointment must be by Allah or by His creatures, and whether the basis [for appointment] is text or reason. The correct position is that the creatures must appoint a Khaleefah because of the statement of the Prophet (saw): ‘Whosoever dies without knowing the Imam of his time, dies the death of Jahiliyyah.’

At-Taftazani also says: ‘The Muslims must have an Imaam, who will carry out the administration of their decisions, the maintaining of their restrictive ordinances, the guarding of their frontiers, the equipping of their armies, the receiving of their alms, the subjugation of those who get the upper hand and robbers and highwaymen, the performance of worship on Fridays and the Festivals, the settlement of disputes which take place amongst creatures, the receiving of evidence based on legal rights, the giving in marriage of young men and maidens who have no guardians, and the division of the booty and things like these which individuals of the people are not entrusted.’ [Sharh ‘Aqidat an-Nasafiyyah, p.147] What Imaam at-Taftazani says is considered the last word on what Ahl as-Sunnah agreed and the above quote on the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah is clear regardless of ones historical interpretation.

By Kamal Abu Zahra

Clear Evidences for the Obligation of the Khilafah

After reading this who has an excuse for not working for the Khilafah?

Evidences for the Obligation of the Khilafah

Islam has been reduced to merely a state "religion" and Secularism is hailed as the states Ideology. The Kuffar succeeded in divorcing our system, the Khilafah, from our lives.

"We must put an end to anything which brings about any Islamic unity between the sons of the Muslims. As we have already succeeded in finishing off the Khilafah, so we must ensure that there will never arise again unity for the Muslims, whether it be intellectual or cultural unity"
The British Foreign Minister addressing the British Prime Minister shortly before World War II.

"The situation now is that Turkey is dead and will never rise again, because we have destroyed it's moral strength, the Khilafah and Islam" Lord Curzon, British Foreign Minister, infront of the House of Commons after the Lausanne Treaty of July 24th 1924.

Is it any wonder, then, that Muslims today don't even know about their true ruling system? That they've never even heard the word Khilafah uttered in any discussion related to their revival? The British have succeeded in "educating" us to such an extent that we run towards their system and rush to abandon our Deen. So what is this Khilafah? Why is it so vital for Islam?

The mechanism through which we live Islam is the Khilafah ruling system. This is the same Khilafah ruling system that the Khulafa Rashideen implemented and the same one which existed right up until 3rd March, 1924, when it was destroyed by the British agent and traitor, Mustafah Kemal. 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" (Musnad of Imam Ahmed)


In the Glorious Qur'an:

Allah (SWT) says in the translation of the meaning of the Qur'an ul-Kareem (TMQ):

1. "But no, by your Lord, they will not have Eeman until they make you (O Prophet) rule between them in that wich they dispute, and they find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction" (TMQ 4:65).

2. "Indeed, we have revealed to you the book with the truth so that you may rule between mankind by that which Allah has shown you" (TMQ 4:105).

3. "So rule between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you" (TMQ 4:49).

4. "Whosoever does not rule by that which Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers (Kafiroon).....the thaalimoon (oppressors)....the fasiqoon (evil doers)"
(TMQ 4. 5:44-47)

These ayaat(versus) of Qur'an, and many others, prove beyond doubt the obligation of ruling by what Allah has revealed. The first one in particular refers to the Muslims directly by stating that we have no real Imaan (belief) until we make them judge between us by Allah's revelation. This is an indication of the obligation for all Muslims to establish Allah's ruling system.

In the Ahadeeth of our beloved Prophet (saw):

1: Imam Muslim narrated from Abu Hazim who said:
I was with Abu Hurairah for five years and I heard him narrate from the Prophet (SAW) that he said: "The Prophets used to rule Bani Israel. Whenever a prophet died another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophets after me; instead there will be Khulafaa' (Khalifahs) and they will number many". They asked: what then do you order us? He said: "fulfil allegiance to them one after the other. Give them their dues. Verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with".

This Hadeeth is a clear statement of the fact that the form of government in Islam, after the Prophet (SAW) is the Khilafah, and not an Islamic Republic, Islamic Socialist Republic or Islamic Imarah. This understanding is supported by numerous other Hadeeth that indicate the only system of government in Islam is the Khilafah.

2: Imam Muslim narrated from Abdullah bin 'Umar who said that the Prophet (saw) said,

"One who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to a Khalifah) will die the death of one belonging to the days of ignorance (Jahiliyah)".

3. Ahmed and Ibn abi 'Asim narrated that the Prophet (saw) said,

"Whosoever dies and he does not have over him an Imaam, he dies the death of Jahilyyah".

Thus the Prophet (SAW) made it compulsory that every Muslim should have over him an Imaam, which is also represented by having a pledge of allegiance (bayah) on his or her neck. The pledge of allegiance is not given to anyone except the Khalifah. The Ahadeeth inform us that those who run the affairs of Muslims are Khalifahs (some times called Amir ul-Mu'mineen or the Imam). Therefore, this is a command to establish or appoint them.

In the sayings of the Sahabah:

Ali ibn abi Taalib (r.a.) said, "The people will not be straightened except by an Imaam (Khaleefah), whether he is good or bad".
(Bayhaqi, No. 14286, Kanz ul-ummal)

Abdullah ibn 'Umar (r.a.) said "The people in the Ummah will not suffer even if they were oppressors and sinful if the rulers were guided and were guiding. But the people in the Ummah will suffer and perish even if they were guided and were guiding if the rulers were oppressors and sinful".
(Abu Nu'aim narrated in 'Hulayat Awliyyah.)

'Umar ibn al-Khattab (r.a.) said,
"Laa Islam bi laa Jamaa'ati wa laa jamaa'ati bi laa Imaarah, wa laa Imaaratu bi laa sam'on wa taa'ah".
"There is no Islam without a community, and there is no community without a leadership, and there is no authoruty without hearing and obeying".

In the sayings of the Ulemaa:

Imam al-Qurtubi said in his Tafseer of the verse, "Indeed, man is made upon this earth a Khaleefah" (TMQ 2:30) that:
"Haatheeh il-Aayatu asalun fee nasabi Imaamin wa Khaleefatin, yosma'oo lahu wa yotaa'u li-tajtami'i bihi il-kalimatih, wa tonaffithu bihi ahkaam il-Khaleefah, wa laa khalaafu fee wajoobi thalik bayna al-Ummati wa laa bayn al-a'immah, illa maa rawaya 'an il-Asam al-Mu'tazzili..."
"This Ayah is a source in the selection of an Imaam, and a Khaleefah, he is listened to and he is obeyed, for the word is united through him, and the Ahkam (laws) of the Khaleefah are implemented through him, and there is no difference regarding the obligation of that between the Ummah, nor between the Imams except what is narrated about al-Asam, the Mu'tazzili (a deviant group)...".
(Tafseer ul-Qurtubi 264/1.)

Imam al-Qurturbi (rh.a.) also said,
"The Khilafah is the pillar upon which other pillars rest".

Imam an-Nawawi (rh.a.) said,
"Ijma'oo 'alaa annahu yajib 'alal-Muslimeena nasabun Khaleefah".
"(The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khaleefah".
(Sharhu Sahih Muslim page 205 vol 12)

Imaam al-Ghazali (rh.a.) when writing of the potential consequences of losing the Khilafah said,
"The judges will be suspeneded, the Wilayaat (provinces) will be nullified, ... the decrees of those in authority will not be executed and all the people will be on the verge of Haraam".
(al Iqtisaad fil Itiqaad page 240.)

Ibn Taymiyyah (rh.a.) said,
"Yajib an yo'rafa anna wilayata amr in-naasi min a'thami waajibaat id-Deen, Bal laa qiyaamu li-Deen illa bihaa".
"It is obligatory to know that the office in charge of commanding over the people (ie: the Khilafah post) is one of the greatest obligations of the Deen. In fact, their is no establishment of the Deen except by it....this is the opinion of the salaf, such as al-Fadl ibn 'Iyaad, Ahmed ibn Hanbal and others".
(Siyaasah Shariyyah - chapter: 'The obligation of adherence to the leadership'.)

Imam abu ul-Hasan al-Mawardi (rh.a.) said,
"'Aqd ul-Imamati li man yaqoomu bihaa fil-ummati wajib bil-Ijmaa' ".
"The contract of the Imamah (leadership) for whoever is standing with it, is an obligation by Ijmaa'a (consensus)".
(al-Ahkam us-Sultaniyyah [Arabic] p 56.)

Imam Ahmed (rh.a.) said:
"Al-Fitnatu Ithaa lam yakun Imaamun Yaqoomu bi amril-Muslimeen", which means,
"The Fitna (mischief and tribuulations) occurs when there is no Imaam established over the affairs of the people".

Abu Hafs Umar al-Nasafi (rh.a.) a noted scholar of the 6th century Hijri states;
"The Muslims simply must have an Imam (Khaleefah), who will execute the rules, establish the Hudud (penal system), defend the frontiers, equip the armies, collect Zakah, punish those who rebel (against the state) and those who spy and highwaymen, establish Jum'ah and the two 'Eids, settle the dispute among the servants (of Allah), accept the testimony of witnesses in matters of legal rights, give in marriage the young and the poor who have no family, and distribute the booty".

Imam Al-Juzayri, an expert on the Fiqh of the four great schools of thought said regarding the four Imams, "The Imams (scholars of the four schools of thought- Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali)- may Allah have mercy on them- agree that the Imamah (Leadership) is an obligation, and that the Muslims must appoint an Imam who would implement the deen's rites, and give the oppressed justice against the oppressors".
("Fiqh ul-Mathahib ul- Arba'a" [the Fiqh of the four schools of thought], volume 5, page 416.)

Imam al-Haythami said,
"A'lamu anna Sahabata- Ridhwaan Allahu 'alayhim -Ajma'oo 'ala anna nasab al-Imaamata ba'd inqiraadhi zaman in-Naboowa waajibon bal ja'aloohu ahamu wajibaat hayth ushtaghloo bihi 'an dafani rasool illah".
"It is known that the Sahabah (r.a.h) consented that selecting the Imaam after the end of the era of Prophethood was an obligation (Wajib). Indeed they made it (more) important than the (other) obligations whilst they were busy with it over the burial of the Prophet (saw)".
(al-Haythami in Sawaa'iq ul-haraqah:17.)


In the ahadeeth of the beloved Prophet (saw)

1) The Prophet (saw) said: "When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the latter of them". (Narrated in Sahih Muslim by Sa'id al-Khudri)

2) The Prophet (saw) also said: "Whoso comes to you while your affairs has been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him." (Narrated in Sahih Muslim by 'Arfajah)

So what is with the Muslims who insist on establish regional Islamic Imarah's (Governments) based upon nationalistic divisions drawn up by the British and her fellow colonialists? Cannot we see beyond the plans of the Kuffar? What of those Muslims who wish to establish Islamic Governments in "their own" country and then to resume normal relationships with the rest of the Muslim countries, as if the rest of the Muslim countries are perfectly legal under Islam? Having more than one Khalifah for the entire Ummah is a sin, a fitnah and a division in our ranks.

In the Ijma'a (consensus) of the Sahabah (r.a.)

It is in the books of "As-Sirah" of Ibnu Kathir, "Tarikh ut-Tabari" by at-Tabari, "Siratu Ibn Hisham" by Ibn Hisham, "As-Sunan ul-Kubra" of Bayhaqi, "Al-fasil-fil Milal" by Ibnu Hazim and "Al-A'kd Al-Farid" of Al-Waqidi, that Al-Habbab Ibn ul-Munthir said when the Sahaba met in the wake of the death of the Prophet (SAW) (at the thaqifa hall) of Bani Sa'ida:

"Let there be one Amir from us and one Amir from you (meaning one from the Ansar and one from the Mohajireen)". Upon this Abu Bakr replied: "It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs (rulers)..." Then he got up and addressed the Muslims.

It has additionally been reported in "as-Sirah" of Ibnu Ishaq that Abu Bakr went on to say on the day of Thaqifa: "It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The Sunnah would then be abandoned, the bida'a (innovations) would spread and Fitna would grow, and that is in no one's interests".

The Sahabah (ra) agreed to this and selected Abu Bakr (ra) as their first Khalifah. Habbab ibn Mundhir (ra) who suggested the idea of two Ameers corrected himself and was the first to give Abu Bakr the Baya'a (pledge of allegiance). This indicates an Ijma'a of all of the Sahabah (ra) and thus is a divine source for us. Ali ibni abi Talib(ra), who was attending the body of the Prophet (saw) at the time, also consented to this.

In the quotes of famous scholars:

1. Imam ash-Shawkaani wrote in his book "Tafseer al-Qur'an al-Atheem", volume 2, page 215: "It is known from Islam by necessity (bi-dharoorah - i.e.: like prayer and fasting) that Islam has forbidden division amongst Muslims and the segregation of their land".

2. The well renowned Imam Hassan Al-Mawardi(ra) in his book "Al-ahkam Al-Sultaniyah" page 9 says: "It is forbidden for the Ummah to have two Imams (leaders) at the same time."

3. Imam An-Nawawi in his book "Mughni Al-Muhtaj", volume 4, page 132 says: "It is forbidden to give an oath to two Imams or more, even in different parts of the world and even if they are far apart".

He also stated in his book, "Sharhu Sahih Muslim" (explanation of Sahih Muslim) chapter 12 page 231, "If a baya'a were taken for two Khalifahs one after the other, the baya'a of the first one would be valid and it should be fulfilled and honoured whereas the baya'a of the second would be invalid, and it would be forbidden to honour it. This is the right opinion which the majority of scholars follow, and they agree that it would be forbidden to appoint two Khalifah's at one given time, no matter how great and extended the Islamic lands become".

4. The Imam Ibnu Hazm in his book "Al-Muhalla", volume 4, page 360 says: "It is unlawful to have more than one Imam in the whole of the world".

5. Al-Imam Al-Juzieri, an expert on the Fiqh of the four great schools of thought said regarding the four Imams, "...It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Imams in the world whether in agreement or discord."
From: "Fiqh ul-Mathahib ul- Arba'a" (the fiqh of the four schools of thought), volume 5, page 416.


In Conclusion it can be seen that the Khilafah ruling system implements the whole of Islam, thus Islam and the Muslims depend on it. It is not just one fard but the mechanism through which Islam is implemented. This is why the Prophetic calender of the Muslims starts with Yr 1 Hijri. What the Hijrah signifies is the leaving behind of the Makkan Shirk and the establishment of Islam in Madina as a governing system. So year 1 Hijri begins from the first day of Islamic Government, not from the date of first revelation, or the Prophets (saw) birth as it could have done, and as the Christians practice. Thus anyone who makes excuses for this issue will be neglecting the biggest duty in Islam, to establish the Deen. The death of Jahillyyah will be upon him and so it is Fard to work with those who know about the Khilafah and who are working for it according to the methodology of the Prophet (saw), and this is the biggest duty upon the Muslims today above all else. Nobody can claim that this is an impossible task as Allah (swt) promises the victory of the believers and confirms:

"Allah has promised those amongst you who believe and work righteous deeds, that he will indeed grant them inheritance of power in the earth, as he granted it to those before them; that he will establish in authority their Deen, which he has chosen for them, and that he will change their state from a state of fear into a state of security and peace. They will worship me alone and not associate
partners with me, and those who reject faith after this, they will be the rebellious and the wicked" TMQ (an-Noor :55)

Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal extracted that Huthayfah said the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:"The Prophecy will remain amongst you as long as Allah wills, then Allah will lift it when he wishes, then it will be a Khilafah Rashidah (i.e.: The first four Khalifahs) on the method of the Prophecy, it will remain for as long as Allah wills, then he will lift it when he wills, then it will be a hereditary leadership (i.e.: the Abbasid and Ummayid dynasties etc.) for as long as Allah wills then he will lift it when he so wills. Then there will be a tyrannical rule (i.e.: all the current Kufr regimes of the Muslims) for as long as Allah wills, then he will lift it when he so wills, then there will be a Khilafah Rashidah on the method of the Prophecy, then he kept silent."
(Musnad Imam Ahmed 4/273)

and concerning the liberation of Masjid al-Aqsa from the Jews, the Prophet (saw) said,

"Two Hijrah's will take place, and the latter will be to the place where your father Ibrahim may peace be upon him had immigrated (i.e.: Palestine)"
Note: Hijrah occurs when Muslims emigrate from Kufr lands to the Islamic state.

Subsequently, nobody can claim that this task is an impossible one as it has been promised success by Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw). All that remains is for the faithful to rush to carry out this noble work and to carry the da'wah to this ummah and remind her of her Deen.

Imam Ahmed reported in his Musnad (5/35) that the Messenger (saw) said:
"If the people of as-sham (Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria) went astray then there would be no goodness amongst you, but however there will continue to be a group supported from my ummah, and they will not be bothered by those who disapproved until the day of Judgement".

May Allah make us from that group, and support us in re-establishing his Deen on his earth. Ameen.

By Abu 'Ammar

All Permitted (Mubah) Actions Require a Daleel (evidence)

The text of both the Qur'an and Sunnah address many topics such as, stories of previous Ummahs, the Day of Judgment, and others. However, the text which specifically addresses our actions of what to do or what not to do is referred to as Hukm Sharii.

The term Hukm Sharii, in Arabic, means the address of the Legislator related to our actions. Islam addresses all of our actions, whether they are permitted or not. Accordingly, all of our actions have to be guided by the Hukm Sharii.Many Muslims are too quick to conclude that something is either Haram (prohibited) or Fard (compulsory) after a quick reading of an Ayah or a Hadith. Not all commands in the legislative sources are Fard or Haram. the rules which are used to differentiate the types of Hukm Sharii are again related to Usul al Fiqh. There are 5 different categories of Hukm Shariah. They are

1.Fard or Wajib(obligatory)




5.Permitted Actions(Mubah)

There are many misconceptions regarding permitted matters (Mubah).Here are some

1- It had become implanted in people's minds nowadays, that it is permitted to adopt any matter which did not contradict Islam and which was not prohibited by a Shari'ah text. They used as evidence the fact that the Messenger of Allah had found contracts dating back to the days of Jahiliyyah (ignorance) existing among people and he had approved them, and that which he did not approve of, he prohibited. Hence, that which he approved was permitted and that which he prohibited was unlawful. Likewise, it was permitted to adopt any thought, or rule, or law that did not contradict Islam and that had not been prohibited.

2- The Mubah (permitted) is that which carries no rebuke. Hence the absence of the rebuke is a permission. So taking a matter whose prohibition has not been mentioned would be Mubah. Furthermore, the Shari'ah kept silent about it and did not outline its rule, and whatever Shari'ah kept silent about is Mubah. It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah said: ''Truly Allah has commanded some obligations, hence do not neglect them; and He prohibited certain matters, hence do not violate them; and He determined certain limits, hence do not transgress them and He condoned certain matters out of mercy, not forgetfulness, hence do not search for them.'' In another narration, he said: ''And that which He kept silent about is a condonation(permission).'' Therefore, anything that Shari'ah kept silent about is Mubah. The adoption of rules and laws which have not been mentioned by the Shari'ah and which the Shari'ah did not mention by any prohibition is part of the Mubah. This is since there is no rebuke about them, and since no prohibition was mentioned, and since it was not mentioned by the Shari'ah and because the Shari'ah kept silent about it.

3- Some claim that democracy is from Islam, for it is based on shura' (consultation), justice and equality. It was also based on giving the authority to the Ummah, and this is what Islam is concerned with. Islam equates between rich and poor, rights and duties and between a minister and a shepherd and makes their affairs amongst them based on shura' and makes enjoining Ma'aruf and forbidding Munkar one of the most important principles. Shura' in Islam has been organised in modern times by what the Europeans refer to as parliament. Enjoining Ma'aruf and forbidding Munkar has been formulated in the modern civilisation through the freedom of press to criticise and the freedom of individuals and groups to write and voice their opinions frankly. They approve what they see and they disapprove what they see and they speak as they wish. Hence no person is beyond reproach, nor is the government, or the Wali. What straightens them, deters them and forces them to keep to the straight and narrow is the awareness of public opinion and its freedom of criticism. This is what is referred to in the Qur'an as ''joining together in the mutual teaching of Truth.'' In this way it was deduced that democracy is from Islam and the Qur'an mentioned it and the Messenger commanded it.

The errors in these thoughts

This is where the flaws and the deviation occurred, because the thoughts concerning these three matters were a fundamental error in their understanding of Islam. This is attributable to several aspects:

1- There is a difference between the thoughts related to Aqeedah matters namely the doctrines and Shari'ah rules, and the thoughts related to sciences, techniques, industries and the like. It is permitted to adopt the thoughts related to sciences, techniques and the like, provided these do not contradict Islam. As for the thoughts related to Aqeedah matters and Shari'ah rules, it would be forbidden to adopt any of them, except those brought to us by the Messenger of Allah whether it was from the Book of Allah (swt), or the Sunnah, or from what the Book and the Sunnah have guided to. Evidence about this is reflected in what Muslim reported that the Messenger of Allah said: ''I am but human like you. Hence, if I ordered you something related to your Deen's affairs, do take it, and if I ordered you something related to your worldly affairs, then I am only human.'' Evidence is also reflected in the Hadith about the pollination of palm trees, where he was reported to have said: ''You are better acquainted with your worldly affairs.'' Therefore that which is not part of the Shari'ah, namely the Aqeedah matters and the rules, can be taken as long as it does not contradict Islam. However, that which is part of the Shari'ah, namely Aqeedah matters and rules, can only be taken from what the Messenger of Allah brought and nothing else. The democratic rules and laws are rules taken to solve man's problems, hence they form part of the legislation. Thus it would be wrong to adopt them, unless they have been brought by the Messenger of Allah . It would be wrong to adopt them unless they were Shari'ah rules and nothing else.

2- The Messenger of Allah has explicitly forbidden us from taking anything other than what he brought. Muslim reported on the authority of Aisha (ra) that the Messenger of Allah said: ''He who introduces in our order something that is alien to it, must be rejected.'' In another narration, he was reported to have said: ''He who performs an action alien to our order, must be rejected.'' Bukhari also reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (ra) that the Messenger of Allah said: ''The Hour shall not come until my Ummah follows the ways of the nations before her, hand span to hand span and arm length to arm length.'' Upon this they asked: ''Is it the Persians and the Romans?'' He replied: ''Who else among people but them?'' Bukhari also reported on the authority of Abu Said Al-Khudri (ra) that the Messenger of Allah said: ''You shall follow the ways of those before you hand span to hand span and arm length to arm length, and even if they entered a lizard's hole you will follow them.'' I said: ''O Messenger of Allah! You mean the Jews and the Christians?'' He replied: ''Who else?'' These texts clearly forbid us from taking anything from others. The first Hadith, with its two narrations, is clear about the prohibition and about the censure of taking, for it says: ''It should be rejected.'' The other two Ahadith contain the meaning of prohibition. This prohibition is applicable to the taking of the rules of the constitution and the laws from other than Islam, because it is introducing something alien to our order, even taking from other than our order. It is an emulation of those who are like the Persians and the Romans, namely the British and the French, who are from the Romans, hence, it is forbidden to take these rules and laws.

3 - The Messenger of Allah , even in his capacity as a Messenger, never used to answer when asked about a rule which had not been explained by the revelation. He used to wait until Allah (swt) had revealed such a rule. Bukhari reported on the authority of ibn Mas'ud (ra) that ''the Messenger of Allah was asked about the spirit and he remained silent until the verse was revealed.'' Bukhari also reported on the authority of Jabir ibn Abdullah (ra) who said: ''I was taken ill once and the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr came to visit me. He came to me while I was unconscious, so he performed Wulu and then poured that water over me, so I regained consciousness and then said: O Messenger of Allah! How do I judge in my assets? What do I do with my assets? He said nothing to me until the verse of inheritance was revealed.'' This indicates that it is forbidden to take from other than what is revelation. If the Messenger of Allah refrained from giving an opinion until the revelation came to him, this proves that nothing is to be taken apart from what the Revelation has indicated.

4- Allah (swt) has commanded us to take what the Messenger of Allah has ordered and to abstain from taking what he has prohibited. Allah (swt) also commanded us to refer in judgement to the Messenger of Allah , namely to what the Messenger of Allah has brought. Allah (swt) says:

''And take whatever the Messenger has brought to you and refrain from whatever he has forbidden you.''[Al Hashr, 7]

This means that we should not take anything that the Messenger of Allah has not brought to us. As for the opposite understanding of ''....whatever he has forbidden you..'' this is inapplicable and nullified by the generality of the Shari'ah texts which prohibit the taking of anything other than from the Islamic Shari'ah, such as Allah (swt) saying:

''No by your God, they shall not become true believers until they make you judges in all disputes amongst them.'' [Al Nisa'a, 65]

And also in His saying (swt)

''They wish to refer in judgement to Taghut (evil) whilst they have been commanded to reject it.'' [Al-Nisa'a, 60]

Also such as the saying of the Messenger of Allah : ''Any action alien to our order must be rejected.'' This should be the case with every opposite understanding. If a Shari'ah text were to indicate other than what we deduce from it, then this understanding should be nullified and should not be applicable, such as Allah (swt) saying:

''And do not force your maids to commit fornication if they wished to remain chaste.'' [Al Nur, 33]

the opposite understanding of which is that if they did not wish to remain chaste, it would be permitted to force them. However, this understanding is nullified by the generality of the text which forbids fornication, which is Allah (swt) saying:

''and do not approach fornication.'' [Al Isra, 32]

Therefore, the meaning of the verse would be to abide by what the Messenger of Allah has ordered and to abstain from what he has forbidden. Hence, we must not only make lawful what Allah (swt) has made lawful, and we must forbid what Allah (swt) has forbidden. That which the Messenger of Allah has not brought to us, we do not take it and that which he has not forbidden we do not forbid. However, the non prohibition does not mean the permissibility of taking, for it is forbidden to take from other than Shari'ah, it rather means the non prohibition of that which Allah has not forbidden. This is the meaning of the verse.

If this verse were linked to Allah (swt) saying:

''Let those who violate his command beware of being struck by Fitna or by a severe punishment'' [Al Nur, 63]

if it were known that the phrase ''whatever'' in His saying ''Whatever he has brought to you'' and ''Whatever he has forbidden you'' were a term of generality, the obligation of taking what he has brought would clearly be manifested, and that the prohibition of taking from other than what he had brought would be a sin that carries a severe penalty.

Allah (swt) also says:

''No by your God, they shall not become true believers until they make you judge in matters that are of dispute amongst them.'' [Al Nisa'a, 65]

Hence, He(Allah swt) denied Iman from those who refer in their judgement to other than the Messenger of Allah in their actions, which indicates conclusively that reference in judgement should be restricted only to what the Messenger of Allah has brought.

Besides, Allah (swt) has rebuked those who wished to refer in judgement to other than what the Messenger of Allah has brought. He (swt) says:

''Did you not see those who pretend to have believed in what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed before you; they wish to refer in judgement to Taghut(evil) whilst they have been ordered to reject it; and Shaytan wishes to lead far astray'' [Al Nisa'a, 60]

This indicates that referring the judgement to other than what the Messenger of Allah has brought would be a deviation and a reference in judgement to Taghut(falsehood).

5- The Shari'ah rule is the address of the Legislator related to the actions of the servants, and the Muslims are commanded to refer in their actions to the address of the Legislator and to conduct their affairs in accordance with this address. So, even if they adopted something that does not contradict the address of the legislator in any of their actions or in any of their conducts, they would have in this case taken other than the Shari'ah rule, for they would not have taken the original Shari'ah rule, but rather that which does not contradict it, hence their adoption would not be an adoption of the Shari'ah rule. Besides, if one were to take that which conforms with the Shari'ah rule, but from other than the Book and the Sunnah, this adoption would be forbidden for it is not the taking of the Shari'ah rule, but rather an adoption of other than the Shari'ah rule that happens to agree with the Shari'ah rule. In this case it would not be a reference to what the Messenger of Allah has brought, but a reference to other than what he has brought, despite its agreement with it. This is so because the Muslim is commanded to adopt the Shari'ah rule and nothing else. For instance, marriage according to the Shari'ah is subject to a Shari'ah based offer and acceptance, with the wordings of Inkah (marrying off) and Tazwij (acceptance in marriage) and in the presence of two Muslim witnesses. If a Muslim man and woman went to a church, and a priest undertook the marriage contract on the basis of Christianity using the words of Inkah and Tazwij in the presence of two Muslim witnesses, would they be considered to be married according to the Shari'ah rule or according to other than that? In other words, would they have referred to what the Messenger of Allah has brought, or to what the distorted and abrogated Christianity has brought? Also, for instance, if a Christian died and his family were to divide his inheritance among themselves according to the rules of Islam, because Islam is fair, just or beneficial, and if they were to take a limitation of succession document from the Shari'ah court, would they have referred to the Shari'ah rule, or would they have merely taken the system because it was fair, just or beneficial? They would have undoubtedly taken other than the Shari'ah rule, because the taking of the Shari'ah rule should be taken because the Messenger of Allah has brought it, as it is part of the commands and the prohibitions of Allah (swt). Only then would its taking be considered a taking of the Shari'ah rule. However, the taking of the rule because the rule is just and fair, or because it is beneficial, is not considered taking the Shari'ah rule. The verse states ''Until they make you judge'' and it states ''And take whatever the Messenger has brought to you'',

Thus a rule should be taken on the basis of the fact that it has been brought by the Messenger of Allah . Accordingly anything that is taken on other than this basis, it would not be considered a Shari'ah rule regardless of whether this agreed with the Shari'ah rule or contradicted it and even if the same Shari'ah rule were taken as it is, but not taken because the Messenger of Allah has brought it, but rather because it is beneficial and just.

6- The Messenger of Allah's approval of the Kufr contracts is exclusive to him, in his quality as the Messenger of Allah, as his approval is legislation, just like his sayings and his actions. This quality is not conferred upon any other person but him . Therefore, whatever the Messenger of Allah performed, said, or approved is considered as legislation and it is based on the revelation. No one apart from the Messenger of Allah has the right to legislate. Hence, the contracts which the Messenger of Allah has approved have become Shari'ah rules, even if they had been contracts of the times of Jahiliyyah (ignorance). This is because their approval by the Messenger of Allah serves as evidence that they are Shari'ah rules, even if these were acts of worship. Hence, they would have been deduced from the approval of the Messenger of Allah and would have been taken on that basis, not because they had been contracts of Jahiliyyah which happened not to contradict Islam. The Sahaba (ra) used to refer to the silence of the Messenger of Allah over a rule as evidence about the rule being a Shari'ah rule. In addition, the fact that there are many incidents in which the silence of the Messenger of Allah served as evidence that they were part of the Shari'ah rules.

7- The Mubah is not that which carries no (haraj) rebuke, for the absence of rebuke from the performing or the refraining does not indicate a Shari'ah permission, nor does the lifting of rebuke necessitate the granting of choice. The prohibition of something does not mean the commanding of its opposite. Also, the commanding of something does not mean the prohibition of its opposite. The lifting of rebuke could be coupled with the obligation, as is the case in Allah's (swt) saying:

''And he who makes Hajj to the House or Umrah, there is no rebuke in making Tawaf''
[Al Baqarah, 158]

Hence, the Tawaf during Hajj and Umrah is an obligation and not Mubah. Also, the lifting of rebuke could be a Rukhsah (exception), as is the case in Allah's (swt) saying:

''Hence, there is no rebuke if you were to shorten your prayers'' [Al Nisa'a, 101]

Here, the lifting of rebuke does not mean the permissibility. Therefore, the Mubah is not that which there is no rebuke in it, rather the mubah is that which the heard evidence from the address of the Legislator has indicated the granting of choice between performing or abstaining without any other alternative. Hence, the Ibaha (permissibility) is that which the Shari'ah has granted the choice between taking and abstaining, either by directly mentioning the granting of the choice in the text itself such as Allah's (swt) saying:

''Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth, when or how you will'' [ Al Baqarah, 223]

or such as Allah's (swt) saying :

''And eat both of you freely with pleasure and delight, of things therein as wherever you will''
[ Al Baqarah, 35]

or by deducing the understanding from the text such as Allah's (swt) saying:

''But when you finish the Ihram'' [ Al Maidah, 2]

or His (swt) saying

''and when the Salat is over you may disperse'' [ Al-Jum'ah, 10]

or His (swt) saying

''Do eat from the good things We have provided for you'' [ Al Baqarah, 57]

Besides, the Ibaha is part of the Shari'ah rules, and the Shari'ah rule is the address of the Legislator related to the actions of the servants, so it requires a Shari'ah evidence from the heard evidences to indicate that the thing is Mubah in order for it to be Mubah. Hence, the absence of a Shari'ah rule about something to indicate that it is Wajib, or Mandub, or Haram or Makruh, does not indicate that it is Mubah, for it still requires a Shari'ah rule to indicate its Ibaha.

As for the things and actions which existed before the arrival of Shari'ah, such as contracts and transactions among others, their Ibaha was not a continuation of what they had been before the arrival of the Shari'ah, it is rather derived from a Shari'ah text that indicated it. Trade was mentioned by a Shari'ah text, that is Allah (swt) saying:

''And Allah made trade lawful and made usury unlawful'' [ Al Baqarah, 275]

Hiring was performed by the Messenger of Allah , for it has been reported that he hired a man from Bani Al-Dayl as a guide to show him the way. Hence, the Ibaha (permissibility) of trade and that of hire has come from a Shari'ah text, and not from its continuation from the days of Jahiliyyah. As well as being a saying from the Qur'an, or a saying from the Messenger of Allah , the Shari'ah text could also be an action, that is the action of the Messenger of Allah , and it could also be a silence, that is the silence of the Messenger of Allah . Thus whatever continued in terms of actions, things, contracts and transactions from the days of Jahiliyyah to the days of Islam, and which the Muslims continued to pursue, they would have pursued it because a Shari'ah evidence had come to indicate its Ibaha, either by a saying from the Qur'an or the Messenger of Allah , or by an action of the Messenger or by his silence , but not just by a continuation of what had existed in the days of Jahiliyyah.That which has not been established as a Shari'ah evidence, such as a saying, or an action or a silence, and had existed in the days of Jahiliyyah, should not continue and should not be taken, even if no prohibition were mentioned. A Shari'ah evidence should rather be sought for it. Hence the Ibaha of that which had existed before the arrival of Shari'ah and continued after its arrival, has been established by a Shari'ah rule related to it.

It would be wrong to say that because the Shari'ah has kept silent over it, its Ibaha has continued, and that which the Shari'ah has kept silent over and has not explained, its rule must be Mubah. This is because the Shari'ah has not kept silent over it but demonstrated its rule by an evidence related to it, and the silence of the Messenger of Allah is not considered a silence of Shari'ah, but rather a statement from Shari'ah, for the silence of the Messenger of Allah is just like his saying and his action and just like the Qur'an, i.e. a statement of a Shari'ah rule.

No Muslim has the right to say that the Legislator (swt) has kept silent over something and has not stated its rule after reading Allah's (swt) saying:

''This day I have perfected your Deen for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your Deen'' [ Al Ma'ida, 3]

Also His saying (swt):

''And We have revealed the Book to you explaining everything'' [ Al Nahl 16: 89]

Hence, no Muslim has the right to claim that there are situations devoid of a Shari'ah rule, meaning that the Shari'ah has completely disregarded such a situation and has not established an evidence for it. That is that the evidence did not come from either the Book or the Sunnah, or they have not given an indication through a legitimate Illah (Shari'ah reason), that which the text has mentioned either explicitly, or by way of indication, or deduction or by way of analogy, to draw the attention through this evidence or this indication to the rule related to a host of situations, whether it is Wajib (compulsory), Mandub (recommended), Haram (forbidden), Makruh (despised) or Mubah (permitted). No Muslim should hold this view, for he would be slandering the Shari'ah by claiming that it is imperfect and he would be legitimising the reference in judgements to other than the Shari'ah, thus contradicting Allah's (swt) saying:

''No by your God, they shall not become true believers until they make you judge in matters that are of dispute amongst them'' [Al Nisaa 4:65]

If the Shari'ah did not come with the rule and the Muslim adopted a rule that the Shari'ah had not come with, he would have referred in judgement to other than the Shari'ah, and this is forbidden. As he would be claiming that the Shari'ah has not come with the rules for all situations. So claiming a permission to refer to other than Shari? under the pretext that Shari'ah has not come with these rules, would be a false claim. Therefore, it is inconceivable to state that whatever the Shari'ah has kept silent over is Mubah, for this would be an Ibaha to refer to other than Shari'ah, in addition to the fact that it would be a slander against the Shari'ah by claiming that it has kept silent over certain rules and has not established them. Besides, this would be in contradiction to reality, as Shari'ah has in fact not kept silent over anything at all.

As for the Messenger of Allah's (saw) saying: ''Truly Allah has decreed certain obligations, hence do not neglect them'', this denotes the prohibition of asking about that which has not been mentioned textually by Shari'ah. It is similar to his saying (saw) : Truly the gravest sinners amongst the Muslims would be those who ask about something that has not been forbidden upon them, then it became forbidden because of their asking.There are many ahadith to that effect. It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said : Spare me the things I have not mentioned to you, for those before you perished because of their constant asking and their arguing with their prophets; so refrain from that which I forbid you and perform to your utmost ability that which I order you''. It has also been reported that he (saw) once recited Allah's (swt) saying: ''And Allah commanded people to perform Hajj''. Upon this a man asked :''O Messenger of Allah! Is it every year?''. He (saw) did not reply. So the man asked again :O Messenger of Allah! Is it every year?''. Again he (saw) did not reply. So the man asked him a third time :O Messenger of Allah! Is it every year? Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said :''By He Who owns my soul, if I said it, it will become obligatory, and if it did become obligatory you would not be able to perform it, and if you did not perform it you would be sinful. So spare me that which I have not ordered you''. Hence, the meaning of the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying : ''and He has permitted other things'', and in the narration of : ''and that which He kept silent over is a permission'', is that He (swt) has lightened your obligation, so do not ask lest you overburden yourselves. For instance, the duty of Hajj has been decreed in general terms, and someone asked whether it should be performed every year. Allah (swt) has reduced this obligation and made it once in a lifetime in order to lighten your load and out of mercy upon the people, so He (swt) has condoned and kept silent over this obligation being every year. Thus one does not look into these things and does not ask about them. Evidence about the fact that this was the meaning is the saying of Allah's Messenger (saw): ''Hence, do not look into them'' after he (saw) had said : ''And He has condoned certain things'' So, the point at issue is prohibiting Muslims from asking about things whose prohibition has not been revealed. The point at issue is not that He (swt) has not stated some of the Shari? rules, for the context of the Hadith reveals the mercy of Allah (swt) upon them and His condoning. As for the other narration : ''And that which He kept silent over is a permission'', it also indicates that the issue is related to the prohibition of searching and asking about that which He (swt) has lightened for you and has not forbidden for you. Thus when something is not prohibited it is a permission from Allah (swt), in other words, that which He (swt) kept silent about its prohibition denotes a permission from Allah (swt), thus do not ask about it. This is reflected in Allah's (swt) saying:

''O you who have believed do not ask about matters which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble''

Then He (swt) said:

''Allah has permitted them.'' i.e. those matters. [ Al Maida 5:101]

Extract from the book 'How the Khilafah was destroyed' by Sheikh Abdul-Qadeem Zalloom (rh)