Thursday, February 28, 2008
Western critics were not alone however in their incredulity. Muslims also felt incredulity. How could the Danish and other governments allow such insulting material to be published in their countries? Shouldn't they apologise and promise to prevent a repeat of the offence? It seems that the mutual incredulity proves the truth of the famous saying about east and west that 'never the twain shall meet'. Despite the deeply polarised feelings the cartoons have generated, it ought to be possible for Muslim and western personalities to understand each other’s sentiments. The opposing emotions highlight not only the sharp differences between Muslim and western thinking, but also some unexpected similarities. This article explores these differences and similarities, and offers a possible basis for mutual criticism and debate between opposing ideologies, without recourse to rancour and reckless provocation.
Before exploring the deeper issues in question, it is necessary to decide upon the reality of the cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammad. Do they constitute an intellectual argument or are they to be regarded as an insult? The question is important in order to determine whether Muslims have a problem with intellectual criticism of Islam or with being insulted. It is clear from listening to the protestations of Muslims across the world that they feel insulted, but are these perceptions accurate? Could it be that they feel insulted by criticism or do the cartoons in reality constitute an insult? One of the most controversial cartoons depicted Muhammad with a bomb in his turban; the fuse was lit and written upon the bomb was the Islamic creed. Another cartoon included a poem with the words: ‘Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!’ which means: ‘Prophet, you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke!’ Mohammad is also drawn standing in heaven, upon a cloud greeting dead suicide bombers with the words: ‘Stop Stop vi er løbet tør for Jomfruer!’ which means: ‘Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!’ It is difficult to see how such cartoons could be seen by Muslims as anything other than an insult to the prophet Mohammad. In response to Muslims protests, Jyllands-Posten published two letters of explanation. The second letter, dated 30th January 2006, states that the cartoons: ‘were not intended to be offensive … but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologise.’
The stated intentions of the cartoons’ publishers have a bearing upon these questions. The Danish publishers explained that their motive was to test the boundaries of freedom of speech and they did not challenge Muslims to debate any substantive issues about Islam. They did not explain what intellectual criticisms they were bringing through the medium of cartoons; rather they sought to see how far they could go to provoke Muslims in order to make a statement about freedom of speech. They claimed that freedom of speech was under threat in Denmark and published the insulting cartoons as a means to bring attention to their issue. Insulting Muslims may not have been their objective, but it was a means of publicising their concerns through the debate that followed. Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor, made this clear:
‘The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule … we are on the way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him.’
Thus Rose made it clear that Muslims should be ready to accept insult, mockery and ridicule. Debating Islam is not the issue, and so Muslim perceptions of being insulted were accurate. The question then is not why Muslims cannot accept to listen to criticism and respond with reasoned argument, but why Muslims cannot accept ‘insults, mockery and ridicule’ of Islam. As Rose explained in the Washington Post, on February 19th 2006, his paper was not singling out Islam for attack, but was drawing Muslims into the secular fold, so that they be treated as equals to Christians and those of other religions:
'The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: we are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.’
Jyllands-Posten were thus making a principled stand for secularism in general and more specifically for freedom of speech in Denmark, which was enshrined in the constitution of 1849 and reaffirmed, after the suspension of freedoms during the German occupation of Denmark in World War II, in section 77 of the Constitutional Act of Denmark (1953). The feeling amongst some Danish thinkers, that freedom was under threat in Denmark, was expressed two weeks before the publishing of the cartoons. On September 17th 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken printed an article titled: ‘Dyb angst for kritik af Islam’ (‘Profound fear of criticism of Islam’, which discussed the difficulty the writer Kåre Bluitgen was facing in finding an illustrator for his children’s book about Islam. Three illustrators refused and a fourth agreed to assist anonymously - apparently for fear of repercussions. Carsten Juste, Editor-in-Chief of Jyllands-Posten, wrote in a letter of clarification dated 8th February 2006, that the cartoons were published: ‘as part of an ongoing debate on freedom of expression, a freedom much cherished in Denmark.’
Freedom is an abstract concept; you cannot see or hear freedom, you certainly cannot eat it, but it does have a reality nonetheless, to those who cherish it. The editors of Jyllaands-Posten cherished freedom and they made sacrifices for it that were borne by many Danish companies and individuals. The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, described the cartoons affair as, “Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II”. Such an abstract concept cannot have a priced assigned to it, and the initial publishers of the cartoons were arguing that it was worth paying a high price in order to preserve freedom. Many Muslims viewed the cartoons as a base attack upon Islam, but the publishers of the cartoons claimed they were making a principled stand for a core western belief in the primacy of freedom.
Abstract concepts are can be priceless and they often ennoble human society. Abstract thinking and aesthetic appreciation distinguish man from beast and enrich life with many forms of art. The western renaissance and scientific revolution fused art and science, which were built upon new forms of abstract reasoning. In the arena of personal relationships, the abstract concepts of love and honour are cherished as priceless. It has always been considered noble to believe in high concepts and sacrifice material benefits for the sake of principle.
Western societies do not, however, hold a monopoly on cherishing abstract ideals. In fact, while such ideals have become scarce in the west, Muslims cherish a multitude of abstract ideals and this is where East and West crashed head-on over the issue of the cartoons.
Muslims hold the concept of honour in high esteem, and to insult someone is to transgress upon his honour. Just as the publishers of Jyllaands-Posten were ready to sacrifice for freedom, so too were Muslims, ready to sacrifice for the sake of honour. If a Muslim would seek to defend his own honour, then it would be even nobler for him to defend the honour of another. If defending the honour of his mother or his father should be nobler than defending his own honour, then for the Muslim nothing is more precious than defending the honour of the prophet who brought to him his religion. Honour, however, like freedom, is an intangible concept that does not put food on the table. Pragmatists who criticise Muslims for getting upset, and might equally criticise a newspaper for causing such a fuss in the first place, argue and against taking principled stands for the sake of intangible concepts. They are practical people who concern themselves solely with the material; this preoccupation with the material has become a dominating feature of western life, which has eroded many former values and concepts in favour of hard-nosed materialism. The concept of honour, held dearly by Muslims, needs no explanation to a western audience who are familiar with it as a part of their historical heritage. Nowadays however, honour is an outmoded concept in the west. Standing up for honour, as opposed to reason, is to be considered naive or romantic at best, and dangerous fanaticism at worst. It is no surprise, therefore, that the editors of Jyllaands-Posten found little support from their freedom loving allies in Britain or America and took the full force of criticism on their own. Their publication of cartoons that were expected to cause offence appears foolhardy. Likewise, intense expressions of Muslim anger may by western standards also be considered unreasonable. In both cases, to argue a point of principle too far, be it western freedoms or the honour of a prophet, risks being labelled in the west as extreme or fanatical.
While western values are being eroded, Muslims are still adhering to and championing their own values. By opposing insults upon the prophet Muhammad, they are not excluding the possibility of reasoned debate and listening to intellectual arguments against their belief, but standing up for the honour of the man most beloved to them – Mohammad the prophet. The indignation expressed by Muslims would be easier for many to understand if Mohammad were a company director, Islam a company and Muslims shareholders! In such a situation an insult upon Mohammad would affect the stock value of the company capital and the shareholders could sue for damages. Honour or what used to be called in law ‘goodwill’ is an intangible phenomenon that as capitalism has developed is now considered an asset, which can be given a pecuniary value and hence receive protection in law. The ‘good name’ of a company or an individual may be lost and the implications of that could be financial loss. Financial loss being a material thing is protected in western law, but honour for the sake of honour itself has no such recognition. This is in contrast to Islam, which protects not only life and property, but also honour for its own sake regardless of the financial implications.
As for argument and debate, while Muslims jealously protect the honour of the prophet Mohammad and react strongly to any insults levelled at them or their religion, they are not unyielding to criticism. Reasoned criticism is of the greatest concern to Muslims because Islam calls for adherents to assent to belief in the truth of key ideas: the existence of a supreme Creator and the messengerhood of Mohammad who brought the Qur’an as guidance for mankind from the Creator. This is an intellectual belief that requires proof for acceptance and led Muslims to engage in intellectual dispute with others from the time of the prophet Mohammad himself until today. The Qur’an expressly forbade the coercion of non-believers into the faith of Islam and protected their right to live in peace and harmony as citizens of the Islamic authority, without compulsion to change their religion. Muslims through the centuries have listened to the arguments and philosophies of other nations, translated their literature into Arabic and responded intellectually to whatever criticisms of Islam they encountered.
When the issue of reasoned debate is considered comparatively, it will be discovered that the thinkers and politicians of western countries are remarkably opposed to debate with their own Muslim minority populations and seek to impose their beliefs by coercion rather than persuasion. When Jyllands-Posten sought to make a stand for freedom they chose not to raise an intellectual discussion directly, but to offend Muslims in Denmark and push them into a corner. If it were not for the world-wide reaction, then the Muslims in Denmark would have been under intense pressure to concede to others the right to ‘freely’ express any racist or insulting views towards them, in the name of secularism and tolerance. They would have been asked to compromise on their values and give up their adherence to pre-modern non-tangible values in the name of integration with the Danish host society.
The publishing of offensive cartoons in the name of freedom seems less honourable when it is recalled that in April 2003, the same Danish newspaper rejected publishing cartoons "lampooning" Jesus Christ, citing that they could be offensive to readers and were not humorous. The Sunday editor of the paper remarked, "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." Freedom then has its limits – except when used against Muslims and what they hold dear. If politicians, editors and writers in the west are concerned that the Muslims living in their countries do not share their political visions and their values, then they ought to try and convince Muslims through discussion and debate. In fact coercion is the favoured method used against Muslims who do give intellectual reasons for their beliefs and values. Muslims who reject western political culture are commonly insulted rather than refuted. In fact it is almost impossible to find any serious attempts to refute the political ideology of Muslims who refuse to believe in democracy and secularism. Instead, offensive cartoons or the issue of immigration are used to coerce Muslims into believing in and participating in the political culture of secularism. If this does not work, Muslims are told they must conform or the extremists will gain power. If Muslims still fail to fall in line, they risk being labelled as ‘extremist,’ ‘militant,’ ‘fanatic’ or ‘terrorist’.
Such a tactic has an historical precedent. The nationalism of the 19th century that cemented the concept of the ‘nation state’ in Europe had violent consequences in the 20th century in the rise of fascism. Fascism had a powerful hold on many Europeans and wars had to be fought in order to defeat it. Nevertheless, ‘far-right’ politics is still very much alive in Europe. It seems then that fascism is a resilient force and those opposed to fascism have adopted a common tactic in fighting it. They are incapable of defeating it intellectually, because it is no more or less rational than any other western political philosophy. No one tries to prove the concept of ‘freedom’ in the same way that Muslims, for example, offer proofs for the existence of the creator or the prophethood of Mohammad. Instead the terminology used against fascism is framed in opprobrium and insult. Fascism is ‘obscene’, ‘repugnant’, ‘unacceptable’ and so on, but is also ‘wrong’. While Muslims would respond to fascism by trying to demonstrate its intellectual flaws, western opponents of fascism simply insult it and those who believe in it. This approach has been successful in marginalising extreme forms of nationalism and even the word fascism has become a standard insult in the English language. This word is even applied to Muslims who hold to their political culture and express the hope of the return of the Caliphate. The debates in Denmark and throughout Europe regarding the presence of growing Muslim minorities that are slow to accept western political concepts has focused upon coercion and has neglected debate. This can only end in disappointment, because Muslim political thought is resilient and evidence-based, leaving it untouched by coercive integration measures. This approach may also lead to conflict, because Muslims believe in intangible values, such as honour, and will respond vigorously to insults upon their religion.
If newspaper editors dispense with mocking cartoons and opt for intellectual debate with Muslims they can expect a more fruitful response than the worldwide reaction the editors of Jyllands-Posten managed to incite with: ‘Prophet, you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke!’
Dr. Abdullah Robin
From the Summer 2006 issue of New Civilisation Magazine
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Question: Are Muslims allowed to buy fresh or canned meat from Jews, Christians, Hindus and other non-Muslims? And are Muslims allowed to buy canned meat for pets?
Answer: Despite the fact that this issue is not crucial to the Ummah, it is something that Muslims always worry about, especially people living and studying in the non-Muslim countries. It is high time that Muslims learnt the verdict of tadhkiya or dhabiha (slaughtering), in order to develop a clear understanding and put a halt to the confusion which government scholars have created.
Tadhkiya in Shari‘ah terminology means the slaughtering of animals. Muslims are forbidden from eating the meat of an animal unless it has been properly slaughtered according to the Shari‘ah rules. The four conditions that must be met to make the meat halal are:
1. The slaughterer must be a Muslim, or be from the People of the Book (a Christian or a Jew). It is forbidden for Muslims to eat meat slaughtered by Hindus, Druze or any other non-Muslim. Allah (swt) has permitted Muslims to eat the meat of an animal slaughtered by the People of the Book,
“The food of the People of the Book is lawful for you.” [TMQ 5:5]
Food in this verse refers to their slaughtered meat and to other food that is lawful in Islam. Evidence about this comes from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in which he was asked about how to deal with the Majians (fire worshippers). He (saw) said, “Treat them the same way you treat the People of the Book, but do not marry their women nor eat their slaughtered meat.” This clearly indicates that Muslims are allowed to marry the women of the People of the Book and also to eat their slaughtered meat. This also indicates that the slaughterer must be a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew to the exclusion of all others. The slaughterer does not have to be a man, but could also be a woman or a discerning youth.
2. The animal must be slaughtered with the intention of slaughtering it. Every action should be performed with an intention, for the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Actions are but by intention.” If a man, for instance, attempts to strike another man with a sword but instead strikes and cuts the neck of a sheep, the killed animal is not halal. The meat slaughtered by the mentally handicapped, the intoxicated or a child is not halal either.
3. The slaughtering should be performed with an instrument which satisfies two conditions:
i) It has to be a sharp instrument which has the ability to cut with its edge and not its weight, for the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Draw blood (while slaughtering) from your livestock and mention the name of Allah.” This can only be achieved by a sharp object. Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “Do sharpen your blades.”
ii) The sharp instrument must not be a tooth or a claw. Rafi‘i ibn Khadij is reported to have said, “O Messenger of Allah, we are going to encounter the enemy tomorrow but we have no knives with us.” Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “Make haste and be careful (in making arrangements for procuring knives) which would let the blood flow (and along with it) the name of Allah should also to be recited. Then eat, but not the tooth or claw. And I am going to tell you why it is not permissible to slaughter the animal with the help of the tooth and claw; as for the tooth, it is a bone and the claw is the knife of the Abyssinians.”
Apart from the tooth and the claw, it is allowed to use any other sharp instrument for slaughtering, for instance the meat is also halal if the animal is slaughtered by a stone. Ka‘ab ibn Malik reported on the authority of his father that one of their house keepers once slaughtered a sheep that was sick, with a stone, so he said, “Do not eat it until we ask the Messenger of Allah (saw).” They sent someone to ask him (saw) and he (saw) ordered them to eat it.
4. The animal must be slaughtered by cutting the throat and the labba (front of the neck). It is unlawful to slaughter the animal in any other spot. Abu Hurayrah reported, “The Messenger of Allah (saw) sent Badil ibn Warqa’ al-Khuza‘i, riding a camel and shouting hurriedly that the slaughtering of animals must be in the throat and labba.” For the slaughtered animal to be halal, it should die as a direct result of the slaughtering. If the animal dies due to other reasons, its meat becomes haram.
In relation to the following narration of Abu al-Ashra’, on the authority of his father, “ ‘O Messenger of Allah! Is the slaughtering of animals only in the throat and labba?’ He (saw) replied, ‘If you stab it in the thigh it is allowed’ ”, this applies only in the case of not being able to restrain the animal or the bird, but if the slaughterer can control the animal and restrain it (without tying it down), he is not allowed to stab it, but only to slaughter it by way of the throat and labba.
If the bird or the animal was slaughtered from the back of the neck, and the blade reached the throat and labba, the slaughter would still be considered unlawful, because the animal may die from causes other than that of the cutting of the throat and labba. Striking the back of the neck could result in the animal’s death due to the severing of the spinal cord, and not the cutting of the throat and labba. Therefore, any animal slaughtered mechanically by the blade cutting the neck from the back would be unlawful to eat.
The proper slaughtering of the animal must include the slitting of the trachea, the oesophagus and the jugular veins. The trachea and the oesophagus form the throat - the trachea is the respiratory tract, and the oesophagus the passage for food and drink. The jugular veins run on both sides of the throat. A slaughter can be carried out without severing the jugular veins, but this is unlawful. It has been reported that Ibn ‘Abbas and Abu Hurayrah said, “The Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade us from satanic slitting.” (Abu Dawud). The description of it as ‘satanic slitting’ indicates that the forbidding is definitive, hence satanic slitting is completely prohibited. The satanic slitting refers to when the jugular veins are not severed. Imam Ibn Kathir said,
“The satanic slitting is the slaughtering (of an animal) where the jugular veins are not severed and the slaughter is not complete.”
Therefore, the lawful slaughter has to fulfil the above four conditions, otherwise the meat would be considered carrion and prohibited for us to eat.
If any type of food is prohibited by Islam, a Muslim is also prohibited from eating, selling or buying it for another Muslim or non-Muslim, even if it is bought as food for pets. Allah (swt) says,
“Prohibited for you are carrion and blood and swine flesh and that which has been dedicated to any other than Allah, and the strangled, and the dead through beating, and the dead through falling from a height, and that which has been killed by (the goring of) horns, and the devoured of wild beasts saving that which you make lawful (by the death-stroke), and that which has been immolated to idols.” [TMQ 5:3]
Invoking the name of Allah (swt) is not obligatory but mandub. So it is recommended to recite the name of Allah (swt) before slaughtering. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “... and recite the name of Allah.” He (saw) also said, “You may eat any meat that has been slaughtered and upon which the name of Allah has been invoked.” It is clear that the request in this hadith is that invoking the name of Allah (swt) is recommended. Furthermore, according to ‘A’isha, it is reported regarding a group of people who said to the Messenger of Allah (saw), “ ‘O Messenger of Allah! Some people bring us meat and we do not know whether the name of Allah has been invoked on it or not.’ He (saw) replied, ‘Recite the name of Allah and eat.’ ” This hadith indicates that the reciting of the name of Allah (swt) is not obligatory, because their reciting of Allah’s (swt) name replaced the invoking of it prior to the slaughter, and this indicates that it is Sunnah (i.e. recommended), because the Sunnah cannot replace the fard. Besides, Allah (swt) has permitted the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book, and there is no proof that they recite the name of Allah (swt) prior to the slaughter.
As for the understanding of the ayah,
“And eat not of that whereon Allah’s name has not been mentioned.” [TMQ 6:121]
it means, do not eat anything upon which the name of something other than Allah (swt) has been invoked, like the polytheists used to do because it is haram and it should be thrown away. The ayah was revealed in Makkah, and the hadith of Allah’s Messenger (saw) was elaborated in Madinah i.e. after the ayah was revealed. A Muslim should also differentiate between the verdict of reciting of the name of Allah (swt), and the verdict of invoking other than Allah’s (swt) name for sacrifices, which disbelievers and polytheists offer to their idols and clergy.
It is also prohibited to eat any other type of food from the People of the Book if it is not halal to start with, even if it is not meat. We are forbidden from eating anything cooked in wine or in lard, or the fat of unlawful meat. We are not allowed to eat pork, even if the pig is slaughtered, nor are we allowed to eat carrion or any other meat, except what is slaughtered properly as mentioned above, especially with regard to the first and third conditions.
Some people claim that any meat bought from the People of the Book i.e. the Jews and the Christians, can be eaten by the Muslims as long as one says “In the name of Allah...”. However, this applies only to the slaughtered meat. If the animal was killed in any other way, for example by electrocution, shooting, clubbing and so on, then it becomes haram meat and the Muslims cannot eat it even if they recite “In the name of Allah...” over it.
As for canned meat, such as cat food; if it originates from meat that has not been slaughtered according to Islam, or it is carrion i.e. sheep that is electrocuted or died naturally; or if it is from meat which is prohibited to eat i.e. swine; it is prohibited to buy or sell it, whether it is bought as a present or as food for pets. No one can say buying is allowed since it is pet food, because the issue is about buying and selling it and not who or what is going to eat it or what is going to happen to it. Therefore the question that should be asked is: What is the Shari‘ah verdict on the buying and selling of prohibited goods? The Shari‘ah rules are related to actions, and buying and selling are actions, so they require an evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah. The Shari‘ah has decreed that if it is prohibited to eat, drink or to benefit from something, then it is also prohibited to trade with it, unless there is a Shari‘ah text stating otherwise. Imam Ibn Hanbal extracted the following hadith from Abu Dawud (Vol. 4 .page 207) by the authority of Adari, “A man approached the Messenger of Allah (saw) with a jar of alcohol as a gift. The Messenger of Allah (saw) laughed at him and said: Did you not know that Allah has prohibited alcohol? The man replied: No, but what if I sell it and benefit from it? The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: Whatever Allah has forbidden you cannot benefit from it.” No one can claim that he is buying it for a pet and that pets are not accountable for their actions, because buying is an action committed by the human and not the pet, and humans are accountable for their actions. This would be similar to a woman selling her body in order to give sadaqah, or similar to a Muslim buying wine and pork to destroy them. The point at issue for us, in these instances is the buying and selling, and not the purpose for doing so. The animal’s actions have nothing to do with us, and animals can eat what they like.
However, if the canned food consists of the remains of fish, vegetables, cereals or lawful meat, any Muslims would then be allowed to buy and sell it, be it to give as a present, or to feed pets or to benefit from it in any other way.
And it is also worth mentioning that the Shari‘ah principle states ‘every Muslim is trustworthy’, therefore you can go to any Muslim who claims or states that his meat is halal, and you can buy from him and deal with him. Allah (swt) says in surah al-Baqarah, “Allah has permitted for you trading” [TMQ] and there is no restriction in this verse stating ‘do not trade until you are shown a certificate of authenticity’ or ‘the meat must be bought from a particular company or an organisation’. As long as the Muslim is trustworthy, i.e. not involved in haram or selling haram or doing an act of haram which could create doubt in his trustworthiness, one is allowed to buy meat from him.
Question: Is it allowed to make Hajj on the behalf of your parents if they were unable to perform Hajj due to illness or if they have passed away? Also is it permitted to perform it on the behalf of another Muslim due to the same reasons?
Answer: It is correct in the Sharee’ah for a son to make hajj on behalf of his father or mother who are unable to make Hajj or are not alive. This is due to the hadith narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas who said: A woman from Khath’am came to the Messenger (saw) in the year of the farewell Hajj (hijjatul wida’) and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah (saw)! The obligation of Hajj enjoined by Allah on His servants has become due on my father and he is old and weak, and he cannot sit firm on the Mount; may I perform Hajj on his behalf?" The Prophet (saw) replied, "Yes, you may.’ [Reported by Bukhari]
: عن ابن عباس قال: «جاءت امرأة من خثعم عام حجة الوداع، قالت: يارسول الله: إن فريضة الله على عباده في الحج أدركت أبي شيخاً كبيراً لا يستطيع أن يستوي على الراحلة فهل يقضي عنه أن أحج عنه؟ قال: نعم» أخرجه البخاري.
As for making hajj for other than parents i.e. another person who is ill or does not have the ability to make Hajj this is allowed due to what was reported by Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that the Messenger (saw) heard a man say:
Labbayk (always ready to obey) on behalf of Shubrumah. He asked: Who is Shubrumah? He replied: A brother or relative of mine. He asked: Have you performed hajj on your own behalf? He said: No. He said: perform hajj on your own behalf, then perform it on behalf of Shubrumah.
عن ابن عباس أن النبي
r سمع رجلاً يقول: لبيك عن شبرمة، قال «من شبرمة؟ قال أخ لي، أو قريب لي، قال: حججت عن نفسك؟» قال: لا، قال: «حج عن نفسك ثم حج عن شبرمة»
Thus, it is allowed to make Hajj for others as long as that person has made his own Hajj first.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Musharraf’s party, the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) was routed in the Pakistani parliamentary elections held on 18/2/2008. The opposition PML (Nawaz Groups) and Pakistan ‘s Peoples Party under the stewardship of Zardari have done really well, but lack the majority to form the new government. This result does not damage Musharraf’s position as yet, as he has plenty of room to forge close ties between PPP the largest vote taker of all the parties and other smaller parties loyal to Musharraf. There is even possibility for PPP to team up with PML (Nawaz) and form a new government. These two parties have a great opportunity to form a national government, dismiss Musharraf and overturn Anglo-American policies in Pakistan. But expected outcome is that they will follow their predecessors, implement western policies and be counted as traitors by the Pakistani people.
On 20/2/08 Senator Kerry, the South Asian Affairs Sub-Committee chairman, told Mr. Singh and other top Indian government officials “In order to be able to have time to debate this and pass it in the Senate, it would really probably have to be received somewhere in May, at the latest, in order to give time to be able to pass," he said. "So I think somewhere in the next weeks some kind of decision has got to happen because we are just going to run out of time.” The pact would give India access to American nuclear fuel and reactors. However, America ‘s position exposes its hypocrisy towards nuclear conventions enshrined in the charter of the IAEA. India rather than being punished has been rewarded for its refusal to sign treaties on non-proliferation and nuclear testing. She is one of the few countries to have tested atomic weapons in 1974 and again in 1998. In the case of Iran , it has fully complied with IAEA conventions, but is still portrayed as a pariah state by the US , even though there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme. Iran ‘s only crime is that it is guilty of having ‘thought’ about the possession of nuclear weapons.
On 18/2/08 Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, said that the West had crudely broken international law by supporting Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence, which Russian diplomats say will stir up strife in the Balkans. Russia , Serbia and several other view Kosovo’s independence as a violation of UN resolution 1244 and fear that this will set precedence for secessionist movements across the world to demand independence. There is no question that the West under the leadership of the US has weakened both international law and the UN its principal proponent. The Kosovo war of 1999 was fought by the West outside the ambit of international law. Again in 2003 the UN was bypassed as the Anglo-American war machine invaded Iraq . Now, Kosovo’s declaration of independence has gravely undermined the credibility of international law and exposed the nefarious intentions of the West.
The Muslim world should not view these developments with anguish or demand equal treatment for other Muslim lands under occupation. Rather, they should renew all efforts to re-establish the Khilafah, which will exploit the precedence of Kosovo’s independence to truly liberate all Muslim lands from the clutches of the colonialist powers.
On 17/2/08 it was revealed by the British media that the Chancellor Alistair Darling is expected to announce in his March 12 Budget if the Treasury will go ahead with plans for so-called "Sharia bonds (Sukuk)". The Treasury spokesman added: "We want the City of London to be one of the gateways globally for Islamic financial products and we want it to be competitive on all products you can imagine, so we should be competitive on Islamic finance as well as any other. Just because of your faith, there shouldn't be any issue about your access to financial services in the UK ." Sukuk is now estimated to be worth £ 5.5billion in a £125 billion global Islamic financial market. The announcement highlights a contradiction in Britain‘s commitment to its ideological values. On the one-hand, the British establishment regularly brow beats the Muslim community to compromise its Islamic values in exchange for the adoption of British values. Whilst on the other hand, the same establishment is prepared to sacrifice its ideology in a desperate bid to enter the booming Sukuk market and secure its commercial interests.
This contradiction should provide ample reassurance to those skeptical about the longevity of the coming Khilafah state. Simply put, Western capitalist states will willingly sacrifice their ideology to co-exist with the future Islamic state, as long as their interests are secured. The history of the 20th century also bears testimony to this fact. Britain on many occasions supported the Soviet Union against the US, even though she was ideologically opposed to it. Likewise, the US supported China against the Soviet Union .
Only an aware Islamic leadership that is political astute can exploit such situations and successfully navigate the Khilafah state to dominate the international situation.
The Dutch government has refused to take action against Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders who has recently made a derogatory movie about the Quran. The government has defended Wilder’s actions by citing freedom of expression. A year earlier, the Dutch government banned the Burqah. In Britain under the guise of freedom and tolerance, the Shariah debate has been used by the media and government ministers to denigrate Islam and set a new price for Muslim loyalty to the State.
France and Germany have imposed a ban on the wearing of hijabs. European security forces routinely harass, arrest and torture Muslims for simply being Muslims. Writers and journalists are free to insult Islam and their right to do so is passionately defended by politicians. Take Oriana Fallaci, the Italian war correspondent wrote a book entitled 'Anger and Pride' in which she described Muslims as 'vile creatures who urinate in baptisteries' and 'multiply like rats'. To the horror of Muslims, Italy's Defence Minister, Antonio Martino, praised Fallaci for having the courage to write the book.
In Muslims eyes, America” the leading state of the West” is notorious for the humiliation and torture of Muslims in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, responsible for the destruction and defilement of Iraq’s mosques, the debaser of Muslim women and the slayer of tens of thousands of innocent Muslims. Testimonies from human rights organisations, journalists, lawyers, US officials, former prisoners, rape victims, tell the true horror of Americas war on Islam. In this war, western ideals of 'religious freedom and the freedom of expression have given way to religious intolerance and anti-Muslim demagoguery.
Away from Washington, the US media, esteemed think tanks and leaders of the religious right who are counted among President Bush's closest allies exploited free speech to vilify Islam. Rev. Franklin Graham, described Islam as a "very evil and wicked religion". Evangelist Pat Robertson, called Prophet Muhammad "an absolute wild-eyed fanatic . . . a robber and brigand . . . a killer". Jerry Falwell called the prophet of Islam a terrorist.
On the international front the West was quick to sacrifice freedom of religion in preference for forging alliances with despotic regimes across the Muslim world. The regimes of King Abdullah, Musharraf and Karimov who routinely torture, imprison and kill Muslims for expressing their Islamic beliefs became the main players in Westerns’ crusade against Islam.
The West claims that individuals are free to worship whatever deity they choose. But in practice this leads to perpetual conflicts amongst people, as religious beliefs and practices professed by some can be interpreted as offensive and insulting to others. Hence, western governments are constantly intervening in the disputes and resort to legislation to protect the religious rights of some people by depriving others. Often, the real benefactors of freedom of religion are those individuals or groups whose beliefs coincide with the interests of the government or those who possess the ability to exert influence over the government. That is why the religious right in America is allowed to attack Islam because their fiery rhetoric is in full harmony with President Bush's war on Islam. However, if the same conservative Christians were to insult Jews or the Zionist state of Israel the US government would adopt stern measures to curb their insults.
Likewise western governments use religious freedom or freedom of expression to pry open societies closed to western values or totally ignore freedom when it does not concur with their interests. In the case of Karimovs massacre of Muslims in Andijon, the West has chosen to water down its response, as the protestors are avid supporters of Islam and not democracy. Such hypocrisy only serves to underscore the perception amongst Muslims that the America and Europe are solely interested in the utter destruction of Islamic values and practices.
Islam does not believe in the fanciful idea of freedom of religion or freedom of expression, where a handful of men decide which beliefs and thoughts are legally beyond reproach and which beliefs and thoughts are subject to unfettered criticism and legislation. Islam stipulates that life, honour, blood, property, belief, race and the mind are to be protected by the Islamic State. All the citizens of the Caliphate are guaranteed these rights, irrespective of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims. Islam also protects the rights of non-muslims to worship without any fear of retribution or vilification of their beliefs. The messenger (saw) of Allah said: "One who hurts a dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen of the Caliphate), he hurts me and the one who hurts me, hurts Allah"
Therefore it is prohibited for a Muslim to insult the beliefs of a non-Muslim or to damage their places of worship. The Islamic history is unrivalled in its ability to guarantee the religious rights of non-Muslims under the shade of the Caliphate.
Muslims living under the tyrannical rule of regimes supported by the west need to realise that holding demonstration or boycotting western goods will not prevent the West from carrying out further acts of aggression against them. The only way to prevent the West and her surrogates from attacking Islam and humiliating Muslims is to re-establish the Caliphate.
The rights of the Muslims were protected, until the very last days of the Caliphate. During the rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, Britain decided to stage a play, which depicted the life of the messenger (saw) of Allah in a derogatory manner. On hearing this Sultan Abdul Hamid complained to the British government to put an immediate end to the play. The British government defended its decision to hold the play by citing free speech. When Sultan Abdul Hamid threatened Britain with military action only then did Britain relent.
By Abid Mustafa
February 18 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
The Mahammadans of India have voiced bitter resentment against the action of Mustafa Kemal, Turkish President, in virtually abolishing the Califate (see Page 11).
Mahammad Ali, Indian leader, said last week that the Califate is the essence of Islam and will not be abandoned by Indians.
Mahatma Gandhi has often expressed the opinion that the future of Islam is in India. Mahammadans have always been the most fanatical opponents of the British raj. If they attempt to create an Indian Califate, anarchy is almost sure to follow.
The following articles from that period are also interesting to read:
Whoever possesses an authority/competence (salahiyya) which obliges upon him to fulfil a benefit among the people’s benefits, then the money which he takes in order to execute the benefit is bribery nor is it a wage in any way whatsoever. The distinction between the wage and bribery is that the wage is taken in exchange for undertaking an action which is not obliged upon him; as for bribery, it is taken in exchange for performing an action he is obliged to perform without exchange from the one for whose sake the action is performed or in exchange for not performing an action obliged upon him to perform. Accordingly bribery is the money given in order to fulfil/execute/carry out (qadha) a benefit obliged upon the taker to execute or to execute a benefit by the taker not doing that which he is obliged to do, whether the benefit is a right or something null/void (batil). The payer of the bribe is called the (rashi), its taker is the (murtashi) and the mediator between them is the (raish).
Bribery is forbidden by the explicit texts. Ahmad and Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi and ibn Majah narrated from Abdullah bin Amur who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Allah cursed the briber (rashi) and bribe-taker (murtashi).” Ahmad narrated from Tawban who said: “The Messenger of Allah (SAW) cursed the briber, bribe-taker and the mediator meaning the one who walks between the two.” These ahadith are general covering all bribery whether it is seeking a right or something null whether it is seeking to repel a harm or gain a benefit, to remove imposing injustice; all are forbidden. It is not said that bribery is forbidden because it is seeking something void or neglecting the truth, so if it like this then it is forbidden. Whereas if it is in seeking the truth of lifting injustice, then it is allowed. This is not said because this means that forbidding bribery came reasoned so if it exists the rule (‘illah) exists and when it departs the rule departs. This is not correct because all the texts which came forbidding bribery are not reasoned in their forbiddance by any reason. There does not exist therein nor in any text what could be deduced therefrom as a reason. Accordingly its forbiddance is by the unreasoned explicit text sot here is absolutely no reason for it. Nor is it said that when bribery is taken from the owner of a right to fufil the right, it is permitted as it is taking money to perform an allowed action which is fulfilling the right. This is not said because the texts which forbade bribery came general so they remain in their generality covering all types of bribery. So if one wants to specify and exclude some types of bribery, this matter requires another text to specify them because the text is not specified except by a text of the Book or Sunnah. No text came so it remains general without specification. Hence all types of bribery are forbidden without distinction between its being in seeking a right or seeking something void, lifting or imposing injustice, repelling harm or achieving a benefit, all these enter under the generality of the text.
Similarly there is no distinction in forbidding bribery between its being to the judge (hakim) or official or leader or other than these; all are forbidden. Nor is it said that Ahmad narrated from Abu Hurayrah who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Allah cursed the briber and bribe-taker in judgement (hukm)” so this is restricted in judgement so the absolute is carried on the restricted. This is not said because the word whose description is considered a description is the absolute/unrestricted not the general word. As for the general word, specification occurs therein not restriction; so if there comes a restriction with it then it is of the type of stating clearly (tansees) one of its units (afrad) not of the type of restriction. Hence the word briber, bribe-taker and mediator are general words not
Unrestricted words, thus his statement “in judgement” is not a restriction for it such that the remaining ahadith are carried upon it. Rather it is stating clearly a unit among its units and this is the rule, so all the ahadith remain general and they remain in their generality. So all bribery is forbidden whether to the judge or official or others. Bribing the policeman to repel harm is like bribing the judge, and the bribery of the director of a company so as to be employed therein or so that he is not dismissed is like bribing the collector of taxes or conveyor of propaganda so as not to convey it. Bribing the head of workers so as to lighten the work for them or other than that like bribing the worker of the trader given to him by the customer in exchange for (yantaqi) for him new goods among the goods, or the worker of the printing press given to him by the writer of the book to perfect his work without the owner of the printing press. All these are bribery and all are forbidden because it is money taken in exchange for performing an action he is obliged to perform without exchange from the one on whose behalf he is performing the action. It enters into bribery what some of them pay to someone with authority before an official to use his influence before him to fulfil his need, but it is not the official who takes the money but rather the one taking the money is the one who talks to the official so money is paid to him in exchange for his talking to him. This is also bribery because this money is given in exchange for executing a benefit from the one upon whom it is obligatory to fulfil it so it is bribery whether the one who executed the benefit took it or not. It is not a condition in verifying the money being bribery that the one who directly performs the execution of the benefit; rather the condition in the money being bribery is that this money be given in exchange for executing the action whether the person who takes it or his friend or the one with authority before him or his relative or boss or other than these since the value (‘ibra) in verifying the money being bribery is that it is taken in exchange for executing a benefit to be executed without exchange from the one executing it.
Similar to bribery in forbiddance is the gift gifted to the judges, governors and their like until some of them counted it as being of bribery because it resembles it in its being money taken in order to execute an action obliged to be executed without exchange from the one for whose sake he is executing the action. The difference between bribery and the gift presented to judges, governors and their like is that in bribery money is given in exchange for fulfilling the benefit whereas in the gifts to judges, governors and their like, property is given therein from the owner of the benefit not in exchange for the benefit but because the one being gifted practically supervises the executing of benefits by himself or his mediators whether he is gifted desiring the execution of specific benefit or after executing a specific benefit or desiring the execution of benefits when they occur. Hence bribery and gifts presented to the judge and his like are similar and one is analogised upon the other. However their reality is that there is something of a difference.
The forbidding of gifts to the judge, governor and their like came explicitly in the ahadith. Al-Bukhari narrated Abu Hamid As- Saidi “that the Prophet (SAW) appointed ibn al-Lutaybiyya upon the sadaqat of Banu Sulaym. When he came to the Messenger of Allah (SAW) and he accounted him, he said: This is what is for you and this is a gift gifted to me. So the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: ‘Why did you not sit in the house of your father and the house of your mother until your gifts came to you if you are truthful?’ then the Messenger of Allah (SAW) stood and gave a khutbah to the people. He praised Allah and extolled Him then said: ‘As for what follows, verily I appointed men from among you upon matter over which Allah appointed me. Then one of you comes to me saying: ‘This is for you and this is a gift presented to me.’ Why did he not sit in the house of his father and the house of his mother until his gifts came to him if he is truthful? For by Allah, none of you will take anything from it without due right except that he will come carrying it on the Day of Judgement.’” From Buraydah from the Prophet (SAW) who said: “Whoever we appointed upon work and provided sustenance (rizq) for him, then whatever he takes after that is illicit wealth (ghulul)” or the Messenger (SAW) had called it (suht) which is forbidden money. Al-Khateeb extracted in Talkhis Al-Mutashabbih from Anas that the Prophet (SAW) said: “The gifts of governors is (suht).” It is related about Masruq from ibn Masoud that he was asked about (suht), is it bribery? He said: ‘No, but (suht) is that a man seeks assistance upon an injustice (madhlama) so he gives you a gift. Do not accept.’ Abu Wail Shaqeeq bin Salamah, one of the Imams of the Tabi’in, said: “If the judge takes the gift, then he has eaten (suht). And if he takes bribery, then he has reached thereby.’ All these ahadith—the hadith of Abu Hamid and the hadith of Buraydah and the hadith of Anas—all of them are explicit in that the gifts presented to the one supervising the general/public actions are forbidden whether it is presided after performing a specific action or before performing it, or it is presented to him because he is the one in authority in any matter, or it is presented to him because he has authority with the one in whose hands are executing the benefits; all these are forbidden. The word gifts (hidaya) came in the hadith of: “The gifts (hidaya) of the governors is (suht)” is general covering all gifts to governors. Analogised upon the governors all those supervising the execution of the people’s benefit who is obliged to execute them without exchange taken from the one for whom it is executed; it is forbidden for him to take a gift or a gift be taken from those for whom is this benefit desiring its execution. The policeman, head of a company, leader of workers, and whoever is like them; it is forbidden upon them to take gifts and the gifts for them are (suht).
However, the gift to these people is forbidden if it is not the custom of the one giving the gift to present it to them. However, if it was of his custom to gift to them whether they were supervising the execution of benefits or not, then the gift is permitted for them without any blame in it. This is because the Messenger (SAW) says in the hadith: “Why did you not sit in the house of your father and the house of your mother until your gifts came to you if you are truthful?” Its understanding is that the gift which is gifted to him while he sits in the house of his father and his mother without being a governor is permitted. This means that this gift, whose affair is that its presenter would gift it to the person if he were not supervising, is permitted in the situation of his supervising the execution of benefits as it is permitted in the situation of his not supervising the execution of benefits. So the ahadith of prohibition do not apply upon it and it is excluded by the understanding of the hadith.
Hizb ut-Tahrir in Denmark held a demonstration in protest of this. You can view and download the Urdu version of a leaflet by them from: http://www.khilafat.dk/pdfdata/ls.pdf
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Usul al-Fiqh - Islam Ki Tashri Asaas
By Muhammad Ali
This is currently one amongst a few books that have been written on the subject of Usul al-Fiqh in the Urdu language. The author based the contents of this 116 page book upon Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani’s (ra) masterpiece ‘Shaksiyyah Islamiyyah’ (The Islamic Personality) Volume 3. As well as referring to the excellent book ‘Teyseer al wusool Ila al-Usul’ (To make understanding Usul easy) by Sheikh Ata ibn Khalil Abu al-Rishta (May Allah protect him).
This book aims to clarify key subjects that establish the framework of Islamic juristic thinking such as:
* Al-Hakim (the legislator)
* The principles related to things & actions
* The types of Ahkam Shariah
* Qareenah (Legal indicators)
* The various types of Talab (request)
* The circumstantial rules such as Sabab (cause), Shart (conditions), etc.
* General principles (Qa'ida kulliyah)
* The sources of Shariah
* Understanding Daleel (evidence)
* Ijtihad & Taqleed
Export Price: £3.50 GBP, postage/courier rates will apply.
How to Purchase through Paypal
Please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with your name, full address, book title, quantity required and a contact number. Revival Publications will then send you a payment request form from Paypal which you need to complete. Upon receiving payment, your book/s will be dispatched. Paypal accepts payments through any major Card.
Please note: Purchasing in bulk decreases the courier charges which are normally high for a single book so it is better to buy a few together with your friends/family. The books will be delivered within 3-5 days of receiving the payment.
Monday, February 18, 2008
The situation in Somalia has deteriorated since America sponsored the invasion over a year ago. A UN official summarized the situation “as the world's most urgent humanitarian crisis – worse even than Darfur”. More than 1 million people have been displaced and do not have access to basic necessities due to the ongoing violence. The situation in Somalia demonstrates the extent that the US and others are willing to go to undermine Islamic Rule.As reported by Reuters, a senior U.N. refugee official declared that Somalia is the “world's most urgent humanitarian crisis – worse even than Darfur”:
- 60% of the Mogadishu population has fled the city because of fighting
- Over 1 million people have been uprooted from their homes in Somalia.
- 15% suffer acute malnutrition while health services are very limited and while sanitation, water and shelters are extremely poor.
- Due to the ongoing fighting, it has been difficult for aid agencies to deliver food and other necessities.
The Muslim Rulers: Dutiful to Washington and London
As explained below, the US is behind the military invasion into Somalia. However, the US is only able to carry out its plans against the Ummah because of the Muslim rulers. They have silently watched the horrors in Somalia unfold. These rulers continue to prove to be an obstacle to the Ummah and have relegated themselves as pawns in the hands of the colonial powers.
What started the fighting?
The fighting began in 2007 when the Ethiopians invaded Somalia. The Americans backed the invasion to end the rule of the Islamic Courts, who had recently come to power. In contrast to the chaotic and criminal rule of the war lords, the Islamic Courts worked to bring some law and order based on the shariah of Allah (swt). Naturally, this was a welcome change to the Muslims of Somalia. The majority of the people in Somalia are Muslims who love their Deen and were happy to unite under the banner of Islam through the leadership of the Islamic Courts.
The US had Somalia within its clutches through the rule of Siad Berri. However, the British were able to gain control of the country through the tribal uprising of 1991. After that, the US attempted to regain its influence in 1992 through the so-called, ”Humanitarian” delegations under the auspices of the ‘Hope Again’ project. For this, they allocated some 28,000 soldiers. However, it backfired in 1995 resulting in a humiliating withdrawal for the US. This brings us to 2007 where the US used her proxy, Ethiopia, to subjugate Somalia to its will.
Why would the US care about Somalia?
The US, as any other imperial power, seeks to extend her tentacles of power all over the globe. Firstly, the US wants to eliminate any semblance of Islamic rule. The US fights any force or movement that gravitates towards Islam wherever it may be in the world. We saw this with the attack on Afghanistan. Prior to its fall in 2001, America was ready to work with the Taliban to control the area. However, once the Taliban decided to pursue an independent path, the US decided (in the words of Colin Powell) to “bomb them back to the stone age”. The Capitalist nations – America, Britain, and the other Western Powers – will not tolerate the emergence of Islam as an independent political force. They want complete domination of the Ummah.
The second reason pertains to Somalia’s geographic location. Somalia occupies a very strategic position along the Indian Ocean and has the longest coastline in Africa running 2,720 km (1700 miles). Somalia has two stretches of coastline, one running along the Indian Ocean to the east and another running to its northern side along the Gulf of Aden towards the Bab el Mandeb and the Red Sea. Thus, Somalia is vitally and strategically placed as the gateway to Southern Africa as well as the Arabian Peninsula – a location that can be used to control these territories.
Finally, America’s appetite for resources and wealth is insatiable. Somalia is very rich in resources. Based on geological studies conducted, Somalia is rich in resources including; uranium, natural gas, oil, and others. In the late 1980s (during the regime of Siad Berri), rights to over two-thirds of Somalia’s resources were given to American oil companies: Conco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips for drilling. Oil was discovered in the first nine wells which have been confirmed by the World Bank geologists. But the revolution which toppled Siad Berri effectively ended the ability of the corporations from pillaging the resources of Somalia. The United States in now exerting great effort in order to get its grip back on this wealth.
The War on Islamic Rule
Now that Communism ceased to have any influence on world affairs, the capitalist elite have turned their sights on Islam. Some point to Islam as a threat due to its immense population or its proximity to strategic resources (e.g. oil). However, the real issue is the Islamic ideology.
Many elite personalities have referred to the threat of the Khilafah (Caliphate). The CIA has put out a memo predicting the rise of the Khilafah by the year 2020. Putin, Blair, Kissinger, and Bush, are all ringing the alarms bells regarding the threat of the Khilafah. For example, when Henry Kissinger (ex-security advisor to former US president Nixon) was asked, “What in your opinion are the principal threats of the age?” – he answered – “First, is what we call terrorism in the United States, but which is really the uprising of radical Islam against the secular world, and against the democratic world, on behalf of re-establishing a sort of Caliphate. That is directed as much against moderate Islam, than it is against non-Islamic societies.”
Why do they fear Islamic Rule? Because they want to ensure that the Muslims are unable to project the Islamic Aqeedah and Islamic systems in an organized and correct manner. Not only will the West lose its hold on the Muslim world, but there is also the fear that Muslims will start exposing how corrupt the rule of the West truly is. That is, once the people of the world can see the contrast between Islamic Rule and Capitalist rule, they will realize that Islam is the best system for humanity. This will ultimately undermine Western hegemony.
The treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) is a good example to illustrate this point. The West has the Geneva Convention to protect POWs. However, this is nothing but a man-made law. Therefore, the Bush administration had no problem side-stepping the law when dealing with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, or in some other prison within their vast network of dungeons. From Bush’s point of view, the Bush administration and the author’s of the Geneva Convention are equal – as a result Bush and company can rewrite the legislation as they like. The horrifying and degrading conditions of these prisons is known world wide and yet they are kept open. In contrast, Islam affords POWs a much higher status. As Allah (swt) has revealed:
“And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive, (Saying),"We feed you for the sake of Allah alone: no reward do we desire from you, nor thanks.” [TMQ 76:9-10]
According to the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (saw), the Muslim armies were expected to feed the captives before they would feed themselves. Thus, the requirement to feed POWs before feeding the Muslim army is a practice that comes from the Creator of all things, the Supreme, Allah (swt) – no human being has the right to over turn this legislation based on whims, interests, or the “threat of terrorism”.
Once the nations of the world experience this type of impartial justice they will naturally desire it.
This is why the West is quick to mobilize their resources, armies, and agents to crush any semblance of Islamic rule – be it in Afghanistan or Somalia. This is the real reason why the elite in the West detest Islam – not because of violent acts of a handful of individuals. The resentment towards Islam has nothing to do with violence. It is the West that manufactures and profits from both weapons of minor destruction as well as weapons of mass destruction. The elite are well aware that their ideas have no chance of competing with Islam. They know how Islam was spread in the past by the Sahabah, how the nations eagerly embraced Islam, and how long it took them to defeat the Khilafah.
The failure of the West to acknowledge any kind of Islamic governance (i.e. the Khilafah) as an alternative – despite its resonance with tens of millions of Muslims – is not surprising. Western political leaders would rather compare their way of life to the record of the failed tyrannies that rule the Muslims (whom they prop up) instead of discussing whether the Khilafah or Capitalism would be better for the Muslim world. Some even refuse to acknowledge the Khilafah as a reality dismissing it as some kind of historical dream on the part of a small minority. However, Pat Buchanan exposes this intellectual dishonesty when he stated: “Fundamentalism is on the rise, even in Iraq. There is a deep sense that only by a return to the Islamic roots that once made their civilization the greatest on earth can the greatness of Arab peoples be restored. And there is both a revulsion in this region against what is perceived as a decadent and toxic American culture and a will to be rid of US political and military domination.”
As part of the global Ummah, we must expose the reality of what is happening in Somalia, and support our brothers and sisters in any way that we can. Furthermore, we must work actively with our Ummah to support the establishment of Islamic rule within the Muslim lands. The only way the West was able to inflict the damage on Somalia, Iraq or Afghanistan, is due to the complacency of the Muslim governments. If the Muslim leaders worked for the sake of Allah (swt) and fulfilled their duty to the Ummah, they would have acted to defend the Muslims of Somalia and repelled the Ethiopian invasion.
May Allah (swt) establish a rightly-guided Khilafah that will obey the orders of Allah (swt) and bring justice to all of humanity.
“They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah.” [TMQ 8:30]
بِسْـــمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰـــنِ الرَّحِيـــم
The Khimar issue is an Islamic issue…
It cannot be solved except under an Islamic State.
On 14th January, 2008, Prime Minister Erdogan answered rather queries of European journalists in Spain regarding the issue of banning of Khimar in Turkey which evoked strong reactions and continues to evoke emotions. He said: “Is it a crime that the Khimar is a political symbol?! Is it possible to ban symbols and emblems?!.... It is a tragedy that we face such difficulties in our country. We have this problem in the universities and I think we will overcome the problem by this amendment. We will overcome this problem of curtailing liberties, liberties of education”. During the press conference arranged at the airport on Erdogan’s return from Spain on 16th January, 2008, he stressed: “If Turkey is still unable to solve this issue, then that will be a real hindrance of liberties. We can together overcome this, and it need not await a new constitution. Its solution is really simple-we sit together and agree on the issue, and it will be solved”. These statements have evoked fierce debate in Turkey’s public opinion and the National Movement Party has prepared a draft amendment to Article 10 of the constitution and has claimed that this will provide solution to the problem. Certain state institutions including Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation issued sharp statements vociferously warning collapse of the existing system. The Republican People’s Party, CHP (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi) linked the Khimar issue with the system’s survival and launched severe criticism of the government headed by Erdogan who on one hand rejected his rivals’ criticisms and on the other hand began preparing constitutional reforms to Articles 10, 13 and 42. Talks between the Nationalist Movement Party, MHP (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi) and the Justice & Development Party, AKP (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi) began on January 24th on the issue and they reached an agreement in principle.
The response of Hizb ut-Tahrir Wilayah Turkey on the issue is as follows:
1. By whatever names they refer the Khimar or its variations, Mandil (head kerchief), Cover, wrap, or Hijab, Allah (swt) has obligated Muslim women to wear these and the purpose is that they cover their heads as part of His orders and restrain from display of their charms. Education and vocational careers etc. are not Shara’ee exceptions to do away from this obligation. A Muslim lady is not permitted to lift her Khimar and exposing her head either fully or partially either for educational or career purposes or even under family pressures or for the sake of tradition or culture etc. who ever indulges in it, has in fact fallen into open prohibition. Under the Shara’ee rules, the commands concerning the ‘Ibadat, Makoolat (food) and Malboosat (dress) are not be linked to ‘Illah (reasoning); but for this rule, the Khimar could be linked to such sayings that claim that there is no harm if a Muslim woman wears any head-cover or wears no head-cover at all, even if it contradicts with specific Shari’ah rules, and this is not allowed.
2. While we appreciate the statement cited by the Religious Authority that Khimar is one of the obligatory commands imposed by Islam, we regret the Authority’s silence and not stating the Shara’ee command on the issue of Khimar or banning of Khimar in official public places on the ground that this Authority is not empowered to do so! We had expected them to unequivocally & publicly state that Khimar was a command imposed by Allah (swt) and it can not be prohibited in any place, time or situation.
3. The Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation and other governmental agencies along with the Republican People’s Party, CHP (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi) and the left leaning Democratic Left Party, DSP (Demokratik Sol Parti), including sections of media and civil organisations linked the Khimar issue to the survival of the current ruling system and projected it as having the potential to create disturbances. This reflects their old & deep rooted hatred for Islam. The reality is evident, that is Turkish state was formed as a Secluar (godless) state that delniked Islam from people’s lives and state, and also intervened to removed Islam from certain personal matters too. The Turkish state was formed when the Othmani Khilafah was confronted with the imperial and colonialist West’s occupation, by forming a state within a state under their support and patronage to destroy the Khilafah. A war was delared against Islam despite the fact that its’ people were Muslims. The Turkish state since then has continued to use various means to keep Islam away and removed from the society and state. Therefore, the Secular dictatorial state does not disapprove using such venomous & misleading terms like ‘reactionary’, ‘political Islam’ and ‘rateardation’.
4.. The aspect of rights that they cite in banning the Khimar is: The decision of the Constitution Court with reference to certain constitutional clauses especially Article 2 and hold its clause as non-changeable and accept no demand for its change (What sort of democracy do they subscribe to!). In addition, they aslo cite the decision of the European Human Rights Commission and the department of Higher education (YÖK) which are considered an obstacle in lifting the ban or atleast a great hindrance to wards lifting the ban. (for a complete reference to the decision of the European Human Rights Commission, please refer to the refutal prepared by Mr. Okai Bala, the representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Holland, which was sent to the Commission on January 1st, 2006 regarding its decision on the petition of Mrs. Layla Shaheen, a victim of the Khimar against the Turkish state).
5. The basis of their banning the Khimar was that it represents a ‘political symbol’, this basis has three aspects:
A. Calling it a ‘political symbol’ actually refers to the Islamic ideology because the Khimar is emblem unique to Islam and from the perspective of those who advocate its prohibition, the Khimar distinguishes the Muslim women who want to bring Islam to the centre-stage of life. Though the discussion centered on the Khimar, their problem is not merely the Khimar, but includes anything that is associated with Muslims like, growing of the beard, wearing of the jebbah, the ‘amamah or the head cover, Naqab or the face cover, the Jilbab or the long outer garment, the muffler etc. it may be mentioned that lifting of the ban on wearing the Khimar is a partial lifting and not a complete one, i.e what is being said is “lifting of the ban on wearing khimar in universities and intermedeatte educational institutions”. It does not attempt to lift the ban on Muslim women wearing khimar, naqab and jilbab etc. in government offices and does not also talk of removing the abn imposed on girl students of primary and secondry schools nor allowing growing of beard for men or their wearing jebbah and ‘amamah. It also excludes the decision of the Supreme Adminstrative Court that prohibits Muslim women who work in government offices from wearing khimar in public life and merely in their places of work. Which means that the proposed lifting of ban does not cover all symbols of Islam, but only aims at partial lifting of ban of one of the banned Islamic symbols and this is aimed at realising certain polotical objectives which anyway does not contradict with the principles of capitalism, while capitalism is totally contradictory to Islam and its foundations.
B. There has been an outbreak of controversies and differences over the meaning and connotations of khimar, claiming that the khimar is an Islamic symbol and the AKP is a party that advocates Islam and wants to lift the ban on wearing of the khimar and habours a secret agenda aimed at forming an Islamic State and pusues it cautiously. This derailed the case from its course. While the truth is that the AKP is as far away from Islam as East is from the West. The APK is aware of this fact as it is a party that protects secularism, liberalism and democracy and these attributes are not compatible with Islam in any way. What indicates their links to Islam is that the leadership of the party is Muslim, they have a past link of Islam and the wives of some of the leaders wear Khimar, all these are personal attributes and have no bearing to the reality of the party or its principles as such. The staements issued in Spain were in fact aimed at such members of AKP who often and at every given opputunity suspect that their party is not really an Islamic or religious party. Further the view point of the AKP toward the khimar problem is not a shara’ee view which is derived form the Islamic ‘aqeedah and its commands that the khimar is a command of Allah (swt), but actually their vioew is contradicting Islam. They view this issue from a democratic, secluar and liberal perspective and hold the view that wearing of the khimar is a right of the individual. There is no doubt that considering the khimar issue from this capitalistic perspective is against the shara’ which states that the khimar is a command of allah (swt) which must be implemented in keeping with the command and not as a matter of individual liberty.
C. The ban imposed is aimed at Islam alone, as it does not target symbols and manifestations of other religions and ideologies. For instance, while there is prohibition on Muslim chldren learing the Quran, the activities of the christian missionaries are under no obligation and are free to spread delusions and strayings as when they like. The AKP itself had applied for membership in the European Union of Democratic Parties (Christian) and yet nobody critised it for being in violation of the constitutiion. Political symbols are permitted so long as they are in consonance with capitalism, communism or any other kufr ideology, but if they are Islamis symbols, then they are subjected to ban. On the political front also, they deal similarly, while the see the Turkish Communist Party as a legal party, the Hizb ut-Tahrir is viewed as an illegitimate one.
6. The view of the AKP towards the khimar issue is suspicious, the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan stated during the press conference while returning from Spain that this issue was not on his agenda and he was merely responding to a question from the journalists, but quickly corrected himself for having stated that ‘it was not on his agenda’ by adding that “it need not await a new constitution. Its solution is really simple-we sit together and agree on the issue, and it will be solved”. It is only now, after five years in power that they have discovered this issue?! If the issue could be solved very simply as he put it, then why did they not act to resolve the matter in their first term in office when they had a majority even higher than what they now have? We had in our open letter on 28th December 2004, addressed to the Prime Minister Erdogan pointed out that without resolving the Khimar issue in the light of the Sharee’ah, his remaining in office was a humiliation and a great crime. Again during his return from his visit to Lebanon in June 2005, he stated that the Khimar issue can be resolved, but he took no practical initiative in that direction. Further, he back tracked from issuing legislation that would treat adultery as crime. This certainly indicates that there is something else to this whole issue of Khimar, but what is actually behind it?...
A. Why the haste in resolving the khimar issue without waiting for the new constitution and discussing it the light of the recent developments when the AKP and the MHP can effect suitable amendments acceptable to them! Especially since they have already delayed the solution for five years! Or have they confronted a minor obstacle in passing the new constitution and want to cover that by this move on the khimar issue.
B. Do they intend to exploit the khimar issue before the local elections to garner a larger share of votes, or do they intend to advance the election schedule in case the ban is lifted?
C. Is it intended to exploit on the continously burning confrontation between the pro British and pro US secularists by dragging the khimar issue to length or do they intend to use it as a bargaining tool or scoring points by using it as trump card.
D. Do they intend to use this issue to counter the negative factors like the terror activities which have been the focus of public attention recently, or the military activity beyond their borders or even the effects of the global economic tremors? Or is it that they want to use the sensitive khimar issue as a cover for clandestinely carrying out a certain programme away from the public attention?
7. The emergence of the Nationalist Movement Party the MHP is not simply aimed at ahving a piece of the candy, it realises that the AKP will insist on enforcing some sort of solution to the khimar issue so that it does not lose its vote base and popularity. Thus the MHP began drafting a proposal to amend the constitution before Erdogan’s return from Spain, and immedeately upon his return presented the proposal to him in order to seize the leading position and initiative from him to some extent. And when the AKP drafted an amendment proposal, the MHP concurred with it, because the was fully aware that if the AKP succeeded in resolving the issue of khimar, its popularity will will surge ahead while that of MHP will be eroded. On the other hand if the AKP fails to resolve the issue now, it will attempt to strech the issue untill the the next genral elections as it did in the past. This is why the MHP sat down with the AKP in order to deny it the trump card. The MHP like the AKP is an opputunistic party out to grasp every opputunity, it is not concerned with removing the injustice of secularism from the Muslims and the Islamic symbols.
The khimar is an obligation imposed by Allah (swt) and it the crown of the Muslim women. There can be no ban on it and no one has the authority to prohibit this obligation. A Muslim woman is not allowed to remove her khimar either for seeking education or work or for any other purpose.
The Khimar issue, though it one of the aspects of comprehensive Islam, but its kuffar detractors and their associates are notorious and have harboured their illwill for long. The issue has assumed various proportions at different times in various places ever since the kuffar began their hostilities in Madeenah al Munawwarah and even during the treacheries that occurred during the Byzantine hatred; since the formation of the Turkish republic to the persecution and killings meted out by the Jewish entity; since this issue emerged in Turkey and assumed crisis proportions during the 1960’s and was treated with aversion & repugnance in corners of America, England, France, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Azerbaijan, Tunisia, Tajikistan, Chechnya and the Balkans, this has been one of the prominent issues that highlighted their hatred towards Islam.
What the Turkish government has done in the five years of its rule is its’ statement that it will resolve the issue of Khimar, now why does this government wants to resolve the issue? Is it because it is an obligation imposed by Islam? Or is the government trying to defend the liberties of Muslim girls and their right to education? Or is there another motive? There is no doubt that the government is not trying to defend it as an Islamic obligation, for if it were so why would it continue to imprison Muslim youth and embrace the kuffar who are enemies of Islam & Muslims. Also the right of Muslim girls to education is not the reason why the government is trying to defend the Khimar, it is well mnown in Turkey that all rights and liberties cease to exist if they have any thing to do with Islam or concerning those who are tyrannised. Above all, the lawyers officially designated by the AKP government to defend the Republic of Turkey in the European Human Rights Commission, defended against the khimar in such a way so as to result in a decision by the commssion validating the khimar ban in Turkey. Therefore the AKP government is using the khimar issue as a trump card in its confrontation with the invisible wings of the state generally referred to as the ‘ elite bureaucrats’. It has used the issue in a most reprehensible way to increase its popularity and position. Its successful conclusion is an important step in the strategic agenda of the kafir United States in Turkey and the AKP has done all it could in order to achieve this and at the same time, it has done nothing for the sake of either Islam, or the country or its Muslim people!! Their plight like those whom the Prophet (saw) described it his hadith to one of his noble companions and said:
"أعاذك الله من إمارة السفهاء، قال: وما إمارة السفهاء؟ قال: أمراء يكونون بعدي لا يقتدون بهدي ولا يستنون بسنتي فمن صدّقهم بكذبهم وأعانهم على ظلمهم، فأولئك ليسوا مني ولست منهم، ولا يردون عليّ حوضي، ومن لم يصدّقهم بكذبهم، ولم يعنهم على ظلمهم فأولئك مني وأنا منهم، وسيردوا عليّ حوضي".
“May Allah (swt) save you from the leadership of the foolish”, the companion asked the Prophet (saw) “ who are from the foolish leadership”? The Prophet (saw) replied: “ Those rulers who will come after me and they will neither heed my guidance nor follow my way (sunnah), so whosoever validated their lies and supported them in their treachery, will not be from me and I am not from them and they will not (allowed to come near) my well, i.e. al-Kawthar, and whoever does not validate their falsehood and does not support them in their treachery, they are from me and I am from them and they will meet me at my well, i.e. al-Kawthar.”
As for the Muslims, they must understand that the khimar is not an issue of personal freedom or a democratic right, it is rather a form of worship or ‘ibadah of Allah (swt), and an ‘ibadah is not a matter of option or freedom, it is an obligation imposed by Allah (swt). A Muslim is obliged to carry it out always and in every condition as stipulated by Allah (swt). Since it is an obligation imposed by Allah (swt) on Muslim women, it preserves the modesty and honour of the Islamic Ummah. We must never forget that the Prophet (saw) declared war on the Jews because a Muslim lady who went to sell her ornament and was sitting at the place of the Jewish goldsmith. The Jews wanted her to expose her face but she refused, so the goldsmith decided to tie her garment behind her, as a result of which, when she stood up, she was exposed and the Jews ridiculed her and she cried for help. A Muslim youth pounced on the Jew goldsmith and killed him. The Jews then attacked the Muslim youth and killed him. As a result war was declared on them and they were expelled from Madeenah. This is the meaning and position of khimar in Islam and this is how Muslims value it!
In a democratic set up, the defence of khimar is a matter of personal freedoms which allows women to either wear khimar or discard it…! This is not the case in Islam, and such an option is not allowed, rather all actions of a Muslims must only emanate from the Islamic ideology. Therefore it is prohibited for a Muslim to demand lifting of and on it citing a democratic right or personal freedom etc., which are from the thoughts of kufr manifestaion. Rather a Muslim is obliged to implement it as a command of allah (swt). Similarly it is not allowed to restrict theis issue to wearing it in universities and intermedeate schools only, while allowing the ban to remain in primary & secondary schools, government offices and military bases. Further , it is a grave error to confine this issue only to khimar, and exclude it from learning and repeating of the Quran and ban on other Islamic symbols and manifestations like growing of the beard, wearing of jilbab and veil etc. Moreover, focussing on this issue alne while neglecting the issue of strick prohibition on implementing the Islamic commands comprehensively in the society and state is also a grave mistake.
Indeed Allah (swt) has imposed upon us as Muslims, that we keenly work to implement Islam and support its Da’wah wholly including the ‘ibadaat, transactions, punishments, morals, personal issues, jihad and khilafah without any exceptions. It is also incumbent upon us to work towards this by joining forces with an Islamic ideological and political party that is engaged in political & ideological struggle just as the Prophet (saw) did until a Khilfah Stte is formed on the model of the prophethood which will restore the Islamic way of life. Hizb ut-Tahrir Turkey calls upon you to work with it to establish this great command. Now that the truth is evident, whoever wishes may concur with call or turn his back, Allah (swt) is sufficient for us as support.
((إِنَّ هَذِهِ تَذْكِرَةٌ فَمَن شَاء اتَّخَذَ إِلَى رَبِّهِ سَبِيلاً))
“Verily, this is an admonition, therefore whosoever wills, let him take a Path to His Lord!” [TMQ al Muzzammil:19]
20th Muharram, 1429 A.H
28th January,2008 C.E
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
This book aims to clarify key subjects that establish the framework of Islamic juristic thinking such as:
• Understanding the key terminology of Usul including Daleel, Shari’ah and Fiqh.
• The definitive sources of Shari’ah – the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijma’ as-Sahabah & Qiyas.
• Sources of Shari’ah not agreed upon by all Ulema (scholars) – Ijma’ al-Ummah, Maslaha al Mursalah, Istihsan, laws revealed before Islam and others.
• Ijtihad, the Mujtahid & Taqleed.
• An overview of the Islamic schools of thought.
Most of the books written on this subject in English have been written for academic purposes and rather than for the normal reader. This 243 page paperback book has been written in a clear simple style understandable to the average reader. Abu Ismael al-Beirawi has ammended the original book 'Studies in Usul al-Fiqh' written by Abu Tariq Hilal. He slightly restructured the book so that the definitive sources of law are discussed before those upon which there is disagreement amongst the scholars. The chapters on the Quran, Qiyas, Ijtihad and Taqleed were brief in the original. He has added to these and in some cases rewritten sections where elaboration was required. In this age of doubt and scepticism Abu Ismael felt it necessary to add some textual evidences and much needed references for some definitions and Ahadith. To distinguish this amended version from the original a new title has been given that keeps to the simplicity of the original.
It is clear that in writing the original, Abu Tariq referred to Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani’s (ra) masterpiece ‘Shaksiyyah Islamiyyah’ (The Islamic Personality). He has done the same, as well as referring to the excellent book ‘Teyseer al wusool Ila al-Usul’ (To make understanding Usul easy) by Sheikh Ata ibn Khalil Abu al-Rishta (May Allah protect him).
Please send an email to email@example.com with your name, full address, quantity required and a contact number. Revival Publications will then send you a payment request form from Paypal which you need to complete. Upon receiving payment, your book/s will be dispatched. Paypal accepts payments through any major Card.
- EEC countries = £14.50 GBP
Please note: Purchasing in bulk decreases the courier charges which are normally high for a single book so it is better to buy a few together with your friends/family. The books will be delivered within 3-5 days of receiving the payment.
To read an extract from the book click here
Whilst the world searches for alternative and renewable energy and the Westerners benefit from the abundant, cheap oil and gas from the Muslim World, living in warm, lit houses for 24 hours a day, blissfully unaware of even the concept of energy shortages, the Muslims of Pakistan find themselves in darkness and severe cold.
From December 2007 until now, the Muslims of Pakistan began to suffer from severe electricity shortages, in the middle of winter, when electricity demand is at its lowest! Pakistan Electric Power Company (PepCo) enforced load shedding, thereby cutting off electricity for hours at a time, which crippled industry, business and daily life. Furthermore, the government first blamed low water supplies and then natural gas shortages for disrupting the generation of electricity.
The government tried partial solutions that failed. The local and foreign private companies were asked to increase their generation of electricity, which they were reluctant to do. This reluctance was inevitable because the private companies will always look at their profit, before the needs of the society as a whole. As for the water supply, as the government tried to increase the supply of water for electricity generation, it began a conflict with farmers over the need for water for irrigation.
And as well as contributing to the electricity crisis, gas shortages led to closure of industrial units and tremendous suffering in Balochistan, the very source of most of Pakistan’s gas, where children in large numbers died in below freezing temperatures, without heating.
So, whilst Western nations undertake difficult research for possible alternative energy, the current system failed to undertake already available measures for a crisis that was foreseen for many years before it happened:
1. The government has neglected to use coal as a cheap alternative to oil and gas. Throughout the world, including America and China, coal is still the most widely used fuel for electricity generation and with proper planning it can be used without harming the population through pollution. And Pakistan possesses the fifth largest coal field in the world, located in the Thar desert, Sindh province!
2. The government has neglected alternatives to dams for generation of electricity. The existing dams are used for both irrigation and electricity generation, leading to a conflict at critical times of the year. Were the government to use multiple “run of river” or “run of canal” projects this would produce more electricity for the national grid, without compromising irrigation. Also, had the government deserved to look after the Muslims affairs, it would have lengthened its vision to developing solar, wind and tidal generation of electricity, all of which have great potential in Pakistan, with its abundant sun, strong winds and long coastline.
3. The government has neglected implementing the Shari’ah rule with regards to gas and electricity. The present capitalist system allows the privatization of assets related to electricity and gas, allowing these public necessities to be run for the benefit of a small group of capitalists. Over twenty foreign and local companies are exploring for oil and gas. Local and foreign companies form the Independent Power Producers. These international and local companies are reluctant to compromise their profits for the sake of society, as occurred during the crisis. It is these companies that refuse to produce when it is not profitable and constantly demand higher utility prices to increase profit, despite all the damage it causes to industry, agriculture and households. RasulAllah سلم و عليه الله صلى said,
الْمُسْلِمُونَ شُرَكَاءُ فِي ثَلَاثٍ الْمَاءِ وَالْكَلَإِ وَالنَّارِ
“The Muslims are partners in three things, waters, feeding pastures and fire” (Ahmad)
So, Islam has designated that oil, gas and electricity are neither private nor state property, but are a public property whose benefit is for the whole society. So, in the Khilafah these resources are to be administered to benefit the society as much as possible, with respect to both provision and cost.
O Muslims of Pakistan!
The current energy crisis is just another example of the failure of the present system, which neglects the affairs of Muslims and Islam. The non-implementation of Islam ensures that the Muslims will taste great suffering in this life. Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,
ظَهَرَ الْفَسَادُ فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ أَيْدِي النَّاسِ لِيُذِيقَهُمْ بَعْضَ الَّذِي عَمِلُوا لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ
“Corruption has appeared on the lands and the sea, because of what man has done (in terms of evil.) Allah has made them taste a part of what they earned by their hands, so that they may return (to Him).” [Surah Ar-Rum 30:41]
And alas! Not only does life become miserable through neglecting Islam, what is worse is that the Muslims will face the wrath of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,
فَإِمَّا يَأْتِيَنَّكُمْ مِنِّي هُدًى فَمَنْ اتَّبَعَ هُدَايَ فَلاَ يَضِلُّ وَلاَ يَشْقَى وَمَنْ أَعْرَضَ عَنْ ذِكْرِي فَإِنَّ لَهُ مَعِيشَةً ضَنكًا وَنَحْشُرُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ أَعْمَى
“But if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from Me, whosoever follows My Guidance, will not lose his way, nor fall into misery. But whosoever turns away from My Message, verily for him is a life narrowed down, and We shall raise him up blind on the Day of Judgment" [Surah Taha 20:123,124]
O Muslims of Pakistan!
How can any Muslim still consider that any good can come from the present system and any ruler that presides over it? Indeed, voting for any of those who stand within the current system, is like choosing the best criminal from amongst thieves. And how can any Muslim remain silent when all that results is that the rulers become harsher against the Muslims and Islam, especially when RasulAllah سلم و عليه الله صلى made clear his hatred of the harsh ruler and love of the gentle ruler? Aisha رضي الله عنها narrated,
سَمِعْتُ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ فِي بَيْتِي هَذَا "اللَّهُمَّ مَنْ وَلِيَ مِنْ أَمْرِ أُمَّتِي شَيْئًا فَشَقَّ عَلَيْهِمْ فَاشْقُقْ عَلَيْهِ وَمَنْ وَلِيَ مِنْ أَمْرِ أُمَّتِي شَيْئًا فَرَفَقَ بِهِمْ فَارْفُقْ بِهِ" (صحيح مسلم)
“I heard RasulAllah say in my house that, O Allah! Be harsh with the one who is charged with the affairs of the Muslims and is harsh on them, and Allah be gentle with the one who is charged with the affairs of the Muslims and is gentle on them.” [Sahih Muslim]
O Muslims of Pakistan!
Do you not yearn for a leadership that will rule you and govern you by the light of Islam, through the Khilafah state? The only way forward for you is rush forward and work with the sincere carriers of the Dawa and trustworthy politicians from the youth of Hizb ut-Tahrir, so to establish the Khilafah, which will implement Islam so that the Muslims can taste happiness, victory and the good pleasure of Allah in this life and the afterlife. Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِن تَنصُرُوا اللَّهَ يَنصُرْكُمْ وَيُثَبِّتْ أَقْدَامَكُمْ
“O you who believe! When you help Allah’s cause, Allah will help you and cause your foothold to be firm.” [Surah Muhammad 47: 7]
Hizb ut-Tahrir - Wilayah Pakistan
27 Muharram 1429 AH
4 February 2008 CE