Sunday, June 29, 2014

"We have sent down the Book to you with the truth so that you can judge between people according to what Allah has shown to you."

At the time of complete ruling by the truth of Islam, Ramadhan was glorified by great worship of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. The Muslims did not restrict themselves to fasting, tarawih and invitations to iftaaris, rather they ensured that Islam was applied to all spheres of life, individual and collective, including economics, foreign policy and education. So, those who cried for help were secured from harm, the poor relieved of their burdens, the enemies' armies feared facing the Muslims in Jihad and the flags of Islam, La Ilaha Ilal Allah Muhammadur RasulAllah, were raised high throughout the world. This is how Ramadhan has been the month of victory for Muslims, from victory over the Quraysh to Badr, the Opening of Makkah, the defeat of the Persians at Al-Buwayb, the Opening of 'Amooriyah and victory over the Tartars at Ein Jaloot.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
إِنَّا أَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ لِتَحْكُمَ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِمَا أَرَاكَ اللَّهُ
"We have sent down the Book to you with the truth so that you can judge between people according to what Allah has shown to you."
(an-Nisa'a, 4:105)
O Muslims of Pakistan!
At the time of complete ruling by the truth of Islam, Ramadhan was glorified by great worship of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. The Muslims did not restrict themselves to fasting, tarawih and invitations to iftaaris, rather they ensured that Islam was applied to all spheres of life, individual and collective, including economics, foreign policy and education. So, those who cried for help were secured from harm, the poor relieved of their burdens, the enemies' armies feared facing the Muslims in Jihad and the flags of Islam, La Ilaha Ilal Allah Muhammadur RasulAllah, were raised high throughout the world. This is how Ramadhan has been the month of victory for Muslims, from victory over the Quraysh to Badr, the Opening of Makkah, the defeat of the Persians at Al-Buwayb, the Opening of 'Amooriyah and victory over the Tartars at Ein Jaloot.
However, today, without the Islamic Khilafah state, we find ourselves in defeat and disgrace, both inside and outside Ramadhan. We find that despite having vast lands, abundant resources and huge armed forces, we are devastated by insecurity, such that our eyes widen in terror, we are drowned in poverty, such that our backs are broken by hardship, and we are disgraced before our enemies, such that some of us even imagine that victory is only the right for the enemies, who hoist their flags of Kufr over the bloodied bodies of our children, women and elderly. Our declined state is because the ruling by Islam has been untied, the Khilafah abolished in 1342 AH, 1924 CE, and now one after the other, our matters are unraveling! RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم,
«لَتُنْقَضَنَّ عُرَى الإِسْلاَمِ عُرْوَةً عُرْوَةً، فَكُلَّمَا انْتَقَضَتْ عُرْوَةٌ، تَشَبَّثَ النَّاسُ بِالَّتِي تَلِيهَا، فَأَوَّلُهُنَّ نَقْضًا: الحُكْمُ، وَآخِرُهُنَّ: الصَّلاَةُ»
"The knots of Islam will untied, one by one, and every time a knot is untied the people will hold fast to the one that follows it. The first of them to be untied is the Ruling (الحكم), and the last of them is the Salah." [Reported by Ahmad in his Musnad, Ibn Hibbaan and al-Haakim].
O Muslims of Pakistan!
Ruling by Islam is a life and death issue for each and every one us and Allah سبحانه وتعالى has warned us about the rulers who rule by other than Islam. A ruler who both denies Islam and does not rule by all that Allah سبحانه وتعالى has revealed, has been described as a Kafir. Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمْ الْكَافِرُونَ
"And whosoever does not judge by all that Allâh has revealed, such are the Kâfirûn."
(al Mai'dah 5:44)
As for the ruler who does not deny Islam, yet still does not rule by all that Allah سبحانه وتعالى has revealed, he has been described as a wrongdoer and oppressor, liable to severe punishment by Allah سبحانه وتعالى. Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمْ الظَّالِمُونَ
"And whosoever does not judge by all that Allâh has revealed, such are the Zâlimûn."
(al-Mai'dah 5:45)
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمْ الْفَاسِقُونَ
"And whosoever does not judge by all that Allâh has revealed, such are the Fâsiqûn"
(al-Mai'dah 5:47)
The rulers of Pakistan today are negligent in the highest order. The death of the one who neglects the Khilafah, which must be practically realized as a Bay'ah (Pledge of Allegiance) to a Khaleefah on the necks of the Muslims, is as the death of Jahiliyyah, such is the enormity of the sin. RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,
«وَمَنْ مَاتَ وَلَيْسَ فِي عُنُقِهِ بَيْعَةٌ مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً»
"And whosoever dies without having a Bay'ah upon his neck (i.e. without a system of Bay'ah existing), dies the death of Jahiliyyah."
Although the sin is greater upon the rulers, their neglect does not release us from the Obligation (فرض) of establishing the Khilafah. It is an unavoidable Obligation, with no choice or complacency in it and any neglect in performing this Duty is a great sin.
No, certainly, the neglect of the rulers in implementing Islam over us is not their personal matter alone, for Islam has mandated upon us to speak against the unjust ruler and change our situation. RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,
«أَفْضَلَ الْجِهَادِ كَلِمَةُ حَقٍّ عِنْدَ سُلْطَانٍ جَائِرٍ»
"The best Jihad is the word of truth before the unjust rulers" [an-Nisai].
Accounting the ruler is our matter, each and every one of us, and neglect of this duty is only inviting punishment to visit us. RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,
«إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ لَا يُعَذِّبُ الْعَامَّةَ بِعَمَلِ الْخَاصَّةِ حَتَّى يَرَوْا الْمُنْكَرَ بَيْنَ ظَهْرَانَيْهِمْ وَهُمْ قَادِرُونَ عَلَى أَنْ يُنْكِرُوهُ فَلَا يُنْكِرُوهُ فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ عَذَّبَ اللَّهُ الْخَاصَّةَ وَالْعَامَّةَ»
"Allah will not punish the public people (general masses) because of the action of particular people until they see the Munkar (committed) in their midst, and they are able to Forbid it, but they do not denounce it. If they did so, then Allah would punish the particular people (Khassah) and the public ('Aammah)". [Ahmad]
O Muslims of Pakistan!
This Ramadhan, let us all work for ending the rule of oppressors and restoring the Khilafah. The situation is on our side, the entire world is talking about Islam, the Ummah is turning to its Deen with seriousness and the discussion about the need for Shariah, Islamic constitution and Khilafah has reached every area and level of our country, including our powerful armed forces. Not only is the situation on our side, we have the Help of Allah سبحانه وتعالى whose promise of Help is not only for the Prophets (as) only, but for all the Believers. Allah سبحانه وتعالى,
إِنَّا لَنَنصُرُ رُسُلَنَا وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَيَوْمَ يَقُومُ الأَشْهَادُ
"We will indeed make victorious our Messengers and those who believe in this world's life and on the day, when the witnesses will stand forth"
(Ghafir 40:51)
And the good news of RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم is that after the oppressor rulers, the Khilafah will be restored to us again. Ahmed narrated that RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,
«ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكًا جَبْرِيَّةً فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ ثُمَّ سَكَتَ»
"Then there will be rule of force, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then Allah will end it when He wishes. And then there will be a Khilafah on the Methodology of the Prophetood." And then he fell silent.
Let us work from now with Hizb ut-Tahrir. Hizb ut-Tahrir is fully prepared for the return of Islam as a way of life, state and constitution. Hizb ut-Tahrir has prepared an entire Constitution for the Khilafah, of 191 articles in two substantial volumes, containing evidences for the articles from the Quran and the Sunnah. Hizb ut-Tahrir has a library of essential books for the establishment of Khilafah, covering subjects from the Islamic Belief, Islamic Personality to the Khilafah State Organizations and the Economics System in Islam. And Hizb ut-Tahrir has prepared armies of capable politicians, men and women, who strive against the tyrants, fearing none but Allah سبحانه وتعالى. RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,
«أَلَا لَا يَمْنَعَنَّ أَحَدَكُمْ رَهْبَةُ النَّاسِ أَنْ يَقُولَ بِحَقٍّ إِذَا رَآهُ أَوْ شَهِدَهُ فَإِنَّهُ لَا يُقَرِّبُ مِنْ أَجَلٍ وَلَا يُبَاعِدُ مِنْ رِزْقٍ»
"Do not fear the people from speaking the Truth, when it is witnessed or seen, for it will neither shorten the life span nor cause loss in Rizq." [Ahmad]
O sincere officers within Pakistan's armed forces!
You are the men whose praised predecessors, the fighting men of the Ansaar of Madinah (ra), gave Nussrah for the establishment of the ruling by Islam, as a state and constitution. This Ramadhan, it is upon you to grant the Nussrah (Material Support) to Hizb ut-Tahrir, under its Ameer, the eminent jurist and statesman, Sheikh Ata Bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, so as to establish the Khilafah. Only then will this traitorous and criminal regime be ended, the rule of Kufr abolished and Islam restored as a state and constitution, with Ramadhan glorified as it was for centuries.
Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,
إِن يَنصُرْكُمُ اللَّهُ فَلاَ غَالِبَ لَكُمْ وَإِن يَخْذُلْكُمْ فَمَن ذَا الَّذِى يَنصُرُكُم مِّنْ بَعْدِهِ وَعَلَى اللَّهِ فَلْيَتَوَكَّلِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ
"If Allah helps you, none can overcome you; and if He forsakes you, who is there after Him that can help you And in Allah (Alone) let believers put their trust."
(Aali-Imran 3:160)
Hizb ut-Tahrir Wilayah Pakistan
29 Sha'ban 1435 AH 
27 June 2014 CE 

Muslims in America Connected to the Global Ummah - Khilafah Conference 2...

Muslims in America Connected to the Global Ummah- Keynote Speech by Shaykh Abu Talha at the recent Khilafah Conference 2014 by Hizb ut-Tahrir America

Question & Answer Session - Khilafah Conference 2014 Hizb ut-Tahrir America

Question & Answer Session at the recent Khilafah Conference 2014 by Hizb ut-Tahrir America. 
Panelists includ Shaykh Abu Talha and Ustadh Mazin Abdul Adhim.

What is Shariah Law? Divine Mercy or Threat? - Khilafah Conference 2014 USA

Ustadh Mazin Abdul Adhim delivers a talk on the topic What is Shariah Law? Divine Mercy or Threat? at the recent Khilafah Conference by Hizb-ut-Tahrir America.

The Arab Spring Reaches Iraq- by Adnan Khan

"The mainstream media has basically gone into hysteria mode with so much focus on ISIS, when in fact, ISIS is a small entity. It's definitely playing a critical role in the uprising in the areas of Sunni Iraq, but if it didn't have the support of the masses, in other words a general Sunni uprising, it would not be able to accomplish all of this....... and I think that the problem is there is just a disproportionate amount of focus on ISIS." Kamran Bokhari, Strafor.
As many across the world continue to digest what is taking place in Iraq, the global media has gone into overdrive. As the world was watching the world cup in Brazil, the global media have attempted to fill their gaps in knowledge about Iraq, with assumptions logic and outright lies. There are many basic facts that have been diluted or are being reported in a manner to fulfil the agenda of others. In essence, just like the Arab spring, what is taking place in Iraq is an uprising against an oppressive ruler.
The recent events in Iraq are a direct result and consequence of US aims of dividing Iraq. This started when the US imposed no-fly zones over North-Iraq in 1991, the Kurdistan province ever since has operated as an autonomous state. The events of 9/11 gave the Bush administration the justification for invading Iraq, it spread lies such as Iraq possessing WMD's and in 2003 invaded Iraq in order to create a permanent presence for the US. The US from the outset planned to divide the nation along Sunni, Shi'ah and Kurdish lines in order to make its invasion a success and in order to divide any opposition. The US under Paul Bremer divided power in the new political system and then drew a constitution which would permanently divide the nation. The US removed Saddam Hussain's regime and then disbanded his Army and security forces. America planned to establish a new security force, which it would train.
Nouri al Malaki has been the prime minister of Iraq since the transitional government ended in 2006. Today, political and military power in Iraq is highly centralized in the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's personal office. Al-Maliki dominates Iraq's army, special operations units, intelligence and the main government ministries. These have become his personal office. However the army mostly armed and trained by the US, is undisciplined and unprofessional – and very unreliable. It has depended on US military support to conduct operations. Al-Maliki has continued to accumulate power through pursuing the elimination of his rivals. In December 2011, al-Maliki banned Sunni Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq from cabinet meetings and issued an arrest warrant for Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi. Al Maliki has become a tyrant, he filled his government with those loyal to him, mainly composed of Shia's from the South of Iraq and sidelined its minorities and ultimately treated them as second-class citizens, leading a campaign of torture, killing, and severe persecution.
Maliki disbanded the Sahwa militias, breaking a promise to integrate many of them into the regular army. The Sunni's have been completely sidelined and eliminated from government. As a result many started to protest, with support from the whole province and tribal leaders. Protest camps were set up and the people demanded employment, showed their anger at arrests under 'terrorism,' and argued for representation in government. Al-Maliki mocked their demands and opened fire on a protest camp in Hawija. At this point the protests turned to armed resistance.
Whilst the global media has been fixated with ISIS they are merely one faction in the uprising in Iraq. A command structure was set up in Fallujah within the first weeks of fighting. It consisted primarily of tribal leaders and former army officials under the name of the General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries. This council was led by Sheikh Abdullah Janabi, who also led the Shura Council of Mujihadeen in Fallujah in 2004. He called for cooperation between the various factions in Fallujah. Another senior leader Major General Montasir Al-Anbariconfirmed"the decision to form the Sunni fighting groups was taken by clerics and tribesmen in the wake of the Hawija Protest Massacre, which was carried out by the Iraqi army; dozens were killed and wounded in the incident." Al-Anbari also confirmed that the formation of the fighting groups was decided in a meeting of all Sunni groups apart from ISIS. ISIS, he said, asked to join the groups several months after their formation and asked to be part of the Sunni military action. Many reservations were expressed, claimed Al-Anbari, before it was agreed to accept the ISIS request. He went further: "In any case, ISIS only forms around 30% of the rebel fighters but it is linked to us by certain agreements and recognizes that it cannot face other fighting groups."
Al Monitor website detailed the different tribes fighting the Malaki regime and explained ISIS was just one of four groups fighting the regime. Despite this the Iraqi government treated all fighters as terrorists. Tribes have unified with other factions to form a resistance. The main Dulaim tribes — among them the al-Bou Nimr, al-Farraj, al-Bou Issa and al-Fallaha and gunmen from the al-Jamilat, al-Jabour and al-Janabat clans formed an alliance. An assortment of armed groups that had fought against US forces and later either disbanded, reduced their activity or joined the Sahwa or Iraqi security forces have joined ranks. They include Hamas-Iraq, Kataeb al-Thawrat al-Ishrin, Jamaat al-Naqshbandi, Jaish al-Mujahidin and Baathist outfits. Michael Knights, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has researched the Naqshbandia group, said, "They couldn't have seized a fraction of what they did without coordinated alliances with other Sunni groups." Jihadi groups that follow al-Qaeda but are not part of ISIS, having split from it after its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, rebelled against the global al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri. The most prominent of these groups is Jaish Ansar al-Sunna. All of this shows ISIS make up a small fraction of the overall resistance.
After almost one year of fighting the Malaki regime, the opposition has grown in strength and the Malaki government has struggled to take back land due to its army not being disciplined or capable in the East and North of the country. When Mosul fell on June 5 2014 the resistance already had de facto control of Anbar province. They had already expanded and strengthened their position in neighboring Nineveh province, of which Mosul is the capital. The operation for Mosul was conducted with several militia groups, supported by the tribes in the Anbar province. The New York Times reported one senior leader of the fighters: "These groups were unified by the same goal, which is getting rid of this sectarian government, ending this corrupt army and negotiating to form the Sunni Region. The decisive battle will be in northern Baghdad. These groups will not stop in Tikrit and will keep moving toward Baghdad, planning for the offensive had begun two years ago." This shows whilst many in the world were shocked at the rapid fall of Iraq's second largest city, most of the surrounding areas were already under rebel control. Due to this, the Iraqi security forces did not fight when Sunni fighters took over Mosul. The soldiers dropped their weapons, shed their uniforms for civilian clothes and joined the people. As many army officers are not paid regularly and are from the Sunni areas, it would also appear public opinion was against the central government due to their atrocities and supported the takeover of the city. The NYT times even reported When 500,000 residents of Mosul fled their city, they did not do so out of fear of the ISIS but due to what the Malaki government would now do. Many have even expressed gratitude towards the fighters who kicked Maliki's security forces out of their city.
It appears that ISIS has gone beyond what was agreed with the tribal leaders. Major General Montasir Al-Anbariexplained"Without doubt, though, we are worried about unilateral movements of ISIS because they attacked the city of Telafer and kidnapped the Turkish consul, and they are threatening to head to Baghdad, Karbala and Al-Najaf. All of this, violates the agreement reached between the Sunni rebel groups. However any political solution on the ground that meets the demands of the Sunnis and saves them from Al-Maliki's oppression will be accepted."
Regional and global powers moved earnestly to derail the uprising. The Malaki government immediately described the resistance as a Sunni uprising against the Shi'ah, when it is in reality an uprising against an oppressive ruler. This was a similar tactic used by Basher al-Assad to rally support for him and deflect from his own failures and oppression. Iran deployed its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) with the Iraqi army just as they did in Syria to prop up the al-Assad regime. At Jummah prayers on 14 June 2014 top Shia cleric Grand Aya¬tol¬lah Ali al-Sistani called for Shi'ah to bear arms and fight the ISIS. Saudi Arabia has long had links with the tribes in the Anbar province. There have been some reports Saudi Arabia's acting intelligence chief, Yousef bin Ali al Idrisis, has been in direct communication with the Majlis Thuwar al Anbar.
The people of Iraq need to ensure their uprising maintains its purity. Many of the rebel groups are from various backgrounds, including former Saddam Hussain security officers, as a result maintaining their cohesion will be central.
The people also need to be careful from seeking outside help. ISIS has opened up another front in Syria, which has fractured the uprising against al-Assad. Some of their actions have raised serious questions about them, as a result the people of Iraq need to be careful of those within its ranks.
The Ummah of Iraq also needs to be wary of external help. BasNews reported June 20 that 150 Saudi intelligence officials have secretly travelled to the rebel controlled Mosul city through Syria's al-Hasakah province. Regional nations cannot be trusted as they have been working on numerous regional issues with the Western powers.
In summary, the US divided Iraq into Sunni, Shi'ah and Kurd and now the minority is being oppressed by the majority. It is likely the west will call for the further division of Iraq and possibly even dismember it, creating even further division. The Ummah in Iraq and the region must resist this at all cost.

All that agrees with Islam and does not oppose Islam all represent rulings of Kufr

The following is a translation from an Arabic leaflet.

O Muslims: All that agrees with Islam and does not oppose Islam all represent rulings of Kufr and they are not from the Ahkaam of Islam

By way of the thought: ‘That which agrees with Islam is from Islam’, the disbelievers were able to bring Kufr thoughts to us and by way of the thought: ‘That which does not oppose Islam is from Islam’ the disbelieving States were able to make us adopt the rulings of Kufr. Through this the thoughts of Kufr began to enter into the minds of the Muslims so that you would hear the statements: ‘Democracy is from Islam’, ‘Islamic socialism’ and ‘Social justice’ amongst others. This also made it easier for the disbelievers and the hypocrites to apply the Kufr rulings upon the Muslims in areas such as the penal code, the rules of testimonies (Al-Bayyinaat) and trade laws amongst others. This was the first step which the disbelievers took to remove the Ahkaam of Islam and the thoughts of Islam so that the thoughts and rulings of Kufr could replace them in the lands of Islam and in the minds of the Muslims with their consent and acceptance. When this was made easy for them and they firmly established this they then moved on to the following step; the step of presenting the rulings of Kufr whilst describing them as being progressive in order to replace what they called backward i.e. to replace the thoughts and rulings of Islam. Then you have seen with your own eyes the gall and insolence of some of the Muslims in regards to their distancing of Islam. You have also seen the triviality of those who pretend to work for Islam or said differently, those who attempt to reconcile between the Ahkaam of Islam and the Ahkaam of Kufr in order to dress it with the cloth of progress and their agreement to the modern era and time. This meant that Kufr was spread all across the lands whilst Islam was completely sinking from existence.

And now after Syria has suffered all that it has suffered from the ruling crisis and the corruption of the rulings of Kufr and the thoughts of Kufr have been exposed and clearly manifested, the masses from the Muslims have realised and comprehended that there is no saviour for them other than Islam and that nothing would put a stop to this anxiety and corruption except for the return of the State of Islam. As such hope in the coming of the authority of Islam became embodied within the believers and that Islam was on the verge of launching its State once again. For this reason it was necessary for Islam to return in its clear (pure) form, the same form that was revealed upon the Messenger of Allah (saw). Similarly it was necessary to fight against anything that was a cause for the rulings of Kufr to become present and to fight against any method that was used to remove the Ahkaam of Islam.

The people of power and prevention (Ahl ul-Quwwah Wa-l-Man’ah) began to realise that there was no saviour except for Islam however the material progress that has appeared in the West and the East still controls their minds and even if their love for Islam is dominant within their breasts. For this reason it is feared that the era of attempting to reconcile between the Ahkaam of Islam and the Ahkaam of Kufr will return, the era of ‘Whatever agrees with Islam, then it is from Islam’. In addition, many of the remaining Muslims engaged in this attempted reconciliation are still active and have followers. They still regard Islam to be flexible and flowing with every time and place, a view that is (often) heard and given. As such it is necessary to make clear the danger of the thought: ‘Whatever agrees with Islam then it is from Islam’ and the harm of the thought: ‘Whatever does not oppose Islam then it is from Islam’. This thought is from the most terrible thoughts that the Muslims have come across and has had the most severe of effects upon them in terms of making them accept the adoption of rulings and thoughts of Kufr whilst abandoning the thoughts and Ahkaam of Islam.

Islam is that which has come as Wahi (divine revealed inspiration) from Allah (swt). As such it is that which the Kitaab, the Sunnah and what these two have guided to in terms of evidences, have come with. This alone is Islam and anything else is Kufr whether it agrees with Islam or it doesn’t contradict and oppose Islam. The evidence for this is that Allah (swt) has commanded us to take what the Messenger (saw) has commanded us with and to leave what he (saw) has forbidden. He (swt) has commanded us to go to the Messenger of Allah (saw) for judgement i.e. to what the Messenger (saw) came with.

Allah (swt) said:

وَمَا آَتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ

Whatever the Messenger brings to you take it and whatever he forbids you from abstain from it. And fear Allah, verily Allah is severe in punishment (Al-Hashr 7).

This is a Nass (text) concerning the obligation of taking what the Messenger (saw) came with and to leave that which he has forbidden. If we link and connect this Aayah to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

فَلْيَحْذَرِ الَّذِينَ يُخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِ أَنْ تُصِيبَهُمْ فِتْنَةٌ أَوْ يُصِيبَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

So let those who go against His command be warned that a Fitnah will afflict them or that they will be afflicted by a painful punishment (An-Noor 63).

If we connect them we will know that the ‘Maa’ in His speech: ‘And whatever (maa) he brings to you’ and in His speech: ‘And whatever (maa) he forbids you’ are in the form of generality clearly manifesting the obligation of taking what the Messenger (saw) came with and to leave what he (saw) forbade. That this is general in regards to all what he commanded to be done and all that he forbade. The Talab (request) in this Aayah whether it is a request to do (Talab ul-F’il) or a request to leave (Talab ut-Tark) is represents a Talab Jaazim (decisive request) establishing the obligation due to the Daleel (evidence) of Allah’s threat to the one who opposes him with a painful punishment.
And Allah (swt) said:

فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا

But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission (An-Nisaa 65).

In this Aayah Allah (swt) negates the Imaan of the one who goes to judgement to other than the Messenger in his actions. This indicates the restriction to going to judgement to what the Messenger of Allah (saw) brought alone and it indicates firm resolution in regards to taking from anything other than what he (saw) has brought. This is all blatantly clear and explicit in respect to being restricted to that which Islam has come with.

However, Allah (swt) did not find this sufficient alone but rather He (swt) also explicitly forbade taking from other than what he (saw) brought in terms of the Wahi from Allah. So Allah (swt) condemned those who want to take judgement from other than what the Messenger (saw) came with.

Allah (swt) said:

أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ آَمَنُوا بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُوا أَنْ يَكْفُرُوا بِهِ وَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَنْ يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا

Have you not seen those who claim to have believed in what was revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you? They wish to refer legislation to Taghoot, while they were commanded to reject it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray (An-Nisaa 60).

This is explicit in regards to forbidding the going to judgement to other than what the Messenger (saw) came with. It made that Dalaal (going astray) as it going to judgement to Taghoot. This is whilst there are Ahaadeeth that make it explicitly clear that the Halaal is what Allah has made Halaal and the Haraam is what Allah (swt) has made Haraam. This means that what Allah has not made Halaal is not considered to be Halaal and what Allah (swt) has not made Haraam is not considered to be Haraam and as such can absolutely not be taken at all.

Salmaan Al-Faarisi (ra) said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked about the fats, cheeses and Al-Faraa’ (animal skin and fur) so he (saw) said:

الْحَلَالُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ ، وَالْحَرَامُ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ

The Halaal is what Allah has made Halaal in His Kitaab and the Haraam is what Allah has made Haraam in His Kitaab.

Ad-Daaruqutniy recorded a Hadeeth ffrom Abu Tha’labah that the Nabi (saw) said:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ فَرَضَ فَرَائِضَ فَلَا تُضَيِّعُوهَا وَحَدَّ حُدُودًا فَلَا تَعْتَدُوهَا

Verily Allah has prescribed obligatory acts so do not neglect them and He has set limits so do not transgress them.

This is explicit in stating that it is not valid to transgress and go beyond that which Allah has set as limits for us and as such it is not valid for us to take from other than what the Messenger of Allah (saw) came with.

Additionally the Hukm Shar’iy is the address of the Shaari’ (legislator) attached to the actions of the ‘Ibaad (slaves) and the Muslims are commanded to make the address of the legislator the judge in their actions and to make their behaviours and conducts proceed in accordance to it. So if they take that which does not contradict or oppose it or if they take that which agrees with it, then they would have (in effect) taken from other that the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy because they did not take it from it. Rather they took what agreed with it i.e. that which resembled it or did not oppose it i.e. that which did not clash with it. In these two circumstances they would not in fact have taken what agrees with it i.e. what resembles it and they would not be taking that which does not oppose it i.e. does not clash with it. And in these two cases they would not have taken the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy itself. Rather they would have taken other than it and other than the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy is not considered the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy whether it contradicted it or did not contradict it, and whether it agreed or did not agree. This adoption which they would have undertaken would not therefore be and represent the adopting of a Hukm Ash-Shar’iy. For example, marriage in accordance to the Shar’a is offer and acceptance with the worded expressions of Nikaah and Zawaaj (marriage, in the presence of two witnesses. If however two Muslims went to a Church and the Priest conducted the marriage ceremony according to the Christian way whilst employing the worded phrasing of Nikaah and Zawaaj (marriage), would they in this case be considered to have married in accordance to the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy or in accordance to other than it? Did they judge by what the Messenger of Allah (saw) came with or did they go to judgement to what Christianity, which has been abrogated by the Deen of Islam, came with? This incident agrees with Islam and in accordance to their statement that it is permissible to take that which agrees with Islam and what does not oppose Islam, then this marriage in accordance to their view would be considered to be Saheeh (valid). This is despite the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy making this marriage invalid (Baatil) from its very basis and even if it agrees with or is in harmony with Islam. This is because we have been forbidden from the origin from which this marriage has come i.e. the Christian religion. We have been forbidden from the origin from which this marriage came and that is going to judgement to other than what the Messenger (saw) brought, which came in the speech of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ

They want to go to Taghoot for judgement (An-Nisaa 60).

Therefore everything and anything where the Asl (origin) has been forbidden is Baatil (invalid) and Haraam to take. This marriage described above would therefore be Baatil and similar to that would be the civil marriage in addition to everything where the origin has been forbidden which would be Baatil and Haraam to take. So it is Haraam to take that which Islam has not come with whether it agrees with Islam or does not agree with it and whether it opposes Islam or does not oppose it. This is because, in addition to and above the fact that we have been commanded to take what the Messenger (saw) has commanded us and to leave that which he has forbidden with its understanding that we cannot take from other than this, an explicit forbiddance has also come in respect to taking what the Messenger (saw) did not bring or come with i.e. to take a matter that the Messenger (saw) did not come with. This is supported by many other explicit Ahaadeeth that establish this forbiddance. ‘Aa’ishah (ra) said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

 مَنْ أَحْدَثَ فِي أَمْرِنَا هَذَا مَا لَيْسَ مِنْهُ فَهُوَ رَدٌّ

Whoever brings into our affair that which is not from it, then it is rejected.

And in another narration from her (ra):

مَنْ عَمِلَ عَمَلًا لَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْرُنَا فَهُوَ رَدٌّ

Whoever does an action that is not upon our affair then it is rejected.

Al-Bukhaari recorded from Abu Hurairah (ra) from the Nabi (saw) that he said:

لَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى تَأْخُذَ أُمَّتِي بِأَخْذِ الْقُرُونِ قَبْلَهَا شِبْرًا بِشِبْرٍ وَذِرَاعًا بِذِرَاعٍ فَقِيلَ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ كَفَارِسَ والرُّومِ؟ قَالَ: وَمَنْ مِنَ النّاسِ إلَّا أُوْلئِكَ

‘The hour will not happen until my Ummah follow the generations that preceded her, hand span by hand span, arms length by arms length’. It was asked: ‘O Messenger of Allah, like the Persians and the Romans? He (saw) said: ‘And which people other than those would it be’.

Al-Bukhaari also relates from Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudriy (ra) from the Nabi (saw) that he said:

لَتَتَّبِعُنَّ سَنَنَ مَنْ كَانَ قَبْلَكُمْ شِبْرًا بِشِبْرٍ وَذِرَاعًا بِذِرَاعٍ ، حَتَّى لَوْ دَخَلُوا فِي جُحْرِ ضَبٍّ لَاتَّبَعْتُمُوهُمْ قُلْنَا : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ! الْيَهُودُ وَالنَّصَارَى ؟ - قَالَ فَمَنْ ؟

You will surely the ways of those who came before you, hand span by hand span, arms length by arms length to the extent that if they were to enter in to a lizard’s hole you would follow them into it. O Messenger of Allah! The Jews and the Christians? He (saw) said: Who else?

These texts are explicit in forbidding the taking from other than ourselves. The first Hadeeth states: ‘Then it is rejected’ whilst the other two Hadeeth include within the meaning of the forbiddance. So taking the western laws represents taking from other than Islam and it represents a following of those who are like the Persians, Romans, Christians and Jews as it represents a following of the English, French and Americans amongst others. For this reason it is Haraam to take them regardless of whether they are in agreement with Islam or they do not agree, oppose it or do not oppose it. Taking it is Haraam.

It should not be said that certain things happened that were not from the time of the Messenger (saw) or from the time before and no Hukm (ruling) was brought for them. As a result of this it is permissible to take and adopt them based on the statement of the Messenger (saw):

وَمَا سَكَتَ عَنْهُ فَهُوَ عَفْو

And what it has been silent upon then it is pardoned

This is also in addition to the statement that ‘the origin of things is Ibaahah (permissibility)’. This cannot be said because the speech (Qawl) of the Messenger (saw) does not mean what the Shar’a has remained silent upon with the meaning that it has not explained and clarified it. How perfect is Allah for this to be the case because the Shar’a did not remain silent about matters where it did not explain its Hukm. Indeed the Shar’a the Hukm (judgement) for every matter and there exists no reality except that it has a Hukm and there is no incident except that it has for it a Hukm (judgement). It is not right for a Muslim to say that the Shaar’i (legislator) has been silent over a thing or matter and has not clarified and explained its Hukm after reading the speech of Allah (swt):

الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا

Today I have completed your Deen for you and perfected my favour (or blessing) upon you and I have chosen for you Islam as a Deen (Al-Maa’idah 3).

And His (swt) speech:

وَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ تِبْيَانًا لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ

And we have revealed upon you the Book as an explanation of every matter and as a guidance, mercy and glad tidings to the Muslims (An-Nahl 89).

Therefore it is not right or valid for anyone from amongst the Muslims to hold the view that some realities are devoid of a Shar’i ruling where it is viewed that the Sharee’ah has completely neglected it. Viewing that it has no Daleel from the Kitaab or the Sunnah attributed to it or an ‘Illah Shar’iyah (Legal reasoning) that has come in an explicit text or by way of Dalaalah (implication) or Istinbaat (extraction) or Qiyaas (analogy) that alerts the Sharee’ah by way of a certain Daleel or sign (Amaarah) to the Hukm for some of these realities. This in regards to providing the Hukm in terms of it being obligatory, recommended (Mandoob), Haraam, Makrooh, Mubaah, Baatil, Faasid or a Sabab, Shart or Maan’i etc...  It is not permissible for any Muslim to hold this view because by doing so he will be finding fault in the Sharee’ah by saying that it is incomplete and he would permit going to judgement to other than the Shar’a which is in opposition to the speech of Allah (swt):

فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ
But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they go to you for judgment (An-Nisaa’ 65).

If the Shar’a had not come with the Hukm (according to this view) and the Muslim then took a Hukm that the Shar’a had not come with, then he would have judged by other than the Shar’a and this is not permissible. As such the claim that the Shar’a did not come with Ahkaam (rulings) for every incident means permitting going to judgement to other than the Shar’a, because the Shar’a (in their view) did not come with it, is a false and invalid (Baatil) claim.

Therefore the meaning of the Hadeeth ‘And what it has been silent upon then it is pardoned’ is not that the Shar’a has not explained the Hukm. Rather its meaning is that the Messenger (saw) addressed his Sahaabah (rah) and said to them in meaning: ‘Take what the text has brought and do not ask about other than that so that it does not become Haraam for you’. This is like his speech (saw):

ذَرُونِي مَا تَرَكْتُمْ فَإِنَّمَا هَلَكَ مَنْ كَانَ قَبْلَكُمْ بِكَثْرَةِ سُؤَالِهِمْ وَاخْتِلَافِهِمْ عَلَى أَنْبِيَائِهِمْ . فَإِذَا نَهَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ شَيْءٍ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ . وَإِذَا أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِأَمْرِ فَأْتُوا مِنْهُ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ

Do not push me to tell you more than I have told you. Those who came before you were destroyed because they asked too many questions and argued with their Prophets. So if I have forbidden you from something then keep away from it and if I have commanded you with something then do it to the best of your ability (Muslim).

The meaning therefore of: ‘What it has been silent upon’ is that which he has not forbidden, so do not ask me about it as Allah (swt) has pardoned it and lifted it from you, so do not make the weight and burden heavier upon yourselves and do not seek to do so. The evidence for this is found in the full text of the Hadeeth as he (saw) said: ‘And do not search for them’.

إِنَّ اللَّهَ فَرَضَ فَرَائِضَ فَلَا تُضَيِّعُوهَا ، وَنَهَى عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ فَلَا تَنْتَهِكُوهَا ، وَحَدَّ حُدُودًا فَلَا تَعْتَدُوهَا ، وَعَفَا عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ رَحْمَةً بِكُمْ لَا عَنْ نِسْيَانٍ فَلَا تَبْحَثُوا عَنْهَا

Verily Allah has prescribed obligatory acts so do not neglect them, He has forbidden things so do not contravene them, He has set limits so do not transgress them, He has pardoned matters out of mercy to you and not out of forgetfulness so do not search for them.

The forbiddance is therefore related to searching into them and it does not mean that there are matters in which Allah (swt) has not explained and clarified their Hukm.

As for making deductions by the principle (Qaa’idah): ‘The origin of things is Ibaahah (permissibility)’. Then this specifically relates to things and not actions. The things that are present in existence are permitted for us due to the general texts of the Qur’aan:

وَخَلَقَ لَكُمْ مَا في الأَرْضِ جَمِيعاً

And He created for you all that is in the earth

كُلُوا واشْرَبوا

Eat and drink

These are amongst other texts indicating that the origin in regards to them (things) is Ibaahah (permissibility) due to the generality of the texts. Therefore for a thing to be Haraam it is essential for there to exist a text that makes it Haraam because the general permissibility covers everything whilst exempting a thing from the generality to make it Haraam requires a text that exempts it. The principle of: ‘The origin of things is Ibaahah’ is therefore based upon this.

As for Af’aal (actions) then the origin in regards to them is restriction and adherence to the address of the legislator. Therefore, if the legislator (Ash-Shaar’i) has brought its permissibility the action would be Mubaah and if the Shaar’i has not come with its permissibility then it is essential to search for its Hukm within the Adillah Ash-Shar’iyah (The legislative evidences). Therefore the origin in regards to actions is not Ibaahah (permissibility) but rather it is the restriction and adherence to the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy.

Someone could argue that the invention of the nuclear bomb is an action, drawing war plans is an action and going to the Moon is an action, all of which do not contradict and oppose Islam, and as such we can adopt them because they agree with Islam and do not contradict with it. Adopting it would represent adopting that which does not contract Islam and it would be an adoption of what agrees with Islam. The answer to this is that there is a difference between the thoughts related to the ‘Aqa’id (beliefs) and the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah and between the thoughts related to sciences, arts, manufacturing, inventions and similar matters. This is because the thoughts related sciences and arts (skills) etc... are permitted to take if they do not contradict with Islam whereas the thoughts related to the ‘Aqaa’id and the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah are not permitted to be taken except from that which the Messenger (saw) came with i.e. the Kitaab, the Sunnah and which these two have guided to (Ijmaa’ and Qiyaas). The Daleel for this is what Muslim related from the Nabi (saw) who said:

إِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ ، إِذَا أَمَرَتْكُمْ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ دِينِكُمْ فَخُذُوا بِهِ ، وَإِذَا أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ رَأْيِي فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ

Verily I am only a man, if I have commanded you with a matter from your Deen then take it and if I command you with a matter from my opinion then I am only a man.

And also the Hadeeth related from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) and Anas (ra) who both narrated that the Nabi (saw) passed by a people who were grafting their palm trees and so he said to them that it would be ok if they did not practise this technique. They followed his advice and the produce was poor. So he (saw) passed by them and asked them about what had happened to the palm trees and they told him (saw) that we followed what you had told us. So He (saw) said:

أَنْتُمْ أَدْرَى بِأُمورِ دُنْيَاكُمْ

You are more aware of the affairs of your Dunyaa.

Another evidence has been reported by the writers of Seerah when they related that when the Nabi (saw) went out to meet the Mushrikeen in the Ghazwah of Badr. He descended at the nearest water (wells) of Badr and Al-Hubaab Bin Al-Mundhir (ra) said to him: ‘O Messenger of Allah, has this location been revealed to you by Allah Ta’Aalaa so that we cannot move forward or move back from its position or is it (from the matters) of opinion, war and intrigue (planning)?’ He (saw) said:

بَلْ هُوَ الرَّأْيُ وَالحَرْبُ وَالمَكِيدَة

Indeed it is opinion, warfare and intrigue (cunning, plotting).

He (Al-Hubaab) said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, this is not the right place to descend, so arise with the people until you come to the nearest water source of the people as I know the abundance of its water and that it will not run out. So we should descend there and then cave in all of the other water sources (wells) from the middle. Then we should build a basin upon it and fill it with water so that we can drink and they cannot. Then the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘You have provided indication by way of opinion’.

All of these texts are evidence indicating matters that are not from the ‘Aqaa’id (beliefs) and Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah. If these matters do not contradict with Islam where a text has not come forbidding it, then these are what we (can) adopt if it is in agreement to Islam and does not oppose it. If there is a text forbidding it then we do not take it because the Shar’a has forbidden it. The areas of the Funoon (arts/skills), ‘Uloom (sciences), manufacturing, inventions and areas that are similar to these can be taken if they are not contrary to Islam. So Tasweer (making pictures) is an art from the Funoon which is not from the Aqeedah and not from the Ahkaam Ash-Shari’iyah and as such we can adopt it if it is not contrary to Islam. However a text has come to forbid it and as such we do not take it. Drawing a picture of a human, animal or bird which all possess a Rooh (spirit) by hand is Haraam upon the Muslims because the text has come forbidding it. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

كُلُّ مَصَوِّرٍ فِي النَّارِ

Every picture maker is in the fire.

And he (saw) said:

الَّذِينَ يَصْنَعُونَ هَذِهِ الصُّوَرَ يُعَذَّبُونَ يَوْمَ القِيَامَةِ

Those who produce these pictures will be punished on the Day of Judgement.

This is therefore a Nass (text) forbidding the Tasweer and so the drawing by hand, despite being an art, is contrary to Islam due to a text coming forbidding it. It is therefore Haraam and it is not permissible for a Muslim to draw a picture or sculpt anything that possesses a Rooh. As for the Tasweer (Making pictures) with a camera then this is Mubaah (permissible) because it is not the making of pictures by the work of the man but rather it represents the transference of the very same thing (image). It does not fall under the mentioned forbiddance and as such is Mubaah because it is a Fann (art) which is permitted to take and adopt as long as it is not contrary to Islam. The same applies in respect to agriculture, sea navigation, draw war plans/tactics and inventions as a whole and those areas which resemble them (in nature). This therefore is what is permissible if is not contrary and against Islam. If however it is from the matters of the ‘Aqaa’id (beliefs) and Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah then it is not valid to be taken unless it is done in accordance to what the Messenger of Allah (saw) brought from Allah i.e. all actions have to be undertaken in accordance to the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah.

O Muslims!

This is the reality of Islam. So what the Wahi came with represented in the Kitaab and the Sunnah is Islam and it is the Shar’a. What the Wahi did not bring is not the Shar’a and it is not from Islam. Therefore anything that does not have a Daleel from the Kitaab and the Sunnah or what these two evidences have guided to as sources of evidence (Adillah i.e. Ijmaa’ and Qiyaas), would represent the thoughts of Kufr, whether they were contrary to Islam or were not contrary and whether they agreed with it or did not agree. The Muslims must therefore beware of anyone bringing to them the deception of taking that which agrees with Islam or an action that does not contradict with Islam. This is because it represents a dangerously slippery slope that leads to the abandonment of Islam and to the acceptance of the Ahkaam and thoughts of Kufr. It is also a dangerous slope that leads to swerving away from Islam and deviating from its path/method (Tareeqah). Indeed the Muslims must know that everything that agrees with Islam and everything that is not contrary to Islam are thoughts and rulings of Kufr and that it is absolutely not Halaal to take them at all. They must be outright rejected and indeed it is obligatory for them to be fought ferociously and fiercely opposed. This is because it is a terrible deception and trickery used to bring the rulings of Kufr upon the Muslims and as a means to divert them from the path of guidance, the path of Islam.

Damascus 20th Rabee’u-th-Thaaniy 1386

In the Name of Honour (Part 1) | Dr Nazreen Nawaz

It was a crime that horrified the world. On May 27th, in the Pakistani city of Lahore, 25-year-old Farzana Parveen was bludgeoned to death in broad daylight with batons and bricks by her father, brothers and other family members, allegedly for marrying a man against their wishes. She was 3 months pregnant and on her way to contest an abduction case her family had filed against her husband. The father said that he did it to protect his family's honour which he felt had been insulted by his daughter's actions of marrying a man without their consent. A police officer quoted him as saying it had been an "honour killing". The fact that the murder happened in front of Lahore's High Court – a place where ordinarily people seek justice – made it even more poignant. Unsurprisingly therefore, the incident elicited condemnation from Western politicians and international media.
However, Farzana was not the only victim of this brutal killing, performed 'in the name of honour'. Rather, it unleashed a lynch-mob of the usual Islamophobic suspects from secular political and media circles against Islam. Their news reports and articles were awash with accusatory statements, charging the Shariah with fuelling and providing a cover and justification for such 'honour killings'. Use of emotive headlines such as "Stoned to Death" and claims that these acts are undertaken under the 'veneer' of Islamic law re-enforced the oft-repeated secular narrative that Islam, its view on honour, and its Shariah, were to blame in large part for such murders. Amongst these accusations were attempts to associate the cause of these killings with Islam's punishment for adultery of stoning to death. CBN news for example, when reporting on the death of Farzana, also published the findings from a 2013 PEW report, stating, "Eighty-nine percent of Muslims who say Sharia should be law of the land in Pakistan support stonings for adultery...". Journalists also blamed the Shariah laws on 'Diyaat' (or blood-money) for perpetrators often getting away scot-free with these crimes. This Islamic provision allows family members of victims of murder to accept financial compensation from those who killed their loved one in exchange for lifting the death penalty from the neck of the murderer.
The death of Farzana Parveen however, brought to mind another 'honour killing' of different sorts, though this one did not happen outside a court house in Pakistan, but inside one in Germany. It was the murder in 2009 of Marwa El-Sherbini, a young Muslim mother who was stabbed 18 times in a Dresden courtroom, in front of her 3 year old son, by a man she took to court for insulting her Islamic dress and calling her a terrorist. She was 4 months pregnant at the time. She therefore also died, 'in the name of honour', not though at the hands of a man who was seeking to defend his but due to an intense hatred against the Islamic way she expressed hers. This killing however elicited at best a limited response, and at worst a muted one from secular media, politicians, and feminists. This raises the pertinent question - if these secularists truly care about the sanctity of human life, then where was the outrage to a horrific, brutal murder that occurred in their own backyard?
This nauseating hypocrisy by which Western secular media and politicians react to violations of human life and dignity - focusing attention on certain crimes while selectively disregarding others - reflects anti-Islamic agendas at play here. This is manifest even in the coverage of this particular murder, which does not seek to simply condemn an horrific act but rather opportunistically exploit it to put Islam and its values on trial once again – most notably to attack the Shariah and its view on gender relations and judicial punishments. It's an agenda that seeks to convince Muslims that such 'honour killings' can only be avoided by discarding particular Islamic beliefs and accepting liberal values and relationships, which they argue have the moral high ground. However, they conveniently ignore the blatant fact that such practices have been allowed to flourish under the watch of secular and NOT Islamic systems in the Muslim world. Nor are they unique to Muslim-majority countries or communities. Rather they occur at high levels in many other nations, including in South America and India – the Eastern 'golden child' of democrats and secularists – where hundreds of these incidents take place each year, often due to couples marrying outside the Hindu caste system. This May for example, a number of 'honour killings' were reported in the country, including the murder of a college girl, a mother of two, and a couple, hacked to death by family members opposed to their marriage – all just in its Haryana district.
As Muslims however, we cannot ignore these crimes in our Muslim lands such as in Jordan, Palestine, Turkey, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said in a report last month that 869 women were killed in such 'honour killings' in 2013, while in 2011, they put the number at 943 women. The real numbers however are suspected to be much higher as many are not reported. In June 2008, a report by the Turkish Prime Ministry's Human Rights Directorate said that in Istanbul alone there was one honour killing each week and over 1000 during the previous five years.
'Honour killings' involve an individual taking the life of a relative because they perceive them to have brought dishonor to their family through their actions. They feel that they have the moral authority to undertake this act and through it they restore honour to their family, and save face with their community. Those actions viewed as bringing dishonor include refusing an arranged marriage, marrying without consent, engaging in extra-marital relationships, demanding a divorce, or behaving in a way viewed as unacceptable to the community. Often mere rumours, speculation, or suspicion of a wife or family member mixing with the opposite sex or engaging in other immoral actions or relationships are enough to trigger the attacks. Both men and women have been targets of these attacks but the majority of victims have been women.
However, such 'honour killings' do not originate from Islam that does not sanction such extrajudicial killings. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said,
عن ابن مسعود: أنَّ رسول الله قال: «لا يحلُ دم امرئ مسلم يشهد أنْ لا إله إلا الله وأني رسول الله، إلا بإحدى ثلاث : النفس بالنفس، والثيب الزاني، والتارك لدينه المفارق للجماعة»
"It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no God but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah except in three cases: a life for a life (murder), zina of one of who is married (adultery), and the one who changes his religion and forsakes the jamaa'ah."
Additionally, the punishments mentioned in this hadith are enacted within the framework of a state that implements the Shariah laws comprehensively upon a society, and after a judicial process that investigates the matter with careful and thorough deliberation, for the taking of a life in Islam is not a light matter. Furthermore, in Islam, suspicion against the character and conduct of a chaste girl or woman is condemned, while the spread of rumours or slander against her is categorized as a serious crime, deserving of a harsh punishment.
'Honour killings' are the result of tribal attitudes and practices that view a woman and her chastity as the property of the family, associated with the belief therefore that she can be treated as they and customs dictate. They root from non-Islamic traditional views where mere allegations of particular behaviour or relationships, is enough to defile a family's reputation and sanction these attacks. Therefore, if anything, it is the clash between East and West in many countries today which is fuelling these crimes. Western liberal culture, imported through entertainment, advertising, and education, has encouraged free-mixing and relationships between the genders in our Muslim lands. These values and lifestyle has been propagated amongst communities that continue to embrace elements of eastern tribal attitudes towards women and honour due to living under man-made systems where the mind is used as the basis of judging what's right and wrong. In some countries, these tribal customs have actually been codified into law, exacerbating the problem. All this has generated a confused hotchpotch of contradictory values, beliefs and actions within societies, resulting at times in fatal consequences.
So Islam does not condone, nor does it cause these crimes. However, it is important to counter the various secular allegations that link specific Islamic beliefs and laws to these acts. Some prevalent claims will be refuted in Part 2 of this article.
Written for The Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Dr. Nazreen Nawaz
Member of the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir