Thursday, March 15, 2007

The Concept of the State in Islam

Translated from Arabic distributed widely in the Muslim world 13th Thil-Qi'dah 1415h, 13th April 1995.

The Islamic state

In Arabic, the word Al Dawlah means linguistically the “Ghalaba”, i.e. the supremacy, it is also a term used to indicate the change of time; it is also said: The days have alternated or rotated, i.e. they have changed; or Allah (swt) alternates it between people etc. States change and vary according to the change of concepts, the change of times and the change of peoples. The State is a word of terminology which refers to an authority that commands and prohibits a group of people who live in a certain piece of land. However, the definition of the state differs due to the difference of viewpoints and nations towards its reality.

The westerners for instance, despite the different viewpoints they hold towards the reality of the state and towards the type of rule within the state, whether this were religious, as was the case in the medieval times, or dictatorial or democratic, all agree that the state is reflected in the land, its peoples and its rulers, and that these three represent the cornerstones of the state. To them, the state is established over a specific peace of land, in which a specific group of people live permanently, and over whom a ruling authority presides.
As for the Islamic state, it is a ruling authority, and a political entity that looks after the citizens' affairs according to the Shari’ah rules; in other words, it is a Khaleefah ruling by what Allah (swt) has revealed and carrying Islam as a Message to the entire world. Allah (swt) has decreed that the Islamic state should be the method to implement the Shari’ah rules and to carry Islam by way of Da’awa and Jihad as a Message of guidance and light to the whole world.

The Islamic state does not consider its territory, nor its specific group of people as her cornerstones, although she has to have citizens for whom she runs their affairs, and a piece of land on which she is established; however, her citizens are growing in numbers at all times, and they include different races and colours; also the land over which she rules must not be confined within certain borders, but it must be expanding at all times. This is so because the Islamic state has a universal Message, and because Allah (swt) has ordered her to carry that Message to the whole world, and to invite all people, be they black, white, brown, yellow, Arab, non-Arab, European, American or Russian to Islam, and to enter into the Deen of Allah (swt). Therefore, any race and any people, who respond to the call, and believe in Islam, would become part of the state's subjects, and their land becomes part of her land. Also, any land which the Islamic state carries the Message to and conquers by way of Jihad, that land becomes part of her land and under her authority and her rule, even if its people did not embrace Islam.

The state as it stands, is born out of new thoughts on which it bases itself; the authority in the state changes when these thoughts change once power is seized. For when the thoughts turn into concepts and convictions, one's behaviour is affected, and he becomes fashioned by these concepts, thus his viewpoint vis-a-vis life would change, and consequently his viewpoint towards relationships and interests change as well. The authority is established in order to look after the people's affairs, relationships and interests.

The Islamic state was established by the Messenger of Allah (saw) as soon as he set foot in Madinah, after he had taken the second pledge (Baya'a) of Al-Aqaba from the Ansar, a pledge of protection and war, and a pledge to hand the authority in Madinah to the Messenger of Allah (saw). The birth of the Islamic state was the result of a new Aqeeda and a host of new concepts adopted by those who believed in him (saw); these concepts generated in his followers a new viewpoint about life, which in turn changed their viewpoint towards relationships and interests.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) built the Islamic state in Madinah on the basis of this Aqeeda, and on the concepts which emanated from it, despite the fact that the verses of legislation had not been revealed yet. She was therefore a new state, built on a new Aqeeda, and on a host of new thoughts and concepts.
The Islamic state is unique in her nature, her structure, what she stands for and the basis on which she is built. She is completely different from the nature and the structure of all the existing states in the world. She is a state founded on the Islamic Aqeeda, the Aqeeda of “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”, which is a comprehensive thought about life, and according to which and to the concepts which emanated from it, the Muslims viewpoint about life has been determined; this viewpoint leads to the belief that life is created by a Creator, and that it is conducted by the commands and prohibitions of the Creator. For the Muslims, it is a foregone conclusion that there is no legislator but Allah (swt),and that there is no sovereignty in this life and in this Islamic state except to the rule of Allah (swt), not to the Ummah, nor the people, nor the ruler. Sovereignty is rather to the law of Allah alone.

Therefore, the Ummah and the ruler alike, have no mandatory powers to legislate any rule or any system or any law other than that revealed by Allah (swt) upon His Messenger (saw). Even if the Ummah were to commonly consent on legislating any rule that contradicts one of the Islamic rules, her consent would have no value whatsoever. So, if for instance, the Ummah were to consent on legalising Usury, under the pretext that the economy and the trade could not prosper without it, or if the Ummah were to consent on legitimising sexual relationships outside marriage, under the pretext that it is personal freedom, or if she were to prohibit the killing of the apostate from Islam, under the pretext that his killing would violate human rights, or if the state was to consent to have more than one doctrine or belief as a state or the succession to power of Muslims or even secular parties under the pretext of democracy, all these types of common consensus, if they ever took place, wouldn't have any consideration whatsoever, for they contradict the Islamic rules, the sovereignty of Shari’ah, and the belief that Allah is The Only Legislator, and not humans.

The fact that the Islamic Aqeeda acts as the basis of the Islamic state, means that there is no place for anyone, be they rulers, judges, intellectuals, politicians, members of the Shura council, Ummahs council or parliamentarians to legislate any rule in order to organise people's relationships, nor to adopt a constitution, or to adopt a system, or enact a state law to be implemented by the rulers in the Islamic state, if these were other than what Allah (swt) has revealed. It is also forbidden for the rulers to force people or even give them a choice in following systems and laws laid down by humans in order to run their affairs.

When the Khaleefah according to his mandatory powers adopts a constitution or a system or a law, he must take these from the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw), by way of either his own Ijtihad (exertion) or that of the Muslim jurisprudents and learned scholars. This necessitates that the Islamic state's constitution, her systems and laws be taken from what Allah (swt) revealed to His Messenger (saw), i.e. taken from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and what they may guide to from the Qiyas (analogy made on Shari’ah texts) and the general consensus of the Sahaba.

It is therefore forbidden for the Islamic state to nurse any thought or to hold any concept, rule, constitution, law, or any criterion which does not emanate from the Islamic Aqeeda, and which is not derived from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, or from a legitimate Qiyas or from the general consensus of the Sahaba. So it is therefore forbidden for the Islamic state to adopt the democratic way of life and the ruling systems democracy calls for, such as a multiplicity of beliefs, the succession to power of Muslims or those of secular belief, or the various types of freedoms, for all these do not emanate from the Islamic Aqeeda, nor are they taken from the Shari’ah rules, apart from the fact that they all contradict the Islamic rules. It is forbidden as well to have in the Islamic state any consideration to the concepts of nationalism, patriotism or autonomy (separation), because these concepts do not emanate from the Islamic aqeeda, and they all contradict Shari’ah rules, apart from the fact that the Islamic rules have abhorred and prohibited them and warned against adopting them. Furthermore, it is forbidden for the Islamic state to hold any monarchical, republican, dictatorial imperial concepts, for these do not emanate from the Islamic Aqeeda, and they are not taken from the Shari’ah rules, beside the fact that they contradict the Shari’ah rules.

Allah (swt) has commanded all the Muslims, including the rulers, to abide by Islam and to comprehensively implement all of its rules exactly as they have been revealed; Allah (swt) says:

“Do take all that the Messenger of Allah has brought to you, and do refrain and keep away from all that he prohibited for you, and fear Allah for Allah is swift in punishment” [TMQ 59:7]

The Arabic word "Ma" in the verse is a form of generality, thus it indicates the obligation of acting upon all the duties, and to refrain from all the prohibitions. The request of taking and refraining in the verse is decisive and it is obligatory, because there is a conjunction acting as evidence about this at the end of the verse where Allah (swt) orders us to be pious and warns us against the severe punishment awaiting those who do not take all that the Messenger (saw) has brought and do not refrain from all that he (saw) prohibited.

Allah (swt) has also ordered His Messenger (saw) to rule by what He revealed; He (swt) says:
“And rule between them by what Allah has revealed” [TMQ 5:49]

This is a decisive command from Allah (swt) to His Messenger and to all the Muslim rulers after him, to rule by all the rules that He (swt) has revealed, whether these were commands or prohibitions, for again the word "Ma"" in the verse indicates the form of generality, thus it engulfs all the revealed rules.

Allah (swt) has also forbidden His Messenger, as well as all the Muslim rulers after him, from following people's whims and submitting to their desires, for He (swt) says:

“And do not follow their vain desires” [TMQ 5:49]

He (swt) has also warned His Messenger (saw) and all the rulers after him against falling for people's corruption and against being lured away from implementing what Allah (swt) has revealed to him. Allah (swt)has described he who rules by other than what He revealed as being a disbeliever if he were to believe in what he ruled by, or if he were to believe in the invalidity of what Allah (swt) has revealed. He (swt) says:

“And whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers” [TMQ 5:44]

He (swt) described he who rules by other than what He revealed, without believing in what he rules by, as a fasiq (rebel) and dhalim (wrongdoer).

The implementation of the Islamic rules must be complete, comprehensive and simultaneous, not gradual, for the gradual implementation flagrantly contradicts the Islamic rules, and this would render he who does not implement all of Allah's rules, or he who implements some and ignores some of the rules, a disbeliever if he did not believe in the validity of Islam, or if he did not believe in the validity of even some of the Shari’ah rules which he had ignored; it would also render him a rebel and a wrongdoer if he were not implementing all of the Islamic rules but he still believed in the validity of implementing Islam.

Therefore, there should be no complacency in the implementation of all the Shari’ah rules, nor should there be any gradual implementation of the rules, for there is no difference between one obligation and another, nor is there a difference between a prohibition and another, nor between a rule and another; the rules of Allah (swt) are equal and they must all be all implemented without any delay, postponement or graduation, otherwise the following verse would apply to those who do so. Allah (swt) says:

“So do you believe in some part of the Book and disbelieve in some. The penalty awaiting those who do this is nothing but humiliation in this life and the severest of punishment on the day of Judgement. For Allah is aware of all you do” [TMQ 2:85]

Therefore, there is no excuse for not implementing all of the rules of Islam; pretexts such as the inability to implement the Islamic rules, or the absence of the appropriate circumstances, or the fact that the world public opinion is against the implementation of Shari’ah, or that the superpowers do not allow us to implement it, or any other trivial excuses that have no value whatsoever, are unacceptable.

The Islamic state is a human state and not a holy one, and the Khulafa’ and Imams who run her are human beings, they have no holiness nor infallibility. It is the Ummah who appoints them and not Allah (swt), for Allah has ordained the authority i.e. the rule to the Ummah, and He (swt) has delegated the appointment of the Khaleefah to her by the Baya'a (pledge of allegiance), so that he undertakes the rule and the authority on her behalf. Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibnul A'as reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah(saw) say: “Whoso pledged allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as much as he can.” Abdullah Ibnu Omar reported: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: “And whoso dies while there was no allegiance on his neck dies a death of the days of ignorance.” The Khaleefah implements the Shari’ah rules on behalf of the Ummah, and he who resumes the post of the Khaleefah would be entrusted with all the mandatory powers of rule and authority, and he would reserve the right to adopt the systems, laws and rules. He who undertakes the post of Khaleefah would merely be a human, it is possible that he could err, forget, lie, betray or rebel, he would not be infallible, for infallibility is exclusive to the Prophets and Messengers.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) has informed us that the Imam, who is the Khaleefah, can make mistakes, and he could commit an injustice or a sin, which would make people hate him for it, or curse him; he (saw) informed us that he may commit flagrant disbelief. All this contradicts infallibility and negates that the Imam and Khaleefah could be infallible. Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind which people fight and by which they protect themselves”. Muslim also reported on the authority of Auf Ibnu Malik that the Messenger of Allah(saw) said: “The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you, and who pray for you and you pray for them, and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you”. Bukhari also reported on the authority of Ubada Ibnus-Samit who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) called upon us so we gave him the pledge of allegiance. We pledge ourselves to him in complete obedience, in well and woe, in ease and hardship in preference over ourselves, and that we would not dispute with the people in authority; and he (saw) said: “Unless you witness an act of flagrant disbelief of which you have proof from Allah.” These Ahadith serve as a clear indication that the Imam or the Khaleefah can make mistakes, and he can commit a sin, which indicates clearly that the Imam or the Khaleefah are not infallible.

Therefore, Allah (swt) has ordered the Muslims to hold the ruler accountable; this He (swt) made their right, for the ruler has no holiness, and no infallibility, and because he may make mistakes, and he may commit a sin and even acts of disbelief, despite the fact that he is their representative in rule and authority, and despite the fact that it is them who appoint him.
Allah (swt) says:

“And let there arise out of you a group calling to the Goodness, commanding what is right and forbidding what is evil.” [TMQ 3:104]

When the Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked: What is the best Jihad? He (saw) replied: “A word of truth uttered before a tyrant man of authority.” He (saw) also said: “The master of martyrs is Hamza Ibnu Abdul-Muttalib, and a man who stood up to a tyrant Imam to command him and prohibit him and was killed.” In the Sunan (book of Hadith) of Abu Dawood on the authority of Abdullah Ibnu Mas'ud, the Messenger of Allah (saw) is reported to have said: “No by Allah, you shall command what is right and forbid what is evil, and you shall hold the hand of the oppressor and you shall curb him and confine him to following the truth.” In another narration of Ibnu Mas'ud's Hadith he (saw) added: “Or Allah shall strike animosity between your hearts and then He shall curse you just like He cursed them.”

Islam commands us in some cases to go further than just holding the ruler accountable with our tongues, it commands us to take-up arms against the Khaleefah if he showed acts of flagrant disbelief that was not there in the first instance, as mentioned in the narration of Ubada Ibnus-Samit: “And that we shall not dispute with the people in authority”; and he (saw) said: “Unless you witness an act of flagrant disbelief of which you have proof from Allah.”

O Muslims, this is the Islamic state which Allah (swt) has commanded all the Muslims to establish, and which we invite you to work with us towards establishing, in order to bring about a "Khilafah Rashida" on the method of Prophethood, and realise the goodness in which the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “And then it will be a Khilafah Rashida on the method of Prophethood”

Hizb ut-Tahrir
13th April 1995


IslamicThoughts said...

Exactly, all Islamic countries should serve as an Ummah or a single state coz they worship Allah and they have one book that is Quran, so they should be united and stand against their enemies.

zeb said...

hizb ut tahrir says that madina was khilafa state
the tanzeem islami says madina was not khilafah satate and Prophet s.a.w was working in madina as a group and in this support dr.israr mentioned his evidences
if u can read udru then i post the link

i would like if u give detail answer about the points mentioned by dr.israr that madina was not islamic state


saad said...

please reply to the question of brother zaib

zeb said...

i summarize the points evidences raised in this that madina was not like state it was state after fatah makka by dr.israr

1. tribes of madina Accepted Prophet s.a.w bcaz they were fed up with war between them and they need an arbitror to solve thier issues

2. makkah was control center of arab thats why Prophet s.a.w was unable to establish islam there and madina situation was different from that thats why Prophet s.a.w migrated there

3. in battle of uhad some sahab ran from ground also when Prophet s.a.w announced to go to perform umrah some sahaba did not go but they were not inquired or punished but after ghazwah tabook those who did not participate were accounted bcaz now prophet s.a.w was ruler but he was not as state ruler in madina

4. if madina was isalmic state then yahood problems would be solved in islamic courts but

سَمَّـٰعُونَ لِلۡكَذِبِ أَڪَّـٰلُونَ لِلسُّحۡتِ‌ۚ فَإِن جَآءُوكَ فَٱحۡكُم بَيۡنَہُمۡ أَوۡ أَعۡرِضۡ عَنۡہُمۡ‌ۖ وَإِن تُعۡرِضۡ عَنۡهُمۡ فَلَن يَضُرُّوكَ شَيۡـًٔ۬ا‌ۖ وَإِنۡ حَكَمۡتَ فَٱحۡكُم بَيۡنَہُم بِٱلۡقِسۡطِ‌ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلۡمُقۡسِطِينَ

Listeners for the sake of falsehood! Greedy for illicit gain! If then they have recourse unto thee (Muhammad) judge between them or disclaim jurisdiction. If thou disclaimest jurisdiction, then they cannot harm thee at all. But if thou judgest, judge between them with equity. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable. surah al maida verse 42

5.prophet s.a.w was like a group leader in madina not a state ruler bcaz in before battle of badr in 8 small battles only muhajireen participated also in ghazwa badr prophet s.a.w did not ordered ansar to participate bacz the baya was taken in case of attack on madina . so if prophet s.a.w was like state ruler in madina he would have orderd muhajireen and ansar equally suran anfal muhajireen and ansar were adressed separatley

ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَهَاجَرُواْ وَجَـٰهَدُواْ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ وَٱلَّذِينَ ءَاوَواْ وَّنَصَرُوٓاْ أُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ هُمُ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنُونَ حَقًّ۬ا‌ۚ لَّهُم مَّغۡفِرَةٌ۬ وَرِزۡقٌ۬ كَرِيمٌ۬

Those who believed and left their homes and strove for the cause of Allah, and those who took them in and helped them - these are the believers in truth. For them is pardon, and bountiful provision. verse :74

while after fatah makkah they were adressed as single entity

وَٱلسَّـٰبِقُونَ ٱلۡأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ ٱلۡمُهَـٰجِرِينَ وَٱلۡأَنصَارِ وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّبَعُوهُم بِإِحۡسَـٰنٍ۬ رَّضِىَ ٱللَّهُ عَنۡہُمۡ وَرَضُواْ عَنۡهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمۡ جَنَّـٰتٍ۬ تَجۡرِى تَحۡتَهَا ٱلۡأَنۡهَـٰرُ خَـٰلِدِينَ فِيہَآ أَبَدً۬ا‌ۚ ذَٲلِكَ ٱلۡفَوۡزُ ٱلۡعَظِيمُ

And the first to lead the way, of the Muhajirin and the Ansar, and those who followed them in goodness - Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He hath made ready for them Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide for ever. That is the supreme triumph. verse : 100

so in madina Prophet s.a.w was like a group leader

7.if madina was a state then a state do not do treaty with his own citizen like Prophet s.a.w did in madina

8.the foreign policy of dawat is based on three conditions
accept islam
give jaziya
or jihad
but this was not the case in madina

but this was not case in madina so madina was not a like state

9.on the issue of ayesha r.a prophet s.a.w punished sahaba but could not punished abduallah bin ub'ai bcaz of the influence of tribes

Anonymous said...

Point 1. 
This doesn't prove that the prophet (saw) wasn't a leader it could be argued in fact in a stronger way that he had the ability to implement judgement between the aws and khazraj which were the two most powerful tribes of yathrib who had the power to exercise control.   

Point 2.
The Arabian peninsula was permeated with city states and had nominal allegiance with Mecca because it was seen as the religious centre of hijaz. However the cities acted as independent societies with independent leaderships who had alliances and treaties with different states and empires ie an independent foreign policy but who acted according to certain international norms. So yathrib aka medinah was an independent society that had it's own leadership, it's own economy, it's own foreign policy but had accepted certain international norms between the various city states of the Arabian peninsula. So in a similar way uk, France and Poland are separate states yet they work together according to common treaties ie European union.   

Point 3.
 Umrah is recommended or a fardh (according to shafi's) yet the obligation for those who take as such comes about when the sabab (cause for the hukm) is in effect. The sabab is the financial capability, so if not all the sahaba went this may mean that the sabab wasn't in effect. Or that the prophet didnt require them and furthermore even if it were a general obligation the neglect of which is taazeer ie discretional punishment down to the adoption of the khaleefah. Therefore the punishment of lack thereof of those who ran in uhud is for the khaleefa and as al izz ibn abdus Salam points out the discretional punishment can allow the khaleefa to forgive them as well. 

As for tabuk, we know offensive jihad is fardhul kifaya in origin whereas defensive jihad can become fardhul ayn if the reality dictates that necessity of every abler person is required to engage in the fight to repel the attack. And we know that the Romans were trying to gather the support of hundreds of thousands of soldiers in order to wipe out the Islamic state in medinah. Hence the prophet had called for all abled persons to join the gazwah to meet the Romans and repel them. Hence he had made it fardhul ayn. If in the future the khalilsfah faces an impending attack then the khaleefa can call upon all males to engage in the jihad as a fardhul ayn matter due to the necessity to protect the state and that current armed personnel are not sufficient.   

Anonymous said...

Point 4. The ahlel dhimmah according to certain Islamic opinions are given the choice to have their affairs adjudicated by the shariah courts or adjudicated by their own courts when related to marriage divoirce and family affairs. Hwoeever if it's between a Muslim and a dhimmah then it's only in the shariah courts. As for that ayah ibn kathir states, "(either judge between them, or turn away from them. If you turn away from them, they cannot hurt you in the least.) meaning, there is no harm if you do not judge between them. This is because when they came to you to judge between them, they did not seek to follow the truth, but only what conformed to their lusts. We should mention here that Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, As-Suddi, Zayd bin Aslam, `Ata' Al-Khurasani, and several others said that this part of the Ayah was abrogated by Allah's statement,

[وَأَنِ احْكُم بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَآ أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ]

(And so judge among them by what Allah has revealed.)"

So according to him it's been abrogated by a later ayah revealed in medinah before conquest of Mecca. So this ayah can mean that although the prophet had the power to implement and force judgement by Islam upon the Jews initially they were given a choice and that choice was later abrogated by allah swt. And the hikma behind this is not within our knowledge. 

Anonymous said...

Point 5.
 Groups are permitted in Islam. The ansar and muhajireen remained as groups after the death of the prophet (saw) and they still had leaders amongst them. Hence 200 of the leaders of the ansar and muhajireen met at the courtyard of bani sa'ida where they discussed who should be the next leader. Initially some of the ansar proposed a power sharing arrangement between the leaders of the ansar and muhajireen but this was corrected and considered a violation of Islam hence then agreed to make Abu bakr as khaleefa over them. Hence during the time of the prophet there were groups called ansar and muhajireen and they had amongst them leaders and then after the passing of the prophet they still had these groups and leadership amongst them in the same way Ali became the leader if banu hashim tribe yet they submitted to the political authority of the ruler. 

So this evidence doesn't prove that the prophet only had leadership over the muhajireen and not the ansar in fact this contradicts the whole premise of the term bayah which is a pledge of political allegiance that was given by the ansar. Further offensive jihad is a fardhul kifayah and it was permitted for the prophet to choose who should partake in such activity. This isn't a hukm shara point but one of means and styles. Ie choosing whom he believed were best suited for the task. 

In addition the seeking of the nussrah from the ansar was clearly seen as giving support to the prophet to fight against other nations proactively.  “When this whole group was ready to give Bay’ah, Abbas bin Ubadah bin Nazlah al-Ansari, who was a relative of Bani Salim bin Auf, addressed everyone: you have understood the responsiilties which will lie upon your shoulders by giving this Bay’ah. They said: yes we have understood. He said: this Bay’ah means that you have to fight every nation, so in the pursuit of his صلى الله عليه و سلم  protection if your wealth perishes, your elders are slain and and you leave him, then it is better that you leave him now. Because the result of breaking the promise after it has been given is humiliation in Dunya and Akhirah. And if you are ready to fulfill the promise, despite all of this then take him with you. It entails Khair in this world and in the Aakhirah. Upon this all attendees said, we take the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم despite all trials regarding our lives and wealth. O Prophet, you tell us what we will have if we fulfill our promise. Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم replied: Jannah. They said, Open your hand. Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم spread out his hand and all of them gave him the Bay’ah” taken seerah ibn hisham. 

Remember also that the ansar knew the nature of the deen which was to dominate over all other deens... Surah tawbah verse 33. 

Anonymous said...

Point 7.  Foreign policy of a state is the above mentioned points but the work to establish an Islamic state doesn't follow the above points. Rather the reality (manat) of establishing a state is different to expanding the state 's authority so the ahkam are not the same. Rather we look at which texts addresses those specific realities. This is like mixing up between the ahkam of hudood and the ahkam of jihad they are two separate rulings related to two separate realities.  

Point 9.
 The prophet punished ansar, muhajir, Jews under Islamic authority as well as other tribes under the Muslim authority. If it were related to hadud then the had was applied when the Shari conditions were met, if it were related to taazeer they were implemented on adoption of the ruler for the management of the societies affairs, if then were related to jinyat (between two citizens) then the state adjudicated and give the rights accordingly to the wronged citizen and if it were against the community as a whole the state would punish based on adoption. All of which were implemented so long as the proof were established. And not just mere speculation. 

As for the munafiqeen they were obligated to obey the prophet as a prophet and a leader and when they tried to build their own masjid ie masjid a dhirar it was burnt now by the prophet (saw) and the munafiqeen couldn't do anything about it.

Finally, these are just some brief points that ive stated from the top of my head there's far more details that could be elaborated by far more knowledgable people than me. But what can be clearly established is the argument of a non state of medina or that the prophet had only authority over muhajireen and not the rest of medinah is false and vacuous and is not born out in Quran nor the seerah. 

Abu Laith

zeb said...

jazakallah for ur reply and clearifying the issue

i hope hizb will publish a detail article on this issue in this blog


Anonymous said...




Rizwan said...

Dear Abu Laith!

Thanks for your answers. These were some very important points asking for clarification.

But there are a couple of more points which were raised by Mr. Khalid Mehmood Abbasi ( of Tanzeem-e-Islami during his discussion with me.

POINT 1: In the following verse which was revealed around 5 AH, Allah makes 03 x promises with Muslims. Doesn't the first one show that Khilafah or the Islamic State was not yet established?

Quran 24:55 - "Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion - the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace: 'They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me. 'If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked."

Imam Suyuti in tafseer of this ayah in Durr-e-Mansoor quotes from Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Marduya that Bara bin Azib r.a. said this verse was revealed about them (i.e. the Sahaba) when they were in the condition of extreme fear.

Imam Suyuti also quotes a tradition of the same effect from Abul Aaliyah. Imam Suyuti further states that this tradition has also been narrated by Ubay bin Kab r.a. as mentioned by Bahaqi in his Dalail an-Nubuwwah (Vol. 6, pg. 318), Hakim (who graded it Sahih) in his Kitab ut-Tafseer of Mustadrak, Tabarani in his Mujam al-Awsat as well as by Ibn Marduya and Imam Ibn Mundhir.

POINT 2: Did the Islamic State of Madina right after Hijra comprised of only Aus and Khazraj or of the three Jewish tribes as well? Were not the Jewish tribes made part of that Islamic State after Ghazwa-e-Khyber?

Shab al Pakistani said...

Establishment of Islamic State in Madina has plenty of evidences that may form a book. I want to share few insha llah

"Say: O Allah, make my place of arrival good and make my place of departure good. And grant me an aid and an authority from Yourself." [TMQ Bani Isra'il; 17:80]
It is quoted in Ahmed on the authority of Hadrat Ibn Abbas (ra) that this ayah was revealed on Prophet (saw), when He was in Mecca and Allah ordered Him to make Hijrah. Also, Ibn-e-Kathir has quoted this ayah in his Al-Bidayah Wa An-Nahayah in the chapter “The reasons of Hijra of Prophet from Mecca to Medina.” The word “سُلْطَانً” here refers to authority. Ibn-e-Kathir writes in the exegesis of this ayah, “…Pray for authority (سُلْطَانً) and help (نصر) from Me (swt)…Muhammad (saw) knew that without authority it is impossible to empower and propagate deen. That’s why He asked for “انَصِيرً سُلْطَانًا”, so that He could establish the deen of Allah, the book of Allah, His hudood, and obligations….It is because along with haq; power and domination are also necessary so that enemies of haq will be suppressed. In another hadith it is said that Allah stops many evils through state which can’t be stopped through Quran.”
This tafseer explicitly explains the reasons of Hijrah, which was the implementation of laws and shifting the paradigm of dawah to formation of a society that will carry the momentum of Islam. Similarly, Ayah 41 of Surah Hajj also supports this evidence, which was revealed in early days of Medina.
“They are those who, if We grant them authority on land, they will attend regularly to their prayers, give in charity, enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong. With God rests the final outcome of all events.”
In his tafseer Ibn-e-Kathir writes, “Hadrat Utmhan (ra) says that this ayah was revealed for us. As we were unjustly expelled out of our land. Than Allah gave us power or state (سلطنت)…..”

Imam Ahmad, on the authority of Hadrat Jabir (ra), gave the following details:
The Ansar (Helpers) asked the Messenger of Allah about the principles over which they would take a pledge. The Prophet answered:
“1. To listen and obey in all sets of circumstances.
2. To spend in plenty as well as in scarcity.
3. To enjoin good and forbid evil.
4. In Allâh’s service, you will fear the censure of none.
5. To defend me in case I seek your help, and debar me from anything you debar yourself, your spouses and children from. And if you observe those precepts, Paradise is in store for you.”
In the above hadith Ansar pledged to listen and obey the Messenger of Allah in all sets of circumstances which indicates that it was a baya’h for authority and utter obedience in all matters. However, all Muslims didn’t pledge to Prophet (saw), which is evidence that this baya’h was particular to Aws and Khizraj and was taken for special reasons.

Rizwan said...

JazakAllah Shab al Pakistani!

This was extremely helpful. I have also come to know of the hadith about the birth of Abdullah bin Zubair r.a. was was the first child born in Madinah after hijrah. His mother Asma bint Abubakr describes him as the "first child born IN ISLAM". This hadith has been quoted by Bukhari in his his Kitab Manaqib Ansar and Kitab Aqeeqah. And Muslim quotes it in his Kitab Adaab. An Urdu commentator of Sahih Bukhari named Abdul Hakeem Khan Shahjahanpuri even translates it as the "first child born in darulislam" instead of "in Islam".

Imam Anwar al Awlaki in his famous english lectures on Seerah (available @ also considers Madinah as an Islamic State from day one.

Dr. Mahmood Ahmed Ghazi (of Pakistan) is also of the same opinion as discussed by him in lecture # 6 of his urdu lecture series named Muhadarat-e-Seerat (available @

Still waiting for interpretation of Surah Noor Verse 24:55.....