Thursday, August 30, 2007

Straits Times: Advent of an Islamic caliphate?

Advent of an Islamic caliphate?

By Mohamed Nawab Mohamed Osman, For The Straits Times
Aug 29, 2007

ON AUG 12, one of the largest-ever Muslim congregations was held in Indonesia. Close to 100,000 Muslims convened in Jakarta to pledge their support for the revival of the Islamic caliphate, a super-state encompassing all Islamic countries in the world, as well as for the implementation of Islamic laws in Indonesia.

The event was addressed by prominent Indonesian leaders, including Kiyai Abdullah Gymnastier, a popular Islamic preacher, and Professor Din Syamsuddin, leader of Muhammadiyah.

Besides guests from 30 of the 33 Indonesian provinces, the conference also attracted participants from Europe, Asia and Africa. The event was organised by Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) which has begun to emerge as an important Islamist group in the country.

Origin and aims

HTI is the Indonesian chapter of Hizbut Tahrir (HT), a global party whose primary aim is to revive the Islamic caliphate. HT was founded in Jerusalem in early 1953 by the Palestinian intellectual and jurist Taqiuddin an-Nabhani. Nabhani had trained in law at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, before becoming a judge in Jordan. Nabhani, a sympathiser of the Muslim Brotherhood, was influenced by its thinking on the completeness of Islam as a socio-political and economic system.

He was also a profound thinker who developed practical blueprints for social, political and economic systems of Islam. Nabhani rejected many Western-inspired political concepts such as secularism, democracy and capitalism. He identified these concepts as the cause for the decline of the Muslim world. As such, despite being a political party, HT often refrains from contesting elections so as not to give legitimacy to democracy. After his death in 1977, the party's leadership shifted to Abdul Qadim Zalloum and later Ata Khalil Abu-Rashta, both of Palestinian origin.

Today, HT is believed to have branches in more than 45 countries. It is banned in most Muslim countries as well as in Russia and Germany. After the July 7, 2005 London bombings, the British government contemplated banning the party but decided against doing so. In recent years, its chapters in the Asia-Pacific have become increasingly prominent. Of these, the Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) is one of the most important chapters.

In Indonesia, HT has been active since 1983. The party first arrived when Abdullah bin Nuh, a popular Islamic scholar of Arab descent, invited an Australian HT activist of Lebanese descent, Abdurrahman Al-Baghdadi, to migrate to Indonesia to propagate HT's teachings. Using Nuh's Islamic school in Bogor as his centre, Baghdadi began to spread HT's teachings at campuses and mosques in Java.

At this stage, the movement operated in a clandestine manner due to the authoritarian nature of then-president Suharto's regime. It was only after the downfall of that regime in 1998 that HTI began operating publicly. In May 2000, the party held an international conference in Jakarta under the banner of HT. Since 2000, HTI's membership and profile have grown rapidly. It has branches in 30 provinces. And judging by the size of the turnout at the conference and the reach of the Al-Islam bulletin, which prints one million copies weekly, it is reasonable to estimate its membership to be in the hundreds of thousands.

Growing appeal

BY Indonesian standards, HTI is a minuscule outfit, given the size of Muslim organisations such as the Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah. Yet, it is important for several factors. First, the majority of its members are tertiary students or middle-class professionals from urban areas.

Many young people are attracted to the intellectual nature of HTI's ideology, seeing its teachings as practical and easily implemented. For instance, one of the books used in HTI's training circles, The Islamic State, a draft charter of the caliphate, was drawn up by the party's leaders to explain the different branches of government and specific policies pertaining to defence, education, social and foreign affairs. Such a clear programme is often missing in Islamist writings, which tend to be abstract and conceptual.

Second, the large (slightly more then half) number of young women who attended HTI's conference is indicative of its growing appeal. Unlike most Islamic parties and groups, HTI is liberal in its attitude towards women. It advocates equality between the sexes, such as the right to seek employment and take part in businesses and investments. It also proposes that women be given the right to choose their life partners. In politics, HTI argues that the responsibility for reviving the caliphate is obligatory on men and women and argues that women can participate in elections.

Another factor for the appeal of HTI is its transnational character. The party is controlled by a foreign leadership based in the Middle East. Even its local leaders are appointed by the leadership in the Middle East. It is interesting to observe that members from the United Kingdom and Denmark who attended the Jakarta event were at ease discussing the ideas and concepts of the party with their Indonesian counterparts.

Future role

FOLLOWING the success of the conference, HTI's spokesman Ismail Yusanto announced the possibility that the party may contest elections. Such a scenario will have consequences for Indonesian politics and HT as a transnational Islamic party. HTI's appeal to the younger segment of the Indonesian populace means its following is likely to rise. Yet, it is difficult to estimate the real strength of HTI until the next election, in 2009.

For HT as a transnational Islamic party, the experience of its Indonesian chapter will be an important litmus test for the popularity and strength of its ideas. It will be interesting to see whether HTI will compromise its ideals in the process of jockeying for political power in a country where political compromises are the rule.

Such a scenario will have severe ramifications for HT and may result in fractures within its ranks. On the other hand, the success of HTI will act as a catalyst for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate, which will cease to be a mere romantic idea of a marginal Islamic party.

The writer has been researching the Hizbut Tahrir for the past two years. He interviewed HT members in the UK, Indonesia and Malaysia between 2006 and 2007.


The definitive violation of the Shariah by the rulers of the Muslim world, Part. 1

The rulers of the Muslim world today rule by other than what Allah (swt) revealed, they abandon and violate Qat'i definitive Ahkam Shariah.

Some of these Qat'i areas include:

- Accepting the law of man whether that of a parliament, assembly or international law above the Shariah of Allah. Governments like Saudi Arabia who claim to rule by Islam are members of the United nations and accept its man made charter and laws above the Shariah of Allah (swt). This is a definitive prohibition.
- Allying with the Kuffar against the Muslims as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others have.
- Totally abondoning Jihad by considering themselves as non-expansionist nation states.

Accepting man made law above the Shariah of Allah (swt)

This is a clear cut prohibition due to the many verses in the Quran establishing the definitive sovereignty of Allah (swt).

There is a disagreement amongst the scholars whether people who do that become Kafir automatically or remain as Fasiq (open sinners) and Dhalim (oppressors). However all of them agree that it is a definitive prohibition.

Sheikh Ahmad Mahmoud said: “The rulers who suspend the Islamic Sharee’ah and legislate other laws without being forced by anybody to do this, are mostly Kuffar, even if they fasted, prayed and performed Hajj and claimed to be Muslims. That is because they preferred the laws of kufr to the law of Islam. However, if they believe the Sharee’ah of Islam is the best law and they suspended it temporarily due to their own whim, they are transgressors and not disbelievers in this respect.” [The Da’wah to Islam, English translation, Revival Publications, Pg. 16]

Ibn Abeel-'Izz Al-Hanafi said: "Judging by other than what Allah has revealed could be kufr that expels one from the religion and could be a sin either a major sin or a minor one and it could be a symbolic kufr or minor kufr based on the two sayings and this all depends on the situation of the judge: So if he believes that judging by what allah has revealed is not obligatory or that he has the option in this or if he dishonours it(The judgement of Allah) while being certain that it is the judgement of Allah then this is major kufr and if he believes in the obligation of judging by what allah has revealed in this instance but turns away from it while recognizing that he deserves to be punished then he is a sinner and is to be referred to as a disbeliever symbolically or upon minor disbelief" (Sharh At-Tahaawiyyah, pg. 324)

Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullaah) said, “Its known by necessity from the religion of the Muslims and by the agreement of all the Muslims, that he who permits the following of a religion other than the religion of Islaam or following a law other than the Sharee’ah of Muhammad (Sallallaahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam), then he is a Kaafir.” (Majmoo' al-Fataawaa 28/524)

And he similarly says, “The Sharee'ah revealed from Allaah (Ta’aalaa), which is the Qur’aan and Sunnah that Allaah sent His Messenger with, no one from the creation is allowed to leave it. And no one leaves it but a Kaafir.” (Majmoo' al-Fataawaa 11/262)

And he says, “Whenever a person legalizes what is illegal by consensus or illegalizes what is legal by consensus or replaces the Sharee'ah that is agreed upon by consensus, then he is a Kaafir by the agreement of the scholars of Fiqh.” (Majmoo' al-Fataawaa 3/267)

Ibn Katheer (Rahimahullaah) says “So whoever leaves the clearcut Law revealed to Muhammad bin ‘Abdillaah the final of the Prophets, and refers to other sources for judgment, such as abrogated laws, then he is a Kaafir.” (al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah 13/119)

Sheikh Abul Faraj Jamaal ud-Din `Abdur-Rahmaan ibn alJawzi alBaghdaadi alHanbali رحمه الله510-597 AH/1116-1201 AD, gives stern warning to those who should play with the Shari`a, or even fail to rule by it,

“Whoever does not judge by what Allah sent down, doing juhud (denial) to it, and he knows that Allah sent it down, just as the Jews did, then he is a kaafir. And it is related from Talha that Ibn `Abbas said, ‘Whoever did juhud (denial) to what Allah sent down, then he has become kaafir, but if he admits to it, then he is an oppressor, a rebellious sinner.”

Al `Allamah Shihaab ud-Din al Alusi رحمه الله [229] had the following to say,

“There is no dispute in the kufr of anyone who doesn’t have the certainty to judge by what Allah sent down, and moreover the general design for the denial of faith for anyone not judging by what Allah sent down is of one class. Thus there is no doubt or suspicion that the one who doesn’t judge in one matter or thing by what Allah sent down, then he is not one of certainty in the revelation and there is no dispute in his kufr.” [Tafsir Ruh alMa`aani, V.]

Al `Allamah, the Sheikh of the scholars of tafsir, Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari رحمه الله, made these glowing comments,

“And whoever conceals the judgment of Allah which he sent in His book and He made it the legislation between His slaves, then he hid it and judged by other than it, he has the likeness of the judgment of the Jews in the case of the committers of adultery….and their hiding of the verse stoning…and Allah has already equalised between all of them in the judgment on them in the Torah,

و من لم يحكم بما انزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون

(‘And whoever does not judge by what Allah sent down, then they are Kaafirun’) [Surat al-Ma’ida, ayah 44]

The Great `Aalim continues on in another place,

“They are those who do not judge by what Allah sent down in his book, but they replace, change and deform His judgment. They hide the truth, which he sent in His book. [Tafsir at-Tabari, V. 4, p.591-592]

The great Sheikh ul Islam, the head over all the judges in the Shari`a courts of Egypt, Imaam Badr ud-Din al`Ayni رحمه الله clarified the issue for all those to read and learn from,

“Whoever changed the Shari`a of the Prophets and made his own Shari`a, his Shari`a is baatil. It is Haraam to follow these people,

أم لهم شركآء شرعوا لهم من الدين ما لم يأذن به الله و لو لا كلمة الفصل لقضى بينهم و إن الظالمين لهم عذاب اليم

‘Or do they have partners for them legislating a religion that Allah did not give permission for at all?! Had it not been for the word of decision and decree, the matter between them would have been judged. And truly, for the oppressors is a torturous punishment.’ [Surat ush-Shura, ayah 21]

“Due to this, the Jews and Christians became kuffar. They hold tight to their changed Shari`a and Allah made it obligatory on humankind to follow the Shari`a of Muhammad (saw)" [`Umdat ulQaari, V. 24, p. 81]

To be continued...

Ruling by Kufr is Haraam - by Prof. Muhammad Al-Mass'ari

Tuesday 29 April 1997
Prof. Muhammad Al-Mass'ari

The 'Muslim News' published in its March 28 1997 issue 95, page 4, in its 'Election Special' feature an article entitled: "Islam is not opposed to power-sharing" by Brother Azzam Tamimi. The article argues, in essence, that participating in Kufr governments and elections is perfectly permissible, even a duty for Muslims! Unfortunately Br. Tamimi could not accept that the other opposing point of view is based on respectable and considerable train of thought, rather he insisted to belittle it and its advocates. For example he said: [Islamists, who treat the questions of democracy or power-sharing as matters of 'Aqidah (faith), usually have no specialised or adequate knowledge in the humanities, and are indoctrinated with some shallow Islamic literature]. This is most unfortunate! The following discussion will clearly expose Br. Tamimi's point of view as the weakly founded and shallow one.

In the first four paragraphs or so Br. Tamimi summarises the position of Ayman Az-Zhawahiri, a leader of one of the Egyptian Jihaad movements, in his "Bitter Harvest" and the position of Hizb-ut-Tahreer. I do not have currently a copy of "The Bitter Harvest", but I am sufficiently familiar with Hizb-ut-Tahreer, its struggle, literature and thought, to describe Br. Tamimi's representation as essentially flawed and simplistic. Even historic facts are given inaccurately.

It is a matter of public record that Sheikh Ahmad Ad-Da'our, member of Hizb-ut-Tahreer,did NOT give, after his election to the Jordanian Parliament, the official oath of allegiance to the King of Jordan (Check the Jordanian Parliaments minutes and records for this). As a matter of fact he sat with late founder and leader of Hizb-ut-Tahreer Sheikh Taqi-ud-deen An-Nabhaani, may Allah be pleased with him, for hours, to devise an oath formula affirming allegiance to Allah, His Messenger, the Ummah and the Jordanian people and not contradicting the party's classification of the Jordanian regime as a Kufr regime.

Br. Tamimi's claim that: "Only Ad-Da'ur won because he entered into an arrangement with the Muslim Brotherhood" is not supported by historic evidence! Both Hizb-ut-Tahreer and the Muslim Brotherhood are Islaamic organisations. Co-operation and arrangements between them is their Islaamic duty. They should have been doing it all the time intensively. Unfortunately the Muslim Brotherhood prefered to treat their Muslim brethren as enemies to the extent that some researcher believe that the Muslim Brotherhood was more opposed to Hizb-ut-Tahreer than to the Communist Party! (see, for example, Prof. Riyadh Ysuf As-Subh's article series about "The Jordanian Islaamic political parties and their impact on society and politics", in the London based newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, concluded in No. 2471, of Saturday/Sunday 19/20 April 1997, page 14). If this is true than we have to ask ourselves: Which kind of"Muslim Brotherhood" is this?!

Prior to those elections of the early fifties, in which Hizb-ut-Tahreer did participate, as well as prior to the elections of the late eighties, in which Hizb-ut-Tahreer did not participate, Hizb-ut-Tahreer issued communiqués in which its point of view about participating in elections of Kufr systems, like the Jordanian one, was elaborated and clarified. That basic theory was developed further in the Hizb-ut-Tahreer's magazine Al-Wa'i and other publications. Members of Hizb-ut-Tahreer and students in its circles developed and polished the theory further [see: Memorandum of Advise by a group of activists, intellectuals and scholars in Arabia; My book entitled: "Taa'at Uli-l-amr" (Obedience to the Ruler)]. We summarise it here for the benefit of the readers.

Elected bodies are either law making, that is making essential laws, or not. The non law-making bodies are essentially administrative (classical examples are: City and regional councils, school boards ..etc). They administer and manage within given "laws", enacted by a higher law-making authority (King and/or Parliament; Revolutionary Council; Military Junta, Cardinal Convent; Sanhidreen; Central Committee of the Ruling Party in one party dictatorship, ... etc). They do issue regulations and by-laws, which are administrative and procedural (That is regulating the how? when? with which means? .. etc) in nature, rarely enacting essential law (That is what is obligatory, permitted or forbidden; conditionals, causatives, exceptions, waivers, valid, invalid, void ..etc).

Since the basic Islamic ruling about administrative and procedural regulations that they ALL are permitted in principle (unless a specific prohibition with its specific legitimate evidence can be shown), it should be clear that elections and membership in those bodies, as well as administrative and management jobs and positions in general are basically permitted and not a problem. It is not a problem, for example, to work in agricultural banks (like the Saudi Agricultural Bank) which are designed to give interest free loans, equipment, fertilisers, seeds for cash or instalment payments. This does not mean, that in a Kufr domain problems rarely arise, they do arise frequently! For example a city council may have to regulate 'red light districts' permitted by a higher law making authorities. A Muslim council member will face that and other dilemmas. The same applies to the Muslim public servant in the domain of Kufr, if he is ordered to draft and execute an interest (Riba) loan contract. These problems arise, from time to time, in a Kufr or in an unjust corrupt system, but they are not the standard day to day basic situation. A Muslim should, for example, never be a party, witness or writer/drafter of a Riba contract, unless he is comfortable with inviting the Divine course invoked by the Messenger of Allah on Riba, its parties, its witnesses and its writer! He can never issue permits for prostitutes or other 'red light district' businesses.

As a matter of fact the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, in a strong (Saheeh) Hadeeth, after warning of coming times of corrupt rulers: (Should any one of you reach that time, do NOT be: 'Areef, Shurti, Jaabi, or Khaazin!), narrated by Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh. (a) Shurti = Policeman or security service man. Obviously working in secret services is a compounded crime and even worse and more sinful. (b) Khaazin: Literally Storage Keeper, mostly used in the meaning of Treasurer. (c) Jaabi: Collector of state revenues. This even applies to Zakat collection, but also to Kharaaj (land tax), customs and excises, and all other taxes. (d) 'Areef: Most difficult to translate, literally "Recogniser". From other Hadeeth evidence we know that a 'Areef is some one who know the people in a village, city subsection or a sub-tribe, so he could report their opinion, marital status .. etc. This meaning is evidenced and explained by the following incident: After the battle of Hunain the Messenger of Allah decided to set his own prisoners of war of the defeated tribe of Hawaazin free and asked the people in congregation to do the same, possibly in return for a future re-imbursement. The masses shouted: Yes, we do the same, but the Messenger of Allah insisted: "Go to your camps! Your ('Areefs) will check with each of you one by one and report back to us, so that we know who is really satisfied or not".

This Hadeeth together with the numerous Qur'aanic and Prophetic injunctions against Kufr, oppression, injustice and their perpetuators and any support for, even 'inclination' or 'closeness' to, them are strong evidence of the prohibition of at least certain jobs and functions under Kufr and/orZulm regimes, as Allah, blessed be His Names, says: {Do not incline (or lean) towards the unjust one, else you would experience the touch of hell-fire, you will not find any protector besides Allah, nor shall you be helped or supported} (Hood; 11:113). Some Islaamists argue even for complete abstaining from any public office under such regimes, but the above Hadeeth indicates otherwise, because it enumerates clearly four categories instead of saying, for example: "Do not work (or do not do any thing) for them!". More over Jihaad is a duty and called for under the command of even corrupt and oppressive rulers.

I therefore argue that in principle administrative functions (as public servant or as a member of such administrative bodies) is in principle permitted. We must in any case be alert to the above stated prohibition of certain functions and also ready to stand firm in any single conflict situation (usury contracts, 'red light district', permits for prostitution, quality certification for alcoholic beverages, .... and much, much more).

The discussion above was concerned ONLY with administrative function under Kufr (disbelief) and Zulm (oppressive) systems. The question of law-making (legislative) functions and court and tribunal rulings (judicial) function has not been yet addressed.

We must first clarify the different meanings and usages, in Qur'aan and Sunnah, of the word 'Hukm' best translated as 'Rule'. If we go through an indexed dictionary of the Qur'aan (see: Muhammad Fou'aad Abdul-Baqee's famous indexed dictionary) then we find the following usages: (a) Ruling, mostly judicial ruling. The Judge is also termed Haakim (or Qaadi). (a.1) Allah, blessed his names, has the sole Hukm in the day of Judgement as in: Ghaafir (40:48), Aal Imraan (3:55), Az-Zumar (39:46), Al-Baqarah (2:113), An-Nisaa' (4:141), An-Nahl (16:124),and many more. (a.2) In this world this function is performed by duly appointed officials (judges), to arbitrate and settle disputes. This is the most prominentusage of the Qur'aan and Sunnah like in Al-Maa'idah (5:42), An-Nisaa' (4:58), An-Nisaa' (4:105), Al-Anbiaa' (21:78), Saad (38:22), An-Nisaa' (4:60), Al-Maa'idah (5:44-50), Al-Baqarah (2:188) and many more. Most, but not all,these verses could and should be also understood in the sense of general "rule" and govern, even manage and administer i.e. applying certain laws and principle in managing public affairs! (a.3) Ruling in the intellectual sense; Informed opinion; Judgement of an opinion or situation. Allah, blessed be His Names, condemns the practice of burying baby girls: {If one of them is informed about the birth of a baby girl his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief!

Ashamed he hides himself from the people, because of the bad news he just received! Shall he retain it on sufferance and contempt, or bury it in the dust?! Oh how miserable they judge (rule)?!!} (An-Nahl 16:59); See also Yunus (10:36), As-Saaffaat (37:154), Al-Qalam (68:36,39), Al-An'aam (6:136) and many more. (b) Law-Making. The word "Hukm" is used less frequently in this meaning in the Qur'aan. We have Allah, blessed be His Names, saying after prohibiting hunting while in the holy precincts and/or in the state of Ihraam: { ... Allah commands (rules) what he wants} (Al-Maa'idah 5:1). We have also Al-Maa'idah (5:50), Al-Kahf (18:26), Yusuf (12:40) and Al-Mumtahinah (60:10), and some others. The word "Hukm" is used there in the meaning of commanding, ordering, or enacting a law. Normally the Qur'aan refers for such meanings of commanding and making laws to Allah being Lord (Rabb), Sovereign or King. The word "Amr" meaning command is more often used, like in: {.. indeed His is the Creation (Khalq) and the Command (Amr), blessed be Allah, the Lord of the universes} (Al-A'raaf 7:54). The term (Tashree') is also some times used. This Sovereignty or Law-Making power is the privilege of Allah alone according to the overwhelming evidence of Qur'aan, Sunnah and necessities of the reason, any belief to the contrary is necessarily Shirk and Kufr. The scholars of Usul-ul-Fiqh (principles of law derivation) have used the term Hukm to denote any specific legislation and Haakim as the law-maker. All of them agree unanimously that Allah is the Haakim, not Humans nor Reason.

The "law making" process in Islaam is quite complex. We have: (1) Revelation: The Divine revelation in Qur'aan and Sunnah which is textual and concerned mainly, but not exclusively, with the details of "essential" laws. (2) Ijtihaad:These textual references must be understood and applied to real concrete situations. So proper understanding of the texts and understanding of the reality and the essential ingredients of the situation is a necessary condition for 'extracting' the divine ruling for that specific situation. This process of extraction is called "Ijtihaad". Ijtihaad is both the right and duty of the Muslim Ummah. The Ummah is empowered, by Allah blessed be His Names, to perform Ijtihaad. It is a duty on the Ummah as an Ummah. It is "Fardh Kifaayah". For any new situation we face in life there is a Divine ruling, which we must find, else we betray the reason of our existence: To worship Allah, that is, love, respect, glorify, praise, obey and surrender to Him. At least one Mujtahid must exist to face the challenge and perform that duty, else the whole Ummah becomes sinful. The scholars of Usul-ul-Fiqh (principles of law derivation) have studied the subject of Ijtihaad in full detail, so we refer to their works in this matter. We stress only some very important facts: (2.a) Every single Muslim, man or woman is empowered to Ijtihaad. You do not need an ordination or authorisation from any ruler or scholar. There is no Church, and no official clergy, in Islaam. Indeed you do need the necessary knowledge and other pre-conditions, most likely you will have "Ijaazah", that is certification, from a scholar, a university or any other scholarly body, but this is neither necessary, nor sufficient. You have to argue for and justify your Ijtihaad in the community of the scholars, and the believers in general, but it is your responsibility in front of Allah, and Allah alone. (2.b)The Ijtihaad is a human process and it is not infallible. The results of Ijtihaad are not THE Revelation or THE Shari'a. They are the Mujtahid's or Faqih's understanding of the Revelation or Shari'a. The same is to be said about the bulk of statements in the Fiqh books. It is generally improper, impolite and arrogant to say: This is Allah's ruling or the verdict of Islam, rather a more cautious and humble statement like: This is my understanding of Allah's ruling or of the verdict of Islaam, or this is an Islamic point of view! (3) Adoption:Because Ijtihaad is fallible human process, and because a considerable number of problems and questions do not admit a definitive (qat'i) textual evidence and because a considerable number of Hadeeth references is not of well established agreed upon authenticity; Because of all these main reasons and other minor reasons there will be a considerable number of diverging points of view and results of Ijtihaad today and possibly until the Day of Judgement. The believer will face, sooner or later, the problem which one of the different, some times conflicting, rulings he should follow: This the problem of adoption.

For individual Muslims the problem has been studied extensively by the scholars of Usul-ul-Fiqh (principles of law derivation) under the Chapters of (Taqleed) and (Ittibaa'). The conditions and permissibility of Taqleed, that is following a scholar on the merit of his personality, reputation, ... etc., but not on the merit of his argument for the specific ruling, has been extensively discussed. The same was done for (Ittibaa'), that is following on the merit of the argument for the specific ruling. Unfortunately the question of adoption in the public domain, that is by the STATE has not been addressed in past centuries in any respectable length. All what the classical scholars have said was only: The legitimate Waliyy-ul-Amr, Imaam, or Khaleefah generally has the right to adopt and must be obeyed, that is: His adoption, if duly enacted and published, becomes binding law. The problem of scope and limits of the state's adoption were addressed in a quite elaborate level in the "Draft of Constitution" (Mashroo'-ud-Dustoor), together with its justification in the "Prologue to the Constitution" (Muqadimat-ud-Dustoor) published by Hizb-ut-Tahreer over 40 years ago in the early fifties of the twentieth century. Hizb-ut-Tahreer invited scholars, movements and all Muslims to participate in the further development of those drafts, to no avail. Nobody else, including the leading Islamic movements, according to my knowledge, contributed any thing significant to this most important constitutional debate. It is rather regretful that members of such movements, like Br. Tamimi,preferred to indulge in mockery of such works, belittlement of their Muslim brethren and admire instead Western democratic thought, which is based on a completely different view of God, man and the universe.

Further developments were made in the above mentioned "Memorandum of Advice", in which the problem of "essential" and "procedural" law has been addressed and largely clarified. This has been further developed in my book "Taa'at Uli-l-amr" (Obedience to the Ruler). Therein the most significant problem of adoption in 'Ibaadat (pure cultic activities and worship) and 'Aqa'id (creed) has been addressed and significant solutions suggested. It is not an exaggeration to state, that a satisfactory resolution of those constitutional problems is a necessary condition for the survival of the Islamic state in our modern times in competition with secular materialistic West.

It is also interesting to note that the "Draft of The Constitution" (Mashroo'-ud-Dustoor), together with its justification in the "Prologue to the Constitution" did address and, at least partly, resolved the problems of existence and permissibility of multiple parties in the Islamic state, elections in general and of the head of state (Imaam or Khaleefah) in particular, accountability of the government, constitutional court, permissible taxes, public and private ownership, and women participation in elections and membership in elected assemblies and many other important constitutional issues. In those times (the fifties) the Ikhwaan-ul-Muslimoon, the biggest Islamic movement, was arguing for one-party-system and were at loss, to say the least, about women's role and participation in party activities, not to speak from elected bodies of the Islamic state!! Even the Ikhwaan-ul-Muslimoon's more 'liberal' daughter organisation in Sudan is still stuck with a military one-party dictatorship and still unable to firm their opinion about such a simple problem like currency exchange over borders: Is it Halaal or Haraam, and if Haraam should any one, because of it, face capital punishment, as they did administer?! The brothers should fear Allah and educate themselves more thoroughly about Islamic thought, before even starting with Locke and John Stewart Mill, or even dare to assume government responsibility!

It is obvious, from the above, that law-making in Islaam is quite involved! Elaborate developments are needed to clarify the principle of Divine Sovereignty (God's Rule) and its relation to human authority and responsibility. We must distinguish sharply between Sovereignty or Rule (Siyadah or Haakimiyyah) which is God's exclusively, and Authority (Sultaan) which belongs to the Ummah (or to a divinely appointed Imaam in the Shi'a's school of thought). Western democracy is on the other hand based on human sovereignty or, theoretically at least, sovereignty of the reason. Things are simple there: People meet and decide with a suitable majority, or elect an assembly, which has the right to enact, in a suitable majority decision, essentially any thing: The most base crimes, like sodomy punishable by death in times past, becomes respectable expression and assertion of human "dignity" and "self-determination" and a legally protected right after a simple vote of the parliament!

Now since enacting (essential) laws is the Divine privilege, any one doing the same is transgressing against the Divine Rank and Majesty of God Most High and trespassing on the secluded Divine Domain of the Sovereign Most Ultimate and Absolute and hence committing a crime of cosmic proportion: Shirk and Kufr. If rebellion against a worldly king is high treason, then rebellion against the King of kings is the Highest of High Treason!! This ought to be known, by necessity, from Qur'aan, Sunnah, principles of reason and consensus of scholars, even consensus of all rational beings.

This is for enacting of laws, but what about ruling, governing, judging, administering according to any law enacted not according with the principle of Divine Sovereignty or God's Rule?! Allah, blessed be His Names and exalted be His Attributes, condemned such acts, that is ruling, governing, judging, administering according to any thing not sanctioned by the Divine law, as criminal. These acts are classified as acts of: Kufr (disbelief), Zulm (oppression and injustice) and Fisq (manifest and public rebellion and disobedience). The appropriate verses in Qur'aan are well known and lengthy. I will not quote them, rather I would just give their references. Please refer first to the verses of Al-Maa'idah (5: 41-50) as main authority in the subject, but the Qur'aan is full with other relevant direct and indirect evidence for this most fundamental fact, see also An-Nisaa' (4:105), Saad (38:22), An-Nisaa' (4:60,65),and many more. The scholars are in agreement that a judge applying any thing other than Islamic law is Kaafir, unless he has valid excuse like compulsion ... etc. They have had never any argument about that. The only dispute was about intentional mis-application of the Islaamic law for a monetary gain (bribe) or for family, tribal, national or political bias. Some scholar regard a judge in such a case as only Faasiq (sinful) Muslim, others insisted in regarding him a Kaafir, that is a disbeliever and exclude him from the domain of Islaam and out of the community of the believer, but all agree on the extreme seriousness of the sin.

It is obvious that a judge is obliged to apply the valid law and hence in a Kufr system he must generally apply Kufr rules and laws. Such judges deserve then all the condemnation and the titles of Kaafir, Zaalim and Faasiq according to Al-Maa'idah (5: 41-50), possible exemption are judges in some Muslim countries in special courts, for example family courts, who apply only and exclusively Islaamic law in marital and other specific disputes. The head of state, prime minister and cabinet ministers whose constitutional duty is to govern, manage the public affairs, administer and participate in the law making process as well members of law-making bodies, in their law-making capacity, are in even bigger transgression against the Divine Sovereignty as detailed above.

How then could it be conceivable for a Muslim to accept to fall in Shirk, Kufr, Zulm and Fisq for the return of a miserable "share" of Kufr or Zulm power?! Human beings were not created to exercise power or share in power, rather they were created to worship Allah, Most High, that is to love,respect, glorify, praise, obey and surrender to non but Him. This worship empowers them to establish God's Rule and a system of true justice on earth, based on a firm moral and spiritual base.

The train of arguments of Br. Tamimi has not yet been discussed here in full. His representation of the theory of Imaam Ash-Shaatibi in Al-Muaafaqat, his invocation of the principle of "necessity" and their relevance or rather irrelevance for the problem at hand deserve another more lengthy discussion in a future article. Some fine points of the membership in Kufr law-making bodies and the permissibility of using such bodies as Da'wa platform and an instrument for accounting the government ought also to be treated in our future article.

Meanwhile let us agree on the fact that it is very difficult to live and work UNDER Kufr and Zulm regimes, but the difficulties escalate to higher order of magnitudes if you want to work WITH them. Br. Tamimi and the other advocates of power-sharing should fear Allah, do their home work studying the relevant Qur'aan verses and Hadeeths before indulging in simplistic, sweeping and virtually useless general statements and empty slogans about "power-sharing"

In a previous article entitled: "Ruling by Kufr is Haraam" [An abridged version of which was published in Muslim News, No. 96, on Friday 25 April 1997 (18/12/1417H), Page 6, while the full version was circulated via the Internet] the present author argued for the general non-permissibility of "power-sharing" in Kufr and Zulm regimes.

It was argued specifically that, in a Kufr system, that is in Dar-ul-Kufr, the law-making function of the parliament, but also the "ruling", that is: sharing in law-making process; Governing, Managing public affairs, Defending the constitutional system, Establishing law and order ... etc. normally performed by the head of state, prime-minister and cabinet minister, in their capacity as cabinet members, are necessarily: Kufr (disbelief), Zulm (injustice and oppression) and Fisq (manifest rebellion against God) according to the definite ruling of the Qur'aan, Sunnah, and consensus of the Companions and all generations of scholars till today.

We should not overlook the fact that parliaments do have other functions to perform, besides their basic first function of law-making, these are: (2) Control and Check of the government (mainly the executive power), and (3) Intellectual and Media Platform, that is representing and arguing for or against certain ideas and views being widely discussed in the society.

It is known from Islaam by necessity that accounting the rulers is a fundamental right of every single Muslim, man or woman, of every group or organisation and of the whole Ummah as an Ummah (See any standard references about "Al-Amr bil Ma'roof wan-Nahyi 'an-il-Munkar", also our book: (Muhaasabat-ul-Hukkaam)). Actually it is the duty of the Ummah as an Ummah, that it is "Fardh Kifayah", if it is not performed in sufficiency, the whole Ummah becomes sinful and punishable, except those who are struggling to perform, individually and collectively, that fundamental duty.

The sad and miserable state of affairs of our Ummah currently is, partially, the necessary result and worldly punishment for its negligence of this vital duty, and there is more and severe questioning coming in the Day of Judgement!

This accounting of the rulers by Muslims could and should be only based on Islaam. If a ruler punishes a sodomist, an adulterer or adulteress, his act will be praised and supported by Muslims, but he will be severely criticised and attacked by Western Liberals for punishing "love" and interfering with personal "choice", "freedom" and "self-determination". Both, the Muslims and the Western Liberals, are doing their "duty" and accounting their ruler according to their "Deen", that is their ideology and way of life, Islaam and Western Liberal Secularism respectively.

The accounting process entails many actions by a parliament (or any other elected body) and its member. The function of accounting, check and control can take many forms, procedures and styles: Live debates, votes of no-confidence, rebuttals, written and oral questions, parliamentary investigations, petitions, ombudsman action, confirmation of certain officials in certain systems (American Congress), and many others. All are only procedures, and as such, in principle, permitted for Muslims if based on Islaam and Islaam alone.

It is, for example, outrageous and unacceptable from any Muslim to give his vote of confidence to any government applying Kufr law. This is precisely the blunder, that an "Muslim Brotherhood" members of the Jordanian parliament committed arguing that: "A vote of confidence has no relation to applying Kufr or Islaam"!! A vote of confidence for Kufr law means that we trust it to make human beings happy in this world and, as a consequence, in the hereafter! If so, than why Islaam in the first place?! Why then scream all the time: Islaam is the solution?! Why the ferocious, some times bloody, confrontation with the secular regimes in Muslim countries?!

The function of elected bodies, law-making or not, as intellectual and media platform is very intriguing, specifically in these modern times of mass media, which is being declared "the fourth power" in the public domain, the three other powers being the legislative, executive and judicial powers. A Muslim member of such a body will have an over proportional share in the media power and if is he a committed Muslim, then he is by necessity a Daa'iyah, a caller and inviter to Islaam: Its creed, its laws, morality, code of conduct and all of its way of life. Almost all parliamentary functions and actions can by intelligently used for Da'wa and expressing the Islaamic point of view, but there are, for this purpose, specific actions possible: Motions, questions, written and oral, to officials, debates, rebuttals and non-binding resolutions.

It should be clear now that a Muslim could nominate himself for law-making Kufr parliament under the following conditions: (1) Abstain from law-making process. All Muslims would agree that this entails voting against any law contradicting Islaam in its content. I do not believe that this is enough, because derivation of the law by reference to Qur'aan and Sunnah is as essential as, even more important than, the content of the law. Worshipping Allah necessitates surrender and submission to Him without any question to content of His command. We submit because He is the Lord, the King, the Sovereign; He commanded per se, not because He commanded this specific regulation, which we may like or dislike! Hence the process of referring to the revelation is the test for Islaam and Imaan. It is very well possible, that our understanding of a certain revelation is wrong, but this does not make us Kuffaar (disbeliever), actually not even sinful if we did our best Ijtihaad. But not referring to the revelation makes us sinful Kuffaar! So a Muslim should never accept any law not derived by a an acceptable Ijtihaad, regardless of the content. A Muslim member of any elected body must vote against such law:This is the minimum!

A more cautious Muslim member would abstain completely from any law-making regarding essential law, because a Kufr parliament is enacting them based on the belief of its "right" to enact laws: It is original law-making based on the sovereignty of the People, the king of the realm or the Reason, or what-so-ever. In any case it is not derivation and then adoption from revelation! (2)Controlling, Checking and Accounting the government based on Islaam. No vote of confidence for Kufr rule is possible (let alone membership in such governments in the first place). (3)Propagating the Islaamic point of view in every occasion, at every question and towards every issue. (4)Refusal of any oath or statement which entails allegiance, even acceptance, of the Kufr regime. The usual way out is to devise a suitable oath formula or statement which is accepted by Islaam and sufficiently embarrassing for the regime! For example instead of allegiance to the King, an oath to "serve the nation and protect its interests based on Islaam" may be substituted. This may not work and could result in termination of membership of such an elected body before is even really started, but their is no way out. The principle of "necessity" does not apply here, as elaborated below. (5)Electorates must be clearly informed about these points, so they can make their choice and vote accordingly. They must know that the candidate, if elected as their representative, is going to adhere to the points given above. The elected representative is, like any carrier of a power of attorney (Wakaalah), in a position of trust. Any non-disclosure is criminal cheating andbreaking of trust.

These conditions may sound almost impossible to fulfil, but the Example of Sheikh Ad-Da'our, of Hizb-ut-Tahreer, who was elected to the Jordanian Parliament twice in the 1950s, and strictly adhered to them proves otherwise: It is difficult but not impossible. It sound also quite meagre for power-hungry characters, who want power at any price, but the reason of the creation and the purpose of life is not power, full power or share in power, rather it is to become spiritual by acknowledging and surrendering to Allah's Sovereignty and Lordship and worshipping Him alone, thus achieving Divine pleasure, that is achieving eternal happiness!

Now what the individual Muslim is supposed to do in Dar-ul-Kufr, that is a domain of Kufr rule or Kuffaar supremacy, with a Muslim majority like Jordan or a non-Muslim majority like Britain?! Obviously again worship Allah alone and hence stick to Halaal and avoid Haraam. As Muslim is not permitted to do Haraam, he is not permitted to authorise Haraam. So he cannot vote for a Muslim candidate who is committing Haraam by not adhering to the conditions given above. The authorisation is then invalid and the act is sinful!

The same applies for a non-Muslim candidate too, because he is not permitted by Islaam to rule, govern or have an all-over authority over Muslims like the one exercised by the Head of State, Prime minister, Cabinet Members and the like, in short he is not permitted to be a "ruler". He may manage and administer but only according to Islaam and under ultimate Islaamic authority!

Voting a non-Muslim into a position of authority (rule), even if he would apply Islaam only, violates the principle of Islaamic supremacy in any case! Voting for a non-Muslim or an un-Islamic party with Kufr ideology and program, and hence approving that ideology and/or program, is a compounded crime! This cannot be compared and is vastly different from pork breading, keeping, selling and eating by non-Muslims, which Islaam expressively permits for them.

Br. Azzam Tamimi asks: (But what if such supremacy is not established in the land. Should all Muslim affairs be put on hold? Should Muslims go to sleep for 309 years like the "people of the cave"). Obviously they should not, but unfortunately his answer is participating in Kufr, which he gives a nice name: Power-sharing! Again here he lumps vastly different cases and sub-cases into one pile and suggests a sweeping, albeit empty general solution, like the old alchemist who dreamed all his life of the impossible life-elexir, which, in one strike, cures all ills and keeps youth for ever!

Let give things their right names. the land in which Islamic supremacy (that is Rule of Islaamic Law and authority and power for the Muslims) is not established is called Dar-ul-Kufr, an old fashioned name, which many people like Br. Tamimi do not like, but it is extremely precise and descriptive. Such a Dar-ul-Kufr could be one of several cases: (1)The majority of the citizens are Muslims. The domain is then a Muslim country. It is then obligatory on Muslims to do their utmost best to convert their domain into a domain of Islaamic supremacy, that is Dar-ul-Islaam. They, as majority, should normally have no excuse in not doing so. If they do not do then they are all, except those who are struggling individually and/or collectively to establish Islaamic supremacy, committing Haraam and are sinful. This sinful state of affairs is not improved at all by adding the sins of participating in Kufr rule, rather it is worsened and compounded!

The existence of a military dictatorship, possibly veiled like in Turkey or Egypt, is not an excuse. No dictator can rule without the silent approval of ignorant or coward masses. The job of the Islaamists is to educate, mobilise and lead the masses, not to betray their belief and defeat their goal by sanctioning Kufr through power-sharing.

In the battle field Muslims are not permitted to retreat if confronting a fighting enemy of no more than twice their strength in numbers and equivalent gear. So it may be argued, that the same obligation exist for Muslims, to stand firm and reach for full Islaamic supremacy, if their fraction in the population exceeds a third! They are a minority, but a significant one. In such a situation every Muslim is facing roughly no more than two opponents in the ideological and political struggle. The situation ought to be even better than in military confrontation in the battle field: If Muslims are such a strong and significant (one third, or more) minority, then society is normally deeply fragmented, divided and no seriously organised counter force is to be expected.

Any thing else indicates essential defects in the Muslims themselves: In their understanding of Islaam, in their commitment and/or in their willingness to sacrifice. If so, then Muslims are not qualified to exercise power and rule in the name of Islaam. They are also prohibited, as elaborated above and in the previous article from ruling by anything other than Islaam, so Da'wa, that is intensive culturing, education and purification, that is self betterment, is needed first, leading to self organising and identity assertion. There is no need for illicit power-sharing. This is the only viable alternative Islaamically. (2)The Muslims are a (non significant) minority of the citizens of the realm facing considerable social forces preventing them from establishing Islaamic supremacy, but they enjoy some basic protection of their life and individual liberties like in Britain or the US. In such cases the order of the hour is to keep the Islaamic identity, carry Da'wa and invite others to Islaam, to increase the number of Muslims, as to become a significant minority or even a majority in the long run. This is not possible in Isolation. It is only possible by interacting with the society, while keeping their distinguished character and identity, and also not by integration and hence melting away in the surrounding Kufr society! Establishing a strong Islaamic schooling system, in the short run, is of utmost importance in such cases. This necessitates, at least partial economic self sufficiency: (a)to establish a (small starting) number of private Islaamic schools, and (b)to achieve sufficient media presence to start exercising pressure on the power centres in the surrounding society forcing them to acknowledge the necessity of approving and funding of further Islaamic schools.

This acting as a pressure group for well-defined and limited objectives (Islaamic schools, non co-educational public schools, non mixing in sport, more say in certain parts of the curriculum ... etc.) means concentrating the limited resources on a small target and hence a higher probability of achieving penetration and success. The limited participation in the political and administrative process described above, which is permitted by Islaam, is more than adequate. I would personally regard any participation higher than local councils and school board in such a situation, although Islaamically permitted, as counter-productive. Such a participation may absorb the energies of talented Muslims in early battles against economic, tax, penal legislation (homosexuality, incest, ... etc.), which will be wasteful abuse of limited resources.

Even if "power-sharing" on higher levels of government (ruling and law-making) were permitted by Islaam (which is not the case), it would, in most cases, be viewed by the surrounding society (or by any powerful section thereof) as dangerous and provocative, leading to confrontations, crack-downs and disruptive severe conflicts, and become hence counter-productive. The current example of Turkey, which should be followed and evaluated very, very carefully, and the recent example of Algeria should remind and warn any rational thinker. In other cases Islaamists, who are, unfortunately, less politically and ideologically aware like the "Muslim Brotherhood" in Jordan, may be abused as tools to stabilise and serve the Kufr regimes for a limited time and then later disposed off: weakened or eliminated by political manoeuvres and dirty games, a process, in full swing, going now in Jordan!! (3)The Muslims are an oppressed minority, threatened in their lives, wealth and liberties and prevented from performing their basic individual duties, with no capabilities to counter or fight the oppressors and with no powerful Islaamic state around to perform Jihaad for their rescue. In such cases "power-sharing" Halaal or Haraam could not be conceivably a matter of consideration! A person, or a few persons, may hide their belief (Tuqyah) and "sneak" in a power position and help a few Muslims here and there, but could not possibly bring any real relief for the oppressed general Muslim minority. Such cases may be justifiable under the principle of necessity, but they are singular and largely accidental admitting no general theory of political action! The only real solution is: Immigration to any realm of security, preferably to an Islaamic domain if it exists.

I admit that the above division in three main case may not exhaust all relevant sub-cases, but it should be a guide to more thorough discourse.

I tried my best to see how the argument of "necessity" fits generally in this study, to no avail. As far as I know their is no compulsion on any one to participate in election, actively or passively. We did not hear yet of machine-gun holding soldiers forcing the populace into election boots. In certain countries you may penalised for not participating, but all what you need to do is to go to the boot and give an invalid or empty ballot slip! Even enduring the mild, mostly monetary, penalty should not be a problem and does not constitute a case of necessity or compulsion by any stretch of imagination. So could any intelligent human being out there show me where is the general "necessity" mentioned by Br. Tamimi in his article?!

It is also very important to note, as we mentioned casually in the above, that non Muslims are not permitted under Islaamic supremacy, that is in Dar-ul-Islaam to participate in "ruling". They enjoy otherwise the full protection, all the rights and privileges of citizenship together with exemption from certain duties. This is perfectly well-established in Islaamic thought and rationally acceptable for any fair-minded person completely comprehending the meaning of Islaamic domain or Islaamic state!

The fundamental principles of equity, justice and reciprocity requires Muslims to ask for no more than that in any Kufr domain, even if some Kufr regimes like Liberal Secularism, in a self-contradicting way, grants them more! Islaam treats all humans in equal manner, there are no "Elected People of God" with all privileges, and "Gentiles" with treatment like animals! For these reasons it is also obvious that the opportunistic behaviour, past experience, successes(!) and achievements(!) of Jewish minorities in the world could never be a model or a worthy example for true Muslims, however remarkable those were and however great is the temptation!

So when Br. Azzam Tamimi concludes: (Should all Muslim affairs be put on hold? Should Muslims go to sleep for 309 years like the "people of the cave"), the answer must be neither, nor. There is plenty of permitted (Halaal), effective and wise things to do, most likely exceeding available manpower and resources. Moreover the "people of the cave" were true, committed, rightly guided young believers who deserted their society and did not "share" in any Kufr power. They refused to mix with Kufr and Shirk and even isolated themselves physically. They did not go to sleep, rather Allah, blessed be His Names, made them to do so, to show a miracle for all man-kind! They are actually a prime counter-example to Br. Tamimi's theory!

It is amazing how the largest Islaamic movements, which diverted the energies of hundred thousands of young dynamic Muslims during the last half century into politically and socially counter-productive "charity" activities, and other petty activities like boy-scouting(!), are now struggling to lead the Muslims in the abyss of "power-sharing", which has proven disastrous and counter-productive in the past. Even worse: It is Haraam.

The large Islaamic movements, Br. Tamimi and the other advocates of power-sharing should fear Allah, review objectively, and with devotion to Allah, their wrong and misguided "theory" and repent.{O, Who you believe turn to Allah with sincere repentance, in the hope that your Lord will forgive your evil deeds and admit you to gardens beneath which rivers flow!} (At-Tahreem; 66: 8)

* Note added on Wednesday 19 November 1997: That was written originally on Tuesday 29 April 1997, when Erbakan was still in power. It looked like a prophetic statement, but it is not: it is a simple rational conclusion! The precarious current situation of Erbakan, and the even more miserable one of his party should be a lesson for all of us. The future may hold things worse in store. May Allah have mercy on the Muslims in Turkey!!

The Ruling of Islam on Elections

The following is a translation from an Arabic leaflet.

Elections are among the means allowed under the Islamic law (Shari'ah) to choose attorneys (agents or representatives). The Messenger of Allah (saw), during the Pledge of Allegiance at Aqabah, said, "Bring out from you twelve foremen to be responsible for their people's upholding of their duties."

The regimes ruling in Islamic lands nowadays are all un Islamic. That is they are regimes of Kurt because their systems are not derived from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) (except for some portions of it). It is forbidden for a Muslim, who believes in Allah and his Messenger (saw), to help, participate in or be a part of these regimes. Rather he must work with utmost diligence and speed to dismantle it and establish the system of Islam in its place. Allah (swt) said:

"And those who do not rule with that which Allah has revealed, are indeed the Kaffiroon." [TMQ 5:44]

The rating regimes are fostering and protecting munkar, nay they are the head of munkar. The Messenger (saw) commands all Muslims: "Whoever of you sees a Munkar, let him change it with his hand. If he cannot, then (let him change it) with his tongue. If he cannot, then (let him change it) with his heart and that is the weakest of belief."

Therefore, what is requested of you, O Muslims, is not only to refrain from assisting or participating in the regime, but also to change it. Change with the heart is possible for every Muslim through hating Kufr and Munkar and renouncing it by saying: ‘0 Allah this is a Munkar that we are not pleased with, Change with his tongue is also possible, for every Muslim in many different situations: amongst his family, relatives, friends, and neighbours. As for the one who applauds these regimes, praises their rulers and supports them, he does not even harbor an iota of Iman in his heart. Beware 0 Muslims, do not belittle the issue for it is a matter of Iman and Kufr!

Is it legal (Halal) for a Muslim who fears Allah to contest elections within these regimes of Kufr? Yes, if he announces publicly, simultaneously with his candidacy, that be does not believe in this system, that he will not become a part of it or co-exist with it whether he is elected or not, that he will not help a candidate who believes in the system neither individually nor as a part of an electoral list and that he does not want more than to use the podium of Parliament to deliver the word of Haq and to call upon all Muslims to eradicate the Taghut (rule of Kurt) from its roots (via intellectual actions and means). It is not enough for a candidate to, just believe in this idea but conceal these conditions. He is obligated by the Shari'ah to declare it publicly, for an individual becomes a suspect and a subject of charges as soon as he announces his candidacy tinder these regimes. If he keeps himself a subject of suspicion and charges, he is sinful. It is illegal (Haram) for a Muslim, in this case, to elect him, help him or congratulate him if he wins.
The duties of a Member of Parliament include legislation, vote of confidence in cabinets, ratification of treaties, election of a Republic's President and holding the regime and its institutions accountable. Only the last action is legal (Halal) for a Muslim Member of Parliament to practice. All other functions are illegal (Haram). Legislation cannot emanate from sources outside the Book (Qur'an) and Method (Sunnah). The Sovereignty belongs to Allah, i.e., He is the Legislator, Nothing is legal but that which Allah has made legal (Halal) and nothing is illegal but that which Allah has made illegal (Haram). Allah (swt) said:

"They took their Rabbis and Priests for gods instead of Allah.”[TMQ 9:31]

The Messenger of Allah (saw) was reading this verse when Adee ibn Hatem At-Ta'ei entered wearing a cross around his neck. Adee said: They did not worship them. The Messenger of Allah responded (saw): "Yes (the followers did), they made illegal what is legal and made legal what is illegal and they (the followers) followed them. This is their worship of them." Then Adee became a Muslim. So that who legislates, making things legal and illegal without Allah's permission, is transgressing against Allah and making a god of himself. And those who follow him in this matter has rendered the one followed a god instead of Allah. So wake up, 0 Muslims! The Member of Parliament who gives confidence to a cabinet rating with Kufr, ratifies treaties based on Kufr laws or elects a president who rules with Kufr is an accomplice with them in their crime. A Muslim individual, who helps that Member of Parliament in getting there, is an accomplice with him in his crime.

A Muslim's main concern, whether he is a Member of Parliament or not, is the vital cause of the Ummah, which is saving the ummah from the claws of the West's idolatry (the so-called Western Culture) and guiding it to the light of Islam through the reestablishment of the Khilafah. In lieu of this, we see the members of Parliament these days work as street builders and endorsers of transactions for their constituents, despite the fact that a Parliament Member's interference in the work of the judiciary or other government departments is a transgression. We read these days that a block of Jordan's Members of Parliament (The Islamic Action Front) are threatening to submit their resignation from the Parliament if the Jordanian government does not retract its decision to raise the price of bread. We ask: why didn't they resign when Jordan signed for peace with the enemy? Why don't they resign because of the belief they hold that the system is a Kufr system, or is the price of bread more important?! Would the regime care if they resign or continue their resignation (submission)?! Let the candidates who humiliate themselves to win Parliament seats, regardless of the means, take a lesson front the existing Members of- Parliament. They found that their existence there is meaningless. They found that what they thought of as shrewdness and understanding of realities was in fact nothing but a mirage and a clear cut case of short sightedness. It was the regime's enslavement and exploitation of them and of Islam - in whose name they sit in Parliament. When those Members of Parliament, who promised to put Islam in the, position of policy-making, fail many people will think that Islam itself failed and not only the individuals who participated.

Some candidates try to find a pretext (it a Fatwa for their actions on the legal basis "The least of two evils." Based on this, the Arabs supported Peres, against Netanyahu in the Jews' elections, deeming Peres and Netanyahu as evil but Peres as the lesser of the two. Thus, it became obligatory for the Arabs to elect Peres. In Russia's elections, Yeltsin and the Communist Zyuganov were deemed evil but Yeltsin was the lesser evil so it became obligatory for the Muslims to support Yeltsin. Here they say; if X gets elected he would be evil and if Y gets elected he would be evil but X is lesser so it is obligatory to elect X and so on. This is definitely not Fiqh nor ljtihad. The legal basis is not applicable here. Why is Peres' evil less than that of Netanyahu, for example? Who said that X is less evil than Y? These are mere desires. The legal basis is only applicable when a legal text defines one of two evils to be lesser than the other and where there is no way out but one of these two evils. In elections, there is a way out which is for the candidate to obey the laws (of Shari'ah) from the outset of his candidacy to the end. This is viable and possible. The use and abuse of the legal basis of "The least of two evils" as a pretext is thus invalid hem. Actually, a Muslim has another stand which is not to elect and not to sink into the abyss of evil.

It is untrue that a Muslim cannot work (whether for the vital cause or small issues) but through the Parliament. It is untrue that his work from within (Parliament) is always more effective. Indeed in most cases his participation in Parliament is a false testimony, a sedative against work and change and a release valve for the Ummah's pent-up drive, especially if he fears Allah (in the people's opinion). The best position is for those individuals who fear Allah to avoid this as long as they are going to be a tool to deceive others.

We witnessed a couple of years ago that the Islamic Salvation Front's winning of the elections in Algeria did not lead it to the establishment of the Deen. Rather, it led (the Front) to jails because those who hold authority (and power) do not allow it to be transferred to their enemies. We are currently witnessing in Turkey that the power brokers did not give the cabinet to the Refah Party until it swore to and gave guarantees that it will adopt secularism and do everything the way those who hold power desire and require. So the solution does not come from within the Parliaments, rather it comes by taking authority through the seeking of support from those who have strength.

The despair of the Muslims (or some of them) of Islam's resumption of its victories; this despondency drives them to resign themselves to the regimes of Kufr. It's time for this despondency to go away. It's time for the Western concepts and standards, which pervaded our culture and made us ran after benefits and selfish ness, to be destroyed. It's time for us to establish our Khilafah, apply our law (Shari'ah) and elect the Members of the Ummah's Assembly under the Islamic State instead of elections in a Kufr domain under Kufr systems.

"It is He who has sent His Messenger with the Guidance and the Deen (Way of Life) of truth to make it victorious over all ways of life, even if the disbelievers detest it." [TMQ 9:33]

22 Rabi 1 1417 - 6 August 1996

Hizb ut-Tahrir
Wilaya of Jordan

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Urdu inpage of Usul al-Fiqh book & new book on methodology

The inpage version of Muhammad Ali's excellent Urdu book on Usul al-Fiqh can now be downloaded from:

Note: You may need to sign up to esnips to be able to download the files

Another book by him in Urdu on 'The correct methodology to re-establish the Islamic state' can be downloaded from:

The following are also some new Urdu articles:

The Islamic view on Insurance

The Miracle of the Quran

The Khimar, Jilbab & Niqab - the Sharia viewpoint,-Jilbab--Niqab---the-Sharia-viewpoint

Monday, August 27, 2007

Video of Khilafah Conference International 2007, Indonesia

The following is the video of most of the conference as broadcast by TVRI, a national TV channel in Indonesia. It was broadcast nationally on the evening of the day of the conference:

To watch the video streaming version:

Video Streaming Bagian 1
Video Streaming Bagian 2

To download the video:

Download Video 1
Download Video 2


Threatening the re-establishment of Khilafah

The following is an article translated from the weekly newsletter of Hizb ut-Tahrir Malaysia entitled 'Sauntun Nahdah' which is published in Malay.

On the month of December 2004, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) under the American regime reporting to the President, had issued a report titled "Mapping the Global Future" where they predicted four geopolitical world scenarios by the year 2020. One of them is the rise of "A New Caliphate", where a global Islamic government who will challenge Western values []. On 6th October 2005, the leader of the world's terrorists, George W. Bush made a speech in front of an audience during a National Endowment of Democracy function in The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, told:

"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia."

That speech was similar to that uttered by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and few other top leaders of the American regime.

The damned Bush and his subordinates, always relentless in portraying his enemies (the muslim ummah) as terrorists, militants, radicals, extremists and other derogatory labels he deemed fit for describing those who sincerely work to re-establish the Khilafah. One factor which Bush seems to fear, of which using the word 'Caliphate', although he always refer this to an 'Islamic Empire'. He knows if he would have uttered the word 'Caliphate' even if he bears it with a negative connotation, it would bring the world's attention, and even anyone who has never heard of it will question 'What is a Caliphate?' Because of his extreme hatred and fear for the Khilafah, this enemy of Allah could not tolerate this further and he had to utter this in his hate speech.

"The danger has not passed. And it's our job here in Washington, D.C. is to always remember, always remember, the nature of the enemy we face. These people are ideologically driven people. They have a vision as to how government should work. They don't believe in dissent. They don't believe in freedom of religion. They don't believe people should be able to express themselves in the public square. They have a dark vision for humanity. They have a desire to spread their ideology as far and wide as possible to reestablish what they call a caliphate. And they're willing to use murder as the tool to achieve their objective. You cannot reason with these people, you cannot negotiate with these people. The only way to protect America is defeat them overseas so we do not have to face them here at home." [George W. Bush pada 13/06/07 in a Presidential dinner in Washington Convention Center, Washington D.C. -]

O muslim ummah, beware!

When the Khilafah was destroyed on 3rd March 1924 or 28 Rajab 1342 Hijrah, the kuffar had not stopped in making sure that the Khilafah will not rise again. Long before the abolishment of the Khilafah they had physical or conceptual confrontations with the muslims. They dragged the muslims to fight wars against them, but had only seen defeat after defeat. They fought the Crusade Wars against the muslims for nearly 200 years, but their efforts met nothing but failure. For this reason they began to think that the muslims united in Khilafah was impossible to be defeated. However the West never flinched in their hatred against the muslims. They went on further to strategize how to destroy the Khilafah and the muslim ummah from the face of the earth.

Knowing that the muslims cannot be defeated by physical means, the West had switched to the 'conceptual weapon' against the muslims. From their long observation on the muslims, they understand that the muslims' strength was on their aqeedah and their adherence to the rules of Syari'ah. Because their aqeedah, the muslims were willing to sacrifice their life for Islam. The West realizing this, set out to defeat the muslims conceptually, to corrupt the muslim mindset by detaching the muslims away from the rules of Syari'ah. When the confidence of the muslim ummah towards their own aqeedah and the rules of Syari'ah waned, destruction will set into the lives, society and state of muslims. This was what the West had planned. So the West launched a conceptual war against the muslims and used propaganda to achieve their objectives. The West knew that there are two groups of which, when controlled by them, the whole muslim ummah can be subjugated. Those two groups are the umara' (leaders) and ulama' (scholars).

The West had used this 'conceptual weapon' against the muslims and had resulted to the demise of the Khilafah on 28 Rajab 1342. They had injected the poisons of nationalism (assabiyah) and patriotism (wathaniyah) into the minds of muslims, and presented the muslims with an "independence" to each muslim states. An "independence" presented to the muslims which meant that the muslims should govern their lives according to the racial and geopolitical lines dictated by the West. These transcending objectives being portrayed by the West had resulted the muslims willing to risk their lives to achieve them. The muslims leaders and nationalists, poisoned by these false concepts of nationalism (assabiyah) and patriotism (wathaniyah) propagated the West, had seen these endeavors as sublime without knowing they had fallen into the trap laid by the West. It followed that the ulama had also risen to these endeavors and worked together with their rulers in safeguarding the nationalistic and patriotic identity according to the group they belonged to. When these two groups of people were under the control of the West, the West had further succeeded in destroying the muslim ummah and to make the muslims practice Islam in the way the West wanted.

From the treachery of the muslim leaders and the corruption of the "scholars", there arise groups among the muslim ummah who sincerely works towards the resumption of the Islamic way of life, in the individuals, society and state. They arise to warn the ummah about the collusion between the West and the muslim rulers, and warn about the "scholars" who deviate from the truth and the corrupt "scholars" who works with the rulers for worldly pleasures without the fear of Allah. These groups arise in all parts of the world, work day and night, not fearing the risk and without stopping to aware the ummah. They sincerely work to re-establish Allah's deen, through the Khilafah which will establish Islam as a way of life. They work to replace the kuffur systems which were laid by the West with the systems from Allah Subhana wa Taala dan his Messenger Muhammad sallaahu wa alaihi salaam. They call upon the muslim ummah in the world to be united in the Khilafah as the muslim were united before through the Khilafah.

The kuffar West had never been easy to witness the call to the resumption of the Islamic way of life. They will do their utmost best, along with their agents among the rulers of the muslim ummah to destroy this call towards the Haqq. They will always ensure that these agent rulers among the muslim ummah shall perform to their commands in destroying the sincere callers towards the Haqq. What the West does is to propagate slander and propaganda and their agent rulers shall execute as commanded. The West will have to say that 'in this country there is a terrorist' so the ruler of that country shall eliminate or destroy the terrorist, before the West does anything. This is exactly the success of the conceptual weapon or propaganda of the West.

Western terrorism

Before we answer to George Bush's accusation, let us examine the ideologies which shaped the lives the world's inhabitants. The place of birth of the Capitalism ideology was in Europe. The French revolution was a catalyst for this ideology. One of the leaders of this revolution was Maximilian Robespierre, who was responsible for nearly 120 thousand French deaths, including intellectuals and aristocrats who opposed his revolution. He was then punished to death on 27 July 1793. The Socialism ideology also began with bloodshed which was the seeds for a Socialist Government and a life under Socialism in Russia. War and bloodshed ended when Lenin was elected as the leader of this Socialist government when the Bolshevik revolution has succeeded in a bloody confrontation in 1917 toppling the Czar. The Czar, Nikolai II was forced to abdicate and his family executed by the Socialists. During this revolution, Russia was in a state of civil war between the Socialists and the Czarists for 3 years. When Lenin died, Stalin took over and during his despotic period, more than 20 million people in Russia lost their lives.

The same thing was done by Bush, defending his Capitalism ideology. He accused the muslim groups of being terrorists, but in fact he is the worst terrorist in the world. This leader of the kuffar terrorized Iraq, Afghanistan and other muslim countries and continues to do so. The groups who are working to revive the Khilafah were accused by him of murdering innocent people, but already hundred of thousands of innocent people were killed by him, in the pretext of bringing "security" to the world. In the façade of establishing democracy in Iraq, already 70,000 Iraqis have lost their lives under the Bush regime, mostly women and children []. Hundreds of thousands of others have lost their homes, suffered birth defects, died of hunger, starvation and lack of medicine from the US sanctions. This is the reality of the Bush administration's work to establish democracy in muslim lands. Is this not the bloody revolution which Bush wants to propagate the Capitalism ideology in muslim lands, like his predecessors during the French revolution? It is only the fear in our muslim leaders towards the America regime who kept them silent and who do not want to accept this fact. Washington Post reported on 11th October 2006, which exposed Bush lies when they said, 'It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group.' Apart from that, the official body count of US military personnel killed in Iraq is 3,524 [].

O muslim ummah! We wish to warn you by the Book of Allah Subhana wa Taala, that the kuffar West will not recede in harming the muslims. Although Hizbut Tahrir is working to revive the muslim ummah towards the re-establishment of the Khilafah, they are not only trying to counter Hizbut Tahrir's ideas and actions, but also muslims who carry the same ideas with them. Remember the words of Allah Subhana wa Taala,

"Never will the Jews and Christian be satisfied with you unless you follow their form of religion" [TMQ al-Baqarah:120].

Allah Subhana wa Taala also says in His Book,

"Nor they will cease fighting you until they turn you back from their faith if they can" [TMQ al-Baqarah (2):217].

When we examine from the Islamic viewpoint, we will understand that whatever the actions of the West is to destroy the muslim ummah. This is evident from the their own words and what is concealed in their hearts is far worse.

The establishment of Daulah Islam by Rasulullah

Muhammad Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam has worked to establish the deen of Allah in Makkah for nerly 13 years, but Allah had chosen Madinah and not Makkah as the place of the establishment of the Daulah Islam. In this period of trying to establish the state, Rasulullah Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam and his companions did not resorted to physical strength. Muhammad Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam met fierce resistance from the Quraysh, but Rasulullah did not reciprocate this resistance with any physical confrontation. What was evident is that many of the companions were captured, tortured, and killed, but the companions did not resorted to physical means for their defense. Rasulullah had not allowed them to retaliate the Quraysh actions with physical means, whatever the Quraysh did to the companions. What actually happened is that the da'wa which was carried by Rasulullha and his companions were conceptual, attacking the kufur concepts carried by the Quraysh with Islamic concepts base on Allah's Revealation. This carried on until the last phase of da'wa carried on by the muslims in Makkah. Although the people of Aus and Khazraj (the people of Ansar) met Rasulullah in Aqabah by giving the pledge to Rasulullah, Rasulullah steadfast in his da'wa without any physical means. This clearly showed that establishment of the Daulah Islam from the beginning was intellectually and did not have any confrontation through physical means.

Compared to few revolutions which had happened in the history which took millions of lives, the inqilab process (radical change in concepts) did not cost a single life, or in other words there was not a single person which was killed by Rasulullah or ordered by Rasulullah to be killed before the change can be initiated. It is clear that the process of change (taghyiir) happened without the death of anyone. This is because the society is brought to a 'conceptual revolution' and not a 'bloody revolution'. Rasulullah had succeeded in establishing the state without shedding a drop of blood. But during the process, it was some of the companions had lost their lives because of the persecution of the Quraysh. They were caught, tortured and killed because they called for the Haq to be established. They were martyrs in the cause of Allah and rewarded with Jannah. So the pleasure and reward of Allah be with them and whosoever who follow their path of struggle to establish the Haqq.

This is the struggle taken by Hizbut Tahrir everywhere in the world where Hizbut Tahrir had taken the example of Rasulullah's struggle to establish the Daulah Islam. Hizbut Tahrir's da'wa is not through any physical means of violence to reviving the Islamic way of life (isti'naf al-hayah al-islamiyah) by establishing the Khilafah 'ala minhaj nubuwwah. The kuffar wEst knows, when the Khilafah is established, their way of life is doomed. Daulah Khilafah will be run by a Khalifah who will unite the muslims and launch jihad against the enemies of Islam like America, Israel and their allies. This is the Daulah which will resuscitate the muslims' strength and honor. And this is the trauma which America and Israel do not want to face.

The fear of the kuffar West against the revival of the daulah Khilafah is evident from time to time. Soi they never cease creating propaganda saying that the establishment of the Khilafah is a form of terrorism. This will justify the acts of terrorism which they had committed against the muslim ummah. So if they killed the muslims, it is not their fault, because they have killed the terrorists. This smear tactics is ineffective against the muslim minds, as the muslim ummah had been aware of this long before that the West are the real terrorists. So what the west wants to achive is the collosion between them and the leaders of the muslim ummah in killing the muslims. The West hopes that the leaders of the muslim ummah will destroy those who are working to revive the Khilafah. The West knows that the leaders of the muslim ummah are those who desire power and want to remain in power. The West also knows that these leaders will obey the West out of fear. The West exactly knows that Hizbut Tahrir does not engage with physical confrontation in re-establishing the Khilafah, they will accuse this re-establishment of Khilafah with violence and terrorism and hopes that the leaders of the muslim ummah will support them in ensuring that the Khilafah shall not rise again.

O muslim ummah! By the bounties of Allah, the lands which you inhabitate is abundant with natural resources. If all the muslim unites in one state, we will have all the richness of nature and manpower. If all the muslim unite in one state Daulah Khilafah, it means that we will control the flow of the sources energy like oil. Daulah Islam will have the largest share of petroleum (60%), boron (49%), phosphate (50%), strontium (27%), tin (22%), and uranium in the world [Jihad and the Foreign Policy of the Khilafah State- Zahid Ivan-Salam]. Geopolitically, our lands will stretch to the most strategically important places like the Gibraltar, Suez Canal, Dardanella Straits and Bosphorus which connects the Black Sea with the Mediterranean, the Hormuz Straits in the Gulf and Malacca Straits in South East Asia. With these important places the whole world will depend on the muslim ummah in whatever relations and transactions involving the international community. With a total population of 1.5 billion with a large percentage of them are the youth, this has given the muslim ummah a potential strength in military. With those credentials among the muslim ummah, the west would naturally panic with the re-emergence of the Khilafah, which definitely threaten their position in the world. Fearing this will come true, the West accuse the global Islamic party who are trying to revive the Khilafah with terrorism and violence. Whatever propaganda the West carries out, is a matter of fact that they are getting weaker!

O muslim ummah! It is a fact of life in this world, that the call towards the Haqq will eventually cause the distress to those who wishes to cling to the Bathil. So the callers towards the Haqq will be persecuted by the kuffar, zalim and fasiq. It is not surprising that the callers for the revival of the Khilafah united in one flag 'La ila illallah Muhammad Rasulullah' will always be watched closely and persecuted by the enemies of Islam through their agents rulers. Accusation and propaganda will be thrown to by the enemies of Islam to the callers of the Haqq. We wish to advise the musim ummah to ignore the propaganda of the enemies of Allah against us. We should not be fearful towards the enemies of Allah as Allah is always with us and with them is the accursed Syaithan. Our souls are in the hands of Allah and not in their hands. Behold, that Allah has promised us with victory and Jannah as He has promised Rasulullah and his companions before us, while the kuffar West together with the accursed Syaithan with the Fire of Hell. Na'uzubillah min zalik.


Healthcare and Islam

Michael Moore’s documentary, “Sicko” discusses the failure of healthcare in America.Whether private or public, the failure of the healthcare system resides in man-made legislation. Only a system revealed by Allah (swt) will truly meet the needs of each and every individual.
In Late June of this year, Michael Moore released his latest documentary, “Sicko”. In it, he focuses on the failure of the American Health Care system. Particular attention is given to the Insurance Companies and how their purpose is not to help people in need but rather to increase profits. The solution proposed is to have a public health care system similar to those in Canada, Britain, France and Cuba.

Man-made legislation equals failure

The documentary reveals the following facts about America:

50 million Americans do not have health insurance
Approximately 18,000 of the 50 million will die this year because they do not have health insurance

For the remaining 250 million people who have health care, their situation has not improved. For example, Larry and Donna Smith purchased health insurance. Both of them had established careers (Larry was a Union Machinist and Donna a newspaper editor) and raised 6 children. In time, Larry suffered from 3 heart attacks and Donna was diagnosed with cancer. The co-pays and deductibles for health insurance amounted to such an expense that Donna and Larry had to eventually sell their home and move in with their daughter.

In highlighting key individuals (in America) within the health industry and government – responsible for maintaining a private health care system that extorts the general public – the documentary provides the alternative view of public healthcare similar to that which is in place in other countries, including Canada. Although it appears that public healthcare works perfectly, it is not without its own problems. According to the Fraser Institute, total wait time for medical treatment ranges from 14.9 weeks in Ontario to 31.9 weeks in New Brunswick. Clearly the needs of the individual are not met by either private or public health care.

All of the countries addressed in the documentary have a common shortcoming: they rule by man-made legislation. Human beings laying down a system for life’s affairs are vulnerable to flaws since the individuals, no matter how intelligent, will create a system that is based upon their limited knowledge and experience. The flaws will surface once the system is confronted with the realities of man’s nature. The limits and flaws of a man-made system will allow those in authority to conduct the country’s affairs in a manner that will suit their own perception of personal benefit – most often to the detriment of the nation.

“Rulers usually appoint people to watch over their subjects. I appoint you a watcher over me and my behaviour. If you find me at fault in word or action guide me and stop me from doing it.” - Khalifah Umar ibn Abdul Aziz

Taking care of the affairs of the people

Islam is a unique system revealed by Allah (swt) that provides the needs for both the individual and society. Allah (swt) being Al-Khaliq – The Creator of all that exists – will evidently know what is best for us. With His infinite knowledge, His system will be able to provide solutions to any problem that human beings have or will encounter. With regards to governance, the Khalifah is entrusted in applying the laws of Allah (swt). The Khalifah is directly responsible before Allah (swt) for any issue that affects citizens in the Islamic State.

The Prophet (saw) said:

"A ruler who, having control over the affairs of the Muslims, does not strive diligently for their betterment and does not serve them sincerely, will not enter Jannah with them.'' [Muslim]

The ruler does not only have to respond to the people under his care but must also answer to a higher authority, Malik-al-Mulk (The Owner of All Sovereignty). As such, he must fulfill the obligations placed upon him as this is not only a mandate of the state but is the Ahkam of Allah (swt). Therefore the Khalifah must care for every citizen’s need and ensure that they are not facing any undue hardships such as lack of access to healthcare or even long wait times.

The Prophet (saw) also said:

"If Allah invests to someone the affairs of the Muslims and he (i.e., the ruler) ignores their rights, denies their access to him and neglects their needs, Allah will not answer his prayer or realize his hopes and will act towards him with indifference on the Day of Resurrection.'' [Abu Dawud & Tirmidhi]

The above hadith clearly shows the weight that lies on the shoulders of those in authority. When Umar ibn Abdul Aziz became the Khalifah, he was seen to be rather gloomy. His servant asked him why he was so sad and worried. Umar replied, “Anyone in my shoes should be so; I must deliver and grant all the nation’s citizens all their rights, whether they demand them or not.”

The care of those under the authority of the state is not judged based on the annual budget or political aspirations but rather it is based on the rights afforded to them by Allah (swt). This obliges the Khalifah to provide them with the utmost care to the best of his ability regardless of whether the citizens are aware of this right or not and whether they have asked for it or not.

Medical excellence of our past

When Islam is implemented as a complete system, it provides a means to excel in all fields such as science and technology. In the past, individuals under the Khilafah made a tremendous contribution to the medical field.

The Khilafah was blessed with many first class hospitals and doctors in several of its cities: Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Cordova, Samarqand and many more. Baghdad alone had sixty hospitals with in-patient and out-patient departments and over 1,000 physicians.

Public hospitals like the Bimaristan al-Mansuri Hospital, established in Cairo in 1283, had accommodation for 8,000 patients. There were two attendants for each patient who did everything for his/her comfort and convenience and every patient had his/her own bed, bedding and vessel for eating. It treated in-patients and out-patients giving them free food and medicine.
There were mobile dispensaries and clinics for the proper medical care of the disabled and those living in the villages. The Khalifah, Al-Muqtadir Billah, ordered that every mobile unit should visit each village and remain there for some days before moving to the next.

From the above historical accounts, we see that when the Khulafaa’ properly implemented the rules of Allah (swt), then and only then did a society truly thrive and succeed. However, it is important to keep in mind that material advancement does not equate with true success – seeking the pleasure of Allah (swt). For the Khulafaa’ it was not about simply providing medical services, rather it was to fulfill the needs of the citizens entrusted to them for which they will be held accountable for.

Healthcare in the Khilafah

Healthcare is one of the services that the government must provide when the Khilafah is re-established Insha-Allah. Islam views healthcare as a basic need of every human being: Muslim or non-Muslim. The Prophet (saw) said:

“Each one of you is a shepherd. And each one of you will be asked about your flock. A ruler also is a shepherd and he will be asked about his flock…” [Bukhari & Muslim]

The Khalifah like a shepherd must attend to the affairs of those entrusted in his care. These affairs encompass the essential needs afforded to the citizens by Allah (swt).

The Prophet (saw) said:

"The Son of Adam has no better right than that he would have a house wherein he may live, a piece of clothing whereby he may hide his nakedness and a piece of bread and some water." [Tirmidhi]

These essential needs are afforded to each individual and if they cannot fulfill these needs and if their close relatives cannot fulfill them on their behalf, the obligation will fall upon the Khalifah as he has been entrusted with attending to the citizens’ affairs.

The Prophet (saw) also said:

“Whoever wakes up secure amongst his people, (physically) healthy, and has food for his day, it is as if the whole world had been gathered for him.” [Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah]

Health is a necessity for each human being. Since the Khalifah must take care of the essential affairs of its citizens, healthcare is a service that the state must deliver in the same way food, shelter and clothing is provided.

The Khalifah is obligated by Sha’r (Quran & Sunnah) to spend whatever is required from the wealth of the central treasury (Bait-ul-mal) of the Khilafah to provide an efficient public healthcare system that is sufficient for the needs of the people no matter what the cost.

Unlike current systems today which charge regressive taxes, the funding will originate from various sources allowed in the Shariah, including natural resources. The Prophet (saw) said:

“Muslims are partners (associates) in three things: in water, pastures and fire.” [Abu Dawud]

Natural resources, such as oil, are public goods for which the revenues can be used to fund the essential needs of society.

The Islamic system views the provision of healthcare to its citizens from a human perspective and not an economic aspect. This means that the leader of the Islamic State looks to provide adequate and good quality healthcare to the people, not for the sake of having a healthy workforce that can contribute to the economy but for the sake of fulfilling his duty of looking after the needs of the people in obedience to Allah (swt).

May Allah (swt) return the ‘Izza to the Muslim Ummah who longs for His justice under the banner of Laa 'ilaaha 'illallaah Muhammadan Rasoolallah.