Saturday, July 28, 2007

Is Saudi Arabia a State of Islam or Kufr ?

The following article was written some years ago but is still useful.

Every Muslim must know whether his/her Deen is implemented in any country. This is due to the fact that Muslims must pledge allegiance to the country that rules by the Deen of Allah (swt). In other words, that state would be the Khilafah State that is headed by the Khaleefah whom Islam obligated us to obey. Therefore, this presentation is not hypothetical, nor for pure academic reasons. In other words, the Muslims must know if king Fahd is the Khaleefah of the Muslims, and whether Saudi is the Islamic State. If we conclude that Saudi is the Islamic State, then the obligation of re-establishing the Islamic state is removed (and the Islamic movements are actually wasting their time working for a goal that is already achieve).

Muslims perception

Many Muslims view Saudi Arabia to be an Islamic state. This is due to the lack of criterion to
determine whether a state is Islamic or not. It is also due to the lack of knowledge of the reality of the situation in that country because of the facade that is put by this state. After all, every year Saudi donates millions of copies of the honorable Qur’an, Islamic books, and a lot of money to build Masajid etc. all over the world. As a result people believe it to be Islamic. Therefore,
Muslims must know its reality.

The Criterion for a state to be Islamic

For a state to be Islamic, it must base its constitution, laws, structure, foreign relations, as well as solve its problems on the basis of the Islamic ‘Aqeedah. If a state does not rule by Islamic laws or imports rule from a non-Islamic basis in any sphere of its affairs, it is not Islamic i.e. Kufr state.

Now based on this criterion, let us examine Saudi.

Saudi and Man-Made Laws

Saudi rules by a mix of laws, some of which are Islamic and some are man-made. However, to maintain the Islamic perception, it refrains from calling them laws. Saudi uses specific terminologies to differentiate between the Islamic laws and the man-made ones. In an Arabic book titled “The Constitutional Laws of the Arab Countries” under the subtitle “The Constitution of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” the author states, “The words ‘law (anoon)’ and ‘Legislation (Tashree’)’ are only used in Saudi to refer to the rules taken from the Islamic Shari‘ah ..... As for the man-made such as systems (Anthimah)’ or ‘ instructions (Ta’leemaat)’ or ‘ edict (Awamir)’......” In an Arabic book titled Al-Wajeez fi Tareekh Al-Qawneen (The Compact in the History of Cannons) by Dr. Mahmood Al-Maghribi, p443, after mentioning that legislation in the past was Islamic and simple, he complements Saudi by saying, “this situation has changed after the rise of the Saudi State and the natural resources. This new situation required reforms and changes ... Due to these changes, there was a need for new laws. As a result, laws were formulated in the following areas; Laws in the basis of court systems, trade, penal code, labour, Taxation, among others ..”

Regarding Trade laws, he stated “The trade laws, land and sea, which are known as ‘The Trade System’ are considered one of the most important Saudi trade laws. This law was issued in 1931
and is similar to the modern trade laws, be they Arab or European.” With regard to the Islamic
penal code, he said they are implemented (of course), “with some alterations required by the public interest.” He also added, “ Public interest also required making taxation revenue laws or the state...”

The author is actually telling us that Saudi has been implementing non-Islamic laws in trade, “similar to the modern trade laws.” He also tells us that Al-Saud have altered the Deen of Allah (swt) by changing some of his laws due to “public interest”.

In actuality, there are many man-made laws which the author did not mention such as:

• The system of observing banks issued by the king’s edict #M/5 in 1386 AH.
• The system of the Saudi Arab citizenship decided by the ministers Council resolution #4 on 25th January 1974 and approved by the king in his speech in High Council #8/5/8604 on 22nd February 1974 to put it in effect.
• The system of printed material and publication issued by the king’s edict #M/17 in 13/4/1402 AH.
•The law of reviving the dead land used to be according to Islam, where if a person works a piece of land that becomes his. This was the case until an edict was issued declaring the nullification of this Islamic law starting from 1987 onwards.
• The system of marrying non-Saudi woman.
• The general rule for taxes, approved by the king’s edict #M/9, on 4/6/1395 AH.

Shar’i And Civil Courts

In Saudi , as in other states, in addition to Shari’ah courts, there are civil courts or courts that rule by man-made laws. As stated earlier , they do not call them civil courts, so as not to shock the Muslims there or embarrass their scholars, who are the biggest pillars of the state. In Saudi, manmade laws are introduced through legal forums councils and committee, such as Dewan of
Mathalim (council of injustices). These forums are equal to civil courts in other countries.

Scholars of Saudi refer to the civil courts in other countries as Kufr, but dare not say the same about these councils. These legal forums address issues that are not part of Shari‘ah, such as cases of Riba, forgery, bribes, etc. These councils are composed of Sheikhs and lawyers, from colleges such as the Sorbonne, who pass verdicts according to certain articles and edicts which are not Islamic.

For example, military courts are placed under a special Dewan called Dewan of Military Courts. In it, Saudi uses man-made laws called “the System of the Saudi Arab Army” issued on 11/11/1366 AH. This system is a combination of Shari’i and non-Shari’i law which are exclusive to military personnel. An example of a Shar’i rule is that of Hirabah, killing anyone who tries to overthrow the regime. In reality, this law was introduced as a measure to deter Islamic activists and especially the army from attempting to remove the entity of Al-Saud and replace it with the Islamic one. As for the punishment for theft, which they claim is subject to Islam, it is not implemented. It is known that the Islamic punishment for theft is cutting off the hand, whether the thief is a civilian, soldier or the Khaleefah himself. In “the System of the Saudi Arab Army” chapter 8 article no.12 states, “The officers and the soldiers who steal something that belongs to other officers and soldiers or their moneys, and the item is consumable, then the thief is to pay its value, if consumed, and be imprisoned for a period ranging from a month and a half to three months...” Furthermore, if an officer commits theft and wants to repent and get punished according to article 20 and 22 from chapter 3 of the same system that places some crimes under the authority of the Shar’i courts and others under the “Council of trials”.

We ask the scholars and the supporters of this British-made, American maintained state: Are the laws of Islam applicable to some people and inapplicable to others? What is the rule of Islam
regarding legislating a punishment other than what Allah has revealed?

Saudi takes and gives Riba whoever takes a stroll near the Haram will see the British-Saudi Bank, American-Saudi Bank, Arab-National Bank, the Cairo-Saudi Bank etc. These banks with their Riba transactions are allowed to operate in accordance to Section B, article 1 of the Saudi law, issued by the king’s edict no.M/5 in 1386 AH. It is well known that any case dealing with Riba and banks is automatically transferred to the monetary establishment where it is handled by specific committees. Cases of such nature do not go to Shar’i courts. Prior to this law, whenever a person borrowed money from a bank or an establishment and was late in paying it back, and got charged interest, he would go to a Shar’i court judge, who would nullify the interest. This led to a conflict.

On the one land they needed the Shar’i courts, at least to keep up the farce, and at the same time they needed their banks. To resolve this conflict, Shar’i courts were prohibited from interfering in such cases under the “Specialisation” law (articles 20 and 21 from chapter 3 of the System of Saudi Arab Army).

Saudi and its Riba based relations with GCC (Gulf Cooperation council) Article 22 of the Unified Economic Agreement stated, “The member states coordinate their financial monetary banking and increase cooperation among monetary establishments and the central bank ...” Its clear that deal with interest since banks and monetary establishments are based on Riba.

Saudi and the AMF (Arab Monetary Fund)

The Arab Monetary Fund, based in Abu Dhabi, is a huge Riba institution that was established by an agreement on 4/7/76 in Morocco. Saudi is the biggest share holder in it; it receives, as every one else in the Fund, Riba of an average of 3.2% on its shares.

Saudi and IMF (International Monetary Fund)

It is worth mentioning that Saudi has the 6th largest share and power of rate. It had 3.5% of the
total shares which enabled it to occupy a permanent seat in the executive board.

So we ask: How can a state that is involved in Riba as a set policy be Islamic? Maybe because it
donates copies of Qur’an and the Al-Saud ‘scholars’ say so!!

Saudi and External relations: The International Court of Justice

It is well known that Saudi is a member of the UN. According to article 92 of the UN constitution, the International court of Justice (ICJ) is the main Judicial branch of the UN. The ICJ performs its duties based on a system that is part of the UN constitution and must be respected and approved by every member state. Article 94 states “Every member of the UN is to submit to the ICJ in any case in which he is a part.”

Is the International Law taken from the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His messenger
(saw)? What is Saudi submitting to? The UN, which was created to counter Islam, or Islam?
Saudi is not merely a member of the UN. It is a pioneer in supporting the UN. Some even go the
extent of saying that it was one of the founding members. In a speech given by the then foreign
minister, prince Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, in 1945 in the San Francisco conference, he said: “...Let us
abide by the principles which we wrote here on paper... and let this constitution be the basis on
which we will build our new and better world.”

Saudi and UNESCO

The UNESCO was formed in 1946 Saudi showed great interest in this organisation, lending it $4.6 million , interest free,and donating $50,00 in support of its projects. This organisation is designed to spread the Western ideas as well as distorting Islam. For example, in the Encyclopedia on the History of the Human Race and its Scientific Development, issued by this organisation, in volume 3 chapter 10 it states:

1. Islam is a fabricated religion that is composed of Judaism, Christianity and Arabian Polytheism .
2. Qur’an is a book that has no tolerance to others.
3. The Prophet’s traditions where made up by some people, a long time after the prophet, and
attributed to him.
4. Muslim Jurists put down their jurisprudence based on the Roman, Persian and Church laws as well as the Old Testament...”

As a matter of fact, Tala Noor Attar, complemented Saudi in his book, “Saudi and the UN”, saying that it donated to the UNESCO $17,040,000.

Is it that the government of Saudi is illiterate and never heard of what the UNESCO writes about the Deen they are supposedly propagating, or is it this is exactly what they donating for?!

Saudi and the Arab League

Saudi is not only a member of this nationalistic organisation, but it is one of the founders. Article 8 of the Arab League Constitution states, “Every participating member of the League must respect the established ruling system of the other participating states in the League, it should consider it as a right of these states and obligate it self not to do any action that is aimed at changing their systems.”

Assuming that Saudi is Islamic, is it permissible for it to recognise the Kufr, support it and promise not to change it? So the Baathi regime of Iraq and Alawyite in Syria should be respected!? And we have not mentioned the rule for nationalism which Saudi is propagating, for we think it is well known.


Some claim that Saudi takes its stand without free will and under pressure. This may be said about a specific incident that occurred or a statement that it made, but no one can say this when the above mentioned set a basis of its policies since its establishment by the British. At any rate, King Fahd declares otherwise, “Every citizen should hold his head high, for his country in any way. We base our friendly relations with other countries based on our mutual benefits in a way that dose not permit any foreign country to have a hold in the Saudi Arab kingdom.” [Thursday 8th of Safar 1405 AH]

It is clear, therefore, that Islam is not implemented in Saudi. Consequently, the work to resume the Islamic way of life via the re-establishment of the Khilafah is an obligation upon Muslims.

Friday, July 27, 2007

Various Ahadith about the Rulers

Abdullaah Ibn ‘Abbaas said that Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “There shall be rulers whom you will recognize from them good and evil. Whoever opposes them is saved. Whoever abandons them is freed. And whoever intermingles with them is destroyed.” (Collected by Ibn Abi Shaybah and at-Tabaraanee; al-Albaanee authenticated it in “Saheeh al-Jaami’”, hadeeth #3661).

Abul-A’war as-Sulamee said that Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Be wary of the ruler’s gates; for there, there is difficulty and humiliation.” (Collected by ad-Daylamee and at-Tabaraanee; al-Albaanee authenticated it in “as-Silsilah as-Saheehah”, hadeeth #1253).

Aboo Hurayrah said that Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Whoever approaches the ruler’s gates becomes afflicted. Whenever a slave draws closer to the ruler, he only gains distance from Allaah.” (Collected by Ahmad; al-Albaanee authenticated it in “Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb”, hadeeth #2241. A similar narration, save the last sentence, is reported from Ibn ‘Abbaas; al-Albaanee authenticated it in “Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb”, hadeeth #2242).

Jaabir Ibn ‘Abdillaah said that Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said to Ka’b Ibn ‘Ujrah, “O Ka’b Ibn ‘Ujrah, I seek Allaah’s protection for you from the leadership of fools. There shall be rulers, whoever enters upon them, then aids them in their oppression and validates their lies, then he is not from me nor I from him, and he shall not be admitted to the Hawd. Whoever does not enter upon them, and does not aid them in their oppression, nor validates their lies, then he is from me and I from him, and he shall be admitted to the Hawd.” (Collected by Ahmad, al-Bazzaar, and Ibn Hibbaan; al-Albaanee authenticated it in “Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb”, hadeeth #2243. Similar narrations are reported from an-Nu’man Ibn Basheer, ‘Abdillaah Ibn Khabbaab (from his father), Abi Sa’eed al-Khudree, and Ka’b Ibn ‘Ujrah; Al-Albaanee authenticated these other narrations in “Saheeh at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb”, ahaadeeth #2243-2246).

Abu Hurairah (ra) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
"قبل الساعة سنون خدّاعة يكذب فيها الصّادق و يصدّق فيها الكذوب، و يخون فيها الأمين، و يؤتمن فيها الخائن و ينطق فيها الرّويبضة""Indeed, before the Hour (Day of Judgement) there are deceptive years -the truthful one will not be believed, the liar will be believed, the trustworthy one will be accused of betrayal, the treacherous one will be trusted, and the Ruwaibidah will speak."It was said, "And what is the Ruwaibidah?" He (saw) said: "الرجل التّافه يتكلّم في أمر العامّة" "The man who is Tafih (insignificant, unwise, etc.), he will speak on the affairs of the general public (he will be trusted to rule and he will speak in the name of the people)." (Ahmad (2/291) Ibn Maajah (4042), and Al-Haakim (4/465).In As-Saheeh (1787), Albaani declared that it is an authentic Hadith.)

“Allah would grasp the whole planet of the earth and roll it up on the Day of Resurrection and all the heavens will be in His Right Hand. Then He will say: I am the King. Where are the monarchs of the earth?” (Bukhari and Muslim)

Ibn Majah on the authority of Abu Saeed, Ahmad and Ibn Majjah and Tabarani and Baihaqi on the authority of Abu Umamah, Ahmad and Nisa'i on the authority of the tabie Tariq Ibn Shihab all narrated that the messenger (saw) said : "The best of Jihad is a word of truth in the face of a tyrant ruler".

Ma'qil bin Yasar, may Allah be pleased with him, reported: Verily I have heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Anyone amongst the slaves (of Allah) who was entrusted with the affairs of his subjects and he died in such a state that he was dishonest in his dealings with those over whom he ruled, Paradise would be forbidden for him. [Bukhari complied it the book of Legal Judgements no 6617,6618]

AbdulRazzaq and Imam Ahmad both narrated on the authority of Ibn Masood (ra) that the messenger (saw) said to him: "What will you do O Abu AbdulRahman (Ibn Massood) if you had rulers who abolished the sunnah and delayed the prayer from its time?". Ibn Masoood said: What do you order me o messenger of Allah?. The messenger said: "Ibn Umm Abd (Ibn Masood) is asking me what will he do!!!There is no obedience to the creature by disobeying the creator".

Al-Harth narrated on the authority of Ibn Masood that the messenger (saw) said: "For every matter, there is a thing that spoils it, and what spoils this deen is the evil rulers". (Saheeh according to Imam Suyooti)

On the authority of Abu Musa(ra), the messenger of Allah (saw) said: "In the hellfire there is a valley, and in this valley there is a well called "Habahab", it is duty upon Allah to reside in this well every stubborn oppressor (ruler)". (Narated by Tabarani and its Isnad is Hasan)

"Any leader of a ten men or more, he will be brought in the judgment day chained until either the justice will unchain him or the oppression will chain him". (Narrated by Al-Bazzar, and the men in the chain are Saheeh)

As for narrations from the words of the Companions, then as-Suyootee has collected from ‘Ali Ibn Abi Taalib, Ibn Mas’ood, Hudhayfah Ibn al-Yamaan, and Abi Dharr, narrations of general warning against approaching the rulers or their gates. See “Maa Rawaahul-Asaateen Fee ‘Adam al-Majee’ Ilas-Salaateen”.

There are many with similar meanings, so here are some examples:

Ibn Mas’ood said, “Whoever wishes to honour his religion, then he should not enter upon the ruler.” (Collected by ad-Daarimee).

Ibn Mas’ood also said, “A man enters upon the ruler, carrying his religion with him, then exits without anything with him.” (Collected by al-Bukhari in his “Taareekh” and Ibn Sa’d in “at-Tabaqaat”).

On the authority of Abdullah Bin Masood (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: "There will be rulers over you, who will leave the sunnah like this," and hepointed to the origin of his finger. "If you were to leave these rulersalone, they will bring great affliction and disaster. There has been no previous ummah except that the first thing they left from their religion was the sunnah, and the last to be left was the salat , and were not these rulers shy and afraid from people, they would not pray". (Narrated by Al-Hakim and he said this is saheeh hadith on the condition of Bukhari and Muslim).

How Nations Faulter

In the Name of Allah, The most Beneficent, The most Merciful

It is human nature to forget. Aadam, our father (Peace from Allah be on him), had a slip of memory and he ate from the forbidden tree. Of course, Aadam sincerely repented and never committed that sin again. So his Lord the Almighty pardoned him. Herein lay the seeds of wisdom for humankind, for nations and generations to come. The adage is, “Wisdom begins with the Fear of Allah”. The natural corollary would be, “Those who do not fear Allah, are intelligent fools”. Such men and nations cannot be called wise.

Nation after nation and generation after generation commit the same follies, meet their decline and finally perish. Time is witness that every person or nation, who committed serious aberrations from the path prescribed by the Lord, was doomed to utter destruction. Pride is one such serious aberration that cannot but bite the dust. ‘Pride’ is the privilege of The Lord, The Supreme - Allah. If men or nations dwell in arrogance, they run the extreme risk of being hauled-up by the Almighty. When will they be arrested for their crime, is a matter of time.
Let no nation believe that its ‘Superpower’ can defeat the Will of the Lord Almighty. Allah’s plan is supreme and powerful enough to manifest itself without anybody’s help. Conversely, His plan is too powerful to be changed or stopped by anybody. To believe that human designs can override or even alter Divine plan, is a folly. The perished nations are witness to this Divine arrest. His plan will unfold itself exactly as He has structured it, correct to the micro-second and precise to the hair-breath.

In the world today, nations arrogate to themselves a position of peace keeping and world policing. They favor those persons and nations who support their designs. They subvert truth and impose their ideology by force. They have the audacity to say that the interest of their country is supreme. They topple Heads of State on false, fabricated and got-up information; support others who either toe their line or benefit them. International organizations, laws and treaties are made for their own benefit. These organizations, laws and treaties are brazenly trampled and even over-ruled when they outlive their utility for the ‘peace keepers’.
To maintain this false superiority, genuine news is concealed while false and fabricated news is passed-off as genuine. The electronic and print media is so well controlled by these arrogant nations that information which they desire filters through; the rest is either destroyed or presented in a manner where nothing comes out of its reading. These arrogant nations firstly target a person, nation or ideology and then work tirelessly to build a case against that target. The case is trumpeted as a threat to the entire world. They twist the arms of one nation after another to support their fabricated cases that ultimately fall flat on their face and prove wrong by the passage of time. The nations of the world are commanded to align themselves either with the self-proclaimed ‘peace keeper’ or with the ‘accused’. If any nation fails to align with the former, it is labeled evil. Drumming-up falsehood as truth to the extent that the false begins to appear as truth, is their modus. The spying and intelligence networks in the world today, are in their hands. They give false information and advice to their own bosses. The common-man of the world and even Kings, Presidents and Prime Ministers, are so perfectly insulated that they do not come to know of the real truth and ground reality.

These self-proclaimed ‘world police’ support and protect the nation(s) that are created on deceit and who blatantly refuse to abide by international covenants. This group has the audacity to refuse any international agency to interfere or inspect their secret places. It is they who usurp lands of other sovereign nations and pride on torture. They use every trick in the book to enrich themselves and impoverish the rest of the world – the rich and poor nations alike. They need not fear the self-proclaimed ‘world police’ for indeed, this police is their protector. But a law-abiding nation that promises to fulfill international covenants and permits international agencies to inspect deep into its land is condemned as ‘Axis of Evil’.

These are the signs of a nation that has covered itself in arrogance. This is where the seed of annihilation lies. If sincere repentance is forthcoming, forgiveness shall follow. Else the fate of passed nations is evidence of the ways of destiny to overcome and overrule these arrogant nations.

Even before Divine wrath envelops them, there is a price they need to pay everyday, every moment, and that is – Living in FEAR. They build fortresses around themselves and live in constant threat to their life and property. Although these arrogant nations are themselves a scourge on this planet, they feel threatened by others. Fear and ignonimity is the price for their arrogance. There are Alhamdulillah, some who can stand up and tell these arrogant, deceitful Nations that they are not supreme but the scums of the Earth.

By the Power of the Lord, today there are non-violent political groups, if not Nations, who ardently and urgently want to unite under the leadership of one single slave of Allah – a Khalifah - who would be benevolent not just to the entire Muslim Ummah but to the whole world. A world filled with PEACE and abounding prosperity shall follow.

Abu Farhaan

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Does Islam have a Ruling System?

It is strange that some are attempting to cast doubt on the political aspects of Islam in a time when this would so obviously aid the enemies of Islam. In an attempt to confuse those with less knowledge they play with semantics and misconstrue the statements of scholars. In the name of ‘independent thinking’ they have borrowed from the arguments of modernists like Ali Abdul Raziq (1888-1966 CE) of Egypt, a student of Muhammad Abduh who attempted to confine Islam to ritual spiritual issues. He claimed that Islam did not define a ruling system or form of government thus denying the clear obligation of Khilafah (caliphate). He wrote in his book ‘Al-Islam Wa Usul al Hukm’ (Islam and the principles of government):

"Islam is innocent of this institution of the caliphate as Muslims commonly understand it. Religion has nothing to do with one form of government rather than another and there is nothing in Islam which forbids Muslims to destroy their old political system and build a new one on the basis of the newest conceptions of the human spirit and the experience of nations."

Islam, according to him, is a religion whose religious precepts are binding only on individual conscience and have nothing to do with power and politics. Thus religion and Siyasa (politics) are worlds apart. He claims the political history of the Muslims under the Khilafah contradicts the teachings of Islam which aims at personal salvation and operates within the confines of individual morality. This is why the extension of religion to political domain in the guise of what he calls ‘the theory of caliphate’ is taken by him to be the innovations of jurists and theologians. Sound familiar?

Without going into a lengthy discussion I want to highlight some of the fallacies of the arguments I have seen:

Playing with semantics - The issue of Dar al-Islam

The twisted logic goes something like this, as some of the scholars differed on the definition of Dar al-Islam it is therefore justified for the rulers in the Muslim world today to rule by Kufr, as the definition of Dar al-Islam is not Qat’i (definitive).

Regardless of the Ikhtilaf (difference of opinion) on the definition of Dar al-Islam, everyone agrees that ruling by other than what Allah (swt) revealed is a Qat'i prohibition which governments in the Muslim world do today. Of course scholars do disagree whether people who do that become Kafir automatically or remain as Fasiq (open sinners) and Dhalim (oppressors).

Ibn al-Qayyim said: "The correct view is that ruling according to something other than that which Allah has revealed includes both major and minor Kufr, depending on the position of the judge. If he believes that it is obligatory to rule according to what Allah has revealed in this case, but he turns away from that out of disobedience, whilst acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment, then this is lesser Kufr. But if he believes that it is not obligatory and that the choice is his even though he is certain that this is the ruling of Allah, then this is major Kufr." [Madaarij as-Saaliheen, 1/336-337]

The lesser Kufr here refers to sin as is also reported in the famous opinion from Ibn Abbas (ra).

However according to Ibn Taymiyyah: "Undoubtedly, whoever does not believe that it is obligatory to rule according to that which Allah has revealed to His Messenger is a Kafir, and whoever thinks it is permissible to rule among people according to his own opinions, turning away and not following which Allah has revealed is also a Kafir...So in matters which are common to the Ummah as a whole, it is not permissible to rule or judge according to anything except the Quran and Sunnah. No one has the right to make the people follow the words of a scholar or Ameer or shaykh or king. Whoever believes that he can judge between people according to any such thing, and does not judge between them according to the Quran and Sunnah is a Kafir." [Minhaj as-Sunnah, 5/130-132]

Ash-Shawkani also held this view, he said in one of his essays:

a) That referring for judgement to Taghoot (evil i.e. non Islam) constitutes major Kufr.
b) That referring for judgement to Taghoot is just one of a number of actions of Kufr, each of which in its own is sufficient to condemn the one who does it as a Kafir.
c) He gives examples of Kufr, such as people agreeing to deny women their rights of inheritance and their persisting in co-operating in that, and he states that is major kufr. [Ar-Rasaa'il as-Salafiyah by Ash-Shawkani, pg. 33-34]

Therefore differences on terminology is only semantics in reality - it is completely prohibited to rule by other than what Allah (swt) revealed.

The Fatawa of Mufti’s in the Ottoman state

This one even fails to even be remotely connected to an evidence, it seems to be designed to play on the mind of those who accept the Ottoman state as a Khilafah and know that the Ottoman state in its last days implemented some non-Islamic laws.

It is true that towards the last period of the Uthmani Khilafah due to the ignorance of the Ulema at the time the state passed some laws which were non-Islamic like in 1288 A.H (1870 C.E) when they divided of the courts into two: Shari’ah courts and official law courts.

Firstly, when did history become a source of Shari’ah? Of course its not, so regardless of what happened it’s not an argument.

Secondly, it is possible for there to be difference of opinion whether the Uthmani Khalifah ceased to be a Khilafah in the latter part of the 1800's when they adopted these Kufr laws. There is a difference of opinion on this matter due to the ahadith about 'Kufr Bu'ah (open)' and 'Kufr Sareeh (clear)' - scholars differ upon this as if they adopted it out of ignorance would they fit within the definition of implementing not only Kufr but Kufr Bu’ah (open Kufr) which was known by them or were they ignorant of this.

This does not mean in any way that it is acceptable for rulers to rule by Kufr today just because some Mufti's legitimise it. As mentioned earlier - ruling by other than what Allah (swt) revealed is a definitive matter which is indisputable.

Thirdly, it is incorrect to consider what the Ottoman Mufti’s did as having a Shubhat Daleel (semblance of an evidence) and therefore a legitimate opinion as some claim. See the chapter entitled ‘Adopting the Western laws’ in How the Khilafah was destroyed by Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom.

Misquoting the scholars

Quoting the names of a few prominent scholars and the titles of their books is always a good one for deceiving people away from the truth and legitimising the rule of the tyrants. I thought I’d mention some of the quotes of those scholars, they would be distraught if they knew how their names are being misused today:

Some of the quotes are so obviously misconstrued. Such as quoting Mawardi or any other as saying that it is a legitimate view that the Khilafah is only a rational necessity and not textually proved. It is true that scholars like Mawardi make mention of the deviant views like that of the Ithna Ashari Shi’a who believe the Khalifah has to be divinely appointed by Allah and of the view of some philosophers who held the view that proof of the obligation of appointing a Khalifah was rational, this doesn’t mean they were saying these views are legitimate. Just because the scholars mentioned the Ithna Ashari Shi’a views about the Khalifah being appointed by Allah (swt) and having to be infallible are we going to accept them as legitimate?

Ibn Khaldun says:

“The position of imam is a necessary one. The consensus of the men around Muhammad and the men of the second generation shows that (the imamate) is necessary according to the religious law. At the death of the Prophet, the men around him proceeded to render the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr and to entrust him with the supervision of their affairs. And so it was at all subsequent periods. In no period were the people left in a state of anarchy. This was so by general consensus, which proves that the position of imam is a necessary one.

Some people have expressed the opinion that the necessity of the imamate is indicated by the intellect (rational reasons), and that the consensus which happens to exist merely confirms the authority of the intellect in this respect. As they say, what makes (the position of imam) intellectually (rationally) necessary is the need of human beings for social organization and the impossibility of their living and existing by themselves. One of the necessary consequences of social organization is disagreement, because of the pressure of cross-purposes. As long as there is no ruler who exercises a restraining influence, this (disagreement) leads to trouble which, in turn, may lead to the destruction and uprooting of mankind. Now, the preservation of the (human) species is one of the necessary intentions of the religious law.”

“Or, we might say (against the alleged rational necessity of the caliphate): In order to remove disagreement, it is sufficient that every individual should know that injustice is forbidden him by the authority of the intellect. Then, their claim that the removal of disagreement takes place only through the existence of the religious law in one case, and the position of the imam in another case, is not correct. (Disagreement) may (be removed) as well through the existence of powerful leaders, or through the people refraining from disagreement and mutual injustice, as through the position of the imam. Thus, the intellectual proof based upon that premise does not stand up. This shows that the necessity of (the position of imam) is indicated by the religious law, that is, by general consensus, as we have stated before.” [Al-Muqadimah, Chapter 3]

He and other scholars also mention the view of the deviants who rejected the obligation of having an Imam, this doesn’t mean that the scholars accepted that as a legitimate view. He says:

“Some people have taken the exceptional position of stating that the position of imam is not necessary at all, neither according to the intellect nor according to the religious law. People who have held that opinion include the Mu'tazilah al-Asamm and certain Kharijites, among others. They think that it is necessary only to observe the religious laws. When Muslims agree upon (the practice of) justice and observance of the divine laws, no imam is needed, and the position of imam is not necessary. Those (who so argue) are refuted by the general consensus.” [Al-Muqadimah, Chapter 3]

Furthermore Ibn Khaldun mentioned, “Some people have expressed the opinion that the necessity of the imamate is indicated by the intellect (rational reasons), and that the consensus which happens to exist merely confirms the authority of the intellect in this respect.” This means that they didn’t reject the consensus rather they said it conforms with what can be rationally perceived.

"Appointing the Imam is obligatory which was known to every one with the consensus of the companions and their followers. The companions of the Prophet (saw) hurried to appoint Abu Bakr (ra) as their Khalifah after the death of the prophet (saw). The Muslims had a Khalifah in every age afterwards, and they were not left in chaos (without a Khalifah) in any age. This was viewed as a consensus among the scholars that the Imam (Khalifah) must be appointed.” [Al-Muqadimah, Ibn Khaldun, p. 210]

Having more than one Khalifah & multiple states

This is addressed in The obligation of having one Khalifah

Difference of opinion by the scholars on details = No politics in Islam?

Another of the strange views espoused is that as there is a lot of difference of opinion by the classical Ulema in the details of the Khilafah this means the whole thing is speculative and therefore there are no definitive aspects of the ruling system in Islam.

This is like discounting the obligation of Salah by the fact that a lot of the details of Salah are subject to wide difference of opinion amongst the scholars. That would be ridiculous as although there are differences on the details the obligation and the key fundamentals are definitive.

This is the same for the issue of ruling. Regardless of the terminological differences and the areas of legitimate ikhtilaf (difference of opinion) there are clear definitive Ahkam Shariah relating to ruling, whether you like to call it the Tariqa (method) of Islam or a system or not is irrelevant. These are not applied by the governments in the Muslim world today.

Let us look at some of definitive Ahkam related to ruling, of course in the details of these areas there may be difference of opinion. These are definitive at least in meaning, some are also definitive in transmission as is well known the difference being the rejection of one leads to fisq (open sin) and the rejection of those which are Qat’i Thuboot (definitive in transmission) and Qat’i in Dalalah (meaning) leads to Kufr:

- The obligation of having a Khalifah

There is no need to repeat the multiple evidences and quotation of the scholars for this, one will suffice. The scholars differ on some of the conditions of the Khalifah and details some of which are definitive such as him being Muslim.

Imam an-Nawawi (d. 1278 CE) said, "(The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khaleefah.” [Sharhu Sahih Muslim, An-Nawawi, Vol 12, p. 205]

Others are available from Exposing the call for the reformation of Islam - Part 2

- The obligation of Bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) to the Khalifah. Of course there are various differences amongst the scholars in the details of this area, the following discusses them in some detail

- It is clear from the Sunnah and Ijma as-Sahaba that a Khalifah can have Wali’s (governors) and Amils (mayors) who rule over the provinces and cities.

- Ruling by whatever Allah (swt) has revealed [Addressed earlier] – This is applicable for all the rulers including the Khalifah, Wali’s (governors) and Amils (mayors).

- The prohibition of having more than Khalifah [Addressed earlier]

- It is clear from the Sunnah and Ijma as-Sahaba that the Khalifah can appoint judges who judge cases according to the Shariah. Hence the pillar of judiciary of which again there is difference of opinion in the details such as the conditions for the different types of judges, etc.

- Enforcing the Hudud punishments, many of the Hudud as well as the law of Qisas have been specified in the Qur’an.

- Undertaking and managing Jihad – There are 119 verses in the Qur’an related to Jihad and it is a well known subject.

- Collection and distribution of the Zakah – Besides the fact that one of categories mentioned in the Qur’an is the state’s collector of Zakah. It is also established clearly by the Sunnah and is Ijma as-Sahaba. Abu Bakr (ra) fought those who refused to pay it.

- The Khalifah has the right to adopt the Ahkam Shariah in which there is legitimate difference of opinion, his opinion becomes binding. The obedience to the Ulil Amr (people in authority) is mentioned in the Qur’an, there are many ahadith obliging the obedience to the Khalifah and the issue of adoption is established by Ijma as-Sahabah.

These are some (not all) of the agreed upon issues. Different Mujtahideen have different views about certain aspects of the state based upon their understanding of the evidences just as they do for Salah, Hajj, fasting, marriage, contracts and other Ahkam Shariah. Some of these areas include the conditions of the Khalifah, the ahkam of Shura, the Mahkamat al-Mazalim (court of unjust acts), etc. The following are some of the differing views of the classical scholars on the details:

Majlis ash-Shura
- Al-Mawardi has written that each member should satisfy three conditions: he must be just, he must have enough knowledge of Islam to differentiate between a potentially good Khalifa and a bad one, and he must have sufficient wisdom and judgment to select the best leader.
- Al-Juwayni has four conditions for the Majlis-ash-Shura: each member must be a man, knowledgeable, above average relatively, and Muslim.
- Abdul-Jabbar is of the opinion that the members must have enough knowledge to select he who can be Khalifa - enough Islamic knowledge in particular, and wisdom and judgment in general.
- Al-Baghdadi believed that the Khalifa and the Majlis-ash-Shura should be selected from amongst those who can choose wisely.

Election of the Khalifah
- Some scholars say that at least a majority of the Majlis-ash-Shura must agree on the new Khalifa.
- Al-Ashari believes the Khalifa could be given to an eligible person even by a single vote if he comes from the Majlis-ash-Shura and has a good Islamic character. There must also be no valid objection supported by evidence or witnesses.
- Another group of scholar's opinion is that the Khalifa must have two votes for him in the Majlis-ash-Shura who are good Muslims (two because the Majlis-ash-Shura is a jama'a which is at least three people).
- A fourth opinion is that the Khalifa must have four votes (with no countering objection) because witnessing to a charge of adultery in Islam requires four witnesses.
A fifth opinion holds that at least three votes are necessary to make the decision have the strength of a jama'a behind it.
- A sixth opinion is that at least five votes are needed to make an even stronger decision.
Finally, a seventh group of scholars believes that it requires 40 members of the Majlis-ash-Shura to vote for the same candidate for him to become the new Khalifa since Friday prayer requires 40 people to be valid (according to some scholars).

Removing the Khalifah
- Al-Mawardi believed that if the Khalifa has followed the Qur'an and Sunnah, the people must follow and support him. On the other hand, if he becomes either unjust or handicapped to the point of ineffectiveness (such as blindness or an amputation), then he must be removed.
- Al-Baghdadi believed that if the Khalifa deviates from justice, the ummah needs to warn him first to return to the straight path. If this fails, then he can be removed.
- Al-Juwayni held that since Islam is the goal of the ummah, any Khalifa who steps away from this goal must be removed.
- Ashighistani wrote that if the Khalifa is found to be ignorant, oppressive, indifferent, or a kafir after his selection, then he must be removed.
- Al-Ghazali believed that an oppressive Khalifa must be told to desist from his crimes. If he does not, then he must be removed.
- Al-Iji believed the ummah has a definite list of permissible reasons to remove the Khalifa.
- Al-Asqalani wrote that if the Khalifa starts to act as an unbeliever, it is prohibited to obey him and obligatory to fight him. It is obligatory to stand against him if one can - and this entails a big reward. Those people who choose to ignore the situation are in sin, whereas those who cannot fight should emigrate (to organize resistance). Al-Asqalani used two ayahs from the Qur'an in particular to support his position. The first is from surat Al-Ahzab 67-68, "...And they would say, 'Our Lord! We obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they deceived us as to the right path. Our Lord! Give them a double penalty and curse them with a very great curse'...", and the second is from surat Al-Baqara 167, "...And those who followed would say, 'If only we had one more chance, we would clear ourselves of them, as they have cleared themselves of us.' Thus will Allah show them (the fruits of) their deeds as (nothing but) regrets. Nor will there be a way for them out of the Fire..."
Muslim reported that Ibn Umar said the Prophet ordered every Muslim to obey their leader unless commanded to do something bad, in which case they must neither obey nor listen. Muslim also reported that Ibn Malik said the best leader is the one where mutual love exists between him and the people, and the worst leader generates mutual hate. However, even in the latter case, fighting the Khalifa is prohibited unless he enters kufr by stopping prayers or zakat for example.
Ibn As-Samit reported that the Prophet said to obey him in all things and situations, and not to remove the leaders unless they openly practice kufr.

For more details on the different views of the scholars see:

It strikes me as intellectual insincerity by those who quote scholars like Mawardi and at the same time claim that Islam has no Ruling system even though Mawardi wrote the book ‘Al-Ahkamus-Sultaniyyah’ about the Ahkam of government in Islam.

It is not obligatory for the state to adopt then this means all you need is a Muslim as the ruler to have an Islamic state

I don’t think this one is worthy of a detailed response. The Khalifah can either adopt in the details or leave it to the governors and judges to rule by their own opinion – as long as they rule & judge by Islam!
Taqwa must be the basis in taking knowledge from people

The master of Hadith, Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri said, "Be careful from whom you take your knowledge, because that is your Deen."

This is of vital importance in these times where the enemies of Islam are using all the means at their disposal in order to distort the understanding of our Deen. Included within their armoury are scholars, ones who recite the Qur’an, former Islamic activists, academics, writers and Imams.

We must realise from our history that even hypocrites (munafiqeen), apostates, fasiq’s (open sinners) and even disbelievers (kuffar) can have knowledge of Islam, this doesn’t mean we should take it from them. Our beloved Prophet (saw) warned us of this:

“The thing that I fear the most for my ummah is a hypocrite with an eloquent tongue who argues with the Quran.” [Ahmed, Bazaar, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr. P 439]

Amongst these are those who are attempting to blur the definitive ahkam of Islam such as the obligation of having one Khalifah for the Muslims, the prohibition of ruling by man-made law, it has reached to an extent where some are even attempting to debate the prohibition of homosexuality in Islam.

We should also be aware of those who always find the weak and rogue opinions of the scholars.

Imam Al-Baihaqi reported: “Isma’eel Al Qadi said: ‘One day I entered to Al Mu’tadid, one of the Abbasid Khaleefahs, and immediately he showed me a book to read. I found that the author had compiled in it, the strange sayings of every ‘Alim. So I told the Khaleefah that the author of this book is a heretic. The Khaleefah asked why this was so, and I told him that those sayings were not presented by the scholars as they are presented in this book. He who legalised the Mu’tah marriage did not legalise singing, while he who legalised one action would not legalise another action. Additionally, each ‘Alim has strange opinions, so if one would compile the pitfalls of all the Imams, and adopt them, then the Deen would be lost. The Khaleefah then ordered the book to be burned.”

Imam Al-Awza’i said: “He who traces the strange opinions of the scholars is out of Islam. You would find a scholar with a lot of knowledge and value, and also with a pitfall. So if a person was to collect the pitfalls of all the scholars and form a new Madhab, then what kind of ‘Ilm would you have?’” [Who has the right to make Ijtihad, Salman Al Udeh, p. 13]

Just because someone is well read, have a good memory and seem intellectual this doesn’t mean that we should take our knowledge from them and give them our allegiance. Even people of vast knowledge who wrote voluminous works of fiqh have deviated from Islam in the past, so who are the comparative amateurs today?

Ibn Rushd (Averroes, 1126-1198 CE) was a Maliki scholar who wrote the famous work of fiqh, ‘Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihāyat al-Muqta’id’ is well known to have gone into philosophy and deviated. Others like the famous scientist and thinker Ibn Sina ended up thinking the world is eternal and would never end thus becoming an apostate.

We may find people of knowledge; however we should be careful from taking knowledge from them unless they fulfil the criterion of Taqwa. The following are some key points, like an acid test to consider when taking knowledge from someone:

- They do not go against definitive matters of the Deen
- That their words don’t contradict their actions.
- They are not two faced. Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "One of the most evil of people is the two-faced person who shows one face to these people and another face to those people." [Agreed upon]
- They don’t violate the Ahkam shariah
- They don’t have the characteristics of Nifaq as mentioned in the ahadith. It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Prophet (saw): "Signs of a hypocrite are three: whenever he speaks he lies; whenever he promises, he breaks his promises; and whenever he has been entrusted, be betrays his trust; even if he fasts and prays and even if he claims he is a Muslim." [Bukhari & Muslim] And in another narration in the book of Imam Bukhari on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Umar: “The Prophet said, "Whoever has (the following) four characters will be a hypocrite, and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy until he gives it up. These are: (1) Whenever he talks, he tells a lie; (2) whenever he makes a promise, he breaks it; (3) whenever he makes a covenant he proves treacherous; (4) and whenever he quarrels, he behaves impudently in an evil insulting manner."

The issue of hypocrisy has two aspects, one is the hypocrisy of belief and one is of action.

‘Uqbah bin ‘Aamir (ra) narrates that Rasul ul Allah (saaw) said: “The majority of the Munafiq’s found in my Ummah are its Quraa (ones who recite)’.” [Sahih: Reported by Ahmed, at-Tabrani and others. See Sahih al-Jami‘ #1203]

Al-Imam al-Manawi in Fayd ul Qadir comments on this hadith by saying:

“They are those who interpret it to mean other than what was intended, and they place it in its wrong place. They may also memorize its words while not accepting its dictates. The Munafiqun during Rasul ul Allah (saaw) time were of this persuasion.”

Az-Zamakhshari comments:

“Rasul ul Allah (saaw) meant Riyaa’ (performing acts of worship to impress people) when he mentioned Nifaq. Since both of these characteristics signify an outer deed that is contrary to the inner belief.”

It is also stated that Rasul ul Allah (saaw) meant the Nifaq of ‘Amal not the Nifaq of Kufr.

The Munafiq outwardly displays belief in Allah to ensure the security of his property and life, while denying belief internally. The person who has Riyaa’ outwardly displays the deeds that earn a great reward in al-Akhira (Hereafter) while seeking for these deeds a handsome share in the worldly life. A (misguided) Qari outwardly proclaims that he seeks reward from Allah alone while seeking to have people praise him, his knowledge and deeds. The three all have one thing in common – their hidden intentions are different to their public actions.

For this reason Imam al-Ghazali states:

“Beware of Quraa’ if they have these four characteristics:

* Al-Amal (Hope for worldly reward and renumeration)
* Al-‘Ajlah (hastiness in seeking reward for his deeds)
* Al-Kibr (Pride and boastful arrogance)
* Al-Hasad (Wishing to have what others possess while also wishing for them to lose their possession, namely, envy).”

In seeking a share of the Dunya (Worldly life) a misguided Qari may do all that is deviant, and unethical. He may lie, defame, slander and cheat in a manner of which a criminal would be ashamed.

Al-Imam an-Nawawi states:

“I do not fear to be slandered except by al-Quraa’ and al-‘Ulamaa’ (who have been led astray).”

Those who heard him say this showed their aversion to the statement. He replied,

“I am not the originator of the statement. Ibrahim an-Nakha‘i (rh) preceded me.”

‘Attah said:

”Beware of al-Quraa’. If I was to disagree with one of them about (something as insignificant) as the state of a fruit by saying it is sweet and they saying it is rotten; they would seek to have my blood sanctioned (my death or punishment) from a tyrannical Sultan (ruler).”

Al-Fudayl bin ‘Iyyad (rh) said to his son:

“Purchase a home that is at a great distance from the (deviant) Quraa’. What do I need (or benefit) from them? If one of my shortcomings is uncovered they will seek my demise. And if one of my virtues were to be made public they would envy me for it. You see that they are arrogant, unaccommodating, and surly in their dealings with people. It is as if they feel that their prayer is greater than everyone else. They act as if they have received a divine revelation promising them Jannah and salvation from the Fire. It is as if they seek personal happiness and satisfaction while seeking the wretchedness of all others. Yet, with all of this arrogance and conceitedness they will dress in shabby garments acting meek (to appear humble).”
[End of the Abridged words of al-Manawi (Vol. 2 Pg. 80-81)]

We must think of the consequences of following the arguments of those proposing a secular Islam, if we were to follow their views it would lead to legitimising the tyrant rulers in the Muslim world, the division of Muslim land, the occupation of our lands by the colonialists, the legitimisation of arresting sincere Muslim da’wah carriers and the ultimately loss in this life and in the hereafter.

By Al-Tabarani in Al-Kabeer wal-Bazaar, by the Istinad of the men of Sahih, from 'Awf bin Maalik from the Prophet (saw), who said: "My Ummah will be divided into seventy-something divisions, of them, the greatest Fitna (trial) upon my Ummah are a people who measure matters with their opinion, so they make the forbidden permissible and the permissible forbidden." [Also narrated by Al-Haithami in Majma' Al-Zawaa'id, Part 1/ the Book of Knowledge in the section of Al-Taqleed wal-Qiyas]

Abu Shamah had narrated, via the Sanad of Abi Ziyad bin Hudayr, saying: "Omar said to me: Do you know what destroys Islam? I said, No! He said: A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray".

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Unspinning the accusations of violence against Islam

Some commentators have asserted that the trend towards greater Islamic practice combined with political concerns over events in the Muslim world has made the Muslim community more vulnerable to the use of violence to counteract perceived injustices. The Policy Exchange report describes how "Islamism is not only a security problem…" implying that it is at least that. Tony Blair's recent announcement to make Islamic studies 'strategically important' to the British national interest, arguing it will help prevent 'violent' extremism, demonstrates that the study of Islam by the Muslim community is thought to be associated with an increased threat from violence. As a result, the logic requires this Islamicisation of Muslim politics to be treated with suspicion and, at some level, stymied and prevented from growing in influence.

It is important to reiterate that while in a secular framework politicisation may be supported, a growing awareness of Islam and its use in politics is seen by some to stand at odds with secular, irreligious politics. In this sense the trend is unconventional and outside the prevailing political culture in the West which has led some to describe it with terms that undermine their credibility. The terms 'radical' and 'extremist' misrepresent the changes in the Muslim community, and misrepresent the phenomena of Islamicisation, but have a powerful impact in the manner in which the argument is extended to include the possibility of violence.

In this section, we argue that:

• The trend towards greater Islamic political practice, far from being a precursor for violence, often provides people with an alternative.

• Politically motivated violence is a wider issue most often occurring as a response to political oppression and injustice rather than because of ideology or theology. Hence, the association of Islam with political violence is misleading.

• There is little support for violence as a means of change as demonstrated by recent polls of Muslim opinion, which also show increasingly levels of support for Islamic politics.

• It is important to separate goals from means so as to not to link widely held legitimate political ideas with violence.

Decoupling Political Violence from Islam

Violence is Driven by Political not Theological Factors

Violence cannot be treated as an extension of the trend towards greater Islamic political practice within the Muslim community. The history of political violence demonstrates that it is cross-cultural, cross religion and ideology and is driven by a number of factors often born out of a sense of political injustice, occupation or invasion. An academic study by Professor Robert Pape, an Associate Professor at Chicago University, published in his book 'Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism', demonstrates that the advent of suicide bombers is not unique to Muslims but is rather a generic cross-human phenomena driven by a number of political factors rather than theological beliefs.

The study included the first complete database of every suicide attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004 and conducted in native-language sources - Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others - that allowed it to gather information not only from newspapers, but also from products of the perpetrating organisations. The study found that:

• The world leader in suicide attacks was the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka – a Marxist, secular group.

• Two thirds of Muslim 'suicide bombers' have been from countries where US forces have or are still maintaining military forces.

• The presence of US forces is creating suicide attackers in Iraq which was a country that had never previously had a suicide attack in its history prior to the 2003 invasion.

Political injustice provides oxygen for the proponents of such attacks to justify such actions. It is therefore crucial that acts of political violence are analysed as a separate phenomena based upon the individuals who choose to engage in them, their justifications and the role that local and foreign political injustice has in providing oxygen to justify such acts.

Foreign Policy and Political Injustice

Regarding the July 2005 bombings in London, as is now common knowledge, the British government was forewarned that its involvement in the catastrophic US invasion of Iraq had increased Britain's vulnerability to the threat of a retaliation attack. The leaked report from the UK's Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), which predated the attacks, warned:

"Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist related activity in the UK".

In April 2005, a report drawn up by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) entitled "International Terrorism: Impact of Iraq" was even more explicit, stating:

"We judge that the conflict in Iraq has exacerbated the threat from international terrorism and will continue to have an impact in the long term. It has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not."

Amongst numerous other voices, a report in July 2005 by the foreign affairs think-tank Chatham House, also effectively expressed the view that the invasion of Iraq had made the world a more dangerous place. In their view, there was "no doubt" that the invasion of Iraq had: "given a boost to the al- Qaida network" in "propaganda, recruitment and fundraising". Also that "riding pillion with a powerful ally has proved costly in terms of British and US military lives, Iraqi lives, military expenditure and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism campaign."

It is essential to understand and acknowledge therefore the role that foreign policy has played in exacerbating the sense of political injustice and in driving individuals to undertake acts of political violence against those they perceive as aggressors, whether the rhetoric of legitimisation is religious or otherwise, following the conclusions of Professor Pape's study. This is particularly important given the Muslim world is a region already at the mercy of despotic rulers and tyrants. Rather than blame a whole community or its leanings towards Islamic politics generally, it is important to understand the political nature of the factors that drive such acts as opposed to solely attributing them to Islamic theology or ideas, which does not take account of the history of political violence across cultures, religions and ideologies.

Islamic Politics is an Alternative to Violence as a Means of Change

The phenomenon of Muslims using violence on Western soil is a relatively recent phenomenon and brought to the fore by 9/11. Non-violent calls for a political vision of a Muslim world governed by an Islamic political system - or Caliphate - have been heard ever since the Caliphate was formally abolished at the beginning of the twentieth century. These calls and this vision therefore predate this modern phenomenon by more than fifty years. Talk of establishing an Islamic political system has continued to feature across the spectrum of political debate in the Muslim world even after its demise.

For numerous organisations, the goal of returning Islam to state and society features at the root of their political activity. The means they employ differ, as does their vision of the Islamic political system's exact workings. Some opt for a gradual reform of the political system using existing structures and mechanisms. Others encourage individual reform, whilst others, like the Islamic political party Hizb ut-Tahrir, opt to operate through a different model of political activity. Most such organizations are non-violent, have not endorsed attacks such as those in New York or London, and do not advocate violence as a methodology for change. Indeed, amongst those Islamic organizations that seek to establish a Shariah-based government the overwhelming majority do not advocate violence and have refused to endorse the attacks on civilians in Western capitals.

Regarding the use of violence more generally, the ICG report on Islamism makes a clear distinction between Islamic political activity and violence. The report concludes that while hostility to Western policy is widespread this does not necessarily translate into support for violence:

"Suspicion of, if not opposition to, the behaviour of al-Qaeda and its imitators is widespread within Islamist circles and all but unanimous among political Islamists…at the same time, hostility to Western and especially U.S. policy is very widespread but does not translate into support for, let alone participation in, al-Qaeda's global jihad except for a tiny minority."

Islamic Political Activism is an Alternative to Violent Expression

Islamic political organisations have played an influential role in directing Muslim concerns towards non-violent political activity. Some organizations have chosen the democratic process, while others have advocated non-violent political expression outside of existing political structures.

For example, Hizb ut-Tahrir has been at the forefront of working for a Caliphate in the Muslim world since 1953 through urging Muslims to engage in a nonviolent political struggle against the rulers of the Muslim world. Its literature and behaviour prepare its members only with the political means for change. In fact, globally, it remains a fact that large numbers of people who joined Hizb ut-Tahrir left armed militancy after being convinced of Hizb ut-Tahrir's political methodology on the basis of Islamic evidences. In Uzbekistan, for example, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, a group that has advocated armed struggle, witnessed a large turnover from its ranks to Hizb ut-Tahrir. The commitment of Hizb ut-Tahrir not to be involved in any violent activity is based on its faith and understanding of the revelation of God, which makes its involvement in any terrorist or violent activity impossible, either in theory and practice. No person can join Hizb ut-Tahrir until he or she adopts this political and intellectual methodology and approach.

To be continued…

From a report by Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain

More audio's of Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Malkawi

More of Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Malkawi's Tafseer sessions and other talks are now available. Some of Brother Muhammad Hannini's talks are now also available. They are available from:

To download the files you need to login to esnips.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

The obligation of having one Khalifah

They are some who argue that having more than one Khalifah at one time and the multiplicity of Muslim states like we have today is an area of legitimate difference of opinion. They say that the ahadith about this issue are not definitive, not clear in meaning and that there is no Ijma (consensus) upon this issue. They also misconstrue the statements of classical scholars to justify this. Despite the fact that the states today don’t even rule by Islam we should look at this issue from the Islamic evidences.

It is important to appreciate that there are ahkam which are from authentic texts which are definitive in meaning and if rejected makes someone a fasiq and not a Kafir. Just because something is not Qat'i thuboot (definitive by transmission) and Qat'i dalalah (definitive by meaning) – this doesn't mean that issue automatically becomes ikhtilafi (subject to legitimate difference of opinion).

There are many ahadith which are clear in meaning regarding this subject such as:

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: "When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the latter of them". [Muslim]

Abdullah b. ‘Amru b. al-‘A'as said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: "Whoever pledged allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart, he should obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him, you must strike the neck of the latter". [Muslim]

Afrajah said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: "Whosoever comes to you while your affairs has been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him." [Muslim]

Muslim reported that Abu Hazim said: I accompanied Abu Hurayra for five years and heard him talking about the Messenger of Allah (saw), he said: "The children of Israel have been governed by Prophets; whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him; but there will be no prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafa’a and they will number many (in one time); they asked: What then do you order us? He (saw) said: Fulfil allegiance to them, the first of them, the first of them, and give them their dues; for verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with". [Muslim]

Some use a strange argument to legitimise ignoring the Ijma of the Sahabah, they claim that as one of the Sahabah initially proposed having two rulers after the death of the Prophet (saw) this means that it is allowed.

It is true that it is narrated that Al-Habbab Ibn ul-Munthir (ra) 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 Muhajireen)".

Have they forgotten what Abu Bakr replied: "It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs (rulers)..." Then he got up and addressed the Muslims. [‘As-Sira’ 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]

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".

Just because Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) after the Prophet (saw) passed away initially was adamant that the Prophet (saw) was not dead, this doesn’t mean that it makes it a legitimate opinion. He was clearly mistaken and accepted this when Abu Bakr (ra) corrected him just as Habbab Ibn ul-Munthir realised this and was the first to give the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra)

In fact if we read another narration of the incident it is clear that Habbab was emotional when he made the suggestion and it is clear that he wasn’t arguing on the basis of evidence.

When Al-Habbab b. Al-Munthir b. Aljamouh, one from the Ansar, noticed that everybody was at ease with Abu Bakr's proposal, he was afraid that the meeting might be adjourned without pledging allegiance to a Khaleefah from the Ansar. So he stood up and said: “O people of Al-Ansar, have control of your own matters, for the people are in your shadow, and nobody would dare to disagree with you. People will not express except according to your opinion. You are the people of power and wealth. You are the majority and people of strength, experience, fortitude and help of others. People are ever watchful of your actions. So do not differ, otherwise this will weaken your opinion, and your affair will crumple. These people will only take what you just heard. An Ameer from amongst us and an Ameer from amongst them.”

The moment Al-Habbab finished his speech, Umar b. Al-Khattab stood up and said: “There is no way for two (leaders) together at any one time. By Allah the Arabs will not accept to make you leaders and their Prophet is from other than you. The Arabs have no objection to surrendering their affairs to those in whom the Prophethood came, and the man in authority of their affairs is whoever is from amongst them. Thus we have with this the clear proof and evident evidence against whoever from the Arabs who might refuse. Who disputes with us regarding the authority of Muhammad and his leadership, when we are his close friends and his tribe, except someone dispensing falsehood, or indulging in sin, or involved in a catastrophe.”

When Al-Habbab heard this, he stood up and replied: “O people of Al-Ansar control yourselves, and do not listen to the words of this man and his companions, otherwise they take your share of this matter (authority). If they refused your demands then oust them from these lands, and hold this matter over them. For by Allah, you are more deserving in this matter than them, since it was by your swords that those who did not submit to this Deen were forced to submit. I am the one who is most fit, and most experienced for it. However, by Allah, if you wish, we will go back to where we started.'”

When Umar heard him he became angry and said: "If so, may Allah kill you". Al-Hubab answered "But you whom He will kill", reaching for his sword as he spoke, but Umar hit his hand, making his sword fall, and Umar seized it.

At this crucial moment Abu Ubaydah b. Al-Jarrah, having kept silent until then, interfered in the matter. He stood up and spoke to the Ansar: "O people of Al-Ansar, you were the first of who helped and supported, so do not be the first of those who changed and reverted."

Besides this, what about the Ijma as-Sahabah that took place when Umar bin al-Khattab was stabbed. He said:

"You have this group whom, when the Messenger of Allah (saw) died, he was pleased with them, and he said about them: They are the people of paradise: Ali b. Talib, Uthman b. Affan, Sa’ad b. Abi Waqqas, Abdur Rahman ibn Awf, Az- Zubayr b. Al Awwam, and Talha b. Ubaydullah. Let Abdullah ibn Umar be with them, but let him have only an opinion without having anything in the matter of Khilafah."

Umar advised these six people to select a Khaleefah, and appointed to them a three day time limit. After a long talk with them he said: "When I die, consult for three days, and let Suhaib (in these days) lead the Muslims in prayer. Do not let the fourth day come without having an Ameer upon you." He also appointed Abu Talha Al-Ansari to protect the gathering and to encourage them in their task, and he said to him: "O Abu Talha, Allah (swt) has helped Islam by you (i.e. the Ansar) so select fifty men from the Ansar, and urge these (six) people to select one from amongst them." He asked Al-Muqdad ibn Al-Aswad to select the place of the meeting and said to him : "After you put me in my grave, gather these (six) people in a house till they select one man from themselves." Then he asked Suhaib to monitor the meeting and said to him: "Lead the people in prayer three days, and let Ali, Uthman, Az-Zubayr, Sa’ad, Abdul Rahman b. Awf, and Talha, if he came back (from his travel) and bring in Abdullah b. Umar, without allowing him any personal interest in the matter, and stand at their heads (i.e. supervise them). If five agreed and accepted one man, while one man rejected, then hit his head with the sword. If four consented and agreed on one man, and two disagreed, then kill the dissenters with the sword. If three agreed on one man and three disagreed then let Abdullah bin Umar arbitrate. The group which Abdullah b. Umar judged for, let them select one from them. If they did not accept the judgement of Abdullah b. Umar, then be (all of you) with the group in which is Abdul Rahman b. Awf, and kill the rest if they declined to accept what the people agreed upon."

If having more than one Khalifah was allowed why did Ali (ra) fight against Mu’awiya for not giving him the Bay’ah as the Khalifah, why did Abdullah ibn Zubair (ra) fight against Yazid – they could have easily avoided bloodshed and the death of many of the Sahabah by permitting more than one Khalifah, but they didn’t as they knew it was prohibited to do so. If the issue was about Maslaha (interests) of the Muslims, then surely stopping the Fitna and spilling of Muslim blood is a great Maslaha, yet they the Sahabah didn’t see that as an excuse to legitimise having more than one Khalifah.

It is true that some of the classical scholars discussed scenarios such as:

- If there were two Khulafah in different parts of the world and they did not know of each other then both would be legitimate until they found out then one would have to step down.
- If there was a rebellious part of the Islamic state like at the time of Mu’awiya’s rebellion against Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) it would still be considered as Dar al-Islam.
- If the Imam’s were so far apart (which was a possibility then) that it was impossible for one of them to supervise the other region.

Ibn Khaldun says:

“It is not possible to appoint two men to the position (of imam) at the same time. Religious scholars generally are of this opinion, on the basis of certain traditions. Those traditions are found in the book, "On Leadership (imarah)," in the Sahih by Muslim. They expressly indicate that this is so.

Others hold that (the prohibition against two imams) applies only to two imams in one locality, or where they would be close to each other. When there are great distances and the imam is unable to control the farther region, it is permissible to set up another imam there to take care of public interests.

Among the famous authorities who are reported to have held this opinion is Professor Abu Ishaq al-Isfariyini, the leading speculative theologian. The Imam al-Haramayn also showed himself inclined toward it in his Kitab al-Irshad. The opinions of the Spaniards and Maghribis often make it evident that they, too, were inclined toward it.” [Al-Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun]

Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni wrote:

“On Election, It's Characteristics, and How the Imamate is to Be Invested
On investing the imamate in two individuals

Our associates agree on precluding the investing of two different individuals with the imamate at either end of the world. But, they add: If it should happen that two different persons were invested with the imamate, that would be analogous to the situation of two guardians contracting a marriage for the same woman to two different suitors without either being aware of the other's contract. The decision in the matter rests on the application of jurisprudence. My opinion on this issue is that investiture of two individuals with the imamate in a single locality within relatively restricted boundaries and limited provinces is not permitted and the investiture should be in accord with a consensus. But, when the distances are great and the two Imams quite remote from each other, there is room to allow it, although this cannot be established conclusively.” [A Guide o the Conclusive Proofs for the Principles of Belief" (Kitab al-irshad ila qawati' al-adilla fi usul al-i'tiqad) p 234]

Imam Mawardi wrote:

“The investment of two sovereigns in two different cities is invalid in both cases, for the Community may not have two rulers simultaneously, even though there are some dissenting voices who would make that permissible. Jurists are disagreed regarding which one of the two should be sovereign. One party take him to be the one elected in the city where the previous leader died, because its residents are more entitled to make the choice, the rest of the Community in other districts delegating the task to them and investing the one they elect, so that no disunity is caused by differences of opinion and multiplicity of private interests. Others have suggested that each one of the two must give up the office in favour of his opponent, thus allowing the electors to opt for one or the other, in order to secure peace and ward off civil strife. Still another group have argued that lost must be drawn to prevent discord and end the dispute, the stronger claim to leadership being determined by the winner. Now, the truth of the matter is that the greater claim really belongs to the one who receives the vote of allegiance before the other, as in the case of a woman married off by her guardians to two men, for the marriage is effective only with the first of the two to conclude. Thus once the earlier appointee has been determined, the office is his, and the runner-up must concede him the leadership and vow allegiance to him. If the two, however, are invested simultaneously, their investment is invalid and the process is resumed either to choose one of them or a different candidate not known to whom, the issue is settled by evidence of priority in time. Thus, if the two adversaries claim each to have been invested earlier than the other, the claim is not considered and neither is sworn in support of it because the matter does not concern them alone but all Muslims. Neither the taking of the oath nor declining to take it is relevant to the question; indeed, were one to give up the fight and hand the office over to his opponent, the latter's right to it is still only established on the basis of evidence of his earlier investment. Even the admission by one that the other has preceded him merely excludes the testifier from office, albeit without confirming the other's right to it, for the testimony given applies to a right that pertains to the Muslim Community in its entirety. A concession of temporal precedence rendered by the adversary, on the other hand, is admitted provided it is corroborated by the testimony of an independent witness and he asserts that he had not been sure of the facts at the time when the quarrel started, but it is rejected if he does not mention his uncertainty, on account of the contradiction between the two statements.” ["The Ordinances of Government” (Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya w'al-Wilayat al-Diniyyya) pg. 7-8]

They discussed scenarios which were possible in their time when the means of communication was the pen and the means of transportation was via animals and ships. They did not discuss the reality of what exists today. Today it is clearly possible for one Khalifah to supervise the affairs in a geographically large state spanning the globe, therefore what these scholars said does not apply.

Ash-Shawkani wrote: "It is known from Islam by necessity (bi-dharoorah) that Islam has forbidden division amongst Muslims and the segregation of their land". [Tafseer al-Qur'an al-Atheem, Shawkani, volume 2, p. 215]

Imam Al-Juzairi, an expert on the Fiqh of the four Sunni schools of thought said regarding the opinion of the four Imams, “...It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Imams in the world whether in agreement or discord." [‘Fiqh ul-Mathahib ul- Arba'a’ (the fiqh of the four schools of thought), al-Juzairi, volume 5, p. 416]

Ibn Taymiyyah says: "It is essential that we know that leadership is one of the most greatest obligations of Deen. As a matter of fact, there is no Deen without it. The children of Adam will not fulfil their needs unless they get together for their needs. And when they get together, they must have a leader. For this reason, the prophet (saw) says: "If three are travelling, there must be a leader amongst them." So, the prophet (saw) mandated that one is to be appointed as the leader in a simple situation where three people are travelling. This is to make us aware of other important types of get-togethers." [Book As-Siyasah As-Shar'iyah, p.138 & 139]

Al-Imam Al-Mawardi in his book Al-Ahkam Al-Sultaniyah page 9 says: "It is forbidden for the Ummah to have two Imams at the same time."

Al-Imam Al-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".

Al-Imam Al Qalqashandi in his book Subul Al-Asha, volume 9, page 277 says, "It is forbidden to appoint two Imams at the same time".

Al-Imam Ibnu Hazm in his book Al-Muhalla, volume 9, page 360 says, "It is permitted to have only one Imam in the whole of the world."

Al-Imam Al-Sha'rani in his book Al-Mizan, volume 2, page 157 says: “It is forbidden for Muslims to have in the whole world and at the same time two Imams whether in agreement or discord."

Al-Imam Al-Qadi Abdul-Jabbar in his book Al-Mughni fi abwab Al-Tawheed, volume 20, page 243, says: "It is forbidden to give the oath to more than one."

The Shia schools of thought and others expressed the same opinion about this, whoever wishes to explore this in detail can refer to the book of Al-Fasl Fil-Milal, volume 4, page 62, and the book of Matalib Ulil-Amr and the book of Maqalat Al-Islamyin, volume 2,page 134, or the Book of Al-Moghni Fi Abuab Al-Tawhid, volume 20, pages 58-145.

Friday, July 20, 2007

Exposing the Kenyan Government's actions against Muslims

بِِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ

Two Months Since The Criminal Attack In Majengo, Yet Until Now The Kenyan Government Has Neither Apologised To Muslims Nor Has It Stopped Humiliating Them!

At about 2am on the night of Tuesday, 24th April 2007, more than 50 Kenyan security officers led by the head of the Anti-Terrorist Police Unit violently assaulted Muslim houses in the neighbourhood of Majengo Guraya, Mombasa. The police officers blocked off all roads, wore face masks to hide their identity, shot bullets into the air and used overwhelming force to break into Muslim houses without identifying themselves or showing search warrants. Entire families of old men, women and children were humiliated and terrorised, pushed out of their houses by beatings and tear gas and forced to lie in the uncovered ground in their nightclothes under heavy rain. While claiming to search for “terrorists”, the police broke into cupboards and locked rooms, stole private property and terrorised innocent men, women and children. By dawn, they left houses violated, families shocked, a woman suffering a heart attack and arrested 11 men including the Imam of Shibu Mosque who was subsequently deported to Comoros without charge in defiance of a court order. No person was charged yet police stole a lot of money, jewellery, personal effects, official documents and passports that have not been returned; not to mention terrorising innocent Muslims for no reason other than that they say “our Lord is Allah.”
Around the same time, the Kenyan Minister for Internal Security, John Michuki, was on an official visit to the United States to discuss security and intelligence cooperation between Kenya and the United States in the so-called “war on terror.” Michuki met many senior officials and intelligence officers who praised Kenya’s cooperation and granted Kenya $14 million as a reward for assisting the United States in the “war on terror.”

Prior to this, Kenya had offered solid support from December 2006 to date to the United States who sponsored the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia to overthrow the government of the Islamic Courts’ Union. Kenya participated actively by offering bases and logistical support to United States forces, sending its army to seal off its border with Somalia, and preventing any Muslim including old women and children from fleeing the heavy fighting in Somalia. Kenyan security at the border arrested many so-called “suspects” including dozens of women and children, detained them without charge, subjected them to interrogation involving foreign intelligence, held them for weeks without charge while employing various forms of torture, threatened deportation to Guantanamo prison camp and prevented any access by relatives or lawyers. Some detainees were pregnant women and children less than 1 year old yet their detention was justified under the guise of “being a threat to national security”! Finally at the end of January 2007, and in defiance of court orders, Kenya illegally deported more than 150 Muslims to secret prison camps in Somalia and Ethiopia where they are subject to humiliating forms of torture and detention. Also over the last few months, several Muslims arrested in Kenya have also been forcibly deported to Guantanamo Bay for detention and torture without any trial and/or charge.
All this persecution and humiliation of Muslims is taking place, yet no institution comes forward to protect Muslims. The US-led war on Islam has exposed the fallacy of the capitalist slogans of freedom, democracy, human rights, rule of law etc that obviously do not apply when it comes to Muslims. It has also exposed all regional and international institutions as cowardly, weak or powerless to protect the Muslims from vicious persecution e.g. UN, African Union etc. And the hypocrite rulers of the Muslim world have maintained a deafening silence in the face of persecution of Muslims; no single ambassador of the many Muslim countries posted to Nairobi, Kenya has dared to utter a word to assist Muslims of Kenya.

O Muslims!
You are being persecuted as the victims of the US-led terrorist war on Islam in which the Kenyan government, similar to other governments, has been recruited in the hope of benefiting financially and politically from the harm you suffer. This war, as you well know, is a Crusade led by the United States against Islam and Muslims. The true reason for this war is that Islam—as a comprehensive ideology revealed by Allah (SWT) to rule all aspect of man’s life and guide all mankind to truth and justice—has become, after the collapse of the old Soviet Union and communism, the only threat to the United States’ ideology of capitalism and its ruthless colonialist domination of the world. The corrupt and hegemonic United States fears Islam—as well it should—and has therefore committed itself to fight Muslims all over the world using all means and styles at its disposal including military, economic, financial, media/propaganda, intellectual and intelligence.

Your enemies have prepared themselves to fight you to the death without any sympathy or humanity led by the vicious United States, which claims leadership over the world as a great power. The United States has established a massive government apparatus, media and propaganda systems, huge intelligence network, and large military endowed with the latest weapons and massive budget of more than $520 billion not to mention recruiting the hypocrite rulers of the Muslim world to fight you.

Muslims of Kenya as part of a global Islamic Ummah under attack are a definite target in this war whether they like it or not, thus they are obliged to assume their duty to Allah (SWT) to struggle for Islam until the deen of truth prevails over the whole world.
Allah (SWT) says:

هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ
“He is the One who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the deen of truth so that it may prevail over all other deens, even though the polytheists detest that!” [TMQ 9:33]

What have we prepared to succeed in this world against our enemies, and please our Lord in the Akhirah? We have the only true deen guaranteed to prevail, but we must sacrifice for its sake. Muslims of Kenya should not bow their heads in submission to the current humiliation but rather emulate the stance of the noble Sahabah (RA) when they were in a similar difficult situation in Abyssinia as a minority living under a system ruled by kufr during the early days of Islam. Even though few in number, they were mighty in Islam. They stood firm and declared the truth of Islam to all including the King of Abyssinia when they stood before his court to protect their rights as Muslims. Currently Muslims in Kenya may not be the majority, but we are part of a large global Ummah following the true deen. We must be courageous and stand firm in calling all people to Islam as the true solution, unify our ranks and struggle for our rights within the limits of Islam even if we are in a kufr State. We must never succumb or submit to the kufr system as this amounts to abandoning the truth in the dunya and failure in the Akhirah. This will make the Kenyan government re-evaluate its decision to cooperate with the United States in fighting Muslims since its long-term interest would be to avoid antagonising courageous Muslims.

Moreover, there are sincere Muslims working with Hizb ut-Tahrir to reestablish the righteous Khilafah State in the Islamic countries that will unify all Muslim lands, rule comprehensively and exclusively by Islam in all spheres of life, establish a mighty Islamic army to liberate all occupied Muslim lands, and conquer the whole world for Islam. They do not use any force or violence, not due to fear of the enemy but in emulating the method of the Messenger (SAW) to establish the Islamic State. The Messenger (SAW) said: “Verily the Imam (Khalifah) is a shield behind whom the Ummah fights and by whom they are protected.” And he (SAW) said: “Whoever dies without a bay’ah (to the Khalifah) upon his neck, dies a death of jahiliyyah!”
Even your enemies are well aware that the re-establishment of the Khilafah State is the greatest threat to their oppressive colonial rule. Bush, Rumsfeld, Blair and other leaders of the current crusade have all declared that they are fighting in the name of freedom and democracy—the corrupt slogans of the kufr ideology of capitalism—against those who “work to establish the Islamic Caliphate (Khilafah) to unify all Muslims lands from Spain to Indonesia.” They fear your unity under the Islamic Khilafah, and strive day and night to try to prevent Islam regaining its past glory and dominance.

We must join hands with our fellow Muslims in Hizb ut-Tahrir working to establish the righteous Khilafah State in the Muslim countries for the case of all Muslims is one. Surely the imminent success of our fellow Muslims is our success, since the Khilafah State will spread justice and righteousness across the world and rescue us from the current humiliation.
Allah (SWT) says:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اسْتَجِيبُوا لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ
“O you who believe! Answer Allah and the Messenger when He calls you to that which gives you life (Islam)” [TMQ 8:24]

Hizb ut-Tahrir – Kenya
28 Jumada Al-Akhir 1428 Hijri

Musharraf spills Muslim blood to establish America’s writ over you

بِسْمِ الله الرَّحمَنِ الرَحيم

On 12 July 2007, President General, Pervez Musharraf, addressed the Muslims of Pakistan about the violent siege of Lal Masjid and Jami’a Hafsa. As Musharraf addressed the Muslims, hundreds of dead were being counted, including women and children, security forces personnel, soldiers and hufaz of Qur’an. Moreover in the days after his speech, the Muslims had to count even more dead as Musharraf had deployed thousands of additional troops to the tribal areas, escalating the confrontation there.

Strikingly, Musharraf’s speech was cautious and only thirty-three minutes long, far shorter than previous addresses to the nation. His anxiousness was not only because of the widespread outrage and grief of the people at the loss of Muslim life. His anxiousness was also because even as he spoke to the Muslims, his instructions to hide the size of his crime in Lal Masjid were being frantically carried out and preparations for bloodshed in the tribal areas were underway.
And it was within this speech that Musharraf offered his justification for the loss of life by saying, “there was a great pressure on me from Pakistanis to take action and establish the writ of the government that was repeatedly being challenged.”

However, the pressure that he actually paid any regard to was pressure from the Americans, for whom Muslim blood has no value. Well before the siege of Lal Masjid, there was a series of visits to Pakistan by senior American government and military officials. The Americans carried the same demand, that Musharraf crush both “extremism” and the resistance to the American occupation of Afghanistan from Pakistan’s tribal areas.

And it was only after Musharraf finished spilling blood in Lal Masjid, and after he began preparations for spilling more blood in the tribal areas, that the celebrating Americans praised Musharraf. On 12 July 2007, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher, declared, “This is the vision for Pakistan that President Musharraf has articulated and demonstrated by reiterating his resolve to stop Talibanization in the frontier areas as well as extremism within urban areas such as the Red Mosque compound. It is strongly in the US national interest that Pakistan succeeds in realizing this vision.”
So, what is the reality of the American national interest that Musharraf is willing to spill so much Muslim blood for?

As for dealing with “extremism” in the cities, “extremism” is a Western invention that is used as a label for opposition to the norm that the West seeks to impose upon the Ummah, such as occupying its lands and preventing the implementation of Islam over her. So, anybody who either calls for the ruling by Islam or for the liberation of occupied lands, whether in Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir or Afghanistan, is condemned as an “extremist.” This is why throughout the Islamic Lands, America has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on removing Islam from the text books of children and persecuting the Muslims who call for the establishment of an Islamic State.

As for crushing the tribal resistance to America’s occupation in Afghanistan, America knows very well from its disastrous experience in Somalia and Iraq that Muslims motivated by a desire for martyrdom are a formidable enemy, no matter how small their numbers or how poorly armed. So, America, whose own soldiers are infamous for their cowardice, demands that the Muslim soldiers of the Pakistani Army fight on its behalf. Indeed, Musharraf has already sacrificed hundreds of Muslim soldiers to secure America’s occupation of Afghanistan.
And the Americans are already demanding even more Muslim blood to secure their interests. On 15 July, US President Bush’s National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, declared that Musharraf is “doing more. We are urging him to do more, and we’re providing our full support to what he’s contemplating.”

So, the writ that Musharraf actually seeks to establish is that of the American national interest within Pakistan. This is why Musharraf willingly turns Muslim against Muslims whenever America demands, but turns a blind eye whenever it is Muslims that need protection. And this is why there was no sign of the writ of the government on 12 May 2007, as Karachi counted its dead, or whenever the American forces repeatedly slaughter the Muslims in the tribal areas, as happened in Bajaur.

O Muslims of Pakistan!
Under the banner of “dealing with extremism,” America seeks to crush your demand for the implementation of Islam. And under the banner of “fighting terrorists,” America demands your sons in the armed forces lay down their lives to secure the American occupiers of Afghanistan.
As for your ruler, he eagerly helps the Americans at every step, paving the way for an American Raj over you with the bones of your dead.

So, will you not raise your voice against his heinous crimes? Will you not stand with the youth of Hizb ut-Tahrir as they stand to speak the word of truth before the unjust ruler? RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,

أَفْضَلَ الْجِهَادِ كَلِمَةُ حَقٍّ عِنْدَ سُلْطَانٍ جَائِرٍ
“The foremost Jihad is speaking the word of truth in front of the unjust ruler.” (Ahmad)

O Muslims of the armed forces!
You are the protectors of the Muslims, defenders of the Islamic Lands, and the Muslims of the tribal areas are your brothers. Musharraf is only sending you to fight your brothers to secure the American occupation of Afghanistan. Killing fellow Muslims without right is a grave sin in Islam. RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,

سِبَابُ الْمُسْلِمِ فُسُوقٌ وَقِتَالُهُ كُفْرٌ
“Insulting a Muslim is Fusuq and killing him is Kufr” (Bukhari)

And remember, Islam has forbidden the Muslim from disobeying Allah سبحانه وتعالى for the sake of any man. RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,

لَا طَاعَةَ لِمَخْلُوقٍ فِي مَعْصِيَةِ اللَّهِ
“No obedience to the created, in disobedience to Allah” (Ahmad)

O people of power!
Matters are in your hands and the situation remains on your side. You are fully capable of removing this oppressive ruler and providing your people that which they desire more than life itself, the ruling by Islam. Hizb ut-Tahrir calls you again to uproot Musharraf and re-establish the Khilafah in his place.

And know that Allah سبحانه وتعالى has promised that those of you who believe and do righteous deeds will be granted succession in ruling, providing security after a time of fear. Allah سبحانه وتعالى revealed,

وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُم فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمْ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لاَ يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا
"Allah has promised those amongst you who believe, and do righteous deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession in ruling on the earth, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practice their religion, that which He has chosen for them. And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear provided they worship Me and do not associate anything in worship with Me." [Surah an-Nur 24: 55]

Hizb ut-Tahrir
Wilayah Pakistan
16 July 2007