Correcting the mistake of those who claim there is no Islamic State
It was not enough that America enslaved the Egyptian people for over sixty years, paying their rulers to do their bidding, supporting the occupation in Palestine and even to fight against Islam, nor was it enough to enslave the once mighty al-Azhar university so that its leaders would issue judgements in favour of American foreign policy in the Middle East. America now even wants all of the Muslims of the world to reject Islam, to stop asking Allah for help and instead call upon them, the secular United States, for the ease. How sad it is, that some American Muslims, who once rejected kufr in favour of Islam, now make it their main reference point and invite other Muslims to the inhumane and backward kufr ideology that is American capitalism.
How can Muslims call upon America to lend a helping hand to the Egyptian people? America are the very support of Hosni Mubrak’s and his source of power. They didn’t even consider him to be a dictator, despite all of his crimes against his own people. They are the ones who have encouraged appointing Mubarak’s evil henchman as his successor. You have to be a whole new category of naive to expect anything other than self serving interests from American foreign policy; either that or you see that your own interests in this dunya have started to coincide with theirs.
Western liberal media and policy makers have spared no effort in trying to portray the Egyptian people as secular to the core, caring nothing for their deen and desiring only to have a Western style democra-tatorship. It is their agenda to prevent the return of Islam to ruling in the Muslim lands, as they view it as problematic for their colonial dictatorial interest (what they term as ‘vital security interests’). It is no surprise, then, that those whose hearts have already been won to the Western secular liberal values, the moderate Muslims, have been brought out to start pronouncing that there is no such thing as Islamic ruling system, so the very best the Egyptians could hope for is what they have here in the West.
Those who try to divert Muslim’s attention from the Islamic political systems sing from the same hymn sheet that was written for the first of their kind nearly one hundred years ago. Ali Abdul Raziq released a book under his name which was inspired by, if not written by Western orientalists with colonial ambitions, to see that an Islamic State never again threatens their hegemony of the world. The modern day equivalents recite the same arguments and make the same elementary mistakes in describing both reality and Islam.
The book called (Islam and governance) was published under the name of Sheikh Ali Abdul Raziq who is one of the scholars of al-Azhar university; so petitions were presented to the scholars of al-Azhar university signed by a large number of scholars in June, 1925. The petitions included that the book in question contains things contrary to the deen and to the texts of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet and the consensus of the ummah.
The charges included:
1 – That he made the Islamic Sharia law purely spiritual, unrelated with governing and implementation in the matters of this life.
2 – That he claims that the deen does not prevent understanding that the jihad of the Prophet (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) was for kingship (mulk) not for the deen, nor for making the call (da’awah) to the world.
3 – That he claims that the system of ruling in the era of the Prophet (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) was the subject of uncertainty, ambiguity, turbulence or shortcomings and so is perplexing.
4 – That he claims that the mission of the Prophet (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) was to deliver the law abstract of governance and implementation.
5 – The denial of the consensus of the Sahabah on the obligation of establishing an Imam and that it is imperative for the ummah to have someone who establishes their religious and worldly affairs.
6 – The denial that the judiciary is a shariah vocation.
7 – That he claims that the government of Abu Bakr and the Caliphs after him, may Allah be pleased with them were secular (La deeniya).
The Sheikh of the University of al-Azhar along with the unanimous agreement of twenty-four scholars from the Council of Senior Scholars, judged Sheikh Ali Abdul Raziq be expelled from the community of scholars. Abdul Raziq was roundly denounced by Al-Azhar University and his arguments comprehensively refuted.
Politics is merely an administrative process, not influenced by belief, so they say. Yet, this is false. Administration ensures that the mail goes out, while political ideology determines whether pornographic materials or mail order wine cartons should be delivered at all. Administration ensures that monies are allotted for public works, whereas political ideology influences what the sources of that money is and on what public works it should be spent. Capitalists have no problem with money taken through oppressive taxes, stolen wealth from occupied lands and protectionist trade tariffs, whereas Islam prohibits such practices. Administration deals with ensuring the security apparatus does its job well, whereas political ideology determines what means can be used to achieve this and who the enemies are. Islam does not allow spying on the state’s citizens, nor does it allow pre-emptive internment or indefinite detention without charge.
Playing with words claiming that the Prophet (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) left only ‘constitutional’ principles is disingenuous. If his principles were constitutional then they were political, which undermines the claim that Islam is not an ideology. The most common argument is that Islam is a religion and religions deal with moral and spiritual matters, not politics. This erroneous logic is built upon the Western premise that religions are not political. This is a purely modern Christian concept, which should not be used to explain Islam, as the two are clearly different.
Contrary to the assertion of Abdul Raziq and his present day followers, the Prophet did bequeath to the Muslims a system of ruling which has been outlined in the Qur’an and Sunnah. We should know that Prophet did inform the Sahabah of the obligation of appointing a Khalifah when he said: On the authority of Abu Hazim, who said, I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him talking of Muhammad’s saying: The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will be Khulafaa’ and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us? He said: Fulfil the bay’ah to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely God will ask them about what He entrusted them with.
The Prophet did inform the Sahabah that the Khilafah is a unitary system: For example Muslim reported from Abu Said Al Khudri that the Messenger of Allah said: “If the Oath of Allegiance (Bay’ah) has been taken for two Khulafaa’, kill the latter of them.”
The Prophet did inform the Sahabah how the Khalifah should be appointed: “Whosoever gave a Bay’ah to an Imam, giving him the clasp of his hand, and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can.’
The Prophet did explain what a Khalifah‘s role is what he should rule by and at what point he should be removed: Bukhari narrated from ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit that in the Bay’ah he said: “And do not dispute with the people in authority, unless you see (in their actions) an open disbelief upon which you have a proof from Allah”. Or in another narration, ‘as long as they establish the salah’ i.e. the rules of the Deen.
The claim that the Islamic rules of punishment are only for the time of the prophet and not suitable for the modern age, and even that they are not all agreed upon anyway, betrays the real Western benefit seeking mentality of the modernist. Rather than submitting willingly to the Islamic rules that Allah revealed, they seek to avoid them, searching for excuses, hence they claim that most are not agreed upon? Is there any believer who can claim that Allah did not legislate cutting the hand of the thief?
“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.” [an-Nisaa: 65]
Misapplication of Islamic rules today should not lead to us fearing what the non-Muslims will think so much that we deny that there even is such a thing as Islamic punishments. Rather, we need to work day and night to establish the true model of Islamic justice, such that those who make false claims against Islam will be exposed as liars, and their own Western liberal system will be shown to be truly barbaric.
Praise Allah, that he did not leave us in the hands of either the French, British or American philosophers. He (subhanahu) gave us a clear criteria of accountability; when to support and when to oppose the ruler. If he refers only to Islamic rules, then his state can be considered and deserves our support, even if we differ in the details. We will continue to encourage him to the best interpretations of Islam, based on evidence, not whether it pleases the American colonialists. However, if he adopts any rules not based upon Islamic evidence, then he deserves no support and must be reformed or removed.
If he is serves foreign interests and opposes the Islamic rules, then he cannot be supported regardless of how popular he is. Hosni Mubarak was a traitor to Allah, His Messenger and the believers from the first moment he took power, until the last. This is the case for every Western agent ruler who resists ruling by the clear Islamic rules, establishing military juntas, democracies, dictatorships and monarchies instead.
It is true that scholars need to guide to the truth, fearing Allah and only calling to what He is pleased with. If they can be brave enough to oppose their Western masters, then they can hope from Allah’s pleasure. But, if they continue to fear what the American people say, then they can expect only disgrace in this life and the next.
“…Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.” [at-Taubah:13]
It is not acceptable for those learned in the deen to remain silent, claiming that there is fitnah. They are the biggest fitnah. The Quran and Sunnah are decisive on the matter of ruling by Islam. There is no confusion or this, nor is there any confusion over whether Hosni Mubarak is serving Islam or the West, hence there is no fitnah in which silence is excused. There is only clear munkar, which if not spoken out against will only get worse.
“Nay, by Allah, you have to enjoin the good and forbid the wrong, and restrain the hand of the tyrant, and to force him on the truth and to confine him to the truth, otherwise Allah will be about to strike the hearts of some of you against others, then He will curse you as He cursed the Children of Israel”. [Reported by Abu Dawud and Tirmizi]
Ahmad and Tabarani narrated on the authority of Udai ibn Umairah that the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: ”Allah does not punish the general public because of the wrong doing of specific people until they see the evil (committed) among them while able to stop it and they do not. If they do that, Allah will punish the specific people and the general public.”
The crimes of the rulers who rule with kufr should not be excused, nor the scholars who defend them, even encouraging them to fight against the sincere da’awah carriers, imprisoning, torturing and murdering them. Scholars today have the utmost responsibility to speak out against the tyrants, not to remain silent, justifying their crimes.
The Prophet of Allah صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ said: “There are 2 types of people if they become good then the Ummah will be good and if they become bad then the ummah will be bad: the scholars and the rulers” and “Do not ask me about the bad but ask me about the good” The Prophet صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ repeated this three times then said, “indeed the worst of the worst are the bad scholars and the best of the good are the good scholars” Ar-Rabee’ bin Anas said: Whoever does not fear Allah is not an Alim.
The only true solution to Egypt is the full implementation of Islam, in the form of the Khilafah Islamic state. Only it can guarantee the ruler’s accountability, secure the right of every citizen to speak out against injustice, place the law out of the hands of tinkering self-serving jurists, remove the colonial dominance and influence and hence build a truly independent economy which will aim to secure a decent standard of living for the people, built on justice, not exploitation. In such a land, women are not mere objects, nor are men mere workers; people are people with real dignity, not classified according to race or utility. None of this can be guaranteed by the best of Western democracies, so how can we expect anything from a weak colonialist democratic project that is being proposed by so many modernist reformers today?
Egypt’s problems are not primarily about economic living standards. This is only a symptom of a far deeper problem. When we as an ummah allowed our lands to dominated by foreign agents then we became slaves to their whims. When we adopted their way of thinking, then we lost all hope of ever become anything better. Until we, as an ummah, individually and collectively, reject the Western way of thinking, which bases all decision on benefit, and replace it with the Islamic way of thinking, which is characterised by willing submission to Allah’s laws; then we cannot expect to solve our problems and will remain the third world, mocked in the West, as we have no confidence in our own deen, hence we adopt their way of life. We cannot guide ourselves, let alone all of mankind.
“Thus We have made you, a just nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you” [al-Baqarah 2:143]
Ever since the destruction of the Khilafah in 1924 people have been attempting, unsuccessfully to detach Islam from siyassah (politics) and dawlah (state). The most brazen attempt was Ali Abdul Raziq. As a result the enemies of Islam have tried (and will continue to try) to instil corrupted ideas and thinking into the ummah in new ways. Policy makers in the west try, as they did in the past, try to influence ‘scholars’, to recycle old arguments countering the call for the Khilafah.
The truth of the matter is that the Khilafah is a unique system, different from any other in terms of its political philosophy, form of government and its stated aims for the simple reason that its source is divine and not manmade, whether by Western liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment or their intellectual subservients from the so-called Muslim liberal thinkers.
Some have attempted to reinterpret the meaning of the hadith reported by Imam Muslim on the authority of Nafi’ that the Messenger (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:
”The one who removes his hand from obedience, he will meet Allah without a proof (excuse or defence) for himself’ and whosoever dies without a bay’ah on his neck dies the death of jahiliyyah.”
From the hadith a rule can be deduced for a situation when Muslims die without the presence of a Khalifah to rule over them. Historically, such a situation was unusual for the Ummah which would explain why so few jurists addressed this hadith, unlike the numerous other evidences, which establish the obligation of Khilafah, which have received greater attention and scrutiny. Yet, the unthinkable did happen. The Khilafah was destroyed, generations of Muslims have died while having no Khalifah over them, and consequently this hadith of the Prophet (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) assumes a relevance that those scholars did not envisage.
This hadith is talking about two different situations. The first situation is when someone withholds his obedience to the existing Khalifah. The second part is about ‘the one who dies without a bay’ah on his neck.’
Thus, the hadith is very precise in its description. It is not talking about giving bay’ah to a Khalifah but rather having a ‘Bay’ah on the neck for a Khalifah’, which describes a situation when someone dies without the presence of a Khalifah having been contracted. Also there is nothing in this hadith that specifies this situation to a selected few so it cannot be said that the hadith is addressing the only representatives of Muslims e.g. Scholars or others in positions of authority. Rather it addresses all Muslims.
The reference to a person’s death indicates that the hukm (rule) must exist throughout his life. There cannot be a point in his life when he is in a state without a bay’ah on his neck i.e. without the presence of a Khalifah. So the hukm is continuous – unlike, for example, the ahkam of obeying parents where the hukm ends upon their death or the hukm of giving to the poor, which ends when poverty ceases. But the obligation of having a Khalifah over you never ceases because the text says ‘the one who dies’ indicating the continuity of the hukm throughout the life of a person for he is not allowed to die in situation where the Khalifah is not present.
Today, secular Muslim writers are too wary of Ali Abdul Raziq’s infamy to be caught quoting him directly. They generally disassociate themselves from him, even though the substance of their arguments are one and the same, born out of the same un-Islamic way of thinking.
For example, he exaggerates what the Muslims said about the khalifah (caliph) “but even then the khulafaa were not satisfied with that … they even made the ruler Allah’s khalifah on His earth, and His shade extended over His slaves; Glory be to Allah over what they make in partnership with Him!” How can he mock the words of Muhammad salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam in this way? For these words narrated of the Prophet, that the sultan is Allah’s shade, meaning that he defends the people from harm as the shade defends from the heat of the sun.
He also says “we warn you against mixing between al-hukmain (the two rules), and becoming confused about al-wilayatain (the two guardianships): the guardianship of the Messenger, as a messenger, and the guardianship of the kings and rulers. The guardianship of the Messenger over his people was a spiritual guardianship, established by the iman (belief) of the heart. Its submission is a true complete submission, followed by the submission of the body. The guardianship of the ruler is a civilian guardianship. It depends on the submission of the body without any connection to the heart. (The first) is guidance to Allah, (the second) is managing benefits and structuring the earth. (The first) is for the deen (religion), (the second) is for the dunya (this life). (The first) is for Allah, (the second) is for people. (The first) is religious leadership, (the second) is political leadership, and how far is there between politics and the religion!”
This is really just a red-herring, as the standard for Muslims is not whether He salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam was similar to other kings or not, nor whether his state was similar to that of Western theorists’ models. Rather, the important matter was that he did impose his law, with the force of power, if necessary, regardless of who else this resembled. Uthman is famously reported to have said “Allah prevents with the authority what he does not prevent with the Qur’an.” Also, Abu Bakr said “By Allah! I will fight those who differentiate between the prayer and the zakah as zakah is the compulsory right to be taken from the property (according to Allah’s orders) By Allah! If they refuse to pay me even a she-kid which they used to pay at the time of Allah’s Apostle, I would fight with them for withholding it.” Both these understandings were taken from the teachings of the Prophet.
Abdul Raziq mentioned two historical opinions among the Muslims with regards to the authority of the khalifah: those who uphold him to be a successor in prophethood and those who believe him to be only an elected executor of the shari’ah.
“so the khalifah for them has the status that the Rasool salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam has over the believers, he has over them the general guardianship, the complete obedience and the comprehensive authority.” and “so they imagined …that whoever governs the affair of the Muslims holds the position that was held among them by Rasool Allah salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam.” And “that opinion’s spirit is found among the masses of scholars and the masses of Muslims also. All of their words on the khilafah and researches into it veer in that direction and point to that belief.” [‘Ammarah 1972]
These are truly obscure conclusions to draw from the writings of Muslim scholars, whose view is that the khalifah is an elected fallible man, contracted to do a job. As long as he fulfills the terms of the contract then he retains his employment.
Sheikh Khidr Hussayni, in his book ‘Naqd Kitab al-Islam wa usul al-Hukm’ refutes the claim after mentioning a lengthy research in many books “I did not find a word that suggest this, not even by way of allusion, that the authority of the khalifah extends from the authority of Allah… What is taken by way of deduction is that the author knew that in the West are two schools of thought on the authority of kings, so he wished that there was the like of them among the Muslims. So when he did not find in the words of the people of knowledge on the khilafah what agrees or comes close to the statement that the authority of the khalifah extends from Allah’s authority, he searched for it in the exaggerations of poetry or prose, then claimed that he was successful with his desire. He used them as evidences of the establishment of a madhab (school of thought) that does not have among the scholarly people who follows it nor who has innovated it. I do not suppose that the author will even smell in the papers on the khilafah the scent of that madhab, so is left to use as evidence the sayings of poets or words that were presented as exaggerations and praise.”
A more detailed look at the link between the modern day Modernist Muslim writers and Ali Abdul Raziq can be found in this article