Thursday, October 04, 2007

Book published: Introduction to the Systems of Islam

Revival Publications have recently published this book.

The Muslim Ummah have been living without the Khilafah (Islamic State) for over seven decades, plagued on the one hand by the domination of the colonialist Western nations, and on the other hand, afflicted by the infiltration of ideas alien to Islam - such as secularism, nationalism and individualism - into the minds of the Ummah.

In the place of the Systems of Islam, which were implemented under the banner of a unified Khilafah State for more than 1300 years, giving justice and security to all that lived under it, the world is once again dominated by corruption, poverty and disorder.

Indeed, these are the natural result of any way of life that is based on the fragile foundations of man-made laws. Islam is a deen (way of life), encompassing comprehensive guidance for all aspects of human existence, from personal worship to economics and government. The rules and laws which emanate from the Islamic ‘aqeedah (creed) come from none other than Allah (swt), the Creator of mankind and the universe. Thus, they are free from the flaws and limitations that are necessarily inherent in man-made ideologies. It is only by the implementation of Islam that mankind can ever hope to be freed from the abyss in which it is currently submerged.

It is the responsibility of every Muslim to understand fully about the details of this unique and perfect way of life. When we have done so, our minds will see clearly that the Systems of Islam provide the only practical solutions to the problems of the Ummah, and our hearts will yearn for their implementation in the world again.

This 294 page paperback quality book outlines the Systems of Islam - Ruling, Economic, Social, Education and Judicial, and presents them not as a series of individual academic studies, but as an integrated whole, showing how each system complements the others, how they apply directly in our life’s affairs, and how we should work to bring them back into the world arena.

How to Purchase the book through Paypal

Please send an email to with your name, full address, quantity required and a contact number. They will then send you a payment request form from Paypal which you need to complete. Upon receiving payment, they will dispatch your book/s. Paypal accepts payments through any major Card.

Price of Book: £6 GBP, postage/courier rates will apply.

Please note: Purchasing in bulk decreases the courier charges which are normally high for a single book so it is better buy a few together with your friends/family. The books will be delivered within 3-5 days of receiving the payment.


Anonymous said...

Assalaam Alaikum wa Rahmatullah,

"In the place of the Systems of Islam, which were implemented under the banner of a unified Khilafah State for more than 1300 years, giving justice and security to all that lived under it..."

This statement is not historically accurate. Which 'unified Khilafah' e you referring to exactly? At one point, there existed one in Spain, in Egypt, and in Baghdad. Moreover,for most of history they were very decentralized.

For most of the middle period of Islam, the Khalifah was a mere figurehead, with provincial rulers ruling by what they felt best.

This was especially true after the Mongol sack of Baghdad.

The Ottomans really only given the title of Caliph for the first time by Catherine the Great of Russia, quite late in their history.

And it is more than an exaggeration to state that all were given justice and security.

At least these are the views I have gathered from my study of history, wa Allahu'Alim.

May Allah bless you.

Islamic Revival said...


Regarding your questions:

1) Of course there were rebellions that occurred even from the very early days of the Khilafah Rashidah. Many lands rebelled when Abu Bakr (ra) became Khalifah such that the army of Musaillamah was bigger than the army of Abu Bakr (ra).

This doesn't mean that there wasn't in general a unified state. There were rebellions from time to time such as that of the Fatimids in Egypt, Abdul Rahman Al-Dhakir in Spain and the Safawids in Persia. I think the author is trying to emphasise that in general the Khilafah was much more unified than the Muslim world today.

2) Regarding the provinces (Wilayat), we agree that the Khalifah did not directly manage many of them. However Wilaya Amma (General governorship) which was given to many provinces by the Khulafah is an acceptable form of Governership according to the Shariah rules.

It is true that the Khulafah became negligent in their responsibilities of inquiring about the Wilayat (provinces) and directly appointing and removing the governors, it became a norm for them to accept whoever came to power in different provinces rather than directly select them. Nevertheless the fact that they accepted them means that their authority was validated by the Khalifah.

The following is an explanation of the two types of Wilayah along with the Islamic evidences for this from the english translation of the book ‘The Ruling System in Islam’ by Sheikh Taqi ud-deen an-Nabhani and Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom:

“The Wali (Governor) is the deputy of the Khaleefah; he performs what the Khaleefah authorises him to do on his behalf. According to Shar’a, the Wilayah has no specific limit, thus any body appointed by the Khaleefah to act on his behalf over any matter of ruling would be a Waali in that matter in accordance with the terms the Khaleefah used in his appointment. However, the Wilayah over countries is geographically specified, because the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to specify the area over which he appointed the Wali, i.e. where he invests the Ameer with the Imarah.

There are two types of Wilayah: general and specific. The general one includes all the ruling matters within the Wilayah. Appointing someone to that Wilayah would mean that the Khaleefah delegates to the Wali the Imara of a country or a province, as a Wilayah over all its people for supervising all the normal functions. Thus he would have a general responsibility of supervision. As for the specific Imara, this means that the Ameer would be restricted to running the armed forces, governing the citizens, protecting the territories, or defending the women and children in that country or province. He does not have a say in the judiciary or the collecting of Kharaj and Sadaqah. The Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed Walis with general responsibilities (Wilayah 'Amma) , such as when he appoimted 'Amru b.Hazm over Yemen. He also appointed Walis with specific functions (Wilayah Khassa), such as when he appointed Ali b. Abi Talib over the judiciary in Yemen. The Khulafa'a followed in the Messenger of Allah's (saw) footsteps. 'Umar Ibnul-Khattab appointed Mu'aiwya b. Abi Sufyan as general Wali over Ash-Sham, while Ali b.Abi Talib appointed Abdullah b. Abbas over Basra with restrictive powers (Wilayah Khassa) to run all the affairs except for the funds, which was assigned to Ziad

There used to be two types of Wilayah in the early times: The Wilayah of Salah and the Wilayah of Kharaj. Therefore we find that history books use two terms in their reference to the Wilayah of Ameers: The first is the Imara over the Salah and the other the Imara over the Salah and the Kharaj. In other words the Ameer could either be appointed over both the Salah and the Kharaj, or over the Salah only. The word Salah, in the context of the Wilayah or the Imara, does not mean only leading the people in their prayer, but it means governing all their affairs except the funds. This is because the word Salah is used to mean ruling except for the levy of funds. Therefore, if the Wali had combined both the Salah and the Kharaj, his Wilayah would then be general (Wilayah 'Amma). If his Wilayah had been restricted to the Salah or the Kharaj, his Wilayah would then be specific (Wilayah Khassa). Either way, this would be left to the Khaleefah's own arrangements, as he reserves the right to restrict the Wilayah to the Kharaj, or to the judiciary, or he could confine the Wilayah to other than the Kharaj, the judiciary and the army. He could do what he deems best for the running of the province or the Wilayah. This is because Shar'a has not determined for the Wali certain duties, and it is not obliged that he should perform all the duties of ruling. It has, however, determined that the Wali's or the Ameer's duties be ruling and authority, and that he is the deputy of the Khaleefah, and he should be an Ameer over a specific area. All this is derived from the actions of the Messenger of Allah (saw). However Shar'a entitles the Khaleefah to appoint a Wali as either a general Wilayah ('Amma) or a specific one (Khassa) according to his own discretion, and all this is reflected in the actions of the Messenger of Allah (saw).

It was mentioned in the Seerah of ibn Hisham that the Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed Farwa b. Musayk over the tribes of Murad, Zubair and Mizhaj. He sent Khalid b. Sa'eed b. Al-'Ass with him as Wali over the Sadaqah.

It also mentioned that the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Ziad b. Labeed Al-Ansari as a Wali over Hadhramawt and its Sadaqah. He also sent 'Ali b. Abi Talib to Najran to collect their Sadaqah and their Jizya. He also sent him, as a judge over Yemen ,as reported by Al-Haakim.

In the book of Isti'aab it is mentioned that the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Mu'az b. Jabal to Al-Janad to teach the people about the Quran, the laws of Islam and to judge between them. He authorised him as well to collect the Sadaqah from the 'Amils in Yemen. The Seerah of ibn Hisham also reports that the Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed ibn Umm Maktum over the salah in Al-Madinah when he went out for Uhud.” [The Ruling System in Islam, Sheikh Taqi ud-deen an-Nabhani & Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom, Al-Khilafah Publications]

3) Your point about the Ottomans not having the title of Khalifah is wrong. The title of Khalifah was used by the Khulafah from the time of Abu Bakr (ra) onwards including the Ottomans. Of course other titles such as Imam, Sultan, Amir, etc were also used and are permitted. The title is not of importance, the system of governance is.

4) I would suggest that you be careful when reading non-authentically compiled history books.

History must not be taken from the enemies of Islam who harbour hatred towards it. Instead history must be taken from Muslims themselves after an extensive research so as not to adopt a distorted image. The second point is that the generalisation in study of the society should not be taken from the history of individuals or from one aspect of the society. For example, it would be wrong to pass judgment on the history of Umayyad era by studying the history of Yazid's era. Or to pass judgment on the history of the Abbassid era from some incidents of their Khulafaa. Likewise, we must not pass judgment on the society of the Abbassid era from Kitab al-aghani (book of songs) which was written to narrate the stories of recklessly extravagant people, poets and authors or from reading the books of asceticism (- زهـدzuhd) and the like and thus start thinking that the entire society was in a state of extravagance and sin or asceticism and isolation. Rather, we have to study the whole society. We have to acknowledge however that the whole history of the Islamic society as a society in any era was never written. What has been written rather is the affairs of the rulers and some officials. Those who wrote such history were not trustworthy, they were either slanderers or adulators and whatever they wrote can't be accepted without investigation.

When the Islamic society is studied on this basis i.e. to study it from all its aspects and through thorough investigation it can be found to be the best society. Since, it was so for the first, second and third centuries, in fact, right up to the middle of the twelfth century hijrah.

If it were permitted to give attention to history, this would be confined to examining the way of applying the system. History might also contain political events, from which the way of application can be seen. Even this should not be taken except after a thorough research and from Muslims. History has three sources: History books, archaeological objects and narration. Historical books should not be considered as a source because they are influenced by the political conditions of the time. They are filled with lies, either supporting the people at whose time these books were written or attacking those at the time before these books were written. A recent example of this is the history of the Saddam during his rule had a bright image in the Iraqi history books, but now its image was dark. The same applies to the history of other political events now and in the past. For this reason, history books should not be considered as a source for history, even if they were biographies written by their people.

Archaeological objects (excavation and antiquities) would provide historical facts if studied honestly. Although they by themselves do not provide a historical timeline, they however denote occurrence of some events. If one examines the Islamic antiquities found in their countries, be they buildings, instruments, or any other thing, one can conclude that nothing was present in the Islamic world except Islam, the system of Islam and rules of Islam. Additionally, the Muslims way of life and actions conducted were Islamic.

As for the third source i.e. narration, it is a correct source, which can be relied on if the narration was correct and the method followed in collecting the narration was the same as the method followed in collecting the ahadith. This is the manner in which history should be recorded. The Muslims followed this method of narration when they commenced writing. The classical books of history, such as the History of at- Tabari, Sirah of Ibn Hisham etc. were written according to this method.