Is Saudi Arabia a State of Islam or Kufr ?

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

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

Muslims perception

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

The Criterion for a state to be Islamic

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

Now based on this criterion, let us examine Saudi.

Saudi and Man-Made Laws

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

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

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

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

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

Shar’i And Civil Courts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saudi and the AMF (Arab Monetary Fund)

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

Saudi and IMF (International Monetary Fund)

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

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

Saudi and External relations: The International Court of Justice

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

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

Saudi and UNESCO

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

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

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

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

Saudi and the Arab League

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

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

Excuses

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

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

Various Ahadith about the Rulers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Nations Faulter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abu Farhaan Qureshi

Does Islam have a Ruling System?

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

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

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

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

Playing with semantics - The issue of Dar al-Islam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fatawa of Mufti’s in the Ottoman state

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misquoting the scholars

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

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

Ibn Khaldun says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having more than one Khalifah & multiple states

This is addressed in The obligation of having one Khalifah

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

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

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

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

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

- The obligation of having a Khalifah

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

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

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

- The obligation of Bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) to the Khalifah. Of course there are various differences amongst the scholars in the details of this area, the following discusses them in some detail http://www-personal.umich.edu/~luqman/Belief/Khilafah/eleven.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details on the different views of the scholars see: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~luqman/

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

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

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

Taqwa must be the basis in taking knowledge from people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- They do not go against definitive matters of the Deen
- That their words don’t contradict their actions.
- They are not two faced. Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "One of the most evil of people is the two-faced person who shows one face to these people and another face to those people." [Agreed upon]
- They don’t violate the Ahkam shariah

- They don’t have the characteristics of Nifaq as mentioned in the ahadith. It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Prophet (saw): "Signs of a hypocrite are three: whenever he speaks he lies; whenever he promises, he breaks his promises; and whenever he has been entrusted, be betrays his trust; even if he fasts and prays and even if he claims he is a Muslim." [Bukhari & Muslim] And in another narration in the book of Imam Bukhari on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Umar: “The Prophet said, "Whoever has (the following) four characters will be a hypocrite, and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy until he gives it up. These are: (1) Whenever he talks, he tells a lie; (2) whenever he makes a promise, he breaks it; (3) whenever he makes a covenant he proves treacherous; (4) and whenever he quarrels, he behaves impudently in an evil insulting manner."

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

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

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

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

Az-Zamakhshari comments:

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

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

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

For this reason Imam al-Ghazali states:

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

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

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

Al-Imam an-Nawawi states:

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

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

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

‘Attah said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unspinning the accusations of violence against Islam

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

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

In this section, we argue that:

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

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

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

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

Decoupling Political Violence from Islam

Violence is Driven by Political not Theological Factors

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign Policy and Political Injustice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamic Political Activism is an Alternative to Violent Expression

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

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

To be continued…

From a report by Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain
Source

More audio's of Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Malkawi

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

http://www.esnips.com/web/oneummahaudio

To download the files you need to login to esnips.

The obligation of having one Khalifah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is true that it is narrated that Al-Habbab Ibn ul-Munthir (ra) said when the Sahaba met in the wake of the death of the Prophet (saw) (at the thaqifa hall) of Bani Sa'ida:

"Let there be one Amir from us and one Amir from you (meaning one from the Ansar and one from the Muhajireen)".

Have they forgotten what Abu Bakr replied: "It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs (rulers)..." Then he got up and addressed the Muslims. [‘As-Sira’ of Ibnu Kathir, ‘Tarikh ut-Tabari’ by at-Tabari, ‘Siratu Ibn Hisham’ by Ibn Hisham, ‘As-Sunan ul-Kubra’ of Bayhaqi, ‘Al-fasil-fil Milal’ by Ibnu Hazim and "Al-A'kd Al-Farid" of Al-Waqidi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ibn Khaldun says:

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

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

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

Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni wrote:

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

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

Imam Mawardi wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exposing the Kenyan Government's actions against Muslims

بِِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hizb ut-Tahrir – Kenya
28 Jumada Al-Akhir 1428 Hijri
13/07/2007

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

بِسْمِ الله الرَّحمَنِ الرَحيم

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hizb ut-Tahrir
Wilayah Pakistan
16 July 2007

Lal Masjid: Hundreds of precious lives could have been saved

Hundreds of precious lives could have been saved had the government not insisted on implementing Kufr and razing Mosques

Lal masjid (Red Mosque) administrator’s demands were implementation of Islam and rebuilding of the razed mosques. Though Hizb ut-Tahrir disagrees with the militant methodology they employed but not with their demands. Had the government been sincere in resolving Jamia Hafsa issue they would have easily done so by implementing Islam and rebuilding the razed mosques. Therefore, the sole responsibility for this massacre lies with the government. Moreover, the suborned manner in which the Presidency sabotaged the negotiation process is a clear proof that, through this crisis, America and her agent Musharraf wished to push Pakistan towards a civil war. Furthermore, they want to divide Muslims of Pakistan on the western paradigm of fundamentalists and moderates and incite them against each other. Everyone, including the government, was fully aware that a military operation will lead to further anarchy and resultantly the flames of unrest and chaos will reach urban areas of Sindh and Punjab after they had engulfed the border areas of NWFP and Balochistan province in the past. Despite that, the government employed disproportionate use of force. Musharraf’s current step is exactly inline with the colonialist policy during 1971, when the Army operation was conducted in East Pakistan in the name of establishing the writ of the state that resulted in unrest, civil war and division of Pakistan. Colonialist knew that a nuclear state like Pakistan couldn’t be destroyed by merely an external military action. That’s why they plan to make Pakistan a victim of internal strife and anarchy to soften it down into an easy prey. Moreover, this “Operation Silence” is also a warning to every individual and group that calls for the implementation of Islam and raises his voice against imperialist policies. But the imperialists and her agents are forgetting that Muslims do not fear death.

People of Pakistan ask the government; were the crimes of Jamia Hafsa so heinous and unforgivable that it required the blood of hundreds of Huffaz (memorizers of Qur’an) and students of Qur’an to redeem their sins? Why is it that the government can give forgive politicians and grant them safe-passage out of the country but those who demand the implementation of Islam are made a terrifying example for the nation? Is providing security to people running brothels so important that it justifies the starvation of hundreds of students for a whole week and then killing them in cold blood? After all where was the writ when American planes were bombing in Bajaur Agency and mass-killings were underway in Karachi? People are fully aware that this much-hyped writ of the state is only in place to impose Kufr laws and handover Muslims to the Kuffar. So what is the use of such writ anyway? The public considers the writ of a state and authority sacred only when it serves to implement Islam and not to impose Kufr and protect colonial interests. The time has come to establish the Khilafah by following the methodology of the Prophet Muhammad (saw), as the method of bullet and the ballot both are not proven from the Shari'ah.

11th July 2007

Naveed Butt
The Official Spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Pakistan

Why do the Elite Always Oppose the Truth?

In the 21st century, the struggle between Muslims and the mal’a is alive and open. We see that the mal’a of yesterday opposed the message of the Creator, and it is only natural for the mal’a of today to do the same. This struggle is the same struggle of Muhammad (saw). Quraish, opposed the Prophet (saw) because Islam demanded that they answer only to Allah (swt). The mal’a of today are worried that the return of the rule of Islam under the banner of Khilafah (or caliphate) will undermine their authority. The mal’a of today are none but the elite Capitalists including the politicians Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, and the business elites (e.g. Rockerfeller) who stand behind them. The mal’a of today oppose Islam because they know that Islam will limit their authority and restrict their control on society and that would affect their elitism status.

Last year, Tom DeLay, majority leader in the House of Representatives, was indicted by a grand jury. The charges were brought up against DeLay based on allegations that he was involved with “Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee” (TRMPAC); a front organization that illegally collected donations from corporate sponsors. “The charge against Texans for a Republican Majority alleges the committee illegally accepted a political contribution of $100,000 from the Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care and $20,000 from AT&T” (Guardian). According to media reports in Texas, state law bans corporate money from being spent in connection with political campaigns.

However, the Canadians were not to be outdone. According to the CBC, the president of the Canadian Mint, David Dingwall, and his top aides racked up total government expenses of more than $740,000 last year. In addition, Dingwall has allegedly been working as a “un- registered lobbyist” (it is mandatory for lobbyists to be registered) and was to receive a contingency fee of $350,000 from Bioniche Life Sciences Inc., if the company was able to secure at least $15-million of funding under the department's Technology Partnerships Canada program”. Contingency fees under this program are illegal.

Wealth, corruption and politics

It is no wonder that people have become cynical about politics. Regardless if one is in the East or West, one can expect politicians to engage in corruption with the goal of personal enrichment. However, these individuals are not exactly poor – they are in fact wealthy to begin with. In the wake of the Enron scandal, Alan Greenspan termed the phenomenon “infectious greed” – too much is never enough. This is a result of man rejecting the creator guidance and following man-made falsehood; Capitalism. However, this is how it has always been. Allah (swt) revealed that:

“Whenever We have sent a warner to a town, its wealthy residents have said: “We surely disbelieve in what you are sent with.” They say: “We have more wealth and children, which indicates that our gods are happy with us so we shall never be punished.” [TMQ 34:34-35]

These ayat bring up an important issue. If wealthy individuals did not heed the proofs and warnings of the Prophets (as), then it is quite unlikely that they are going to care about man-made law.

Who are the “mal’a”?

When we read the stories of the Prophets (as) and the seerah of Muhammad (saw), we see that there was always a section of society that vehemently opposed the deen of Allah (swt). For example:

“We sent Nuh to his people. He said: "O my people! Worship Allah! You have no other god but Him. I fear for you the Punishment of a dreadful Day! The mal’a of his people said: "Surely we see that you are in evident error." [TMQ 7:59-60]

“To the people of ‘Ad, We selected their brother Hüd, who said: "O my people! Worship Allah! you have no god but Him. Will you not fear Him?" The mal’a of his nation who denied his message said: “we can see that you are crazy and we think that you are lying.” [TMQ 7:65-66]

“The mal’a who disbelieved from among his nation said: "If you follow Shu'aib, you shall indeed be losers!" [TMQ 7:90]

“The mal’a of Fir'aun's nation asked him: "Will you leave Musa and his nation free to commit mischief in the land, and to forsake you and your gods?" He said: "We will put their sons to death and spare their daughters; we have irresistible power over them.” [TMQ 7:127]

Their mal’a go about saying: "Pay no heed, stand firm in the service of your gods; this (slogan of one God) is designed (against you)! "We have not heard such a thing from anyone of the people of latter days: it is nothing but a fabrication." [TMQ 38: 6-7]

(The verses refer to the missions of Nuh (as), Hud (as), Shu’aib (as), Musa (as), and Muhammad (saw). The last set of verses refers to the exchange between Muhammad (saw) and the “mal’a” of Quraish. Abu Talib was on his death bed, and Quraish thought they could dissuade Muhammad (saw) from propagating Islam.)

From these ayat we see a clear pattern. When the Prophets (as) tried to propagate the deen of Allah (swt), they were always opposed by the mal’a. According to the tafsir of Ibn Kathir, mal’a is translated as “the general public, chiefs, commanders and great ones” In other words, the mal’a are the elite section of the society. Is it surprising that such people would oppose the deen of Allah (swt)? Not really. In fact, the elite of any disbelieving society – from Nuh (as) till today – benefit from the “law and order” that presides over society. However, to understand exactly why the mal’a (elite) opposed the Messengers (as), one needs to understand how societies function.

Societies need more than just people to maintain themselves as cohesive structures. Society exists because its members entertain “permanent relations”. These relations are based on a society-wide consensus on benefit and harm. This consensus manifests itself in practice in the form of common thoughts, common emotions and laws. Now, if a certain category of society, such as the elite, benefits more than others from this consensus, than it would be in their interest to protect and strengthen the existing consensus, i.e. the thoughts, emotions and laws. For example, the elite-funded media demonizes anyone who offers an alternative ideology or works to replace the prevailing system with a new system. Failure to do so, will result in that society heading in a new direction

Applying this understanding of society to the context of the Messengers (as) it becomes quite clear why the mal’a would oppose the deen of Allah (swt). The mal’a had to make a choice between the current way of doing things and the way of Allah (swt). If you look at it from their perspective, they had to choose either between their thrones, their prestige, their wealth, and their pride or submitting their will to Allah (swt). That is, there was no guarantee that the “order of Allah” would favour them in the same way. In fact, since these societies usually made up lies about Allah (swt) or associated partners with Him, it was the mal’a who actually controlled the reality in their own favour. Consequently, they would have to relinquish control to Allah (swt). We all have seen this dilemma confronting the mal’a of Quraish. Before the arrival of Muhammad (saw), people from all over Arabia used to come to make pilgrimage to Makkah. But this also had implications on the economics of Quraish. When the people used to make the pilgrimage, they used to bring their goods for trade, and Quraish used to tax the trade and even defraud the poor villagers. As Allah (swt) revealed:

“Those who do not wish to be guided say: “If we go along with you and accept this guidance, we shall be driven out from our land." But have We not given them a secure sanctuary to which are brought the fruits of all kinds as a provision from Us? But most of them have no knowledge.” [TMQ 28:57]

Also, Quraish used to have contests on who could feed the poor pilgrims to demonstrate one’s elite status in society, as Allah (swt) revealed:

“Have you made those who provide water to the pilgrims and maintain the Masjid-al-Harãm equal to those who believe in Allah, the Last Day and make Jihãd? They are not equal in the sight of Allah, and Allah does not guide the wrongdoers.” [TMQ 9:19]

Thus, to admit that there was no god but Allah, and that Muhammad (saw) was the Messenger, was to abolish the idolatry, was to abolish their unfair economy laws, and was to abolish their pride and prestige of the mal’a.

Similarly today, we should not be surprised when the elite of today claim to achieve goodness for humanity, when in fact they are wreaking havoc. Allah (swt) revealed:

“When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only want to make peace!" Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.” [TMQ 2:11-12]

Mal’a and the “Successor of the Prophet (saw)”

In the 21st century, the struggle between Muslims and the mal’a is alive and open. We see that the mal’a of yesterday opposed the message of the Creator, and it is only natural for the mal’a of today to do the same. This struggle is the same struggle of Muhammad (saw). Quraish, opposed the Prophet (saw) because Islam demanded that they answer only to Allah (swt). The mal’a of today are worried that the return of the rule of Islam under the banner of Khilafah (or caliphate) will undermine their authority. The mal’a of today are none but the elite Capitalists including the politicians Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, and the business elites (e.g. Rockerfeller) who stand behind them. The mal’a of today oppose Islam because they know that Islam will limit their authority and restrict their control on society and that would affect their elitism status.

Therefore, the elite have openly expressed their hatred for Islam and the rule of Allah (swt), i.e. the Caliphate:

● When Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s former Secretary of State, was asked was the principle threat of the age, he replied: “There are three fundamental problems: the first is what we call terrorism in the US, but which is really the uprising of radical Islam against the secular world, and against the democratic world, on behalf of re-establishing a sort of Caliphate.”

● Blair in his speech after 7/7 denounced the idea of "en route to one Caliphate of all Muslim nations” and went on to suggest banning Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a non-violent Islamic political party working to re-establish the Khilafah.

● Secretary of defense Rumsfeld demonizes the notion of “re-establishing a caliphate in the world” at press conferences.

Therefore, as Muslims we should recognize that the core issue today between the Ummah and Capitalism is the level of involvement that Allah (swt) should have in society. The Capitalists usurp Allah’s right to rule and limit Allah’s Sovereignty to the home.

Are we going to accept this? No, we can never accept this. This is a matter of tawhid and a matter of aqeedah. This is part of our covenant with Allah (swt).

May Allah (swt) help us to establish His Rule on earth, so He may be worshipped as He is supposed to be worshipped.

Muslims are called to this work because it will guarantee honor in this life and happiness in the hereafter.

O you who believe! Answer (the call of) Allah and His Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life; and know that Allah intervenes between man and his heart, and that to Him you shall be gathered. [TMQ 8:24]

Source

From Maulana Shibli Nomani to Sultan Abdul Hamid 2nd

The following is the translation (from Persian) of some verses sent by the famous Indian scholar Maulana Shibli Nomani (1857-1914) to Sultan Abdul Hamid II one of the last Khulafah of the Uthmani Khilafah:

1) Due to you, we feel that the grandeur of Badr and Hunain, the dignity and splendor of the ‘Haramain’ (the two sacred mosques) is only due to you.

2) Who else except yourself is the supporter and defender of the love of the Holy Prophet (saw).
To you is owed the sweetness of the faith of the Holy Prophet (saw). The areas of Islam are strong just because of you.

3) Through your majesty and authority the Shariah laws acquired a high status and through your orders the splendor of Islam has risen high.

[The Rise and fall of Muslims, Saeed Akbarabadi, Pg. 133]

More quotes on Khilafah by the Classical Scholars

Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) a leading Hanbali scholar along with Ibn Taymiyyah, resembled Mawardi(d. 450AH) in his thought about the Khilafah. Abu Ya'la quotes Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal that the Muslims would be in a state of Fitnah if there was no Khaleef. Page 125, Mahmood A. Ghazi's Book 'Political and Constitutional Thought of Islam'

Qadi Abd al Jabbar (d. 415 AH,1025AD)
He wrote extensively on the subject, some of his works include:

Sharh al-Usul al Khamsah
Al-Mughni fi Abwab al-Tawhid Wa'l Adl

The establishment of the Khilafah according to the Qadi in compulsory upon the Ummah, because many of the obligations of Islam cannot be fulfilled without the Khilafah, stating the well known principle: Ma la Yatimmu'l Wajib Illa Bihi Fahuwa Wajib [Whatever the wajib cannot be accomplished without is itself a wajib]

He also discusses the concept of Imamah in the context the Quranic principle of Amr bi'l Maruf wa'l Nahy An al-Munkar[Enjoining of the Good and the Forbidding of the Evil]. After extensively quoting from the Qur'an and the Hadith he establishes that the Enjoining of the Good and the Forbidding of the Evil is incumbent(Fard) on the believers. Then he says that individual Muslims cannot meet the full requirements of the principle of Amr bi'l Maruf wa'l Nahy An al-Munkar because it cannot be established without the State.

Sharh al-Usul al-Khamsah p.759
Sharh al-Usul al-Khamsah p.749
Sharh al-Usul al-Khamsah p.750
Sharh al-Usul al-Khamsah p.751

Abd al Qahir baghdadi
Abu mansur Abd al-Qahir ibn Tahir al-Shafi was among the among the most noted theologians of the late fourth and early fifth century AH.
He taught as many as 17 sciences including Fiqh, Usul al Fiqh, Arithmetic and Fariad.

He critically examines the viewpoint of the Ahl al-Sunnah Wa'l Jamaah on the issue of the Khilafah. According to him it is obligatory upon the Ummah to establish the Khilafah, and also states that this obligation is universally accepted by all the Muslim scholars. He also criticises Abu Bakr al Assam and Hisham al-Ghuti who are from the Mutazilites.

Al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq, p271

Al-Sharastani
Abu'l Fath Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Karim al-Sharastani(479-458 AH)
According to Sharastani, the establishment of the Khilafah is obligatory in all situations. In no case, in no time and no situation can the Muslim Ummah be relieved of the responsibility of establishing the institution of the Khilafah according to the injunctions of Islam.

Al-Milal wa'l Nihal, Vol 1, p.109

Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH)

Ibn Taymiyyah ideas about the Khilafah can be found in:

Minhaj al_sunnah al-Nabawiyyah fi Naqd Kalam al-Shi'ah wa'l Qadariyah
Al-Siyasah al-Shari'yyah
Al-Hisbah fi'l-Islam

Ibn Taymiyyah states that the main purpose of the Prophet(saw) was to establish a social order on the basis of a universal, permanent, consistent and all-Prevailing ideology. He states that the establishment of the state is more than necessary. Ibn Taymiyyah holds the opinion that it is one of the greatest obligations of the Din.

'The aim and objective of politics is to seek nearness to Allah. A Muslim adopts politics only to establish the Din which guarantees such a nearness by providing a suitable psychological and spiritual climate in which man achieves a spiritual perfection and, hence, the Divine Nearness. That is why a political activity divorced from the guidance of the Din is a curse for humanity and entails all sorts of evils and immoralities.'

Al Siyasa al-Shariyyah

Ibn Qayyim also held the same opinion as Ibn Taymiyyah:

al-Turuq al_Hukmiyyah Fil Siyasah al-Shariyyah
I'lam al-Muwaqqin

Badruddin Ibn Jamaah
Ibn Jamaah is noted as the Shafi jurist of the seventh century AH. He served as a Qadi in Palestine and a teacher of Fiqh. In his treatise 'Tahrir al-Ahkam- fi Tadbir ahl al-Islam'
he establishes the obligation of the Khilafah through the Quran. He starts his work 'Tharir al-Ahkam with the verse:

"O David: We did indeed make you a vicegerent on earth: So judge between men with truth and justice and follow not the lusts and desires: for they will mislead you from the path of Allah"

Diya al-Din Barani (683-758AH)
Diya al-Din Barani lived in India. His works mentioning the issue of the Khilafah include:
Tarikh Firoz Shahi
Fatawa-i-Kahandari

He says that 'the very creation of Man on earth is meant only for the worship of Allah(swt). And His true worship is only possible when mankind is guaranteed peaceful and secure conditions of life. To successfully discharge the divine obligations a secure and organised life in order and well-organised that Allah created the Khilafah.'

Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Musa al-Shatibi (d. 790 AH)
One of the greatest juristic minds in the history of Islam. A Maliki jurist he was one of the most outstanding Faqih of the eighth century AH. He says that the Khilafah is an obligation and further states 'in the absense of the khilafah, a state of anarchy and lawlessness would prevail and this would usher in a great corruption and disorder. And it is evident, that the establishment of the Din is quite impossible in a state of anarchy and disorder.'

Kitab al-Din

Abu Zayd Wali al-Din Abd al Rahman Ibn Khaldun (732-808 AH)

Ibn Khaldun taught in Al-Azhar, was a scholar of the Maliki Jurisprudence and also worked as a judge in Cairo.

He states 'the best kind of state is the Khilfah, which is a system based on the Shariah.This is the only system based on the Shariah. This is the only system which guarantees the fulfilment of all natural and genuine human needs both in this world and in the hereafter. It also guarantees full equality between the ruler and the ruled. The Khilfah is the divine method of politics. Initially it is established by the Prophets and Apostles of God and then run by their successors - the Khulufa. This is the system which has been laid down by God the Almighty Himself, and, hence, no other system can be at par with it.'

Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi (1703-1762 CE)

According to Shah Waliyullah, it is a collective obligation (Fard Al-Kifaya) upon the Muslims for all times to come to elect and install a Khilafah. To support this Shah Waliyullah give various arguments:

'the collective reason of mankind requires that a Khilafah should be there to lookafter the interests which cannot be achieved without a Khilafah. The Khilafah is appointed for achieving two categories of objective and purposes. The Holy Prophet(saw) was also sent to achieve these two calsses of objectives. Therefore after passing away of the Prophet, a Khilafah is needed to succeed him and to implement his orders and commandments. That is why the obedience to the imam id equal to the obediance to the Prophet and the disobedience of the Khaleef amount to disobedience of the Prophet:

"Whosoever obeys an Amir, verily he has obeyed me; and whosoever disobeyed the Amir he disobeyed me."[hadith]

"the Imam is a sheild from the back of which the muslims fight and protect themselves. if the Imam commands to fear Allah and guides his will be a big Reward, if he orders other than this he will bear the burden of it."[hadith - Muslim]

In Izaalat al-KhafaShah Waliy Allah quotes another hadith which he says is clear textual evidence (An-Nass in proving that the establishment of the Khilafah is an obligation:

"Whosoever dies without a bayah on his neck dies the death of Jahiliyyah" [Muslim]

'The sahaba also rushed to establish the khilafah immediately, after the death of the prophet(saw) and delayed his burial. Moreover there are matters which cannot be accomplished without the Khilafah: the Jihad, the administration of Justice, the revival of Islamic science, the establishment of the pillars of Islam, the defence of Dar al-Islam and such other things that have been collectively enjoined upon the Muslim Ummah.'

Hujjat Allah al-Balighah Vol 1
Hujjat Allah al-Balighah Vol 2
Izalat al-Khafa, Vol 1
Izalat al-Khafa, Vol 2

Uproot Musharraf as he creates chaos to save his shaken throne!

بِسْمِ الله الرَّحمَنِ الرَحيم
O people of power!
Uproot Musharraf as he creates chaos to save his shaken throne!

Yesterday, 3 July 2007, chaos gripped Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, as violent clashes took place between students of the Lal Masjid and government security forces. And horror gripped the entire country as the media carried images of young wounded girls being carried to hospital and the many dead.

In fact, the government knew well before it deployed security forces that much Muslim blood would be spilled. On 29 June 2007, President General Pervez Musharraf warned the media of heavy casualties in the event of a raid on Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa. But even at that time his major concern was not the spilling of Muslim blood, but that his heavy-handedness should not be seen by the people, who are already praying for the end of his rule. Musharraf asked journalists, “Can you guarantee that blood of any dead or injured will not be screened on television channels during the operation?”

Yet, the government insisted on deploying its security forces around the Lal Masjid, provoking a confrontation that could only end in violence. Musharraf was content in turning Muslim against Muslim, because Muslim blood has no value for him. Mushrraf was content in creating chaos as a distraction, because this would save him from the many crises he is currently facing- over his uniform, over the judiciary, over the economy and over his brutal heavy handedness in the tribal areas. And Musharraf willingly spilled Muslim blood to prove to the West that he is loyal to it above his own people, and truly deserving of its continued support above all others.
And even whilst Musharraf resorts to such brutality to secure his throne, he hides behind the high claim that he is merely restoring the authority. We ask: what value is authority, if it is not for the sake of implementing Islam as a complete way of life? And what value is the authority, if through ignoring Islam, Musharraf has plunged the entire country into despair, leading some to undertake increasingly desperate acts?

Allah سبحانه وتعالى only granted the ruler authority so that he rules by Islam and Islam alone. The ruler is responsible for establishing the judiciary so that it judges by all that Allah سبحانه وتعالى has revealed and accounts the ruler in accordance to Islam. The ruler must establish an education policy that raises the children upon the noble Islamic values, which emanate from the one true aqeedah, the aqeedah of Islam. The ruler must deploy the armies of the Muslims for securing the Muslim blood and the lands of Islam. Furthermore, Allah سبحانه وتعالى denounced the ruler who governs by other than Islam as an oppressor. Allah سبحانه وتعالى says,

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمْ الظَّالِمُونَ

“Those who do not judge all that Allah has revealed, they are the oppressors.” [Surah Al-Maidah 5:45]

O People of Power!
On the one hand, Musharraf is willing to plunge the entire country into anarchy, turning the people against each other, to secure his shaken throne. And on the other hand, the entire society is turning to Islam, the men and the women, the young and the old, the rich and the poor, the civilian and the military. Matters are in your hands and the situation is on your side. You are capable of removing this oppressor and restoring the rule for Islam. Hizb ut-Tahrir calls upon you to uproot Musharraf and re-establish the Khilafah in his place.

So, who amongst you will respond to the promise of Allah and support His cause?

وَلَيَنصُرَنَّ اللَّهُ مَنْ يَنصُرُهُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَقَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ

“Allah will certainly support those who support His cause, for indeed Allah is full of strength, exalted in might and able to enforce His will.” [Surah Al-Hajj 22: 40]

Hizb ut-Tahrir
Wilayah Pakistan
4th July 2007

Only the Khilafah will rescue the Muslims from the oppression of democracy and dictatorship

بِِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم

Pakistan was plunged into a lengthy struggle of President General, Pervez Musharraf, over the post of Chief Justice in March 2007. The ruling crisis then took on a horrifying character when pure Muslim blood was spilled in abundance in Karachi on 12 May 2007.
Throughout the many weeks of the crisis the Musharraf regime appeared weak. It neither enjoys wide support of the people nor does it provide the security (aman) and justice (adl) that are basic rights of the people.
Then, after several weeks of struggle, President General Pervez Musharraf gave an extensive interview, in which he presented his solution to the ruling crisis- democracy. This interview received wide media coverage, highlighting its significance.
And it was during this interview to The Globe and Mail on 23 May 2007, President Musharraf was asked a very important question. Indeed, it is so important the entire nation must consider it very carefully, if it is ever to emerge from the present crisis in a fit state. Musharraf was asked, “Do you think the people of Pakistan care about democracy? ... You don’t feel that it (democracy) is a Western imposition?" In reply, Musharraf said, "No, but we have to tailor it to our needs.”
However, President Musharraf’s statement is false. In fact, democracy is a key Western requirement for the Muslim World. So, those who scrutinise the events carefully will notice that although Britain and America disagree about whether Musharraf can be both a President and a General, which is the major cause of the prolongation of the crisis, both of them insist that democracy needs to be established in Pakistan. On 25 April 2007, the British Commonwealth Secretary-General repeated Britain’s demand that the two offices must be divided, but praised efforts for democracy. As for the Americans, on 6 April, US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher, defended and endorsed General Musharraf whilst saying, “We want Pakistan to succeed as a democratic nation.”
The West is keen to impose democracy in the Muslim World because it alone can secure Western interests whenever dictatorship fails. For decades since the destruction of the Khilafah, the West imposed dictator after dictator in the Muslim World to secure their interests. However, this only succeeded in the people denying the rulers for their obedience to their Western masters and betrayal to Allah سبحانه وتعالى, RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Muslims. This gap became a grave concern for America because the rulers were then unable to easily obey the Western colonialist. On 12 November 2002 in his article entitled, “The Goal Becomes Muslim Democracy," the then US State Department Policy Planning Director, Richard Haass, warned that, “the growing gulf between many Muslim regimes and their citizens potentially compromises the ability of these governments to cooperate on issues of vital importance to the United States.” So, the West has made democracy as a goal for the Muslim World, in the hope to deceive the Muslims in three matters:
1. Democracy will improve their situation by ensuring that the ruler better serves Islam and the Muslims.
2. Democracy is just a way of electing a ruler.
3. Democracy is just a way of seeking consultation.
With regards to the claim that democracy will allow the ruler to better serve Islam; in fact, through democracy, the West ensures that Islam will never be implemented as a way of life. This is because the democratic system is based on the doctrine of separating Aqeedah from life’s affairs. This system was evolved in Europe by the people to rid themselves from the oppression of the rulers, in the name of religion. Democracy’s essence is that the commands and prohibitions are referred to the people and not to the Creator of people. In the name of freedoms and liberties, it sets people free from the compulsion to be ruled under the Shari’i rules and based on this the source and authority in this system lies with the people and thus has no relation to Deen whatsoever. The democratic system therefore contradicts Islam and it is prohibited for a Muslim to engage in a system based on the principles of democracy. Allah سبحانه وتعالى revealed,
وَمَا آتَاكُمْ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَاب
“So take what RasulAllah assigns to you and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear Allah; for Allah is strict in Punishment.” (Surah Al-Hashr 59:7)
Therefore, the ruler who implements and executes these laws and constitution becomes an oppressor in the light of Shari’ah, because he does not rule by the deen of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. Allah سبحانه وتعالى revealed,
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمْ الظَّالِمُونَ
“Those who do not judge by the law which Allah has revealed, they are the oppressors.” (Surah Al-Maidah 5:45)
With regards to electing a ruler or representatives, of course choosing representatives for the Muslims affairs is permitted by Shari’ah. RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم at the time of the Second Bay’ah of Aqabah, asked the Ansar to choose twelve representatives. He صلى الله عليه وسلم said to them, أَخْرِجُوا إلَيّ مِنْكُمْ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيبًا ، لِيَكُونُوا عَلَى قَوْمِهِمْ بِمَا فِيهِمْ “Choose from among you twelve persons (naqeebs) to represent them in the matters”. However, although the Khaleefah and the representatives of the Majlis-e-Ummah will be elected, neither the Khaleefah nor the representatives are allowed to decide what is Halal and what is Haram for themselves as occurs in democracy and dictatorship. Rather, they are all bound to refer to the Qur’an, Sunnah and Ijma-as-Sahaba رضي الله عنهم.
With regards to consultation, of course the Khaleefah will take shura upon the people’s affairs. Allah سبحانه وتعالى,
وَشَاوِرْهُمْ فِي الأَمْرِ فَإِذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَوَكِّلِينَ
“And do consult them in the matter, and if you decide (on an action/on an opinion) put your trust in Allah.” (Surah Al-Imran 3:159])
However, the consultation will never extend to making the Halal into Haram or the Haram into Halal. The consultation would never be for example on ordering general sales tax or ordering the privatisation of energy resources, for these matters are haram in Islam. Nor will consultation be on forbidding the armies from liberating the occupied Muslim Lands or forbidding the Islamic aqeedah as being the sole basis for the culturing of the people or forbidding the Ummah to live together in a single state.
O Muslims of Pakistan!
For decades, you have suffered under the oppression of dictatorship. The Western powers imposed these rulers upon you, forbidding what Allah سبحانه وتعالى and RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم ordered and ordering what Allah سبحانه وتعالى and RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم forbade.
Now that you have seen through their falsehood and are now denying them, the Western nations are seeking to impose democracy to secure their interests and sacrifice your own. By deceiving you they seek to prolong the oppression upon you. So, will you now wait decades before you finally deny democracy, as you now deny dictatorship? Or will you recognise that you are being stung from the same whole twice and save yourself from further degradation and despair?
Deny the West their last desperate attempt to distance you from Islam. The West knows very well that the time for Islam in the Muslim World has come. In every circle and in every segment of society Islam is the subject of discussion. The people are turning to Islam in growing numbers. In fact, the West knows that the return of the Khilafah state is overdue, may Allah سبحانه وتعالى allow its establishment soon.
The time has come for you to forsake your rulers who rule upon you by a constitution and laws based on Kufr, whether dictatorship or democracy, and liberate our lands from the clutches of the Kafir colonialists. That can only happen by establishing a Khilafah state and by electing a Khaleefah to rule and representatives of the Majlis-e-Ummah to provide consultation and accounting.
The situation that the Muslims used to enjoy when the Khilafah was in place, compared to the one that we are living nowadays during the absence of the Khilafah, is a clear evidence of the importance of the Khilafah as a protector of the Deen. The Khilafah is the method which implements the Sharia, ensuring the education of your children, the governing of your economic resources and the command of your armies, are all for Islam. The Khaleefah of the Muslims is actually their servant, behind whom they fight and by whom they protect themselves. This is contrary to the rulers of the Muslims who came after the absence of the Khilafah, whether in dictatorship or democracy. They suppress the Muslims, abandon their lands and resources to their enemies and give loyalty to their enemies.
O Muslims of Pakistan!
Hizb ut-Tahrir calls upon you all, O Muslims, men and women, young and old, regardless of your ethnic origin or school of thought, to work with it to re-establish the Islamic Khilafah state. Hizb ut-Tahrir has been working throughout the Muslim World for over five decades and is in the final preparations for the re-establishment of the Khilafah.
Hizb ut-Tahrir has prepared a complete outline of the Islamic state that is about to be established, by the permission of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. We present to you at the end of this leaflet an overview of the Khilafah state. For those whose hunger grows upon seeing the overview, we invite you to take from us the details of the Islamic Khilafah state, which we have enclosed in numerous books, such as Ruling System in Islam, the Economic System in Islam, the Education Policy and the Khilafah State Organisations.
يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا اسْتَجِيبُوا لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ
“O you who believe! Give your response to Allah and His Messenger, when He calls you to that which gives you life.” (Surah Anfal 8:24)

Hizb ut-Tahrir
Wilayah Pakistan
5 June 2007

[Diagram of the Ruling System included at the end of the leaflet]

Only the Khilafah will rescue you from economic misery under Capitalism

بِسْمِ الله الرَّحمَنِ الرَحيم

On 9 June 2007, Minister of State for Finance, Omar Ayub Khan, presented the federal budget. The budget outlined both the government’s spending and its collection of revenue. There then followed days of extensive, and often heated, debate over the budget by Senators and Members of the National Assembly ahead of passing the bill.
Regrettably, throughout the debate, there was no rejection of Pakistan’s capitalist economic system that has unleashed all manner of economic misery upon the people of Pakistan. And whilst the people face rising utility prices, heavy taxes and more expensive goods, the capitalist system works efficiently to concentrate wealth in the hands of Western interests and a small local elite.
The government’s attempts disguise its economic failure were a cruel deception. As but one example, the government boasted about spending 1.8 billion Rupees ($30 million) so as to reduce the price of some food items at government Utility Stores. However, this relief amounts to a mere 2 Rupees per month per head, when divided over the 71 million of Pakistan’s poorest citizens, assuming they have the means to find a Utility Store.
And whilst the government is content in undertaking token measures for the poor, it has spent $417 million on interest on loans between July 2006 and March 2007. The lion’s share of Pakistan’s debt is to the Western colonialist dominated institutions, the IMF, World Bank and the Paris Club. Moreover, it is this debt to the West that has increased by $3.5 billion since 2002 to $32.34 billion in March 2007.
If all this were not enough injustice, the existing system ties Pakistan to the Western requirements for Pakistan’s economy, worsening the misery of the people for the sake of the Western colonialists.
Under close supervision of the IMF, the government is constantly increasing taxes upon the people. Since the financial year ending in June 2001 until now, tax collection has increased by over 80%. And the government has agreed with the Western colonialists to increase taxation target by a further 190 billion Rupees in the coming year- a sum that is over a 100 times what the government is prepared to spend to reduce the food prices in utility stores!
Excessive taxation has strangled the local economy, preventing Pakistan from rising to challenge the Western economies. Income tax eats into the people’s salaries, general sales tax makes buying essential food and medicine a burden whilst taxation on fuel and energy chokes industrial and agricultural production.
The Western interests have also overseen an aggressive privatization program, which has led to further miseries. Since 1999 until now, a total of US$ 6.1 billion has been raised from the privatization sales, a sum that is over 2,000 times what the government is prepared to spend on reducing prices in the utility stores this year!
Not only does the privatization program include public needs, such as gas and electricity, it involves raising utility prices so that the private owners can profit immensely. So, as an example the World Bank has closely overseen rises in electricity charges, which surged between 2000 & 2004 and continue to rise. So, whilst a small, local elite amasses huge wealth by owning energy resources, the rest of society is stricken by increasingly unaffordable energy prices.
Another Western colonialist policy that has increased the people’s suffering involves the loss in the value of the Rupee. The government keeps issuing currency without backing Rupee with real wealth, such as gold and silver. This inflation in the Rupee decreases its purchasing power. The weaker Rupee certainly benefits Western multinationals who can now produce goods cheaply in Pakistan and then export them to the Western economies with favorable exchange rates. However, a weaker Rupee makes buying goods more expensive and has led to the current slumps in many markets. The problem is so grave that local producers are now either leaving production altogether or focusing on meeting the needs of Western economies through exports instead.
So, through a whole host of capitalist policies, the Western colonialist with the open collaboration of the government is plunging the people into increasing economic misery. It is Pakistan’s capitalist economic system that has led to the concentration of the wealth, forsaking the entire society for the sake of a small local elite and the Western colonialists. In fact, this matter was inevitable, for wherever capitalism is implemented, a severe concentration of wealth has occurred. In Europe and America, a small fraction of the population owns most of the wealth. As such, capitalism is a system devised by man, which allows men to exploit others for the sake of their personal whims and desires.
O Muslims!
The misery that the Capitalist economic system has brought you was inevitable because it contradicts what Allah سبحانه وتعالى has revealed. Allah سبحانه وتعالى warned all of humankind,
وَمَنْ أَعْرَضَ عَنْ ذِكْرِي فَإِنَّ لَهُ مَعِيشَةً ضَنكًا
“Whoever rejects My Message (the Qur’an) for him is a life of hardship.” [Surah Ta-Ha 20:124]
Through numerous ayat and hadith, Allah سبحانه وتعالى has given guidance on all aspects of the economy, for truly Islam is a complete code of life. The Islamic economic system alone ensures that there is circulation of wealth in the society and that wealth does not accumulate in the hands of a few. Allah سبحانه وتعالى revealed,
كَيْ لاَ يَكُونَ دُولَةً بَيْنَ الأَغْنِيَاءِ مِنْكُمْ
“Lest the wealth circulates solely among the wealthy from amongst you.” [Surah Al-Hashr 59: 7]
So, the Islamic economic system is free of cruel taxes like GST and income tax. RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,
لَا يَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ صَاحِبُ مَكْسٍ
“The collector of taxes will not enter heaven” (Ahmad)
Instead, Islam has its own unique system of revenue collection, including revenue from public properties (such as gas) and agricultural production (such as kharaj), which generate revenue without strangling economic activity.
And the Islamic economic system assigns resources such as energy, feeding pastures and waters as public property. Neither the state nor private individuals alone can usurp its benefit for themselves, rather the benefits from it are for the entire people. RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,
الْمُسْلِمُونَ شُرَكَاءُ فِي ثَلَاثٍ الْمَاءِ وَالْكَلَإِ وَالنَّار

“The Muslims are partners in three things, waters, feeding pastures and fire” (Ahmad)
And the currency in the Islamic state is based on gold and silver allowing the currency of the Khilafah to prevent the rise of prices that the fiat currencies of today produce.
These and other Islamic laws ensure that the Islamic economic system looks after the country’s resources in the best manner. As such the Khilafah will make it possible that the basic needs of each and every citizen are satisfied, whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims. Moreover, every person will be given the opportunity to acquire the luxuries of life without usurping the rights of other people. In a very short amount of time, under the Khilafah, Pakistan will be able to achieve its true unmet economic potential. Allah سبحانه وتعالى says,
وَابْتَغِ فِيمَا آتَاكَ اللَّهُ الدَّارَ الآخِرَةَ وَلاَ تَنسَ نَصِيبَكَ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا وَأَحْسِنْ كَمَا أَحْسَنَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ وَلاَ تَبْغِ الْفَسَادَ فِي الأَرْضِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لاَ يُحِبُّ الْمُفْسِدِينَ
“But seek the abode of the Hereafter in that which Allah has given you, and do not neglect your portion of worldly life, and be kind even as Allah has been kind to you, and seek not corruption in the earth. Verily, Allah likes not the Mufsidun (those who are mischief-makers, corrupted).”
[Al-Qasas 28: 77]
Hizb ut-Tahrir has prepared a complete outline of the Islamic economic system that is to be implemented by the Khilafah, soon, by the permission of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. We present to you at the end of this leaflet an overview of the collection of revenue and expenditure in the state.
For those whose hunger grows upon seeing the overview, we invite you to take from us further details of the Islamic economic system, which we have outlined in the books such the Economic System in Islam, the Funds in the Khilafah State and the Khilafah State Organisations.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اسْتَجِيبُوا لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ
“O you who believe! Give your response to Allah and His Messenger, when He calls you to that which gives you life.” (Surah Anfal 8:24)

Hizb ut-Tahrir
Wilayah Pakistan
19 June 2007

BAITUL MAL

Divided into Revenues and Expenditure Divisions

The Revenues Division

1. Diwan of Fai and Kharaj
a. Department of Ghanaim
b. Department of Kharaj
c. Department of lands
d. Department of Jizya
e. Department of Fai
f. Department of Dara’ib

2. Diwan of Public Property
a. Department of oil and gas
b. Department of electricity
c. Department of minerals
d. Department of seas, rivers, lakes and springs
e. Department of forests and grazing lands
f. Department of al-Hima, protected lands

3. Diwan of Sadaqat
a. Department of Zakah on monies and commercial goods
b. Department of Zakah on crop and fruit
c. Department of Zakah on camels, cows and sheep

The Expenditure Division

1. Diwan of the Khilafah House
a. Dar ul-Khilafah
b. The Advisors’ office
c. The Delegated Assistants office
d. The Executive Assistants office
2. Diwan of Government administration
a. Amir of Jihad’s Department
b. Walis’ Department
c. Judges’ Department
d. Department of other government institutions, such as administration
3. Diwan of Grants
4. Diwan of Jihad
5. Diwan of Sadaqat expenses
6. Diwan of Public Properties
7. Diwan of Emergencies
8. Diwan of General Budgets
9. Diwan of General Accounts
10. Diwan of Control

Recent Events in Kyrgyzstan have been engineered by Russia

The following is a translation from Arabic.

بِسْـــمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰـــنِ الرَّحِيـــم

Recent Events in Kyrgyzstan have been engineered by Russia aimed at strengthening its influence in the Central Asian Republics and to weaken the United States’ hold

Kyrgyzstan, which has been relatively a peaceful place, has been subjected to arson since the toppling of the former president and Askar Akayev in various public uprisings especially of Wednesday and Thursday, 23rd and 24th March, 2007. What exacerbated the crisis were the state’s weaknesses on the military, politics, economics and resources front. This grew into a classic conflict between the opposition and the government as seen in the rallies and huge protest demonstrations which were carried to any side where the wind blew and resulted in heating in up the atmosphere.
The events of the recent past are nothing but political manipulations by Russia using the Western democratic means to eliminate its political foes, it thus dislodged the prime minister who was considered an adversary of the republic’s president who was pro-Russia. Prime Minister Kolov was able to launch a people’s movement to oppose the republic’s Russian-backed president Akayev by raising the banner of constitutional reforms and curtailing presidential powers. When this movement was on the verge of success, Russia pushed Akayev to himself announce restricting presidential powers and that he would accept such a move. He thus fell to the opposition because he agreed to their demands! The president then said that he had demanded constitutional reforms before the opposition and that the opposition was content without such reforms. He said: “If the opposition had not hindered his plan he would have asked for a referendum on such reforms in December last year and would have amended the constitution as per the people’s wishes in January 2007 C.E.” Now the ball was in the opposition’s court and they announced that their call for reforms was simply a ploy to secure people’s support, this forced the prime minister to resign. The president quickly moved to appoint Almasbek Atanbayev, a moderate who was counted among the opposition ranks under the opposition movement. This is how Russia manipulated the opposition and eliminated the prime minister who was opposed to president Akayev, because it was feared that the prime minister was leading the republic away from Russian hold into the US camp. All this was realised by resorting to democratic means such as the demonstrations, reforms, referendum and curtailing of presidential authority. Then, to counter the charge being leveled on him that he let down the opposition, he tried the usual tactics to get public sympathy by declaring in the parliament on 22nd May, 2007 that on 11th May, he was poisoned in his official chambers when drank water from his cup and was unconscious for two days and that his health was relatively better. He however did not reveal as to who might have poisoned him. He said that despite this, he will continue his work in the service of the people to achieve his noble political aims. It must be noted however that his revelation of the incident came a full eleven days after it happened.
Thus Russia consolidated its hold on Kyrgyzstan and challenged American influence there. This is why a government campaign was launched when information leaked that America intended to use Manas [1]Airbase in Kyrgyzstan in the nuclear standoff with Iran and probably used to launch an attack. This campaign was so intense that the US ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, Mary Yuvanovich was forced to deny presence of any nuclear weapons for use against Iran at the airbase. She clarified this in her statement to the Russian Interfax news agency on 3rd May, 2007 C.E. She added that this airbase was used solely to carry humanitarian aid supplies to Afghanistan!
The Speaker of the Kyrgyzstan parliament Murad Sultanov organised a press conference on 21st May, 2007 in Bishkek and said that if their suspicions persist that the US is using the base for activities incompatible with the terms of usage, immediate action will be taken to cease all activity at the airbase. He added that the airbase was to be used for specified logistical supplies for the ‘alliance’ forces fighting terror in Afghanistan. He then meaningfully added that the ‘Kunt’ airbase in Kyrgyzstan must be strengthened.
During an exclusive interview with the Russian news agency ‘Rianovosti’, Sultanov stated that during his Moscow visit a week ago, he spoke to the Russian officials and if they wanted to activate the ‘Kunt’ airbase which is under the Organisation for Common Security Agreement, they will have to assist Kyrgyzstan to close America’s only airbase in the region. He also told the Russian officials that his country’s budget was inadequate to secure its borders. Did this not amount to inviting the Russian troops to march into Kyrgyzstan?
At the end of the past month of May, 2007, the new prime minister Almasbek Atanbayev announced that they will not permit the use of the Manas airbase for any military operation against wither Iraq of Iran and added that they will also not allow the Kyrgyz land to be used for launching any attack against Iran.
The Kyrgyz external affairs minister issued a statement that said: “The American military installations at the (Manas) International Airport may only be used for military operation in the case of Afghanistan, any other usage of the facility will be tantamount to annulment of the conditions of use and the concerned parties will be responsible for the same.” This prompted the US ambassador to Kyrgyzstan to issue a rebuttal, it said: “‘War Against Terror’ is of utmost importance in Kyryzstan, because of the probability of the terrorists’ activities into or from Afghanistan and other places, therefore the US considers Kyrgyzstan as its ally in the ‘War Against Terror’, therefore, for other purposes, the Bishkek airbase will be solely used for activities concerning Afghanistan only.”
In the aftermath of these, one of the civilian social organisations founded for the purpose of getting rid of the American presence from the Manas airbase announced that it will hold a demonstration on 2nd June, 2007 at the American Embassy in Bishkek and another protest later at the airbase.
As a result of these developments, the Kyrgyz parliament adopted a resolution that calls for studying the issue of closing down of the US base from the Kyrgyz soil and terminating the agreement reached between Kyrgyzstan and the United States.
Richard Boucher, the US Deputy Secretary of State for South and East Asia sensed the Russian hand in the airbase controversy, and on 12th June, 2007, during his address to a press conference in Bishkek, he said: “It is incumbent upon the Kyrgyz government to ignore the external influences concerning the future of the base…any decision regarding the base depends upon the agreement between the Kyrgyz and the US governments… This issue should not be raised at any other forum, especially at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).”
It is known that Russia has 25 military facilities scattered over the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) which separated from the former Soviet Union including ordnance depots, air force stations and reconnaissance systems, and apart from these, it also operates a base in Syria. Although most of these installations do not operate to their optimum capacity, they are a permanent reminder of the Russian influence there.
There are two military bases in Kyrgyzstan; one is the Manas airbase used by the American armed forces, while the other is the ‘Kunt’ air base that is used by Russia under the protocol of the Common Peace Agreement.
The first military base that Russia built after the collapse of the former Soviet Union was the ‘Kunt’ base, which was opened on 23rd October, 2003 and is a part of the air force for ‘Rapid intervention Forces’ of the Common Peace Agreement forces in Central Asia. During the former Soviet era, this was used for imparting military training to many countries. Hosni Mubarak and Hafez al Assad are graduates of this base.
There have been two agreements between Russia and Kyrgyzstan on this base; the first in 2002 and the second one in September 2003, which was ratified in July 2005. Under these agreements, Russia is allowed use of the base for a period of 15 years under the Common Peace Agreement. During the same time, at the SCO meeting, it was decided to close down the Han Abad airbase in Uzbekistan. Russia has some 500 troops stationed at the ‘Kunt’ airbase in addition to 400 civilian experts and 20 fighter aircrafts and helicopters.
Apart from the ‘Kunt’ airbase, Russia has a barrack and a training base for launching anti-ship torpedoes in Kyrgyzstan, a base for submarine communication and a station for monitoring tremors caused by Russian missile installations.
In Kazakhstan there are no bases, though Russia has strong military links with it. Russia has defence production facilities, some military training installations and an airbase remnant of the former Soviet era which was leased to Russia in 1994 C.E for a period of 20 years which was extended in 2004 until 2050 C.E. because Kazakhstan does not possess trained cadre for operating this facility.
Russia had shifted its mobile forces (201) in Tajikistan to its military base under a protocol attended by Putin in October 2004. This is Russia’s second military base in Central Asia after the ‘Kunt’ base, where it has some 7500 troops comprising three military regiments of its land army, military administration personnel, aircrafts and an air monitoring station (they say it is more advanced than even the US ones). Russia has some 11,000 troops patrolling the Tajik border with Afghanistan.
All these reflect the extent of Russian military presence in the Central Asian republics. Preliminary indications regarding the removal of American forces from Kyrgyzstan emerged in April last when President Akayev stated that they have deiced to expel the US forces from the military base if the US does not make increased payments. Even if the US agrees to the new conditions, the situation is rife and may in all likelihood ignite again.
When we see that the US forces on being expelled from the Han Abad (Uzbekistan) base in November 2005, were stationed at the Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan, we realise that were they to be expelled from Manas as well, they will be in a critical predicament. Uzbekistan had allowed Russians to use the Nawoiy Airport in exchange for developing Uzbekistan air defences. In addition, when the US forces were expelled from the Han Abad airbase, it came to be used by the Russian because it came under the Common Peace Agreement. Though the US was able to open its air bases in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, its efforts are likely to fail, and if it is expelled from Kyrgyzstan, it is highly unlikely that it will succeed in getting any new bases for itself in the region in the short term.
The United States has opened 19 new air bases in the aftermath of 9/11, three of which are in the Central Asian region; Han Abad in Uzbekistan, Manas in Kyrgyzstan and one in Tajikistan. It was expelled from Han Abad and if the indications are correct, it is likely to be expelled from Kyrgyzstan as well.
What is certain is that Russia will harness the Central Asian countries links with it to the hilt and exploit their weaknesses and their reliance on Russia. This is hugely apparent with regard to the defence production facilities and energy resources like petrol and natural gas. The US on its part is making all efforts to thwart this by offering alternative projects for energy resources on the one hand, and on the other hand it is trying to break their military relations by offering ‘Common Program for Peace’ under NATO which began in 1995.
Russia has been able to assert itself because of its bold ventures like; controlling the energy resources, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Common Peace Organisation and its relations with China. Therefore the treaties that Russia has signed recently with Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan are being seen as its victory over America. These agreements were signed during a six-day visit of Putin May last to the Central Asian countries. On the other hand, the five countries that have problems with Russia are being prompted by America and are meeting in Poland to coordinate their efforts against Russia; they are: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Latvia, Ukraine and Poland.
Of late, Russia has been imitating American tactics; while it is on one hand supporting civilian social organisations on its soil to be an impediment for American efforts and bring in revolutions, and on the other hand it is trying to camouflage its colonialist greed on the former Soviet republics, and to be in tune with the current situation calls this as the ‘New Eurasia’. Putin, by pursuing the ‘New Political Centre’ aimed to eliminate the faction that flourished during the era of Boris Yeltsin and is called as the ‘Oligarch’ in Russia. However it cannot be said that he has met with complete success, he seems to have only succeeded in forcing them into hibernation because of Putin’s immense popularity.
Russia’s relations with countries other than those in its own backyard are only of economic nature; therefore it will be premature to say that Russia is a global player, it is rather a regional power that controls the region around it due to historical, religious and racial factors like in Serbia.
The US is making all efforts to maintain its relations with the countries of Central Asia for various reasons like protecting a strategic presence in the region, war on Afghanistan, border security, drugs, weapons and arms smuggling. It is therefore pursuing a classic policy of surrounding Russia which damaged American influence in Central Asia and trying to defeat Russia in countries that were once under the influence of the former Soviet Union like the Balkans and Eastern Europe. Therefore the military bases in Bulgaria and Romania, the proposed installation of missiles in Poland, the issue of the radar station in the Czech republic and the Kosovo separation dispute, all of these are the result of American interest in the region.
America is heightening the missiles dispute to achieve a tactical goal more than as a real issue; it is using this issue to distance Europe from Russia in several fields, most importantly, the energy sector. It is also harnessing this issue, and with help from Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy, it aims to further develop the trans- Atlantic cooperation. Thus it aims to encircle Russia, at least from the west. With this, the US also aims to divert attention from regions of its failures. However, Europe has extensive relations, especially in the energy sector with Russia and it is not possible to overcome these. The United States will have to offer alternate means if it wants to break those relations. One such important project is the ‘Nabucco’ which is also being supported by the European Union, under which natural gas from Iran will be transported to Europe via Turkey. This has increased the strategic importance of Iran and Turkey. It is uncertain to what extent the Europeans will trust their reliance on Iran & Turkey for their gas needs just as they rely on the Gulf States for their petrol requirement. This project’s completion and commissioning is however ruled out in the short term although the US is seeing this as an opportunity to develop relations with Iran and negatively affect the Russian- EU relations.
To conclude, the concept of establishing an economic alliance between the Central Asian countries proposed by Nazarbayev, the Kazakhstan president, during his visit to Kyrgyzstan on 25th and 26th April, 2007, is not a new idea. It was proposed during the last days of the former Soviet Union. However the ground reality after the collapse of the Soviet Union has resulted in igniting new conflicts, while Russia internal weaknesses have meant non-implementation of the proposal. Recently, since Russia has become relatively stronger economically, and the Central Asian countries have moved out of the US camp to ally with Russia, such an economic union cannot be ruled out.

29th Jumada al Ula, 1428 A.H
15th June, 2007 C.E.

[1] Manas is name of the Bishkek Airport, when it was being constructed it was named as the Ganci Air Base in memory of New York fireman Peter Ganci who died in the 9/11 incident. It was eventually renamed as Manas Air Base because of the USAF instructions that prohibit naming military facilities outside the US after national heroes. Although some continue to wrongly refer to it as Ganci Air Base.

Working for Revival

How can a Muslim aid the revival of the Ummah? Firstly, as an individual he or she must understand the Islamic ideology. This means to study in depth the differences between Islam and capitalism and to understand how Islam works as a system for running the affairs of life, not just as a religion of ritual and rites.

Secondly, having understood the Islamic ideology Muslims must carry dawah for it and work to correct those understandings of Islam that are incorrect. This is so that a sound awareness of Islam is created amongst the people and erroneous understandings are corrected. If the dawah to the ideology is carried in an effective manner, it is inevitable that the Islamic state will be established in society, hence reviving the Ummah.

Thirdly, collective movements are required. These collective movements need to call to the Islamic thought by constantly linking it to issues facing the Muslims. This in essence has to be political in nature. Collective movements have to be aware that the work for individual reformation, education, publishing literature and a general call to the khairaat in Islam will not lead to revival.

Political work means to address the corruption of the rulers and the problems within societies targeted for change. For example, in Pakistan, the increases in gas prices, the establishment of FBI offices, the permission to construct US military bases, the treachery over Kashmir by the Musharaff junta could all be political issues to address.

In order to aid revival the manner in which these issues must be discussed is that these problems arise due the absence of Islam as an ideology and the presence of a kufr ruling system in place of the Khilafah. The linkage to Islam as an ideology must be re-iterated continuously so that the Islamic viewpoint about life becomes the predominant thought in society.

It is important that this call be carried politically as rules and thoughts without application to life’s affairs are not effective in changing the people. This is especially true when one is addressing society. The call must influence the people to change their existing thoughts with the Islamic thoughts. This does not mean that there is no need to pay attention to culturing people on an individual basis, rather this is imperative as without the ideology being deeply embedded in individuals it would not be possible to carry it to society.

This can be seen in the work of the Prophet (saw). Where people understood and embraced His (saw) message. It became deeply embodied in them. They carried it as a dawah to others and also worked collectively to convey it to Makkan society at large.

To achieve the revival one needs to cultivate individuals with a deeply embedded understanding of the Islamic ideology and collectively address issues linked to revival. As this dawah has been going on for decades we make dua to Allah (SWT) that this will lead to the establishment of the Khilafah Rashida in the very near future and the Muslim Ummah raises its self out of the misery and turmoil that she finds herself in today.

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Source

Musharraf's bloodbath at the Masjid

"What is evident is that the utilisation of force by the government to deal with both secular and Islamic forces exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of Musharraf’s mantra of "enlightened moderation.""

The intensification of fighting between the students of Lal Masjid and the Pakistani army has left hundreds dead and many injured. This has prompted President Musharraf to issue the following provocative statement: “If they do not surrender so I am saying here today that they will be killed. They should not force us to use force. They should come out voluntarily; otherwise they will be killed…” Even before Musharraf’s ultimatum, his government was swift to attribute the entire blame for the current crisis on Abdul Rashid Ghazi--the principal of the seminary. However, a close examination of the events preceding the current standoff, suggests that the entire saga has been engineered by the Pakistani government.

For the past six months the Musharraf government has tolerated the behaviour of the students whenever they chose to challenge its writ. The accumulation of illegal arms, the abduction of Pakistani socialites and policemen, and the seizure of six Chinese women was met with muted criticism from government officials. Furthermore, these activities were not clandestine, and were planned and executed in full view of ISI’s headquarters located in close proximity to the confines of the Lal Masjid. The frequent visit of ISI officials and government representatives negates government claims that it was exploring an amicable outcome-- especially when measured against the ferocity of the Pakistani government’s response to similar incidents in tribal agencies and elsewhere in Balochistan. So why has the Pakistani government waited so long to barricade the Masjid with military hardware fit for an overwhelming assault.

This question can only be answered in the broader context of the challenges facing Musharraf’s rule. At present the Musharraf government has had to contend with both the secular opposition and Islamic forces calling for his removal. The secular forces championed by the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD) and Chief Justice Iftikhar have gained momentum and have frustrated America’s initiative to get Musharraf re-elected. To diffuse this threat, Musharraf under US auspices has held secret talks with certain leaders of the secular opposition and has deployed force against others. The deaths in Karachi are a manifestation of the latter approach. As far as negotiations are concerned, the US on Musharraf’s behalf is already engaged in advanced talks with Benazir Bhutto with aim to break the back of the secular opposition and secure a second presidential term for Musharraf. This also explains Bhutto’s recent ambiguous stance on the All Parties Conference (APC) in London, which she has shunned so far.

Whilst the Islamic opposition unhappy with Musharraf’s pro-American policies and his neo-liberal attitudes have taken upon themselves to oust him from power. Some have resorted to militancy and others have engaged in protests to vent their anger. But the wellspring of their resentment is fuelled by the religious seminaries which America has identified for secularisation or closure. Unlike the secular opposition--where America was keen to compromise and broker a deal— the Islamic forces in the eyes of American policy makers must be secularised at gun point, and any resistance must be crushed. Hence the surrounding of Lal Masjid by the military in the absence of martial law, the humiliation of Abdul Aziz Ghazi on Pakistan television, the abrupt cancellation of talks, the media black out and the announcement of ‘surrender or die’ as a solution to the crisis is an ominous sign for the future of religious seminaries in Pakistan.

What is transpiring at Lal Masjid has all the hallmarks of becoming a template for Musharraf to deal with other religious schools and institutions--a recipe for civil war. Not to mention that the timing of the crisis suits Musharraf, as it deflects the public’s attention away from the secular opposition and the government’s disastrous response to the floods in Balochistan.

What is evident is that the utilisation of force by the government to deal with both secular and Islamic forces exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of Musharraf’s mantra of "enlightened moderation." Instead of employing thoughts to battle the ideas of the opposition, Musharraf has resorted to force. The same method has been repeated by Musharraf’s allies--America, NATO and Israel-- under the guise of ‘battle of hearts and minds’ and both have failed to crush the Islamic movements in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. So what chance does Musharraf have?

Abid Mustafa
July 8, 2007

Open to letter to people of Sudan & South Kurdufân in particular

The following is a translation from Arabic:

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Call from Hizb ut-Tahrir Wilayah Sudan - To the people of Sudan in general and our people in South Kurdufân in particular.

The southern Kurdufân province is witnessing events of tribal nature that have resulted in a security vacuum and spread fire all over the region scorching the stalks and spilling of the forbidden innocent blood. People are deserting their villages. The poison of tribal prejudice has soaked the region which has become thick with wounds of tyranny, poverty and destitution. Let the ruler be warned that if the wise men do not shoulder the responsibility of reformation, the conflict will fan its fire.

For instance the events of the tribes of al-Mundal and al-Ma’aliya in July 2006 in the al-Farshaya region where seven person of al-Ma’aliya three of al-Mundal and another from the Barqu al-Sulaihat were killed and the security in region worsened with people from eleven villages deserting their homes. In August and September 2006, the events of al-Burqad and al-Ma’aliya occurred in the Shaqq al-Jamal region where two persons from al-Burqad were slain. In October 2006, the event of the sons of Nu’man and Mundal occurred resulting in twelve deaths and exodus from four villages. In December 2006, it was the event of al-‘owainat and Barqu al-Sulaihat in al-Dabkar where one person from the former and two from the latter were killed. In the current month of June 2007, there were clashes between the tribes of Dar Nu’ailah and Ghalfan and the situation continues to be grim in the area warning of a further rise in the conflict.

The tribal conflicts between farmers and herdsmen has been witness for a long time in a localized manner which was being locally solved wither by the parties involved themselves or local peoples leadership. The current conflicts exploding one after another resulting in one killing another are different from the earlier ones because the political forces in the region are highly polarised with one group aligned to the ruling party and others to the various opposition parties. These forces arm one group or another with weapons and instigate them with offensive sentiments and factional and tribal hate and abhorrence. They divide the tribes as being Arab or African and raising the disputes in the international kufr organisations like the United Nations repeating the scenario of Darfur.

The real solution to the issue is that all parties should adopt the Halal and Haram as the only criteria for their words and actions. They should as Muslims shun all other criteria and give them no consideration whatsoever.

I: The Tribal Bond:

The great Islamic bond “Islamic Brotherhood” which has been bestowed upon us by Allah (swt), He said:

إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَ أَخَوَيْكُمْ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ
“The believers are nothing else than brothers (in Islâmic religion). So make reconciliation between your brothers, and fear Allâh that you may receive mercy.”[TMQ 49:10]

And the Prophet (saw) said:
(المُسلِمُ أخُو المُسْلِمِ)
“A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim”

At the same time the Prophet warned us against the bond of tribal prejudice (‘asabiyyah) and fighting under its banner, he said:
(دَعُوها فإِنّهَا مُنْتِنَةٌ)
“Abandon it, for it stinks.”

And he (saw) said:
(وَمَنْ ادّعَى دَعْوَى الْجَاهِلّيةِ، فَإِنّهُ مِنْ جُثَى جَهَنّمَ، فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ يَا رَسُولُ الله وَإِنْ صَلّى وَصَامَ؟ فَقَالَ وَإِنْ صَلّى وَصَامَ. فَادْعُوا بِدَعْوَى الله الّذِي سَمَاكُم المُسْلِمِينَ المُؤْمِنينَ عِبَادَ الله)
“He, who invites for a call of Jahiliyyah, he is a corpse of jahannam, a person asked: “O Messenger of Allah (saw), even if he were to pray and fast?” The Prophet (saw) said: “Even if he prayed and fasted. Invite to the call of Allah (swt) who named you as Muslimeen, Mumineen and servants of Allah (swt).”

And he (saw) said:
(من تعزى بعزاء الجاهلية فأعضوه بـِهَنّ أبيه، ولا تكنوا)
“Whosoever boasts of something from the Jahiliyyah, cut (his boastfulness) and do not hide it i.e. do not let his boast go unchallenged.” (Musnad Ahmad & Ibn Hiban)

Hence, the tribal bond not only violates Islamic principles, it is born out of the love or loyalty to sovereignty and is an inhuman bond that begets enmity and conflicts between people, and it discerns and differentiates between a person and his brother where every clan feels that it deserves more than others to be the leader. Hence such people are overcome by declination and tend to help some and not others. This also results in not attaching much value to compliance by the Ahkam of Sharee’ah as also the criteria of Halal & Haram are no longer considered for undertaking actions. Such ‘asabiyyah is manipulated by shaytan and instigates people to compete with each other for the tribe’s leadership and not for the great Islamic ideology. Blood is spilled and sanctities are violated as it was during the pre-Islamic days of Jahiliyyah which Islam came to destroy!

It is this tribalism that makes a Muslim, who has already testified that there is no god but Allah (swt) and that Muhammad (saw) is His Prophet, kill his brother Muslim, or instigate his killing or conceal and protect his killers, each of which is a great munkar, Allah (swt) says:

وَمَن يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِنًا مُّتَعَمِّدًا فَجَزَآؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خَالِدًا فِيهَا وَغَضِبَ اللّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَعَنَهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُ عَذَابًا عَظِيمًا

“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein; and the Wrath and the Curse of Allâh are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him.” [TMQ 04:93]

And the truly infallible Messenger said:

(لا تَرْجِعُوا بَعْدي كُفَّاراً يَضْرِبُ بَعْضُكُمْ رِقابَ بَعْضٍ)
“Do not revert to become Kafir after I am gone, and kill each other’s necks.”

And he (saw) also said:

(لَزَوَالُ الدّنْيَا أهْوَنُ عَلَى الله مِنْ قَتْلِ رَجُلٍ مُسْلِمٍ)
“The end or extinction of the world is smaller or more worthless for Allah (swt) than killing of a Muslim man.”

Such munkar tends to turn the issue from its correct context, which is the death of a person and that the blood relatives of the dead have the choice of either having the killer killed, or accepting blood-money or the killer is pardoned and blood-money be forgiven. This is because the Prophet is reported by Abu Huraira (ra) in Bukhari as saying:

(وَمَنْ قُتِلَ لَهُ قَتِيلٌ فَهُوَ بِخَيْرِ النَّظَرَيْنِ إِمَّا يُودَى وَإِمَّا يُقَادُ)
“One who is killed, (his relative) has the option of either accepting blood money or (killer’s) life.”

And in Ibn Mjajah, Abu Shuraih al-Khuza’ee reports that the Prophet (saw) said:

(مَنْ أُصِيبَ بِدَمٍ أَوْ خَبْلٍ ( وَالخبْلُ الجُرْحُ) فَهُوَ بَالخِيَارِ بَيْنَ إِحْدَى ثَلاَثٍ. فَإِنْ أَرَادَ الرَّابِعَةَ، فَخُذُوا عَلَى يَدَيْهِ: أَنْ يَقْتُلَ أَوْ يَعُفُوَ أَوْ يَأخُذَ الدِّيَةَ. فَمَنْ فَعَلَ شَيْئاً مِنْ ذلِكَ فَعَادَ، فَإِنَّ لَهُ نَارَ جَهَنَّمَ خَالِداً مُخَلَّداً فِيهَا أَبَداً)
“If a relative of anyone is killed, or if he suffers a khabl, which means a wound, he may choose of the three things; he may retaliate or forgive, or receive compensation. But if he wishes a fourth (i.e. something more), hold his hands. And this whoever exceeds the limits, shall be in forever in hellfire.”

Instead of these options as the context in which to resolve the issue, it is being transformed into a tribal conflict which remains desperate, as a result, both the killer and his victim would in hellfire as the Prophet (saw) has forewarned:

(إِذَا الْتَقَى الْمُسْلِمَانِ بِسَيْفَيْهِمَا فَالْقَاتِلُ وَالْمَقْتُولُ فِي النَّارِ)
“When two Muslims confront each other with their swords, both the killer and the killed are in hell-fire.”

II: Not Having the Political Endeavour based on Islam:

One of the biggest problems from which were are suffering in this country as in rest of the Muslim countries, is that the political activity is not based on a correct thought and ideology, that is Islam although Allah (swt) has commanded us just that, He said:

وَلْتَكُن مِّنكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

“Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islâm), enjoining Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar (polytheism and disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden). And it is they who are the successful.” [TMQ 03:104]

In fact undertaking political actions not based upon Islam but founded upon corrupted thoughts and concepts like, self interest and expediency has made the political powers a danger to themselves and a threat to others. Hence they consider power and authority as a benefit and work to protect it or to achieve it using any means without any ideological or ethical restraint or deterrence. This has put them in the care of foreigners as their puppets. They raise tribal and factional slogans which incite arson and turmoil, spills blood, violates sanctities, peoples lives are put to hardships and their fate on the day of reckoning is severely affected. All this is done merely to either achieve positions of power or if already there then to protect it.

III: The State’s Failure to meet its Obligations:

The State’s failure to administer public affairs in Kurdufan and other regions of Sudan in accordance with the commands of Islam which Allah (swt) has ordained when He said:

فَاحْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ وَلاَ تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءهُمْ عَمَّا جَاءكَ مِنَ الْحَقِّ

“So judge among them by what Allâh has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you.” [TMQ 03:48]

It is this non-compliance with commands of Islam that has resulted in tyranny instead of justice; destitution in place of ensuring fulfillment of basic needs like, food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education and security. This is the cause of fear and uncertainty instead of security, peace and contentment. Indeed in it this violation of Islamic commands that has resulted in tribal authority and prejudice in place of state authority, resulting in weakened state assertiveness absence of Islamic justice. Jungle law prevails where the powerful overwhelms the weak, Islamic laws, thoughts; concepts and emotions are diluted and vanish; people are overtaken and governed by their base instincts and desires.

Oh Sincere Muslims: of Political Powers and other Parties:

Have fear of Allah (swt) and return to Him, and remember that you are responsible and accountable for the political parties and organisations that are based on principles other than Islam and so are their call non-Islamic. It is your duty to revert them back to the Islamic path of truth and keep in mind the call of Allah (swt):

أَفَمَنْ أَسَّسَ بُنْيَانَهُ عَلَى تَقْوَى مِنَ اللّهِ وَرِضْوَانٍ خَيْرٌ أَم مَّنْ أَسَّسَ بُنْيَانَهُ عَلَىَ شَفَا جُرُفٍ هَارٍ فَانْهَارَ بِهِ فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ وَاللّهُ لاَ يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ

“Is it then he who laid the foundation of his building on piety to Allâh and His Good Pleasure better, or he who laid the foundation of his building on the brink of an undetermined precipice ready to crumble down, so that it crumbled to pieces with him into the fire of Hell. And Allâh guides not the people who are the Zâlimûn (cruel, violent, proud, polytheist and wrong doer).”[TMQ 09:109]

And do not take recourse to fitnah:

وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ
“And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.” [TMQ 02:191]

Oh Sincere Muslims: in the government:
It is your duty and obligation that you implement Islam and administer people’s affairs accordingly so that they enjoy and cherish its justice all over the land. One of the most important obligations is to ensure peace and security in the land, the Prophet (saw) said:

(من أصبح منكم آمناً في سربه، معافىً في جسده، عنده قوت يومه فكأنما حيزت له الدنيا بحذافيرها)

This implies that you do not repeat the scenario of Darfur by arming certain factions against others, instead consider them all equally based upon the Islamic ideology and do not forget that you are accountable to Allah (swt) for every drop of blood that is spilled and for every honour that is violated and trampled upon, and every dinar that is looted and for every soul that is terrorised and threatened. Ma’qal ibn Yassar (ra) reports having heard the Prophet (saw) say:

(ما من وال يلي رعيَّة من المسلمين، فيموت وهو غاش لهم، إلا حرَّم الله عليه الجنة)
“There is no wali who has his Muslim subjects (people) and he dies while he had been cheating (or misleading them), except that Allah (swt) forbade him from jannah.”

And he (ra) also reports from the Prophet:

(ما من عبد يسـترعـيه الله رعية، فلم يحطها بنصـحـه، إلا لم يجد رائحة الجنة)
“There is no servant of Allah (swt) who has been given charge of a people and he does not guide them correctly, except he will not even smell the air of jannah.”

We also remind you of the woman who said about Sayiddina ‘Omar (ra):

(أيتولى أمرنا ويغفل عنا)
“Does he (i.e. Omar) take charge over us and keeps ignoring us?”

Remember that power and authority is something you are accountable to Allah (swt) for, and it is His Amanah on which He will account severely, Muslim reports on the authority of Abu Dharr (ra) that the Prophet (saw) said:

(وَإنّهَا أَمَانَةٌ. وَإنّهَا، يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ، خِزْيٌ وَنَدَامَةٌ. إلاّ مَنْ أَخَذَهَا بِحَقّهَا وَأَدّى الّذِي عَلَيْهِ فِيهَا)
“This (the Khilafah) is an amanah (custody or trust), and on the day of judgement will be a humiliation and repentance except for those who fulfilled its commands and fulfill the rights.”

Let the events of Darfur be a reminder and lesson for you.

Oh the people of Southern Kurdufan:

It is only Islam that can counter, restrain and destroy the () and so revert to being Muslims as brothers who love each other, as Allah (swt) said:

وَاعْتَصِمُواْ بِحَبْلِ اللّهِ جَمِيعًا وَلاَ تَفَرَّقُواْ وَاذْكُرُواْ نِعْمَتَ اللّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ كُنتُمْ أَعْدَاء فَأَلَّفَ بَيْنَ قُلُوبِكُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُم بِنِعْمَتِهِ إِخْوَانًا وَكُنتُمْ عَلَىَ شَفَا حُفْرَةٍ مِّنَ النَّارِ فَأَنقَذَكُم مِّنْهَا كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ

“And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allâh (i.e. this Qur'ân), and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allâh's Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islâmic Faith), and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allâh makes His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.,) clear to you, that you may be guided.”[TMQ 03:103]

لَوْ أَنفَقْتَ مَا فِي الأَرْضِ جَمِيعاً مَّا أَلَّفَتْ بَيْنَ قُلُوبِهِمْ وَلَـكِنَّ اللّهَ أَلَّفَ بَيْنَهُمْ إِنَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

“If you had spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allâh has united them. Certainly He is All-Mighty, All-Wise.”[TMQ 08: 63]

(مثل المؤمنين في توادهم وتراحمهم كمثل الجسد إذا اشتكى عضو منه تداعى سائره بالحمى والسهر)
“The Muslims are like a single body in terms of love and mercy on each other, if one part of this body suffers, the whole body stands up to protect it and remains restless.”

Therefore renounce and discard every tribal, factional and other prejudice that is not Islamic and this is our call to you.

Hizb ut-Tahrir
Wilayah Sudan
7th Jamada al Thani, 1428 A.H
22nd June, 2007 C.E

Arabic Source

Understanding Revival

To many the understanding of revival is ambiguous. To some it is to have what the Western world has in terms of technology, organisation and material progress. Others take it to mean progress economically or where the standard of life increases.

Others use terms that are not crystallised in their minds. Terms like irtafaa al fikri-intellectual elevation are submerged in a cloud of vagueness. It is essential that the meaning of revival be understood otherwise the aim of reviving the ummah may never be achieved. Distraction and confusion may reign and the very move towards reviving could well fizzle out or be diverted to preserving the declined situation.

The term Arabic term for revival nahda comes from the root to arise, to get up, to stand. So the meaning of nahda in the context of the situation of the ummah points to the fact that they need to arise from their declined position.

How should Muslims view this subject about reviving the Muslim Ummah from its current state to a revived golden era? An explanation by the will of Allah (swt) follows.

The West is revived but it does not have true revival, as their basis secularism is false. It can be seen that every issue faced by the West is thought through on the basis of their viewpoint about the meaning of life, their aqeeda, and secularism.

Secularism maintains that the everyday affairs of life in this world have no connection to what was before this life and what is to come after. It holds that man is the ultimate source of what is acceptable or unacceptable. A view that does not fit to this basis is immediately rejected, labelled as wacky or called extreme. This has been proved when Muslims have tried to speak from an Islamic perspective in the media. In western society the acceptable and the non acceptable, the good and the bad, the right and the wrong are all viewed from a single basis. The laws in society, the systems of ruling and their conduct with other nations are driven by this viewpoint. One may find differences but these differences emerge in the branches but not at the root. For example when “ We disagree with the war in Iraq, we think that religions should not be insulted, we disagree with homosexuality” and other statements of this nature are examined it can be seen these are based upon the same viewpoint or basis as those that carry the opposite views. It is this unity upon the basis and how to view problems that leads the west to move forward in all aspects of life albeit in the incorrect way as their basis is flawed. Take the argument in the USA where some call for isolationism and others call for the current US philosophy of treating the world as their ranch- both arguments come from the same basis, but the difference lies in a judgement about national interest.

If one were to contrast this to a society like Pakistan one would witness that there is no basic thought that is predominant. Rather there are a whole host of thoughts that are used. Some people are Islamic but only in the spiritual sense, some are capitalistic but only in the monetary sense, some are nationalistic and some are so declined in their thought that they are prepared to do anything to try to achieve what they want. Pakistan is said to be a democracy, an Islamic Republic and a dictatorship at the same time. As result confusion reigns, there is no standard; right and wrong are not considered on a single basis. In sum, Pakistan like all the countries in the Muslim world is a messy soup of confused thought and conflicting ideas. It is little wonder that countries like Pakistan take one step forwards and two steps back whilst gawping at the advancement of the West.

The Need to Return to Islamic Ideology.

Islam obliges Muslims to make sure that every thought; emotion, view, rule and law are linked back to the Islamic aqeeda. The relationship of creation i.e. the purpose of this life is to worship Allah (swt) and the relationship of resurrection that actions undertaken in this life will be accounted on the day of judgement are the basis upon which Muslim societies must proceed. The Muslim world would become revived once society has adopted Islam as the basis in all its relationships and Islam becomes the source of individual and societal actions, emotions and thought. It would be essential that the Khilafah be established to say that we have revived. In the meantime the ummah would head towards revival but it would be incorrect to say revival had occurred as. The ummah would only have true progress and revival once Islam became the basis for all issues.

One of the best examples of revival is that of the Prophet (saw). He (saw) brought the Islamic viewpoint about life to the declined people of Arabia. Once they had embraced the thought and applied it in society via the Islamic ruling system society progressed in an unprecedented manner. The fruits of this revival reverberated through many lands and humanity advanced upon the basis of the message from Allah (swt).

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Source

A Choice Between Tradition and Secularized Islam?

"The idea behind promoting maqasid a shariah is to re-interpret Islam in the modern-era that would enable interaction with the society in a manner that would avoid hardship and enable Muslims to interact with Western society in an appeasing manner. The advocates of such an approach state that the shariah has come with the legal reason (illah) of benefiting the people. From this view, it is understood there are five benefits that are the aims (maqaasid) sought by the shariah: the protection of deen, life, mind, lineage and property. According to this view these aims are taken as the illah for the rules (ahkam) as a whole."

The first generation of Muslim immigrants came to the West carrying with them Islam as a collection of beliefs, rituals and traditions. As Muslims held fast to Islam, the second generation of Muslims started discovering Islam. The first generation of Muslims worked hard to preserve the Islamic heritage of the Muslim community, through the construction of masjids, Islamic schools, and establishing Islamic businesses that sold everything from halal meat to Islamic books. This effort had a tremendous impact on the youth. Through such efforts, the youth found in Islam a source of goodness, a source of guidance, and most of all a source of meaning to live by. However, the youth wanted to obtain a deeper understanding of Islam. They demanded more than the interpretation of Islam that their parents knew. The youth began to see discrepancies between culture and Islam. Is it proper for a woman to dress in a saree? Is hijab a choice or is it an obligation? Can male cousins and female cousins socialize and mix freely? The youth also wanted to understand how Islam offers solutions to preserve one’s identity in the West. Along with this, the youth wanted to present Islam to the non-Muslims in an effective manner. They knew that Islam was the deen of truth, but the onslaught of the media presented Islam as a violent religion. Practicing Islam as a culture, instead of way of thinking, did not afford them the answers they needed to respond to these challenges.

The lack of leadership within the Muslim Ummah, prompted some individuals to present the idea of maqasid a shariah. The idea behind promoting maqasid a shariah is to re-interpret Islam in the modern-era that would enable interaction with the society in a manner that would avoid hardship and enable Muslims to interact with Western society in an appeasing manner. The advocates of such an approach state that the shariah has come with the legal reason (illah) of benefiting the people. From this view, it is understood there are five benefits that are the aims (maqaasid) sought by the shariah, and these are: the protection of deen, life, mind, lineage and property. According to this view these aims are taken as the illah for the rules (ahkam) as a whole. Following on from this it is concluded that if the shariah as a whole seeks these aims—and consequently they are the illah for the rules as a whole—then they must also be the aims of, and the illah for, the individual rules. This is further established from a scrutiny (istiqraa) of the rules themselves, which shows that they seek these aims. So after scrutinizing the text it can be seen from the (divine wisdom) and illah contained within the text, and also from the results of the rules themselves, that these aims are sought. So it is concluded that the aims or benefits that are sought by the shariah are the illah of the ahkaam. Based on this approach, shariah must either acknowledge the maslaha and that there shouldn’t be a text explicitly canceling it or preventing us from considering its benefit. The basis of this approach is justified as follows:

- The claim that the shariah has remained silent on new issues, and that the existing methodology of Islam is incapable of dealing with these issues.
- The claim that the shariah rules change according to time and place, and citing Imam Shafi’i’s fiqh as evidence.
- The claim that the questions we ask about the shariah rule need to be changed.

Practically, this approach requires mental calculation of whether the benefit (masalaha) outweighs the harm. Therefore, if a hukm (law) of Allah (swt) is found to infringe any of these five aspects of the human being then it is deemed unnecessary or even illegal. Alternatively, a law found to increase any of these five areas it is deemed legal and even obligatory. The consequence of this approach is that the daleel (textual evidences) are effectively made irrelevant. Instead daleel is replaced by “cost-benefit analysis”. Such an approach is actually the way the democratic West formulates laws. From the point of view of those that advocate the concept of maqasid a shariah is beneficial as it will make it easier for the Muslims to integrate into Western societies and interact with those that promote Capitalism as a way of life. However, the consequence of this approach is the eradication of the Islamic personality – the Islamic way of thinking is made irrelevant as one no longer needs to rely on daleel but simply can rely on their own mind. Although the claim is that Islam is flexible and adaptable; the reality of such an approach is that it makes Islam subservient to current Capitalist system that is ruling the world. In addition, the consequence of such an approach is the transformation of the youth into promoters of a thinking that is alien to Islam. Human Rights assigned by the United Nations – instead of Divine Rights assigned by Allah (swt) – become the highest law. Success is defined materially instead of spiritually – Muslim youth will seek to climb the corporate ladder and emulate Donald Trump instead of Abu Bakr (ra).

Applying this type of thinking to a practical issue, we can see how this approach leads to an action that contradicts the commandment of Allah (swt). Consider the situation where a married woman converts to Islam, but her husband and children do not. An advocate of using maqasid a shariah as a source of evidence argued that “the woman has just converted to Islam and she has a husband and two young kids. The husband is very supportive but is not at this time interested in converting. The woman was told immediately after converting that she had to divorce her husband of 20 years. Within these circumstances the question should have been: Is it worse for a Muslim woman to be married to a non-Muslim husband or for her to leave the religion? The answer is that leaving the religion is much worse, therefore, it is acceptable for her to continue with her marriage and she is responsible before Allah on Judgment Day.” However, such a solution is completely contradictory to the following ayah
revealed by Allah (swt):

“They are not lawful for the disbelievers, nor are the disbelievers lawful for them” [TMQ Al-Mumtahinah: 10].

Furthermore, this problem occurred at the time of The Prophet (saw) when his daughter Zaynab (ra) accepted Islam while her husband remained a non-Muslim. He (saw) instructed her to leave him and did not go against the definitive command of Allah (swt), because going against the explicit command of Allah (swt) is the greatest harm and evil that can occur here.

Some would correctly point out that maqasid a shariah is not something new, but was developed by classical scholars. However, the difference is in the application. As for the five maqaasid they are the results of certain ahkam and not the illah (i.e. reason of revelation) of these ahkam. For example Islam permitted polygamy without providing an illah. However the reality of applying the hukm of polygamy is that certain problems are solved. For example if the wife cannot bear children or the number of women in society is greater than men; these problems can be solved as a result of applying the rule of polygamy. Hence the hukm of polygamy brings certain results, but these are not the illah of the hukm. Only Allah (swt) can determine the total harm and benefit; and that is why we are in dire need of His (swt) guidance. As Allah (swt) has revealed:

“It may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.” [TMQ 2:216]

Also consider the following narration reported by Imam Ahmed on the authority of Rafi’ b. Khadeej (ra):

"We used to cultivate land in the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw). We used to lease it for a third, fourth or a specified amount of food. One day a man from my paternal relatives came and said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade us from something which was beneficial for us but the obedience of Allah and His Messenger is more beneficial for us. He forbade us from cultivating the land by leasing it for a third, fourth or a certain amount of food, he ordered the landowner either to cultivate it himself or give it to others to cultivate it for their own and he disliked that it be leased or the like."

To embrace Islam as a way of thinking and a way of action is a difficult task. Those who are willing to compromise on the commandments of Islam for various reasons (e.g. Islam is flexible and adaptable) are praised as moderates and modern, while those holding fast to the ahkam of Islam are labeled as extremists, radicals and backward. Regardless of the label they apply on us, we are only permitted to adopt thoughts and actions based on daleel (i.e. evidences from Quran and Sunnah). We cannot allow anyone to reshape Islam to suit their whims and desires. Instead we must make Islam the source of our thoughts and actions. Furthermore, attempting to present Islam in a favorable light will not make the West happy with us. Allah (swt) has revealed to us that the only way to make the Christians and Jews happy is to leave Islam. Allah (swt) revealed:

“Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with you unless you follow their mila (way)” [TMQ 2:120]

Prophet Muhammad (saw) and the sahabas (ra) were steadfast in the face of intimidation and oppression. When they faced challenges their turned to Allah (swt) and relied on Him. The Muslim youth of today are facing similar challenges. The answer does not lie in imitating our oppressors. Instead we should follow the example of Rasullah (saw). In the end, what matters is whether Allah (swt) will be pleased with us.

Source

The Error in the Methodology of the Mutakallimīn (scholastics)

The following is a draft translation of a section from the Arabic book Shaksiyyah Islamiyyah (The Islamic Personality) by Sheikh Taqi ud-deen an-Nabhani Volume 1:

The Emergence of the Mutakallimīn and Their Approach

The Muslims believed in Islam with an imān that did not admit any doubt. Their belief was so strong that it had no trace of any questions that would indicate scepticism. Nor did they discuss the ayāt of the Qur’an except in a manner that would enable them to comprehend the reality of the thought therein. They did not inquire into the suppositions that might be drawn from it nor the logical [mantiqiyya] conclusions that may be deduced from it. They went to the world, carrying this Islamic Da’wah to all the people, fighting in its path, opening the cities, wa danat lahum us-shu’oob

The whole of the first century Hijri elapsed with the current of the Islamic Da’wah overwhelming everything that stood in its way; the Islamic thoughts were being given to the people as they had been received by the Muslims: with a brilliant understanding, a definitive faith and a surprisingly splendid awareness. Yet, the carrying of the Da’wah in the opened (conquered) lands led to an intellectual collision with the people of other religions [adyān] who had not yet embraced Islam as well as (some of) those who had entered its domain. This intellectual collision was strenuous. The people of other religions were acquainted with some philosophical thoughts and had certain viewpoints which they got from their religions and so they used stir skepticism and to debate with the Muslims over creedal points [aqa’id], because the basis of the Da’wah is built upon the aqeedah and the thoughts associated to it. So the Muslims sincerely wished well for (the success) the Islamic Daw’ah and argued with them in order to counter them. This led many of them to learn some philosophical thoughts in order to use these as a weapon against their adversaries. Over and above their sincerity in the carrying the Da’wah and the refutal of their adversaries’ arguments, this learning was jusitified to them and they were motivated towards it by two factors:

Firstly: the Noble Qur’an, besides its call for tauhīd and prophethood, tackled the more prominent sects and religions which were widespread at the time of the Prophet (saw); it countered them and refuted their advocacies. It dealt with shirk, in all its forms, and refuted it. There were amongst the mushrikīn those who took deified the planets and took them as associates to Allah; the Qur’an refuted their belief. Some of them advocated the worship of idols and made them into partners of Allah; it refuted this adovation. Some of them denied prophethood altogether; the Qur’an refuted their belief; some of them denied the prophethood of Muhammad and it refuted this belief. Some of them denied the gathering [hashr] and the calling to account [nashr]; the Qur’an refuted their belief. Some of them deified Jesus (as), or made him into the son of Allah; the Qur’an refuted this belief; and the Qur’an did not suffice with this: it ordered the Messenger (saw) to engage in debate with them:

وَجَادِلْهُم بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ •
“…and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.” (al-Nahl: 125),

وَلَا تُجَادِلُوا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ إِلَّا بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ •
“…and dispute not with the People of the Book, except with that which is better” (al-‘Ankabūt: 46).

Further, the life of the Prophet had been a life of intellectual struggle with all of the kuffār: the mushrikīn and the People of the Book. Many incidents were reported about him in Makkah and Madinah in which he discussed with the kuffār and debated with them as individuals, groups, and delegations. This intellectual struggle which is prominent in the ayāt of the Qur’an and in the ahādith of the Messenger and in his conduct was read and heard by the Muslims; it was thus only natural for them to discuss with the people of other religions and to engage with them in an intellectual struggle and to debate with them. The ahkām of their religion call for such discussion; the nature of the Islamic Call - its clash with kufr - will not take course without the occurrence, between it and kufr, of such struggle, discussion and argumentation. As for that which makes the struggle take on an intellectual character, then the Qur’an itself calls for the use of the intellect, and it cites intellectual proof and sensory evidence. The call to its aqeedah is based exclusively on the mind, not on textual evidence. Thus it was inevitable for the debate and the struggle to take on an intellectual character and to be marked by the same.

Secondly: certain philosophical and theologial issues had leaked to the Muslims from the Nestorian Christians and their like, and the logic of Aristotle was known amongst the Muslims; some had become familiar with certain books of philosophy. Many books were translated from Greek into Syriac and then into Arabic; later, translation was made from Greek (directly) into Arabic. This supported the presence of philosophical thoughts. Some other religions, specifically Judiasm and Christianity, had resorted to Greek philosophy as a weapon and brought it into the (Muslim) lands. All of this generated philosophical thoughts, pushing the Muslims to study them.

Thus these two factors, the rules and thoughts of Islam concerning argumentation and the presence of philosophical thoughts, were the factors which pushed the Muslims to shift to intellectual discussions and philosophical thoughts, learning them and using them as material in their discussions and debates, and they justified this. Yet all of this was not a comprehensive philosophical study but merely a study of (some) philosophical thoughts to refute the Christians and Jews, because it would not have been possible for the Muslims to rebut except after they have familiarised themselves with the arguments of the Greek philosophers, especially those related to logic and theology. Because of this they were urged to be knowledgeable about foreign sects and their arguments and proofs. Thus the Muslim lands became a ground where all opinions and all religions were presented and debated. Undoubtedly, debate provokes pondering and thinking and gives rise to multiple issues that provoke contemplation and lead each group to adopt what it deems most correct. This debate and thinking was extremely instrumental in the emergence of people who took a new path/methodology in inquiry, argumentation and discussion. The philosophical thoughts which they had learnt influenced them greatly, in their method of proving and in some of their thoughts. As a result the science of ‘Ilm al-Kalām [Islamic Scholasticism] developed, becoming a specialised branch of knowledge, and there emerged in the Islamic Lands amongst the Muslims a group of Mutakallimīn [Scholastics].

Since these Mutakallimīn were essentially defending Islam, explaining it rules and, and elucidating the thoughts of the Qur’an, they were mostly influenced by the Qur’an, and the basis on which they built their discussion was the Qur’an. Yet, since they had learnt philosophy in order to defend the Qur’an and use it as a weapon against their adversaries, they evolved a particular methodology of inquiry, verification [taqrīr] and evidencing [tadlīl]; an approach which was different to the methodology of the Qur’an, the Hadīth and the Sahābah, and also different to the methodology of the Greek philosophers in their inquiry, verification and evidencing.

As for their divergence from the methodology of the Qur’an, then the Qur’an’s approach bases its call on an instinctive [fitrī] basis; it is based on this instinct [fitrah] and it addresses the people in a manner consistent with this fitrah. At the same time the Qur’an is based on the intellectual basis; it is based on the mind and addresses the intellects; the Exalted says,

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ لَن يَخْلُقُوا ذُبَاباً وَلَوِ اجْتَمَعُوا لَهُ وَإِن يَسْلُبْهُمُ الذُّبَابُ شَيْئاً لَّا يَسْتَنقِذُوهُ مِنْهُ ضَعُفَ الطَّالِبُ وَالْمَطْلُوبُ•
“Those upon whom you call, besides Allah, cannot create a fly, (even) if they all came together for such! And if the fly should snatch away anything from them, they would have no power to realise it from it. Feeble are the seeker and the besought!” (al-Hajj: 73), and

فَلْيَنظُرِ الْإِنسَانُ مِمَّ خُلِقَ •خُلِقَ مِن مَّاء دَافِقٍ •يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ الصُّلْبِ وَالتَّرَائِبِ •
“Now let man but think: from what he was created! He was created from a drop, emitted, proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs” (al-Tāriq: 5-7), and

فَلْيَنظُرِ الْإِنسَانُ إِلَى طَعَامِهِ •أَنَّا صَبَبْنَا الْمَاء صَبّاً •ثُمَّ شَقَقْنَا الْأَرْضَ شَقّاً •فَأَنبَتْنَا فِيهَا حَبّاً •وَعِنَباً وَقَضْباً •وَزَيْتُوناً وَنَخْلاً •وَحَدَائِقَ غُلْباً •وَفَاكِهَةً وَأَبّاً •
“Then let man look to his food: We pour forth water in abundance, and We split the earth in fragments, and produce therein corn, and grapes and nutritious plants, and olives and dates, and enclosed Gardens, dense with lofty trees, and fruits and fodder” (Abasa: 24-31), and

أَفَلَا يَنظُرُونَ إِلَى الْإِبِلِ كَيْفَ خُلِقَتْ •وَإِلَى السَّمَاء كَيْفَ رُفِعَتْ •وَإِلَى الْجِبَالِ كَيْفَ نُصِبَتْ •وَإِلَى الْأَرْضِ كَيْفَ سُطِحَتْ •
“Do they then not look at the camels, how they are created? At the sky, how it is raised? At the mountains, how they are fixed firm? At the Earth, how it is spread?” (al-Ghāshiyah: 17-20), and

وَفِي أَنفُسِكُمْ أَفَلَا تُبْصِرُونَ•
“And in your own selves: will you not then see?” (al-Dhāriyāt: 21), and

أَمَّن يُجِيبُ الْمُضْطَرَّ إِذَا دَعَاهُ•
“Or, who listens to the (soul) distressed when it calls on Him” (al-Naml: 62).

Thus does the approach of the Qur’an with regards to Allah’s Capability, Knowlegde, and Will run on the basis of the fitrah and the intellect. This approach is consistent with the fitrah and it generates a feeling within every human being to listen and respond to it; even an atheist comprehends it and succumbs to it. It is an approach that suits every human being, with no distinction between the elite and the commoner or between the educated and the uneducated.

Moreover, the mutashabih ayāt wherein is ambiguity [ijmāl] and in which there is lack of clarity for the reader, have come in the general form, without detail; they have come in the form of a general depiction of things or a reporting of realities wherein an lack of inquiry, thoroughness and substantiation is apparent. So the reader does not reject them nor does he truly comprehend the realities denoted by them beyond the denotations of the words therein. Therefore, the natural stance with regards to them is one of acceptance as is the case towards the depiction of any reality and the verification of any fact, without seeking effective causes [ta’līl] or substantiation [tadlīl]. Thus, certain ayāt depict one facet of the actions of man and in so doing indicate compulsion [jabr]; other ayāt depict other facets and in so doing indicate free choice [ikhtiyār]. Allah the Exalted says,

يُرِيدُ اللّهُ بِكُمُ الْيُسْرَ وَلاَ يُرِيدُ بِكُمُ الْعُسْرَ..
“Allah intends for you facility; He does not intend for you difficulty,” (al-Baqarah: 185), and


“And Allah does not wish injustice for the servants” (Ghāfir: 31).

On the other hand, He also says,

“Those whom Allah intends to guide, He opens his breast to Islam; and those whom He intends to send astray, He makes his breast tight and constricted,” (al-An’ām: 125).

Other ayāt establish for Allah the Exalted a face and a hand and speak of Him as the Light of the Heavens and the Earth and state that He is in the Heavens:

“Do you feel secure that He Who is in Heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the earth when it shakes?”(al-Mulk: 16)

“And your Lord comes, and His angels, rank upon rank,” (al-Fajr: 22)

“But will abide (forever) the Face of your Lord,” (al-Rahmān: 27)

“Nay both His Hands are widely outstretched” (al-Mā’idah: 64).

Other ayāt establish his uniqueness [tanzīh]:

“There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him…” (al-Shūrā: 11)

“There is no secret counsel between three but He is the fourth of them, nor (between) five but He is the sixth of them, nor less than that nor more but He is with them wheresoever they are…” (al-Mujādalah: 7)

“Exalted is Allah above what they attribute to Him!” (al-An’ām: 100).

Thus certain ayāt came in the Qur’an which are seemingly contradictory. The Qur’an called such ayāt mutashabihāt (polysemous). Allah the Exalted says,

“…in it are verses decisive (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book; others are not readily intelligible,” (al-Imrān: 7).

When these ayāt were revealed, the Messenger conveyed them to the people and the Muslims memorised them by rote, they did not generate any discussion or debate. They did not see in these ayāt any contradictions that required reconcilation. They understood every ayah with reference to the aspect it came to describe or verify. Thus the ayāt were harmonious in reality and in their selves. They believed in them, trusted them and understood them in a general manner, and they sufficed themselves with this understanding; they regarded them as a description of reality or a reporting of facts. Many amogst the wise did not like the discussion concerning the details of the mutashabihāt and or the debate thereof. They thought that such discussion was of no beneift to Islam. The general understanding, to the extent one understands, would render the discussion of the details and elaborations unnecessary. Thus the Muslims comprehended the approach of the Qur’an and received its ayāt upon this approach throughout the era of the Messenger, and so did those who came after them until the entire first century Hijri had elapsed.

As for their divergence from the methodology of the philosophers, then the philosophers depended solely on syllogisms [barāhīn]; they evolved syllogisms in a logical form from a minor and major premise and a conclusion. They used terminology and jargon such as ‘essence’ and ‘accident’ and the like; they initiated intellectual problems upon which they built on the basis of logic, not on the basis of sense-perception or the reality.

As for the methodology of inquiry adopted by the Mutakallimīn, then it diverges from this. They believed in Allah, in His Messenger and in all that his Messenger came with; what they intended was to prove these beliefs through logical reasoning. They then intitiated inquiry into the recency [hudūth] of the world and to establish proof for the recency of things. They began to expand upon this, and thus new issues opened up before them; they pursued the discussion of these and their offshoots to their logical ends. So, they did not discuss the ayāt in order to understand them as was the approach of those who came before them and as is the purpose of the Qur’an, but they believed in those ayāt and then began to cite evidence for what they themselves understood from them. This is one of aspect from the aspects of the inquiry. As for the other aspect, it is with regards the mutashabihāt ayāt. The Mutakallimīn were not content to have imān in these ayāt in their generalised sense without detail. They collected the ayāt between which was apparent contradiction, after having pursued them, such as those related to compulsion and free choice and those which might indicate the incarnation [jismiyya] of Allah the Exalted. They focused their minds on them and were as presumptuous as none else. Their thinking led them an opinion on every issue. Once they had reached their opinion, they addressed the ayāt which seemed on the apparent to contradict their view and interpreted them away. Such interpretation of meaning [ta’wīl] to match their opinion was the primary characteristic of the Mutakallimīn. Thus if their inquiry led them to the conclusion that Allah is too sublime [munazzah] to be characterised with location and direction, they interpreated away the ayāt which indicate that He the Exalted is in the Heavens and interpreted away His establishing Himself on the Throne [al-istiwā alā ‘l-‘arsh]. If their discussion led them to the conclusion that the negation of the attribute of direction with regards to Allah entails that the eyes of people would be incapable of seeing Him, they interpretated away the reports related to the sighting of Allah by the people. Thus, interpreting the meaning to suit their opinion was a characteristic from amongst the characteristics of the Mutakallimīn and their major distinction from the previous generations [salaf].

This methodology of giving the intellect the freedom to inquire into every thing, the comprehensible and the incomprehensible, the natural and the supernatural, the sensorially perceviable and the sensorially imperceviable, inevitably makes the intellect the basis of (judging) the Qur’an, not the other way round. Thus it was natural for this approach of interpretation to emerge, and it was natural that they would take any direction they chose on the basis that, in their view, the intellect opted for it. This necessitated major discrepancies amongst them. Thus if the reasoning of one group led them to advocate free choice and to interpret away compulsion, the reasoning of others may well lead them to affirm compulsion and to interpret away the ayāt of free choice; it might lead others still to concile both opinions into a new opinion. All of the Mutakallimīn were prominently characterised with two things: first, dependence on logic and syllogization in their proofs, not on the sensorially accessible, and second, dependence on interpreting away the ayāt that contradicted the conclusions they had reached.

The Error in the Methodology of the Mutakallimīn

Upon surveying the methodology of the Mutakallimīn, it becomes evident that it is an incorrect methodology and that applying it does not lead to imān or the strengthening of imān. Applying it does not even lead to thinking or to the strengthening of thinking. It only leads to mere knowledge; and knowledge is different from imān and different from thinking. The error of this methodology is obvious from several directions:

Firstly: in this methodology, reliance in establishing proof is placed on the logical basis, not on the sensory basis. This is wrong because of two reasons. First that it makes the Muslim in need of learning the science of logic in order for him to be able to prove the existence of Allah; this means that those who are not acquainted with logic are incapable of proving the correctness of their aqeedah; it also means that the science of logic becomes, in relation to ‘Ilm al-Kalām, like the science of grammatical syntax in relation to the reading of Arabic after the Arabic tongue has deteriorated, although the science of logic is irrelevant to the aqeedah and is irrelevant to proof. Indeed at the advent of Islam the Muslims did not know the science of logic; they carried the message and established definitive evidence to their creeds without relying on the science of logic whatsoever. This proves that the science of logic has no presence in the Islamic culture and that there is no need for it in any proof of the Islamic aqeedah. Second that the logical basis is susceptible of error unlike the sensory basis, which with regard to the existence or otherwise of things is absolutely infallible; what is susceptible to error should not be a basis for imān.

Logic is susceptible to speciosity [maghālatah] and its conclusions are susceptible to be incorrect, because although it stipulates that the correctness of the premises and the soundness of their structure is a condition, the fact that it consists of the syllogising of one premise upon another makes the correctness of the conclusion dependant upon the correctness of these premises. The correctness of these premises is not guaranteed because the conclusion is not directly founded on sensation, it is founded on the syllogising of premises, on upon another, and thus the correctness of the conclusion is not guaranteed. This is because what occurs in it is that premises are syllogised, one upon another: things able to be comprehended [ma’qūlāt] upon the like, resulting in the same, and things able to be sensorially perceived [mahsūsāt] upon the like, resulting in the same. As for the syllogising of comprehensibles upon comprehensibles, it leads to slipping into error and to contradictory conclusions, and it leads to drifting into a series of premises and conclusions which are rational in theory and by assumption but not with regard to thier existence in reality, so much so that in many of those syllogisms, the end of the road are utter fantasies and absurdities. Thus establishing proof through the syllogising of comprehensibles upon comprehensibles is susceptible to slipping. For example, logically it is said: the Qur’an is the speech of Allah and it is comprised of letters which are arranged and sequenced in existence, and every speech made up of letters arranged and sequenced in existence is recent [hādith]; the conclusion: the Qur’an is recent and created. This syllogising of premises has lead to a conclusion which in inaccessible to the senses; so the intellect is incapable of inquiring into it (as to its correctness) or judging it. Therefore, it is a hypothetical judgement, not a realistic one over and above it being one of the issues which the intellect has been prohibited from discussing. This is because a discussion of the attributes of Allah is a discussion of His essence [dhāt], and in no way is it permissible to discuss the essence of Allah. Yet it is possible to reach, via the same logic, a conclusion contradictory to this one. Thus it is said: the Qur’an is the speech of Allah and it is one of its attributes, and any thing that is an attribute of Allah is eternal [qadīm]; the conclusion: that the Qur’an is eternal and not created. Thus contradiction in logic is evident in one and the same proposition. Likewise, in many logical propositions that are resultant from the syllogising of comprehensibles upon comprehensibles, a logician reaches conclusions which are utterly contradictory and utterly bizarre.

As for the syllogising of the sensorially accessible upon the sensorially accessible, if the premises can be traced back to the senses and the conclusion can be traced back to the senses, the result will be correct, because it is based on the senses in the premises and the conclusion not solely on the syllogising of propositions. However what occurs is that in arriving at truths reliance is placed on the syllogising of propositions, and the noticing of the senses is restricted to what the propositions end with. It may occur that a proposition is imagined to be true to a certain reality but in fact it is not. It may also occur that a proposition which is defined with a general demarcation will be true only to certain parts of it, and this truth of certain parts will lead to the deceptive conclusion that it applies to all parts. It may also be that in the proposition there apparent truth, but in reality it is incorrect, which deceptively means the truth of the proposition. It may also be that the conclusion is correct but the premises from which it is concluded are false, from which it may be imagined that because the conclusion is correct, so too are the premises…and so forth. Thus, it has been said, for example, that the inhabitants of Spain are not Muslims, and every land whose inhabitants are not Muslims is not an Islamic Land; the conclusion is that Spain is not an Islamic Land. This conclusion is wrong. Its error come from the error of the second premise: the statement that every land whose inhabitants are not Muslims is not an Islamic Land is false because a land is deemed Islamic if it were ruled by Islam or if the majority of its inhabitants are Muslims. This is why the conclusion is wrong; Spain is indeed an Islamic Land. As another example, it has been said that America is a country of high economic standard, and every country of high economic standard is a revived country. The conclusion is that America is a revived country. This conclusion is true with regards to America, although one of the two premises is false: not every country with a high economic standard is revived; a revived country is one with a high intellectual standard. Thus, this syllogism, whose conclusion is true, deceptively leads one to assume that the premises from which the conclusion was arrived at are also correct. It also leads to proposition that each of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia is a revived country because each has a high economic standard, although the truth is that these are not revived countries. Thus, the correctness of the conclusions of all syllogisms is dependent on the correctness of the premises. The truth of the premises is not guaranteed because they are susceptible to having flaws.

Therefore, it is erroneous to depend on the logical basis in the establishment of proof. This does not mean that the truths reached via logic are false or that the establishment of proof via logic is erroneous, but it means that reliance in the establishment of proof on the logical basis is erroneous and that taking logic as a basis in the establishment of arguments is erroneous. It is the senses that are to be made the basis for proof and evidence. As for logic, it is valid to use for the establishment of the proof of the correctness of a proposition and it would be correct if all the premises are true and if they together with the conclusion were traceable back to the senses. The correctness of the conclusion comes from its being deduced from the premises, not from anything else. Yet, its susceptibility to being erroneous makes it imperative that it is not made a basis in the establishment of proof because as a whole, it is an uncertain basis which is susceptible to error, although proof by means of some forms of it can be conclusive. It is the senses that must be made the basis of proof, because as a whole this is a definite basis regarding the existence or otherwise of things; it is completely insusceptible to error.

Secondly: the Mutakallimīn departed from the sensorially accessible; they went beyond it to the sensorially inaccessible, and inquired into the supernatural: the essence of Allah and His attributes, into that which the senses cannot perceive, and they connected this with inquires into matters related to the sensorially accessible. They went into excess in drawing analogy of the unseen with the apparent, that is, drawing analogy of Allah with man, so they necessitated justice, as envisaged by man in this worldly life, upon Allah. They deemed it necessary that Allah do that in which there is betterment. Some of them even necessitated upon Allah that he do that which is the best, because (according to them) Allah is Wise and He does not do anything except for a purpose or a wisdom; an action without a purpose is meaningless and futile; a wise (being) either benefits himself or others, and since Allah the Exalted is too sublime to be benefited, He only acts to benefit others.

Thus they overstepped into discussions of the sensorially inaccessible and of issues which the intellect is incapable of judging, and so they blundered. They missed the point that the sensorially accessible is comprehensible and that the essence of Allah is incomprehensible, so it is not possible to draw analogy of one upon the other. They were inattentive to the fact that the Justice of Allah is incomparable to the justice of man, and that it is invalid to apply the laws of this world to Allah, who is the Creator of this world and the one who regulates it according the laws he set for it. When we do see that when the perspective of man is narrow, he understands matters in a given way and that once his perspective widens, his view of justice changes and his judgement changes as well; how then do we compare (to ourselves) the Lord of the Worlds whose Knowledge encompasses everything and give His Justice the meaning of justice that we ourselves see to be justice? As for betterment and that which best, it proceeds from there view of justice; what they say about justice is what they say about these. It is observable in this regard that man can view a given thing as good, but once his perspective widens his view changes. For example, the Muslim world today is dar al-kufr having abandoned the rule of Islam; so all Muslims view it as a corrupt world and most of them say that it is in need of reform [islāh]. But the aware see that reform means the removal of corruption from the status quo, and this is erroneous: the Muslim world in need of a radical and comprehensive change [inqilāb] that removes the rule of kufr and implements the rule of Islam; any (mere) reform includes the prolongation of corruption. Thus it is seen how the view of man towards what is good changes. How then do we subject Allah to the judgement of man and deem it necessary for Him to do what we see as good or better? If we made our mind the judge, we would see that Allah did things which our minds see no good whatsoever in; what good is there, for example, in the creation of Iblīs and the shayātīn and giving them the ability to misguide man; why did Allah give Iblīs respite until the Day of Judgement and let our Master Muhammad (saw) die? Is all this better for people? Why does he allow removal of the rule of Islam from the Earth and enable the dominance of the rule of kufr, humiliate the Muslims and enable the dominance of their kafir enemies? Is this better for the His servants? If we proceeded in enumeration of thousands of acts and judged them by our mind and our understanding of the meaning of good and better, we would not find them good. Therefore the comparison of Allah to man is not correct, and nothing is incumbent upon Allah:

“He is not questioned about His acts…” (al-Anbiyā’: 23)

“There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him” (al-Shūra: 11). Indeed, what made the Mutakallimīn slip into all this is there methodology of inquiry and their comparing Allah to man.

Thirdly: the methodology of the Mutakallimīn gives the intellect the freedom of inquiry into every thing, into the sensorially accessible and the sensorially inaccessible. This inevitably results in the intellect inquiring into matters that it is incapable of judging, and inquiring into suppositions and imaginations, and establishing evidence to support mere conceptions of things that may exist or may not exist. This allows for the possibility of the rejection of things which definitely exist: things of which we were informed by a (source) the truth of whose information is definite for us but the intellect does not comprehend them. It also allows for the possibility of having imān in fantastical having no existence conjured up by the mind. For example, the Mutakallimīn discussed the essence of Allah and his attributes: some of them said that an attribute [sifah] is one and the same as the attribute carrier [mawsūf]; others said that the attribute is other than the attribute carrier. They said that the knowledge of Allah is the unfolding [inkishāf] of the Known as it is, and the Known changes from one time to another: the leaf of a tree falls after having been not fallen, and Allah says,

“Not a leaf does fall except that He knows of it” (al-An’ām: 59). With the knowledge of Allah a thing unfolds as it is; thus Allah knows that a thing will be before it is and He knows that a thing was when it was and He knows that a thing no longer is when it no longer is. So how does the knowledge of Allah change with the change in things? The knowledge that changes with the change of things recent is a recent knowledge and a recent thing does not lie in Allah because that with which the recent is associated is itself recent. Others amongst the Mutakallimin replied to this by saying: it is self-evident that our knowledge that Zayd will come upon us is other than our knowledge that he has indeed come; this distinction is due to the renewal of the knowledge; but this is applicable to man because it is he whose knowledge is renewed because the source of his knowledge, sensation and comprehension, is renewed. But with Allah there is no distinction between something destined that will be, a realised thing that was, an accomplished thing that occurred and a predicted thing that will occur. Indeed, information with regards to Him is of one state. Other Mutakallimin replied: Allah inherently knows all that was and that will be, all information is known by him as one knowledge, and the difference between what will be and what was stems from the change in things not in the knowledge of Allah. All this discussion deals with matters that are sensorially inaccessible, and upon which the intellect cannot judge; so it is not allowed for the intellect to inquire into them. But they discussed them and reached these conclusions in line with their methodology that gives the intellect the freedom to inquire into everything. They imagined things and discussed them. For example, they conceived that the Will of Allah is associated with the action of the servant (man) when the servant willed the action, that is, Allah created the action when the servant was capable and willing, not with servant’s capability and will.

This subject matter was only conceived and hypothesised by those who inquired into these matters; sensorilly, it has no reality, but they gave the intellect the freedom of inquiry so they inquired into it, formed this conception and deemed it compulsory to believe in it and they named it kasb [acquisition] and ikhtiyār [choice]. Had they restricted the inquiry of the mind into the sensorially accessible only, they would have realised that the action insofar as the creation of all of its materials is concerned, it is only from Allah, because creation from nothing only comes from the Creator. As for the manipulation of these materials and the effecting of the action therefrom, this is from the servant, just like any industry he carries out, like the making of a chair for example. Had they restricted the inquiry of the intellect into the sensorially accessible alone, they would not have believed in much of the fantasies and theoretical suppositions (they came up with).

Fourthly: The methodology of the Mutakallimin makes the intellect the basis of the entire imān. Consequently, they made the intellect the basis for the Qur’an; they did not make the Qur’an the basis for the intellect. They built their interpretation of the Qur’an accordingly on their bases of absolute elevation [tanzīh] (of Allah), the freedom of the will, justice and the doing of that which is better (by Allah) and so on. They made the intellect the arbitrator in the ayāt which are seemingly contradictory; they made it the ultimate arbitrator between the mutashābihāt and they interpreted away the ayāt which do not agree with the view they opted for, so much so that interpreting away of texts became a method of thiers, Mu’tazilah, Ahl al-Sunnah, and Jabriyyah alike. This is because the basis for them is not the ayah but the intellect; the ayah should be interpreted to conform with the intellect. Thus the employing of the intellect as a basis for the Qur’an resulted in error in the inquiry and in the subject matter of the inquiry. Had they employed the Qur’an as the basis, and had they built the intellect upon the Qur’an, they would not have slipped into what they slipped into.

Indeed, the imān that the Qur’an is the speech of Allah is based on the intellect only, but after this imān is established the Qur’an itself, not the intellect, becomes the basis for the imān in what it contains. Therefore, with regards the ayāt that comes in the Qur’an, the intellect should not judge the truth or otherwise of their meaning. The ayāt themselves judge, and the role of the intellect in this case is only to understand. The Mutakallimin did not do this; rather, they made the intellect the basis for the Qur’an and because of this their interpreting of ayāt (to conform to a certain preconceived meaning) of the Qur’an occurred.

Fifthly: the Mutakallimin made their antagonism with the philosophers the basis of their inquiry. The Mu’tazilah took from the philosophers and argued against them; Ahl al-Sunnah and the Jabriyyah argued against the Mu’tazilah; they also took form the philosophers and argued against them, whereas the subject matter of the inquiry is Islam, not the antagonism with the philosophers or any other group. It is upon them to inquire into the subject matter of Islam, that is, to inquire into what the Qur’an brought and what the Hadīth contained and to restrict their inquiry to it and to its discussion, irrespective of any person. However they did not do this. They converted the conveyance of Islam and the expounding of its aqa’id into debates and polemics; they degraded it from a driving force within the heart, from the clarity and the fervour of the aqeedah, to a polemic feature and a rhetorical profession.

These are the major fallacies of the methodology of the Mutakallimīn. One of the consequences of this methodology was that the discussion of the Islamic aqeedah transformed from being the means of calling to Islam and explaining it for people into a discipline which is taught, like the science of syntax or any of the disciplines which were born after the conquests. This was in spite of the fact that if it were at all valid to establish a discipline for any of the branches of knowledge of Islam, it would be invalid to do this with the Islamic aqeedah, because it is itself the subject matter of the Da’wah and it is the basis of Islam; it should be given to people exactly as it came in the Qur’an. The method of the Qur’an in conveying it to people and in expounding it to them should be implemented as the method of calling to Islam and explaining its thoughts. Therefore, it is imperative that the methodology of the Mutakallimīn be abandoned and that the methodology of the Qur’an alone be reverted to, namely, basing the Da’wah on the fitrah whilst basing it on the intellect within the limits of the sensorially accessible.

Britain under Gordon Blair

Like Blair, Brown is expected to fully extend Britain’s cooperation to America and at the same time search for opportunities to frustrate American plans and strengthen British assets.

By Abid Mustafa

Much has been said about Tony Blair stepping down as the Prime Minster of Britain. Most political commentators and media pundits have summed up Blair’s legacy in one word— Iraq. They describe his decision to invade Iraq as a monumental failure of British foreign policy in the Middle East and a setback to Anglo-Muslim relations world-wide. Others have gone much further in their condemnation of Blair’s neo- colonial policies, and attribute Blair’s servitude to American interests behind Britain’s flagging popularity around the world. However, away from the critics both at home and abroad, the astute observer cannot help but notice that Blair— far from the discredited leader— may go down as the most influential British Prime Minister of modern times.

On May 10 2007, Blair delivered a telling speech at Trimdon Labour Club in his Sedgefield constituency. Apart from the obvious announcement of his resignation, Blair unashamedly justified his decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and gave a buoyant assessment of Britain’s position in the world. Blair said, "Britain is not a follower, it is a leader. It gets the essential characteristic of today's world: its interdependence. This is a country today that, for all its faults, for all the myriad of unresolved problems and fresh challenges, is comfortable in the 21st Century, at home in its own skin, able not just to be proud of its past but confident of its future… But believe one thing if nothing else - I did what I thought was right for our country. I came into office with high hopes for Britain's future. I leave it with even higher hopes for Britain's future." …This is the greatest nation on Earth. It has been an honour to serve it."

Ten years ago, under the shadow of America’s ever expanding empire, Britain faced an uncertain future. Her influence in Africa was openly challenged, her Raj in the sub-continent, especially India was in decline, and her surrogates in the Middle East suffocated under immense American pressure. A decade on, the fortunes of Britain and the US appear to have reversed. America is slowly bleeding to death from two open wound in Iraq and Afghanistan that show no signs of abating. This has prompted Richard Hass the head of the most powerful US think tank to comment:”the age of U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended and a new era in the modern history of the region has begun. It will be shaped by new actors and new forces competing for influence, and to master it, Washington will have to rely more on diplomacy than on military might.”

Whilst influential US policy makers spell out the numerous challenges to US primacy in various parts of the world, Blair is among the few in Britain who foresee a golden opportunity for Britain to take maximum advantage of America’s predicament. Blair’s recent tour of Africa bears testimony to this newfound optimism. During his tenure in office, Blair thwarted America’s bid to oust President Kabbah of Sierra Leone and worked diligently to rescue Gaddafi’s government from clutches of American neoconservatives who after September 11 wanted regime change in Libya. In South Africa Blair competed tirelessly with the US to protect British influence there and made the country the mainstay of anti-government activities in neighbouring African countries. Mbeki the loyal servant of the Crown paid tribute to Blair. He said, “Now there isn’t anybody in the world who wouldn’t want to put the Africa issue on the agenda. And I say it’s thanks a lot, Prime Minister, to the position that you took.”

It was during Blair’s period in office that Britain reasserted its influence over India through the ascendancy of the Congress Party to power in May 2004. The defeat of the pro-American Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was a severe blow to American interest. With India under British control, Britain felt confident enough to foment opposition to American governance in neighbouring Pakistan and Bangladesh. In both countries the opposition was engineered and led by pro-British personalities like Benazir Bhutto and Shiekh Hasina.

Apparently, the greatest shift in the political landscape is materializing in the Middle East. For the first time in many years, British agents find themselves with more room to breathe and operate in. In Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries British assets have been mobilised to foil American projects under the guise of partnership and co-operation. Graham Fuller former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council described America's predicament correctly when he wrote in the issue of the National Interest, "diverse countries have deployed a multiplicity of strategies and tactics designed to weaken, divert, alter, complicate, limit delay or block the Bush agenda through death by a thousand cuts."

Many people in Britain and around the world still hope that Blair’s replacement Gordon Brown will lessen Britain’s involvement in foreign affairs, and guide Britain to tread a foreign policy path independent of US interests. They are gravely mistaken. Britain cannot afford to squander the gains it has made by re-recalibrating its relationship with the US. In this respect, Blair’s recent visit to the US, closely followed by Brown’s meeting with President Bush is confirmation that Britain will continue to support the Bush administration. Like Blair, Brown is expected to fully extend Britain’s cooperation to America and at the same time search for opportunities to frustrate American plans and strengthen British assets. This duplicity in policy should not be misconstrued as Britain possessing the ability to confront America. On the contrary, Britain’s ability is far removed from replacing America as the leading state. Nonetheless, Britain is very slowly navigating that the direction and actively participates in ventures that threatens to dislodge America from its perch.

On the domestic front there are no significant changes in policies of the Labour Party. The Brown government intends to further rollback civil liberties, introduce more draconian laws, and make life difficult for its Muslim populace. The recent amateur attacks in London and Glasgow will be exploited to establish new anti terror measures, consolidate Brown’s popularity and send an unequivocal message to its counterparts in the US that Britain is fully committed to America’s Global War on Terror (GWOT). The only noticeable difference between Blair and Brown is in the manner of ruling. Brown wants to reach members of the Labour Party and British society disgruntled by Blair’s authoritive style of ruling. To accomplish this, Brown has sought to broaden his parliamentary base and public appeal. He has appointed ministers of different political persuasions, as well as Muslims MPs to his cabinet. He also unveiled plans to formulate a written constitution and a bill of rights. The aim is to engender trust in the British political system, reduce political alienation and convey a sense of pride in the British identity.

There is a modicum difference between Labour and Conservative— the leaders of both parties i.e. Brown and Cameron endeavour to emulate the policies left behind Blair but each faces a different set of problems. The Labour Party is replete with internal schisms between the supporters of Blair and Brown. On the other hand the Conservative Party is struggling to define policies that differ from Labour and are attractive to the electorate. Brown’s success in the 2009 general election largely depends on how well he manages his party rather than concentrate on how to marginalize the opposition.

Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specialises in foreign affairs

Source