Islamic Revival

Q&A: Is Mahr a condition of the marriage contract?

2012-02-13T19:41:00.000-08:00

The following is a translation from Arabic.

Question:

In the Social System book (Arabic, page no. 121), certain conditions are stipulated for contracting of marriage which if not complied with, render the marriage null & void. While 0n page no. 122, there are conditions which if not complied with, corrupt the marriage contract, however, I have not found the Mahr (Dower) mentioned. If Mahr is neither a condition for contracting of marriage nor a condition for its authenticity, then what is the status of Mahr in the marriage contract?

Answer:
Concerning the Mahr, indeed, it is neither a condition for contracting of marriage nor a condition for its authenticity, which means that if a marriage contract complies with the contracting conditions as well as those conditions which render it authentic, then such a contract is correct even if Mahr is not mentioned. However, the Shari'ah laws are of two categories:

Laid down rules, which include cause and conditions..., and mandatory rules, which include the prohibited and the obligatory... Then there are the rules pertaining to Shara'i issues which are not derived from these two. Such rules may either be covered under the mandatory rules and thus may be obligatory (Fardh), recommended (Mandoob), permitted (Mubah), disliked (Makrooh) or prohibited (Haram); or these may be covered under the laid down rules and thus they may be either valid (sahih), invalid (Baatil), corrupt (Faasid), conditional (Shart), causative (Sabab) or prohibitive (Mani'an)... and so on.

By studying the issue of Mahr, it becomes clear that it indeed falls under the mandatory rules, thus Mahr is obligatory on the groom in favour of the bride. If it is mentioned, then it is as per what is mentioned, and if it is not mentioned, then Mahr al Mithl (prevailing) is binding.

As to why Mahr is obligatory, Bukhari has narrated on the authority of Sahl ibn Sa'ad that:

فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم زَوِّجْنِيهَا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ أَعِنْدَكَ مِنْ شَيْءٍ قَالَ مَا عِنْدِي مِنْ شَيْءٍ قَالَ وَلَا خَاتَمٌ مِنْ حَدِيدٍ قَالَ وَلَا خَاتَمٌ مِنْ حَدِيدٍ وَلَكِنْ أَشُقُّ بُرْدَتِي هَذِهِ فَأُعْطِيهَا النِّصْفَ وَآخُذُ النِّصْفَ قَالَ لَا هَلْ مَعَكَ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ شَيْءٌ قَالَ نَعَمْ قَالَ اذْهَبْ فَقَدْ زَوَّجْتُكَهَا بِمَا مَعَكَ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ

"A man said (to the Prophet) "Please marry her to me." The Prophet said (to him), "Give her a garment." The man said, "I cannot afford it." The Prophet said, "Give her anything, even if it were an iron ring." The man apologized again. The Prophet then asked him, "What do you know by heart of the Qur'an?" He replied, "I know such-and-such portion of the Qur'an (by heart)." The Prophet said, "Then I marry her to you for that much of the Qur'an which you know by heart."

An-Nasai has also reported similarly in Sunan al Kubra, and the narration is:

وَلَكِنْ هَذَا إِزَارِي قَالَ سَهْلٌ مَا لَهُ رِدَاءٌ فَلَهَا نِصْفُهُ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَا تَصْنَعُ بِإِزَارِكَ إِنْ لَبِسْتَهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ عَلَيْهَا مِنْهُ شَيْءٌ وَإِنْ لَبِسَتْهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ عَلَيْكَ مِنْهُ شَيْءٌ

Thus the Prophet (saw) demanded from the man who intended that the Prophet (saw) marry him to one of the women to pay some Mahr, even if it were a ring made of iron, and when the man was unable to pay the same since he only possessed his trousers (Izaar), he was given the choice of splitting his Izaar into two pieces and give one piece to his wife as Mahr. But the Izaar was not enough to cover the husband and the wife, asked him to teach her whatever portion of Quran he knew, so that the reward of teaching will be for the woman as her Mahr. All these are decisive evidences with regard to Mahr.

As for the Mahr being al Mithl (prevailing) if it is not mentioned, it is reported in Tirmidhi on the authority of Abdullah ibn Mas'oud in a Hadith which Saheeh Hasan:

أَنَّهُ سُئِلَ عَنْ رَجُلٍ تَزَوَّجَ امْرَأَةً وَلَمْ يَفْرِضْ لَهَا صَدَاقًا وَلَمْ يَدْخُلْ بِهَا حَتَّى مَاتَ فَقَالَ ابْنُ مَسْعُودٍ لَهَا مِثْلُ صَدَاقِ نِسَائِهَا لَا وَكْسَ وَلَا شَطَطَ وَعَلَيْهَا الْعِدَّةُ وَلَهَا الْمِيرَاثُ فَقَامَ مَعْقِلُ بْنُ سِنَانٍ الْأَشْجَعِيُّ فَقَالَ قَضَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي بِرْوَعَ بِنْتِ وَاشِقٍ امْرَأَةٍ مِنَّا مِثْلَ الَّذِي قَضَيْتَ فَفَرِحَ بِهَا ابْنُ مَسْعُودٍ

He was asked about a man who had married a woman but had neither stipulated her Mahr nor consummated his marriage until his death. Abdullah ibn Mas'oud said She should receive the full dower (as given to women of her class), observe the waiting period ('Iddah), and have her share of inheritance. Thereupon Ma'qil ibn Sinan al-Ashja'ii said: I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) giving the same decision regarding Birwa' daughter of Washiq (as the decision you have given). Abu Dawood has reported a similar narration in his Sunan.

Thus the Prophet (saw) decreed that if a woman has married without her Mahr being stipulated, then her Mahr would be similar to women of her class.

Thus, even if Mahr is not a contracting condition, or a condition for its validity, it is obligatory on the husband for the wife under his charge and it should be paid. If he does not pay the Mahr, he is sinful for it and the Islamic State would forcefully apportion any right that he owes to the wife. And if he is able to afford it and yet does not pay, then the Islamic State will penalise him for harassing the wife and for her to eat from her right.

In Conclusion: The Mahr is not a condition but it is obligatory for the husband towards his wife, i.e. the Mahr falls under the mandatory rules and is not part of the laid down rules (أحكام الوضع).

Source

Syria: Our Test of Sabr

2012-02-13T19:17:00.000-08:00

To our horror, Bashar Al-Assad continues to ravage and massacre his people, a people who are under his dreadful custodianship. Such a paradox! That Bashar Al-Assad holds such a position rather than protecting and guarding his people from harm's way, while he is the clear and present danger to his population. He heavily bombards any threat in his path be it a recently widowed woman, premature infant, or elderly man. His ruthless acts have truly tested the Eman (faith) and courage of the Syrian people. Men and women alike favor death over surrender in light of the savage unceasing violence. This death, inshallah, is considered an honorable death in the sight of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. Despite the heavy shelling from the Syrian military destroying homes, schools, and hospitals, people still persevere and remain determined to have their voice heard.

Penetrating deep into the hearts of these tireless protesters, we find a unique trait captivating onlookers. What keeps them determined and focused, knowing that may not live to see the following sunrise? Their minds and hearts are filled with distinct feature non-Muslims may find it nearly impossible to comprehend, yet Muslims grasp it fully thereby inspiring others to continue their struggle for a victorious reform. This blessed feature is Sabr (patience) in the face of adversity.

Sabr often times confused as silently standing by witnessing the oppressions and wrongs of our society. Distancing ourselves from the vital issues and keeping ourselves busy with the spiritual aspects of Islam's rituals: tasbeeh, duaa, unconcerned with the Ummah's state of affairs. All the while, people including ourselves suffer from injustice and hardships. This type of silent suffering has greatly contributed to our Ummah's decline. Misconceptions and fear from government repercussions have played a major role in this.

Yet the true definition of Sabr is the opposite of silently accepting injustice or isolating oneself from the evils of society. Sabr is speaking the word of Haqq (Truth) in front of the oppressor. Sabr is resisting the tragedies that afflict our Ummah without fear of repercussion. Sabr is going about real change to achieve true revival in our precious Ummah. The Believers understand Allah's سبحانه وتعالى Laws so thoroughly that they are willing to suffer any consequence towards triumph, enduring torture-filled imprisonment, loss of wealth, and the ultimate sacrifice: loss of life.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,

وَلَنَبْلُوَنَّكُمْ بِشَيْءٍ مِنَ الْخَوْفِ وَالْجُوعِ وَنَقْصٍ مِنَ الْأَمْوَالِ وَالْأَنْفُسِ وَالثَّمَرَاتِ ۗ وَبَشِّرِ الصَّابِرِينَ

الَّذِينَ إِذَا أَصَابَتْهُمْ مُصِيبَةٌ قَالُوا إِنَّا لِلَّهِ وَإِنَّا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعُونَ

أُولَٰئِكَ عَلَيْهِمْ صَلَوَاتٌ مِنْ رَبِّهِمْ وَرَحْمَةٌ ۖ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُهْتَدُونَ

"And certainly, We shall test you with something of fear, hunger, loss of wealth, lives and fruits, but give glad tidings to As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.). Who, when afflicted with calamity, say: Truly! To Allah we belong and truly, to Him we shall return. They are those on whom are blessed and will be forgiven) from their Lord, and (they are those who) receive His Mercy, and it is they who are the guided-ones." [Al-Baqarah, 2:155-157]

After reading the inspiring Ayaat of Allah سبحانه وتعالى in their prayers deep in the night, it instills great motivation that drives the Muslim to stand up for the Haqq (Truth) in the face of a brutal tyrant and his terrible regime. The deep understanding of Qadda and Qadr allows the true believer to act bravely and forcefully without any worry about this temporary life, for these blessed defenders of the Haqq long for the eternal life. A glorious life as promised to them by the Creator Himself. We take these Believers as our examples who exemplify the strength of their sabr and Imaan.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "It is a punishment that Allah sends to whom He wills. Allah has made it a mercy for the believers. There is not a servant who finds himself amidst a plague but he stays in that land in patience hoping (for Allah's reward) and knowing that nothing can harm him except what Allah has written then this servant will be given a reward like that of a martyr." (Al-Bukhari)

What an honor to die as a martyr to be placed within the same ranks as the great warrior Hamza (ra) on the Day of Judgement for all the creations to witness.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "No fatigue, nor disease, nor sorrow, nor sadness, nor hurt, nor distress befalls a Muslim, even if it were the prick he receives from a thorn, but that Allah expiates some of his sins for that." (Al-Bukhari)

Remain steadfast our dear brothers and sisters. Inshallah while enduring the great calamities brought down upon you that you shall enter the Heavens pure and untainted as the day you were born.

Syria, rest assure. Jannah (Paradise) is so close to you that your bloodshed will not be lost in vain. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم expressed the goodness and blessing of the Ahl ash-Sham, "O Allaah bestow your blessings on our Shaam. O Allaah bestow your blessings on our Yemen." (Al-Bukhari) Carry that glad tidings with you to your grave. Inshallah our Ummah's calamity will soon be relieved and Islam's glorious light will fill our skies as promised by the Creator of the universe. Allah swt comforted His Believers with the following ayah:

إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يُدَافِعُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ لَا يُحِبُّ كُلَّ خَوَّانٍ كَفُور

"Indeed, Allah defends those who have believed. Indeed, Allah does not like everyone treacherous and ungrateful." [Al-Hajj, 22:38]

Manal Bader

Bayt al-Maqdes

18 Rabi' I 1433

10/02/2012

Audio: Aqeeda Part 4 by Sheikh Abu Talha Malkawi

2012-02-09T18:59:00.000-08:00

Listen to a circle from an excellent series delivered by Sheikh Abu Talha on the topic of the Islamic Aqeeda (belief). These were delivered some years back but are still very relavent today.

Download file

Q&A: Duration of lease and defining wage for worker

2012-02-08T16:14:00.000-08:00

The following is a translation from Arabic.

Question:

It came in the book of the Economic System, page 90, line 6 from the top:

"Because the lease must be known, and the failure of mentioning the duration in some works makes it unknown. And if the lease was unknown it would not be allowed."

It came in the same page, line 14:

"If the period was mentioned in the contract, or if its mention in the contract was necessary to remove the unfamiliarity, then this period must be specified by a duration of time, such as a minute, an hour, a week, a month or a year."

It also came in page 91, line 8, of the same book:

"In conclusion, the wage must be known in a way that removes the unfamiliarity, so that it can be fulfilled without dispute. This is because the basic principle in all of the contracts is to prevent the disputes between the people. There must be an agreement upon the wage before the start of work; and it is disliked to use of an employee before agreement over the wage with him. "

The question is: Does the word "must" mean the usual obligation used in the provisions of accountability (takleef), meaning the obligation whose disclaimer is considered sinful? If this is the case, why it is then said in page 91, line 11: "and it is disliked to use the employee before agreement with him over the wage." How can we reconcile between the word "should" mentioned above, and the word of "disliked" in the last text? All of the texts mention that it is not allowed to conclude a contract that includes unfamiliarity.

If the contract is invalid for failing to mention the wage and the worker is entitled of the wage of his equivalent; and we mention that the one involved in an invalid contract is considered sinful until the invalidity was adjusted. Understanding that there is no sin in the disliked matter, how then we say it is disliked, and he is sinful if he did not mention the wage, thus invalidates the contract?

I wish you clarify this, May Allah bless you.

Answer:

It was mentioned in the Economic System:

In page 90, it said: "If the period was mentioned in the contract, or if its mention in the contract was necessary to remove the unfamiliarity, then this period must be specified by a duration of time, such as a minute, an hour, a week, a month or a year."

In page 91, line 8, it said: "In conclusion, the wage must be known in a way that removes the unfamiliarity, so that it can be fulfilled without dispute. This is because the basic principle in all of the contracts is to prevent the disputes between the people. There must be an agreement over the wage before the start of work; and it is disliked to use an employee before the agreement over the wage with him".

And you ask, thinking that there is a conflict: at one time we say (must), and say (disliked) at another time!

* As for that mentioned in page 90, it is clear, and nothing strange in it, as it speaks about defining the time term as "obligatory", and that if it was not specified in a way that removes unfamiliarity, the lease is not allowed, ie it is invalid. This is clear, without ambiguity.

* As regards what is mentioned in page 91, it is two issues which you thought them one:

The first issue: That the wage is known in a way that removes unfamiliarity. So, it is not allowed to specify his wage as in the example mentioned at the top of page 91 itself by saying to him: "your wage is part of the crops you harvested", this is not allowed. Rather, his wage must be specified in a clear known way that removes the disputes, such as saying "your wage is a saa or a mudd; or collect to me the crops of these ten acres, and your wage is the crops of this acre ..."; this means the provision here is obligation.

The second issue: It is not related to the obligation of that the wage, once specified, must be known in a way that removes unfamiliarity, but related to determining the wage of the employee before using him: Do you tell him of his wage before using him, or you use him before determining his wage? The ruling in this case is the dislike, namely not prohibited, so the employment contract would not be invalid, but rather the worker is given the wage of the equivalent...

* Thus, the question is of two issues:

First: When you determine a wage it must be known in a way that removes unfamiliarity, otherwise it is invalid.

Second: When you hire the employee; would his appointment be after defining his wage or before defining his wage? Provision in this case is the dislike, which means the appointment is valid, and the employee is entitled of the wage of the equivalent. In other words:

- When you hire the employee, it is disliked to use him before determining his wage.

- And when you determine the wage of the employee in the appointment contract it must be known in a way that removes the unfamiliarity.

15 Rabee' II 1432
20/3/2011

Source

Q&A: Recent Tensions with Iran

2012-02-03T10:24:00.000-08:00

Question: On January 15th 2012 Mohammed Ali Khateebi, Iran's envoy to OPEC warned the Gulf states against compensating for Iran's oil by supplying additional crude oil to international markets in case sanctions are imposed on Iran by the European Union. The Iranian Sharq newspaper also reported that Khateebi warned that such compensatory supplies will evoke Iran's reaction which will be unpredictable.

Similarly the spokesman for Iran's ministry of petroleum, Ramin Mehmanparast reiterated his remarks reported by Iran's official news agency confirming that the United States had sent a letter to Iran about the Straits of Hormuz. In late December 2011, Iran had warned of closing the Hormuz waterway in reaction to international sanctions. Iran had also announced holding naval exercises in the region. It also said that it had carried out successful tests on missiles of various types and ranges.

So, is Iran serious about closing the Straits of Hormuz? Is it genuinely worried about a military strike, if so who will wage war against it? Does the current global situation allow for such a war?

Answer:

1: Mohammed Ridha Rahimi, the Iranian Vice-President warned of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, he said: "If sanctions are decided against Iran, not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz." Gen. Hussain Salami, the Lt. Commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard threatened that Iran will act to protect its vital interests. Iran conducted naval exercises on 31st December 2011 in the region to demonstrate its preparedness for war if sanctions were imposed upon her. Iran's chief of naval forces, Admiral Habibullah Sayyari meanwhile eased the tone of threats and said: "Closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran's armed forces is really easy, or as Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water, however, at the moment we do not need to close it down." Thus he indicated that Iran will not move to close the strait at present if the sanctions are not imposed on it and if it is not attacked.

2: Reports indicate that between 30% - 40% of global crude oil passes through the straits of Hormuz, around 20 to 30 oil tankers pass through it every day carrying around 19 million barrels of crude oil. Thus the Hormuz straits are strategically important and have been so throughout history. Rival European colonialists competed over the strait. The British Empire regarded the Hormuz straits as the main route to India which it considered its jewel of the crown. England had imposed its control over the strait of Hormuz when Iran and the other Gulf states were under its area of influence. During the 1970's when US influence replaced Britain in the region the US integrated the region as part of its national security and stationed its fifth fleet command in Bahrain under the cover of a joint agreement in 1993. US ships regularly sail thorugh the waterway and thus it will not be easy for Iran to close the strait, except with tacit American complicity, which would be posisble agianst the Europeans. During its war with Saddam Hussain of Iraq, Iran had warned of closing the straits but did not act on its threat. Similarly now, after all the warnings, its naval commander has toned down the threats.

3: In the face of Iranian threats, Victoria Noland, the US State Department spokeswoman stated: "We have seen of late a great deal of unreasonable behaviour from Iran which makes us beleive that "these threats from Tehran as just increasing evidence that the international pressure is beginning to bite there..." [al Arabiyah: 30.12.2011]. Thus the US wants to prove that the sanctions already in place on Iran are sufficient to rein in the Jews from acting on their threat of military action against Iran. The US has over the past several years restrained the Jewish entity from initiating any attack on Iran. The US has more than once stated that the sanctions imposed on Iran are enough to deter Iran on its nuclear program. The US State Dept. Spokeswoman said: "these threats from Tehran as just increasing evidence that the international pressure is beginning to bite there." The US Defense Secreatary Leon Panetta has been stating for months that sanctions are sufficient to deter Iran from developing its nuclear program and that sanctions are the only option. In its attempt to ensure matters do not spiral out of US control , the US asked the Jewish entity to desist from carrying out any attack against Iran without coordinating with it.

4: It appaears that the US has of late realised the Jewish entity was seriously considering carrying out a military attack on Iran's nuclear installations and that Britain was actively supporting the Jewish entity to carry out such an attack and this has prompted the US to move swiftly to intensify sanctions on Iran including prohibiting dealings with the Iranian Central Bank which was announced on the 13th january 2012. A US official confirmed that the new US restrictions were imposed on Iran in order to force her to abandon its nuclear program by paralysing the functioning of its Central Bank and making its dealings with other international banks difficult. Thus the United States is trying to demonstrate that the solution lies in sanctions and intenfying those sanctions, and thus preventing the Jewish entity from undertaking a military attack on Iran as well as preventing the Europeans, especially Britain from playing any role in the matter.

5: There are indications that Europe is keen for such an attack and is not only encouraging the Jewish entity to undertake such action but actively supporting it with whatever is necessary. France has launched a satellite over the region in order to spy over Iran and share the gathered intelligence and images of Iran's nuclear installations and facilities with the Jewish entity. Germany has supplied the Jewish entity with the latest submarines capable of which carrying missiles, similarly Britain continues to also play its part through militarily cooperation. Britain's defence Secretary Phillip Hammond warned Iran against any attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz. The British media has also contributed to building public opinion by ratching up anti-Iran rhetoric. The Guardian newspaper reported on 3rd November 2011 that "Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment program". The British have intensified their consultations with the Jewish entity in recent months, the American news agency UPA on November 2nd 2011 reported that: "The Britain's Chief of Staff Gen. David Richards paid a secret 3-day visit to Israel, while the Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak visited Britain on the evening of 2nd November, 2011 at a time when Israel's military attack on Iran was being discussed intensively". In the context of a report posted on its website on 10th Nov, 2011, the British newspaper 'Daily Mail' said that officials of the British government have emphasised that there is a consensus within the government that Israel will attempt to target Iranian nuclear installation sooner rather than later. The Israeli media reported in early November 2011 that the Zionist Air force carried out an aerial exercise at one of the NATO's bases in Italy which included all possible types of air force formations which possibly may participate in an attack.

6: Israeli threats on Iran's nuclear installations have mounted during January 2012, the American newspaper – the Wall Street Journal reported on 14th January, 2012 that Washington was worried about a possible Israeli military attack against Iranian nuclear installations and this has prompted US officials' to intensify messages expressing their disapproval and warning the Israeli officials about the consequences of such an attack. The WSJ said that the American President Barak Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other senior US officials have of late sent a series of secret messages to the Israeli leadership warning them of the dire repercussions of a possible attack. They also informed them about the US position which is in favour of giving more time to the sanctions imposed on Tehran so that they bear fruit.

7: The United States is focused on the sanctions regime which it believes will prove an effective deterrent instead of a military strike. The US has been positioning that such action will not yield the desired results, especially with 2012 being election year. At the same time the Jewish state and the Europeans want to exploit this election year to carry out military strikes on Iran when the US administration led by Barak Obama is preoccupied with winning a second term in office and is engaged in wooing the votes of Jews and others minorities in a number of important swing states. Hence when such an attack in launched, the US will be in an awkward position and will be forced to support it if launched during the election period. Thus the US will be in position of flux in the region which will provide an opportunity to the European powers through intervening in the Middle East, especially England, the old colonialist of the region to play an effective role in the Gulf. Thus they work to shake the American stronghold in the region and destabilise the situation within Iran. So they are preparing to acquire some sort of influence in Iran which they lost as a result of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 when their agent Raza Shah Pehlawi fell from power.

8: Thus the American policy is focused on the sanctions regime being able to bear fruit and it keeps on intensifying these sanctions every time the cries for war get louder, which the Jewish state, backed by the Europeans are attempting to push during the US election year. It is possible the opportunity to launch an attack on Iran has been missed. Such information was leaked near the end of 2011 regarding the timing of such an attack. al.mashhad.com on the10th November 2011, reported: "An unidentified British Foreign Office official revealed that he informed the British ministers that the Israeli attack may occur between Christmas eve – January 1st 2012." That however does not rule out fresh attempts by Europe and the Jewish entity to attempt again to launch an attack due to the US preoccupation with national elections. It is expected that the United States will not allow them to exploit this opportunity and will remain in control of the matter. Thus every time the Europeans appear to support the Jewish entity to carry out a military attack against Iran, during its election year, they embarrass Obama in front of the Jewish voters. Obama responds by intensifying the call for sanctions indicating to the Jews that this is the correct solution and not a military attack on Iran! Thus Obama indicates to them that he is working in their interests by intensifying the sanctions in order to gain their votes.

9: As for Iran's statement that they will have to bear the responsibility of compensating the shortfall in crude supplies as a result of sanctions against Iranian oil exports, Iran is issuing such statements threatening to close the straits of Hormuz in order to halt a crisis in the international oil markets which will result in higher crude prices and thus affect Europe, especially when it is already reeling under an economic crisis. This it hopes will stop the Jewish entity in taking any military action against it.

10: As for Obama's letter to the Iranian officials the contents of which though are not revealed, it is likely to be a 'warning' to Iran and demanding it to soften the tone of its threats to close the straits of Hormuz and possibly to ease the tone of warning to the Gulf States regarding them bearing the consequences of compensating the shortfall in oil supplies. This is intended to reduce the tension that provokes the Jewish state and the Europeans to exploit it for taking military action against Iran in an election year. There are now indications that the US and Iran have taken steps designed to ease tensions. Iran has agreed to host a delegation of United Nations nuclear inspectors whilst the US has twice this month rescued Iranian sailors in the region's seas. [The Wall Street Journal, 14.01.2012].

11: It hurts to see that the regions lands, seas and the Straits of Hormuz part of America's global struggle. The Gulf which is referred to as the Arabian or Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman similarly is Islamic, and the Hormuz Straits is Islamic, the Muslims have defended and protected these in the face of European attacks whether they were from Portugal, Holland, France or Britain. Today the US has landed in the region and is working to control the region and steal its wealth.

Even more worrying is the fact that this international conflict has a set of Muslim rulers in order to achieve US goals. Yet Allah Willing, all this will not last very long and the Ummah as well as the people in Gulf will rise and will become One Ummah under a single State, the State of the Guided Khilafah which will cut the hands of these countries and prevent them from extending to any part of the Muslim lands, and be reminded that this tomorrow is not far!

In Conclusion:

1: Europe, especially Britain and the Jewish entity want to capitalise on Obama's election year in the United States to launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear installations since during an election year, such an attack will embarrass Obama in the face of Jewish voters if he seeks to stop the attack.

2: Iran is important for Obama and he does not want military action against it except if Iran was to cross America's red line of the Straits of Hormuz as stated by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on 8the January, 2012. At the same time, the Jewish entity is also important for Obama who does not want to lose Jewish votes in swing states. This is why he is trying to demonstrate that the sanctions are the appropriate option to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a matter that concerns the Jewish state, and also shows them that a military strike will not help but contrarily harm the entire region and thus affect US and global interests.

Therefore, whenever a military strike appears imminent, Obama sets about tightening the sanctions regime and now he has even included the Iranian Central Bank, stressing that the sanctions and not a military strike is the effective weapon against Iran's nuclear efforts. Such a situation of give-and-take is expected to last at least through the US election year. Europe and the Jewish entity will focus on exploiting this opportunity to carry out a military strike on Iran's nuclear installations, while the United States will focus on demonstrating that intensifying the sanctions is the viable solution.

3: As for Obama's letter to Iran, though its contents are not public, however it is likely to be a 'warning' to Iran and demanding it to soften the tone of its threats and statements to close the straits of Hormuz as well easing the tone of warnings to the Gulf states, as a move to remove any justification for military strike.

4: It is painful to see that the Western nations fight over our Islamic lands and are able to find their agents in the region who walk the path with them, instead of these lands being our State. The Khilafah State which will cut any hand that seeks to reach our pure Islamic lands. However, this betrayal will last long and neither this dark phase will last, indeed Allah Willing, Islam will emerge and so will the Khilafah.

وَلَتَعْلَمُنَّ نَبَأَهُ بَعْدَ حِينٍ

"And you shall certainly know the truth of it after a while." [Saad:88]

22nd Safar, 1433 A.H

16th January, 2012 C.E

Source

Q&A: Dhimmis other than the People of the Book (Ahlul Kitaab)

2012-02-01T13:28:00.000-08:00

The following is translated from Arabic, please refer to the original Arabic for exact meanings.

Question:

It came in the hadith about the Magi (magian) that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab mentioned the Magi and said I do not know how to deal with them. ‘Abdul Rahman bin Auf said I bear witness that I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him said: "Apply to them the law applied upon the people of the Book". The scholars interpreted it as taking the head tax (jizyah) from them in return of protecting their blood, and nothing else. Is the increase that came in the hadith, which is: "without marrying their women and nor eating their slaughtered meat," is valid, or it is ijtihad and understanding of the text?

Answer:

Regarding the hadith, (Apply to them ...

There are ahadith that did not mention "without marrying their women and nor eating their slaughtered meat," and these are some of them:

- Malik ibn Ja'far reported from ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali from his father that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said I do not know how to deal with them. ‘Abdul Rahman bin Auf said I bear witness that I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him said: "Apply to them the law applied upon the people of the Book".

- Ibn Abi Shaybah reported in his Workbook from Ja'far from his father, he said: (‘Umar said while setting between the tomb and the pulpit: I do not know how to deal with the Maju who are not the people of the Book. ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Awf said I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him said: "Apply to them the law applied upon the people of the Book".)

- But Ibn Abi Shaybah said in another narration, in his Workbook, the reason of the question, which was about the head tax (jizyah) of the Magi. Thus the question was about the head tax. He said in that narration that Wakee' told us, followed by Sufyan and Malik bin Anas from Ja'far from his father that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab consulted the people about the Magi regarding the jizyah. Abdul Rahman bin Auf said: (I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "Apply to them the law applied upon the people of the Book".)

This means that the subject was about taking the jizyah from the Magi. Therefore, the hadith of the Prophet, peace be upon him, was evidence to it, ie, the ruling of the jizyah regarding the Magi is the same ruling for the people of the Book, and thus it does not go beyond it to cover other matters such as the marriage and slaughtered meat.

- And this is what the Shafi'i mentioned on the subject. For al-Bayhaqi reported in the information about the Sunan and reports, he said:

Abu Bakr, Abu Zakariya, and Abu Saeed, said: Abu Abbas told us, Al-Rabee' told us, Al-Shafi'i told us, Malik told us from Ja'far ibn Muhammad from his father that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab mentioned the Magi and said: I do not know how to deal with them. ‘Abdul Rahman bin Auf said I bear witness that I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him said: "Apply to them the law applied upon the people of the Book." Al-Shafi'i said in our account from Abu Said: If that was confirmed, then it is related to taking of the jizyah, and not regarding the marrying of their women and eating of their slaughtered meat.

This is regarding the ahadith that did not mention "without marrying their women and nor eating their slaughtered meat"...

However, there are ahadith that mentioned this explicitly:

Ibn Abi Shaybah reported in his Workbook from al-Hasan ibn Muhammad "that the Prophet, peace be upon him, wrote to the Magi, the people of Hajar inviting them to Islam; so whoever of them became Muslim it would be accepted of him; but whoever did not become Muslim a jizyah is imposed upon him, without marrying their women and nor eating their slaughtered meat».

Al- Haythami mentioned similar to this hadith in his book (the desired objective of the researcher- Bughyat ul-Baahith) about the extras that came in Musnad of Al-Harith; he said Abdul Aziz ibn Aban told us, seconded by Sufian from Qays ibn Muslim from al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib, he said: "The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, wrote to the Magi, the people of Hajar inviting them to Islam; so whoever of them became Muslim it would be accepted of him; but whoever did not become Muslim a jizyah is imposed upon him, without marrying their women and nor eating their slaughtered meat".

1st Rabee' II 1432

03/06/2011

Source

Rabiul Awwal - Re-connecting with the Holy Prophet's (saw) Message

2012-02-01T12:01:00.000-08:00

The month of Rabiul Awwal is with us and brings with it a great joy for the Muslim Ummah. It was this month in which the blessed Prophet was born. Hafidh Ibn Kathir mentions that it is the opinion held by the majority of scholars that the Prophet ﷺ was born on a Monday, in Rabbi’ul-Awwal, (in the year 571 CE) (Al-Bidayah wa’n Nihaya (2/260)

In an authentic hadith the Prophet ﷺ responded with why he fasted on Mondays by saying, “It was on this day that revelation came down to me” (Muslim).

This Month is often used to remember the great favour Allah (swt) showered us with by making us the Ummati of the Holy Prophet ﷺ. In the Masjids there are beautiful reminders of the birth, life and character of the Prophet which instils an un-comparable tranquillity in the hearts of those who listen and serves as a reminder as to who is the most dearest to us in our lives. Allah says in the Quran in Surah Ahzab,

“The Prophet (saws) is closer to the believers than their ownselves” (Qur’an Al-Ahzab: 6)

Discussions around Rabiul Awwal

Many will use this month as a month of seeking knowledge about the Prophets life. Many have raised objections to singling out this month as a special occasion of worship. In this process, heated arguments and debates may surface on the validity of commemorating the day the Prophet was born.

None of these are new issues and in fact have been tackled by scholars of various persuasions who lived under an Islamic System and resolved jurisprudential issues like these based on Daleel (evidence) presented.

The spirit of discussion did not fracture the Unity of Muslims on core issues. Neither did they busy themselves condemning each other. The key focus still remained that Islam be the reference point for all actions, both personal and societal.

Scholarly Approaches

Imam Al-Hafiz Al-Suyuti in his famous book “Al-Hawii Lil-Fatawii” allocated a special chapter “The Excellence of Objective in Celebrating the Mawlid” where he said:

“In my view the Milad is in fact such an occasion of happiness on which people assemble and recite the Holy Qu’ran to the extent that is easy. Then they relate the prophecies concerning the appearance of the Noble Prophet (Allah’s Grace & Peace be upon Him) that have been transmitted in Ahadith and Author, and the miraculous events and signs that took place on his birth. Then food is set before them and according to their desire they partake thereof to satisfaction. This festival of celebrating the birthday of the Noble Prophet (Allah’s Grace & Peace be upon Him) is a Bid’ah Hasanah (good Innovation) and those arranging it will get blessing, since in such a celebration is found the expression of joy and happiness at the greatness and eminence of the Noble Prophet (Allah’s Grace & Peace be upon Him) and his birth”.

Ibn Tay’miah, a key Historical scholarly figurehead for many said in his book “Necessity of the Right Path”, the following:

“As far as what people do during the Milad, either as a rival celebration to that which the Christian do during the time of Christ’s birthday or as an expression of their love and admiration and a sign of praise for the Noble Prophet (Allah’s Grace & Peace be upon Him), Allah Almighty will surely reward them for such Ijtihad” (p. 266, published by Dar Al-Hadith)

Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar was asked, same reference of Imam Suyuti, about Milad Shareef. His reply was:

“Milad Shareef is, in fact, and innovation, which was not transmitted from any pious predecessor in the first three centuries. Nevertheless, both acts of virtue as well as acts of abomination are found in it (i.e. Sometimes acts of virtue are found therein and sometimes acts of abomination). If in the Milad Shareef only acts of virtue are done and acts of abomination are abstained from, then the Milad Shareef is a Bid’ah Hasanah (good innovation), otherwise not.”

Imam Al-Hafiz Al-Qastalani, who gave commentary on Sahih Bukhari, said:

“May Allah Almighty shower his Mercy upon a person who takes the days of the month of Rabbi-ul-Awwal, in which the Noble Prophet (Allah’s Grace & Peace be upon Him) was born, as days of feast and celebration for doing so is the best cure for the heart of an ailing person.”

The debates will continue on this topic. The Ulama respected each others opinions as any ijtihad (extracted ruling) which has a semblance of daleel is still considered an ijtihad based upon the Knowledge and abilities of the scholar who issued the ruling.

However, the Ulama of the past had bigger issues to worry about related to the implementation of Islam in State and society which were Qat’i (definitive) matters and not Dhann’i (Speculative), open to interpretation.

Forgetting the Key Message?

If the year 2011 was witnessed by the same scholars of the early generations their jaws would drop at the condition of the Ummah. Whilst Muslims continue with a historical debate on the commemoration of the day of Birth of the Prophet, Islamic law is completely suspended in State life!

There is great remembrance in this month about the Prophet and his character, the various miraculous incidents where even the animals came to the Holy Prophet ﷺ and the love people had for him.
But what was the Prophet sent for? What was his mission? What did he bring for us? These are questions which sometimes are lost in the discussion

Corrupt Un-Islamic Regimes

Right in front of us What the Prophet stood for, practiced and conveyed about Implementing Islam to create that just, balanced and harmonious society for all is being attacked by secular fundamentalists within Muslim Countries whose Qibla has changed from Mecca to Washington and London. How can we remain silent in Rabiul Awaal? The Holy Prophet ﷺ said:

“A day under a just leader is better than sixty years of worship, while the hadd (proscribed punishment) established on the earth according to its right is better than forty days of rain” (Bayhaqi/ Tabarani)

Do we have just leaders who rule by Islam exclusively today? Are we following the Prophet s orders on Ruling and politics as prescribed in the hadith above?

Muslims Violated

In front of us, Muslim Countries are allowing belligerent foreign powers to harm Muslims right under the noses of these rulers under the guise of War on Terror yet they remain silent.

Aafia Siddiqui was kidnapped in Karachi and handed over by Pakistani Security services to the US. Thousands of innocents have been killed in Drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan while Uzbekistan boils it political opponents, Egypt and Libya electrocute its people who stand against tyranny and Saudi Arabia gives sanctity to rulers like Ben Ali who fought harshly against Islam and Muslims in Tunisia as President! The Holy Prophet ﷺ said:

“The wiping away of the World means less to Allah than a Believer to be killed unjustly” (Ibn Maja)

Aren’t those who are being slaughtered the followers of the Prophet?

Islam is Missing

The Holy Prophet ﷺ said:

“The knots of Islam will be undone one by one, each time a knot is undone the next one will be grasped, the first to be undone will be the Ruling and the last will be Prayer” (Hakim/ Ahmed)

Right in front of us Islam is suspended, There is NO ruling by Islam in the Muslim countries. Why is there no stand against this violation of of what our Prophet bought to us?

There is great emphasis on following the sunnah (example) of the Prophet but is limited to the discussions on the beard, imama and juba/Shalwar kameez. Yet the Sunnah is also a source of law in Jurisprudence that is referred to extract rulings such that they can be implemented on Society (trade, Marriage, contracts, education, government, social issues).

Where is the Sunnah implemented? Where is the Challenge to these regimes to implement this law exclusively? Didn’t the Prophet warn us against Silence on these issues? The Holy Prophet ﷺ said:

“If the people witness an oppressor and they do not take him by his hands (to prevent him) then they are close to Allah covering them all with punishment” (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, ibn Maja)

Rabiul Awwal- Our duty

Who is the The Holy Prophet ﷺ for us we must ask? What is our relationship to him today? What is his message? What was the Holy Prophet ﷺ sent for? What is his Sunnah?

We must find the answers for these questions. We need to learn about the Holy Prophet ﷺ’s Life, educate ourselves with the rules of Islam the Prophet bought us and we must work for that change which The Holy Prophet ﷺ desired and Struggled for in his life.

There is corruption around us in the Muslim World which is being left un-challenged. There is social decay directed by the government who believe that Western Social values are better than Islam (which they state is old and backward) and have created a society where Free-mixing, sleeping around and consuming alcohol are seen as ‘lifestyle choices’

How can we remain silent against these criminal regimes?

The Khilafah is off the world map. This is the mechanism by which Islam is implemented just like an ink pen which requires the ink and the pen to be able to write. Similarly, no Khilafah means that Islam is suspended!

Rabiul Awwal- The month of Change

Rabiul Awwal should not be treated just like a holy month where dhikr is made and durood and Salam is sent to the Prophet in abundance. Rather this needs to be the month where we connect to the revolutionary mission of the Prophet to establish Islam.

The Holy Prophet ﷺ said “By the One who my soul is in His Hand, the Hour will not be established until Allah sends rulers who are liars, and ministers who are immoral, and supporters who are traitors, and knowledgeable people who are oppressors, and readers (of Quran) who are sinful, their appearance is like the appearance of holy people, and their hearts are more rotten than dead meat, their desires are different and so Allah will send upon them fitna which will cover them in darkness and so they will be destroyed therein. By the One who the soul of Mohammad biyadihi, Islam will be taken away part by part, until it is not even said Allah Allah.

You will (must) enjoin the good, and you will (must) forbid the evil, or Allah will make sovereign over you the worst of you, who will afflict you with the worst of punishment, then the best of you will make Du’a and it will not be answered. You will (must) enjoin the good, and you will (must) forbid the evil, or Allah will send against you those who will have no mercy to your young and no respect for your elderly." (Ibn Qayyim)

Source

Audio: Aqeeda Part 3 by Sheikh Abu Talha Malkawi

2012-02-01T11:47:00.000-08:00

Listen to an excellent series of circles delivered by Sheikh Abu Talha on the topic of the Islamic Aqeeda (belief). These were delivered some years back but are still very relavent today.

Download File

American Iranian Tensions: Brinkmanship or War?

2012-01-31T10:43:00.000-08:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

American Iranian Tensions: Brinkmanship or War?

Recent tensions between Western powers and Iran have again embroiled the region in a diplomatic frenzy, as nations scramble to shield themselves from the fallout of America's renewed confrontation with Iran over its nuclear programme. Iranian military exercises laced with fiery rhetoric emanating from Tehran, and the presence of Western warships to enforce sanctions in the Persian Gulf has caused international panic.

Against the backdrop of Iranian threats to close the Straits of Hormuz, oil prices have spiked and speculation is forever mounting about Israeli and American military strikes against Iran. For instance, the US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta hinted at military action in the event Iran went too far. He said, "We have to make sure we are ready for any situation and have all options on the table. We must keep all capabilities ready in the event those lines are crossed." (Tensions high, US warns Iran not to block shipping, AP Online, January 13 2012). The latest bout of verbal dueling occasionally punctuated with threats of military action has sounded alarms bells as far away as Moscow and Beijing. Speaking at a news conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned about attacking Iran. He said, "I have no doubt that it would pour fuel on a fire which is already smoldering, the hidden smoldering fire of Sunni-Shia confrontation, and beyond that (cause) a chain reaction - I don't know where it would stop...On the chances of whether this catastrophe will happen or not you should ask those who repeatedly talk about this." (Western strike on Iran would be "catastrophe": Russia, Reuters Online, January 18 2012). Li Song, Deputy Director-General of the Department of Arms Control of the Chinese Foreign Ministry said, "Military action would have a disastrous effect on the peace and stability of the Middle East. Once a war takes place in the region, not only will countries in the region be affected and impacted, world energy security and the world economy will suffer a deadly blow." (Iran attack would be 'disastrous', China Daily Online, January 19 2012).

However, beyond the current military buildup, there are gestures from both sides that are seemingly at odds with the warmongers in Washington and Tehran. The American rescue of hijacked Iranian fishermen and Obama's letters to the Iranian leadership suggests that America wants to resolve the issue diplomatically. Commenting on the letter, Ebrahimi, who is the Deputy Chairman of the Majlis's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee said, "In the letter, Obama has mentioned cooperation and negotiation based on the interests of the two countries. He has stated in the letter that they will not take any hostile action against the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is not the first time that Obama has sent a message and letter to the Islamic Republic of Iran. He has repeatedly spoken in a soft tone about the Islamic Republic of Iran, but, in practice, he has not acted accordingly." (Details of Obama's letter to Iran released, Tehran Times Online, Jan 18 2012)The Iranians have also reciprocated with warm overtures of their own and have stated that the US has a right to move its warships in the Persian Gulf. All of this begs the question: Is this a serious crisis that will lead to war or is the crisis manufactured to support ulterior motives?

One cannot help but notice that over the past six years or so America has had ample opportunities to attack Iran's nuclear sites or initiate regime change, but on each occasion America either downplayed the Iranian threat or gave half-hearted support to the Iranian people to topple the regime. Some of these incidents can be summarized as:

1. In 2005, the Bush administration dismissed Israeli fears of a nuclear armed Iran after the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) revised its estimate from 2010 to 2015, the date by when Iran would possess an atomic bomb. Additionally, and more significantly, the NIE claimed that Iran had abandoned plans to weaponize its nuclear program in 2003.

2. In 2007, America's ambivalence toward Iran was again on display when another close ally, Britain, found its naval personnel captives of Iranian forces. American indifference was deliberate, as Washington feared that Britain had engineered the naval fiasco to instigate an attack on Iran.

3. In 2008, America also refused to sell Israel advanced versions of its bunker-buster bombs and dismissed Israel's show of air power over the Mediterranean, which was widely interpreted by many observers as a dry run to attack Iran

4. In 2009, protests in Iran erupted against Ahmadinejad's re-election. The protestors were strongly supported by the European Union, but America's support was cagy at best. America's patchy support was out of step with European support for the Iranian people and underscored America's reluctance to take decisive action against the Iranian regime.

But one may argue that all of this was in the past, and that the US has finally come round to attacking Iran and thereby addressing Israeli concerns. Supporters of this view bring several evidences to justify their stance. For instance they point to the advance weaponry that is being deployed in Israel as well as the GCC countries, and covert actions to sabotage Iran's nuclear programme. For instance the Wall Street Journal revealed that the White House will provide the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with "thousands of advanced ‘bunker-buster' bombs and other munitions, part of a stepped-up U.S. effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran. Another source mentioned 500 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles in addition to the other munitions. The Wall Street Journal report added: "The Obama administration is trying to build up the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which comprises Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, U.A.E. and Kuwait, as a unified counterweight to Iran. The newspaper reminded its readers of a $67 billion arms deal initiated by the White House with Saudi Arabia in 2010 to supply the second nation with 84 F-15 fighter jets and 2,000-pound bunker-busting bombs, 72 Black Hawk and 70 Apache Longbow attack helicopters, Patriot Advanced Capability-2 and other missiles, and warships. The Wall Street Journal also reported that the U.S. Defence Department plans to supply Stinger missiles and medium-range air-to-air missiles to Oman. (US Plans Bomb Sales in Gulf to Counter Iran, Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011). The news media is rife of reports regarding Israeli covert actions that include a campaign of assassinations, bombings, cyber attacks and defections to weaken the Iranian regime and to halt the country's attempts to develop nuclear capabilities.

However, by deploying advanced weaponry in Israel, arming GCC countries and conducting clandestine activities against in Iran does not mean that the intended US target is Iran. The US can easily point the weaponry elsewhere.

Furthermore, the most important question which observers forget to ask is why the US would risk further instability in the region and attack Iran.

It should be noted that Iran has played a pivotal role to help entrench US hegemony in the region. These are:

1. Iran has provided stability in Iraq through the governing Shia leadership much of it was developed and nurtured under Tehran's tutelage.

2. Tehran has also provided invaluable support to American forces to contain the Afghan Pushtun resistance from spreading westwards.

3. Iran continues to buttress Assad's regime in Syria by providing military support as well as soliciting support from movements and countries across the region.

4. America has adroitly exploited the Iranian threat to bolster its military agreements with Israel and GCC countries. Hence, Iran is a pillar of US stability in Middle East, and the US has often regarded Iran as the leader of the Shia crescent stretching from Lebanon to Yemen, and act as her watchman over the Middle East's hydro-carbon reserves.

5. America has exploited Iran's nuclear programme to justify its missile shield for allies in Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia.

So by attacking Iran the US will only undermine her interests in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East. Simply put, America has too much to lose. Additionally, the high price of oil that would naturally ensue from such a conflict would exacerbate the US economy and hamper the miniscule growth that the US is currently experiencing. Obama cannot afford to go war, as his re-election depends on the US economy generating more jobs for the unemployed.

The reason behind the imposition of sanctions and clandestine operations in Iran is to assuage Israeli security concerns, and secure much needed Jewish votes for the Obama administration ahead of the US general elections in November 2012. America is fully aware that this is the maximum pressure it can apply on Iran without toppling the Iranian regime and impacting America's regional hegemony.

As for the Jewish state, it still harbours ambitions to hoodwink America into a military confrontation with Iran. Israel's defence minister Ehud Barak is said to have told General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, that Israel will give the US no more than 12 hours notice before it ventures to demolish Iran's nuclear installations. As a result the US postponed its military exercise with Israel (US miffed as Israel hints at unilateral strike on Iran N-sites, Times of India, January 23 2012). America is treading carefully with Israel, and trying to ensure that it does not launch any military strikes. The Europeans on the other hand are keen to support Israel covertly, hoping that any confrontation with Iran would drag America into another war that it cannot afford and would eventually bleed America to death. Nonetheless, the European effort is timid, as Europe is consumed with the economic crisis. All of this means that unless Israel gets support from Europe in particularly the GCC countries that are loyal to Britain, the chance of a military strike is of diminutive proportions.

This then leaves the unanswered question of the timing of the tensions coupled with the rapid buildup of arms. The tensions between Iran and America were accentuated in response to the IAEA report, and serve two objectives. First, America sought to address Israeli concerns by demonstrating its seriousness to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions by enforcing sanctions and talking tough. Second, America is preparing to intervene in Syria and the buildup of weapons is in part to address this eventuality. The timing of the intervention will depend on how quickly the US can get the Syrian opposition united to take over from Assad's regime. Russia is acutely aware of American intentions to invade Syria and has warned America that it would not support a UN resolution authorizing force.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, "If some intend to use force at all cost ... we can hardly prevent that from happening. But let them do it at their own initiative on their own conscience, they won't get any authorization from the U.N. Security Council." (Russia warns against military action against Syria, rejects criticism of munitions delivery, Washington Post Online, January 18 2012). To dissuade the US, Russia has sent shipment of weapons to Syria, signed a military jet deal worth $550 million and stationed some of naval ships in Syria.

The other reason for flooding the region with arms is that America is preparing for an eventual war with major powers such as Russia, China and Europe over the control of the oil and gas supplies of the Middle East. She is also preparing for the return of the Caliphate and will use her agents to delay the unification of Muslim countries in the region.

Abu Hashim al-Punjabi

01 Rabi' I 1433
23/01/12

Source

Speech of Sheikh Ahmad al-Qasas on the occasion of the UN's ESCWA Conference

2012-01-28T18:54:00.000-08:00

This is the text of a press conference given by Ahmad Al Qassas, the head of the Media Office of Hizb ut-Tahrir-Lebanon, on the occasion of the Conference of ESCWA [United Nations Regional Economic and Social Development Commission in Western Asia] in Beirut, which was inaugurated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations under the title of "Reform and Transitions to Democracy".

وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يُعْجِبُكَ قَوْلُهُ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَيُشْهِدُ اللَّهَ عَلَى مَا فِي قَلْبِهِ وَهُوَ أَلَدُّ الْخِصَامِ * وَإِذَا تَوَلَّى سَعَى فِي الْأَرْضِ لِيُفْسِدَ فِيهَا وَيُهْلِكَ الْحَرْثَ وَالنَّسْلَ وَاللَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْفَسَادَ

(And of mankind there is he whose conversation on the life of this world pleases you (Muhammad), and he calls Allah to witness as to that which is in his heart; yet he is the most rigid of opponents. And when he turns away (from you) his effort is to make mischief in the land and to destroy the crops and the cattle; and Allah loves not mischief) [Surah al Baqarah 2:204-2:205]

The Secretary General of the United Nations and those in attendance:

Now is the time to end your ‘guardianship' over the people, for it is the time of an Ummah that has begun to liberate itself from the control of the West, so as to regain her authority and restore the rule of Islam in her life.

The United Nations, represented by its Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, entertained us by holding a conference addressing the uprising that marked the last year in this region of the Islamic world; and which has continued into this year.

This uprising aims to topple the regimes and commence a period that, by the Will of Allah, will radically change the face of the region.

The envoy of the Western countries, Ban Ki-Moon, has come as if to say to the people of the region: ‘Do not think that by your uprising you will break the shackles of all forms of Western cultural, political, economic and military domination. We will, rather, remain custodians over you and over your protest movement, so that there will be a change from the era of secular tyrants to an era of secular Democrats; without a change in the identity of the State, or the constitutions derived from Western civilization, nor in foreign policy, economic policy, educational curricula; and not in the treacherous treaties agreed to by your despotic rulers - especially those made with the Jewish entity. We will continue teaching you the way you should live, and the way you should practice politics, government, economics, media, security and education...'

Thus, Professor Ban came to continue attempts to contain the revolution; attempts that U.S. and Europe started since the start of the revolution in Tunisia in order to abort it, control its direction and harvest its fruits before the Ummah is able reap such fruits. So often, Western States - led by the United States - have used the international organisation as a tool for achieving their goals and to serve their interests in the world. There is no surprise in that, for they established the organisation after World War II to consolidate their hegemony over the world!

Our Ummah cannot forget the belligerent resolutions of the United Nations against it since the early days of its establishment until today; particularly, the resolution of dividing Palestine between its people and those alien Jews who were expelled from other parts of the world.

This was followed by the resolution to invade Afghanistan and give legitimacy to the American occupation of Iraq, which resulted in massacres and tragedies against our Ummah.

This is besides ignoring the repeated attacks of the Jewish entity against the people of Palestine and the neighbouring countries.

Add to this the policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank that has led to the impoverishment of the people of the region, controlling their economic decisions and looting their wealth.
We are not naïve to be deceived by the lie of the alleged neutrality of the international organization.
Rather, we say it clearly: The organisation which you represent, Mr. Secretary-General, is one of the bitterest opponents of the Islamic Ummah.

You acknowledged the crime that your international organisation has committed for so long against the people of the region.

You admitted the organisation was "too close to the governments but not close enough to the community" and you declared repentance, saying: "As I begin my second term as Secretary-General, I want to emphasize that the United Nations will be at your side, we are firmly committed to help the Arab countries during this transitional phase" and you said that "reform must be real, because in most cases the changes are cosmetic i.e. without transfer of real power to the people".

Is this your penitence real - or is it just a new deception and a repeated illusion?!

The answer is taken from your own words, by which you condemned yourself again.

So, I will condemn you using your own words.

You announced that your negotiator was at the heart of the talks in Yemen - talks that were used to abort the revolution of the people of Yemen, and resulted in consolidating the authority of the gang of the tyrant and butcher, Ali Saleh, so protecting him from accountability and trial.

You even called, in your talk, for the tyrant of Yemen "to adhere to the terms of the agreement"! Thus, you contradicted yourself and proved immediately that your organization continues its hypocrisy.

Professor Ban did not forget to give us lessons in human rights and women's rights, according to the UN's

We say to him: Stop giving us lessons in human and women rights. For your law is not, in our view, a source for defining the human rights.

We have enough that makes us in no need of your worn out law.

Look back a little, Mr. Secretary-General, to see what the States that led this Declaration, and their civilization, have committed in terms of violations to the rights of humanity. Most recently are the ugliest pictures showing the scene of American soldiers desecrating the bodies of our dead Afghans.

Look also how your law insulted women when it ‘equalized' the sexes in rights and duties, so depriving a woman from her right of financial maintenance, as well as her children. It, instead, forced her to work, and made of her a frivolous means to market the most despicable cheap goods! There will come a day when you, Mr. Secretary-General, will learn human rights from our Great Shar'.

The ‘professor' did not forget also to show his compassion towards the unemployed youth in our country, as he believed that "the Arab countries must provide fifty million jobs over the next decade to accommodate the young people who will enter the realm of work."

Have you not heard, Mr. Ban, the news that millions came out two-months ago in demonstrations in more than a thousand of capitalist cities, before you came to preach us lessons in economy?!

Isn't it time to acknowledge that the capitalist system - which your organization has enshrined in in the world - including in our country - lies behind the misery suffered by hundreds of millions of people?!

Aren't you aware that when you lack something yourself, then you cannot give it to others?!

Dear participants at the Venice Hotel:

The revolution of the Ummah is not only a revolution against the tyrant rulers.

It is rather a revolution against everything they represent in terms of aggression on the identity of the Ummah, her civilization, culture, Shari'ah and all of her other essentials.

It is a revolution against submission to the West, its civilisation, culture and political order.

So, the alternative which the Ummah looks for is not the Western model reflected in the so-called civil democratic state produced by Western civilisation: the civilisation of separating the religion from life.

Rather, the alternative which the Ummah looks for and strives for is the State that will unify the Ummah after a long period of fragmentation; where the sovereignty in it is for the law of Allah, rather than the United Nations Charter, or man-made constitutions.

Authority in the State would be for the Ummah which chooses its ruler, without supervision of the Security Council, the White House, Paris or London; or of the ruling gangs pinned and supported by the West in our country for tens of years in opposition of her people.

As to those who participated in the conference, declaring that they represent revolutions and the rebels, we say to them:

Relying on the international powers, appeasing them and depending on their help for challenging the dictators is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Allah (swt) says:

{ وَلا تَرْكَنُوا إِلَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا فَتَمَسَّكُمُ النَّارُ وَمَا لَكُمْ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ مِنْ أَوْلِيَاءَ ثُمَّ لَا تُنْصَرُونَ }

(And incline not to those who do wrong, or the Fire will seize you; and you will have no protectors other than Allah, nor shall you be helped.)

Moreover, this is a betrayal to Allah, His Messenger and the believers, where Allah Almighty says:

وَاذْكُرُوا إِذْ أَنْتُمْ قَلِيلٌ مُسْتَضْعَفُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ تَخَافُونَ أَنْ يَتَخَطَّفَكُمُ النَّاسُ فَآَوَاكُمْ وَأَيَّدَكُمْ بِنَصْرِهِ وَرَزَقَكُمْ مِنَ الطَّيِّبَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ . يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا لا تَخُونُوا اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ وَتَخُونُوا أَمَانَاتِكُمْ وَأَنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ

(And remember the time when you were few [and] helpless on earth, fearful lest people do away with you - whereupon He sheltered you, and strengthened you with His succour, and provided for you sustenance out of the good things of life, so that you might have cause to be grateful. O Believers, do not be false to Allah and the Messenger, and do not knowingly be false to the trust that has been reposed in you.)

This approach is political suicide, for victory is from Allah, rather than from His enemies. Allah (swt) says:

{ إِنْ يَنْصُرْكُمُ اللَّهُ فَلَا غَالِبَ لَكُمْ وَإِنْ يَخْذُلْكُمْ فَمَنْ ذَا الَّذِي يَنْصُرُكُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ وَعَلَى اللَّهِ فَلْيَتَوَكَّلِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ }

( If Allah helps you, none can overcome you: If He forsakes you, who is there, after that can help you? In Allah, then, let believers put their trust.)

Remember that the Western political order lies behind the state of decline and deterioration experienced by the Ummah for decades.

Had the international powers left the Ummah to deal with her rulers, they would have ousted them a long time ago.

But these powers supported these dictators to keep them dependent upon the West in protecting their authority, so as to give them obedience and reverence, and give them as well the capabilities , the resources and honour of the Ummah as offerings in return of consolidating their regimes.

The good fruit of the blessed movement of the Ummah will not come about except by eliminating everything the West introduced to the Ummah alien to her identity, civilisation and culture; as well as the ideas, constitutions, legislations and curricula; besides the international institutions and centres of influence in the society; together with any political, economic, media, security and military influence; in addition to the agents present in every government, administration, security and military institutions.

So, as long as pervasive evil germs remain penetrating the body of the Ummah they will remain a threat to its health and existence. The Ummah will not be able to get rid of these plagues unless she adopts her cultural and political agenda comprehensively, represented in the plan of the guided Khilafah on the way of prophethood.

At that moment, the control of the West and its international organisation over us will be uprooted, and we would be able to carry our civilisation as a message of goodness to the world.

{ وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلا رَحْمَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ }
(We indeed just sent you as a mercy to mankind.)

Source

Introduction to The Essential Elements of the Islamic Disposition (nafsiyyah)

2012-01-28T18:26:00.000-08:00

The following is the translation of the introduction of the book 'The Essential Elements of the Islamic Disposition (Nafsiyah)' issued by Hizb ut Tahrir and published in Beirut, Lebanon in 1425 AH.

The personality (shakhsiyyah) of every human being is composed of the mentality (‘aqliyyah) and disposition (nafsiyyah). His physical characteristics and all other aspects have no bearing on his personality - these are only superficialities. It would be pointless for anyone to think that such aspects have any relevance or bearing upon the composition of the human personality.

The mentality (‘aqliyyah) is the tool used for understanding things; meaning it is the mode for passing judgement on reality according to a specific standard which man believes in and trusts. If his understanding of things in terms of passing judgement upon them is based on the Islamic ‘Aqīdah, then he has an Islamic mentality, if not he has a mentality other than the Islamic mentality.

The behavioural disposition (nafsiyyah) is the method for satisfying man’s instincts and organic needs i.e. the manner in which they are satisfied according to a standard which man believes in and trusts. When the satisfaction is based on the Islamic ‘Aqīdah then he has an Islamic disposition, if not he has a disposition other than the Islamic behavioural disposition.

If a person has one standard for the mentality and behavioural disposition, then his personality becomes distinctive and regulated. If the Islamic ‘Aqīdah was the basis of his mentality and behavioural disposition, his personality would be Islamic. If not, then his personality would be something else.

Therefore, it is not enough that only his mentality is Islamic where he is able to judge things and actions correctly according to the rules of the Sharī’ah, where he can deduce rules, know the Halāl and Harām and have maturity in thinking and awareness. So he is able to speak and in a strong and influential manner and give sound analysis of events. This on its own is not enough, for he must also have an Islamic disposition where he satisfies his instincts and organic needs on the basis of Islām. He prays, fasts, purifies himself and makes Hajj, engages in the Halāl and avoids the Harām. He endeavours to be, as Allah wants him to be, drawing closer to Him (swt) through the obligations He has imposed and is eager to do the Nawāfil (supererogatory acts of devotion) so as to draw even closer to Him (swt). He adopts true and sincere stances towards events, where he enjoins the good and forbids the evil, he loves for Allah’s sake and hates for Allah’s sake and deals with people with a good and upright character.

Similarly, it is not enough just to have an Islamic disposition, without having as well an Islamic mentality. Worshipping Allah in ignorance can cause man to deviate from the straight path. So he might fast on a day in which it is prohibited to fast, pray when it is Makrūh. He might say ‘Laa Hawla Walaa Quwwata illa billah’ when he sees someone committing a Munkar instead of accounting him and forbidding him from engaging in such an evil action. He might deal with usury but then give it in charity claiming he is drawing close to Allah while being swamped in his sins. In other words, he is doing a bad action while he thinks he is doing something good. So he would satisfy his instincts and organic needs contrary to the way Allah and His Messenger ordered.

The personality will not be complete unless the mentality is Islamic; so he will have knowledge of the rules that are binding upon him and will aim to increase his knowledge of the Sharī’ah disciplines as much as he can. At the same time he should have an Islamic behavioural disposition where he adheres to the rules of the Sharī’ah and not just knows them. He must apply these rules in all issues whether it is in respect to his Creator, himself or others, and in the manner in which Allah loves and approves.

When he is able to control his mentality and disposition according to Islām, then one can say he has an Islamic personality that drives its way amongst the throng towards the goodness fearing none but Allah.

However, this does not mean that there will not be any lapses. Such lapses will not affect the personality as long as they are the exception and not the norm. This is because man is not an angel; he makes mistakes, seeks forgiveness, repents and he also does what is correct and praises Allah for His Grace, Mercy and Guidance. The more a Muslim increases in his Islamic culture to develop his mentality, and the more he increases the performance of the recommended actions to strengthen his disposition the more he will proceed towards the sublime ascent. Not only will he become firm on this ascent but also he will continue to be elevated even higher and higher. This is when he controls his life in the proper manner and attains the Akhirah by striving for it as a believer. He will be allied to the Mihrāb (recess indicating the direction for salah) of the mosque whilst at the same time he is a hero of Jihād characterised by the best of attributes; a servant of Allah the Almighty, the Creator and Originator.

In this book we would like to present to the Muslims generally, but more specifically to the Da’wah carriers, the essential elements of the Islamic personality so that the Da’wah carrier, while he is working to establish Khilāfah, his tongue is moist with the remembrance of Allah, that his heart is filled with fear of Allah and his limbs hasten towards the good deeds. He recites the Qur’ān, acts upon it, loves Allah and His Messenger, loves for Allah’s sake and hates for Allah’s sake, hopes for the mercy of Allah and fears His punishment, he is patient, expecting the reward in the Hereafter, sincere and reliant upon Allah.

He is firm on the truth like the towering mountain, he is soft, gentle and compassionate towards the believers but firm and strong against the disbelievers, fearing none for Allah’s sake. He possesses a good character, he is sweet in speech but strong in proof, enjoins the good and forbids the evil, he lives and works in this life but his eyes always look towards the Jannah, whose width is that of the heavens and the earth prepared for the believers.

We should not miss the opportunity of reminding the Da’wah carriers, especially those who are working to resume the Islamic way of life by establishing the Righteous Khilāfah state, of the reality in which they work. They are surrounded by the clashing waves of the enemies of Allah. If they are not with Allah by day and by night, how then can they drive their way in the different walks of life? How can they reach their desired aim? How can they elevate higher and higher? How? How?

Finally, the Da’wah carriers need to reflect on two enlightening hadīths, which will light up their path so that they achieve their objectives and quicken their steps:

First:

«أول دينكم نبوة ورحمة ثم خلافة على منهاج النبوة... ثم تعود خلافة على منهاج النبوة»

“The beginning of your Dīn was Prophethood and mercy and then it was Khilāfah on the way of the Prophethood…then the Khilāfah will return on the way of the Prophethood.” This hadīth contains the good news of the return of the Khilāfah by Allah’s leave.

But it will return like the very first Khilāfah; the Khilāfah of the righteous ones, the companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw). Whosoever is eager to see its return and yearns to see it then let him work for it as a believer so that he strives to become like the companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw).

Second:

«إن الله سبحانه قال: من أهان لي ولياً فقد بارزني في العداوة، ابن آدم لن تدرك ما عندي إلا بأداء ما افترضته عليك، ولا يزال عبدي يتقرب إلي بالنوافل حتى أحبه، فأكون قلبه الذي يعقل به، ولسانه الذي ينطق به، وبصره الذي يبصر به، فإذا دعاني أجبته، وإذا سألني أعطيته، وإذا استنصرني نصرته، وأحب عبادة عبدي إلي النصيحة»

“Indeed, Allah (swt) said: The one who humiliates my waly (pious servant) he has displayed hostility towards me. O son of Adam! You will not obtain that which I have save by performing the duties I ordained upon you. My servant will continue to draw closer to me though the Nawāfil (supererogatory acts of worship) until I love him. I will then be the heart with which he thinks, the tongue with which he speaks, the sight by which he sees. So, when he calls me I will answer him, when he asks me for something I shall give it to him, and when he asks for my help I shall help him and the most beloved of my servants worship is the sincere advice (naseeha).” Reported by at-Tabarānī in al-Kabīr.

This hadīth clarifies the path to the victory of Allah, His support and help by drawing close to Him and seeking His Help. He is the All Strong and All-Powerful; whosoever He helps will never be humiliated and whosoever He humiliates will never be helped. He is close to His servants when his servant calls out to Him, He responds to him when he obeys Him; He is the Irresistible, above His slaves, the Most Kind and All-Acquainted with all things.

So rush oh brothers to the Good Pleasure of Allah, to His forgiveness, Paradise, victory and success in both of the abodes:

خِتَامُهُ مِسْكٌ وَفِي ذَلِكَ فَلْيَتَنَافَسِ الْمُتَنَافِسُونَ

‘And for this let all those strive who want to strive.’ [TMQ al-Mutaffifīn:26]

21 Zul Hijjah 1424AH

12/02/2004

Arabic Source

Audio: Aqeeda Part 1 & 2 by Sheikh Abu Talha Malkawi

2012-01-28T18:12:00.000-08:00

We are planning to post a series of audio files of excellent circles Sheikh Abu Talha delivered on the topic of the Islamic Aqeedah (belief). These were delivered some years back but are still very relavent today.

Download file

The Islamic Khilafah - the difference between sticking to principles and compromise

2012-01-21T20:22:00.000-08:00

The newspaper 'Al-Masriyoon' published on 29/11/2011 the statements of the general guide (leader) of the 'Muslim Brotherhood' Dr Muhammad Badee' which he made in his weekly address when he said: "That the group was close to achieving its greater objective as specified by Imaam Hasan Al-Banna the founder of the group, and that is the establishment of the just and rightly guided ruling system, its institutions and elements which would comprise a government which would be followed by the rightly guided Khilafah and leadership of the world".

These statements stirred up outrage from the secularists in Egypt (those who have been battling to preserve the secular system in Egypt since the outset of the revolution on the 25th of January 2011 and who reject in a decisive manner any talk about there being an Islamic form of governance). As a result Dr Abdur Rahman Al-Barr (a member of the leadership council of the group) reacted to address what had resulted from the statements so he went about stripping away the content of the statements made by their leader in an attempt to please and satisfy the secularists and those who are behind them in terms of the western disbelieving states who have been frightened by the rise of the Islamic movement in Egypt and what has accompanied this rise in terms of calls being raised demanding the implementation of the rule by Islam via the Khilafah.

So Dr Al-Barr said according to what was published in the newspaper: 'Freedom and Justice' on the 05/01/2012: "The General Guide did not mean the Rightly guided Khilafah according to the traditional model where there exists a Khaleefah upon the head of the state who governs Wilaayahs (provinces) and other than that" but rather he meant: "That there would exist a unity between all of the Arab and Islamic states" considering the model presented in the organisation of Islamic co-operation and a model that can be developed and built upon!"

This is almost an exact repeat of what happened recently in Tunisia when Hamaadi Al-Jabaali (the number two in the Nahdah party) on the 13/11/2011 in the town of Souso talked about the coming of the sixth Khilafah which also provoked a wide debate in the Tunisian arena which led him to revise his words by being adamant that the words had been 'taken out of context' and added a message to reassure the opposing parties saying: "That the choice of the Nahdah party in terms of the ruling system is that it has chosen the democratic republican system which obtains its legitimacy from the people". And this speedy revision by Al-Jabaali of his statements opened the door for him to then become the forthcoming Prime Minister of Tunisia. This was followed by the statements from the head of the group Al-Ghanooshi who stated that Al-Jabaali would be the Tunisian Prime minister and not the head of the Othmani Khilafah.

And in the same light Doctor Rif'at As-Sa'eed wote on the web site: 'The poeple of Qur'aan' on the 07/01/2012 an article under the title: 'About the Khilafah and its delusions' in which he attempted in a manner lacking credibility to present a 'Sharee'ah understanding that negates the opinion that Islam has made the Khilafah its obligatory ystem of ruling. He used as evidence the views of Ash-Sharastaani, Al-Jarjaani, Al-Ghazaali and Al-Aamadi who said that the Khilafah is not part of the Usool (fundamentals) of the Aqaa'id (beliefs) as an argument to say that the Khilafah is not an obligation. And the Doctor is excused in this consideration of his because he is unable to distinguish between the subjects of Aqeedah (belief) and the subject of the Sharee'ah laws. So the proof for the obligation of the Khilafah is established upon the basis of the Sharee'ah rules in which the evidences from the Kitaab, Sunnah and Ijmaa' of the Sahaabah are many in number and firmly establish it as an obligation.

Therefore the place of the ruling in regards to the Khilafah is not within the realms of the subject of the Aqeedah. And I will now report what the Doctor himself reported from Al-Jarjaani in his book: 'Sharh Al-Mawaaqif' when he stated: "The Khilafah is not part of the fundamentals of the Diyaanaat and Aqaa'id but rather it is from the branches related to the actions of the Mukallafeen". This is because the Hukm Shar'i is the address of the legislator Subhaanahu related to the actions of the Mukallaf (legislatively responsible) servants whilst the Aqeedah is the decisive belief that is based on evidence and conforms to the reality.

And in relation to this Hizb-ut-Tahrir (whose name is synonymous in the Islamic arena with the Da'wah focused on the work to establish the Khilafah) has published a number of statements and leaflets which discuss the current situation in Egypt and have distributed these on a wide and challenging manner. The most recent was that which was issued on 06/01/2012 and it carried the title: "O People of Egypt: Is it necessary to experiment for more decades with a secular democratic state with an elected peoples assembly that holds no power or influence until you realise that the only way out for you is the establishment of the rightly guided Khilafah?!" and during the distribution of this leaflet to the people a group who had connections with the security services prevented its distribution pretending and claiming that they were from the Salafiyah whereas the true righteous Salafis are those who put the election of the Khaleefah as a priority over the burial of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم due to the greatness and gravity of the obligation. As for these, well, they prevented Ustaadh Ahmad Abu Daif a member of the Hizb from completing his distribution of a leaflet that was discussing the obligation of the Khilafah! And thereafter they handed him over to the police and then he was passed on to the prosecutors office which then cleared the way for his release and returned to him his leaflets.

And as a result of this incident which the newspapers described (falsely) as a violent confrontation between the Shabaab of the Hizb and some Salafis the satelite TV channel 'Dream 2' invited Ustaadh Muhammad Abdul Qawwiy the delegated founder of Hizb-ut-Tahrir in Egypt, Ustaadh Mahmoud At-Tarshooby and Ustaadh Ahmad Abu Daif (who had been involved in the incident) to attend the TV discussion show 'Al-Haqeeqah' which is presented by Ustaadh Waa'il Al-Ibraashi for a discussion which was meant to be between them alone so as to present an outline of the Hizb (its ideas and work etc...). And it seems that the subject of this episode changed overnight when the Shabaab of the Hizb were surprised by the appearance of additional previously unannounced guests who were invited in an attempt to undermine the idea of the Khilafah and provide a false image of the Hizb. They did this by inviting guests who were well known to reject the concept of Khilafah however their attempt and planning failed as the show resulted in producing a discussion within the Egyptian political arena and this was followed by a number of newspapers providing large spaces in their papers for articles containing information about Hizb-ut-Tahrir, its ideas and work.

When the TV programme introduced the show it read out a statement made by the ruling military council about Hizb-ut-Tahrir but they failed to read the response of the Hizb to this military statement which made clear that the Hizb is an international party that is working to unify the Muslim lands in the Islamic Khilafah state. However Al-Ibraashi (the host) neglected to mention this for some reason or another!

The guest Dr Abdur Raheem Ali used his turn to try and undermine the idea of Khilafah by stating that it is not Fard without presenting any Sharee'ah evidence to support his claim. Whereas the role of Dr Abdullah Bin Umar Abdur Rahman (May Allah free his father from the prisons of America, the land which leads the world in its war against the return of the Khilafah) was to focus on trying to give a false and misleading image of the Hizb by putting forward a number of fabrications and lies against the Hizb which he had extracted from a number of books which had been specifically written about the Hizb in the times of the past. The researcher carried these fabrications forward without scrutinizing their correctness and without evidence to support the claims. In particular he showed ignorance when he stated that we consider our Sheikh a Mujtahid Mutlaq whilst at the same time we say that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم was not a Mujtahid like our Sheikh. In doing so he made the issue a comparison between the capability of making Ijtihaad which is a strange and quite astonishing matter because how is it possible for him to interpret our statement: "It is not allowed in regards to the Messenger to be a Mujtahid" to mean that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم is not capable of performing Ijtihad whereas our Sheikh does have the capability?!

Dr Ibn Umar Abdur Rahman has confused the matter, whether this was out of ignorance or intentional. This is because Ijtihad allows the possibility of being wrong as well as being right and this is not permitted in relation to the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم who does not speak from his desire and does not say except what is correct. On the other hand it is permissible for our Sheikh and all Mujtahideen to perform Ijtihad and deduce rules which they believe to be correct whilst acknowledging the possibility of an error. He confused this issue making it a discussion comparing the capabilities in relation to the making Ijtihad so that the one listening would think that we have raised the level of our Sheikh higher than that of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم in regards to Ijtihad! How unfortunate this understanding would be.

Despite all of this there is no doubt that the Hizb benefited a great deal from this TV programme which participated in the breaking of the general blanketing that had been imposed upon the Hizb in Egypt previously. As such the news of the arrest of the Hizb member, his referal to the prosecuters office and his release after that was all mentioned within the news series whereas the arrest of 120 from Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2002 did not get nearly as much coverage despite its much greater significance and despite 24 of them being presented to the courts and handed down sentences ranging between one and five years.

Verily Hizb-ut-Tahrir has held on firmly to its idea which it calls for in an unrivalled manner, bearing on its path all kinds of hardship and harrasment from the security apparatus, patient and anticipating the reward not fearing the blame of the blamers for the sake of Allah. It has continued as such until its name has become tied to the Khilafah and the Khilafah has become tied to it and it will remain as such by the permission of Allah until it achieves its goals through the resumption of the Islamic way of life via the establishment of the rightly guided Khilafah which the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم gave glad tidings of its return after the oppressive and tyrannical rule. And this is at the time when we see other Islamic movements making compromises one after the other so that they can reach the seat of ruling, so we ask what compromises will they be willing to make so that they can stay in the position of ruling!?

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

قُلْ هَٰذِهِ سَبِيلِي أَدْعُو إِلَى اللَّهِ ۚ عَلَىٰ بَصِيرَةٍ أَنَا وَمَنِ اتَّبَعَنِي

"And say this is my way I call to Allah upon awareness. Me and those who follow me." [Yousef, 108]

Sharif Zayid
Head of the media office of Hizb-ut-Tahrir – Wilayah of Egypt

The above is a draft translation from Arabic.

Original article: http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/info/index.php/contents/entry_16025

The shari'ah and the rule of law – Islamic governance for the 21st century

2012-01-20T20:14:00.000-08:00

The year 2011 ended with an irreversibly changed Middle East where the hegemony of several dictators collapsed at the hands of their oppressed populations. The Syrian and Yemeni peoples' immense sacrifice and desire for change continue into 2012. There is little doubt that the world will further witness the collapse of other dictatorial regimes in the region.

Whilst the Muslims of the Middle East continue to sacrifice their sweat and blood for liberation from the shackles of dictatorship, the debate about the aftermath continues. In Egypt, for example, although the Ancien Régime remains largely intact, parliamentary elections were conducted at the end of November 2011 and the presidential election is expected to be held in July 2012. Nevertheless, the question of the form and character of the system of governance is far from settled. Although the role of Islam in the state will be inevitable, its extent of influence remains far from clear.

The Anglo-French-American triple alliance has added to the mist of confusion, as they painstakingly attempt to hijack the spirit of the protesters in order to install a new generation of rulers who would ensure the security and furtherance of Western interests in the region.

In such cataclysmic circumstances, the subject of whether Islam can deliver the rule of law under the shari'ah is in the minds of millions of Muslims. After all, nobody wants to return to the repressive days of Mubarak, Ben Ali and Gaddafi. People want an accountable, transparent, fair and just authority.

This article explores how the Islamic shari'ah can realise the hopes and aspirations of the millions of protesters in the Arab spring by ensuring that the rule of law is established. This article surveys the illustrious Islamic history and highlights how Islamic rule guaranteed the rule of law many centuries before the Europeans even dreamt of such standards. It is argued that the rule of law in the Muslim world can only be instituted under Islamic rule.

Definition of the "rule of law"

Prior to launching into defining the rule of law, it is important that certain misconceptions are dispelled. One such fallacy is the argument by many Western politicians that the rule of law is the monopoly of Western secular democracy. [1] For example, Thomas Bingham, the former lord chief justice of the English courts said, "There has been much debate whether the rule of law can exist without democracy. Some have argued that it can". [2] Bingham's assumption is premised on an erroneous notion that good governance can only be the result of democracy.

The West has hitherto paraded democracy as the only system available to mankind but failed to convince the Muslim world that democracy is the panacea for all its ills. As Mark Welton quite aptly recognises, "Democracy... is a high-value term loaded with positive connotations for Americans and Europeans. But the same term, used so indiscriminately by Western politicians, is also widely perceived in the Arab Middle East as a codeword, a "guise for Western efforts to re-conquer Arab territories and plunder their natural resources". [3]

The Islamic legal and historical sources strongly rebut the suggestion that the rule of law is the sole possession of the West. As Welton elucidates, "...the concept embodied in the term "rule of law" is in fact a legal and political value shared by both the West and Islam, and if properly refined, can provide a useful framework for more effective discourse and understanding between these two traditions".

So what do we commonly understand by the principle of the rule of law? Let us look at Bingham's definition. Bingham asserts that under the rule of law "all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts". [4] Islam in principle has no objection to this definition insofar as this definition can manifest within the Islamic legal and political framework. [5]

The rule of law necessitates that law is accessible and clear so that citizens of a state are aware of the boundaries of the law, which they must obey. The rule of law also applies to government and guarantees certain basic rights such as presumption of innocence until proven guilty, not to be arbitrarily detained without due process and right to fair trial in an independent court. All the executive and judicial organs of a state must uphold the rule of law because nobody is above the law. [6]

Brief analysis of the system of governance in Islam

It is well known that the system of governance in Islam is the Khilafah (caliphate). This system is well rooted both in the Islamic shari'ah and the history of Islam. It is a system that is quite unlike the Western democratic paradigm. The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel; whenever a prophet died, another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no more prophet after me. There will soon be khulafah and they will number many. Fulfil the bayah [i.e. pledge of allegiance] to them one after another and give them their dues for Allah will verily account them about what He سبحانه وتعالى entrusted them with". [7]

The Khalifah is the guardian of the people and his task is to ensure that the shari'ah is implemented so that justice prevails. Allah says,

وَإِنْ حَكَمْتَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِالْقِسْطِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ

"And if you judge, judge with justice between them. Verily, Allah loves those who act justly". [8]

Under the Khilafah, there is no separate legislature because the power of legislation lay not in man but in the Creator of man. Allah says,

فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ

"So judge between them by what Allah has revealed..." [9]

Allah also says,

إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ

"The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allah". [10]

Sovereignty belongs to the laws of Allah, the shari'ah, not the people. It is the Khalifah who implements the shari'ah in the lands of Islam. As imam Abu'l Hasan al-Mawardi (died 450 AH) states, "Imamate is prescribed to succeed prophethood as a means of protecting the deen [Islam] and of managing the affairs of this world". [11]

The rule of law is therefore established on the basis of the shari'ah. As Welton states, "The Islamic world, too, has a devotion to the rule of law that has prevailed through much of its history and, while severely impaired in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by Western colonialism and its aftermath, has resurfaced as a desired virtue, fully compatible with Islamic law and tradition". [12]

How the shari'ah guarantees the rule of law

This section of the article seeks to illustrate what role the people, the Khalifah and the judiciary play in establishing the rule of law under shari'ah.

a) The people

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says,

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ۖ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ

"O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger". [13]

Allah has thus obliged Muslims to obey the ruler who rules by the shari'ah.

Moreover, the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "A Muslim is obliged to hear and obey whether he likes it or not, except when he is required to do something that is sinful, in which case, there is no obligation to hear or to obey". [14] Unlike democracies where obedience to the law of the land requires coercion by the state, Muslims historically lived by and obeyed the laws of Islam by and large without the need for coercion. This is because respect for and obedience to the laws of Islam is a matter of doctrinal and creedal obligation upon Muslims, which was the reason behind the success of the Khilafah. Thus, when Allah ordains upon Muslims to obey their rightful ruler, there is no option but to observe this command. This principle is well established in Islam from numerous ayat and ahadith.

b) The Khalifah

It is beyond the scope of this paper to elucidate the process of electing the Khalifah; however, it suffices to say that the majority of the classical scholars of Islam are unified on the view that the Khalifah assumes authority by approval and authority of the people. As imam al-Mawardi asserts, "...it is necessary for the electors to agree to his Imamate and that once agreed, it comes into effect because Imamate is a contractual agreement and it is not brought into being except by the contracting partner". [15] The post-colonial despotic rulers of the Muslim world are therefore an anomaly in the history of Muslims.

The first Khalifah of Islam, Abu Bakr (RA), in his inaugural address said, "O People, I have been appointed over you, though I am not the best among you. If I do well, then help me. And if I act wrongly, then correct me... If I disobey Allah and His Messenger, then I have no right to your obedience".

The second Khalifah of Islam, 'Umar bin al-Khattab (RA) enunciated the attributes required of a Khalifah, "By Allah, O Ibn 'Abbas, only the strong person without violence, the one who is gentle without being weak, the one who is economical but without being miserly, and the one who is generous without being wasteful is worthy of this affair". [16]

The above abundantly illustrate that the Khalifah (and thus his executive subordinates) is required to be mindful of his obligations to the people and the shari'ah. He cannot be above the law but rather is subject to the law like everyone else.

The Khalifah fulfils, amongst the myriad of other obligations, the following as part of his responsibilities. The Khalifah must:

1. guard and protect Islam and its way of life against external influences and ensure that innovations do not creep into the pure message of Islam;

2. establish justice where disputes arise between litigants so that the strong does not oppress the weak;

3. implement the Islamic hadd punishment (i.e. criminal laws) so that the prohibitions of Islam are not violated;

4. possess the appropriate defence capabilities in order to defend the territories of the Islamic state and its citizens against external attacks;

5. manage the fiscal affairs of the state and collect the taxes prescribed by the shari'ah e.g. kharaj, zakah, jizya and ushur etc;

6. manage the funds of the treasury (Bait-ul-Mal), invest in public projects he considers necessary without being wasteful and pay the public sector employees' salaries from the treasury; and

7. assume personal responsibility over the affairs of the people and execute the policies of the ummah without overreliance on delegation of authority.

Provided that the Khalifah conducts himself in accordance with the shari'ah as abovementioned, he would be deemed to have discharged his obligation to Allah and the people.

c) The judges

The Khilafah also has a strong judiciary which implements the laws of Islam, dispenses justice and keeps the executive accountable. Everybody under the shari'ah is equal before the law and judgment is pronounced without fear or favour. Principally, there are three types of judges in Islam: [17]

1. the Qadi settles disputes between people in private law matters and implements the penal codes;

2. the Muhtasib is responsible for dealing with communitywide issues that affect the public and wider society, e.g. unscrupulous traders who harm the wider public; and

3. the Mazaalim is responsible for investigating and settling the disputes between the ruler and the ruled. Essentially, this judge keeps the executive accountable and in checks.

When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was the head of the Islamic state in Medina, he was petitioned to intercede for a noble lady who had committed theft, but the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "The nations before [us] were destroyed because if a noble person committed theft, they used to leave him, but if a weak person amongst them committed theft, they used to inflict the legal punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, committed theft, Muhammad would cut off her hand!" [18]

This hadith illustrates that even if the Prophet's daughter had committed a crime, notwithstanding his position as the head of the Islamic state, he would have implemented the same criminal punishment upon his daughter without favour. Such approach is inimical to the rulers that litter the Muslim world today whereby the rulers, their families and their entourage enjoy unbridled favour and effectively operate above the law. This is a direct result of the absence of the shari'ah in the Muslim world.

There are detailed rules in Islam pertaining to the appointment of judges, the discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper. However, let us again invoke the words of the second Khalifah of Islam, 'Umar bin al-Khattab (RA) when he outlined the attributes a judge requires in an Islamic court. He said, "The task of the judiciary is an undisputed obligation and a sunnah to be followed. Seek to comprehend when people have recourse to you, for it is no use to speak of a right if it is not put into effect. See that your face, your justice and your sitting are the same between people, such that the lord does not hope for your partiality, nor the weak despair of your justice..." [19]

These words of wisdom essentially outline the justice one can expect to see under Islam. The Khalifah or the judiciary have no room to depart from this boundary and will be accounted by the people if any departure from the rule of law is apparent to the citizens. The Umayyad Khalifah 'Umar bin Abdul Aziz (RA) once said "Rulers usually appoint people to watch over their subjects. I appoint you as a watcher over me and my behaviour. If you find me at fault in word or action guide me and stop me from doing it".

The judiciary is principally responsible for accounting state officials, including the Khalifah and his governors, in cases of wrongdoings. [20] The remit of such judges is wide enough to serve the purpose. Imam al-Mawardi maintains that such persons have the authority to investigate abuse of power by rulers against the ruled, and to hold them to account for the injustice they may have inflicted. Such powers may be invoked by the judges irrespective of whether or not the citizens complain against the official concerned. [21]

During the early Umayyad era, there were some incidence of official misconduct whereby the citizens were deprived of the rights they were entitled to. However, these were not tolerable in Islam and thus Khalifah 'Umar bin Abdul Aziz (RA) instituted formal procedures to investigate wrongdoings by officials, to the extent that he returned the goods that were seized by members of his tribe to their rightful owners. In the sight of 'Umar members of his tribe were no different from the citizens of the Islamic state whose rights were violated. As imam al-Mawardi recorded in his treatise, "he would reject all such wrong doing and would maintain respect for just and fair practices or re-establish such practices if necessary". [22] This practice of accounting state officials for abuse of power was carried out, in varying degrees, during the Abbasid era, for example, under al-Mahdi, al-Hadi, ar-Rashid, al-Ma'mun and al-Muhtadi.

The history of Islam contains abundant examples where abuse of power by state officials were investigated and remedied by judges. Such a judge may, amongst other matters, deal with:

1. abuse by tax officials, e.g., if they miscalculate the tax due from individuals and overtax. In such cases, the judge would order the return of the amount due back to the individual who overpaid;

2. allegations of deficiency, delay or negligence towards the payment of salaries of state employees who receive their salaries from the treasury. In such circumstances, the judge concerned would investigate and rectify any errors and ensure that their salaries are paid in a timely manner;

3. the restitution of private property seized unlawfully by state officials, even if he was a governor. The judge is obliged to investigate such allegations of seizure of property and effect restitution after conducting his investigation; and

4. unlawful seizure of property by one powerful individual from another due to his weakness. Upon investigating such complaints, restitution will be effected in accordance with the judge's findings.

The rule of law deficit in the West

The West has over the past few decades lectured countries around the world to institutionalise democracy, the rule of law, justice and equality. However, the USA and the UK have been exposed in recent years for not practising what they preach. For example, both the USA and the UK have been systematically involved in practices such as "extraordinary rendition", torture of terror suspects, indefinite detention without charge, unjust treatment of foreign nationals and intrusive spying on Muslims. As one American academic commented,

"Virtually every significant government security initiative implicating civil liberties – including penalizing speech, ethnic profiling, guilt by association, the use of administrative measures to avoid the safeguards of the criminal process, and preventive detention – has originated in a measure targeted at noncitizens". [23]

Yet, this deficit of the rule of law is not just limited to the above. In June 2007, it emerged that Tony Blair had pulled the plug off a major fraud investigation by the Serious Fraud Office against the British arms manufacturer BAE Systems. It was reported that BAE secretly paid £1 billion to Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia as "secret commission", thus effectively bribing the Saudis to place the largest defence contract worth £43 billion, known as the al-Yamamah deal. [24] It was allegedly in Britain's "national interest" to terminate this SFO investigation, thus sacrificing the rule of law under the pretext of Britain's oft-quoted "national interest".

Similarly, on the eve of Bill Clinton's departure from office, he pardoned 140 convicted criminals/fugitives. Those pardoned included US billionaire Marc Rich, who was at living abroad to avoid prosecution by US authorities. It was alleged that Marc Rich made handsome donations to the Democrats to secure the pardon. [25] This "cash for pardon deal" scandal raised many doubts over America's hollow claims that the US upholds rule of law. Needless to say, examples of abuse of power are quite common in the 21st century Wild West.

Conclusion

The above discourse evidently illustrates that the shari'ah has put in place all the ingredients necessary for establishing the rule of law, which is much needed in today's turbulent Muslim world. History is testament to the fact that Islam had established an enviable civilisation under its rule. There is no reason why this cannot return. On the other hand, the tired and baseless suggestion that only democracy is the way forward for Muslims is hardly foolproof. Western politicians must wake up to the slogan in Tahrir Square, ash-shab yurid isqat an-nizam (the people want to bring down the regime).

Wakil Abu Mujahid

References

[1] Lord Goldsmith QC, "Government and the Rule of Law in the Modern Age", lecture given on 22 February 2006 (former British Attorney-General)
[2] Thomas Bingham, the Sixth Sir David Williams Lecture (lecture given in 2006), p-35
[3] Mark David Welton, Islam, the West, and the Rule of Law, 19 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 169 (2007), p-172
[4] Bingham, p-5
[5] By deploying a common definition in this discourse vis-à-vis the rule of law, this paper is not intended to be an appeasement to the critics of Islam. To the contrary, Muslims advocating the shari'ah believe that Islam is inherently superior to any man-made systems because Islam originated from the Creator and not from the minds of weak men.
[6] This article excludes any discussion of a legislature because such a body is incompatible with the Islamic political and legal philosophy.
[7] Imam al-Nawawi, Riyad us Salihin (National Hijra Council, 1992), hadith no-657
[8] Qur'an: 5-42
[9] Qur'an: 5-48
[10] Qur'an: 12-40
[11] Abu'l Hasan al Mawardi, Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah (Ta-Ha Publications, London, 2005 reprint), p-10
[12] Welton, p-173
[13] Qur'an: 4-59
[14] Imam al-Nawawi, hadith no-664 (reported in Bukhari and Muslim)
[15] al-Mawardi, p-15-16
[16] ibid, p-21-22
[17] Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, the Ruling System in Islam (Nidham ul Hukm fil Islam) (Khilafah Publications, London), p-205
[18] Narrated in Bukhari and Muslim
[19] al-Mawardi, p-108
[20] This is comparable to the public law remedies that Western citizens often invoke against public authorities.
[21] al-Mawardi, p-121
[22] ibid, p-118
[23] Bingham, p-15
[24] The Guardian, 7 Jun 2007
[25] BBC News, 22 Feb 2001

Yousaf Gilani in Court: Unlike democracy there is no immunity from prosecution in the Caliphate

2012-01-20T18:50:00.000-08:00

Pakistan’s supreme court called Prime Minister Yousaf Gilani before it on contempt of court proceedings after the government persistently ignored court orders to write to Swiss authorities and ask for a dormant money laundering case to be reopened against President Asif Ali Zardari.

In response Gilani told the court, "He (Zardari) has complete immunity inside and outside the country...In the constitution, there is complete immunity for the president. There is no doubt about it."

A feature of the democratic Republican system is the concept of immunity from prosecution where the head of state is effectively above the law. This is not unique to Pakistan where Zardari a well-known criminal nicknamed Mr 10% can escape justice while he is President, but exists in other democracies notably Italy where Berlusconi enjoyed immunity for years.

Islam firmly believes in the rule of law which is the sharia. No one in the Caliphate including the Caliph is above the law or has immunity from prosecution. Unlike man-made law sharia cannot be manipulated and changed to suit the personal interests of the Caliph or his entourage or for benefit and harm.

The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم firmly established this principle of rule of law in the following hadith.

Narrated ‘Aisha: The people of Quraish worried about the lady from Bani Makhzum who had committed theft. They asked, “Who will intercede for her with Allah's Messenger?”

Some said, “No one dare to do so except Usama bin Zaid the beloved one to Allah's Messenger.”

When Usama spoke about that to Allah’s Messenger he said: “Do you try to intercede for somebody in a case connected with Allah’s Prescribed Punishments?”

Then he got up and delivered a sermon saying, “What destroyed the nations preceding you, was that if a noble amongst them stole, they would forgive him, and if a poor person amongst them stole, they would inflict Allah's Legal punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad stole, I would cut off her hand.” [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 681]

If Fatima رضي الله عنها the daughter of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and leader of the women in jannah is not above the law, then how can Zardari the criminal have immunity?

Source

We cannot compromise Islam to protect the tourist industry

2012-01-18T17:34:00.000-08:00

With 'Islamic' parties taking power in Egypt and Tunisia concerns have been raised over the future of the tourist industry which brings in billions of dollars in revenue each year. Western tourists, for example flock to the sandy beaches of Sharm al-Sheikh where alcohol and free mixing between men and bikini clad women takes place.

Saad al-Husseini, a member of Egypt's Freedom and Justice Party executive bureau said in a recent interview, that Tourism is very important for Egypt and stressed that drinking and selling alcohol are forbidden in Islam. However, he then added, "Yet Islamic laws also prohibit spying on private places and this applies to beaches as well...I wish 50 million tourists would travel to Egypt even if they come nude."

There are two points to consider when addressing the Islamic viewpoint towards tourism.

Firstly, as Muslims we must submit to all the laws of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. The sharia has not remained silent on ruling and economy. It contains detailed rules on what government revenues are permitted in an Islamic State including the imposing of temporary taxes if there was a budget shortfall. We must not try and circumvent these rules to achieve some material benefit. Our position is “we hear and we obey” not “we hear and we disobey”.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

لَا تَرْتَكِبوُا مَا ارْتَكَبَتِ الْيَهُودُ فَتَسْتَحِلُّوا مَحَارِمَ اللهِ بِأَدْنَى الْحِيَل

“Do not repeat what the yahud committed, and violate Allah's prohibitions using deceitful tricks.” [Tafsir ibn Kathir]

The Qur’an contains many stories of the previous generations that we may take a lesson and reminder from. One such story is the fisherman of Bani Israel who circumvented the ruling on the Sabbath for material benefit and suffered a severe punishment.

وَاسْأَلْهُمْ عَنِ الْقَرْيَةِ الَّتِي كَانَتْ حَاضِرَةَ الْبَحْرِ إِذْ يَعْدُونَ فِي السَّبْتِ إِذْ تَأْتِيهِمْ حِيتَانُهُمْ يَوْمَ سَبْتِهِمْ شُرَّعًا وَيَوْمَ لَا يَسْبِتُونَ ۙ لَا تَأْتِيهِمْ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ نَبْلُوهُمْ بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْسُقُونَ

وَإِذْ قَالَتْ أُمَّةٌ مِنْهُمْ لِمَ تَعِظُونَ قَوْمًا ۙ اللَّهُ مُهْلِكُهُمْ أَوْ مُعَذِّبُهُمْ عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا ۖ قَالُوا مَعْذِرَةً إِلَىٰ رَبِّكُمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ

فَلَمَّا نَسُوا مَا ذُكِّرُوا بِهِ أَنْجَيْنَا الَّذِينَ يَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ السُّوءِ وَأَخَذْنَا الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا بِعَذَابٍ بَئِيسٍ بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْسُقُونَ

فَلَمَّا عَتَوْا عَنْ مَا نُهُوا عَنْهُ قُلْنَا لَهُمْ كُونُوا قِرَدَةً خَاسِئِينَ

Ask them about the town which was by the sea when they broke the Sabbath – when their fish came to them near the surface on their Sabbath day but did not come on the days which were not their Sabbath. In this way We put them to the test because they were deviators. When a group of them said, ‘Why do you rebuke a people whom Allah is going to destroy or severely punish?’ they said, ‘So that we have an excuse to present to your Lord, and so that hopefully they will gain taqwa.’ Then when they forgot what they had been reminded of, We rescued those who had forbidden the evil and seized those who did wrong with a harsh punishment because they were deviators. When they were insolent about what they had been forbidden to do, We said to them, ‘Be apes, despised, cast out!’ [Al-Araaf, 7:163-166]

Secondly, we do not change Islam to fit the reality, rather we change the reality to fit Islam. The economies of Egypt, Tunisia and most Muslim countries are suffering under decades of mismanagement, and corruption with policies aimed at benefiting western colonialists. The tourist industry and the resulting munkar it brings is just one aspect of an interest-based economy, with severe poverty and no manufacturing base. When faced with such a reality Islam obliges us to radically transform such an economy to an Islamic economy which will bring prosperity for the entire Muslim Ummah and not simply the corrupt rulers and their western backers.

Will there be tourism in the Khilafah?

Tourists visiting the Khilafah is permitted but is controlled by the sharia rules related to foreign policy.

Article 183 of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s draft constitution states:

“Conveying the Islamic da’wah is the core around which the foreign policy revolves, and upon which relations between the State and other states are built.”

Tourism would be in line with this objective where people entering the Khilafah would see the practical implementation of Islam, and this is a dawah for them.

The citizens of other nations who wish to enter the state fall under various categories as outlined in Article 184 of the draft constitution.

Article 184

The state's relations with other states are built upon four considerations. These are:

1. States in the current Islamic world are considered to belong to one state and, therefore, they are not included within the sphere of foreign affairs. Relations with these countries are not considered to be in the realm of foreign policy and every effort should be expended to unify all these countries into one state.

2. States who have economic, commercial, friendly or cultural treaties with our State are to be treated according to the terms of the treaties. If the treaty states so, their subjects have the right to enter the State with an identity card without the need for a passport provided our subjects are treated in a like manner. The economic and commercial relations with such states must be restricted to specific items and specific characters which are deemed necessary and which, at the same time, do not lead to the strengthening of these states.

3. States with whom we do not have treaties, the actual imperialist states, like Britain, America and France and those states that have designs on the State, like Russia are considered to be potentially belligerent states. All precautions must be taken towards them and it would be wrong to establish diplomatic relations with them. Their subjects may enter the Islamic State only with a passport and a visa specific to every individual and for every visit, unless it became a real belligerent country

4. With states that are actually belligerent states, like Israel, a state of war must be taken as the basis for all dispositions with them. They must be dealt with as if a real war existed between us - whether an armistice exists or not - and all their subjects are prevented from entering the State.

Non-Muslims legitimately entering the Islamic State are called Mu’ahid (covenanted person) who are protected by the state and no harm can be done to them.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "The one who kills a covenanted person during the period of his covenant he will not smell the fragrance of jannah, though its fragrance can be smelled from a distance of five hundred years march." [Reported by Ibn Hibbaan in his Sahih]

Muslims travelling outside the Khilafah will also be subjected to the sharia rules related to foreign policy. Although their journey maybe for a variety of reasons, primarily they are dawah carriers who are ambassadors for Islam wherever they travel. Historically, Muslim traders travelled throughout the world and many people accepted Islam from them.

Unlike non-Muslims the objective in life for Muslims is to worship Allah سبحانه وتعالى which means sacrificing many material pleasures for the ultimate, everlasting pleasure in jannah. Therefore, Muslims in the Khilafah who want to travel and see the world will do so by joining the armed forces and opening new lands to Islam, rather than spending two weeks by the pool in a 5 star hotel.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “The siyaahah (tourism) of my ummah is jihad for the sake of Allah.” [Abu Dawood]

Source

Taqleed is not the basis

2012-01-18T16:07:00.000-08:00

The following is a draft translation of a section of the book ‘Teyseer al wusool Ila al-Usul’ (To make understanding Usul easy) by Sheikh Ata ibn Khalil Abu al-Rishta (May Allah protect him). Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings.

Islam has forbidden us from following any path other than the path of ‘Ilm (knowledge): ‘And follow not that of which you have no knowledge. Verily! The hearing, and the sight, and the heart, of each of those you will be questioned (by Allah).’ [17:36]

From this it becomes clear that the basis in every matter of the Sharee’ah, whether we are ordered to do something or forbidden from a matter, is that we should arrive at knowledge of its hukm through one of the paths of knowledge. If the mukallaf (legally responsible) is unable to do that, then he is obliged to study the matter to arrive at a preponderant view in an issue.

Taqleed does not bring us to any definite knowledge or preponderant view; and that is why many scholars did not allow it, except for the weak and compelled. He is the layman who does not have the tools of ijtihaad. This is what they obliged and permitted him to ask for a fatwa and imitate that.
As for the rest, the basis is they should exert the effort to deduce the Hukm, this is better to do, though it is allowed for them to make taqleed as we have clarified previously.

Those who do not have the ability for ijtihaad are of two types:

1. The follower (muttabi’). He is the one who has knowledge of the some of the recognized disciplines in the Sharee’ah but it is not enough for him to make ijtihaad. That is why it is allowed for him to make taqleed, but with knowledge of the daleel used by the Mujtahid he follows.

2. The layman who does not have even some of the recognized disciplines in legislation, for him the fatwah of an Imam is sufficient. He can ask him for hukm and get an answer as to either it is halal or haram…

The question which arises is: If the Muqallid makes taqleed in a specific matter; is it allowed for him to make taqleed to someone else in the same matter?

The answer is that the Hukm of the Sharee’ah in respect to the muqallid is the hukm shar’i that has been deduced by the mujtahid he is making taqleed to. This means the issue is as follows:

1. When the action of the muqallid is linked to the issue (mas’alah) he has imitated, then it is not allowed for him to follow another rule, because he has bound himself to a Sharee’ah rule and acted upon it.

2- If, however, his action is not linked to that issue, then he can follow someone else.

Definition of mas`alah (issue): what is meant by mas`alah is every action or actions, which have no more other (actions) that depend for their correctness on it (mas’alah).

As for a part of the issue, it is any action, which is necessary for the correctness of the issue, such as the shuroot (conditions) and arkaan (pillars).

Examples:

Wudu: It is actions, upon which the correctness of other than it depends. . This is because the correctness of Salah depends on wudu; and therefore wudu is not a mas`alah according to the definition, but considered a part of the salah, for it is necessary to insure the salah is correct.

Salah: It is actions upon which other things do not depend. Thus, it is a mas`alah. Anything that is necessary for the correctness of the salah is considered part of the salah, such as the pillars (arkan) and the conditions (shurut) of siHHat (correctness), like purity (tahaarah) and facing the Qiblah.

The niyyah (intention) of fasting: It is an action on which the correctness of something else depends. The correctness of the fast depends on the intention. That is why the intention (niyyah) is not a mas`alah but part of another mas`alah.

The fast (al-sawm): It is an action on which nothing else depends for its correctness. It is a mas`alah. Anything that is necessary for its correctness is considered a part of it, such as the intention (niyyah) and abstinence from food. So, if a person followed a mujtahid in salah, then he should follow all of its parts, such as wudu (ablution), bath from major impurity, Tayammum (dry ablution), facing the Qiblah and the arkaan of the Salah. If he has followed a mujtahid in fasting, then he must make taqleed in all its parts, such as the intention (niyyah) and the obligation of making it fort every day or for the whole month, is it correct to make the niyyah during the day or should it be made during the night, muftiraat (what breaks the fast) and the dispensations for breaking the fast (rukhsas). However, it is allowed to follow a mujtahid in another matter.

All of this applies as long as the person is a muqallid (a follower); but if he acquires the ability to judge the evidences and to outweigh them, in this case, it is allowed for him to leave the mujtahid he made taqleed to and follow the stronger daleel.

Arabic Source

Q&A: Imran Khan's dramatic rise in popularity

2012-01-17T17:46:00.000-08:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Q&A: Imran Khan's dramatic rise in popularity

Question:

Recently, Imran Khan held one of the largest political rallies in Karachi, following a large rally that he held in Lahore. He has called for early elections and many people are now speculating that he will be the next leader of the country. He has also started to make statements about the Khilafah system. In the light of this, please can you elaborate, whether there is a foreign hand behind Imran Khan's dramatic rise in popularity and why is he supporting the concept of the Khilafah state.

To answer this question it is important to consider the following points:

1. It is well known that the real political power brokers in Pakistani politics are not the politicians, but the army. The Chief of Army Staff (COAS) works in collaboration with America to rig elections, establish and dismiss civilian governments and also to decide the fate of any politician wishing to assume civilian leadership of the country. On the latter point, it was Musharraf, in collusion with America that brokered a deal with Benazir's British handlers and allowed her to return in May 2007, after a period in exile, to contest Pakistan's general elections in 2008. However, she overstepped her mark and was assassinated by the military establishment acting under American auspices.

In the last decade, Musharraf discharged the role of a power broker very well for America. He was eventually removed from power, as America struggled to contain the intense opposition against his rule. Now the responsibility to manage Pakistan's political system resides with Kayani and his entourage (which includes the ISI Chief, Ahmad Shuja Pasha, amongst other advisors). Imran Khan fully acknowledges this point. On the 14th of November 2011, the Pakistani English newspaper, The Daily Times, reported that Imran Khan said, "The ISI is calling the shots...The government lacks the moral courage, which has been giving the space to ISI to assert its powers in various affairs of the country." Hence, Imran Khan is aware that for him to possess any chance of assuming leadership of the country, he must work with the army, behind the scenes to forge a deal, that is acceptable to America.

2. The present government of Pakistan consists of the Pakistan's Peoples Party (PPP) and her coalition allies. The PPP under the leadership of Asif Ali Zardari is a government dedicated to serving American interests in Pakistan and in the wider region. Zardari was brought under US influence by Khalilzad, who provided Zardari with regular political advice, and he was eventually made President in 2008.

3. Zardari understands the power of the army in controlling the country and he is aware of the strong relationship of Kayani and his entourage with America. He tries his best to provide services to America to reassure them, to avoid his removal by the army. Therefore he is doing his best to be closer to the United States in order that they support him. Therefore, both men vie with each other to please America. Previously, the two roles were performed by Musharraf which provided America with a degree of stability in shaping and executing policy.

4. Zardari is a weak personality often relying on his wife's political personality to gain credibility and confidence amongst his peers and the Pakistani people. Even to this day, Zardari is unable to exert his presidential leadership and credentials. He spends most of his time in his fortified presidential palace, unable or unwilling to venture out and build rapport with the people. His slow response to the Pakistani flood crisis in August 2010, in contrast to Kayani's quick action to help those beleaguered, further weakened him and his government. Additionally, the revelations by Wikileaks about Zardari government's support for America's war against Islam, and the debacle of the Raymond Davis affair has caused his popularity to plummet to an all-time low, and rendered his government powerless.

5. The Zardari-led PPP government is totally discredited in the eyes of the people of Pakistan. The government is both inept and corrupt to the core. Hence, with the general elections approaching in 2013, America is looking to establish a new political setup that can provide legitimacy to any new government to continue with the pro-American policies and also provide cushion against the anti-Americanism that widely pervades Pakistani life. Nearly, all of the existing politicians have been tarnished for being too weak in their opposition to America's domination of Pakistani politics. This means that America is looking for someone who has a strong personality, yet is overtly anti-American to work with her and the Pakistani military to forge a new civilian government.

6. It must be remembered that Imran Khan's party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) is not really a political party in the sense that it has strong roots in the society. Moreover, it does not possess any heavy weight political personalities of any repute, and is regarded as a one man show. Since 1996, the PTI has only one seat in the Pakistani parliament and that is occupied by Imran Khan. This means that Imran Khan will have to reach out to other politicians and ask them to join him to strengthen PTI, and thereby give the party a strong chance of performing well in the elections. Already several notable politicians and technocrats from the Musharraf era, as well as infamous politicians from PPP and PML-N have joined PTI. About 30 politicians from PML-Q (Musharraf's former party) including Awais Leghari, Jamal Leghari, Ghulam Sarwar Khan and Sikandar Hayyat Khan Bosan have joined PTI. The English daily "The News" has produced a report stating: "Names of the establishment's Q-Leaguers who joined the PTI in last few months have already been published in national press show that more than 90 percent of the new entrants in Lahore, Chakwal and all other major cities of Punjab are known Musharraf's men, having close and continuous connections with the establishment. Among those who have joined or are joining the PTI and who have been close to the establishment include, General (r) Anis Bajwa, who was number 2 in the ISI under General Ehsan. General (r) Shahid Aziz, former army general who was a diehard Musharraf loyalist. General (r) Javed Hassan who was also considered close to the establishment and was and has a 'Kargil fame'. Masood Sharif is ex-IB chief and is considered close to the establishment. Former Police Inspector General Iftikhar Rashid is also known for these links. Brig Ejaz Minhas has recently retired from the ISI, and he is secretary election cell of PTI, Punjab." Former foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, has been made Vice-chairman of PTI. Makhdoom Javed Hashmi, the PML-N, stalwart joined PTI. "Makhdoom sahib's new alignment is a huge development and definitely boosts our party's political weight," remarked PTI's Central Spokesman Zahid Hussain Kazmi while talking to The News from Germany. The inclusion of such people is a clear indication that the economic and foreign policy will remain unchanged.

7. Thus, exaggerating Imran Khan's stature has been performed by America's men and the military. It is against this background that Imran Khan is being extended all forms of support by the military establishment. The rallies in Karachi and Lahore, and the domestic and international media exposure are just some of the tools being used to promote Imran Khan. America and the Pakistani military establishment will continue to work with Imran, as long as he does not oppose their interests.

8. Regarding Imran Khan's statements about the Khilafah, they are statements that do not go beyond the tip of the tongue, which agree with the military and the regime, to the prevalent public opinion amongst the Pakistani people, without any real implementation, or serious work for Khilafah. Therefore the state did not interfere by preventing such gatherings or arrest Imran Khan because of that statement. Whereas if there is any statement by Hizb ut-Tahrir about Khilafah in a gathering, even if it did not exceed tens of people, the state powers, its security and intelligence, mobilize to prevent it and persecute the shebaab to the extent of kidnapping. Imran Khan is not alone in supporting the Khilafah. Other important public personalities also support the idea such as Senator Mushahid Ullah, and Oriya Maqbool Jan. Recently, former Minister Shaikh Rashid said, "Islam is spreading rapidly and the Muslim ummah is now seriously considering adopting the Khilafat system." All of this indicates that the concept of Khilafah is now wide spread amongst the masses and the Pakistani political medium has no choice but to reflect these sentiments, in order not to become isolated from the people.

9. In conclusion, the Khilafah system is a complete way of life that is revealed by Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. It is not empty words. Rather it is a system that should be put into actual implementation in the government, economy, education, social system, domestic and foreign policy and in all the affairs of life. That there is no law except that from the book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger and what leads to them. It is a rule for implementation, not rhetorical statements.

The Muslims in Pakistan must acquire a degree of awareness to differentiate the good from the bad, the wheat from the chaff. The system of Khilafah system is not an unknown system that Imran and others can manipulate by the use of words! Allah (SWT) warns us about such people,

وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يُعْجِبُكَ قَوْلُهُ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَيُشْهِدُ اللَّهَ عَلَى مَا فِي قَلْبِهِ وَهُوَ أَلَدُّ الْخِصَامِ * وَإِذَا تَوَلَّى سَعَى فِي الْأَرْضِ لِيُفْسِدَ فِيهَا وَيُهْلِكَ الْحَرْثَ وَالنَّسْلَ وَاللَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْفَسَادَ

"There is the type of man whose speech about this world's life may dazzle you, and he calls Allah to witness about what is in his heart; yet he is the most contentious of enemies." [al-Baqara, 2:204]

The Khilafah system is known, and the honest workers of the Khilafah are also known, as are the pro-American hypocrites. Their predecessors have tried this hypocrisy and deception before and they failed.

6 Safar 1433 H

31/12/2011

An open letter to Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi

2012-01-06T10:20:00.000-08:00

Idries de Vries

Sheikh Yusuf,

Your appearance at Tahrir Square on the 18^th of February 2011 during the height of what has been named the “Arab Spring”, and the warm reception given to you at the time by the hundreds of thousands who had gathered there confirmed your status as one of the most influential contemporary scholars of Islam.

For the sharp observer, it also made clear that this “Arab Spring” has always been about more than just removal of tyrannical rulers. As an Islamic scholar, by name, for decades, you have been calling for a system change in Egypt – not just for the removal of a tyrant or change in regime. Therefore, the fact that the protest movement welcomed you to lead them in Jumu’ah Prayer signaled that they too stood for a system change.

As a consequence, ever since this day, your opinions on the issue of government and governance have been given more attention than probably ever before. The Muslim mind is not yet clear about what is to replace the oppressive and exploitative systems of Ben Ali, Mubarak, Abdullah Saleh, Ghaddafi, and the one soon to follow, Bashar Al Asad. So, the Muslim world is asking you for your thoughts on this matter and is studying them. But, the West is also eagerly listening to you. It is fearful as to what the Muslims will end up choosing and recognizes the strength of your voice amongst the Muslim masses.

I am amongst those who listen closely to what you have to say on this matter, Sheikh Yusuf. And I thank Allah (subhane wa ta’ala) that you are trying to take this unique opportunity for real change in the Muslim World, and are working hard to explain in more detail your thoughts on the issue of government and governance. For, in a recent Q&A on the issue of the difference between Shura and Democracy[i], you have gone beyond your usual rhetoric of explaining why, according to you, Islam and democracy are not in conflict. In it, you explain what it is you want to use democracy for, or in other words, what you want to achieve by it:

Democracy itself also can make whatever it wants as lawful, or prohibit anything it does not like. In comparison, the Shari’ah as a political system has limits. If we are to adopt democracy, we should adopt its best features.

…

As a Muslim society we should adopt it in an Islamic context of a society that seeks to live with its Shari’ah laws. Our society should abide by what has been made lawful by Allah and also what has been made unlawful by Him.

…

What I am for is a genuine type of democracy, for a society driven by the laws of Shari’ah that is compatible with the values of freedom, human rights, justice, and equity.

…

Our democracy is different. It is well connected to the laws of Shari’ah. Yes we adopt some of the principles of democracy, but it is incumbent upon us also to uphold our principles. We have pillars of our Shari’ah that we have to abide by. We want the people to be consulted and participate actively in politics as well as in the process of decision-making.

…

To conclude, Islam is not anti-democracy. What we want is a free society that lives within the rules and laws of the Shari’ah which is very compatible with the values of democracy, freedom, human rights, justice, development, and prosperity.

Your case, clearly, is a call for democracy. At the same time, in conformity with the fundamental teaching of Islam that the law must come from Allah (subhane wa ta’ala), “Indeed, the command is only for Allah”[ii] and “and He does not share His [authority to] command with anyone”[iii], you also call for the implementation of Shari’ah in the Muslim world. The democracy you envision, therefore, is of a special form which does not exist in today’s world. It is a democracy limited by Shari’ah, which means this democracy will not legislate.

This position of yours brought many questions to my mind.

As is well known, the political system that is known as democracy is one of the fruits of the Enlightenment Era. When the European masses decided to replace theocracy with secularism, a need arose for a system to manage and organize the act of legislation. During theocracy, with authorization from the Church, the King had been the sole legislator. Secularism took away from the Church the authority to appoint and approve a legislator, hence, power from the King. So, the question became, “Who would now legislate and how?” Democracy was the answer. The people would henceforth legislate amongst themselves, either directly through referenda or indirectly through elected representatives. Your proposal of a democracy limited by Shari’ah therefore removes from democracy its main task, its raison d’être, so to speak. And that left me wondering why you continue to use the word democracy when explaining your thoughts. One could argue, namely, that this is misleading. Because what you are calling for, a democracy limited by Shari’ah, has nothing to do with the political system known as democracy.

In fact, all that is left of a democracy without the authority to legislate is a method to appoint (a) ruler(s). So, this is the real meaning of your call for democracy limited by Shari’ah. But, given the recent political event in the West, the home of democracy, do we really want to make democracy our process to appoint (a) ruler(s)? The political event in the West I am of course referring to is the rise of the Occupy Movement or the 99% Movement. The main case of this movement, which has turned into a global phenomenon with a mass support base, is that consecutive democratically elected rulers have in their legislation favoured a tiny elite[iv]. In other words, in the countries that were the first to utilize the political system of democracy and by now have hundreds of years of experience with it, there is today a mass movement that complains about this political system! It complains that democracy has not been able to get into office people who consider the well being of the entire or at least the majority of the population! So, it is quite strange that at this time, you are calling the Muslims to adopt democracy to elect (a) ruler(s).

Thirdly, I do not understand how you can acknowledge Islam has its own legislation, but fail to mention that Islam also has its own process for appointment of a ruler. When the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) died, did not the leaders of the Ummah at that time gather to elect a ruler? When Khalifah Abu Bakr (radiAllaah anhu) was close to death, did he not advise the Muslims to elect ‘Umar (radiAllaah anhu) as his successor, to which the Muslims agreed and effectuated? And when Khalifah ‘Umar (radiAllaah anhu) was close to death, did he not appoint a committee to elect a new Khalifah after him (eventual head of which ‘Abdurrahman bin ‘Auf (radiAllaah anhu consulted with the leaders of the Muslim tribes) before the final decision to elect ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan (radiAllaah anhu) as next Khalifah? And after him, did the Muslims of Madinah al Munawwarah, the capital of the Islamic State at the time, not gather to elect a new Khalifah, choosing ‘Ali bin Abu Talib (radiAllaah anhu)? So, if you are looking for a process to elect (a) ruler(s) to accompany the legislation extracted from Islam—the Shari’ah—why then not also extract from Islam the process to elect (a) ruler(s)? If you are convinced of the correctness and appropriateness of Islam’s legislation to the point that you do not want democracy to legislate, meaning you do not want the human mind to decide on matters of legislation, why then do you prefer a foreign process for the election of (a) ruler(s) over the Islamic process? Is this not contradictory?

My last question, Sheikh, is why—at this stage—are we even discussing the issue of electing a ruler? This question might sound strange to you, so please allow me to explain myself. Since the rule with Shari’ah was abolished, the entire Muslim world has done nothing but degenerate in all aspects—be it the political aspect where the Muslim world was forced to degenerate into tyranny, the economic aspect where the Muslim world was forced to degenerate into poverty, or the social aspect where the Muslim world is being forced to degenerate into lewdness. You and I know the fundamental reason for this, as do the Muslim masses today. It is the control over our affairs by the western imperialist nations such as Britain, France, and especially the United States. They wanted exploitation of the Muslims which first required control over the Muslims—removing Islam from the lives of the Muslims. So, instead of Islam, they gave us every system that the human mind has ever been able to think of, from free-market capitalism to social democratic capitalism to socialism on the road to communism, all with larger or smaller degrees of nationalism implanted within. This has brought us to the state we are in today, and we can do nothing but thank Allah (subhane wa ta’ala) for the reaction of the Muslim Ummah to this state of affairs, their rebellion against this state of affairs, and their sacrifice of blood and wealth to change this state of affairs. You and I also agree, as do the Muslim masses of today, that only the Shari’ah of Allah (subhane wa ta’ala) can really change this state of affairs. (And those that even today do not acknowledge this, despite the decades of failure of the systems of human invention, will probably never realize this.) Given this, I sincerely doubt the Muslim masses would object to any ruler as long as he applies Shari’ah! Because, the benefit in ruling with Islam will far outweigh any shortcomings the ruler might be considered to have.

For all these reasons, Sheikh Yusuf, I suggest that for now we leave the debate about democracy – in whatever form – out of the Muslim world. Because, the most pressing issue at the moment, and upon this all Muslims agree, is that Shari’ah be implemented as soon as possible. This is what will give us the correct rights, freedoms, and duties through which we can quickly solve the most important problems the Muslims are facing in their lives today, such as the biting poverty, a main motivator for the uprising. This is a matter of such prime importance to us today that the question of who is good enough to lead should not concern us, as this would only distract from our foremost goal. Once we have re-established the ruling with Islam, then, when the mouths are fed and the oppressed have been liberated and the worship in the Muslim world is only for Allah, then we will have ample time to discuss the process to elect the second Khalifa of the second Islamic State (the first Islamic State being the one established by the Prophet (saw) himself).

Idries de Vries is an economist who writes on economics and geopolitics for various publications. As a management professional he has lived and worked in Europe, America and Asia.

[i] www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/shariah-based-systems/imamate-and-political-systems/174305-shura-and-democracy.html?Political_Systems

[ii] See the translation of the meanings of the Quran, Sura Yusuf 12, verse 40

[iii] See the translation of the meanings of the Quran, Sura Al Kahf 18, verse 26

[iv] www.newcivilisation.com/home/international-affairs/anti-capitalism-rattles-the-world-making-sense-of-the-occupy-movement

Source

The Memory of Caliph 'Umar bin Abdul-Aziz by his Wife

2012-01-05T18:29:00.000-08:00

By Imam Abu Yusuf (d. 182 AH / 798 AD)

When 'Umar ibn Abd al Aziz died, the learned men came to his wife to express sympathy and say how great a calamity had struck the people of Islam by his death. And they said to her, 'Tell us about him - for the one who knows best about a man is his wife'.

And she said: "Indeed he never used to pray or fast more than the rest of you, but I never saw a servant of God who feared Him more than 'Umar. He devoted his body and his soul to the people. All day he would sit tending to their affairs, and when night came he would sit up while business remained. One evening when he had finished everything, he called for his lamp - from which he used to buy the oil from his own money - and prayed two prostrations. Then he sat back on his folded legs, with his chin in his hands, and the tears ran down from his cheeks, and this didn't stop until dawn, when he rose for a day of fasting.

I said to him, 'Commander of the Believers, was there some matter that troubled you this night?' And he said, 'Yes, I saw how I was occupied while governing the affairs of the community, all its black sheep and its white sheep, and I remembered the stranger, beggared and straying, and the poor and the needy, and the prisoners in captivity, and all like them in the far places of the earth, and I realised that God most high would ask me about all of them, and Muhammad would testify about them, and I feared that I should find no excuse when I was with God, and no defence with Muhammad.'

And even when 'Umar was with me in bed, where a man usually find some pleasure with his wife, if he remembered some affair of God's (people), he would be upset as a bird that had fallen into the water. Then his weeping would rise until I would throw off the blankets in kindness to him. 'By God' he would say, 'How I wish that there was between me and this office the distance of the East from the West!'

Source

Audio: Signs of Victory

2012-01-04T18:16:00.000-08:00

Video: The fall of the Firawns

2012-01-02T12:10:00.000-08:00

Intellectual Revival: Solutions to Post Colonialism

2012-01-02T10:49:00.000-08:00

The Post-colonial era saw the Muslim World being introduced to governance structures and ideas which were born and developed in Western Europeand introduced to the Muslim world as a legacy of the colonial rulers. Decades since colonialists ended their physical occupation of Muslim Lands, the Muslim World finds itself engaged in the fundamental debate about governance models and structures and the political, economic, and social ideas on which these structures should be built. To the frustration of many, the debate seems to linger on endlessly and an intellectual stalemate seems to have dominated it for decades. Hence, the intellectual progression in the Muslim World has been held hostage to this stalemate, leaving the Muslim World in a state of confusion and uncertainty due to lack of clear vision and direction. This in turn has lead to the economic, political, and social stagnation and instability in the Muslim World.

At one end of the debate is a small group of liberal elite – consisting of members who are impressed by the West’s extra-ordinary material progress. They have attributed Western progress to the evolution in Western political, social, and economic thought during the Renaissance period. They believe that for the Muslim World to achieve the same progress, it needs to divorce religion from public life as the Europeans did in the Post Middle Age era. They want the Muslim World to adopt Western ideals of secularism, pluralism, women empowerment, rights of minorities, nationalism, human sovereignty, private ownership, free markets, free speech, religious and personal freedom (libertarianism), and democracy. It is these themes which resound day and night in the Muslim World from the liberal circles. It is these ideals which serve as benchmarks to assess the societies in the Muslim World today. The level of Civility and Modernity of Muslim societies is determined based on the degree of their conformity to these ideals. It is worthwhile to note that the West encourages and insists on the same. So Western government and non-government organizations routinely issue progress reports, sharing their assessments about how civilized or uncivilized the Muslim World is based on its performance which is judged in line with these ideals.

However, the liberals have erred in their judgment and choice of the path for revival of the Muslim World. In adopting the solutions for the Muslim World and charting its way forward, the liberals have not utilized deep thinking, but rather have followed a superficial and empirical approach. They saw the extraordinary material progress of the Western World and wanted to replicate it. They saw the evolution in political thought in the Western World and justifiably concluded that West’s material progress is connected to it. However, they empirically (and incorrectly) deduced, without studying their own societies, that by adopting Western Ideals, they would be able to usher with the same progress in the Muslim World. So, what the liberals want to do is to borrow the intellectual experience of 16th and 17th Century Europeand apply it to the Muslim World without regarding the particular factors which gave birth to European Secularism. And herein lies the superficiality of their approach. Firstly, in charting out the intellectual path for the Muslim World, the liberals did not study Muslim society and its realities; rather, they were content with the idea that European Secularism is not “European” but “Universal” and they insisted on its implementation throughout the Muslim World. They ignored the fact that European secularism is a reactionary political ideology which is a direct result of the repressive Christian rule which governed much of Europethroughout the Middle Ages (or as they are now called). It was when the European population’s frustration and anger at their miserable socio-economic and political conditions exploded into a fierce struggle with the incumbent political authority, which happened to be the Church, that secularism emerged as “the new” thinking. The idea was to deprive the Church from its political power by depriving it of its legitimacy, “divine inspiration”. So the liberals (free thinkers) of the time severely attacked religion, arguing it is without a factual foundation, that human reason triumphs over divine thinking, and thus, should be the only source of legislation. So at the heart of Europe’s intellectual revolution was the idea of the sovereignty of the human mind and the rejection (or relegation) of the divine which claimed, and was till then considered, the sovereign authority. Describing the liberal temperament, political philosopher John Gray claimed, “It (liberalism) has been inspired by skepticism and by fideistic certainty of divine revelation.” (Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths). So, the soul of liberal thought was anti-religious and anti-divine. It was the absence of the contextualization of the European intellectual experience which was overlooked by the liberals in the Muslim World and lead them to the false idea of “Universalism” of liberal thought.

Secondly, the liberals totally ignored the history of the Muslim World in their attempt to repeat the European experience. The European experience with religion was in sharp contrast to that of the Muslim World. Muslims under the banner of the caliphate enjoyed stupendous progress in all realms of collective and individual life and the Islamic state from the time of the second Caliph Umar bin Khattab till the great Osamni Caliph Suleiman Al Qanooni. Although it was a state which was governed by divine laws, science and technology prospered, the economy thrived, and the basic rights of its citizenry – of food, clothing, shelter and health, education and security – was guaranteed. As for knowledge and education, the Islamic State was renowned for its excellent centers of learning and the Islamic State directly supervised and encouraged intellectual discourse and learning. Jonathan Lyons in his book The House of Wisdom, How Arabs Transformed the Western Civilization states:

“Throughout much of the period in question, Arabic served as the global language of scholarship, and learned men of all stripes could travel widely and hold serious and nuanced discussions in this lingua franca. Medieval Western scholars who wanted access to the latest findings also needed to master the Arabic Tongue or work from translations by those who had done so.”

So unlike Christian Europe, there existed in the Muslim world, no frustration or anger with the divine, neither any desire to get rid of its rule nor any massive uprising against the Islamic character of the caliphate. There were of course feuds, uprisings and disputes within the Islamic State, but none were aimed at challenging the divine basis of the state. Even when the caliphate was finally abolished, Mustapha Kamal used fierce Turkish nationalism and brute force to achieve it and it is no secret that this could not be achieved without the direct help and supervision of the allies (France andBritain).

Moreover, from the time the Arabian Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) first presented Islam to the World till today, never have the Muslims ever questioned the divinity of Islam and the sovereignty of the Islamic Code (Shariah) over all other such codes. In fact, the Muslim World never abandoned human reason – the extraordinary scientific and educational accomplishments under the caliphate testify this; rather, it limited its role to science and administrative matters while the legislative matters were solely derived from the Islamic Texts. Even when liberal ideas and democracy were introduced in the Muslim World under the direct rule of the colonialists, it was not presented by the colonialists as anti-religious and anti-divine. Rather, the colonialists sought to legitimize these ideas from Islam knowing well that the Muslim World can never be convinced to accept the supremacy of the human mind over that of the divine. The 19th and 20th centuries saw the appearance of a new brand of reformist Islamic scholars who were mentored, sponsored, and promoted by Western Powers, and who sought to legitimize liberal ideas by providing their justifications from Islamic text. Such an approach was a tacit admission by the West of the incompatibility of the Western ideals, which were deeply and fiercely anti-religious, with that of the Muslim World. The Constitutions of many secular Muslim countries today derive their legitimacy from the political support which Islamic Scholars provided in their passage –Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan being a few examples. The perception that the Muslim World was “deceived” into accepting liberal ideals is further enhanced by the huge support which Islamic Political Parties enjoy across the Muslim World, including those who had chosen to operate within the secular constitutional frameworks. The Justice and Development Party of Turkey (AKP), the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt Jordan and Syria, Hamas in Palestine, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in Algeria, Hizbullah in Lebanon, and Al Nahda Movement of Tunisia are just a few of the many political parties in the Muslim world who openly espouse the idea that Islam should play a central role in the collective life of the Society. The existence of such movements with varying yet considerable degree of public support further cements the belief that the Muslim World, even in this era of decline, has no inclinations in divorcing Islam from public life and adopting secularism. Whether these movements tacitly do so, and may have actually done so, is another matter and is not relevant to the present debate.

So the Muslim World is torn apart in an intellectual tug of War which has been described by some in the simplistic notions of an “identity crisis”. There was never an identity crisis of the sort in the Muslim World. The Muslim World never abandoned its Islamic identity, even after it was introduced to the ideal of Westphalian sovereignty, although it had remained confused about her Islamic identity, and this identity remained dormant for some decades creating an impression of the embracement of Westphalian ideal of nation-state. Moreover, “identity crisis” is too simple a conclusion to approach a much more complex problem of intellectual stagnation. At the heart of the problem of intellectual stagnation in the Muslim World lies the forceful imposition of liberal ideas and solutions – which emanate from the belief in the sovereignty of the human mind over that of the divine – on a population which is deeply conservative with a staunch and un-shaky belief in the divine code (Shariah) and whose experience with the unity of the state and religion reminds her of her past exalted status in the World.

The revival of the Muslim World, as so many thinkers in the Muslim World have correctly concluded, lies not in material progress or in investing in education, military, or morally uplifting the society; rather, the path to revival lies in the power of ideas which defines what a group of people and a society stands for and how its political and governance structures should be organized. It is indeed intellectual progression which precedes and which eventually results in the revival of a nation. At a time when the debate about the role of religion in society and the intellectual foundations of the Muslim World are in full swing, the boundaries of such a debate should be broadened to include new ideas. Until now, this debate has been forcefully limited to how the Muslim World should be reformed according to liberal ideas and how the role of religion in public polity can be reduced and ultimately eliminated. And it appears that this approach has locked the Muslim mind and stopped it from progression as one finds this debate and its basic arguments being discussed by thinkers as back as two centuries ago when the West first introduced this debate to the Muslim intelligentsia. It is no secret that after such a long period, this reformation hasn’t taken place and the Muslim World has inched further from it rather than marched towards it. It is time the basic questions are included in the debate which puts the liberal ideas on the table as well and which broadens the horizon of the debate to bring liberalism under scrutiny and challenge as opposed to the assumption of its universality and exclusion from rational scrutiny. That governance structures based on liberal ideals are the incumbent political structures which have failed to revive the Muslim World is ample justification for such an approach. Questions such as whether Islam and Democracy are compatible, whether a democracy would allow the abolishment of the idea of separation of state and church if the majority demands it, whether a liberal pluralistic society would tolerate a public debate within itself which advocates a role of religion in public life, whether the idea of Westphalian Sovereignty is indeed limited to Westphalia and its neighbors, whether free markets is a form of colonial exploitation, should be asked alongside those of whether the caliphate is a totalitarian and unaccountable system, whether modernity and Islam can co-exist, whether Islam is a universal ideology and whether a comprehensive adoption of the Islamic ideology by the state, as was done by the caliphate of the past is the way forward for the Muslim World.

Those who believe in a rational discourse and a sincere debate should have no objection to such a “broadening of the debate”. For the strongest advocate – which is already forcing this broadening of the debate upon the Muslim intelligentsia – is the Muslim Street which is roaring for change, suggesting that its patience with the stagnation in the Muslim World and the current ideas has eventually run out.

Moez Mobeen is a freelance columnist based in Islamabad who regularly writes on Muslim Affairs.

Source

The Rights & Duties Towards Parents - Part 1

2011-12-26T16:17:00.000-08:00

The following is the introduction of the upcoming English translation of the book 'The Son - With his Father and Mother' by Sheikh Yousuf Baadarani (May Allah protect him) from Revival Publications.

Introduction

Young and as an adult, I was near my father and mother, I could do without this world and its comforts. My father (May Allah (swt) have mercy upon him) was one of life's great schools. He was merciful to people and with them as if he was a walking heart, pure and purified of wickedness and meanness in his speech and deeds. He lived eighty years with a pure tongue, no one ever heard him utter an obscene word. In his eighty years no one knew him to have done a bad thing, always abstaining from anything improper, striving to do good and reconciling adversaries.

He used to speak to me about his relationship with his father, how he had raised him, and how he did obey his father. May Allah (swt) have mercy upon him, he had no mother for she died when he was an infant, but his father loved him and brought him up well. Every time his father used to order him to do something and my father was reluctant to do it, his father would tell him "do that and I will be pleased from you and bless you. If so, by His Grace promise I guarantee you bounty from Allah (swt) in this life and paradise in the Hereafter. On other occasions, his father used to tell him "do what pleases me my son and Allah (swt) will do what pleases you in this life and in the Hereafter". Every time-my father (May Allah (swt) have mercy upon him) would say-I used to do without hesitation what my father used to ask me to do, he liked asking me to do things. It seems to me as if Allah (swt) had clothed him with the light of His blessings in this world, for everyone who knew him loved him. Allah (swt) has distinguished him with people's love, so they loved him with gratitude and brotherhood for his fame in his honesty and integrity, through his reputation without ever seeing him. Allah (swt) Most High distinguished the Prophet Yusuf with beauty, kindness and purity when He protected him from falling into the satanic temptation. Allah (swt), Glory be to Him, bestowed on my father a natural disposition for integrity which in my whole life I have not seen its equal from any other man. Allah (swt) honoured him with His good pleasure in this world, it was like an announcement to people that he will be among those forgiven on the Day of Reckoning, and out of dutifulness to him, I beg the Exalted in Might, the Forgiver, to grant him that.

As for my mother, she was absolutely obedient to my father. She used to guard his secrets in his absence, talk about his good qualities, and never leave the house except with his permission. She was keen to do what he liked and refrain from doing what he disliked. She obeyed Allah (swt) in her life with him, loved him, was extremely loyal to him and was generous and giving in trying to make him happy and in raising us on obeying him.

Her loyalty reached to the point that for tens of years of her marriage she invoked Allah (swt) to let her follow him if he died before she did. Her invocation was answered when two months after his death she followed him, even before finishing half the prescribed period of mourning for a wife; maybe souls do meet before they are resurrected. She was an example of a wife's devotion to her husband.

By this great love I have for them, and in order to extinguish the fire of lamentation in my heart, and as an atonement for my failure in not being sufficed of enough Godly reward for dutifulness to them. In fulfillment of my duty to the new generations of Muslims, I found this search into the jurisprudence of dutifulness and undutifulness toward one's parents to be an urgent need for every son and daughter wishing to gain a bigger share of the reward for obeying Allah (swt) through obeying the parents, if the opportunity is still favorable for completing the fortification of the Muslim family so that through it Allah (swt) will defeat Satan and so that it will turn into a fortress which protects the tenets of Allah (swt)'s religion on this earth. What encouraged me to write about the subject of dutifulness to parents is my reading of the book "Kindness to parents" by Abu Bakr al-Tartouchi, verified by Muhammad Abd El-Hakim al-Kadi from the Muassassat al-kutub al-thakafiah publishing firm – Beirut. And the book "Kindness to parents" by Abu Faraj, Ibn al-Jawzi, verified by Muhammad Abd El-Kader Ahmed Ata from the same publishing firm.

Ibn al-Jawzi says in his introduction: (so I saw that I should write a book concerning legally binding matters, so that the heedless will be awakened and the prudent reminded. I have arranged it into sections and chapters, may Allah (swt) guide me to do what is right,) the end. But upon reading the book, I found that it is merely a listing of the sayings of the Prophet (hadiths) with no explanation worth mentioning and some narratives of righteous and pious people handed down through tradition. I found also that the verifier -may Allah (swt) forgive him- did not bother to point out the weakness of many of the hadiths found therein as al-Kadi pointed out in his verification of al-Tartushi book (may Allah (swt) reward him for it). The verifier Ata was satisfied to mention the narrators of hadiths and its sources without paying attention to the viability of the hadith or to its weakness. That is why we have relied in most of the hadiths we cited on the verification of al-Kadi in the Tartoushi book. However, we have used very few hadiths described as weak, pointing out that when citing one of them, and that was for two reasons:

1- Because it is concurrent with a sound strong hadith.

2- Because it is concurrent with correct Islamic understanding of the subject under study.

We did not consider it a basis for understanding because for that we must have an ayah (a verse of the Qur'an) or a correct hadith or the consent of the Prophet's companions (May Allah (swt) be pleased with them). We didn't even consider it as a proof because we have at our disposal the correct hadith concurrent with it. For the two books were mainly made up of listings of the Prophet's hadiths concerning dutifulness to parents, maintaining good relations with one's relatives and undutifulness to parents, and neither of them can be considered as a book treating these subjects. I was amazed to read in the Tartushi book "kindness to parents" what he wrote concerning thankfulness and dividing it into three categories: Thankfulness in the heart, thankfulness on the tongue, and thankfulness with the limbs.

I found the verses which he cited from the Qur'an as an illustration to his division of thankfulness to have no relation to these divisions nor can they be used as a proof of any division. Thankfulness itself is a deed and a duty imposed from Allah (swt), therefore it is one divine command, indivisible, because it is similar to all the other obligations carried out after faith has become firmly established in the heart, either by the tongue through advocating or with the limbs, by adhering to it in action. Therefore the divisions he made are in reality the manner in which all legal duties are carried out: belief and action by words and deeds. This is the way to express thankfulness. I can only explain the division he made as the result of being carried away in his explanation and I don't believe he wanted to say it is part of Islamic jurisprudence.

The subject of kindness to parents is part of the subject of life and of the point of view of Islam concerning life. It holds special importance at this time, the time of isolating Islam from the mainstream of life. The time of purposely keeping Islamic thoughts and concepts from influencing the way a Muslim lives. The time of banning actual adherence to Allah (swt)'s religion, the time of living totally in the obedience of evil and under its total control of all aspects of our lives, whether moral, financial, educational, social or political. At this time of total assimilation into currents lost in aberrance, a time in which the Islamic Ummah (the community of Muslims) lives like sheep; one generation after another dies without any of them leaving a trace that they had lived in the obedience of Allah (swt). Each generation after the other or rather each individual of one generation after the other dies the death of ignorance prevailed before Islam. That he died without pledging allegiance to any Caliph ruling in accordance with the great Qur'an of Allah (swt), the traditions of His Messenger, Muhammad, the son of Abdullah (peace is upon him) and the consent of his righteous honoured companions. Yet, he is accorded funeral prayers, and mercy of Allah (swt) asked for him, as though he died after a life lived in accordance with Allah (swt)'s religion!

The Prophet (peace is upon him) used not to perform funeral prayer for a believer who had died owing money, no matter how small is the amount. His honourable companions refrained to perform funeral prayer for a believer who died without carrying out the hajj to the House of Allah (swt) at Mecca. All of that, while the rule according to Allah (swt)'s religion was present, and the Caliph, successor of Allah (swt)'s Prophet (peace is upon him) was at the head of the state. Ruling according to the injunctions of Allah (swt) and His Prophet, raising the banner of Jihad, working day and night to uproot the systems of unbelief and to establish the rule of Islam. Carrying Allah (swt)'s call to Islam through actual application of the rules of Allah (swt)'s religion among people in their relationships, in solving their problems and in their entire daily concerns and affairs. While all the people are taking upon themselves the call to Islam by actually applying its rules in every case, concern, relationship, issue, need, desire, emotion, idea, deed, movement, wherever they settle and whatever they encounter

At this time, the time of the rule of evil, the human Satan, evil refuses to let us organize a single relationship or solve a single problem according to our religion - which we claim to profess - the religion of Islam. Not because he hates us, for Satan hates the believers who adhere to Islamic rules, as for those whom he succeeded in convincing that they are believers while they do not adhere to life of Islam, to its thoughts and rules, these are his lovers whom he truly loves. And they are his worshippers who believe him and who obey him in every matter and accept his every word. For he raised them to go through the journey of life and to deal with its concerns in ways other than the Islamic way, not adhering to the tenets of Islam but convinced that they are Muslims and are adhering to Islamic teachings.

At this time, we present dutifulness to parents. A subject, an entrance to a life of belief for subsequent Muslim generations so that they would chose a new path for their lives other than that of those who submitted to and accepted the rule and domination of other than Allah (swt) over their life and death. And a gateway to living the life of the companions of the Prophet (peace is upon him, his family and his companions until the Day of Resurrection).

The lives of the companions of the Prophet (May Allah (swt) be pleased with them) were dedicated to the obedience of Allah (swt). For when they were praying facing Jerusalem and learned that Allah (swt)'s decree has descended making Ka'bah their Qibla (their direction in prayer), they turned in their prayer to face Ka'bah rather than continue facing Jerusalem, not one prayer in the disobedience of Allah (swt). So they performed part of their prayer facing Jerusalem and the remaining part facing Mecca. And then while they were drinking wine, they heard the caller for guidance and faith announcing that a divine revelation was sent down to the Prophet declaring the drinking of wine unlawful, they did not finish swallowing what they had in their mouths. They poured the wine out of their glasses, spat it out of their throats and broke its jugs until the wine streamed down the alleys. And if any of them was with his bride on that first night and the caller to heaven called to Jihad as a short, fast or rather swift way of getting there, the bridegroom would leave his bride, hurrying in taking his purification bath. And in his ablution and prayer and in his farewell, light of burdens, indifferent to what he has left behind. Looking forward with haste to victory from Allah (swt) or martyrdom, fighting the armies of the heathen in order to spread Allah (swt)'s mercy by placing people under the rule of Allah (swt)'s justice. Generations lived in belief, raising the banner of ‘there is no God but Allah (swt) and Muhammad is His Messenger’ and died bearing witness to Allah (swt)'s oneness, with the commitment to abide by Allah (swt)'s rules in every matter and every case.

Our present generations are living in aberrance, they essentially abandoned all of Allah (swt)'s religion, even if they perform their prayers, fast, erect mosques, pay their zakat (obligatory almsgiving), and perform their hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). They abandoned the call to Islam when they abandoned their adherence to Allah (swt)'s rules. Because the root of following all the tenets of Allah (swt)'s religion, of the Qur'an, and of the traditions of the Prophet (peace is upon him) is dependent on having as a ruler a caliph who would rule according to the Islamic system. For in the absence of an entity ruled by the Islamic system, evil, Satan's foster child, will rule.

If the preceding generations had adhered to the tenets of Islam, evil would not have continued to rule and dominate us, not for a single day. Because establishing the rule of Islam is an obligation imposed by Allah (swt), it is an Islamic legal matter. And every legal matter has a legal manner for its application imposed by Allah (swt) and His Prophet; so what if a rule and a duty is at the basis of all of Allah (swt)'s rules for people and among them. The Prophet (peace is upon him) established Allah (swt)'s rule as soon as the Muslims became capable of adhering to the rules of their religion and as soon as the Qur'anic revelations descended from Allah (swt) dictating the Islamic system. when the revelation descended on the Prophet (peace is upon him) explaining Allah (swt)'s rules and system through the Prophet's speech, deeds, and things he kept silent about.

Dutifulness to parents is a call addressed to all Muslims asking them to stop a moment and accept Islam the way Allah (swt) wants them, and orders them by to adopt in comprehension and application. One rule after the other in one matter after the other, whole, encompassing all their lives' concerns; putting their lives in order with its rules and solutions to their affairs and problems. In order to change their lives from living under Allah (swt)'s wrath and displeasure to a life of obedience to Allah (swt) and His Prophet (peace is upon him). In their striving to earn His good pleasure, of aspiring for His forgiveness and mercy, and for the reward of an eternal life in His paradise.

Adhering to Islamic rules, is what turns life into an Islamic life and transforms society into an Islamic society and changes the system of government, which stems from satanic suggestion and thought. The system which rules according to blasphemy and drags the Ummah toward a doomed fate, the hell of the misleader and the misled of this life. And in the Hereafter, on the threshold of a Hell-Fire which was made to burn fiercely by the Avenger, the Supreme Power, the Creator of the universe, and of every animal, plant and inanimate object. The Satan of every individual stands before him, making fun of the stupidity of his follower, ridiculing the insignificance of the one who left Allah (swt)'s religion in this life and believed his deceptions and lies and followed his temptation, and tells him "... I had no authority over you, except to call you, but you listened to me..." Holy Qur'an 14: 22.

After reading and comprehending the injunctions concerning kindness to parents found in the verses of the Holy Qur'an, and in the sayings and traditions of the faithful Messenger (peace is upon him). The wise son who understands what he reads cannot but immediately and before finishing the reading of this book, change into a dutiful son if he was not so due to his ignorance of the principles and rules concerning kindness to parents. Or into a more dutiful son to his parents if he was so through a natural disposition given to him by Allah (swt) to do well and obey his parents. This immediate transfer to obeying Allah (swt)'s injunctions in a matter that the Muslim was ignorant of Allah (swt)'s rule is the repentance accepted by Allah (swt) through this mercy for the obedient. And is the only way to adopt Islam in the manner ordered by Allah (swt), and is also the only way to make faith and striving to earn Allah (swt)'s good pleasure prevalent in all of life's concerns. It is the way to carry the call to Islam to be firmly established, clearly explained and taught in Muslim countries, and to call non-Muslims to adopt the Islamic religion through understanding and application in life's matters. It is alone the way for the advancement of Muslims, because for the nation to adopt a certain point of view of life, adherence to the thoughts and conceptions connected to it. And whatever stemming from it of conceptions and mental rules of behavior, is the only path for the advancement of nations, their advancement being tied to the refinement of the principle they adopt.

Thus nations move in their decline and deviation from the ascending line relative to the measure of their deviation from its principle and abandonment of it. The Muslim Ummah having in reality abandoned its Islamic principle as a point of view of life, code of conduct, and systems for life's activities. We find it to have become a nation that has reached the lowest levels of decline that a nation can reach because of abandoning its principle. It is true that the unbelieving nations live in a depraved condition much baser than that of Muslims but that is a measure of degeneration by Islamic standards and not by standard of their principle, for unbelief is the basest level a human being can reach.

Hence we see the unbelieving nations exercising total authority over Muslims. Dominating their existence and the formation of that existence. Imposing on them their systems of rule and their laws, imposing the bad application of those systems and laws. Dominating their human resources and wealth, making plans to build up and manage those resources and the channels for spending that wealth. Dominating every aspect of their public lives, every one of their capabilities and the direction their lives should take in order to keep the Muslim Ummah in life's quagmire in which it lies. All of this is due to the adherence of these unbelieving nations to their principle of which is how to spread their ideas in order to secure its dominance. This adherence to their principle, no matter how corrupt or unsuccessful in dealing with the facts of life, makes it imperative to constantly go forward forcibly in achieving those aims. No matter how base are the roots of those thoughts; and because of that forward force, none of its masters notice how corrupt it is and how failing are its proposed solutions. While we the Muslims are people who have abandoned their principle and became an Ummah without a method for moving forward first. As Islam as an ideology for life is a way of life, a system of relations and solutions of life's matters that stems from it holding the same dogma. And because its values and its aims are defined by Allah (swt) Who defined its dogma and sent down the details of its system in the form of revelations received by the Prophet (peace is upon him). It is the only doctrine that moves the one who adheres to it with an ascending rising force rather than a forward force. When they abandoned Islam as a complete, independent and distinct way of life, they lost the direction of its ascending rising path secondly.

The one who is on an ascending path, if he does not continue to recharge his energy with the necessary force to resist the degree of height he reached, will soon be incapable even of staying at his position. Will fall downward with a force equal to the pressure exerted by the degree of height he was at, and will not stop until he hits bottom, this is the state in which is living the Islamic Ummah with all its different peoples. The Islamic Ummah will remain at this bottom it reached in spite of all the attempts to make it rise without the awareness of and the adherence to the tenets of Allah (swt). That is without adopting Islam as it is in reality, a dogma and a basis for all thought and a system for all of life's matters. Every attempt to make it rise and every call for its regeneration - and hundreds of attempts and thousands of calls were made - using thoughts and methods other than the thoughts and methods of Islam is a call with Satan behind it. Because it is a call and an attempt of falsehood, mere calls to diverting and blinding the sights so that the path for the real advancement of Islam will not be recognized. All of these are outlets through which to channel the renewed vigor of the Islamic Ummah and to lessen the surge of piety passed on from one generation to the next. Attempts of betrayal of Allah (swt)'s religion and its people and a conspiracy to keep the Muslims from following the right path. Every Islamic call through a way different than the Islamic way is a deceit to Muslims. Even if it were opposed by the rule of falsehood, as a deception, on the ground that it is Islam. So people would believe it because of their ignorance of the conspiracies of the human Satan, that it is the right path so that they would support it as Islamic, while in fact a human Satan controls it. It would then be a mere ferry for Muslims from a stable guarded by unbelievers to a stable guarded by those who pretend to be Muslims and pious; and the Muslims will remain in the new Satanic stable at the bottom in which other Muslims live in other stables.

Indeed, dutifullness to parents is a basic duty in Islam, but as with any other Islamic duty, if the Muslim carries it out because Allah (swt) ordered him to and in the manner ordered by Allah (swt) and His Prophet, then it would be a deed and a life lived in faith. But if he does it for a reason of which he is convinced other than that it is a duty imposed by Allah (swt). It would be a deed done for the sake of the deed objective and not for earning Allah (swt)'s good pleasure by carrying out His commands, would be a deed and a life lived in unbelief. For the result of a deed is realized no matter what is the ideology that deed was based on. However, the deed of faith cannot be realized except by combining the belief in faith which is complying with Allah (swt)'s injunctions in carrying out the deed with the deed itself done according to the Islamic legal manner. This applies to all the tenets of Islam, and that is what the companions of Allah (swt)'s Messenger and the generations of believers that followed them did. That is what the successors of the Prophet (peace is upon him) the caliphs who ruled after him did, as well as those who came after them, may Allah (swt) reward them with the best of rewards.

The Muslims did not live a life of unbelief. And their way of life was never one of the ways of unbelief all the time the Islamic Ummah was in existence ever since it was founded by the Prophet's call to Islam and until the demise of the Islamic state in the year 1924. But today the Ummah in its totality is living under the umbrella of unbelief, and most of the Ummah does deeds for the sake of objectives without looking into its legality in Islam. And if one carries out a deed because it is an Islamic duty, he does not look for the manner defined by Islamic law. All of that is an abandonment of Islamic jurisprudence because obeying the tenets of Allah (swt) is realizing an aim from a deed in a way explained by the Islamic law on how to carry out that deed. Abandoning one of these two matters is in fact an abandonment of Allah (swt)'s laws and a carrying out of that deed in a manner contradictory to life direction of striving to be obedient to Allah (swt) and to earn His good pleasure.

This, emphatically is a manifest source of unbelief that no one can deny. It is the unbelief lived by the Islamic Ummah and it is the reason why it remains at the bottom, which is the quagmire in which it lives. All of this, made it imperative to ask our rising generations in this book ‘The son with his Father and Mother’, to undertake the procedure of faith and belief to be a part of every deed. By making sure that the deed to be carried out is a duty, or is recommended, allowed, forbidden or undesirable. If it were forbidden, to immediately refrain from doing it, if allowed leading to something forbidden one knows that it has become forbidden also refrains from doing it. If it was an obligation, to explore the lawful way to do it then immediately carry it out. If it was recommended or allowed and wanted to do it, he should also ask for the lawful way to do it and abide by it. If it was undesirable and he chose not to do it, Allah (swt) will reward him generously for that, but if he decides to do it, he should do so according to the Islamic lawful way.

If these generations were dutiful to their parents because this is a duty imposed by Allah (swt) and in the manner described by Allah (swt)'s Messenger (peace is upon him). A duty equals to Jihad in the religion of Allah (swt) if the Muslims do not need the participation of a lone dutiful son in the call to Islam through Jihad. It would become easy for them to pave their way in this life by adhering to Allah (swt)'s injunctions in all their worldly matters. Through this adherence, the Ummah will return, with the blessings of Allah (swt), the Mighty, the Supreme Power, to the path of regeneration which was lost for a period of time.

By this second book and the first ‘The wife with her husband’, the system of living within the family - A fortress fortified by Allah (swt) and His Prophet is complete – as per Allah (swt)'s guidance to us in His piety. It is a complete system sent from Allah (swt), the Exalted One, the Knowing, an integral part of the Islamic system of life with its joys and sorrows, achievements and failures, prosperity and calamities. A definite duty of every Muslim who believes in Allah (swt) as the Lord, Creator, Master of the Day of Judgment. And in the Qur'an, an honourable book relayed by the Most Gracious, Most Merciful upon the heart of Allah (swt)'s Prophet and Messenger, the faithful Muhammad (peace is upon him). A book which does not leave a small or a great matter in life without clarifying the laws connected to it, a book free of shortcomings and contradictions, complete in its laws, sent by Allah (swt) out of mercy for those who believe in Him. And a warning to all of those who oppose Him and disbelieve in Him; and every Muslim who believes that the Prophet and Messenger Muhammad, the son of Abdullah (peace is upon him) is the last of Allah (swt)'s messengers to all of mankind. He sent him as a mercy for all the people; whoever believe in him and in his message and abide by that message will escape Allah (swt)'s wrath and the torment of Hell.

He is who thinks or believes that to abide by the rules of the family, a fortress fortified by Allah (swt) and His Messenger, enrich him enough not to obey Allah (swt)'s rules in other matters of life, for Islam is an indivisible whole. And the one who believes that it can be divided into areas: one area in which it is not permissible for him to disobey Allah (swt), and an area in which it is permissible for him to disobey Allah (swt), is living with the mentality and psyche of Satan itself. That is because only Allah (swt) decrees what are Allah (swt)'s injunctions and what are His prohibitions. The one who decree what is allowed and what is prohibited, places himself in a seat in which he is equal to the Divine Power; I seek refuge with Allah (swt) from this unbelief which is the highest level of unbelief and the most contemptible to Allah (swt). Obedience and dutifulness are in fact obedience to Allah (swt) and dutifulness to Allah (swt)'s covenant. All of which is compliance with Allah (swt)'s injunctions, striving and endeavoring to earn Allah (swt)'s good pleasure, for the sake of earning His reward and justification to have His mercy and blessings. We ask Allah (swt) to have mercy on us and to guide us to His religion and help us know the lawful method He imposes in adhering to His Prophet's rules. We ask Him that the reader of Allah (swt)'s injunctions on obedience or dutifulness transforms into an adherent to Islamic thought and dogma. And a carrier of the call to Islam as a way of life by adhering to the rules of Allah (swt)'s laws in the way he lives, in forming his ideas and in the manner in which he carries out his deeds.

The Prohibition of Christmas Greetings or Celebrations

2011-12-24T20:36:00.000-08:00

The celebration of Christmas or any of the holidays and occasions of the Kuffar is certainly Haram in Islam. Muslims are not permitted to celebrate them at all since it is considered an imitation of the Kuffar. Imitating the Kuffar in any of their religious affairs or in any gesture that distinguishes them is forbidden.

Al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih that Abu Said Al-Khudri (ra) reported that the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:

“You will indeed follow the ways of those before you, hand span by hand span, and an arms length after another. Even if they enter into a lizard’s hole, you will follow them.”

We asked, “Is it the Jews and the Christians” He (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) replied, “Who else!”

This hadith condemns the imitation of the Jews and the Christians. It is an evidence for the prohibition of imitating the Jews and the Christians in their religious occasions, symbols or any matter related to their belief. Celebrating Christmas is an act of imitation that is forbidden in Islam. The Messenger (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) warned us against it.

At-Tirmidhi narrated that Ibn Abbas (ra) reported that the Prophet (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:

“He is not one of us who imitates other than us. Do not imitate the Jews or the Christians.”

At-Tabarani and Abu Dawud narrated that Ibn Umar and Hudhaifah (ra) reported that the Prophet (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:

“Whoever imitates a people, he is one of them.”

Furthermore, there are many Islamic evidences that forbid the Muslims from having holidays other than Eid ul-Fitr and Eid ul-Adha. Al-Baihaqi reported in his Sunan that Anas bin Malik (ra) said: “When the Prophet (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) came to Madinah, the people had two holidays from the days of Jahilliyah.” He (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:

“When I came to you, you had two days which you used to celebrate in Jahilliyah. Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’ala) has replaced them for you with better days, the days of slaughter (Adha) and the day of Fitr.”

Also Imam Ahmad in his Musnad reported that Uqbah bin Amir (ra) reported the Prophet (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) to have said:

“The day of Fitr and days of Tashriq are our holidays, the people of Islam.”
In the chapter entitled "on the abhorrence of entering the churches of Ahl Al-Dhimmah (people of the covenant) on the occasion of their New Year and other celebrations" Al-Bayhaqi reported the following narration:

"'Umar (ra) said: "Do not enter upon the polytheists in their churches on their feast-days, for the Wrath (of Allaah) is descending upon them." He also said: "Avoid the enemies of Allaah on their festivals."

It was also reported that 'Abdullaah Ibn 'Amr (ra) said: "Whoever lives in the land of the non-Arabs (non-Muslims) and celebrates their New Year and their festivals, and imitates them until he dies in that state, will be gathered with them on the Day of Resurrection." He mentioned - and Allaah knows best - the one who lives in their land, because at the time of 'Abdullaah Ibn 'Amr and the other Companions, they used to forbid open celebration of non-Islamic festivals in the Muslim lands, and none of the Muslims imitated them in their festivals; that was possible only when living in the lands of the non-Muslims.

Ibn Al-Qayyim (rh) said in Ahkaam Ahl Al-Dhimmah: "Congratulating the non-Muslims on the rituals that belong only to them is Haram by consensus, as is congratulating them on their festivals and feasts by saying: 'A happy festival to you' or 'May you enjoy your festival,' and so on. If the one who says this has been saved from disbelief, it is still forbidden. It is like congratulating someone for prostrating to the cross, or even worse than that. It is as great a sin as congratulating someone for drinking wine, or murdering someone, or having illicit sexual relations, and so on. Many of those who have no respect for their religion fall into this error; they do not realize the offensiveness of their actions. Whoever congratulates a person for his disobedience or Bid'ah (innovation) or disbelief exposes himself to the Wrath and Anger of Allaah."

Also see:

Christmas – A Celebration of Capitalism

Christmas time - will you be going to the party?

The Khawarij and the Rulers of the Muslim world

2011-12-16T18:47:00.000-08:00

With the beginning of the uprisings in the Arab world some scholars now and again issued fatawa against the revolutionaries and the groups active in the uprisings and declared it haram to rebel against the rulers, some even termed them as “Khawarij”. This article will discuss the “Khawarij” and its meaning and its application in detail and reality and the ruling of rebelling against the ruler and whether those who protest/rebel are be considered as “Khawarij”.

Who are the Khawarij ?

As the word “Khawarij” denotes, It is a group that is involved in the disruption of the unity of the Muslims, so they rebel against the khalifah who has been given the Bai’ah (pledge of allegiance) by the people of power (ahlul hall wal aqd) and has been appointed as the Imam for the Muslims.

قال الشهرستاني في كتابه الملل والنحل : كلّ من خرج على الإمام الحقّ الذي اتّفقت الجماعة عليه يُسَمّى خارجيّاً سواء كان الخروج في أيّام الصحابة على الأئمة الراشدين أو ( من) كان بعدهم على التابعين لهم بإحسان والأئمة في كلّ زمان ] ج1/ص114[

Shahrastani says in his book “al malal wan nahal”: “Every one who rebels against the right Imam who has been appointed by the Muslims is called “Khariji” “rebel” , be it the rebellion against the righteous Khulafaa during the era of the companions or the tabieen or those who succeeded them” [Vol 1/page 144]

وزاد عليه ابن حزم رحمه الله في كتابه الفصل في الملل والنحل : ويلحق بهم مَن شايعهم على أفكارهم أو شاركهم في آرائهم في أيّ زمان

Ibn Hazm adds on to the definition in his book “al Fasal fil malal wan nahal” : And those who adhere to their thought and hold their opinions are also part of them i.e “the Khawarij”.

Origins

As for when did the “Khawarij” came into existence, their origin was during the time of the prophet (saw), it is reported in a hadith in Bukhari:

Narrated By Abu Sa'id: While the Prophet was distributing something, 'Abdullah bin Dhil Khawaisira At-Tamimi came and said, "Be Just, O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet said, "Woe to you ! Who would BE JUST if I were not?" 'Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "Allow me to cut off his neck ! " The Prophet said, "Leave him, for he has companions, and if you compare your prayers with their prayers and your fasting with theirs, you will look down upon your prayers and fasting, in comparison to theirs. Yet they will go out of the religion as an arrow darts through the game's body in which case, if the Qudhadh of the arrow is examined, nothing will be found on it, and when its Nasl is examined, nothing will be found on it; and then its Nadiyi is examined, nothing will be found on it. The arrow has been too fast to be smeared by dung and blood. The sign by which these people will be recognized will be a man whose one hand (or breast) will be like the breast of a woman (or like a moving piece of flesh). These people will appear when there will be differences among the people (Muslims)." Abu Sa'id added: I testify that I heard this from the Prophet and also testify that 'Ali killed those people while I was with him. The man with the description given by the Prophet was brought to 'Ali. The following Verses were revealed in connection with that very person (i.e., 'Abdullah bin Dhil-Khawaisira At-Tarnimi): 'And among them are men who accuse you (O Muhammad) in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms.' (9.58)

As for their formation as a group with specific ideas and opinions, this happened after the matter of arbitration which they had requested that occurred between Ali (Ra) and Muawiyah (Ra), they were in the army of Ali (ra) and they had requested him to accept the arbitration upon which they rebelled saying that Ali (ra) had accepted the rule of man instead that of Allah (swt) by accepting arbitration.

With time they divided into groups and only a few exist today who follow their views.

With regards to the opinion of the companions (ra) regarding them,

وكان إبن عمر رضي الله عنهما يَراهم شِرارخلق الله، وقال: "إنطلقوا إلى آيات نزلت في الكفار فجعلوها على المؤمنين

Ibn Umar (ra) would call the “Khawarij” as the evilest of the creatures of Allah (swt) and he said that “they studied the ayaat that Allah revealed regarding the disbelievers and they applied them on the believer”

عن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه، أنه قال: سمعت رسول الله صلّى الله عليه وسلّم يقول: سيخرج قوم في آخر الزمان، أحداث الأسنان سفهاء الأحلام، يقولون من خير قول البريّة لا يجاوز إيمانهم حناجرهم، يمرقون من الدّين كما يمرق السّهم من الرّمية، فأينما لقيتموهم فاقتلوهم فإن في قتلهم أجراً لمن قتلهم يوم القيامة

Imam Bukhari reports in his isnad from Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) that he said “I heard the prophet (Saw) say : There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of Judgment.”

From this it is evident that the term Khawarij applied on those individuals and the group of people who rebelled and disobeyed the khalifah of the Muslims.

Obligation of obeying the ruler

The obedience of the khalifah or the Ameer is an important matter. The Shari’ah obliges the obedience of the legitimately appointed ruler through Bai’ah and that is the khalifah, the prophet (saw) said:

Muslim narrated from ‘Abdullah Ibnu ‘Amru Ibnul A‘as that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

“Whoever gave Bai’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. If another comes to dispute with him, you must strike the neck of that man.”

Naf’i said ‘Abdullah Ibnu ‘Umar told me: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:

“Whoever takes off his hand from allegiance (Bai’ah) to Allah, he will meet Allah on the Resurrection Day without having any proof to show for himself; and whoever dies while having no allegiance (Bai’ah) on his neck he dies the death of the days of ignorance (Jahiliyyah)”, narrated by Muslim.

Ibnu ‘Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

“If anyone sees in his Ameer something that displeases him let him remain patient, for behold! He who separates himself from the Sultan (authority of Islam) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, he has died the death of Jahiliyyah”, narrated by Muslim.

Abu Hurayra reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

“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 soon be Khulafa’a’a, and they will number many.” They asked: ‘What then do you order us ?’ He (saw) said: “Fulfil (Bai’ah) allegiance to them one after the other, and give them their dues, for verily Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with”, narrated by Muslim.

These ‘Ahadith demonstrate two important matters, first that the Khaleefah only takes the authority by this Bai’ah, second that Allah (saw) has commanded his obedience: “Whoever pledged allegiance to an Imam ... shall obey him.” So, he is appointed Khaleefah through the Bai’ah, and his obedience becomes compulsory because he is a pledged Khaleefah. Thus he took the authority from the Ummah by giving her Bai’ah and her obedience to the one whom she pledged to i.e. to the one who has a Bai’ah on her neck.

The Prophet (saw) forbade the Muslims from disobeying the khalifah and considered disobedience similar to rebellion.

He (saw) said: "If anyone sees in his Ameer something that displeases him, let him remain patient, for behold! He who separates himself from the Sultan (authority of Islam) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon he has died the death of Jahiliyyah."

Therefore it is clear from the text that it is not allowed for the Muslim to rebel against the Khalifah. This brings us to another question and that is what is the limit of obedience? Is the Muslim obliged to obey the ruler even in the case he is an oppressor or does not rule by the quran and the sunnah.

Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Junada b. abi Umayyah who said: We went to ‘Ubadah b. as-Samit when he was sick and we said: May Allah (swt) guide you. Inform us of a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah (saw) so Allah may benefit you from it. He said, the Messenger of Allah (saw) called upon us and we gave him the Bai’ah, and he said, of that which he had taken from us, that we should give him the pledge to listen and obey, in what we like and dislike, in our hardship and ease, and that we should not dispute the authority of its people unless we saw open Kufr (kufr buwah) upon which we had a proof (burhan) from Allah.

The hadith was reported by At-Tabarani as “kufran Surahan (open kufr)”, and as “unless the disobedience of Allah is bawahan”. It was also reported by Ahmad as “unless they order you of ithmin bawahan (open sin)”.

'Awf Ibnu Malik Al-Ashja'i said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) say: 'The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you and whom you pray for and they pray for you, and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.' We asked: 'O Messenger of Allah, shall we not then declare war on them?' He said: 'No, as long as they establish the prayer among you', [Muslim]

Muslim reported on the authority of Umm Salama that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: "Ameers will be appointed over you, you recognise some of what they do and you disown some. Whoever recognised he is absolved from blame. Whoever disapproved (of their bad deeds) he is safe, but whoever consented and followed them (he is doomed.)" They said: "Should we not fight against them?" He (SAW) replied: "No, as long as they prayed."

What is meant by establishing the prayer is to rule by Islam, that is to implement the rules of Shari'ah . This is because the whole of Islam is denoted here by naming part of it. This is common in Arabic, for instance Allah (SWT) says: "To free a neck" [4:92] which means to free the slave i.e. all of him and not just his neck. In this Hadith he (saw) said: "As long as they establish the prayer among you." This means the establishment of all the rules not just the prayer and is a figurative form (kinayah) where basically the part is mentioned to refer to the whole.

Also in another hadith the prophet (saw) said , Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Aiesha (r.a.) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Whoever inserted anything in this our matter (Deen) that is not part of it, it is rejected.", this text is general its address and includes every person including the amir of an area, a khalifah, the head of a family and so on.

Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler in things he likes and dislikes, as long as he is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience.” (Sunan Tirmidhi)

So a ruler who rules by other than what Allah has revealed or a ruler who becomes an apostate is illegitimate. In that case a Muslim should not obey him rather he is obliged to work to remove him.

What is a legitimate authority in Sharī’ah?

A state becomes Islamic when its rules and policies derive from the Islamic ‘Aqīdah (creed) i.e. when their basis is the Qur’ān and Sunnah; meaning the sovereignty lies with the Sharī’ah. That is why obedience to the rulers is restricted and not unqualified. Allāh (swt) says:

“O you who believe! Obey Allāh, Obey His Messenger and those in authority from amongst you; and if you differ, then refer it to Allāh and His Messenger, if you believe in Allāh and the Last Day.” [Al-Nisā: 59]

This noble verse in Surah al-Nisā comes after verse 58, which focused on the rulers when they were enjoined to rule by justice – which is nothing other than what Allāh (SWT) has revealed (i.e. the Qur’ān and the Sunnah). In this verse, the focus is on the Muslims under the authority of the rulers, and their responsibility. In this respect the message of this ayah is addressed to the Ummah at large and we can learn from it the following matters:

The āyah (verse) begins with the imperative (command) form verb atī’ū (‘obey’): the subject of obedience (i.e. those who obey) is in plural form, meaning ‘ALL those who believe in Islām’; and the object of obedience (i.e. the one who is obeyed) is Allāh (swt). The verse then repeats the command atī’ū (obey) and this time the object of obedience is the Messenger (saw). The repetition of the word ‘obey’ and the order indicates the two basic reference points that Muslims have: the Qur’ān and Sunnah. Therefore anything in contravention of Qur’ān and Sunnah must be disobeyed, and anything from the Qur’ān and Sunnah must be obeyed. This is the principle upon which Muslims are told to live by and this is the principle on which Muslims are instructed to view their rulers. Here the word for rulers, or those in authority, is ūlul- amr (literal translation: ‘the people of Command’). It is not restricted to the Khalīfah, but also includes the wāli’s (governors), wazīrs (assistants) and all those who have authority, especially since the word has been used in the plural form (ūlul-amr and not the singular waliyul-amr).

It is significant that the āyah does not repeat the verb atī’ū when it comes to the Rulers, as it did in respect to Allāh and His Messenger; this is an additional indication alongside the clear verses and hadīth that state that rulers must obey Allāh and His Messenger in their ruling and exercise of authority. For example the Messenger (saw) said: ‘There is no obedience (when this results) in disobedience of the Creator.’ [Sahīh Bukhārī]

Here the mantūq (directly apparent meaning) is an absolute prohibition of following an order that goes against the order of Allāh (swt) – whosoever makes that order. This hadīth came specifically in the context of authority and ruling. Its mafhūm (implied meaning) indicates that just as the person cannot obey a ruler who commanded disobedience to Allāh (swt); so in the same way, a ruler or amīr cannot order, enact laws or rule by anything that is in violation of what Allāh (swt) has ordered.

Consider for example the following hadīth: It has been reported that ‘Alī (ra) said, “The Messenger of Allāh sent a troop under the command of a man from Al-Ansār. When they left, he became angry with them for some reason, and said to them, `Has not the Messenger of Allāh commanded you to obey me?’ They said, `Yes.’ He said, `Collect some wood,’ and then he started a fire with the wood, saying, `I command you to enter the fire.’ The people almost entered the fire, but a young man among them said, `You ran away from the Fire to Allāh’s Messenger. Therefore, do not rush until you go back to Allāh’s Messenger, and if he commands you to enter it, then enter it.’ When they went back to Allāh’s Messenger, they told him what had happened, and the Messenger said, ‘Had you entered it, you would never have departed from it. Obedience is only in righteousness.’” (Reported by Bukhārī volume 9, book 91, number 363). Here the Messenger (saw) stated that obedience is only in the ‘ma’rūf’ (good) and not in the ‘munkar’ (evil).

So the one in authority cannot command anything but ma’rūf, and people cannot obey anything but ma’rūf. What is ma’rūf is what Islām has defined as good, and munkar is what Islām has defined as evil. It is not left to the discretion of man to decide these matters.

The verse also obliges the obedience to the command of the Messenger (saw) and links that to the rulers. As long as the rulers or those in authority obey the Messenger (saw) then there is the obedience to him, otherwise there is no obedience. It is ludicrous after saying that there is no obedience in the disobedience to the Creator, that there can be obedience in the disobedience to the Messenger (saw) as the āyah obliges obedience to Allāh and His Messenger. That is why the Messenger of Allāh, may Allāh bless him and grant him peace, said in a ḥadīth reported by Abū Hurayrah, ‘Whoever obeys me has obeyed Allāh and whoever disobeys me has disobeyed Allāh. Whoever obeys the amīr has obeyed me and whoever disobeys the amīr has disobeyed me’ [Agreed upon].

As for the statement:

‘whoever obeys the amīr has obeyed me and whoever disobeys the amīr has disobeyed me’

In the above hadīth or the following one: ‘Anyone who dislikes something from his amīr should be patient. Anyone who abandons obedience to the amīr for even a short time dies the death of the Jāhiliyyah (ignorance)’ [Agreed upon]:

This does not mean absolute obedience to the rulers. These ahādīth are about not rebelling against the rulers due to their misappropriation of the people’s rights, but not about obeying the rulers in the matters which are a clear violation of the Sharī’ah. Rather, when the ruler commands a clear munkar, the Muslim must disobey that command and cannot say he was following orders.

The verse then concludes that if there is a dispute over a matter, between the Muslims and their rulers, then the final arbiter must be Allāh and His Messenger (saw). It states:

“If you differ, then refer it to Allāh and His Messenger, if you believe in Allāh and the Last Day.”

Just as the young man in the above hadīth disputed with his amīr when he commanded them to enter the fire, and referred the matter to the Messenger; we are also obliged to refer to the Islamic reference point i.e. the Qur’ān and Sunnah when there is a dispute. The last words of the āyah enjoin on the believers the importance of referring to Allāh and His Messenger in ruling, by drawing attention to the fact that not to do so is a negation of imān; hence it says: ‘…if you believe in Allāh and the Last Day.”

This is how the Sahābah (ra) understood this matter and nothing shows this more clearly than the speech of Abū Bakr al-Siddīq when he assumed the post of Khalīfah: “Help me if I am in the right; set me right if I am in the wrong. The weak among you shall be strong with me until Allāh willing, his rights have been vindicated. The strong among you shall be weak with me until, if Allāh wills, I have taken what is due from him. Obey me as long as I obey Allāh and His Prophet; when I disobey Him and his Prophet, obey me not.”

The conclusion therefore is that a ruler becomes legitimate only when he bases his rule on the Kitāb and Sunnah, ie sovereignty is for the Sharī’ah, and it is for this reason that obedience becomes obligatory. We are not asked by the ahādīth to give ‘our backs and property’ for no reason, i.e. if a ruler oppresses people, but rules by Islām, we are still obliged to obey such rulers, and not obey them in a sin; while at the same time accounting and advising them to stop their injustice. (The obligation to obey and not rebel against a ruler who commits oppression whilst accounting him will be clarified in detail in a separate article inshā Allāh.)

However, when we look to the case of the Saudi regime, we find that the basis of its rule is not the Sharī’ah, as indicated by its persistent and constant explicit contravention of the Sharī’ah; here are a few examples:

Permission of usury (ribā) and banks trading in usury, which is category prohibited in Islām
Submission to man-made international law as members of the UN and other international bodies, whose charters and rules are not in accordance with Islām

The flagrant and persistent violation of Sharī’ah by the Saudi regime, even after having been accounted by the ‘ulamā and the da’wah carriers means that the above constitute explicit kufr (kufr buwāh). Consequently, their rule is not legitimate and they need to be removed by the people of power (nusrah) and a just ruler appointed in their place.

So to claim that demonstrations against the Saudi rulers is prohibited, is misplaced as the Saudi regime does not enjoy any legitimacy whatsoever from the Sharī’ah perspective. Holding on to the rope of Allāh, and unity of the Jamā’ah arises only when Muslims gather under the leadership of a ruler who rules by the book of Allāh and Sunnah of the Messenger, not under the leadership of those who betray the interests of the Ummah and are only interested in being the khādims (servants) of America. A more detailed discussion on the issue of ‘Sharī’ah rules regarding legitimacy of Rulers’ will occur in a separate article inshā Allāh

Again, it is important not to confuse the issue of legitimacy, with the issue of accounting the rulers, since that is an independent obligation in Islām. Suffice to say, as the following section will show; if public accounting was permitted in the time of our Prophet (saw) and the Khulafā Rāshidah (the rightly-guided Caliphs), who represent the pinnacle of legitimacy and just Islamic leadership, then by greater reasoning (min bāb al-awlā) such accounting is needed in the time oppressive and corrupt rulers, whether they are legitimate or illegitimate.

Evidences for permissibility of demonstrations and protests

As for the proofs (adillah) for the permissibility of demonstration, there are both general and specific:
A demonstration or protest is a public display of opinion, and it is usually carried out by a group, though an individual can demonstrate or protest. So the manāt (reality) of protests and demonstrations is the public display of opinions. The general evidences which allow people to meet and express opinions would permit people to demonstrate their opinions, as long as the opinions expressed are permitted by Islām. As such protests and demonstrations are merely a permissible style, which takes its hukm (ruling) dependent on the reasons and aims of the demonstrations; thus these must be assessed before a hukm can be given for how can a style be labelled harām without consideration of its aims and purpose? For example, if Muslims come out on a demonstration calling for the legalisation of ribā, such a demonstration would not be halāl (permissible), as it calls for something that is harām. However, if people come out to account the rulers for their oppression, and neglecting the people’s legitimate rights (given by Islām); then such a demand – whether via a letter, meeting or demonstration – is ḥalāl, because it is regarding a matter that is not only permitted, but obliged by the Sharī’ah.

Another form of general evidences are the ‘umūmāt (generality) and unrestricted (mutlaq) import of the multitude of āyāt and aḥādīth that enjoin Muslims to speak the Ḥaqq (truth), enjoin the good and forbid the evil. For example:

Hudhayfah reported that the Prophet, may Allāh bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘By the One in whose hand is my soul, you shall command the right and forbid the wrong, or else Allāh may send His punishment on you; then you will call on Him and He will not answer you.’ [Muslim]

Or consider the following ayah:

“Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islām), enjoining Al-Ma`rūf (good) and forbidding Al-Munkar (evil); and it is they who are the successful.”
(Āli ‘Imrān: 104)

This ayah even includes the permissibility of collective action to forbid a munkar as it is a group that is commanded to enjoin the good and forbid the evil. This means if a group can forbid amunkar as a group and then there is no restriction on collectively accounting the rulers ie forbidding the munkar in the form of a demonstration. Thus these examples, due to the umūmāt (generality) and unrestricted form (mutlaq) of their meaning, allow the option of any style (for accounting) that the Sharī’ah has not expressly forbidden.

To elaborate further, consider the following hadīth: