Wednesday, October 31, 2007

All Permitted (Mubah) Actions Require a Daleel (evidence)

The text of both the Qur'an and Sunnah address many topics such as, stories of previous Ummahs, the Day of Judgment, and others. However, the text which specifically addresses our actions of what to do or what not to do is referred to as Hukm Sharii.

The term Hukm Sharii, in Arabic, means the address of the Legislator related to our actions. Islam addresses all of our actions, whether they are permitted or not. Accordingly, all of our actions have to be guided by the Hukm Sharii.Many Muslims are too quick to conclude that something is either Haram (prohibited) or Fard (compulsory) after a quick reading of an Ayah or a Hadith. Not all commands in the legislative sources are Fard or Haram. the rules which are used to differentiate the types of Hukm Sharii are again related to Usul al Fiqh.There are 5 different categories of Hukm Shariah.They are

1.Fard or Wajib(obligatory)

2.Mandoub(reccommended)

3.Makrooh(Disliked)

4.Haraam(prohibited)

5.Permitted Actions(Mubah)

There are many misconceptions regarding permitted matters(Mubah).Here are some

1- It had become implanted in people's minds nowadays, that it is permitted to adopt any matter which did not contradict Islam and which was not prohibited by a Shari'ah text. They used as evidence the fact that the Messenger of Allah had found contracts dating back to the days of Jahiliyyah (ignorance) existing among people and he had approved them, and that which he did not approve of, he prohibited. Hence, that which he approved was permitted and that which he prohibited was unlawful. Likewise, it was permitted to adopt any thought, or rule, or law that did not contradict Islam and that had not been prohibited.

2- The Mubah (permitted) is that which carries no rebuke. Hence the absence of the rebuke is a permission. So taking a matter whose prohibition has not been mentioned would be Mubah. Furthermore, the Shari'ah kept silent about it and did not outline its rule, and whatever Shari'ah kept silent about is Mubah. It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah said: ''Truly Allah has commanded some obligations, hence do not neglect them; and He prohibited certain matters, hence do not violate them; and He determined certain limits, hence do not transgress them and He condoned certain matters out of mercy, not forgetfulness, hence do not search for them.'' In another narration, he said: ''And that which He kept silent about is a condonation(permission).'' Therefore, anything that Shari'ah kept silent about is Mubah. The adoption of rules and laws which have not been mentioned by the Shari'ah and which the Shari'ah did not mention by any prohibition is part of the Mubah. This is since there is no rebuke about them, and since no prohibition was mentioned, and since it was not mentioned by the Shari'ah and because the Shari'ah kept silent about it.

3- Some claim that democracy is from Islam, for it is based on shura' (consultation), justice and equality. It was also based on giving the authority to the Ummah, and this is what Islam is concerned with. Islam equates between rich and poor, rights and duties and between a minister and a shepherd and makes their affairs amongst them based on shura' and makes enjoining Ma'aruf and forbidding Munkar one of the most important principles. Shura' in Islam has been organised in modern times by what the Europeans refer to as parliament. Enjoining Ma'aruf and forbidding Munkar has been formulated in the modern civilisation through the freedom of press to criticise and the freedom of individuals and groups to write and voice their opinions frankly. They approve what they see and they disapprove what they see and they speak as they wish. Hence no person is beyond reproach, nor is the government, or the Wali. What straightens them, deters them and forces them to keep to the straight and narrow is the awareness of public opinion and its freedom of criticism. This is what is referred to in the Qur'an as ''joining together in the mutual teaching of Truth.'' In this way it was deduced that democracy is from Islam and the Qur'an mentioned it and the Messenger commanded it.

The errors in these thoughts

This is where the flaws and the deviation occurred, because the thoughts concerning these three matters were a fundamental error in their understanding of Islam. This is attributable to several aspects:

1- There is a difference between the thoughts related to Aqeedah matters namely the doctrines and Shari'ah rules, and the thoughts related to sciences, techniques, industries and the like. It is permitted to adopt the thoughts related to sciences, techniques and the like, provided these do not contradict Islam. As for the thoughts related to Aqeedah matters and Shari'ah rules, it would be forbidden to adopt any of them, except those brought to us by the Messenger of Allah whether it was from the Book of Allah (swt), or the Sunnah, or from what the Book and the Sunnah have guided to. Evidence about this is reflected in what Muslim reported that the Messenger of Allah said: ''I am but human like you. Hence, if I ordered you something related to your Deen's affairs, do take it, and if I ordered you something related to your worldly affairs, then I am only human.'' Evidence is also reflected in the Hadith about the pollination of palm trees, where he was reported to have said: ''You are better acquainted with your worldly affairs.'' Therefore that which is not part of the Shari'ah, namely the Aqeedah matters and the rules, can be taken as long as it does not contradict Islam. However, that which is part of the Shari'ah, namely Aqeedah matters and rules, can only be taken from what the Messenger of Allah brought and nothing else. The democratic rules and laws are rules taken to solve man's problems, hence they form part of the legislation. Thus it would be wrong to adopt them, unless they have been brought by the Messenger of Allah . It would be wrong to adopt them unless they were Shari'ah rules and nothing else.

2- The Messenger of Allah has explicitly forbidden us from taking anything other than what he brought. Muslim reported on the authority of Aisha (ra) that the Messenger of Allah said: ''He who introduces in our order something that is alien to it, must be rejected.'' In another narration, he was reported to have said: ''He who performs an action alien to our order, must be rejected.'' Bukhari also reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (ra) that the Messenger of Allah said: ''The Hour shall not come until my Ummah follows the ways of the nations before her, hand span to hand span and arm length to arm length.'' Upon this they asked: ''Is it the Persians and the Romans?'' He replied: ''Who else among people but them?'' Bukhari also reported on the authority of Abu Said Al-Khudri (ra) that the Messenger of Allah said: ''You shall follow the ways of those before you hand span to hand span and arm length to arm length, and even if they entered a lizard's hole you will follow them.'' I said: ''O Messenger of Allah! You mean the Jews and the Christians?'' He replied: ''Who else?'' These texts clearly forbid us from taking anything from others. The first Hadith, with its two narrations, is clear about the prohibition and about the censure of taking, for it says: ''It should be rejected.'' The other two Ahadith contain the meaning of prohibition. This prohibition is applicable to the taking of the rules of the constitution and the laws from other than Islam, because it is introducing something alien to our order, even taking from other than our order. It is an emulation of those who are like the Persians and the Romans, namely the British and the French, who are from the Romans, hence, it is forbidden to take these rules and laws.

3 - The Messenger of Allah , even in his capacity as a Messenger, never used to answer when asked about a rule which had not been explained by the revelation. He used to wait until Allah (swt) had revealed such a rule. Bukhari reported on the authority of ibn Mas'ud (ra) that ''the Messenger of Allah was asked about the spirit and he remained silent until the verse was revealed.'' Bukhari also reported on the authority of Jabir ibn Abdullah (ra) who said: ''I was taken ill once and the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr came to visit me. He came to me while I was unconscious, so he performed Wulu and then poured that water over me, so I regained consciousness and then said: O Messenger of Allah! How do I judge in my assets? What do I do with my assets? He said nothing to me until the verse of inheritance was revealed.'' This indicates that it is forbidden to take from other than what is revelation. If the Messenger of Allah refrained from giving an opinion until the revelation came to him, this proves that nothing is to be taken apart from what the Revelation has indicated.

4- Allah (swt) has commanded us to take what the Messenger of Allah has ordered and to abstain from taking what he has prohibited. Allah (swt) also commanded us to refer in judgement to the Messenger of Allah , namely to what the Messenger of Allah has brought. Allah (swt) says:

''And take whatever the Messenger has brought to you and refrain from whatever he has forbidden you.''[Al Hashr, 7]

This means that we should not take anything that the Messenger of Allah has not brought to us. As for the opposite understanding of ''....whatever he has forbidden you..'' this is inapplicable and nullified by the generality of the Shari'ah texts which prohibit the taking of anything other than from the Islamic Shari'ah, such as Allah (swt) saying:

''No by your God, they shall not become true believers until they make you judges in all disputes amongst them.'' [Al Nisa'a, 65]

And also in His saying (swt)

''They wish to refer in judgement to Taghut (evil) whilst they have been commanded to reject it.'' [Al-Nisa'a, 60]

Also such as the saying of the Messenger of Allah : ''Any action alien to our order must be rejected.'' This should be the case with every opposite understanding. If a Shari'ah text were to indicate other than what we deduce from it, then this understanding should be nullified and should not be applicable, such as Allah (swt) saying:

''And do not force your maids to commit fornication if they wished to remain chaste.'' [Al Nur, 33]

the opposite understanding of which is that if they did not wish to remain chaste, it would be permitted to force them. However, this understanding is nullified by the generality of the text which forbids fornication, which is Allah (swt) saying:

''and do not approach fornication.'' [Al Isra, 32]

Therefore, the meaning of the verse would be to abide by what the Messenger of Allah has ordered and to abstain from what he has forbidden. Hence, we must not only make lawful what Allah (swt) has made lawful, and we must forbid what Allah (swt) has forbidden. That which the Messenger of Allah has not brought to us, we do not take it and that which he has not forbidden we do not forbid. However, the non prohibition does not mean the permissibility of taking, for it is forbidden to take from other than Shari'ah, it rather means the non prohibition of that which Allah has not forbidden. This is the meaning of the verse.

If this verse were linked to Allah (swt) saying:

''Let those who violate his command beware of being struck by Fitna or by a severe punishment'' [Al Nur, 63]

if it were known that the phrase ''whatever'' in His saying ''Whatever he has brought to you'' and ''Whatever he has forbidden you'' were a term of generality, the obligation of taking what he has brought would clearly be manifested, and that the prohibition of taking from other than what he had brought would be a sin that carries a severe penalty.

Allah (swt) also says:

''No by your God, they shall not become true believers until they make you judge in matters that are of dispute amongst them.'' [Al Nisa'a, 65]

Hence, He(Allah swt) denied Iman from those who refer in their judgement to other than the Messenger of Allah in their actions, which indicates conclusively that reference in judgement should be restricted only to what the Messenger of Allah has brought.

Besides, Allah (swt) has rebuked those who wished to refer in judgement to other than what the Messenger of Allah has brought. He (swt) says:

''Did you not see those who pretend to have believed in what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed before you; they wish to refer in judgement to Taghut(evil) whilst they have been ordered to reject it; and Shaytan wishes to lead far astray'' [Al Nisa'a, 60]

This indicates that referring the judgement to other than what the Messenger of Allah has brought would be a deviation and a reference in judgement to Taghut(falsehood).

5- The Shari'ah rule is the address of the Legislator related to the actions of the servants, and the Muslims are commanded to refer in their actions to the address of the Legislator and to conduct their affairs in accordance with this address. So, even if they adopted something that does not contradict the address of the legislator in any of their actions or in any of their conducts, they would have in this case taken other than the Shari'ah rule, for they would not have taken the original Shari'ah rule, but rather that which does not contradict it, hence their adoption would not be an adoption of the Shari'ah rule. Besides, if one were to take that which conforms with the Shari'ah rule, but from other than the Book and the Sunnah, this adoption would be forbidden for it is not the taking of the Shari'ah rule, but rather an adoption of other than the Shari'ah rule that happens to agree with the Shari'ah rule. In this case it would not be a reference to what the Messenger of Allah has brought, but a reference to other than what he has brought, despite its agreement with it. This is so because the Muslim is commanded to adopt the Shari'ah rule and nothing else. For instance, marriage according to the Shari'ah is subject to a Shari'ah based offer and acceptance, with the wordings of Inkah (marrying off) and Tazwij (acceptance in marriage) and in the presence of two Muslim witnesses. If a Muslim man and woman went to a church, and a priest undertook the marriage contract on the basis of Christianity using the words of Inkah and Tazwij in the presence of two Muslim witnesses, would they be considered to be married according to the Shari'ah rule or according to other than that? In other words, would they have referred to what the Messenger of Allah has brought, or to what the distorted and abrogated Christianity has brought? Also, for instance, if a Christian died and his family were to divide his inheritance among themselves according to the rules of Islam, because Islam is fair, just or beneficial, and if they were to take a limitation of succession document from the Shari'ah court, would they have referred to the Shari'ah rule, or would they have merely taken the system because it was fair, just or beneficial? They would have undoubtedly taken other than the Shari'ah rule, because the taking of the Shari'ah rule should be taken because the Messenger of Allah has brought it, as it is part of the commands and the prohibitions of Allah (swt). Only then would its taking be considered a taking of the Shari'ah rule. However, the taking of the rule because the rule is just and fair, or because it is beneficial, is not considered taking the Shari'ah rule. The verse states ''Until they make you judge'' and it states ''And take whatever the Messenger has brought to you'',

Thus a rule should be taken on the basis of the fact that it has been brought by the Messenger of Allah . Accordingly anything that is taken on other than this basis, it would not be considered a Shari'ah rule regardless of whether this agreed with the Shari'ah rule or contradicted it and even if the same Shari'ah rule were taken as it is, but not taken because the Messenger of Allah has brought it, but rather because it is beneficial and just.

6- The Messenger of Allah's approval of the Kufr contracts is exclusive to him , in his quality as the Messenger of Allah, as his approval is legislation, just like his sayings and his actions. This quality is not conferred upon any other person but him . Therefore, whatever the Messenger of Allah performed, said, or approved is considered as legislation and it is based on the revelation. No one apart from the Messenger of Allah has the right to legislate. Hence, the contracts which the Messenger of Allah has approved have become Shari'ah rules, even if they had been contracts of the times of Jahiliyyah (ignorance). This is because their approval by the Messenger of Allah serves as evidence that they are Shari'ah rules, even if these were acts of worship. Hence, they would have been deduced from the approval of the Messenger of Allah and would have been taken on that basis, not because they had been contracts of Jahiliyyah which happened not to contradict Islam. The Sahaba (ra) used to refer to the silence of the Messenger of Allah over a rule as evidence about the rule being a Shari'ah rule. In addition, the fact that there are many incidents in which the silence of the Messenger of Allah served as evidence that they were part of the Shari'ah rules.

7- The Mubah is not that which carries no (haraj) rebuke, for the absence of rebuke from the performing or the refraining does not indicate a Shari'ah permission, nor does the lifting of rebuke necessitate the granting of choice. The prohibition of something does not mean the commanding of its opposite. Also, the commanding of something does not mean the prohibition of its opposite. The lifting of rebuke could be coupled with the obligation, as is the case in Allah's (swt) saying:

''And he who makes Hajj to the House or Umrah, there is no rebuke in making Tawaf''
[Al Baqarah, 158]

Hence, the Tawaf during Hajj and Umrah is an obligation and not Mubah. Also, the lifting of rebuke could be a Rukhsah (exception), as is the case in Allah's (swt) saying:

''Hence, there is no rebuke if you were to shorten your prayers'' [Al Nisa'a, 101]

Here, the lifting of rebuke does not mean the permissibility. Therefore, the Mubah is not that which there is no rebuke in it, rather the mubah is that which the heard evidence from the address of the Legislator has indicated the granting of choice between performing or abstaining without any other alternative. Hence, the Ibaha (permissibility) is that which the Shari'ah has granted the choice between taking and abstaining, either by directly mentioning the granting of the choice in the text itself such as Allah's (swt) saying:

''Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth, when or how you will'' [ Al Baqarah, 223]

or such as Allah's (swt) saying :

''And eat both of you freely with pleasure and delight, of things therein as wherever you will''
[ Al Baqarah, 35]

or by deducing the understanding from the text such as Allah's (swt) saying:

''But when you finish the Ihram'' [ Al Maidah, 2]

or His (swt) saying

''and when the Salat is over you may disperse'' [ Al-Jum'ah, 10]

or His (swt) saying

''Do eat from the good things We have provided for you'' [ Al Baqarah, 57]

Besides, the Ibaha is part of the Shari'ah rules, and the Shari'ah rule is the address of the Legislator related to the actions of the servants, so it requires a Shari'ah evidence from the heard evidences to indicate that the thing is Mubah in order for it to be Mubah. Hence, the absence of a Shari'ah rule about something to indicate that it is Wajib, or Mandub, or Haram or Makruh, does not indicate that it is Mubah, for it still requires a Shari'ah rule to indicate its Ibaha.

As for the things and actions which existed before the arrival of Shari'ah, such as contracts and transactions among others, their Ibaha was not a continuation of what they had been before the arrival of the Shari'ah, it is rather derived from a Shari'ah text that indicated it. Trade was mentioned by a Shari'ah text, that is Allah (swt) saying:

''And Allah made trade lawful and made usury unlawful'' [ Al Baqarah, 275]

Hiring was performed by the Messenger of Allah , for it has been reported that he hired a man from Bani Al-Dayl as a guide to show him the way. Hence, the Ibaha (permissibility) of trade and that of hire has come from a Shari'ah text, and not from its continuation from the days of Jahiliyyah. As well as being a saying from the Qur'an, or a saying from the Messenger of Allah , the Shari'ah text could also be an action, that is the action of the Messenger of Allah , and it could also be a silence, that is the silence of the Messenger of Allah . Thus whatever continued in terms of actions, things, contracts and transactions from the days of Jahiliyyah to the days of Islam, and which the Muslims continued to pursue, they would have pursued it because a Shari'ah evidence had come to indicate its Ibaha, either by a saying from the Qur'an or the Messenger of Allah , or by an action of the Messenger or by his silence , but not just by a continuation of what had existed in the days of Jahiliyyah.That which has not been established as a Shari'ah evidence, such as a saying, or an action or a silence, and had existed in the days of Jahiliyyah, should not continue and should not be taken, even if no prohibition were mentioned. A Shari'ah evidence should rather be sought for it. Hence the Ibaha of that which had existed before the arrival of Shari'ah and continued after its arrival, has been established by a Shari'ah rule related to it.

It would be wrong to say that because the Shari'ah has kept silent over it, its Ibaha has continued, and that which the Shari'ah has kept silent over and has not explained, its rule must be Mubah. This is because the Shari'ah has not kept silent over it but demonstrated its rule by an evidence related to it, and the silence of the Messenger of Allah is not considered a silence of Shari'ah, but rather a statement from Shari'ah, for the silence of the Messenger of Allah is just like his saying and his action and just like the Qur'an, i.e. a statement of a Shari'ah rule.

No Muslim has the right to say that the Legislator (swt) has kept silent over something and has not stated its rule after reading Allah's (swt) saying:

''This day I have perfected your Deen for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your Deen'' [ Al Ma'ida, 3]

Also His saying (swt):

''And We have revealed the Book to you explaining everything'' [ Al Nahl 16: 89]

Hence, no Muslim has the right to claim that there are situations devoid of a Shari'ah rule, meaning that the Shari'ah has completely disregarded such a situation and has not established an evidence for it. That is that the evidence did not come from either the Book or the Sunnah, or they have not given an indication through a legitimate Illah (Shari'ah reason), that which the text has mentioned either explicitly, or by way of indication, or deduction or by way of analogy, to draw the attention through this evidence or this indication to the rule related to a host of situations, whether it is Wajib (compulsory), Mandub (recommended), Haram (forbidden), Makruh (despised) or Mubah (permitted). No Muslim should hold this view, for he would be slandering the Shari'ah by claiming that it is imperfect and he would be legitimising the reference in judgements to other than the Shari'ah, thus contradicting Allah's (swt) saying:

''No by your God, they shall not become true believers until they make you judge in matters that are of dispute amongst them'' [Al Nisaa 4:65]

If the Shari'ah did not come with the rule and the Muslim adopted a rule that the Shari'ah had not come with, he would have referred in judgement to other than the Shari'ah, and this is forbidden. As he would be claiming that the Shari'ah has not come with the rules for all situations. So claiming a permission to refer to other than Shari under the pretext that Shari'ah has not come with these rules, would be a false claim. Therefore, it is inconceivable to state that whatever the Shari'ah has kept silent over is Mubah, for this would be an Ibaha to refer to other than Shari'ah, in addition to the fact that it would be a slander against the Shari'ah by claiming that it has kept silent over certain rules and has not established them. Besides, this would be in contradiction to reality, as Shari'ah has in fact not kept silent over anything at all.

As for the Messenger of Allah's (saw) saying: ''Truly Allah has decreed certain obligations, hence do not neglect them'' , this denotes the prohibition of asking about that which has not been mentioned textually by Shari'ah. It is similar to his saying (saw) : Truly the gravest sinners amongst the Muslims would be those who ask about something that has not been forbidden upon them, then it became forbidden because of their asking.There are many ahadith to that effect. It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said : Spare me the things I have not mentioned to you, for those before you perished because of their constant asking and their arguing with their prophets; so refrain from that which I forbid you and perform to your utmost ability that which I order you''. It has also been reported that he (saw) once recited Allah's (swt) saying: ''And Allah commanded people to perform Hajj''. Upon this a man asked :''O Messenger of Allah! Is it every year?''. He (saw) did not reply. So the man asked again :O Messenger of Allah! Is it every year?''. Again he (saw) did not reply. So the man asked him a third time :O Messenger of Allah! Is it every year? Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said :''By He Who owns my soul, if I said it, it will become obligatory, and if it did become obligatory you would not be able to perform it, and if you did not perform it you would be sinful. So spare me that which I have not ordered you''. Hence, the meaning of the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying : ''and He has permitted other things'', and in the narration of : ''and that which He kept silent over is a permission'', is that He (swt) has lightened your obligation, so do not ask lest you overburden yourselves. For instance, the duty of Hajj has been decreed in general terms, and someone asked whether it should be performed every year. Allah (swt) has reduced this obligation and made it once in a lifetime in order to lighten your load and out of mercy upon the people, so He (swt) has condoned and kept silent over this obligation being every year. Thus one does not look into these things and does not ask about them. Evidence about the fact that this was the meaning is the saying of Allah's Messenger (saw): ''Hence, do not look into them'' after he (saw) had said : ''And He has condoned certain things'' So, the point at issue is prohibiting Muslims from asking about things whose prohibition has not been revealed. The point at issue is not that He (swt) has not stated some of the Shari rules, for the context of the Hadith reveals the mercy of Allah (swt) upon them and His condoning. As for the other narration : ''And that which He kept silent over is a permission'', it also indicates that the issue is related to the prohibition of searching and asking about that which He (swt) has lightened for you and has not forbidden for you. Thus when something is not prohibited it is a permission from Allah (swt), in other words, that which He (swt) kept silent about its prohibition denotes a permission from Allah (swt), thus do not ask about it. This is reflected in Allah's (swt) saying:

''O you who have believed do not ask about matters which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble''

Then He (swt) said:

''Allah has permitted them.'' i.e. those matters. [ Al Maida 5:101]

Q&A: Selling the security upon the debtors inability to pay

The following is a translation from Arabic.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Question: I have known people to take as security/guarantee against a debt given to a debtor, if the debtor does not pay back the debt within a pre-agreed time, the creditor has the security which is a guarantee against the debt and in most cases the security is much more expensive and even many times the amount of the debt itself. What is the Shari’ah rule? Is it allowed under the Shari’ah to give or take loans against such security?

Answer:

It is allowed for a creditor to keep a security as guarantee of repayment against a loan that he gives to a debtor. It is reported by Muslim on the authority of ‘Aisha (r.a) about the Prophet (saw) that:

«اشترى رسول الله r من يهودي طعاماً بنسيئة فأعطاه درعاً له رهناً»
"The Prophet (saw) bought foodstuff from a Jew on deferred payment and pawned his shield to him as guarantee of payment."

But the creditor keeps the mortgage (pawn) only as a security against the inability of the debtor for repayment and the security remains the property of its owner (the debtor) because the Prophet (saw) said:

«لا يُغلَق الرهن من صاحبه الذي رهنه»
"The mortgage (security) is not to be denied to its owner who gives it to the creditor as guarantee." (Reported by Shafa’ee on the authority of Sa’eed ibn Mussayyib (r.a).

It implies that the creditor does not become the owner of the security, but he only keeps it as security against the loan and in case the debtor is unable to repay the loan, the security should be sold to recover the loan amount and return the rest of the amount realised by its sale to its owner i.e. the debtor.

The details are as follows: On the maturity of the loan period, the creditor (holding the security) calls on the debtor to pay back the debt. If the debtor has the money to back the loan, he clears the loan and the security is returned back to him (the debtor). But if the debtor does not have sufficient money to pay back the loan in full or part, then it becomes incumbent upon the debtor to sell the security (mortgage) with the permission of the creditor and first of all clear the loan amount and then keep the rest of the amount realised by the sale of the mortgage.

From this it becomes clear that in case of the inability of the debtor to repay the loan, it is not allowed for the creditor to seize the security (mortgage) and become its owner. Similarly he is not allowed to sell the security (mortgage) by himself except by order of a judicial court which will force the debtor to sell the security in order to repay the loan. This is because the security remains the property of the debtor as stated by the Prophet (saw):

«لا يُغلَق الرهن من صاحبه الذي رهنه»
"The mortgage (security) is not to be denied to its owner who gives it to the creditor as guarantee."

It is therefore the debtor who sells the security and repays the loan, and if he refuses, the ruler enforces the law and makes him sell the security to first repay the loan and then retain the rest of the amount realised by its sale for himself i.e. the debtor.

Shawwal 5th, 1428 A.H
October 16th, 2007 C.E

Arabic Source: Website of Sheikh Ata Abu Rashta

Friday, October 26, 2007

The Gujarat Murderers Exposed

A recent expose by Tehelka magazine in India has highlighted the savage butchery undertaken by Hindu extremists in the 2002 Gujarat riots with the complicity of the Chief Minister of the state and other officials. They reported late Thursday that their reporter, using hidden cameras, had spoken to some of the main rioters. The men told the reporter that Gujarat's chief minister, Narendra Modi, had encouraged them to massacre Muslims and prevented police from stopping the killings. Modi, who remains the state's chief minister — a post equivalent to a U.S. governor — is a leading member of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

In a press release issued on Thursday, Tehelka magazine mentioned that fresh evidence about the 2002 Gujarat carnage had confirmed that the killings of Muslims in the state was strategised and executed by top functionaries of the RSS, VHP and the Bajrang Dal, with the knowledge and sanction of the state authorities and Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

“A six-month Tehelka investigation brings forward irrefutable evidence of many horrific incidents that have remained contested in the last five years,” Tehelka said in the release.

Tehelka said that it had a first hand account from “the men who conducted” the brutal murder of Congress MP Ehsan Jafri by hacking him. Also on record are confessions of rape, besides graphic details about incidents including the one in Naroda Patiya where dozens of Muslims hiding in a pit were doused with kerosene and burnt alive, the statement said.

The video recordings show Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi as saying the killing of the Hindus on the train made him feel like killing Muslims and "hacking them apart."

"I am proud of it. If I get another chance, I will kill even more," he is reported to have said.
Bajrangi, who was arrested and then quickly released on bail for his alleged role in the rioting, was also quoted as saying Modi manipulated the legal system to protect the rioters.

"He kept on changing judges ... he set it up so as to ensure my release, otherwise I wouldn't have been out yet."

A leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Rajendra Vyas, reportedly told Tehelka: "As chief minister, Narendra bhai (Modi) couldn't say kill all the Muslims. I could say it publicly because I was from the VHP."

"He gave us a free run to do whatever we wanted to since we were already fed up of the Muslims ... the police was with us."

A Must read - the report: The Truth, Gujarat 2002 - In the words of the men who did it

See the spycam videos

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

The failure of colonialist politics in Bangladesh

The publication of blasphemous cartoons to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) has again shocked Muslims around the world. However what has proven to be even more shocking is that these cartoons have not been published in any western country; they have been published in Bangladesh by a local newspaper.The cartoons issue together with the recent riots demanding an end to emergency rule by the military has again highlighted the perilous state of affairs for Muslims in Bangladesh today. The seizure of power by a defacto military administration in all but name in January 2007 has proven that the model of democracy has yet again failed in another Muslim populated nation state.

The current crisis was triggered as the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) led by Khalida Zia came to the end of it's 5-year tenure after winning elections in 2001. A 3-month caretaker government took over and was supposed to impartially oversee new elections. Instead protests and violence were the result as the BNP's bitter rival, the Awami League (AL) led by Sheikh Hasina, agitated against what were widely expected to be rigged elections in January 2007. Instead of elections a new technocrat regime led by Fakhruddin Ahmed, a former World Bank official, was installed with the blessing of the military. There was little reaction if any from the likes of America, India and Britain. It's apparent mission: to establish the conditions necessary for a free and impartial election to take place.

The failure of a peaceful transition of power shows the bankruptcy of a two party system modelled along a western political system. Even in the West it is clear leading political parties are under the sway of corporate and other vested interests. Undoubtedly in a country such as Bangladesh where most of the population has been denied access by the ruling elite to education and other such tools to allow informed opinion making to take place, it has been easy for Bangladeshi politicians to campaign on cheap sloganeering whilst misleading most of the public. This has been characterised by the bitter partisan politics, which have been the hallmark of Bangladeshi politics. The personalised rivalry between Sheikh Hasina and Khalida Zia has never allowed a stable political system to develop since the end of military rule in 1990. Symbolic of this failure has been the notorious achievement of Bangladesh in being labelled as the most corrupt country in the world, five times in a row by Transparency International.

The crisis in Bangladesh bears much resemblance to the situation in Pakistan, where the failed leaderships of Nawaz Sharif and Benzair Bhutto have been replaced by the military. Backed by America, General Pervez Musharraf has all but virtually ensured that Pakistan has become an American satellite in return for aid and political support. In Bangladesh it would seem that the facade has gone one step further. After seeing the bitter experience being reaped by Musharraf and his regime as it works towards American policy goals in the region, the Bangladeshi military is using the technocrat government led by Fakhruddin Ahmed and other pro-American loyalists as as an essential fig leaf. In essence though the power behind the throne is that of the Bangladeshi military.

The new Bangladeshi regime's apparent reasons for seizing and holding power also seem questionable. Ahmed has cited that he is ‘optimistic' that the Election Commission will decide to hold elections towards the end of 2008 but that the electoral voter list must be updated first. Whilst many would agree that the electoral voter list is suspect, it is clear that the regime intends to stay in power for at least 2 years whilst trying to placate public opinion. This seems a remarkable period of time just to update the electoral voter lists. Indeed one would ask, how does Ahmed's regime already know that it will take at least two years to update the voter list? It has created further hurdles of it's own with the desire to use transparent ballot boxes and the creation of photo based identity cards for an estimated 100 million eligible voters, a monumental task in itself. It seems the regime is deliberately stalling for time as it creates ambiguity over when elections will be held. The regime has said it is up to the Election Commission to decide when elections will be held, convientantly headed by another retired army official, Brig-Gen M Sakhawat Hussain.

The regime's claim to hold free and fair elections as soon as possible though seem increasingly hollow. The regime's other trump card to try to sustain it's longetivity has been the apparent corruption drive which it has seen it arrest nearly 200 politicans, beauracrats and businessman including Sheikh Hasina, Khalida Zia and her son Tarique Rahman. Intially a popular measure, even this has not stopped Fakhruddin Ahmed and the Army quickly becoming just as unpopoular as it's predecessors as the recent riots in August showed. The real issues of price hikes and poverty remain just as real now as they did before. As far as the arrested polticians are concerned, the real test lies in whether any of these people will actually end up being convicted and serving jail terms. Again as seen with Pakistan, it is all too easy to arrest polticians but then to use this as a bargaining chip in any subsequent political deal making.

This puts the recent anti-corruption drive into perspective. The regime knows that it will have to share or cede power eventually. Even now the beginning's of such a policy can be seen. The Bangladeshi regime has recently allowed indoor political party meetings to resume, subject to conditions, after intially proscribing all political activity. This is why it seems highly unlikely that the ‘big fish' will really end up in jail. The announcement by the regime to establish a ‘Truth Commission', where corrupt indivduals may come forth and testify against themselves in return for lenient treatment, is evidence in which direction the regime is heading. The pragmatic regime realises that it will not be in power forever. It is simply not in it's interests to create wounded political enemies, for the tentacles of the BNP and the AL have a wider reach in society. Moreover, such a situation will end up setting an unfavorable precedance for the future, something they could become victims of as well.

The ‘corruption and anti-crime drive' has it's more direct uses to curb and control political activity in the country for the short term. Currently the regime has the power to arrest anyone without charge, deny bail, and conduct summary trials. Where needed the media has also been clamped down upon. Since January 2007 more than astonishing number of 193,000 people have been arrested, hardly all rich polticians, with more than than 96 dying in custody. The reality is that deeper motives are at play. The regime has an agenda which it intends to implement in the limited time it has, whilst playing for time. Fundementally in political and ideological terms it has nothing new to offer. Crucial in all of this are the interests of foreign powers, especially America and India.

Since it's independence, India and America have had an undue influence in the affairs of Bangladesh. Of course, it was India which militarily intervened in 1971 to help then East Pakistan cede from the then West Pakistan to form Bangladesh. Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and his Awami League formed the first Bangladeshi government that was secular in it's ideology. Most importantly and not surprisingly, it was very India friendly. Mujibur Rehman declared in Feburary 1972 "I have no doubt that India, our next door neighbour, will proudly march on as the largest democracy, with secularism and socialism at home and non-alignment in international relations." The Awami league government declared, "friendship with India is a cornerstone of the foreign policy of Bangladesh." Mujibur Rehman ended up signing a 25-year ‘Treaty of Friendship, Peace and Co-operation' with India in March 1972 that cemented this close relationship.

This was a tremendous geo-political prize for India. Not only had it dealt a severe blow to it's bitter rival Pakistan but it had also similteanously helped create a friendly state on it's Eastern flank. An examination of the India / Bangladeshi map area reveals why this was particularly sweet for India. Bangladesh is surrounded by the Indian states of West Bengal in the West, Assam and Meghalaya in the North and Tripura and Mizoram in the East. India's territory between it's North Eastern states, including Assam, are linked to the rest of India by a small mountainous, rugged 30km wide stretch of land, commonly known as the ‘Chicken neck' pass. These north eastern states are rich with mineral resources and vulnerable to a Chinese attack. Under Article 10 of the Treaty of Friendship, India had the right to ask for passage for it's military if required.India's relations started worsening with the demise of Mujibur Rehman's government in August 1975, with his assassination and coup led by General Zia Rehman, husband of Khalida Zia. Bangladesh beforehand was not only India friendly but most importantly friendly to the now demised USSR. Zia Rehman's regime established friendly ties with Pakistan and the US. In return for securing American interests he received American aid and assistance. The people of Bangladesh have traditionally resented Hindu dominated India's interference and the new military regime capitalised on this to secure it's grip on power. Zia Rehman adopted rhetoric, which was pro-Islamic, not unlike the situation in Pakistan where General Zia ul Haq overthrew Zulifiqar Bhutto's government in 1979 with the blessing of America.

This trend continued when General Zia Rehman was assassinated and General Ershad came to power in 1981. By the time civilian rule was restored in 1990, Bangladesh had seen a revival of it's Islamic sentiments. Nurtured by the military this was a means to secure their grip on power at the expense of India. Disputes with India over water sharing rights over the Ganges and Farakka Barrage became firmly entrenched. Khalida Zia's first government in 1990 continued with these polices. Even the Awami League when it won power under Sheikh Hasina in 1996 had curbed it's enthusiasm for India and secularism. Under Khalida Zia's second term, the Treaty of Friendship was not renewed.

India has long sought to dominate the rest of the sub-continent. A strong Bangladesh does not fit into this scheme. India would like to see Bangladesh integrated into it's economy as a pliant ally by providing a ready market for it's increasing goods and services. In the summer of 2006 there were severe riots by workers at Bangladeshi industrial textile units. Not only did these help destabilise Khailda Zia's government and pave the way for the current regime, they also gave a direct advantage to Indian textile producers as Bangladesh lost it's own capacity to produce. Sixteen factories were destroyed.

India is also keen to extract Bangladesh's vital resources such as natural gas for it's energy starved industry. India's TATA group has a $3 billion plan for gas and steel projects in Bangladesh which were put on hold by Khalida Zia's government in July 2006. The nature of populist politics in Bangladesh has prevented previous leaders such as Sheikh Hasina and Khalida Zia from giving approval to projects such as these without being accused of being pro-Indian.

Water is another contentious issue. With 54 rivers entering Bangladesh from India and water becoming an ever more precious resource, India again requires Bangladeshi agreement under International treaties for new water barrages and other such schemes to be implemented. Again such agreements have been stalled.

The revival of Islam in Bangladesh though, just like in the rest of the Muslim world, is the biggest fear, which India has today. India in fact has always had fears about Islam in Bangladesh and it's seven north-eastern states including Assam. Mujibur Rehman had a secular vision at the time of Bangladesh's independence, enshrining secularism as one of the four principles in the Bangladeshi constitution. However as early as the mid 1930s the Muslims in this region sought independence from British colonial rule and aspired to have a new state based on Islam. During British rule, Bengal was dominated by Hindu landlords (zamindars) and businessmen, although the Muslims (55 per cent) were in the majority. Muslims in Indian Bengal and the surrounding Indian states together with the region of Bangladesh agitated on the basis of Islam. Leaders such Maulana Bhasani, who was a member of the Indian Khilafat movement, were political heavyweights in the Bengal-Assam region who energised these ideas in the 1950s, 60s and 70s and were firmly against India. Bhasani led calls for Bangassam, a new state carved from what is Bangladesh today and Muslim Bengali speaking Indian states in the region.

Delhi has often accused Bangladesh of failing to control cross-border raids by ‘Islamic extermists'. India has built a border fence with Bangaldesh and alleges that there are 20 million illegal Bengali immigrants in India. That in itself is an astonishing figure and in reality perhaps reflects a desire on the part of Delhi to forcibly re-locate Muslims in Indian Bengal into Bangladesh. This issue has led to border clashes between the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) and the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) border force.

India's fear of political Islam is mirrored by America. India's concerns and eventual goals fit in with the wider agenda of America for Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. America's main aim is to establish leverage over India and to coax it into playing a credible role to counter the growing power of China, which naturally has implications for America. America is concerned at China's attempts to gain a foothold in Bangladesh. America would also like to gain control over the Chittagong port by seeing an American company bid for it's control, something that has not materialised yet. India too has tried and failed and has sought an alternative in Burma. China on the other hand would like to establish a large military port at Chittagong as well, just like it has at Gwadar, Pakistan and intends to in Mynamar and Thailand, in it's ‘string of pearls' strategy. Control over the straight of Malacca through which all Chinese oil imported by sea must pass through is integral to this struggle.

To do this, America is helping solve India's problems with it's neighbours as well as doing all it can to earn India's friendship as seen with the recent Indian-American nuclear deal and the desire to sell American arms. In the case of Pakistan, America has helped take the heat out of Kashmir and with the re-alignment of the Pakistan army to the Afghan border under American pressure, has as a by product helped reduce the threat on India's western borders as well. With Bangladesh, America and India have similar objectives in mind.

The current Bangladeshi regime, supported by the top military brass, has shown itself to be hostile to Islam. This is a regime which has not hesitated to crack down hard on dissent. Yet despite this, it has done nothing to either prevent or punish the perpetrators of the newspaper, Prothom Alo, that published cartoons that mocked Muhammad (SAW). On the contrary, it has used violence to attack those who peacefully demonstrated against this blasphemy.

It is clear that the current Bangladeshi regime is not favourable to Islam, something which both India and America seek. This is important because whilst both the AL and BNP have ignored the development of Bangladesh's civil society and institutions, they have opportunistically used rhetoric based on Islam to stay in power and increase the tenure of their regimes. In fact it was during Zia's last government, despite being in coalition with the Jamaat-e-Islami and Islamic Oikya Jote, that a crackdown under western pressure took place in 2005 on alleged Islamic militants after bomb blasts in August 2005. Under Zia's government the paramilitary Rapid Action Battalion has been accused of more than 700 extra judicial killings. Zia's government was praised by America as a ‘model democracy' as she allied herself in America's ‘War on Terror'.

This has only helped Islamic sentiment in Bangladesh grow as the corruption that has accompanied these regimes and in wider Bangladeshi society has created nothing but misery for the Muslims in Bangladesh. Together with the failure of both the BNP and AL to provide political stability and continuity, America has realised that it is only a matter of time before a sincere Islamic leadership emerges in Bangladesh. This is the main reason why the army backed by America has seized power directly again. These civillian polticians can no longer secure and guarentee the interests of colonial powers such as America. Just like in the rest of the Muslim world, America and her native cronies are becoming more and more desperate as the re-establishment of the Khilafah becomes an ever increasing prospect.

To stem this tide, the Bangladeshi regime backed by America are preparing to undertake a number of steps to prevent the rise of Islam in politics and secure their interests. Recently the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia John Gastright said that America was "strongly supportive of the reform steps", as seen in this speech recently at the Heritage Foundation, a US think tank, where he strongly defended the Bangladeshi regime. The seizure of power by the army backed regime is the first step. The aim of the regime is to try to evolve and develop a political framework that can provide Bangladesh with a controlled political environment minus those who are sincere to Islam but acceptable to America. One way to do this is to ensure that the army continues to be able to exert continued influence. In time the aim is to secularise and control Bangladesh effectively.

To do all of this the regime wants to reform the Bangladeshi political scene. Specifically it is looking to remove some of the same tired old corrupt politicians and pave the way for new faces. This is why polticians such as Khalida Zia and Sheikh Hasina together with some of their cronies are now behind bars and facing charges. Whether they stay there or are eventually released, will depend on how successful the regime is in controlling and remoulding Bangladeshi poltics. If these same characters are allowed to return, they will continue the policies that have lead Bangladesh to such a situation, something which America desperately wants to avoid and prevent another Pakistan like situation. As the example of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan shows though, even the most courrpt can be allowed back under the right conditions.The regime has also announced that it wants to see poltical parties undergo reforms, which in reality is a means to affect it's agenda and help remove these characters and strenghten it's hand. These new measures have already had the desired effect with intra-party disputes beginning to take hold, thus weakening the BNP and AL together with the other smaller parties such as the Jatiya Party of General Ershad in the long run.This has also been coupled with the declaration by the Bangladeshi army chief Lt General Moeen U Ahmed at a political science conference in April that Bangladesh needed it's "own brand of democracy..... We do not want to go back to an 'elective' democracy'". In the past Bangladesh has had a "National Security Council", something not dissimilar to Pakistan and Turkey. It would seem a new re-packaged version is all but a certainty again, designed to ensure the army keeps a grip on power.

The failure of civillian politics and parties such as the BNP and AL has demonstrated that democratic models are prone to corruption and cannot work. Moreover colonial powers such as America have further exploited the situation and continue to pull strings from behind the scenes. As the months have worn on the intial euphuoria surrounding the seizure of power and anti-corruption drive have given way to rising hatred of the regime and America's meddling. The photo of a civilian kicking an army soldier best captured this sentiment and enraged the regime.

The regime togther with India, America and Britain are desperate from preventing Islamic politics from growing more powerful and re-establishing the Khilafah. In the process the ruling elite has demonsied Islam. The regime has also demonstarted that it is ready to use violence on it's own people at the behest of it's foreign masters. However, like Muslims in other parts of the Muslim world, the Muslims in Bangladesh have seen through such smears and devices. The regime's failure together with that of America's agenda is only a matter of time. This is because America has lost the ideological battle, the battle to convince others of it's ideas. The only option it now has is to try to control Muslim lands through brute force through it's slavish agents such as the current Bangladeshi regime. Despite the efforts of the colonialists and their puppets, the momentum for a sincere and genuine change has gripped theMuslims in Bangladesh and in the wider Muslim world.

Source

It is prohibited for the Ummah to have such rulers over them

The following is a translation of an Arabic leaflet.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

It is prohibited for the Ummah to have such rulers over them who do not respect ties of kinship and violate the covenant

The Pakistan Supreme Court, which met today, did not reverse validity of the Musharraf’s election as President for a second term as per the results of the elections held on 6/10/2007 despite the fact that he has trampled upon and violated all sanctities.

The country has opened the floodgates to America in its brutal aggression Afghanistan, making Pakistan the frontal site for the American army to carry out its brutal massacres in Afghanistan.

America then ordered him to send his army to fight Muslim tribes in the regions bordering Afghanistan where Musharraf sent some ninety thousand soldiers to fight and kill their own brothers in order to protect America and its stooges in Afghanistan. Musharraf ordered killing of tribal chiefs in Baluchistan, and others, and violated his agreement with the tribes and engaged in violence and mortal sins against the brothers in the tribal areas, and yet the US is not content with that and continues to demand more!

He has abandoned the issue of Kashmir, and not content with that, he has been repelling the Kashmiri Mujahideen, arresting them, and the prohibiting their presence in Pakistan. He has even given up on the Kashmiri self-determination resolution adopted by the Western countries and proceeded to normalise relations with India and thus conceded Indian claim on most of the disputed land of Kashmir!

Musharraf then rejected mediation that were under way and ordered the bombing of the Red Mosque with destructive weapons in total disregard for the Ulema and students of Islamic school not only at the Red Mosque but everywhere.

And then he realized that his credibility had plummeted and people hated him so much that he feared the defeat of his supported in the forthcoming parliamentary elections in January 2008. This fear was so evident that Musharraf knew that a new parliament will not elect him as president for a second term and therefore he used the current Parliamentary Electoral College to retain his hold over the presidency. Thus he ‘won’ the elections that took place on 6/10/2007.

In keeping with the custom of all agents and stooges, Musharraf has changed his colours whenever the fluctuating equation with his masters has demanded. As Musharraf lost his credibility among the people of Pakistan and the American influence in the region suffered as a result, the US found itself in need of the British to salvage its influence in region, Musharraf thus ordered pardon for Benazir Bhutto, overnight she became ‘clean’, although Musharraf had been accusing her of corruption hitherto in order to prevent her from returning to Pakistan. Now in the changed scenario, he has been making overtures to her in order to share power over the blood of Muslims. Bhutto’s arrival in Karachi today marks the first step in that direction of implementing the deal!

Fellow Muslims!
O Muslims in Pakistan!

It is a matter of shame that people like Musharraf and Bhutto, who are at war with Allah (swt) and His Prophet (saw) are holding you to ransom. They are spilling your blood and have allowed your country down to be used for the interest of your enemies. They have neither respected the sanctity of mosques, the Quran schools nor the Ulema or the great Mujahideen. They have robbed Pakistan of its resources and weakened its strength making it vulnerable and poor. And not content with that, they have to extent of amending the education curriculum to to suit the interest of their American masters!

Truly, such rulers are the ones who belong to the category mentioned by Allah (swt) in the Quran:

]أَلَـمْ تَـرَ إِلَى الَّذِيـنَ بَـدَّلُـوا نِـعْـمَـةَ اللَّهِ كُـفْـرًا وَأَحَـلُّـوا قَوْمَهُمْ دَارَ الْبَوَارِ (28) جَهَنَّمَ يَصْلَوْنَهَا وَبِئْسَ الْقَرَارُ[.

“Have you not seen those who have changed the Blessings of Allâh into disbelief (by denying Prophet Muhammad (saw) and his Message of Islâm), and caused their people to dwell in the house of destruction. Hell, in which they will burn, - and what an evil place to settle in!” [TMQ Ibraheem: 28]

Dear Muslim soldiers!
Is there not a wise one among you? How can you remain a silent and passive onlooker while he is at war with Islam? How can you meekly watch while he bombs and destroys mosques?? How can he conspire against your tribal brothers and order their killing and yet you obey him? How can he plunder your country for the interest of the Kafir colonialists and your blood does not boil over it? How can America be the master in your country ordering and prohibiting to suit its own interest and your ammunition remain unused?!

Dear soldiers, you are the sons of those great people who welcomed Mohammed bin Qasim. They were content with merely entering into the fold of Islam and sitting in the comfortable safety of their homes, rather, they accompanied Mohammed bin Qasim in Jihad and opening of other lands, and protected Islam and Muslims as soon as they became Muslims: Islam became their cause as well as their first priority and the Islamic State was their own state! They helped Allah (swt) and Allah (swt) helped them in return; and they were truthful.

Dear soldiers, you are the sons of those who named your country as the ‘pure land’ (Pakistan) with resolve and determination that it will be a safe sanctuary for Islam and Muslims, and be governed by whatever Allah (swt) has revealed and make Jihad in the path of Allah. How can this country become a secular country like the US and how can you accept the Capitalist system instead of Islamic system as your way of life. How can you accept killing of your own brothers instead of Jihad against the Kafir colonialists?

Dear Muslim soldiers
Hizb ut Tahrir calls upon you to galvanise your resolve and urges you to rise up against these rulers who have been assigned to your necks by your own enemies, who have committed all evil crimes, so hold their hand and remove them from your necks, so that Allah (swt) does not punish you along with them! You must remember that Allah (swt) punishes every oppressor who causes agony for his oppression but He (swt) also punishes those passive onlookers who do nothing to stop the oppression and remain passive, He says:

]وَاتَّقُوا فِتْنَةً لاَ تُصِيبَنَّ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا مِنْكُمْ خَاصَّةً وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ[
“And fear the Fitnah (affliction and trial) which affects not in particular (only) those of you who do wrong (but it may afflict all the good and the bad people), and know that Allâh is Severe in punishment.” [TMQ al-Anfaal: 25]

Also, Allah (swt) revealed to His Prophet, as reported by Syedna Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (ra) and reported in Tirmidhi:

«إِنَّ النَّاسَ إِذَا رَأَوْا الظَّالِمَ فَلَمْ يَأْخُذُوا عَلَى يَدَيْهِ أَوْشَكَ أَنْ يَعُمَّهُمْ اللَّهُ بِعِقَابٍ مِنْهُ»
"If people saw an oppressor committing oppression and yet did nothing to stop him from his act, then soon Allah (swt) will punish them."

Dear Muslims and Muslim soldiers! Seek refuge of Allah (swt) alone and make your deen victorious, rise up to raise the flag of your Prophet saw. Hizb ut Tahrir supports you, so support its cause; it is ready to come to your rescue and help you, so assist it. Wipe out the oppression by removing the oppressor. Wipe off the rule of oppression and oppressors, and establish the state of Islam and Muslims, the Khilafah State. Allah willing, you will succeed in forming the Khilafah State. Your present rulers occupy the position of ruling because of the strength of your swords. If you withdraw the strength of your arms, it will shake their foundations and they will be no more, they are detested by Allah (swt), His Prophet (saw) and all the believers.

Fellow Muslims!
Dear Muslim soldiers!

Indeed Musharraf has rebelled against Allah (swt) and he violated his commands, and imposed America’s hegemony over Islam and Muslims. It is therefore not acceptable that he continues to wreak havoc right in front of your own eyes while you merely watch and do nothing to stop him.

]إِنَّ فِي هَذَا لَبَلاَغًا لِقَوْمٍ عَابِدِينَ[

“Verily, in this (the Qur'ân) there is a plain Message for people who worship Allâh” [TMQ al-Anbiyaa: 106].

Hizb ut Tahrir
Shawwal 7th, 1428 A.H
October 18th, 2007 C.E

Source

Clothing in Islam

The following article written by a brother some time ago, it has been slightly ammended.

In the mosques clergymen, scholars and Imams alike, wear specific garments while delivering a Friday khutbah or giving talks at conferences. What type of dress has Islam determined for Muslims?

The use of word ‘clergymen’ in the above question, is indicative of a concept which has nowadays become widespread amongst Muslims and which therefore needs to be investigated. Unfortunately, it is an ill conceived concept that has been adopted and implanted in the minds of those who have been seduced by the Western culture, such as those ruling the Muslim countries today, along with their secular followers who like to see themselves as the ‘intellectual class’.
The word ‘clergymen’ or ‘men of religion’ has become widely used in our society both as a term and as a concept since it was first introduced via the colonial disbelievers. It is even being repeated by some of our scholars, who do not realise the serious consequences such a dangerous Western concept can have upon the Ummah.

One of the most disgusting concepts which the West has spread amongst the Muslims, and one of their dirtiest and deadliest poisons, is their comparison of the Khilafah (the Islamic State) with the Papacy; claiming that the Muslim ruler is like the head of the Catholic Church (the Pope), and that he possesses the ultimate sainthood and supreme power over all matters.

In truth the word ‘clergymen’ is alien to the Islamic culture. It is in fact the term used by the Westerners to describe their priests, monks and bishops. Its initial usage took place when the intellectual revolution erupted throughout Europe (14th and 15th century CE), and whose adherents proclaimed the reforms of and freedom from the hegemony of the Church and the clergy. A fierce battle consequently took place between the philosophers and the Churchmen which ultimately resulted in the intellectuals seizing power from the Church. However, they were happy to leave the clergy with the task of running the religious matters and the ministry of the Church however they pleased, as long as they did not interfere in politics and undermine the system laid down by the intellectuals. The Churchmen accepted this compromise and conceded to the reality by adopting the maxim, ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s’. Rather than refusing to be ruled by a gang of politicians and resisting the hijacking of their right to look after their own affairs, the Churchmen bowed to pressure and accepted their titles, isolating themselves to the Churches.

The result was that the Churchmen were left with the spiritual power, and the politicians with the temporal power, which itself resulted in the separation of religion from politics and social life; and meant that the Church no longer interfered in the running of the state, politics or social relations. Its role was simply reduced to looking after religious affairs and matters of Christian worship inside the Church.

Christianity therefore took on a new role and people began specialising solely in the serving and running of the Church, organising the mass, baptisms, weddings, funerals and so on. Such people have become known as ‘clergymen’.

It has therefore become widely accepted by everyone, even the priests and vicars, that they are simply religious people, who have no say in the ruling system, politics or social life. Their task is merely to look after the acts of worship inside the Church and charity organisations. Furthermore, it has become accepted that anyone stepping out of these boundaries would be labelled a heretic by the Council of Churches.

Since then politicians have become the sole rulers of the state and society, and they always emphasise the point that they are statesmen and politicians and have nothing to do with the Church or the clergy. This concept has taken deep root in both sides and is now a common practice and a widespread reality. The clergy consequently set up their own administration and their own type of dress, matching their own hierarchy and titles from deacon, priest, vicar, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, patriarch and Pope.

It is worth mentioning here that the intellectuals and the politicians who led this revolution in Europe, sacrificed a great deal in order to rid themselves of the dominance and injustice of the Churchmen, and so naturally they inclined towards a separation of religion from life’s affairs, including government. It is fair to say that this is the reality of the Christian faith, which is now merely a religion of morals and worship, and not a way of life nor a legislative system that embraces all aspects of life. There is no ruling, economic, political or social system in Christianity.
This status quo has, however, proved to be impractical because it defies human nature, that is why Church leaders, on numerous occasions, have come out of their shells and interfered in politics and social affairs, especially in recent times. They have expressed their own views on the problems of refugees, on homosexuality and on the hostage affairs in Lebanon. Furthermore, Bishop Makarius actually took the post of President in Cyprus, while Bishop Tutu of South Africa once said in BBC Newsnight, “I do not know which Bible they read from, these people who say ‘no’ to mixing religion with politics.”

In Islam, the reality is very different, because Islam is a deen in which the state plays a crucial part, and where politics i.e. looking after the affairs of the subjects, is in fact a divine law. This is because Islam is both an ‘aqeedah (creed) as well as a comprehensive system. It is an ‘aqeedah because it is based on Iman; belief in Allah (swt), His Angels, His Books, His Prophets, the Day of Judgement and Qada’ wal Qadar (Divine Fate and Destiny). The divine laws are derived from the ‘aqeedah and they include laws about the ruling system, politics, economics, social and penal laws, as well as domestic and foreign policies. These laws are extracted by mujtahideen (scholars) from the legal sources of Shari‘ah; the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijma‘ of the Sahabah (general consensus of the Companions) and Qiyas (analogy).

In Islam, there is nothing called ‘clergymen’ or some people who have religious personalities and some who have social personalities. Muslims are all equal, and whoever embraces Islam is a Muslim before Allah (swt). There is no difference to be found between the ruler and the subject, nor between scholar and follower, nor between educated and illiterate, nor judge, plaintiff or defendant, nor between rich and poor, black or white, nor between a Muslim by birth and someone who embraces Islam. The only difference is in taqwa.

No specific garment has been imposed or designed for scholars, any Muslim with knowledge of Islam is a scholar, and any Muslim who broadens his knowledge and understanding of Islam becomes a faqih (jurist). Any Muslim who is capable of extracting a divine law from the sources of Shari‘ah is a mujtahid, and any Muslim who follows an opinion of a mujtahid is a muqallid (follower). Islam has not specified any type of special garments for any Muslim, whether he is a Khaleefah, a mujtahid or otherwise.

The head-dress that we nowadays see sported by many people known as scholars, or the caps, dish-dashahs or jallabiyah they wear to distinguish themselves from other people has no origin in Islam. Such special forms of dress was not the case during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (saw), nor of that of the Sahabah. The Messenger of Allah (saw), undoubtedly the Imam of all scholars, never distinguished himself from other people by wearing specific garments, nor did his family or his Sahabah. The evidences about this issue are numerous in the ahadith and narrations about his life, and that of the Sahabah. Imam Tartusi reported in his book Siraj al-Muluk,

“The Messenger of Allah (saw) was sitting among his Sahabah when a bedouin (a desert Arab) approached them and asked, ‘Who is the son of Abdul-Muttalib?’ They replied, ‘It is that man over there’. The bedouin said, ‘Oh son of Abdul-Muttalib!’ The Messenger of Allah (saw) replied, ‘Yes!...’ ”

This narration clearly indicates that the Messenger of Allah (saw) never distinguished himself from the Sahabah by wearing specific garments, for the bedouin did not spot him, although the bedouin are renowned for being exceptionally observant. In another incident (during the hijrah) Abu Bakr was asked by the bedouin about his companion (the Messenger of Allah (saw)), he replied, “He is from Ma‘a.” They asked him, “What is he to you?” He replied, “He is my guide.” The bedouin thus thought that he (saw) came form the tribe of Ma‘a but Abu Bakr meant by ‘Ma‘a’, water (humans are created from water). If the Messenger of Allah (saw) had been wearing a specific garment, then this bedouin would have distinguished him.

To clarify this issue further, it is worth mentioning that the jallabiyah and ‘amamah had been worn before Islam and after it, it was simply the way people of the time dressed, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and any new type of dress was considered a break from the traditions and customs. When new types of garments were introduced and people developed new tastes of clothes, some people, both Muslims and non-Muslims, did not change and opted to keep their classical garments, in preference to the new. It is only fair to mention here that some of the scholars whom Allah (swt) has spared the tribulation of working for the institutions of non-Islamic governments such as al-Azhar and Rabita, did not innovate in their dress and remained faithful to the old type of clothes. However, since the majority of Muslims changed their dress habits, these scholars have unintentionally given the impression that they want to distinguish themselves from other Muslims, which is not really the case in this instance.

Some people go as far as claiming that scholars should wear specific garments to distinguish themselves in the streets, so that people can ask them for fatawah and about Shari‘ah matters. This is a very dangerous concept that could pave the way for disbelievers and hypocrites to wear ‘amamah. It is very damaging and dangerous to make the ‘amamah and the jallabiyah symbols of knowledge, as it may encourage many ‘con-men’ to claim knowledge and therefore status, and unfortunately there are many such people about. It is also very shallow minded to accept such an ill fated idea.

In fact the appearance of such an issue has been mentioned in a hadith. 'Az-Zubaydi and Safi in al-Kanz, al-Hakeem at-Tirmizi in an-Nawaadir and Abu Nu'aym in al-Hilyah reported a hadith
about whose isnad al-Haakim said: I do not know it to have any defects.' They reported the hadith on the authority of Anas (ra) who said the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

“At the end of the time there will the worms of (Qur’an) reciters. So whoever lived at that time let him seek refuge by Allah from the cursed shaytan (ash-shaytan ar-rajeem) and from them, and they are the most evil smelling. Then there will appear al-qalaanis ul-burood (hoods of the outer garments), and at that time there will be no shame of the showing off (riyaa’). The
one who holds to his deen during that period will be like the one who holds his hand on a live
coal, and the one who holds to his deen will have the reward of fifty men who act as he does.
They asked: will they be like fifty of them or us? He said: They are rather fifty of you.”

Qalaanis is the plural of qulunsuwah (hood), and burood is the plural of burd (outer garment). This is an indication of the clergy (men) who are distinct by the qalaanis and burood, regardless of the person that wears the qulunsuwah and the burd. The account the people give for this form of dress came as sign of lack of shyness regarding the riyaa’ (showing off).

The wearing of the ‘amamah or the jallabiyah is not wajib (an obligation) according to Shari‘ah, nor is it a mandub action; whether during the salah or after, or whether the person is a jum‘a khatib (person who delivers jum‘a khutbah) or otherwise; it is simply a mubah action. The Muslim man, scholar or otherwise, has the choice of wearing them or not, the action does not entail reward or punishment. It is up to the person’s taste in clothing. It has been narrated that Qadi Abu Yusuf was the first person to adopt a specific dress for scholars, but his action is not considered to be a valid Shari‘ah verdict for it is not derived from the Qur’an or the Sunnah, or Ijma’ or Qiyas. Therefore there is no legal source to back such action.

Although Islam has not specified a particular type of garment, it has however commanded Muslims, men and women, to abide by certain conditions or rules. Islam has made certain styles of dress fard, some haram, some mandub, some makruh and some mubah.

1. A man is obliged to cover his ‘awrah in public. The ‘awrah for the man is between the navel and the knee; the navel and the knee not being part of the ‘awrah. This has been confirmed in the narration of Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri who said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “A man’s ‘awrah is between his navel and his knees.” Some may claim that the navel is ‘awrah but this is a false claim because the hadith clearly says ‘between the navel and his knees’. And if anyone claims that the knee is part of the ‘awrah, the answer to this would be in the hadith, where the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to Jabir, “Cover your thighs, for the thigh is the ‘awrah.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) also said to Hudhayfah when he had his thigh uncovered, “Do not reveal your thigh nor look at anybody else’s thigh, whether he is alive or dead.” And he said to Mu‘mar when he passed him by with both his (Mu‘mar’s) thighs uncovered, “O Mu‘mar! Cover your thighs, the thigh is ‘awrah.”

2. A Muslim woman is commanded by Islam to cover her ‘awrah in public. The ‘awrah for the Muslim woman consists of the whole body and the head except for the face and the hands. She is obliged to cover the upper part of her body i.e. the head, neck and the bosom due to the commandment of Allah (swt) which says,

“They should draw their veils over their bosoms.” [TMQ 24:31]

The khimar is the garment or veil with which the woman covers her hair, neck and bosom. As for the lower part of the body it is covered by jilbab, which is a long dress covering the whole body from the neck to the feet as mentioned in the Qur’an,

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should draw their outer garments over them (when they go out).” [TMQ 33:59]

3. Islam has forbidden men from acting like women and women from acting like men, whether in walking, dressing or talking. Ahmed and Abu Dawud reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Allah curses the man wearing women’s clothes and the woman wearing men’s clothes.” Abu Dawud reported on the authority of ‘A’isha that she said, “Allah’s Messenger cursed the women who act like men.”

Al-Bukhari, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nisa’i, Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah reported on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that he said, “Allah’s Messenger has cursed the women acting like men and the men acting like women.”

Ahmed reported that ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As said that he saw a woman holding a staff and walking like a man; he asked who she was and was told that she was Umm Sa‘id, daughter of Abu Jahl. Upon this he said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah saying, ‘The woman who imitates men is not one of us’.”

Abu Dawud extracted from Abu Hurayrah’s narration that a man looking like a woman was brought to the Messenger of Allah (saw) with his hands and feet dyed in henna. He (saw) asked, “What is wrong with him?” He was told that he imitates women. Upon this Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be exiled to the Naqi‘i. People asked, “O Messenger of Allah why do you not kill him?” He (saw) replied, “I was ordered not to kill those who establish salah (prayer).”
It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said about women who acted like men, “Chase them out of your homes.”

4. Islam has made it mandub to praise Allah (swt) when wearing a new garment. Al-Tirmidhi reported on the authority of Abu Sa‘d that, “The Messenger of Allah (saw) used to say whenever he had a new garment, ‘Praise to you Allah for providing me with this. I beg from you the goodness that comes with it and I seek your refuge from the mischief which comes with it’.”

5. Islam has forbidden men and women alike, from acting like the disbelievers, especially in relation to things that distinguishes them. Abu Dawud reported on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Whoever acts like a people becomes one of them.” This is related to anything linked to their creed or dress, such as the garment or hats of the priests, bishops, cardinals, nuns etc, or like Jewish garments or anything that distinguishes them from other people. Muslims are forbidden from wearing such garments even if they did not intend to act like disbelievers. Any other garment, made from any material apart from silk for men, such as socks, shirts, suits, ties etc. are all allowed since no intention to act like disbelievers is meant, even if these garments are made by disbelievers. According to a narration by al-Tirmidhi, the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to like the Shami and Roman garments and they were both made by Romans who were Christians.

Wearing a watch, driving a car or using electronic equipment is allowed because they are shared by mankind, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They are not characteristics of disbelief nor are they designed for a certain type of people. It is worth mentioning here that the disbelievers wore, during the lifetime of Messenger of Allah (saw), robes and ‘amamah, the same clothes as the Muslims. It is also worth mentioning, that if any Muslim wears something that is mubah but has the intention of acting like the disbelievers, then he or she would be sinful because the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Actions are but by intention, and everyone is judged by his intentions.”

Therefore, Muslims, male and female, young and old alike are forbidden from wearing symbols of disbelief, such as crosses and the badges of Communists, Nazis, Zionists, Ba‘athists or nationalistic emblems, or anything that is linked to a concept of disbelief.

6. Islam has forbidden men from wearing silk and gold but has allowed it for women, as well as for men who have a skin problem and need to wear silk. Ahmed, al-Tirmidhi and al-Nisa’i reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Gold and silk are allowed for the women of my Ummah and forbidden for the men.” ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab reported, “I heard the Messenger of Allah saying, ‘Do not wear silk, for one who wears it in this world will not wear it in the Hereafter’.” Men are only allowed to wear silk if it does not exceed three or four fingers in lying next to each other in width. Ahmed, Abu Dawud, al-Nisa’i, al-Tirmidhi and Muslim have reported on ‘Umar’s authority that the Messenger of Allah (saw) had forbidden men from wearing silk except to the extent of two middle and index fingers joined together, as demonstrated by the Messenger of Allah (saw). In another narration, he (saw) forbade silk except to the extent of two, three or four fingers.

Islam has allowed the wearing of silk for sick male Muslims without any limit to the width. Al-Nisa’i, Abu Dawud, al-Bukhari, Ahmed and Ibn Majah reported on the authority of Anas that the Messenger of Allah (saw) permitted ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Auf and al-Zubayr to wear silk because they suffered from the problem of skin irritation. Some scholars have used silk as analogous to the wearing of gold for medical purposes.

As for the evidence regarding the forbidding of the wearing of gold for Muslim males, al-Tirmidhi reported on the authority of ‘Imran ibn Hassin, as did Muslim on the authority of Abu Hurayrah, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade them from wearing gold rings.
Attention should be drawn here to the fact that forbidding the wearing of gold and silk for Muslim males does not mean that they are not allowed to trade in them; Muslims are allowed to buy and sell them, which is further evidenced by the fact that real money in Islam is made of gold and silver alone.

7. Islam has forbidden men and women alike, from wearing garments out of pride and vanity. Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah reported on Ibn ‘Umar’s authority, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Whoever wore a garment of fame, Allah (swt) would make him wear a garment like it on the Day of Reckoning and then He would set it alight.” Imam Muslim, al-Nisa’i and Ibn Majah reported on Ibn ‘Umar’s authority that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “On the Day of Resurrection Allah will not look upon him who trails his garment out of pride.” Muslim reported on Abu Hurayrah’s authority that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Allah would not look at whoever trails his dress in vanity.” Imam Ahmed and al-Nisa’i reported on Ibn ‘Abbas’s authority that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Verily Allah would ignore whoever trails his lower garment.” Al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and al-Nisa’i reported on Ibn ‘Umar’s authority that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Whoever wore his garment, shirt or ‘amamah out of pride, Allah would not look at him on the Day of Judgement.” Muslim reported on Ibn ‘Umar’s authority that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Whoever trails his lower garment out of pride, Allah would not look at him on the Day of Judgement.”

8. Islam has made wajib, mandub and makruh some specific garments related to ihram during hajj and ‘umrah.

9. Islam has made it mandub for Muslims to wear new clothes on the days of ‘Eid.

10. Islam has made it mandub for Muslims to wear their best clothes, to look good and for the Muslim men to wear atr (perfume) when going to the masjid, especially on Fridays. Imam Ahmed and Ibn Majah reported on the authority of Abu Dharr al-Ghafari that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Whoever bathed well on Fridays, purified himself well, wore his best clothes, and wore what Allah provided him from good scents, then went to the mosque, did not talk during the sermon and did not go between two people, Allah will forgive him all his sins between this and the next Friday.”

11. It is compulsory for women to wear a khimar and to cover all their bodies at prayer times even if they are alone indoors.

12. Islam forbids women from going out in a state of tabarruj (dazzling display).

13. Islam has made it undesirable to wear one shoe. When putting shoes on, it is desirable to begin with the right shoe and when taking them off, start with the left shoe. Al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih, as did Ahmed in his Musnad and Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said about shoes, “Either wear them both, or take them both off. And if you were about to wear them, start with the right, and if you were to take them off, start with the left one.”

14. Islam has made it mandub, to start with the right hand side when putting anything on. Ibn Hibban and Abu Dawud reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “When you perform wudu or wear a garment, start with the right.”

15. Islam has made it mandub to wear white garments and to shroud the dead in white. Al-Hakim, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Imam Ibn Hanbal and al-Nisa’i reported on the authority of Samra that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Wear white garments, they are purer and more beautiful. And shroud your dead in white.”

16. Islam has made it mandub for us to wear beautiful, fine and smart clothes. Imam Muslim and al-Tirmidhi reported on Ibn Mas‘ud’s authority, as did al-Tabarani on Abu Imama and Ibn Mas‘ud’s authority, al-Tabarani on Abu Imama’s authority and al-Hakim on Ibn ‘Umar’s authority, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Verily Allah is Beautiful and loves all that is beautiful.” Al-Baihaqi reported on the authority of Abu Sa‘id that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Verily Allah is Beautiful, and loves all that is beautiful. He loves to see the signs of His favours that He has bestowed on His servant, and He loathes misery and those who are miserable.” Al-Tabarani reported on ‘Abdullah Ibn Sarjas’s authority that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Restraint (economy), and dressing nicely is one 24th part of prophethood.”

17. It is wajib to keep the garments and shoes purified for prayer. For Allah (swt) commands,
“And keep your garments free from stain.” [TMQ 74:4]

Ibn Majah and Ahmed reported on Jabir Ibn Samra’s authority, who said, “I heard a man asking the Messenger of Allah, ‘Can I pray in the garment which I wore when I approached my wife?’ He (saw) replied, ‘Yes but if you notice anything stuck to it, wash it’. ”

18. Some prayer garments are wajib and some are mandub. It is obligatory to have the garment covering the ‘awrah for both men and women, and it is desirable to wear more than one garment, in order to look fine and smart. Al-Tabarani and al-Baihaqi reported on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “If any of you were about to establish prayer, he should wear two garments, for Allah is the most worthy to look (beautiful) for. If he does not have two garments for prayer he should wear an izar (lower garment). And do not wear tight garments that show your curves like the Jews did.” As for the men, wearing of the head scarf with the ‘amamah or a hat or other, that is mubah. It is only mandub for the Hanafi School of Thought as a matter of respect, but there is no evidence to back this claim. Imam Shafi‘i said,

“The covering of the head during salah or otherwise is mubah. Whoever claims that it is mandub, his opinion is invalid because of the lack of evidence in the chain of transmission; unless people used logic as evidence, and that is not valid in our Shari‘ah.”

19. Islam has forbidden the wearing of tiger and lion skins. Abu Dawud reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “The angels will not accompany anyone wearing tiger skin.” Al-Hakim reported on Abu Malih’s father’s authority, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade the skin of lions. Imam Ahmed reported on Mu‘awiya’s authority that the Messenger of Allah (saw) had forbidden wailing, the hanging of portraits, lion skins, tabarruj and singing. Wearing gold, pearls and silk are also forbidden for men.

20. Islam has also made the wearing of some colours mandub and others makruh.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Nasheeds, Western Foreign Policy and Darfur

The ‘Concert for Peace In Darfur’ held in Wembley Arena London, has been hailed by some to be a great way for Muslims to help other Muslims. This concert featured as the main performer, the nasheed ‘artist’ Sami Yusuf. Who visited Darfur, with an Islamic charity organisation. He has publicised the plight of the Muslims in Darfur and in many ways re-enforced the narrative spun by the British government as to what happening in Darfur. This is hardly surprising as one the events sponsors is the British Foreign Office.

Some Muslims, view the holding of such concerts as a charitable deed that Islam deems to be praiseworthy. They see it is an attempt to help Muslims that are less fortunate. More aware Muslims realise that often there is more than meets the eye when it comes to such events. The context needs to be examined before a sound judgement as how to view such events can be made.

Western Foreign Policy

Although the colonialist nations like the US, Britain and France make claims that they are against human suffering and misery they are ones that are usually cause it. It is blatantly obvious that they hold the interests of their wealthy capitalist classes and corporations dearer than the lives of people. One only needs to look at Iraq as an example. The case of Iraq shows that oil and natural resources mean more to these Governments than the blood of people. A figure of 650,000 is often stated as the number of Iraqi civilians that have died as result of the colonial conquest of Iraq. This figure was the average used in the report published in the Lancet, the upper range was stated to be 942,000. The report was published some time ago and the figure has probably reached more than a million innocent lives lost since then. This is in addition to the suffering and misery of millions. Iraq has become a society that has been torn into tatters, with insecurity, bloodshed and tension featuring in everyday life. The displaced have become victims of hunger and desperation. Vulnerable young Iraqi girls are being forced into prostitution in neighbouring Syria. All this suffering to feed the greed of the West, that stems from the evil of capitalism. Alan Greenspan the former governor of the US Federal Reserve admitted in his recent book that the war in Iraq was fundamentally about oil. Only the naïve would view the western nations as being altruistic and caring for the affairs of mankind.

The Case of Darfur

Why are Western Nations so concerned about Darfur? Are the people of Darfur the only ones that are suffering in the world today? The Western Nations talk about helping people in Darfur, whilst at the same time they are killing people daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is the significance of Darfur to the West?

Darfur is located in Southern Sudan, an area known to be rich on oil. The Colonialist Nations are exploiting the violence and consequent humanitarian crisis that has resulted. It is widely believed that it was the US that first armed rebel factions so as to create a problem to solve in the area. The tragedy in Darfur is now being exploited in various ways by different colonialist nations.

This historical backdrop for this lust for the regions oil resources began with the American company Chevron, which had been granted oil exploration rights by the Numeri regime. In the early 1990’s Chevron decided to no longer pursue its oil interests in Southern Sudan. In this period the Chinese secured major rights for oil in the region due to its increasing thirst to feed its industries. Now there is a clamour amongst different nations to secure a piece of the pie.

As always the colonialist nations compete with other to secure the right to plunder weaker nations. France and Britain are keen to send troops to Darfur, the US has already has troops in the region although not in Darfur. The Chinese have a small amount of soldiers in Sudan to protect their interests, the British and the French have very little military influence in Darfur.

That is why the French and British welcomed the passing of UN resolution 1706 in August 2006 calling for the deployment of UN 'peacekeepers' to supplement the 7000 African Union troops. It is thought that the US is not keen on allowing UN troops into the region as it will allow the issue to be internationalised allowing the British and French to have share of the future spoils. France held a conference about Darfur on 25th June 2007 in which they proposed to use the French military to open ‘humanitarian corridors’ to Darfur from their bases in Chad. No one from Sudan, the Darfur rebels or the surrounding countries such as Chad was even invited to attend this conference.

The British for their part have been highlighting the plight of the people in Darfur by using various means to publicise the humanitarian issues. Hoping that this will create a favourable public opinion for future military intervention.

Nasheed Concerts and Muslims in Britain

Whilst the organisers of concerts such as the one in Wembley, may have been blissfully unaware of the background to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Muslims in Britain are increasingly aware about the nature of the society that they live in and the government that rules over them. They are aware that the British government has an agenda for them, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. The British government knows from is murderous misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, that it is better to have Muslim public opinion on its side. It is for this reason that they wish to win Muslim hearts and minds. Wouldn’t it be great for the British government if British forces were to occupy Darfur, that Muslims in Britain viewed it as a humanitarian intervention rather than a colonial aggression against their brothers and sisters?

Muslims are increasingly realising that these pseudo Islamic events are not going to solve the problem for Muslims in Darfur. The organisers may well have the well being of the Muslims in Darfur at heart, but they need to understand the context in which they do their actions. Those that have other political motives for the Muslims can easily use such events to suit them. Why would the Foreign Office sponsor events like this one in Wembley, if it did not serve their purpose?

If Muslims want to do something to help their brothers and sisters in Darfur, Iraq or any other place then they must put their efforts and energies to working to re-establish the Khilafah. This is the real solution to the problems of the Muslims throughout the world. The Darfur crisis is a result of a weak leadership in Sudan, a weak regime that does not rule by Islam. They allowed the crisis to occur and they have conceded to the wishes of the colonialist enemies of Islam and the Muslims.

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Source