Sunday, March 29, 2009

Views on the News- 26/03/09

US preparing to establish internment camps for US citizens

In January a bill entitled the National Emergency Centres Establishment Act (HR 645) was introduced in the US Congress. It calls for the establishment of six national emergency centres in major regions in the US to be located on existing military installations. The stated purpose of the "national emergency centres" is to provide "temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster." In actuality, what we are dealing with are FEMA internment camps. HR 645 states that the camps can be used to "meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security."There has been virtually no press coverage of HR 645. These "civilian facilities" on US military bases are to be established in cooperation with the US Military. Modelled on Guantanamo, what we are dealing with is the militarization of FEMA internment facilities. Once a person is arrested and interned in a FEMA camp located on a military base, that person would in all likelihood, under a national emergency, fall under the de facto jurisdiction of the Military: civilian justice and law enforcement including habeas corpus would no longer apply. HR 645 bears a direct relationship to the economic crisis and the likelihood of mass protests across America. It constitutes a further move to militarize civilian law enforcement, repealing the Posse Comitatus Act.

Britain cannot pay for more stimulus packages, bond auction fails

The government should not unveil any further fiscal stimulus in April's budget as Britain's public finances are already in such dire straits, Mervyn King the governor of the Bank of England warned this week. Appearing before the Treasury select committee, the Bank of England governor said: "Given how big those deficits are, I think it would be sensible to be cautious about going further in using discretionary measures to expand the size of those deficits. There is no doubt that we are facing very large fiscal deficits over the next two to three years.” The news was not well received by the bond markets. Britain stood out as the sore thumb on the government bond markets on Wednesday. After Germany sold 5.7 billion euros ($7.7 billion) of five-year bonds on Wednesday, and Ireland sold 1.0 billion euros ($1.4 billion) of 10-year bonds on Tuesday, the British Treasury's 1.8 billion pound ($2.4 billion) gilt auction failed to attract sufficient interest.

Receding waters of Euphrates reveal ancient sites in Iraq

Iraq is suffering one of the worst droughts in decades. While this is bad news for farmers, it is good news for archaeologists in the country. The receding waters of the Euphrates River have revealed ancient archaeological sites, some of which were unknown until now. For Ratib Ali al-Kubaisi, the director of Anbar province's Antiquities Department, the drought has opened up a whole new land of opportunity. He explains that civilization began in Anbar, next to the Euphrates River. "Everyone … thought that Anbar was only desert with no historical importance. But we discovered that this area is one of the most important archaeological areas in all of Iraq. This part of Iraq was the first to be settled," he says. The messenger of Allah said, "The Hour will not come to pass before the river Euphrates dries up to unveil the mountain of gold, for which people will fight. Ninety-nine out of one hundred will die [in the fighting], and every man among them will say: 'Perhaps I may be the only one to remain alive'." — [Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim.]. And Allah knows best.

US advisor: Pakistan to collapse in 6 months

The Pakistani state could collapse within six months if immediate steps are not taken to remedy the situation, warned a top adviser to the US Central Command in an interview with Washington Post. David Kilcullen, who advises CENTCOM commander Gen. David H. Petraeus on the war on terror, urged US policy makers to focus their attention on Pakistan as a failure there could have devastating consequences for the entire international community. Kilcullen, who is credited with the success of the US troop surge strategy in Iraq, warned that if Pakistan went out of control, it would 'dwarf' all the crises in the world today. 'Pakistan…hands down. No doubt,' he said when asked to name the central front in the war against terror. Asked to explain why he thought Pakistan was so important, Kilcullen said: “Pakistan has 173 million people, 100 nuclear weapons, an army bigger than the US Army, and al-Qaeda headquarters sitting right there in the two-thirds of the country that the government doesn't control. Were now reaching the point where within one to six months we could see the collapse of the Pakistani state, also because of the global financial crisis, which just exacerbates all these problems. The collapse of Pakistan, al-Qaeda acquiring nuclear weapons, an extremist takeover -- that would dwarf everything we've seen in the war on terror today.”

China calls for an end to the US dollar

Another skirmish in the war of words in the most important economic relationship in the world – that between the US and China – broke out Monday, as the Governor of the People's Bank of China called for reform of the IMF and the promotion of the fund's own longstanding but underused "world currency"– special drawing rights (SDR). Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the Chinese central bank, implicitly criticised the status of the dollar as the world's sole reserve currency. "The price is becoming increasingly high, not only for the users, but also for the issuers of the reserve currencies," Mr Zhou said. He added: "The role of the SDR has not been put into full play due to limitations on its allocation and the scope of its uses. However, it serves as the light in the tunnel for the reform of the international monetary system. The goal of reforming the international monetary system, therefore, is to create an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies." The dispute between the two economic powers comes days after a U.N. panel announced that will recommend next week that the world ditch the dollar as its reserve currency in favour of a shared basket of currencies.

March 26, 2009

Q&A Nigeria, Past and Present

بسم الله الرحمـٰن الرحيم

Is there any historical information about the advent of Islam in Nigeria and how it was ruled under Islam? What is the current political situation there?


Historical perspective:

1.Islam entered the northern region of Kanoo in Nigeria very early in the middle of the seventh century and from there it spread to the Hausa and al-Faulani regions in the north and central Nigeria. This spread was a result of trade activity. In the middle of the tenth century, it spread and became prevalent through the scholars of jurisprudence from Spain. These regions became an Islamic ‘Imara and were referred as the ‘Uthmani Khilafah or the Sokoto khilafah after ‘Uthman Danfodio and he ruled for close to a hundred years until the British annexed it in the year 1904 C.E. During the same period another Islamic sultanate was established by al-Rabih bin Zubair and was called the Borno Sultanate. The Maliki school of thought is prevalent in the Shari’ah courts of Nigeria and most Mulims there are Sunnis. Islamic Shari’ah laws are partially applied in 12 of the regional provinces of Nigeria.
According to the statistics of the 2006 census, the population of Nigeria exceeds 140 million a majority of which are Muslims. Various statistical estimates have put the Muslim population share between 68 to 78%.
The geographical area of Nigeria is approximately 1 million square kilometers and it is the 32nd largest country in the world in terms of land area.

2.Nigeria was first discovered by the Europeans at the hands of the Portuguese traveler John Alphonso D’mizi in the 15th century C.E and was followed by the visits of other travelers such as the Dutch, the British and French which was followed by the European traders who used the port of Lagos to ship around 7 million Africans between 1450 and 1897 C.E. to exploit their labour and work in Europe.

In 1885 C.E., the British declared the West African region as colonies under its tutelage and this declaration was globally acknowledged. In the following year, the Royal Niger Company under the leadership of Sir George Tompan Goldie declared the regions as its territory and in the year 1900 C.E. this region came under the direct control of the British government.
Between the period 1900 to 1904 C.E., Britain was able to eliminate the Islamic rule and consolidate the various regions which later came to be called as Nigeria.

3.It was not until the year 1914 that this region was referred as Nigeria which was given by the British to the regions between the Gulf of Guinea to the south, the Great Saharan region of Chad to the north, Benin to the west and Chad & Cameroon in the east. The British colonialists had established three colonies in the northern, southern and the Lagos regions.
The British colonialists adopted different approaches to rule the various regions: in the southern and the Lagos regions, they used the typical colonialist method which they were using in their other colonies; a salient feature of this was to take along the Christian missionaries in order to convert the local people to Christianity.

But since Islam was predominant in the northern regions, the British allowed the Muslims some degree to self-rule under the British supervision. Thus the colonialists were able to isolate the Muslim majority from the pagan Christian minority in the south so that Islam does not spread to the southern region and remains a divided heterogeneous country for long-term British influence.

The British colonialists used two means to consolidate is stronghold on Nigeria: First was the Shell Company’s monopoly on Nigerian oilfields from the very beginning of oil business. The Shell Company continues to enjoy a monopoly over 40 to 50% of the total oil production in Nigeria. The second tool which the British used was the Christian missionary work which allowed them to convert roughly 40% of the local population.

4.In terms of population, Nigeria is one the top eight Muslim countries, it is a member of the Islamic Conference Organisation as well as the British Commonwealth since 1963. Yet it is a divided nation with no distinct identity. It has some 250 ethnic tribes the biggest three being Hausa and al-Faulani in the north, a majority of these tribes are Muslims and comprise over half the population of the country; and the Yorba in the central and southern region which accounts for about 25% of the population, a majority of whom are Christians but with a sizable Muslim minority. The south-central region is inhabited by the tribe of Ibo who are some 18% and are Catholic Christians, they are called the Jews of Nigeria, and they are wealthy, they once controlled the Nigerian oil.

5.Nigeria was placed under a resolution passed by the League of Nations in 1922 C.E. and Britain was forced to grant a symbolic independence on October1st, 1960 C.E along with other colonies under its control. The British were in fact alarmed by the rising American colonialism which emerged from across the Atlantic in its greed for the enormous natural resources in Nigeria.

When it regain its independence, it went to be ruled by the Christian Ibo tribe who were generously given wealth and education under the colonialist masters, the first ruler was Binyamin Namdi Azikoi. The rule was then taken over by General Johnson Aghelli Aronsi who also was from the same tribe and he consolidated the rule as the monopolistic fiefdom of the Ibo tribe. He assassinated his rivals of the Muslim tribes of Hausa including prime minister Abu Bakr, the northern leader Ahmad Balua, General Zakaria Mimlari, Col. Kor Mohamed etc. then in May, 1966, he abolished the federal system of governance and promulgated a unified constitution in his attempt to further consolidate his grip on power.

Despite these, he could not remain in power for long and was assassinated within six months…in 1967, the Ibo tribe revolted and under the leadership of Col. Shikomeka Oedemegua and declared separation of the oil-rich Biafra region inhabited by them. This resulted in civil war which lasted for three years during which some 1 million people were killed. The Muslim Hausa trine emerged as victorious defeating the Christian Ibo tribe…

Then there were other revolutions and coups until Obasango came to power on 13th February, 1976 C.E and continued to rule until October 1st, 1979. He was a Christian from the Yorba tribe who were aligned with the Hausa and came to power with the blessings of the armed forces leadership who were also from the Muslim tribe of Hausa.

During his rule, Obasango adopted a new constitution in 1978 paving way for presidential elections which were first held in 1979 and won by Shaikhu Shajari of the Hausa tribe.
Coups followed and were repeated until 1985 when General Ibrahim Babangida of the Hausa came to power.

General Ibrahim Babangida survived two coup attempts in 1990 and during the same year, he ratified a new constitution which paved the way for return to civilian rule in the country.
In 1993, another presidential election was held under US and international pressure which were won by Mas’oud Abiola, a Muslim from the Yorba tribe, but General Ibrahim Babangida annulled the elections and jailed Mas’oud Abiola, but relented later under international pressure and stepped own from power in favour of Arnest Shonkan who did not have any support from the armed forces. Then on 17th November, Defence Minister Col Sani Abacha, seized power in a coup against the Shonkan government.

Another presidential election was announced in 1998, but President Sani Abacha died before the elections and as a result Abdus Salam Abu Bakr of the Hausa tribe, who was a presidential aide under Sani Abacha, came to power. With this, thirty years of military rule came to an end.
General elections were held in 1999 C.E. in which Obasango won unanimously and remained in office for two terms from 29th May, 1999 until 29th May, 2007 C.E. throughout his term, Obasango was clearly aligned with America and was most hostile towards Muslims…
The last elections were held in April, 2007 which were won by Moussa Yar’ Auda who continues to rule until today.

Political Situation:

1.Because of the enormous natural resources in Nigeria, the big powers, especially the US and Britain are locked in a bitter conflict. Nigeria is the 12th largest producer of petroleum in the world and the 8th largest exporter, and has the 10th largest proven reserves. Nigeria's proven oil reserves are estimated by the U.S.

United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) at between 16 and 22 billion barrels, but other sources claim there could be as much as 35.3 billion barrels. In mid-2001 its crude oil production was averaging around 2.2 million barrels per day. Petroleum plays a large role in the Nigerian economy, and accounts for 40% of GDP and 80% of Government revenue. Nigeria is a member of the Oil-Producing Export Countries (OPEC), but it is also the world's 12th largest producer of crude oil. The oil is concentrated in the Nigerian Delta, which is some 20,000 square kilometres in area and is the cauldron of Nigerian political and economic life. It consists of wetland, mangrove swamps, waterways, muddy creeks and coastal islands. It is the hub of Nigeria’s $53bn-a-year oil & gas industry, with thousands of miles of oil pipelines and associated infrastructure. 90% of Nigeria’s oil exports are produced from here.

Nigeria also has a wide array of underexploited mineral resources which include natural gas, coal, bauxite, tantalite, gold, tin, iron ore, limestone, niobium, lead and zinc. Despite huge deposits of these natural resources, the mining industry in Nigeria is still in it infancy. However, the gas reserves are three times as substantial as the crude oil reserves.

2.Since the British discovered oil in the Nigerian Delta in 1950, the British Royal Dutch Shell company has dominated Nigeria’s political, economic and foreign policy ventures. After independence from the UK, successive Nigerian governments have introduced legislation and favourable economic policies to benefit Shell at the expense of the people of the country. For instance the people of the delta states live in extreme poverty even in the face of great material wealth found in the waters by their homes. According to Amnesty International 70% of the six million people in the Niger River Delta live off of less than 1$ US per day.

What makes oil in Nigeria particularly attractive is that much of Nigeria's petroleum is classified as "light" or "sweet", meaning the oil is largely free of sulphur and in cost terms easy to extract. Nigeria has 159 total oil fields and 1481 wells in operation according to the Ministry of Petroleum Resources. The most productive region of the nation is the coastal Niger Delta Basin in the Niger Delta or "South-south" region which encompasses 78 of the 159 oil fields. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC), usually known simply as Shell Nigeria accounts for fifty percent of Nigerian's total oil production (899,000 bbl/d) operates largely onshore on dry land or in the mangrove swamp in the Niger Delta. The company has more than 100 producing oil fields, and a network of more than 6,000 kilometres of pipelines, flowing through 87 flow stations. SPDC operates 2 coastal oil export terminals. Shell Nigeria owns concessions on four companies, they are: Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company (SNEPCO), Shell Nigeria Gas (SNG), Shell Nigeria Oil Products (SNOP), as well as holding a major stake in Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas (NLNG).

3.Considering that Britain held influence over Nigeria until the death of Sani Abacha, and due to its stronghold over oil production in Nigeria and also because 10% of all Nigerian oil production was imported by Britain, its security presence is consolidated in the country, especially over the armed forces which it controlled. President Babangida signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in 1985 with the Shell Company in order to secure the interests of Britain; this MoU was renewed with some modifications in 1991C.E.

4.However, with the entry of the United States, especially after 1999 during the term of Obasango, the monopoly of the British companies was challenged and America adopted a two-pronged strategy to defy this influence over Nigerian oil:

First: America supported the Nigerian opposition and rebels in the Nigerian delta and gave them loans through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and also supplied arms under a structural modifications program. This created problems for the Shell Oil Company in exporting Nigerian oil, while the American ExxonMobil and Chevron substantially increased their investments in Nigeria. It was estimated that Exxon-Mobil would increase its output to 900,000 bbl/d by 2000 and by 2005 overtake Shell as the country’s largest producer.

This rivalry between UK and US for domination of Nigeria’s petroleum industry wrought havoc on the people of the Nigerian delta. Through a clandestine network of shadow private mercenary companies and covert support for a variety of rebel groups these oil companies have on occasions bitterly attacked each other’s oil interests. It was during the Bush junior’s era that the US oil industry used its links with senior administration officials such as Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld to push for a far more aggressive oil policy in Nigeria than that followed by Bill Clinton. This in part was driven by America’s desire to reduce its reliance on Middle Eastern oil, and in part driven by the greed of the US oil companies to secure a larger share of oil. In the major energy policy documents of the Bush Administration West Africa featured prominently as a safe source of imported oil. For example, one of main recommendations VP Cheney’s National Energy Policy Report makes to the President is “to deepen bilateral and multilateral engagements[with African governments] to promote a more receptive environment for US oil and gas trade, investment and operations”.

But it was not until Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address, that he spelt out clearly America’s vision to wean itself off Middle Eastern oil. He said "...replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025...make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past." Hence US attention turned towards West Africa and Nigeria in particular. By March 2007, Nigeria had edged past Saudi Arabia to become America’s third largest supplier, delivering 41,717,000 barrels of oil to the desert kingdom's 38,557,000. This also means that energy security of Nigerian oil is an important aspect of American foreign policy. In 2006, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi E. Frazier, pledged to increase American Naval presence in the Gulf of Guinea.

Second: America intensified its interference in the African continent especially during the terms of the former presidents Bill Clinton and George W Bush and was thus able to apply pressure upon Nigeria as well as build its public opinion there as well as elsewhere in the African continent against military rule. It encouraged multi-party elections. This approach enabled it to effectively counter the British as well as French stronghold in Africa.

Thus America put its weight behind the civilian leaderships and supported them to come to power. It also supported the idea of multi-party elections and as a result, a leadership emerged which were wither America’s full fledged agents or cooperated with the US.

This is what actually happened, the US supported Obasango against the British backed armed forces leaders such as Babangida and Sani Abacha who were protecting & promoting British interests. Babangida had signed a MoU with the British Shell Oil Company and Abacha had dedicatedly supported British interests against American interests even beyond the geographical borders of Nigeria in the neighbouring territories. Nigeria had led the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) which was even run by Nigerians. The ECOWAS promoted and protected British interests in the region and its armed forces even went to Sierra Leone during the rule of Abacha in the 1990’s and restored the rule of Ahmed Teejan in 1998 which the British were openly calling for. Also in 1997, the ECOWAS forces entered Liberia to help Charles Taylor during a long-drawn civil war.

Thus Nigeria actively protected British presence in Sierra Leone and Liberia and it is said that it spent some 10 billion dollars in what is called the Peace Restoration in these two countries. The then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US armed forces even referred to Sani Abacha as the Short Abhorring person because of this hatred towards Abacha who frustrated American agenda against British interests in West Africa. It may be interesting to note that the US through pressure tactics, its support and its siege of Liberia forced Taylor out of power in favour of his deputy Mosees Balau. Taylor fled Liberia in took refuge in Nigeria in the year 2003. Taylor used to proclaim himself as the one who resisted and frustrated US interests in the West African region in general and Liberia in particular.

America succeeded in holding multi-party elections in Nigeria during 1999 and brought Obasango to power with its support and assistance. During Obasango’s term, Nigeria became the largest recipient of US aid which reached 40 million dollars annually as against merely 10 million dollars during the military rule. In return, Obasango served America like no other Nigerian ruler had hither to. Some of the important services that he rendered for the Americans are:

1.His naval forces held routine naval exercises with the US Navy under the so-called War on Terror.
2. Nigeria became the focus of US attention, new agreements were signed for oil drilling with American companies such as Chevron, Texaco and ExxonMobil and about 29% of US oil requirement comes from Nigeria. Obasango ratified these agreements despite intense opposition from members of the Nigerian parliament.

Thus America used these two means: Supporting Nigerian opposition, and promoting civilian rule and multi-party elections. This approach enabled the US to thwart British oil companies and is now almost ahead of them.

5.In addition, by bringing in Obasango in 1999, the US was also able to counter the British influence both politically and militarily. Thus in addition to the naval exercises, Obasango also signed an agreement with the Americans to provide military training for Nigerian armed forces personnel. His visit to the US in May 2001 further consolidated and strengthened US-Nigerian cooperation for the first time. His policies were not free from severe criticism in Nigeria itself, especially his allowing the US Navy in Nigerian territorial waters was intensely criticised. Obasango cultivated close relationship with the US and became a member of various American societies.
During his rule, the Nigerian budget would first go to Washington to be reviewed so that it would be acceptable to the World Bank. Earlier it was only discussed and passed in the national legislative parliament of Nigeria.

In conclusion, it may be said that Obasango was able to substantially weaken British stronghold within the military establishment in Nigeria. Within a short period of his taking over power, 200 military officers who were loyal to the pro-British generals were dismissed from the armed forces in the Northern region. In fact, Fimi Falana, a human rights lawyer commented during a show with As’ad Taha on al-Jazeerah TV channel on 30th February, 2002: “Nigeria has now become an American colony.” i.e. during the Obasango’s term in office.
Obasango was not content with merely implementing American policies alone, he tightened noose around the former generals who were loyal to the British and even tried to recover the money which they had earlier swindled. He curtailed their governmental privileges which were given to them. He made desperate attempts to recover 1.30 million dollars swindled by the late president Abacha and tried to deposit them in 23 different UK banks, but Britain refused his request…

It is pertinent to point out that Obasango was highly influenced with American concepts:

As for the civilian rule: Though he came to power in 1976 through a military coup, he restored civilian rule and handed over power to a civilian named Shekhu Shajari who had won in the elections held by Obasango in 1979 C.E.

As for his excellent relations with the US: During Obasango’s rule, 3 US presidents visited Nigeria:
During his first military term, Jimmy Carter visited Nigeria in 1978.
During his second term as civilian ruler, 2 presidents made visits: Bill Clinton in 2000 and George Bush in 2003 C.E.

6. After the completion of Obasango’s 8 years in office until 2007, the present incumbent Omar Moussa Yar’ Adua won the elections and came to power. Omar Moussa is only the second civilian president of Nigeria who has power through a civilian transfer of authority. He enjoys the support of Obasango and the US to complete the task which his predecessor began, and that is to tie Nigeria to American interests and guarantee it strongly. The newspaper Sharq al- Awsat reported through its correspondent Mahmoud al-Doungho who said: “The niw president is an obscure person, he is one who merely run everything in favour of the former president Obasango.” Some people describe Omar Moussa Yar’ Adua as a mere protégé of Obasango, which also implies that he is a mere puppet in the hands of America. It may be mentioned that Omar Moussa is from Obasango’s own party i.e. the Democratic Peoples Party.
Since he does not have the kind of personality that his predecessor had, his stance towards America is also not as strong and intense, and he is aware of it. Therefore he tries to befriend Britain and its agents while also treading the path of his predecessor in serving American interests.
Though he visited the US term shortly after taking over power, in mid December, 2007, and met George Bush, he also visited Britain in July, 2008 and met Gordon Brown. He had earlier visited Libya also.

7. However, the political conflict in Nigeria is not as intense as it was during the military regimes i.e. until the time of Sani Abacha when the British stronghold was very evidently strong. It is neither like the first and second term of Obasango when the balance of power was in America’s favour, the conflict is potentially hot.
On the one hand, there is a president who is brought in by the US and who believes in the concepts of civilian rule and democracy, therefore the US influence is stronger, but at the same time, the current president is not a strong personality…
While on the other hand, elements loyal to Britain are in the armed forces…and the main ‘booty’ in this conflict is the Nigerian oil apart from the strategic location of Nigeria in the West African continent.

And if the US does not extend more and more of aid to the current president, the pro-British men especially the armed forces will return to power as they were in the past.

17th Rabee’ al Awwal, 1430 A.H
13th March, 2009 C.E.

The Treatment of Immigrants in Islam

A recently published Canadian study reveals that working-age immigrants are struggling to find employment compared to non-immigrants despite the fact that immigrants are more likely to be educated. The treatment of immigrants today in the Muslim world is the same if not worse. The example of RasulAllah (saw) in establishing a harmonious society between the Ansar and the Muhajireen and between the Muslims and non-Muslims should be our reference. Only through the resumption of the Islamic way of life, by re-establishing the Khilafah Rashidah in the Muslim lands will we be able to achieve such an enlightened societal structure once again Insha-Allah.

A new study by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities concluded that recent working-age immigrants are struggling in their new place of residence. The research found that immigrants to Canada are twice as likely to have a degree as non-immigrants. However, they are four times more likely to be unemployed. Furthermore, the unemployment rate for immigrants with university degrees is only slightly better than the unemployment rate for all immigrants in Canada.The situation in Canada is not unique. The current treatment of immigrants in Muslim countries is similar, if not worse:

Saudi Arabia: Despite the fact that there are individuals who have lived in Saudi Arabia their entire lives and have settled down, the possibility of them attaining citizenship is unlikely. As a result of such strict and difficult requirements, foreigners are forced to leave the country when their work or study visas expire.

Jordan, Lebanon & Syria: Muslims and Christian Palestinians displaced by the creation of Israel were sent to refugee camps in surrounding countries including Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Rather than being accepted and integrated into society, these refugees, to this day, have no status of citizenship, no access to state education or healthcare, and cannot move freely or buy land.

Abu Dhabi: Migrants, mainly from South Asia make up approximately 95% of the workforce. They are not provided citizenship and upon retirement they must return to their country of origin. Over the years, there has been discontentment amongst the workers regarding their treatment by their employers. For example, in July 2008, 3000 Indian workers were detained because some of them protested against poor working conditions and unpaid salaries.

Morocco: Every year thousands of Africans seeking a better life travel to Spain from Morocco illegally. Rather than assisting the African migrants by encouraging them to stay in Morocco and integrating them into its society, the Moroccan authorities have been accused of putting the migrants on buses and abandoning them in the middle of the dessert.Are these examples reflective of how Muslim rulers should accept and treat immigrants? What does Islam say about citizenship and immigration?

Al-Muhajireen: The First Migrants in Islam

The Hijrah to Madinah by the Prophet (saw) and the Sahabah was a turning point in Islam. After migration, the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt) would be the sole means to regulate the relationships in society – including those between the immigrants and the “native” inhabitants. When the Prophet (saw) arrived in Madinah he paired each Muhajir (Emigrant) with one of the Ansar (Muslims of Madinah) and made them brothers. In stark contrast to the Muslim rulers of today, the Ansar were more than willing to share everything they had, including their:
Business – Abu Hurayrah said,

"The Ansar said [to the Prophet (saw)], ‘Distribute our date-palms between us and our emigrant brothers.' He replied, ‘No.’ The Ansar said (to the emigrants), ‘Look tend to the trees and share the fruits with us.' The emigrants said, ‘We hear and obey.''' [Ahmad]Inheritance – Once the Prophet (saw) established a brotherhood between the Muhajireen and the Ansar, the Ansar made their inheritance such that the Muhajireen would receive all assets over their own families!

This practice was stopped when Allah (swt) revealed:

وَالَّذِينَ عَقَدَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَآَتُوهُمْ نَصِيبَهُمْ
“To those also with whom you have made a pledge (brotherhood), give them their due portion.” [TMQ 4:33]

The Ansar gave so much to the Muhajireen that the Muhajireen were getting concerned and asked “O Allah's Messenger! We have never met people like those whom we emigrated to; comforting us in times of scarcity and giving us with a good heart in times of abundance. They have sufficed for us and shared their wealth with us so much so, that we feared that they might earn the whole reward instead of us.”
The Prophet (saw) said,
“No they won't, as long you thanked them for what they did and invoked Allah for them.

''Allah (swt) revealed about the Ansar:

وَالَّذِينَ تَبَوَّءُوا الدَّارَ وَالْإِيمَانَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ يُحِبُّونَ مَنْ هَاجَرَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَا يَجِدُونَ فِي صُدُورِهِمْ حَاجَةً مِمَّا أُوتُوا وَيُؤْثِرُونَ عَلَى أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَلَوْ كَانَ بِهِمْ خَصَاصَةٌ وَمَنْ يُوقَ شُحَّ نَفْسِهِ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
“And (it is also for) those who, before them, had homes (in Al-Madinah) and had adopted the Faith, love those who emigrate to them, and have no jealousy in their hearts for that which they have been given, and give them (emigrants) preference over themselves, even though they were in need of that. And whosoever is saved from his own covetousness, such are they who will be the successful.”[TMQ 59:9]

Immigration to the Islamic State

Citizenship in Islam is based on someone permanently living within the lands of the Khilafah regardless of his or her ethnicity, creed or religion. It is not a requirement for someone to become Muslim and adopt the values of Islam in order to become a citizen of the state. Non-Muslims permanently living within the Islamic State benefit from the rights of citizenship whereas Muslims living outside the Islamic State do not enjoy these same rights.

The Prophet (saw) said to the dispatching armies:
“Call them to Islam, and if they agree accept from them and refrain from fighting against them, then call them to move from their land to the land of the Muhajireen, and tell them if they do so, then they will have the rights which the Muhajireen enjoy and they will have duties like the duties upon the Muhajireen.”[Muslim]

This hadith meant that not moving to the land of the Muhajireen (the Islamic State) would mean not enjoying what the Muhajireen enjoyed - the rights of those who were living in the land of Islam. So this hadith clearly shows the difference between those who move to the Islamic State and those who do not.Islamic history is full of situations in which Muslims and non-Muslims moved within the borders of the Khilafah and fully integrated into society. During the Khilafah of Beyazid Ath-Thani, he sent a navy to Spain in order to save the Muslims and non-Muslims from the massacre by the Christians, namely the Spanish Inquisition.

Khaleefah Beyazid Ath-Thani ridiculed King Ferdinand who was responsible for killing and expelling the Muslims and non-Muslims in Spain by saying, “You venture to call Ferdinand a wise ruler, he who has impoverished his own country and enriched mine!” He ordered his Wulaa (governors) to accept the Spanish Muslims and non-Muslims with a friendly reception. Finally, he ordered the death of anyone who killed the non-Muslim refugees and refused entry into the Khilafah if they abused them. The Muslims and Jews of Spain contributed much to the rising power of the Uthmani Khilafah. For example, the first Gutenberg press in Istanbul was established by the Jews (who fled Spain) in 1493.

Non-Muslim Citizens in the Islamic State

It may be asked as to how the non-Muslims were treated in the Islamic State? What privileges were they afforded under Islam?At the time of his arrival in Madinah, the Prophet (saw) established a charter with the Jewish tribes and non-Muslims residing in the Islamic State. They were fully integrated into society by being allowed to practise their religion, conduct their business dealings (in accordance with Islamic Law) and issue complaints if they had been wronged. Beyond the treatment of the non-Muslims living under the justice of the Prophet (saw), there are many ahadith ordering good treatment of the dhimmi (non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic State) and not abusing them.

The Prophet (saw) said:

"Whosoever persecuted a dhimmi or usurps his right or took work from him beyond his capacity, or took something from him with evil intentions, I shall be a complainant against him on the Day of Resurrection."[Abu Dawood]

“He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah.” [Tabarani]

"Whosoever killed a dhimmi, he will not even smell the fragrance of paradise although its fragrance will be smelt from the distance of forty years journey." [Bukhari & Ahmad]

The classical scholars of Islam also detailed the rights of the Muslims towards the dhimmi. For example, the famous Maliki jurist, Shaha al-Deen al-Qarafi stated:“The covenant of protection imposes upon us certain obligations toward the ahl al-dhimmah. They are our neighbours, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (saw), and the religion of Islam.

Whoever violates these obligations against any one of them by so much as an abusive word, by slandering his reputation, or by doing him some injury or assisting in it, has breached the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (saw), and the religion of Islam.”Indeed the Islamic State nurtured such loyalty from the non-Muslims that the Crusaders found themselves having to fight the Christians of ash-Sham who had come out to defend their state - the Khilafah.

Today, the fact that there are many non-Muslims who originate from Muslim lands, and that non-Muslim places of worship such as churches and synagogues still exist are a testimony that non-Muslims have co-existed with the Muslims in the Islamic State since its inception.

The Issue at Heart

It may be asked: why do we not see the Islamic rulings pertaining to citizenship and immigration being applied in the Muslim countries as revealed to us by the actions and sayings of RasulAllah (saw)? The problem lies in the Muslim rulers who refuse to implement the hukm sharai’ comprehensively. Rather than giving obedience to Allah (swt), they appease the West by implementing man-made laws.

By Allah (swt)’s leave, it is only through the re-establishment of the Khilafah Rashidah in the Muslim lands that we will be able to achieve the atmosphere in which all citizens, irrespective of race, religion or school of thought share in the rights granted by Allah (swt).May Allah (swt) allow us to work hard for His Deen, to attain His pleasure and escape His wrath.

وَالسَّابِقُونَ الْأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُمْ بِإِحْسَانٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي تَحْتَهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا ذَلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ
“And the foremost to embrace Islam of the Muhajireen and the Ansar and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allah is well-pleased with them as they are well-pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success.” [TMQ 9:100]

Friday, March 27, 2009

Article 23, Explanation of the Draft Constitution of the Khilafah

The following is from the draft english translation of the Arabic book مقدمة الدستورأو الأسباب الموجبة له (Introduction to the constitution and the evidences that make it obligatory) published by Hizb ut-Tahrir 1382 Hijri (1963 CE). Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings. Please note some of the adopted opinions of the Hizb have changed since the time the book was published so any of the adopted literature published after this book which contradicts what is mentioned in this book abrogates those specific points

Article 23:The State's apparatus is built upon eight pillars.

These are:
The Khalifah .
The Delegated Assistant.
The Executive Assistant.
The Amir of Jihad.
The Judiciary.
The Walis.
The State Service Departments.
The Ummah Council.

Evidence of this article is derived from the action of the Messenger of Allah (saw).

He (saw) established the apparatus of the State in this shape. He (saw) was the Head of State and he ordered the Muslims to appoint a Head of State when he ordered them to appoint a Khalifah and an Imam after his departure.

As for the Assistants, the Messenger of Allah (saw) chose Abu Bakr and Omar as his Assistants.

Al-Tirmithi extracted a Hadith in which the Messenger of Allah (saw) is reported to have said:
"My two (Wazirs) ministers from among the people of the Earth are Abu Bakr and Omar."

The meaning of the term Wazir, i.e. minister in this Hadith is Assistant, because that is the linguistic meaning of the word, as for the word Wazir for which people refer today, this is a western jargon referring to a specific ruling function; something which the Muslims do not identify with and something which contradicts the Islamic ruling system. This is so because the Assistant whom the Messenger of Allah (saw) referred to as Wazir, i.e. minister, does not specialise in one specific task; he is rather an Assistant to whom the Khalifah delegates with a general mandate to perform all the actions. It would be wrong to confine his duties to a specific task.

As for the Walis, the Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed a number of Walis over the various provinces.
He (saw) appointed Utab Ibnu Usayd as Wali over Makkah in the wake of its conquest; and when Bathan Ibnu Sassan embraced Islam, the Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed him as Wali over Yemen, in addition to many other Walis.

As for the judges, the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to appoint judges to judges between people. He (saw) for instance appointed Ali Ibn Abi Talib as judge over Yemen;
He (saw) appointed Rashid Ibnu Abdullah as Amir over the judiciary and the Mathalim. The Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed him as judge and conferred upon him the competence to investigate the issues of Mathalim.

As for the administrative system, the Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed a host of notaries to manage the various services. They were like Heads of Departments. The Messenger of Allah (saw) for instance appointed Mu'ayqeeb Ibnu Abi Fatima as a notary in charge of the spoils; Huthayfa Ibnul Yaman used to record the assessments of the produce in Hijaz.

He (saw) also appointed others to supervise the other service departments, and in some case, more than one notary for one service department. As for the army, the Messenger of Allah (saw) was the effective Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and he used to personally supervise the army and run its affairs. He (saw) used to in some cases appoint commanders to carry out certain tasks. The Messenger of Allah (saw) for instance appointed Abdullah Ibnu Ja'hsh to head a task force charged with gathering intelligence about Quraysh.

He (saw) also appointed Salma Ibnu Abdil Assad as commander of an expedition of 150 fighters, and he knotted for him the banner of that squadron; this squadron included some of the best heroes from among the Muslims, such as Abu Ubayda Ibnul Jarrah, Saad Ibnu Abi Waqqas and Usay Ibnu Hudhayr.

As for the Ummah Council, the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not have a permanent chamber, but he used to consult the Muslims whenever he deemed fit. He (saw) summoned them on the day of Uhud and consulted them, and he gathered them on the day of Al-Ifk incident and consulted them, and he also gathered them and sought their opinion in several other issues.

However, despite the fact that the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to gather the Muslims and consult them, there were among them a host of specific persons whom he used to summon regularly. These were from among the chiefs of their folks, such as Hamza, Abu Bakr, Jaafar, Omar, Ali, Ibnu Masud, Sulayman, Ammar Huthayfa, Abu Tharr, Al-Muqdad and Bilal. They acted as the Ummah Council of the Messenger of Allah (saw), because he used to regularly and specifically always seek their opinions.

Therefore, it becomes clear that the Messenger of Allah (saw) has established a distinguished apparatus for the State, that operated in a specific manner. He (saw) continued to proceed according to this apparatus until he departed this world. Then his Khulafa' came and proceeded in the same manner, ruling according to this apparatus which the Messenger of Allah (saw) established. They did this before the rest of the Sahaba; hence, it is determined that the apparatus of the Islamic State should be in this manner.

One might say that the Messenger of Allah (saw) has appointed someone to specifically run the financial department, which may be interpreted that finance constitutes a special apparatus and not part of these apparatuses. The answer to this is that although the Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed a specific person to run the finance and made an independent department, he however did not turn it into an apparatus, but rather part of an apparatus. Some of the Walis whom the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to appoint had a general Wilaya that included the rule and the finance, and other Walis had a special Wilaya, that included the rule, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to apoint another Wali specifically for finance. The Messenger of Allah (saw) dispatched Amru Ibnu Hazm to Yemen as a Wali and he (saw) made his Wilaya a general one that included the rule and the finance, as stipulated in the letter that he handed to him.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) also appointed Farwa Ibnu Sayl as Wali over the tribes of Murad, Zubayd and Math'haj and he sent with him Khalid Ibnu Sai'd Al-a'as as Amil over the Sadaqa. The Wali in charge of ruling matters used to be known as the Wali of Salat, which is a terminological term, meaning the governing of people's affairs in all matters related to administration, judiciary, politics, warfare, rituals and other matters, except the levy of funds. The Wali in charge of finance used to be known as the Wali of Kharaj, meaning the collection of Zakat, land taxes and similar. The Wali whose Wilaya was general used to be known as the Wali of Salat and Kharaj.

Therefore, finance was never an independent apparatus, but rather part of the Imara functions, i.e. the Wilaya. This could be assigned to other than the Wali in charge of ruling matters and it also could be assigned to him; in any case it does not have a special competent authority within the State, it comes rather under the auspices of the Khalifah. Hence, it is part of an apparatus and not a special apparatus.

Hence, the State's apparatus which the Messenger of Allah (saw) founded in based on seven pillars only.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Chapter1: Principles of Al Fiqh (Usul Al-Fiqh)

The following is the draft english translation from the Usul Al-Fiqh masterpiece of the Arabic book الشخصية الاسلاميَة الجزء الثالث (The Islamic Personality Volume 3 ) by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani. Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings.

Chapter 1: Principles of Al Fiqh (Usul Al-Fiqh)

Linguistically ‘asl is that which can be constructed upon, whether the construction is tangible, like building a wall upon a foundation, or the construction can be rational, like building the reasoned rule (ma`lul) upon the legal reason (`illah) and like building a verdict (madlul) upon its evidence (dalil). So usul al-fiqh are the principles (qawa`id) upon which the fiqh is built. As for fiqh (jurisprudence), linguistically it refers to understanding (fahm); as in the saying of Allah (SWT):

مَا نَفْقَهُ كَثِيرًا مِمَّا تَقُولُ
“we don’t understand much of what you say….” [Hud: 91]

and in the terminology of jurists it refers to the knowledge of the practical shara' rules (which are) extracted from the detailed evidences. What is meant by “the knowledge of the rules” by the scholar (`alim) who knows them is not only mere knowledge, but having proficiency of the shar'i rules, i.e. this knowledge should deepen to the extent that the scholar acquires proficiency in these rules. Acquiring such proficiency is enough to consider the one who has it a scholar (faqeeh), even if he does not know all the ahkam.

However, it is a necessary for him to know a collection of the shar`i rules of the branches (fourou'iah) through deliberation/research (nadhar) and deduction/evidencing (istidlal). Accordingly, the knowledge of one or two rules is not called fiqh, nor can the knowledge that a kind of evidence is a proof be called fiqh. The term fiqh is used to mean the sum of the shar'i practical rules that are extracted from the detailed evidence. Thus when it is said that “this is a fiqh book”, it means that this is a book that contains practical rules of the branches; when it is said “the knowledge of fiqh”, it means the knowledge in the sum of the practical rules of the branches.

Importantly this is exclusive to the practical rules, because by the conventional definition, rules to do with belief (ahkam al-i`tiqadi) are not considered part of fiqh, because fiqh is particular to the practical rules (ahkam) of the branhces, i.e. the rules on which the actions are based, not beliefs.

Therefore the meaning of usul al-fiqh is the principles (qawa`id) upon which the acquisition of the proficiency in the practical rules that are extracted from the detailed evidences is built. Hence usul al fiqh is defined conventionally as the knowledge of the principles whereby the extraction (istinbat) of the shara' rules from the detailed evidences is attained; and these principles themselves are also termed usul al-fiqh. A book of usul al-fiqh means a book that contains these principles. So when it is said “the science of usul al fiqh”, it refers to the foundations by which the extracting of shar`i rules from the detailed evidences is achieved.

Accordingly the study of usul al-fiqh is a study of the principles, the evidences, i.e. a study of the rule, the sources of the rule, and in the method of extracting the rule from these sources. Usul al-fiqh includes the general evidences (adillah ijmaliyyah) and what they indicate, and it also includes, the situation of the one doing the deduction (mustadil) in general and not in details; i.e. (it includes) the knowledge of ijtihad (deriving rules), and the method of istidlaal (seeking the evidence), and the harmonising (ta`aadul) and giving preference (tarjih) between the evidences. As for ijtihad and the outweighing between evidences(tarjih) it depends on knowing the evidences and what these evidences indicate. Therefore these two studies: the evidences, and what these evidences indicate, are the foundations of usul al-fiqh, together with the study of the rule and matters that relate to it (the rule).

Thus, usul al-fiqh is the unspecified general evidences for, like the unrestricted/absolute command (mutlaq al-`amr) and unrestricted prohibition (mutlaq al-nahy), the actions of the Prophet (saw), the consensus of the companions and qiyas (analogy). Thus the detailed evidences are excluded from this, like Allah's (swt) saying: “and established the prayer”, “and do not come near fornication”, the prayer of the Messenger (saw) inside the ka'abah, the establishment of guardianship over the incompetent (al mahjour), and the deserving of the representative (wakil) to wages when hired on the basis of analogy to the payment of an employee. Finding them used as examples in the study of usul al-Fiqh does not mean thay are part of it. Nay, usul al-fiqh is the general evidences, what the evidences indicate, the state of the one evidencing, and the methodology of the evidencing (istidlal).

Usul al fiqh differs from the science of fiqh in that the subject of fiqh is the actions of the servants with regard to them being allowed (halaal), prohibited, valid, invalid and void. As for usul al-fiqh, its subject is the textual evidences (adiillah sam'iyah) with regards to the shar'i verdicts being derived from them, i.e. with regards to how they establish the shar`i verdicts. Thus it is necessary (in studying usul al-fiqh) to study the verdict and that which is related to it with regards to the explanation of who is it that issues the verdict, i.e. who has the right to issue the verdict: who is the legislator, and with regards to upon whom does the verdict apply, i.e who is responsible for executing the verdict, meaning, the one upon whom the verdict is obligated (mahkum `alayh), and with regard to the verdict itself: what is it, and what is its reality? After this comes the explanation of the evidences and what these evidences indicate.

Arabic Source 

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Views on the News- 19/03/09

Muslim parents to be prosecuted over gay education classes

Last week the English newspaper The Times revealed that parents who took their children out of school to prevent them being taught about lesbian, gay and transgender relationships were facing prosecution. Around 30 pupils from an east London primary school were absent from a week of special lessons to highlight homosexual relationships. The protesting parents said the content was more appropriate for secondary school pupils. Some of the parents said they informed the Leytonstone School they were removing their children for the week. Pervez Latif, whose children Saleh, ten, and Abdur-Rahim, nine, attend the school, said both Christian and Muslim parents objected to the theme linked to Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender History Month. Mr Latif is quoted as saying: “I didn’t want my children to be learning about this.” The school has said that action had been taken against the protesting parents but refused divulge details.

UN racism draft permits criticism of Islam and protects Israel

Muslim-backed references to Israel and the "defamation of religion" has been dropped from a draft declaration being prepared for next month's world racism meeting, United Nations officials said this week. The United States and the 27-nation European Union have threatened to boycott the April 20-25 meeting in Geneva, unless Muslim countries back down from demands to limit free speech that criticizes Islam or other faiths. They also objected to passages that singled out Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. The draft declaration now speaks only of concern about the "negative stereotyping of religions" while omitting direct references to Israel. "We believe this shortened text represents a solid and meaningful basis for negotiations by member states toward a positive outcome for the conference," said Doune Porter, a spokeswoman for the U.N. human rights office in Geneva.

G20: Germany and France repudiate Britain’s plan to revive the world economy

Britain’s hope of uniting the world's most powerful economies behind a massive new package of tax cuts and public spending increases suffered a serious blow this week, when France and Germany Gordon Brown’s plan to revive the world economy. After talks at Chequers to prepare the way for next month's G20 summit in London, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, ruled out ordering another "fiscal stimulus" in the short term, and made it clear that if more action were to prove necessary in Germany it would be for Berlin to decide, not the G20. Her comments were echoed by the French finance minister, Christine Lagarde, who was attending a meeting of G20 finance ministers in Horsham, West Sussex. As ministers tried to agree a way forward, Lagarde said she was optimistic the meeting could make progress, but added that nations needed to "evaluate the remedies already put in place by each of us" before ordering huge extra spending on top of that already sanctioned. The remarks effectively killed off proposals being pushed by Brown – who will chair the G20 summit on 3 April – and to some extent US president Barack Obama, whose administration believes that more co-ordinated fiscal action by the world's biggest economies is essential to revive global demand.

Russia to rearm itself and counter NATO expansion

On March 17 President Dmitry Medvedev said that Russia planned to boost its conventionally armed and nuclear forces to counter a growing threat from Nato, raising the spectre of a military confrontation between Moscow and the west. In a hawkish speech to Russia's top generals, Medvedev said Russia intended to upgrade its army and navy from 2011. Russia would also overhaul its strategic nuclear forces in an effort to guarantee the country's "security", he said. The modernisation was necessary because of the danger posed by the west's transatlantic military alliance, he said. "Attempts to expand the military infrastructure of Nato near the borders of our country are continuing." The Obama administration has said it wants to "reset" its troubled relations with Moscow – but has so far received mixed signals from the Kremlin.

Dutch MPs warn that Nigeria is on the cusp of an Islamic revolution which will spread across Africa

Oil-rich Nigeria, population 140-million, now is very close to an all-out ‘Islamic takeover', warn two Dutch MPs. This would have a massive impact on the future of all of Africa and of the West, warn Dutch parliamentarians Geert Wilders and Martin Bosma of the Party for Freedom, writing in an editorial in the Dutch religious daily, the Reformatorisch Dagblad. They describe this transformation of Nigeria as the launch pad for Jihad in Africa. They state: "Jihad, the holy war, is the duty which has to be carried out by every Muslim - and those Muslims who reject Jihad are no longer viewed as Muslims, but as heretics, and thus become marked for a Fatwa, a death sentence.” The MPs further state:”When Nigeria falls to Islamic jihadists, this will have a powerful symbolic impact but also means that yet another oil-producing country will end up in the hands of Islam. In turn, those oil-dollars will be used to finance the worldwide Jihad. (And) an Islamic Nigeria also will become the starting point for the further islamisation of all of Africa. Once Nigeria has fallen to Islam, it will become even more difficult to remain positive about Africa's future.”

US considers expanding the war into Pakistan

President Barack Obama and his national security advisers are considering expanding the covert US war in Pakistan far beyond the tribal areas near the border with Afghanistan, the New York Times reported on Tuesday. It stated that two high-level reports about Pakistan and Afghanistan advocate the broadening of the target area to include Taleban sanctuaries in and around the city of Quetta. Missile strikes by Central Intelligence Agency-operated drones have until now been limited to the tribal areas, and never been extended into Baluchistan, a sprawling province under the authority of Pakistan’s central government, and which is next to parts of Afghanistan where recent fighting has been fiercest, the newspaper website said.

Ghandi’s grandson: Cut the head of Muslims

Varun Gandhi the grandson of the former Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi, defended himself a day after India’s Election Commission ordered for him to face ‘criminal charges’ for reportedly telling a rally that his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) would ‘cut the head of Muslims.’ Footage aired by the NDTV news channel this week showed Varun saying Muslims ‘have scary names’ and that ‘if you meet them at night you will be scared.’

March 19 2009

Part 10, The Islamic Rules of Trade - The Pledgee Benefitting from the Pledge

Due to the current global financial crisis there is increasing interest in the Islamic Economic System, the most comprehensive book on this topic is 'The Economic System of Islam' by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani. However as people have many questions relating to the Islamic rules of trade we will be posting related extracts from the draft translation of the Fiqh masterpiece 'The Islamic Personality, Volume 2' by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani


Once the pledge is completed, the thing that falls under the possession of the pledgee after its possession is taken. However this does not mean that the pledgee benefits from the pledge; rather the presence of the pledged good in the possession of the pledgee is only to secure from him his debt only. The pledge remains for his owner even if the pledgee deserves the debt upon the pledger. The pledgee in the days of ignorance would own the pledge if the pledger did not pay him what he owed him at the fixed time. Islam came and invalidated this.

He (saw) said:
“The security pledge is not forfeired from its owner who pledged it. For him is its gain/benefit and against him is its damage/loss” (narrated by Ash-Shafi’I via the way of Said bin Al-Musayyab).

The Messenger’s statement “The security pledge is not forfeited from its owner” i.e. the pledgee has no right in the security pledge if the pledger could not redeem it in the stipulated time. So the pledged thing remains the property of the pledger and its benefit remains his property because it is his gain/benefit and it enters into his (saw) statement “for him is his gain/benefit.”

Furthermore, the benefit is the increase (nima) of the pledged thing so it has resulted there from, whether this increase is a benefit like residing in the house or it is a thing like the produce of the tree and the cow’s child; all of these are the property of the pledger, and the pledge contract did not take place over them, so they are not security pledge. This is because the contract is over the thing not its benefit. So long as the benefit is the pledger’s property, it is for him to receive it, thus he can rent the pledged house, and receive its rent, whether he rented it to the pledgee or another. This wage is not a pledge but rather it is the property of the pledger. It does not follow the pledge because it is not from the subordinates/belongings of the house which enter into the sale without mention like house keys. Hence, the pledgee cannot benefit from the pledged thing by the pretext that it is pledged to him, or it is under his possession; rather its benefit is for its owner.

Since the thing’s benefit is for its owner, he can gift the benefit just like he can gift the thing and he can permit whoever he wishes to benefit from the thing. Except that the pledger’s permission to the pledgee to benefit from the thing which he pledged differs from the permission to someone else. It is permitted for the pledger to permit any human being other than the pledgee to benefit from the pledged thing. As for his permission to the pledgee, it has some details. If the pledge is for price of a sale or rent of a house or any debt other than the loan, it is permitted for the pledgee to benefit from the pledged thing with the permission of the pledger. This is because it is his property so he can permit whoever he wishes to benefit from it including the pledgee and others.

There does not exist any text preventing that as there did not come any text excluding the pledgee, so the rule remains general. Since it is also permitted for the seller to increase the price and the landlord to increase the rent if it is delayed payment, it is permitted for him to allow the use of the thing as an increase on the price of the sold thing or an increase on the rent of the hired thing. This is not considered riba as the definition of riba does not apply upon it nor its reality, nor does it enter into the usurious things determined by the text. Rather it is deferred price higher than the immediate price and hiring for a deferred wage higher than the wage in cash, and these are all of the transactions permitted by the Shar’a.

Whereas if the debt is a loan such as one person lending another one thousand for a year, and he pledges to him his house and permits him to benefit of the pledge, it is not permitted for the pledgee in this case to benefit from the pledged thing even if the pledger permitted. This is due to the text coming prohibiting this.

Anas (ra) narrated that

“The Prophet (saw) was asked about the person amongst us who lends to his brother property and he presents to hima gift. He said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘If one of you lends a loan then something is gifted to him or he is carried upon the animal, let him not mount it or accept it unless that occurred between him and the other before that’” (narrated by Al-Bukhari).

Anas narrated from the Prophet (saw) who said:
“If he lends, let him not take a gift.”

Al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih from Abu Burdah bin Abu Musa who said:

“I reached Madinah and met Abdullah bin Salam, and he said to me: You are in a land where riba is widespread. If you have a right over a man and he gifts to you a load of straw, barley or a plant, do not take it for it is riba.”

Al-Bayhaqi extracted in Al-Ma’rifah from Fudhala bin Ubayd: “Any debt that generates a benefit is one of the aspects of riba.”

Al-Harith bin Abu Usamah narrated from the hadith of ‘Ali (ra) with the words
“that the Prophet (saw) prohibited the debt that generates a benefit”

And in the narration: “Any debt that generates a benefit is riba.” There is also the consensus (Ijma’a) that any debt wherein an increase is stipulated is forbidden. Ibn Mundhir said: ‘They had an Ijma’a that the lending person if he stipulated an increase or gift upon the one seeking a loan, and he lends based on that, then taking the increase upon that is riba.’ It is narrated from Ubayy bin K’ab and ibn Abbas and ibn Masoud that they prohibited the loan that generated a benefit. From these ahadith and athar it is clarified that the loan which produces benefit, if the increase is stipulated, it is forbidden as one opinion without difference of opinion. If the person lent anything without condition and he repaid it with increase over what he borrowed of money, it is also forbidden.

However if he gifts him a gift extra to what he borrowed, it has to be examined. If it were his custom to gift him, there is no harm in that and it is permitted for him to accept the gift. If it were not of his custom to give him a gift, then it is not permitted for him to accept it due to the hadith of Anas.

As for what Al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih from Abu Hurayra
“that a man demanded from the Messenger of Allah (SAW) a loan he gave to him and he was harsh to him. So his companions were about (to challenge) him, so he said: ‘Leave him for the owner of the right has (maqal) contention. Buy him a camel and give it to him.’ They said: ‘We do not find except older than one year.’ He said: ‘Buy it and give it to him for the best of you are the best in repayment.’”

And as for what Abu Dawud narrated from Abu Rafi’ who said:

“The Messenger of Allah (saw) borrowed a young camel, and there came to him camels of sadaqat. He commanded me to repay the man and I said: ‘I do not find in the camels except a preferred four-year old.’ He said: ‘Give it to him for the best of the people are the best in repayment.’”

This is not considered of the category of stipulating an increase in the loan nor of the category of increase upon the amount or borrowed thing. Rather he merely paid him similar to what he borrowed but greater than it in age or body. This is an animal for an animal so it is of the type of good repayment not of the type of increase. Hence the Messenger came with the reason of increase with an expression indicating reasoning and said:
“Verily the best of you are the best in repayment”,
“Verily the best people are the best in repayment”.

The reasoning is explicit and it is the good repayment not the repayment of extra over what was borrowed. Hence in the pledge in the situation of the loan, the pledgee is prohibited from benefiting from the pledged thing as it is not of the good repayment i.e. the good repayment but rather of the type of increase over the amount or the borrowed thing whether he stipulated it or not. It is not also of the type of the gift which he used to gift to him.

However all this is if the benefiting by the pledged thing is without recompense. Whereas if the benefiting with the pledged thing is with return, such as where the pledger rents the pledgee the house for recompense, it is permitted to benefit from the pledged thing in the loan and otherwise. This is because he does not benefit from the loan but by renting on condition that it is a rent without favour. If he favoured him in this, its rule is the rule of benefiting without recompense; so it is not permitted in the loan but permitted in other things.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

‘Slumdog Muslim’

8 oscars, 14 golden globe nominations, world wide recognition and appreciation, resultant media frenzy. The media frenzy created waves all over the world.

Slumdog millionaire brought the harsh reality of a particular country (India) on to the widescreen with elegance, and shocked the audiences with its larger than life cinematic experience. Slumdog Millionaire earned critical acclaim from the biggest media houses and gained unparalleled publicity for its bold picturisation, powerful screenplay and strong message by addressing issues that still dominate India, although India would like to forget such issues or hide it behind its glittering Capatalist aspirations and dreams.

Child labour, poverty, beggary, slums, high illiteracy rate, police brutality, racial discrimination and more importantly the hindu-muslim tensions ever since India got independence in 1947. Director Danny Boyle used a plot revolving around the protagonist, Jamal Malik, a ‘muslim’ kid born and brought up in the poverty of Mumbai, India and goes through some unforgettably disturbing experiences in life .

It was precisly this reason that some Hindu activists in India; drowned in the fanatical emotion of nationalism, saw the movie as being Pro Muslim and came out in large numbers to protest against it.

Blogs, forums, and some websites were full of hatred and disgust shown by such people and some changed the title of the movie to ‘Slumdog Muslim’ to express their anger.

Ironically but truly ‘Slumdog Muslim’ neither sounds absurd nor abstract.

In fact, ‘Slumdog Muslim’ is also a film that’s still in production. The production of this epic began exactly 85 years ago. The production team however started planning this film, its storyline and its cast and crew years before hand. The planning was intense and involved a number of conferences, meetings and political calculations.

The producers of this films are the western powers. The directors are western and arab politicians and leaders. The story writers are the members of parliament and the biased media.

Hence unlike Slumdog Millionaire, this film titled ‘Slumdog Muslim’ is still in production. Its one of its kind indeed. The story writers and directors of this film are busy writing the continuing story line every day. Everyday a new plot is created, a new scene is shot with a new villian; and a new trailor is filmed and watched by millions of people around the world on the news channels. Special screenings and previews of this film are watched in the political cinemas and the next shot or sequence is discussed and debated; sometimes privately but often publicly to make the audience feel they are part of the plot.

Unlike Slumdog Millionaire which had only one Jamal Malik, in this movie there is more than one Jamal Malik. Probably hundreds and thousands of Jamal Maliks. Unlike Slumdog Millionaire this movie is not just about India but other countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Uzbekistan and Pakistan.

There are probably hundreds of Jamal Maliks that represents each one of these countries. There are Jamal Maliks on the streets of Pakistan suffering the consequences of political corruption. There are Jamal Maliks in the slums of Bangladesh. There are Jamal Maliks resisting the occupation in Palestine.

In this film there are Jamal Maliks who beg to survive just another day and protect themselves from the bloody hands of the occupying forces.

‘Slumdog Muslim’ began filming on the day the Muslim Ummah was made a ‘slumdog’ by the dismemberment of the Islamic State. It was this Islamic State - Khilafah State, that gave the ummah its honour and glory. It was the 3rd of March 1924, exactly 85 years ago when the directors of the movie shot the first official scene of this movie. There were no heroes but only villains such as Mustapha Kemal, Sharif Hussain of Makkah, Abdul Aziz ibn Saud and the other agents of the colonialists.

The truth is that every Muslim will be a slumdog without the just Islamic system that would give him his honour back.

On the whole the Muslim Ummah will be treated like a slumdog at the hands of corrupt and selfish western power till the film comes to the climax.

But there is a major problem with this movie. Since the producers and directors of the movie did not fix the climax of the film for their own selfish reasons, as a result they are unable to bring the film to an end. Now they have realised that the climax is out of their hands. The climax looks more and more likely to be shaped by the heroes of this film themselves.

85 years on, the film is being produced and made everyday, Slumdog Muslim is the film that portrays the real situation that the Ummah is in today.

The following are some of the scenes of this film:

1920 British Mandates to Iraq, Transjordan and Palestine. French Mandate to Lebanon and Syria.

1921 'Abdullah recognised as Amir of Transjordan, Faisal made King of Iraq.

1924 Abolition of the Khilafah.

1926 Ibn Sa'ud proclaimed King of Hijaz.

1926 Sheikh Sa'id moved against Mustapha Kamal in 1926 with arms

1927 British recognition of independent Ibn Sa'ud's Kingdom.

1930 Britain terminates Mandate in Iraq and sponsors Iraq's membership of League of Nations.

1932 Ibn Sa'ud's Kingdom named Saudi Arabia.

1933 King Faisal of Iraq dies and is replaced by his son Ghazi.

1934 War between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, ended by British mediation with border changes favouring Saudi Arabia.

1936 Beginning of Arab revolt in Palestine.

1937 Peel Commission proposes partition in Palestine.

1939 Anglo-Turkish Treaty. White Paper on Palestine.

1940 Rashid Ali government formed in Iraq.

1941 British military intervention in Iraq, overthrowing Rashid Ali's government.

1942 British impose Wafd Party government on King Faruk. Jews demand Jewish state.

1945 Arab League pact signed in Cairo.

1947 Creation of Pakistan and India

1948 The creation of the illegal state of Israel

1971 The bloodshed in East Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh

1995 Bosnia war

1990 Gulf war

1992 The destruction of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, India by Hindu mobs

1995 Chechnya massacre

2003 Occupation of Afghanistan

2005 Occupation of Iraq

2009 Islamic Lands continue to be divided into more than fifty secular nations.

Just as with Jamal in ‘Slumdog millionaire’ some aspects are in our control and other aspects beyond us. Whether we follow the guidebook of life, the Quran or not is within our control, whether we strive to work for its implementation by the establishment of a true Islamic state is also in our sphere of control. When will we hit the jackpot and become ‘millionaires’ and regain our security, independence, authority, justice and tranquility is beyond our control, this will happen only when Allah (swt) decides. However there is a difference here, for us it is not about ‘if’ its about ‘when’ – as we are promised this victory by the Almighty and His (swt)’s Messenger (saw). What remains is for us all to seriously work for it.

Allah (swt) says:

"Allah has promised those amongst you who believe and work righteous deeds, that he will indeed grant them inheritance of power in the earth, as he granted it to those before them; that he will establish in authority their Deen, which he has chosen for them, and that he will change their state from a state of fear into a state of security and peace. They will worship me alone and not associate partners with me, and those who reject faith after this, they will be the rebellious and the wicked" [TMQ An-Noor :55]

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal extracted that Huthayfah said the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "The Prophecy will remain amongst you as long as Allah wills, then Allah will lift it when he wishes, then it will be a Khilafah Rashidah (i.e.: The first four Khalifahs) on the method of the Prophecy, it will remain for as long as Allah wills, then he will lift it when he wills, then it will be a hereditary leadership (i.e.: the Abbasid and Ummayid dynasties etc.) for as long as Allah wills then he will lift it when he so wills. Then there will be a tyrannical rule (i.e.: all the current Kufr regimes of the Muslims) for as long as Allah wills, then he will lift it when he so wills, then there will be a Khilafah Rashidah on the method of the Prophecy, then he kept silent." [Musnad Imam Ahmed 4/273]

Abdullah al-Hindi

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

The Long March Episode- Democracy and Dictatorship- Two sides of the same coin?

The weekend in Pakistan saw the much awaited long march take its turn to add itself onto the list of the on-going Political crisis plaguing the country.

President Zardari had pledged to reinstate the deposed Chief justice Mr Chaudhry, who had been removed by Musharraf in the November state of emergency, within 30 days of taking office, but reneged on the promise, fearing the justice would re-open the case of alleged corruption by his late wife Benazir Bhutto and him over which immunity was granted by Musharraf in a potential power sharing deal.

The election of the PPP in power in January and the ‘in-house’ move of Zardari to Presidency saw him back down on his promise during the elections of re-instating the deposed judges if the PPP won.

Whilst Musharraf was in power we saw parties rally around the message that dictatorship was bad for the country and that is should be removed to guarantee ‘real’ progress. The message was not just for Musharraf but anyone with similar ambitions for dictatorial rule which had caused havoc in the country through the pursuance of the war on terror with no consultation from the national assembly, rasing juniors in army ranks above seniors who were more loyal to Musharraf, sending the heads of the two opposition parties into exile and sacking judges who could contest President Musharraf’s authority as un-constitutional.

Today, Democracy, through free and fair elections has bought Zardari, a renowned crook into the highest office of the country, allowed the bombing and killings in swat which has seen 500,000 people misplaced and thousands of innocent men, women and children killed by American drones, lying to the public that American strikes are unstoppable as they take place from Afghanistan whereas new information proves that the Pakistani gave the green light to America to bomb the citizens of the country, banning media reporting against the government as was done with GEO and colluding with the army to crackdown on lawyers, activists and opposition parties calling for the re-instatement of the deposed chief justice.

What can the people of Pakistan expect next even after the Chief Justice has been sworn back into power? How can people rest their confidence in Democracy for Pakistan after the information minister, Sherry Rehman resigned in the wake of the growing clampdown by government on protests by lawyers and opposition groups which speaks volumes on how many in the government see no difference in the previous regime and the new one?
Both Democracy and Dictatorship have wreaked havoc for Pakistan.

Those parties that questioned Dictatorship and contested it under Musharraf’s rule, are they now willing to challenge democracy and ask for its removal after witnessing its fruits?

By Majed Iqbal


Monday, March 16, 2009

Article 22, Explanation of the Draft Constitution of the Khilafah

The following is from the draft english translation of the Arabic book مقدمة الدستورأو الأسباب الموجبة له (Introduction to the constitution and the evidences that make it obligatory) published by Hizb ut-Tahrir 1382 Hijri (1963 CE). Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings. Please note some of the adopted opinions of the Hizb have changed since the time the book was published so any of the adopted literature published after this book which contradicts what is mentioned in this book abrogates those specific points

Article 22: The Principles on which the Ruling System is based

The ruling system is based upon four principles. These are:
1. Sovereignty belongs to Shari'ah and not to the people.
2. Authority belongs to the Ummah.
3. Appointing one single Head of State is obligatory upon the Muslims.
4. The Head of State reserves the exclusive right to adopt the Shari'ah rules. He has the competence to enact the constitution and all the laws.

This article outlines the principles of the rule, without which it could not come into being. If any of these principles were absent, the rule would be non-existent. The rule in question is the Islamic rule i.e. the authority of Islam and not just any rule. These principles have been obtained after a study and from the Shari'ah evidences. The first principle stipulating that sovereignty belongs to Shari'ah has a reality, and that is the term sovereignty; it also has evidence, stipulating that it belongs to Shari'ah and not to the people. As for its reality, the term sovereignty is in fact a Western jargon referring to the one who practises and conducts the will. Hence, if the individual were the one who practises and conducts his will, his sovereignty would belong to him; and if his will were practised and conducted by someone else, he would be a slave. Likewise is the case with a nation. If the will of this nation, i.e. the collective will of its individuals, were conducted by itself through individuals from among it, to whom it delegates the competence to conduct it will with consent, such a nation would be master of its own affairs; and if its will were conducted by force, by other than itself, it would be an enslaved nation.

This is why the democratic system says: "Sovereignty belongs to the people.", meaning that it is the people who practise their own will and appoint whom they wish and give him the right to conduct their will on their behalf. This is the reality of sovereignty upon which the Shari'ah rule needs to be applied. As for the Shari'ah rule pertaining this sovereignty, it stipulates that it belongs to Shari'ah and not to the people. What conducts the will of an individual according to Shari'ah is not the individual himself; the will of the individual is rather conducted by the commands and the prohibitions of Allah (swt). Likewise the Ummah: She is not free to do what she wishes; her will is rather conducted by the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt).

The evidence of this is deduced from Allah's (swt) saying:

فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ
"No by your God, they shall not have true belief until they make you judge in all disputes between them." T.M.Q. [4-65]
It is also deduced from the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in which he said:

"None of you shall have true belief until his desire becomes according to what I have brought."
Hence, what controls the Ummah and the individual, and what conducts the will of the Ummah and the individual is what the Messenger of Allah (saw) has brought. The Ummah and the individual submit to Shari'ah.

Therefore, sovereignty belongs to Shari'ah. The Khalifah is not given the Baya'a by the Ummah to act as a hired employee, executing what she wishes, as is the case in the democratic system; the Khalifah is rather given the Baya'a by the Ummah according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger in order to implement the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, i.e. to implement Shari'ah, not to implement what people want. Even if the people who gave him the Baya'a were to deviate from Shari'ah, he would fight them until they retract. It is from this evidence that the principle stating that sovereignty belongs to Shari'ah and not to the people has been deduced.

As for the principle stating that authority belongs to the Ummah, this is obtained from the fact that Shari'ah has made the appointing of the Khalifah the right of the Ummah and from the fact that the Khalifah assumes the authority through this Baya'a. As for the fact that Shari'ah has made the appointment of the Khalifah up to the Ummah, this is evident from the Ahadith of the Baya'a. Ubada Ibnul-Samit said:
"The Messenger of Allah (saw) invited us so we pledged our Baya'a to him to hear and to obey in weal and woe, in ease and in hardship and evil circumstances"

Jarir Ibnu Abdullah said:
"I pledged my Baya'a to the Messenger of Allah (saw), to hear and to obey."

It is also reported on the authority of Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Three types of people Allah will not address nor will He praise them on the Day of Judgement, and a severe punishment will await them: A man by the roadside with a surplus of water and he prevents the travellers from it; a man who gave his Baya'a to an Imam for worldly gains, whenever the Imam gave him what he wanted, he was loyal to him and whenever he did not, he was not, and a man who sold another man a commodity after Asr, swearing that he was given such and such price for it while in fact he was not."

Therefore, the Baya'a is given by the Muslims to the Khalifah and not by the Khalifah to the Muslims. It is the Muslims who give him their Baya'a, i.e. it is them who appoint him as a ruler over them. This was the case with the Khulafa' Al-Rashideen (r), they took the Baya'a from the Ummah and they did not become Khulafa' except through the Baya'a given to them by the Ummah. As for the fact that the Khalifah assumes the authority through this Baya'a, this is also evident from the Ahadith pertaining the unity of the Khilafah.

It has been reported on the authority of Abdullah Ibnu Amr Ibnul A'as who said: that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
"He who pledges his Baya'a to an Imam, giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart, let him obe him if he can; if another comes to dispute with him, strike the neck of that man."
Nafa'a reported: "Abdullah Ibnu Omar said to me:
"I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
"Whoever takes off his hand from obedience to Allah, he will meet Allah on the Day of Judgement with no valid argument; and whoever dies while there was no Baya'a on his neck, he dies the death of the days of ignorance."
Ibnu Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
"If anyone sees in his Amir something that he hates, let him be patient with him, for he who separates himself from the authority by even so much as a hand span and dies, he dies the death of the days of ignorance."
Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hazim who said: "I accompanied Abu Hurayra for five years and heard him talk about the Messenger of Allah (saw) who said:
"The children of Israel were governed by the prophets; whenever a prophet died, another succeeded him. There will be no prophets after me. There will be Khalifahs and they will number many." They asked : "So what do your order us?" He said: "Fulfil the Baya'a to them one after the other. Give them their due, for truly Allah will account them over what He entrusted them with."

These Ahadith indicate that the Khalifah assumes the authority through this Baya'a, for Allah (swt) has made it an obligation upon the Muslims to obey him according to the Baya'a :

"He who give his Baya'a to an Imam let him obey him.."

Therefore, he assumes the Khilafah by the Baya'a and his obedience becomes obligatory, because he is a Khalifah that has been given the Baya'a. He has therefore assumed the authority from the Ummah who has given him the Baya'a and because she is obligated to obey whom she has the Baya'a to, i.e. to whom she has Baya'a on her neck. This indicates that authority belongs to the Ummah. Besides, although the Messenger of Allah (saw) was a Prophet and a Messenger, he also took the Baya'a from the people, and it was a Baya'a of rule and authority, not a Baya'a of Prophethood.

He (saw) took it from men and women alike, but not from children below the age of puberty. Hence, the fact that it is the Muslims who appoint the Khalifah and give him the Baya'a according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and the fact that the Khalifah assumes the authority through this Baya'a, indicates clearly that the authority belongs to the Ummah and she gives it to whoever she wishes. As for the third principle, stating that the appointment of one single Khalifah is an obligation upon the Muslims, the obligation pertaining the appointment of a Khalifah is established in the Hadith.

It is reported on the authority of Nafa'a who said: "Abdullah Ibnu Omar said to me: "I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
"Whoever takes off his hand from obedience to Allah, he will meet Allah on the Day of Judgement with no valid argument; and whoever dies while there was no Baya'a on his neck, he dies the death of the days of ignorance."
The evidential aspect in this Hadith is reflected in the fact that the Messenger of Allah (saw) has made it an obligation upon every Muslim to have a Baya'a on his neck to a Khalifah. He (saw) did not make it an obligation upon every Muslim to effectively give his Baya'a to the Khalifah. Hence, what is obligatory is the presence of a Baya'a on the neck of every Muslim; i.e. the presence of a Khalifah, whose presence makes it possible for every Muslim and gives him the right to have a Baya'a on his neck, regardless of whether he effectively gives the Baya'a or not.

As for the fact that the Khalifah should be one, this is reflected in the Hadith narrated by Abu Sai'd Al-Khudri in which the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
"If a Baya'a has been given to two Khalifahs kill the latter of them."
This serves as clear evidence about the prohibition upon the Muslims of having more than one Khalifah.

As for the fourth principle stating that the Head of State reserves the exclusive right to adopt the rules, this has been established through the Ijma'a of the Sahaba, confirming that it is the Khalifah alone who enjoys the competence of adopting from the Shari'ah rules. It is from this Ijma'a of the Sahaba that the celebrated Shari'ah principles have been obtained, namely
"The order of the Imam settles differences"
"The order of the Imam is binding"
"The Sultan reserves the right to occasion as many new rulings for as many arising new matters."