Flag Bearers of Islam

What Are We Afraid Of ?

2012-01-07T23:40:00.000+11:00

To stop the revival ofIslam governments and media doing everything they can all over the world. One of their tactics is to intimidate theMuslims through various means. And this tactics is working for thosewho have very weak understanding of the Islamic Aqeeda. I have seenMuslims removing their Islamic identity in the west to get better jobor to stop being ridiculed by the society. For example changing name,shaving beard, removing hijab so on so forth.

Generallythe two most fear factor for human beings are the fear of loosingRizq (Provisions) and Life. Islam tells us that these two have beenfixed for us before our birth and Allah is the only provider for rizqand life. Allah (swt) tells us in the Quran:

“Nosoul can ever die except by Allah's leave and at a term appointed."[Aali ‘Imraan: 145]　

"Verily,Allâh is the All-Provider, Owner of Power, the Most Strong."[Adh-Dhariyaat: 58]　

"Whois he that can provide for you if He should withhold His provision?Nay, but they continue to be in pride, and (they) flee (from thetruth)." [Al-Mulk: 21]

Againthis doesn’t mean Islam teaches us to be fatalistic to stay at homeand expect rizq to be delivered at our doorstep. Allah tells us thatHe is the only provider and again He commands us to work/search forour rizq. So our employers are only means to our rizq but not theprovider. Same applies with the cause of death. It is Allah whocauses death and 'heart attack' or 'accidents' are just the means. Soloosing a job doesn’t mean the end of rizq or escaping an accidentdoesn’t mean cheating death.

Any Muslim who has internalized such concepts can not be defeated or exploited with the fear of loosing life or sustenance. It is the Shaitan who tries to frighten us with apprehension of various consequences and difficulties in following Islam. Allah tells us in the Quran:

“Shaitan (Satan) threatens you with poverty and orders you to commit Fahsha (evil deeds, sins, illegal sexual activities, etc.) whereas Allah promises you forgiveness from Himself and Bounty, and Allah is All-Sufficient for His creature’s needs, All-Knower” (Quran, al-Baqarah: 268).

"It is only Shaitan (Satan) that suggests to you the fear of his Auliya’ (supporters and friends); so fear them not, but fear Me, if you are (true) believers" (Quran, Aal-e-Imran: 175).

We alsoknow from the Quran and Sunnah that nothing adverse can happen to uswithout the will of Allah:

"Say:"Nothing shall ever happen to us except what Allâh has ordainedfor us. He is our Maulâ (Lord, Helper and Protector)." And inAllâh let the believers put their trust." [Chapter 9: Verse:51]

"If Allah helps you, none can overcome you; and If He forsakes you, who is there after Him that can help you? And in Allah (Alone) let believers put their trust." [ Al-Imran Verse 160]

"Knowthat if the whole Ummah gathered to benefit you with something, theywill not benefit you except by what Allah has destined (written) foryou. And if they gathered to harm you with something, they will notharm you with anything except what Allah has destined for you."[Tirmidhi]

Butoften we forget these teachings of Islam and fall into the trap ofshaitan by fearing people rather than Allah. So we start tocompromise. Corrupt rulers knows this very well and that’s why theytake every opportunity to spread fear of loosing rizq and life amongthe masses to perpetuate their crimes. So let us grasp the Aqeeda ofIslam and hold on to our Deen together so that we can be truewarriors against oppression, aggression and corruption.

"Andwhosoever fears Allâh and keeps his duty to Him, He will make a wayfor him to get out (from every difficulty). And He will provide himfrom (sources) he never could imagine. And whosoever puts his trustin Allâh, then He will suffice him. Verily, Allâh will accomplishhis purpose. " [Chapter 65: Verse: 2-3]

Intellectual Revival: Solutions to Post Colonialism

2012-01-07T23:03:00.000+11:00

Moez Mobeen

The Post-colonial era saw the Muslim World being introduced to governance structures and ideas which were born and developed inWestern 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.

Source: http://www.newcivilisation.com/home/ideas-philosophy/intellectual-revival-solutions-to-post-colonialism

Islam: A religion of peace or submission?

2011-08-12T21:49:00.001+10:00

Muslims are accused of being terrorists. Islam is accused of being predominantly violent, even spread by the sword. In such times it would be understandable that some Muslims would try to defend Islam by emphasising the oft-overlooked, peaceful side of the deen.

However, unduly exaggerating any aspect of the Islamic way of life distorts the true picture. It can be dangerous, for it can play right into the hands of those who wish to harm Islam and Muslims by promoting certain aspects of Islam and censoring others. Many of those who accuse Islam know full well that their words are little more than a shallow attempt to divert attention from true debate about the merits of the Islamic way of life. Moreover, their policy is aimed at utting pressure on Muslims to leave the pure Islamic way of thinking. They wish, instead, that Muslims become preoccupied with cost-benefit analyses before undertaking any action, instead of looking to what Allah is most pleased with. By adopting a distorted Islam, we could be undermining the foundations of what it means to be a Muslim.

It is not uncommon to hear the phrase ‘Islam means peace’. It is said that Islam and salaam (Arabic for peace) have the same root, so therefore peace is the core of Islam. The inference is that Islam IS peace, meaning that wherever peace is found, then this is Islam. Islam can then become any form of peace – even by surrendering to or remaining silent about oppressive murderers; accepting a peace process with Israel (even though it is forbidden in the shari’ah); or indeed appeasing every occupation of Muslim lands. In this representation of Islam, the shari’ah ceases to be the measure to judge actions by, replaced by whatever is judged at any particular time as most peaceful.

Linguistically this is a mistake. Islamically it is a catastrophe. It may be true that both words share the letters S L M, however, there are many words sharing the same three root letters. Only silm, salm and salaam are mentioned in Arabic dictionaries as having peace (Did alharb) among their meanings. Even salm and salaam both have the meaning surrender as well. More importantly though, when understanding any word in the Qur’an or Sunnah it is necessary for it to keep the meaning as used by the Arabs at the time of revelation, unless there is text to give it a more specific meaning. For instance, Salah in the language of the Arabs means to supplicate (du’aah), yet Islamic texts gave it a specific meaning of the act of prayer performed five times a day by Muslims. No Muslim would argue that merely making du’aah five times per day fulfilled the second pillar of Islam.

In his tafsir of: “No, whosoever surrenders himself to God, while doing good, he will have his reward with his Lord. There will be no fear over them, nor will they grieve” [Qur’an 2:112] Tabari mentions “He means with ‘islam al-wajh (islam of the face): to make oneself low, and submissiveness to His order. The origin of ‘al-islam’ is: surrendering (istislaam), because it is from ‘I surrendered to his order’ meaning submitting to his order. The Muslim is only called a muslim with the submission of his body to the obedience of his Lord.”

Qamus al-Muhit defines al-islam as “obedience, concession and surrender” Qurtabi says in his tafseer “al-islam in the language of the Arabs: surrendering, obedience and submitting” So, the word Islam has submission at the heart of its linguistic meaning, and has been given a specific Islamic meaning of surrendering, obedience and submitting to Allah without resistance.

In fact, this is the very heart of what it means to be a Muslim. Submitting one’s very desires to Allah is the highest form of worship. Submission is what Allah asks of us and is the naturally sensible thing to do. Every thing in existence is submitting to Allah against its will as all submit to the laws of the universe set by Allah. Humans have free will to choose what actions to perform. By submitting our actions to a system of rules (the shari’ah) designed by their Creator is certainly sensible. By willingly submitting our will to the Will of Allah, such that we do not even desire for that which would displease Allah, is an even purer worship to Him.

Allah asks us to ponder “Do they then seek the judgement of Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allah for a people who have firm faith?” [Qur’an 5:50]

He informs us that the path to betterment is willingly submitting ourselves to His system, by referring all matters back to what His Messenger, Muhammad (saw), brought.

“But no, by your Lord, they will not have faith, until they make you (Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept with full submission” [Qur’an 4:65]

The submitting Muslim is grateful to His Lord for all His favours. He is ever thankful that Allah has given clear guidance and the shari’ah as a way to Him. He turns in repentance to His Lord for past ingratitude and wants only to submit to whatever pleases Allah most.

The submitting Muslim, faced with any problem, asks ‘what solution would please my Lord?’ He searches the Islamic texts for a text or an indication whether Allah is pleased or displeased with a certain course of action. He then submits fully to that rule, adopting it as the hukm shari’i (Islamic rule) for him. Were he unable to derive the rule from the text, as most many Muslims today are, then he asks those who are able.

If the submitting Muslim heard that his adopted Islamic rule was disliked by other people, he does not go back to the text to find a more pleasing rule. That would not be submitting to Allah, but to peer-pressure or public opinion. Ultimately both would entail following his or their desires.
Allah says

“And so judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their desires, but beware of them lest they turn you away from even some of what was revealed to you” [Qur’an 5:49]

The submitting Muslim is not like the lawyer, who looks at what technical point of law or precedent he can use to serve his purpose. It is the truth of the matter that counts. The submitting Muslim does not search the historical jurists’ opinions looking for a ruling that suits his own agenda, adopting any shaadh (obscure) opinion. Allah has warned against this grave error many times. The submitting Muslim has taqwa (fear and consciousness of Allah) to help him decide what ruling to adopt. His only concern is what is most pleasing to Allah. Without this, he has only legal wranglings which miss the very point of Islam: submission.

Allah says “Whoever accepts other than Submission as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter, he will be with the losers” [Qur’an 3:85]

Peace has its place in Islam. It is what we wish for each other in the next life, as we pray to Allah in our standard greeting ‘As-Salaamu alaikum’. It is a rule of foreign policy after treaties have been concluded. It is the natural consequence of implementing the Islamic shariah in the Islamic state, as it is the basic way of dealing between the citizens of society, Muslim or not. It is the settled state of the heart and mind of the believing submitting Muslim. Other beliefs may give temporary or partial peace of mind, but only Islam gives permanent inner peace, as only Islam is built upon the mind and agrees with human nature.

In the end, despite whichever label people wish to place on Islam, Islam has submission to Allah’s deen at its heart.

“Have you seen those who claim to believe in what has been sent down to you, and what was sent down before you? They wish to go to the taghut for judgement, while they have been ordered to reject it. Shaytaan wishes to lead the far astray.”

Source: http://www.khilafah.eu/kmag/article/islam-a-religion-of-peace-or-submission

Sunni and Shia Divisions

2011-07-01T07:53:00.000+10:00

Source: http://www.iculture.org.uk/articles/ideas/the-sectarian-card-shia-and-sunni-divisions-under-the-spotlight

The “Arab Spring” has seen the masses across the Middle East and North Africa rise up and protest against the various despotic regimes that have plagued the post-colonial set-up in the region. Irrespective of whether the regime was a republic, such as Egypt, or a monarchy, such as Jordan, all of the rulers suffer from a lack of legitimacy; and the people of the region all suffer from similar issues such as corruption, oppressive police states, and unaccountable government.

Amongst the issues, one which has reared its head amongst these protests has been that of sectarianism, both in Syria and Bahrain. In Syria, the ‘Alawī sect rules the country despite only making up less than 20% of the population, while in Bahrain the al-Khalīfa Sunni family rules over a majority Shī’ah population. For this reason, both governments have played the sectarian cards when they have been confronted with protests, in order to galvanise domestic and regional support against the protestors. In origin, neither set of protests are sectarian, but rather are representative of the movement across the region, which has seen the rise of the people against the illegitimate regimes whatever their identity. This is supported by the fact that the Bahraini demonstrations have been widely supported in other countries such as Egypt.

Though the sectarian split exists in Syria, in reality all of the Arab governments support the Assad regime and would prefer that the uprisings are suppressed, and therefore the same sectarian element has not emerged as strongly, even though the ‘Alawī sect is without any doubt considered outside of Islam by both the Sunnī and Shī’ah. Rather, the government has used the excuse that they are the bulwark against “Islamic extremism” and that those opposing them are not representative of the society there.

On the other hand, the Bahraini authority has used forces from the Gulf including Saudi Arabia to suppress its protests, going as far as attacking hospitals and arresting hospital task. The Saudi regime has been very forceful in backing the Bahraini government due to its own fear that protests in the region could spread into Saudi – which is why they have gone as far as to ban any form of demonstration and accounting of the government. It claims that the Bahraini protests are fostered by Iranian support, and so there is a struggle between the two powers going on in Bahrain, similar to the one in Iraq. As a result of these struggles, more sectarianism has been pushed through the media and the clerical classes in Saudi to mobilise opinion against the Bahraini protests, with the excuse that they are Shī’ah disbelievers and therefore the al-Khalīfa family is better.

It is with this background in mind that the following issues will be addressed:

Why did Shī’ism arise?
What is the ruling on the Shī’ah? Are they Muslims or not?
What is the solution for the situation, and is it sectarian in nature? If not – what is it?

Why Did Shī’ism Arise?

The origins of the split between the Shī’ah and Sunnī can be traced back to the time of the Companions (ra) and the subsequent generation. The dispute was political in nature, with those who preferred ‘Alī (ra) to be Khalīfa ahead of the other companions labelled as Shī’atu ‘Alī (‘The faction of ‘Alī’). As positions hardened different beliefs developed, and so Shī’ism came to represent all those who preferred ‘Alī (ra), but included a spectrum – from those who simply had a political preference, to those who believed in the divinity of ‘Alī (ra).

Today, the majority of the Shī’ah belong to the Twelver sect, though there remains other sects such as the Zaydī’s in Yemen.

Both the Sunnī and Shī’ah believe in the necessity of the Khilāfah, and the disagreement relates back to who should be the Khalīfah. In answer to this question, the orthodox position is that the Khalīfah is determined by the choice of the ummah, while the Shī’ah disagreed and claimed that the question of leadership was decided by revelation. It is beyond the scope of this article to expand upon this here, but suffice it to say that this question lies at the heart of the disagreement between the parties, and its resolution would resolve all the branch issues in one go by dealing with the fundamental root contention.

The Ruling on the Shī’ah – Muslim?

The first question to be answered is – What makes a Muslim?

Someone enters into Islām with the pronouncement of the shahādatayn – ‘There is no God except Allāh, and that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the Messenger of Allāh.’ Belief in Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) necessitates belief in the Qur’ān as the immutable word of Allāh. Belief in the Qur’ān means to believe in all that came in it, since the Qur’ān has been transmitted through mutawātir (mass transmission negating the possibility of any error) channels. Anything which is confirmed definitely in the Qur’ān as part of the belief, or is known by necessity, are conditions for belief in Islam. Issues which are not known by necessity, or are not definitely concurred upon in the Qur’ān and fall under the realm of ijtihād are areas where it is not permitted to make takfīr (pronunciation of disbelief) of the person who holds the different opinion, though they may be disputed with.

As for that which is confirmed, for example Allāh has said in the Qur’ān:

“O you who believe – believe in Allāh and His Messenger, and the Book which He sent to His messenger and the Book which He sent to those who came before him. Anyone who denies Allāh, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers and the Day of Judgement has gone far astray” (4:136)

The verse makes it clear that belief in Islam is based upon belief in Allāh, the Angels, all the revealed books ending with the Qur’ān, all of His Messengers and the Day of Judgement. Anyone who disbelieves in any of these is outside of the fold of Islam, whatever they may claim.

In this case, someone who claims that the Qur’ān is changed – has gone against these fundamentals of faith and is a disbeliever. Likewise, if someone believes in any person personifying God – like the ‘Alawī consider ‘Alī – then such people are also outside the fold of Islam since they have gone against the first of the shahādatayn.

However, if someone believes in something not known by necessity, or which is disputed, then this does not take them out of the fold of Islam – such as the position that the Qur’ān is the created Word of Allāh, or whether the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did the ascension from Mecca to the Dome of the Rock and up to the heavens in physical body or not.

With this in mind – it should be noted that to make a blank assertion regarding the Shī’ah would be incorrect, due to the fact they accept the shahādatayn, and therefore are considered as part of the Muslim Ummah in origin. Beyond the fundamental beliefs stated previously they have additional beliefs, as there are many different branches which come under the umbrella of the Shī’ah, from those who prefer ‘Alī as Khalīfah over Abū Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allāh be pleased with them all), to those who claim divinity for ‘Alī. Therefore to declare any specific Shī’ah as a disbeliever requires clarification as to their beliefs, with the acceptance that they are in origin Muslims. To declare a specific person outside of Islam in this case would require a proof that they are going against something definitely proven in Islam, and is known by necessity.

Issues which remove a person from Islam

From the issues that would remove a person from Islam, which have been attributed to various sects of the Shī’ah:

The claim that the Qur’ān was altered or is incomplete in any way
The claim that the Qur’ān was wrongly revealed to Muhammad (saw) and it was intended for ‘Alī (ra)
The claim that ‘Alī (ra) is a divine being
The claim that the companions on masse are not Muslim

Though the above claims have been attributed to some factions of the Shī’ah, they are not agreed upon as the foundation of Shī’ah belief, which means that it is not possible to make a generalisation and rather each person should be discussed separately.

Other issues, such as the cursing of specific individual companions, or the belief that ‘Alī is better than Abū Bakr, do not reach the level of disbelief which removes them from the deen, though is considered extremely reprehensible.

Therefore, in approaching the question of the Shī’ah, it would not be correct to make general assertions; and rather since they have entered into Islam through their belief in the shahādatayn and believe in the fundamental aspects of the Islamic belief, to make a declaration of disbelief requires investigation into that specific individual’s understanding, since the issues mentioned above (1-4) are not universally held by those who ascribe themselves as Shī’ah.

Words of the Classical Scholars Regarding the Shī’ah

To summarise what is coming for those who are not interested in the more detailed discussion and references – Muslim scholars in the past did not do blanket takfīr of the Shī’ah. Rather they accepted them as Muslims in origin and some even accepted to narrate through them. Ibn Taymiyyah, who is often quoted as an authority on the Shī’ah, did not do a blanket takfīr of them, though he was very harsh with respect to their beliefs. Rather he considered them as Muslims who had gone astray. This is with respect to the generality of the Shī’ah.

1. When the Scholars mention that an opinion is Kufr, they did not intend specific takfīr of those who may have held that opinion

This is because someone could hold an opinion that is considered kufr according to one scholar, but it is not kufr according to another, so it is an issue of disagreement. Alternatively, it may be that the person who held that opinion is ignorant of it being an invalid opinion, and so their ignorance prevents them from being labelled as a disbeliever. (In other words, the conditions/preventions of making takfīr are not removed from such a person, and so until they are given the knowledge and understanding, they cannot be declared as outside the fold of Islām.)

As an example, Sheikh ibn Taymiyyah mentioned, in explaining what was meant by the scholars when they declared that ‘whoever declared a particular opinion was a disbeliever’ had to be understood within a context. He stated “rather, what is narrated from each of them is that he does takfīr of whoever said some opinion, and what was intended was that that opinion/word was (in itself) kufr, in order to warn against it [and therefore it was not intended to mean that the person who said it was necessarily a disbeliever]. And if an opinion is kufr, it is not necessary to do takfīr of everyone who says it with ignorance and ta’wīl (interpretation)”[1]

It is necessary to lay that foundation as it is sometimes seen that there are narrations from different scholars doing takfīr of the rāfidah (the more extreme Shī’ah are labelled in the classical texts as the Rāfidah – pl. Rawāfid – and they are mentioned in various places, often citing that they are disbelievers). In other places, narrations regarding the same scholars make it clear that they consider the rāfidah as Muslims, such as through their acceptance to transmit Ahādith (Prophetic narrations) via them. This seeming contradiction has been explained above – that their labelling of the beliefs as disbelief is to warn against them, but that they did not necessarily consider the specific person believing in them or calling for them as a kāfir.

2. Amongst the scholars were those who accepted narrations from the Rāfidah

The following quotes highlight the position of some of the classical scholars in accepting narrations through innovators (and amongst the conditions for the acceptance of a narration are: Islam, and righteousness or adalah). There was a difference opinion amongst the scholars in this issue, and Imām Baghdādi mentioned those who accepted narrations from innovators:

“and from those who accepted this (narrations from innovators) from the jurists was Abū Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfi’ī who said, ‘and the statement of the people of desires (innovators) is accepted, except for the khātibiyya of the rawāfid due to the fact that they attest and agree to false witnesses’, and it is narrated that this is the opinion of ibn Abī Laylah and Sufyān al-Thawrī and similar to this has been narrated from Qādi Abū Yūsuf”[2]

It can be noticed that the statement makes clear that apart from one group from the rawāfid, Imam al-Shāfi’ī and others mentioned accepted narrations from the Shī’ah generally, meaning that they accepted them as being Muslims and also as being just.

In Ibn Hajr al-Askalāni’s commentary on Ibn Salāh – he mentions:

“The people divided into 3 opinions with respect to narrations from the Rāfidah – the first opinion is total rejection (of narrating from them), the second opinion is total permission (of narrating from them) except for those who lie and fabricate, and the third is a nuanced opinion which accepts the narration of a rāfidī who is known to be trustworthy in what they relate, while rejecting the narration of those who call to their innovation (their Shī’ah beliefs) even if they were considered honest.”[3]

This comment also makes it clear that the rāfidah were not considered as outside of Islām, but rather there was dispute over whether their narrations could be accepted, since their beliefs could be construed as removing the necessary characteristic of trustworthiness (adālah).

Ibn Qayyim also mentioned similar – stating:

“As for the people of innovations who are in agreement with the people of Islām, but they differ with them over some fundamentals, such as the rāfidah, the qadariyyah and the jahmiyyah, and the extreme murji’ah, who are on other than Islām – these and those similar to them can be divided into 3 categories”

He then goes on to mention the categories, with the first category being those who were ignorant, unable to get clarification of the deviancy of their views and were following others. He classed these as Muslims. As for the most harsh category – the third class of people who had had their deviancy explained to them, but they continued to follow their innovations out of partisanship etc. – ibn Qayyim stated that such a person would be considered a fāsiq (sinful) at a minimum, and the issue of making takfīr of him was dependent upon ijtihād.[4]

What can be seen from all the quotes above is that the rāfidah were considered as Muslims in origin, with the discussion forming around whether to accept or reject any narrations or witness statements from them.

The Opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah

Ibn Taymiyyah is oft-quoted for his opinions on issues of belief, and is particularly used in regards to the Shī’ah due to his authorship of the book “Minhāj al-Sunnah” which was a comprehensive refutation of the Shī’ah. However, as mentioned previously, he has often been quoted out of context or with lack of understanding to back up the claim that the Rāfidah in their entirety are disbelievers. Amongst his many comments about the Rāfidah in this book are statements such as that they are the most dangerous enemies of the Muslims, that they are greater in disbelief than the Khawārij, that they were the furthest from the deen, and that their beliefs were the most disgusting beliefs. Despite this, a complete reading of ibn Taymiyyah can only lead to the conclusion that even though he was a fierce critic of their beliefs, he did not consider them as outside of Islam and did not make specific takfīr unless specific investigation was made.

a. The Rāfidah are Muslims

As a clear example – he stated:

“And many of the innovating Muslims, from the Rāfidah and Jahmiyyah and others, travelled to the countries of the disbelievers, and many became Muslim at their hands, and benefitted from that, becoming Muslim innovators, which is much better than remaining as disbelievers”[5]

When he was asked about someone preferring the Jews and Christians ahead of the Rāfidah (a good example considering that today some scholars have told the Muslims to be more afraid of Iran than Israel), he replied:

“Everyone who was a believer in that which Muhammad (saw) brought, then he is better than everyone who disbelieved in it, and even if that believer had an aspect of innovation, irrespective of whether it was the innovation of the khawārij or the shī’ah or the murji’ah or the qadariyyah or other than them; the Jew and the Christian are disbelievers and their disbelief is known by necessity from the deen of Islām. And if the innovator considered himself to be in agreement with the Prophet (saw), not against him or disbelieving in him – then even if it was considered that he had committed disbelief, his disbelief is not like the disbelief of the one who lied against the Prophet (saw)”[6]

Ibn Taymiyyah makes it clear that despite the harshness with which he addressed those he considered as deviants holding heretical beliefs, he considered them separate and better than the non-Muslims since they share the same fundamental belief in Islam and therefore are part of the Ummah. In this he makes clear the priorities of where allegiances should lie.

b. Praying behind the Rāfidah

In another section, in response to the question about whether it is necessary to investigate the beliefs of the imām before praying behind him, as part of his response Ibn Taymiyyah states:

“And likewise, if the Imām was appointed by those in positions of rule, and there is no benefit in leaving the prayer behind him (such as setting an example in front of the people), then here it is not upon the person to leave the prayer behind him (you should pray behind him, because the importance of prayer in congregation overrides in this instance praying behind an innovator), rather prayer behind the best imām is better (and not a reason to leave the prayer with this person), and all of this is with respect to the one where sinfulness is apparent from him, or innovation which clearly contradicts the Book and the Sunnah, such as the innovation of the Rāfidah and the Jahmiyya and their likes”[7]

As can be seen in this fatwa, ibn Taymiyyah permitted the prayer behind the Shī’ah if there was no other imām appointed to lead the prayer in the area. In the following section he also criticizes those who would refuse to pray behind the rāfidah in such a situation, claiming that they had fallen into the same way of thinking of the rāfidah – which is to make takfīr of those they disagreed with – alluding to the fact that the people of Sunnah did not make takfīr of those they disagreed with, even if those they disagreed with made takfīr of them.

c. His opinion regarding the Rāfidah Twelvers (Ithnā ‘ashariyyah – who are the majority of the contemporary Shī’ah in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon)

Ibn Taymiyyah knew about the opinions of the Twelver Shī’ah, and specifically their opinion that they believed that their Imāms were free of sin in the same manner as the Messengers. In commenting upon this, he compared the Twelver Shī’ah to the Ismaīlī Shī’ah:

“The Twelvers are much better than the Ismaīlī’s, because in spite of their ignorance and misguidance, there are some who are Muslims in their heart and outwardly – and they are not hypocrites and infidels, since they are ignorant, misguided and followed their desires. As for their leaders, who know the reality of the hidden agenda of their call, they are hypocrites; and as for the lay people who do not know the hidden agenda, they may be Muslims”[8]

And so here it is plain that ibn Taymiyyah is not making explicit general takfīr of the Twelvers, let alone takfīr of specific individuals from amongst them, since even his general takfīr of their leaders would still be reliant upon the conditions of takfīr being met before ruling upon an individual.

d. Cannot rule on specific Rāfidī individuals as being disbelievers

This issue has already been mentioned previously, but it is worth mentioning the specific opinion of ibn Taymiyyah here as well, to explain what has just been mentioned. When discussing the issue of takfīr of innovators and whether they would spend eternity in hellfire, he makes the statement regarding takfīr of a specific Kharijī or Rāfidī:

“But to make takfīr of a specific individual, and to rule that they would spend eternity in hellfire, rests upon fulfilling the conditions of takfīr and eliminating all the issues that would prevent it”[9]

In summary – it would be incorrect to attribute the idea of a general takfīr of the Shī’ah, or the Twelver Shī’ah sect, to Ibn Taymiyyah, or his student Ibn Qayyim as mentioned previously. Rather, it has been shown that Ibn Taymiyyah considered them as Muslims in origin, with specific individuals possibly being ruled as disbelievers after investigation. Rather, he explicitly mentions the position that they can be prayed behind, that good can come from them, and that they are to be preferred ahead of disbelievers.

Modern Scholars who did not make takfīr of the Shī’ah

The list of modern scholars who did not make takfīr of the Shī’ah is too long to mention, rather those who made takfīr are limited to a few from the Arabian Peninsula and the sub-continent. To mention a few of the specific names who did not make or agree with general takfīr of the Shī’ah – includes the Sheikh al-Azhar al-Shaltūt who gave the fatwa recognising the Jafarī school of thought as a legitimate school, Saudi sheikhs Salmān al-Ouda and Ibn Uthaymīn, Syrian scholar al-alBāni, Sheikh Mustafa Ceric, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, Sheikh Wahba Al-Zuhayli, Sheikh Ramadan Al-Buti amongst many others.

The Khilāfah is the Solution to remove Sectarianism

The problems of sectarianism have always been used to disunite the Muslim ummah as a whole, and to pit Muslims against each other, keeping them internally divided. This can be witnessed plainly in what is going on in Bahrain at the moment, what has occurred in Iraq recently and what has been happening over Lebanon over the last few decades. This is because the Muslims do not have a united leadership which can represent us globally and project our unity (despite our internal differences – which pale in insignificance compared to the differences between the Ummah of Muhammad (saw) and the rest of the people). The call to democracy in these areas is proven to exacerbate the issues, since democracy is based upon majority votes and following the whims of people, and so politicians often utilise the sectarian card in order to win support and power. This is analogous to the Western politician who uses the immigration card to win support from his own constituents.

As a system, democracy will always fail the minorities – which is why modern democracies have had to cope with this through the addition of constitutional restrictions upon their treatment. A look at the sectarianism that has plagued the Iraqi democracy since its inception, and the problems with the confessional system in Lebanon, highlight that democracy is a totally inadequate solution, which only incites rather than coping with differences. This is a systemic issue linked to the basis of democracy, and cannot be solved by piecemeal solutions such as constitutional limitations.

The correct solution for the Muslim Ummah is to understand that she is one Ummah, despite her differences. Indeed, these differences and others like them are unlikely to ever be resolved completely, and the Muslims lived for centuries under the Khilāfah and various states despite their differences in the details of belief. What is required from the Ummah is to accept their differences and unite upon their fundamentals, and this is represented in the Khilāfah. The Khilāfah system is not dependent upon the whims of the majority and constitutional limitations to protect minorities, rather each human being’s rights under the Khilāfah is guaranteed by the revelation, which is used as the basis of law.

All Muslims, whatever their understanding of Islam, believe in the unity of the Muslims and that this unity should be manifested politically. All Muslims, whatever their belief, also believe in the necessity to implement Islām in all of life’s affairs. All those issues which are personal – such as the prayer, the fasting, and the details of the belief – should be left to the individuals by the Khalīfa, and the Islamic State would not try to impose one unified belief upon the whole of the people. Rather, if someone accepts the shahādatayn and what it entails, they are accepted as a Muslim and will be treated as such. Islām did not come as a totalitarian system to impose every last detail upon its adherents, and one of the mercies of Islām is its capacity for differences and to accept those different ijtihāds.

History has shown us, as with the fitnah at the time of Imām Ahmad, that it is not productive for the Khalifah to try to impose one set of beliefs upon the whole ummah as it simply leads to disunity, resistance and is ultimately futile. It has also shown us that when rulers adopt sectarian positions, thus dividing the ummah, the Muslims as a whole become weaker and open to outside exploitation. Rather the Khilāfah is to adopt the necessary rules and laws from the Sharī’ah that are required in the society such as the hudūd punishments, the levels of taxation and so on, and to leave the personal issues to the individual and his own relationship with Allah, and upon this basis a solid foundation for the unity of the Ummah would be established.

With the Muslims unified under a single leadership to run their affairs according to Islām, such sectarianism as being played out in Bahrain and Syria will be minimised. All Muslims will have recourse to the courts and to be judged according to Islām, and will be left alone with respect to the details of their personal worship. The State will clearly define what is a Muslim and delineate those who fall outside of Islam (such as the ‘Alawī and Ismaīlī sects) and will represent Islām on the international stage, not a particular sect.

Abu Luqman Fathullah

[1] Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nubūwwah vol.5 pp.162

[2] Baghdādi, al-Kifāyat fī ‘ilm al-riwāyāt, pp. 120

[3] Ibn Hajr al-Askalāni, al-nukut ‘alā Muqadimmah ibn Salāh, vol 3 pp. 398

[4] Ibn Qayyim, Turūq al-Hākimiyyah, pp.255/6

[5] Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū’ al-fatāwa, vol 13 pp 96

[6] Ibn Taymiyya, Majmū’ al-fatāwa, vol 35 pp 201

[7] Ibn Taymiyya, Majmū’ al-fatāwa, vol 23 pp 355

[8] Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nubūwwah vol.2 pp.279

[9] Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū’ al-fatāwa, vol 28 pp 500

Between Sufism and Salafism

2011-07-01T07:40:00.000+10:00

Sourece: http://www.iculture.org.uk/articles/ideas/between-sufism-and-salafism

Unfortunately today we find groupings amongst the Ummah who have taken the age old divisions regarding the branches of belief, usūl al-fiqh and jurisprudence to extremes. They speak with an agenda to refute each other and exhaust much effort in this pursuit. Regrettably they consider each other the enemy whilst our lands are occupied by the kuffār, such as the land of the Isrā’ and Mi’rāj (The Prophet’s Night Journey), whilst Muslim blood is spilt by the colonialists the world over and whilst the enemies of Islam seek to seduce Muslims away from our core values, sharī’ah rules and even our ‘aqīdah (belief).

Putting aside the fringe minority amongst both camps, who have clearly gone totally astray – such as those amongst the Sufis that believe in Wahdat al-wujūd – that Allāh (swt) is part of the creation, or those amongst the Salafī ultra-Żāhirī’s (literalists) who make Takfīr (pronouncing disbelief) on everyone apart from themselves – looking at the mainstream of both camps today, one can notice that both sides have gone beyond the bounds of what their founders, and the classical scholars that they refer to, taught.

The Ash’arī scholars and pioneers in history, whilst they disagreed strongly with the views of the literalists did not consider them and their scholars as enemies. They did not consider Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Kathīr and the like as heretics even though they differed with them in many issues, ranging from the definition of Imān, the manner in which to understand the sifāt (attributes) of Allāh (swt), in the usage of Qiyās (legal analogical reasoning) and the permissibility of Taqlīd (following qualified legal opinions of a mujtahid) to a school of thought (madhhab). In fact they did not even consider this camp in the same light as the heretical groups such as the Mu’tazilah or the Khawārij. On the contrary the books of these scholars were respected and quoted by Ash’arī scholars throughout history. It is true that they strongly criticised the literalist camp for their approach and views but this was on the scholarly intellectual level and must be taken in this context. This was the practice even amongst the Salaf as-Salihīn (pious predecessors), such as the founding fathers of the madhāhib (schools of thought). For example when Imam al-Shāfi’ī criticised the principle of Istihsān (juristic preference), a secondary source of law utilised by the Hanafī school, in the chapter Ibtāl al- Istihsān (Refutation of Juristic Preference) in his book Kitab al-Umm, he equated the one who adopted it similar to the one who makes the mind sovereign. This in no way meant that he viewed them as deviants; on the contrary he respected his teacher, the student of Imām Abū Hanīfah, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybānī with high regard.

Similarly the literalist scholars whom the Salafī camp hold in high regard and take their thought from; whilst they also harshly criticised the Ash’arī’s, especially on some of their views such as the attributes of Allāh (swt), their definition of the Qur’ān as an expression of the speech of Allāh, their definition of Imān (belief) as being Tasdīq (assent) in the heart and not including actions, and their justification of Taqlīd – they did not consider them as heretics or deviants deserving the wrath of Allāh (swt). Look at what Ibn Taymiyyah himself says:

“It is not necessarily the case that everyone who makes a mistake in matters of ‘aqīdah is destined to be from the destroyed and the losers. Perhaps, the disputant was a mistaken mujtahid for whom Allāh will forgive his mistake. It is also possible that he did not receive enough information about the topic to conclude that the proof has been established against him.” [Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū’ al-Fatāwa, vol. 3 p.179]

In fact he mentions that even the Salaf differed on various issues; even those related to the belief. He says:

“The early pious people (al-salaf) disputed about many of those issues. Yet none of them declared the others of having unbelief, evil or sin. Shurayh rejected the reading of the verse, “But I wonder (‘ajibtu) while they mock” (al-Sāffāt: 12). He said, “Allāh does not wonder.”[1] When that reached Ibrāhīm al-Nakha’ī, he said, “Shurayh was a poet who was overcome by his own knowledge. But ‘Abdullah [ibn Mas’ūd] was more knowledgeable than him and he would read, “I wonder”. And ’Āishah disputed with the other Companions regarding Muhammad (saw) seeing his Lord. She said, “Whoever claims that Muhammad saw his Lord has committed a great falsehood against Allāh.” Despite this, we do not say about Ibn ‘Abbās or others who disputed with her on that point, that they stated a great lie against Allāh. They also disputed about whether the dead could hear the words of the living, whether the dead is punished for the crying of his family and so forth…” [Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmū’ al-Fatāwa, vol 3, pp. 239-240]

Remember they considered that Allāh (swt) would forgive the sincere believers for their mistakes even in matters they believed were clear, as is mentioned in the hadīth, “Allāh has pardoned for my nation [what is done] by mistake, out of forgetfulness or under duress.”

If we were to look at the reasons why Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari (d. 936 CE) and those who followed him as well as scholars on the literalist side like Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE) entered into the debates about the branches of belief we would find that they did so with the noble purpose of defending the Islamic creed. Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari rose to the challenge of refuting the strange views of the deviant group, the Mu’tazila who were creating confusion in his time. Sheikh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah on the other hand faced the incorrect views of the extreme sufi mystics influenced by foreign philosophies head on and exposed them.

It would be much more productive, in line with the obligation of enjoining the good and forbidding the munkar (evil) and in keeping with the ethos of the classical scholars, for both camps today to focus on refuting the intellectual onslaught launched by the Kuffār upon the Dīn, its definitive concepts, rules and even the Islamic creed. Today, in the name of reformation people are questioning the hudūd laws set by Allah; they are attempting to destroy the Islamic concept of brotherhood by permitting the alliance with the kuffār against the believers; they attempt to cast doubt on the obligation of the khimār (headscarf) and jilbāb upon the woman in the public life and want us to turn away from the fundamental aqeeda concept of the sovereignty of Allāh (swt) by accepting man-made laws. Secular liberalism championed by the west is the real threat that is corrupting millions of Muslims worldwide not the centuries old debates on the branches of aqeeda and usul al fiqh. One may point to modern day Sūfīs or Salafīs who are modernists used in this campaign against the normative concepts in Islam in order to strengthen his argument against the other camp.

However, it is clear that there are some in both camps who are being used to cast doubt on the fundamentals of the Dīn. There are some who claim to be the followers of Abul Hasan al-Ash’arī yet they go against the qat’ī (definitive) matters, contradicting what is established by evidences that are definitive in authenticity and meaning. They going against the consensus of all the scholars including the four Imāms of the madhāhib and all the scholars from amongst the Ash’arī’s such as Qādī ‘Iyād, Al-Ghazālī, Imām al-Haramayn al-Juwaynī, Al-Suyūtī, Al-Rāzī, Al-Nawawī, Ibn Hajr al-Haytamī, Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalānī and others.

They argue away the hudud (prescribed punishments) of Allah such as the obligation to cut the hand of the thief and lashing the unmarried fornicator on the pretext of the changing of the time and place. They misuse the principles of masalih al mursala (public interests), dharoora (necessity), alhaf al-dararain (the lesser of the two harms) and the like to justify the taking of riba (usury), electing people to rule by other than Islam and other matters that would be considered blasphemous to the Ash’ari scholars of the past.

The modernist scholars error is not due to being Ash’arī; rather it is due to being those who are justifying the unjustifiable and their thoughts need to be exposed by both Ash’arī and non-Ash’arī ulema alike.

Similarly it could be said that there are Salafī scholars that legitimise the clearly non-Islamic rule of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and justify the Kingdom’s actions such as its alliance with America. Again those who do this are manifestly turning away from the path of the Salaf, the definitive evidences and the consensus of all scholars including Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathīr. The literalists scholars did not only view it is as a strong prohibition; they in fact considered ruling by other than what Allāh (swt) has revealed as disbelief.

Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Undoubtedly, whoever does not believe that it is obligatory to rule according to that which Allah has revealed to His Messenger is a Kafir (disbeliever), and whoever thinks it is permissible to rule among people according to his own opinions, turning away and not following which Allah has revealed is also a Kafir…So in matters which are common to the Ummah as a whole, it is not permissible to rule or judge according to anything except the Quran and Sunnah. No one has the right to make the people follow the words of a scholar or ameer, shaykh or king. Whoever believes that he can judge between people according to any such thing, and does not judge between them according to the Quran and Sunnah is a Kafir.” [Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaj as-Sunnah, 5/130-132]

Hence, the Salafi-modernists should be exposed by the Salafī and non-Salafī scholars alike.

Perhaps it is also time for both camps to go back to the original sources of the Qur’ān and Sunnah, which are the sources of guidance for the Ash’arīs and Salafīs alike, and attempt to neutrally re-evaluate some of their controversial views. If one was to refer back to the original sources instead of continuing to adhere to the position of their camp, they may conclude that some of the views they have been adhering to are weak or incorrect; such as the traditionalists position that the doors of Ijtihād are closed even though it has been established that Ijtihād is Fard al-Kifāyah (an obligation of sufficiency). Similarly if someone from the Salafī camp independently reconsiders the literalist position of the prohibition of taqlīd he may discover its weakness, as the Qur’ān commands us to, “Ask the people of dhikr (understanding) if you know not” [TMQ 21:7] and the Prophet (saw) said, “The cure for the lack of knowledge is to ask” as well as many other evidences. Maybe if we go back to the original sources and study the matters neutrally, instead of trying to dogmatically defend the position of our teachers and our camp, we may find that the true path is neither Sufism nor Salafism, Ash’arī or Żahirī but that it is a path in between the two.

More importantly regardless of our scholastic or juristic persuasions let us unite against the clear disbelief of secular liberalism and take heed in the words of our Lord,

“And those who disbelieve are allies to one another, (and) if you do not do so, there will be Fitnah (wars, battles, polytheism) and oppression on the earth.” [TMQ Al Anfal: 73]

In this era where the war against Islam is intense and spans the globe it is not fitting for us to exhaust energy in polemics of centuries bygone. Surely refuting the creed of dividing religion from politics and worldly life that has actually affected the ummah en masse is more important than the semantics of the definition of Iman. The thousands of hours spent by imams, speakers, writers and activists in discussing whether the attributes of Allah are literal or metaphoric would be much better spent in actually working to replace the satanic laws that our lands are governed by with the law of the All-mighty, the Supreme. We need to unite upon our fundamentals and despite our differences work together so that the kalima (word) of truth becomes the highest.

“And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allah’s Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren, and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah makes His Ayat clear to you, that you may be guided.” [TMQ Aal Imran: 103]

Abu Ismael

[1] Note: This does not mean that he rejected the verse; rather he did not accept one of its alternate recitations.

Who is a Kafir?

2011-05-14T21:39:00.000+10:00

Early Muslims did not have any difficulty in differentiating between a Muslim and Kafir. Such a debate never occurred during the generation of the Sahabah, the Tabi'een, or those Muslims who lived in the succeeding thirteen centuries. Even during the periods when the intellectual level was at an ebb, the distinction between a Muslim and a Kafir remained clear. Due to the deteriorated level of Islamic thought in the Ummah today, the subject has mushroomed into a major issue.

The question of "Who is a Kafir" is not something that the Muslims can afford to overlook because the very existence of such a question challenges the clear-cut distinction between Islam and Kufr that the Muslims understood without difficulty for most of their history. Islam is a unique Deen with its own unique 'Aqeedah that clearly distinguishes it from any other belief, system or ideology. No "gray area" exists between Islam and Kufr, and the Qur'an openly rejects such a notion:

"There is nothing after the Truth (Islam) but falsehood." [TMQ, Yunus 10:32]

"Say: The truth is from your Lord. Whoever wishes to believe, let him believe. And whoever wishes to disbelieve, let him disbelieve" [TMQ, Al-Kahf 18:29]

Because of Islam's uniqueness, the Muslim Ummah possesses a unique 'Aqeedah that distinguishes it from any other nation in the culture it adopts, the laws it submits to, the thoughts and ideas it carries, and its outlook upon life. Without a clear understanding of Islam as distinct from Kufr, the Muslim Ummah is stripped of its distinguished status, and the Islamic 'Aqeedah is bereft of its uniqueness. In light of the current situation, ideas which posit that Islam , Christianity, and Judaism all share the same roots, or that no difference exists between a Muslim and Kafir, come as no surprise.

The purpose of this article is to define "Who is a Kafir" and clear up the confusion surrounding the word Kafir so that the Ummah can once again clearly differentiate between a Muslim and Kafir and worship Allah (swt) in the way He ordered us to worship Him, allowing us to attain His pleasure. This would, insha'Allah, result in the crystallization of Islamic concepts in the minds of Muslim Ummah and subsequently, proper and complete implementation of Islam as an ideology. When this happens, the Muslim Ummah can once again lead humanity and carry the message of Islam to the entire world in the manner in which Allah (swt) ordered us.

Additionally, this article briefly addresses some of the issues that relate to this subject matter directly, such as: Ahl ul Kitab, Abrahamic religions, celebrating Kufr holidays and deeds of the Kuffar.

The Criterion
Before attempting to define Islam and Kufr, the Muslims must understand who defines Islam and Kufr, who draws the boundaries, and who establishes the criterion for evaluating any idea or concept. To enter the circle of Islam, the first action an individual does is to declare the Shahadah in which he states, "I bear witness that there is no Ilah but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." The word "Ilah" has been frequently misinterpreted to mean "God." People of all different religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, and even Hinduism, claim to believe in a God or supreme power. In the context of such a translation, Islam would seem no different than any other religion. In reality, the word "Ilah", in Arabic, is defined as "that which is worshipped." This definition has deep connotations. Regarding the Jews and Christians, the Qur'an mentions:

"They took their priests and rabbis to be their lords beside Allah." [TMQ, At-Tauba 9:31]

When Muhammad (saaw) recited this verse, one of the Companions, who was formerly from among the People of the Book, told him, "We did not worship them, O Messenger of Allah." Muhammad (saaw) then asked the person, "Didn't they forbid what Allah allowed and allow what Allah had forbidden, and you followed them?" When the Companion answered, "Yes," the Prophet (saaw) replied, "That was your worship." Such an incident illustrates that Allah (swt) defines "Ilah" as the thing that dictates a person's life. In Islam, the concept of worship carries a far deeper meaning than just performing Salat or going to Hajj. The worship of Allah (swt) implies full submission and obedience to Allah's (swt) laws, as the Qur'an clearly states:

"O you who believe! Enter perfectly into Islam (by obeying all the rules and regulations of Islam) and follow not the footsteps of Satan. Verily! He is your open enemy!" [TMQ, Al-Baqarah 2:208]

By such a definition, the Muslims must resort to the Akham Shari'ah as the source of all of their concepts and ideas. For a Muslim, Allah (swt) defines Islam as well as Kufr or any other idea or concept, as He (swt) states:

"To Allah belongs the Ghayb of the Heavens and the Earth, and to Him return all affairs."
[TMQ, Hud 11:123]

"Blessed be He Who sent down the criterion to His slave that he may be a warner to the 'Al Amin." [TMQ, Al-Furqan 25:1]

The Definition
Any belief that exists outside the boundaries set forth by Allah (swt) falls under the category of Kufr, or disbelief. The words Kufr and Kafir are derived from the root "Kafar", which linguistically means "to cover". Even the farmer is considered a Kafir in the linguistic sense because he is covering the seeds with soil. When it comes to application, the Shari'ah meaning supersedes the linguistic connotations. For example, Jihad linguistically means struggle, but the Shari'ah meaning defines Jihad as the physical fighting (qitaal) conducted by the Khilafah's Army to remove physical obstacles that try to suppress the propagation of Islam. Also, Hajj means "to go" linguistically. If Muslims resorted to the linguistic meanings, then going to the shopping mall would be considered Hajj and the woman who covers her body with the Hijab would be considered a Kafir! As such, the Shari'ah, or the juristic meaning, defines the rule and the concepts in Islam.

The same principles apply for the words Kafir and Kufr. In Shari'ah terminology, there exists some general extracts from the classical and respected mujtahideen (scholars). First and foremost, Kufr is the rejection of the belief in Allah AND the Messengership of Muhammad (saaw), because Allah (swt) states:

"Verily, those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messengers and wish to make a distinction between Allah and His Messengers (by believing in Allah and disbelieving in His Messengers) saying, 'We believe in some, but reject others,' and wish to adopt a way in between, they are in truth disbelievers. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment." [TMQ, An-Nisa' 4:150-151]

Kufr is further divided into some categories:

1. Kufr al takdheeb, or denying Islam, because Allah (swt) says:

"Then who does more wrong than the one who utters a lie against Allah and denies the truth (this Qur'an, the Prophet Muhammad, the Islamic Faith, the Resurrection, and the reward and punishment) when it comes to him. Is there not in Hell an abode for the disbelievers?" [TMQ, Az-Zumar 39:32]

"The only Deen in the sight of Allah is Islam" [TMQ, Al-Imran 3:19]

"And whoever seeks a Deen other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers." [TMQ, Al-Imran 3:85]

2. Kufr al iba' wat takabbur ma'at tasdeeq, implying refusal to submit to Allah and His Commandments out of arrogance after acknowledging Allah, because Allah (swt) says:

"And when We said to the angels: 'Prostrate yourselves before Adam.' And they prostrated except Iblis, he refused and was arrogant and was one of the disbelievers." [TMQ, Al-Baqarah 2:34]

3. Kufr as shakk wa al thann, which means doubting or rejecting any of the six articles of Iman, as Allah (swt) states:

"And he went into his garden while in a state (of pride and disbelief) unjust to himself. He said: 'I think not that this will ever perish. And I think not the Hour will ever come, and if indeed I am brought back to my Lord (on the Day of Resurrection) I surely shall find better than this when I return to Him.' His companion said to him during the talk with him: 'Do you disbelieve in Him Who created you out of dust (i.e. your father Adam) then out of Nutfah (semen from the male mixed with female discharge), then fashioned you into a man? But as for my part (I believe) that He is Allah, my Lord, and none shall I associate as partner with my Lord.'" [TMQ, Al-Kahf18:35-38]

4. Kufr al i'raad, describing the action of willingly turning away from the Haqq, to which Allah (swt) states:

"We created not the heavens and the earth and all that is between them except with Haqq and for an appointed term. But those who disbelieve and turn away from that whereof, they are warned." [TMQ, Al-Ahqaf 46:3]

5. Kufr an nifaaq, implying hypocritical disbelief, because Allah (swt) states:

"They have made their oaths a screen (for their hypocrisy). Thus they hinder (men) from the Path of Allah. Verily, evil is what they used to do. That is because they believed, then disbelieved, therefore their hearts are sealed, so they understand not." [TMQ, Al-Munafiqoon 63: 2-3]

A person who commits any one or more of the major acts of disbelief is considered a Kafir. No gray zone exists in Islam in which a person can be called a "Believer, but not a Muslim." Islam defines the human being as either a Muslim or a Kafir - a Muslim as one who believes in the 'Aqeedah of Islam and the tenets of Iman, and who accepts Islam as his/her Deen; and a Kafir as one who follows any belief or creed other than Islam, or rejects any one of the fundamental pillars of the Islamic faith. To claim to believe in Allah (swt) while denying Muhammad (saaw) as a Messenger, or believing that Allah (swt) can have a son or can exist as multiple entities, excludes such an individual from the circle of Islam.

A Muslim is not someone who merely appreciates Islam while adhering to the teachings of the Bible or a person who possesses sound morals and decency of character. The notion of a Muslim who does not believe in Islam, or someone who is "Muslim and not Muslim simultaneously" contradicts the natural laws of Allah (swt). No one can imagine a Communist who does not believe in Communism, a Christian who does not believe in Christianity, or someone who is "Jewish and not Jewish at the same time."

Also, Allah's Messenger (saaw) said: "A disbeliever will be asked, 'Suppose you had as much gold as could fill the earth. Would you offer it to ransom yourself (from the Hell-Fire)?' He will reply, 'Yes.' Then it will be said to him, 'You were asked something easier than that: To join none in worship with Allah (i.e. to accept Islam). But you refused.'" Worshipping Allah means believing that Allah (swt) is One with all His Attributes, believing in all of the pillars of Iman, and submitting to all of Allah's (swt) rules. Anything else denotes Kufr, and such a person is considered a Kafir by definition.

Ahl ul Kitab, Mushrikeen, and Kafireen
Islam clearly defines the terms Ahl ul Kitab, Mushrikeen, and Kafireen. The term Ahl ul Kitab (People of the Book) specifically refers to the Jews and Christians. The Qur'an refers to them by this term because they received books such as the Torah and the Injeel. The term Mushrikeen (Polytheists) denotes people who associate other gods with Allah (swt). As mentioned previously, the term Kafir refers to anyone who disbelieves in any of the tenets of Iman, such as the belief in Allah with His attributes, the Messengers of Allah, all the Angels, all the Books, and the Day of Resurrection.

Allah (swt) gave no other reasons for using such a categorization. Unfortunately, the Ummah's lack of focus has led many Muslims to debate and bicker over clear-cut issues. Questions such as why Allah (swt) did not refer to the Ahl ul Kitab as Mushrikeen because they also worship idols, or why Allah (swt) referred to the Disbelievers under three headings instead of one, are commonly asked. Nobody can fathom why Allah (swt) used these terms, and no one can offer his own reasons on Allah's behalf. Such a process leads the person to question the Ghayb (Unseen) which lies beyond the limited scope of the human mind and senses, and only results in speculation that wastes the Ummah's intellectual resources over questions that will never be resolved. The same persons who pose such questions might as well ask why Allah (swt) created the Jinn from fire and the human being from clay, or why Allah (swt) made the sun rise in the east and not in the west. The questions that concern the Ghayb are endless.

The role of the mind is to submit to Allah's (swt) rules and not to pass judgment on them or to question Allah's (swt) Knowledge. Allah (swt) called the Jews and the Christians as Ahl ul Kitab because they were given previous scriptures and for no other reason, and He (swt) addressed all other disbelievers as Mushrikeen. The Muslims are ordered to surrender to Islam and the Islamic text, as Allah (swt) states:

"The only saying of the faithful believers, when they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge between them, is, 'We listen and we obey.'" [TMQ, An-Nur 24:51]

Islam clearly defined Ahl ul Kitab, Mushrikeen, and Kafireen, and these definitions are not the subject of debate. The Muslims must take these definitions as they are.

Are the Ahl ul Kitab Kuffar?
Because the Qur'an refers to the Ahl ul Kitab under a different name, many quickly conclude that Allah (swt) has given them a special status that is situated midway between Islam and Kufr. The abundance of evidence from the Qur'an and the Sunnah clearly establishes the Ahl ul Kitab as Kuffar. The early Muslims did not have any difficulty in understanding this issue, nor was the issue ever a subject of dispute among them. Referring to the Ahl ul Kitab as Kuffar does not denote negative treatment of them as many Muslims may think, but firmly establishes that the Muslims constitute one millah (grouping), and the Kuffar comprise another, ideologically and culturally distinct from the Muslim Ummah. Islam defines any person who rejects some or all of the fundamental tenets of Iman as a Kafir, and the Ahl ul Kitab are no exception. Many ayat in the Qur'an clearly establish this point without any ambiguity:

"Surely, in disbelief are they who say that Isa (Jesus) is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say, 'Who then has the least power against Allah, if He were to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, his mother, and all those who are on the earth together?' And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is Able to do all things." [TMQ, Al-Ma'idah 5:17]

"And the Jews say: 'Uzayr is the son of Allah.' And the Christians say: 'The Messiah is the son of Allah.' This is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth." [TMQ, At-Taubah 9:30]

"They took their priests and rabbis to be their lords beside Allah. And they took their lord as the son of Mary. Yet, they were commanded to worship none but One Ilah, there is no Ilah but He. Praise and glory be to Him. Far is He from having partners they associate with Him." [TMQ, At-Taubah 9:31]

Many persons use the following two ayat as a justification for claiming that the Ahl ul Kitab are Believers:

"Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews, Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." [TMQ, Al-Baqarah 2:62]

"Surely, those who believe, those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians - whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." [TMQ, Al-Ma'idah 5:69]

Such individuals misinterpret these ayat by neglecting other ayat and isolating them from the context of the Seerah. Ibn Katheer, one of the classical mufasireen (commentators of the Qur'an), states in his book, Tafseer Ibn Katheer, that these ayat refer to the Jews who existed from the time of Musa (as) until the time of Isa (as), not to be confused with the Jews and the Christians during the time of Muhammad (saaw) and who exist today. The ayat refer to the Christians as Nasireen, which linguistically means "helpers". These Helpers were the Hawariyeen (Disciples) of 'Isa (as) who followed his message until the time of Muhammad (saaw) and did not ascribe partners with Allah (swt). Based on these ayat, the term "Christians" does not accurately refer to these people, and Ibn Jawzi, who lived in the 12th century AD, says the same in his book Zad Al Maseer Fi 'Ilm At Tafseer.

The ayat refer to those from among the previous groups who existed before Islam and adhered to their scriptures, but these ayat were later abrogated by the ayah which states:
"And whosoever desires a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter, he will be one of the losers." [TMQ, Al-Imran 3:85]

After Muhammad (saaw), Allah has chosen Islam as the Deen for all of humanity, and no one on the Day of Judgment who was presented Islam and rejected it will have any excuse that will exempt him from the punishment of the Hell-Fire.

This is in regards to the thoughts and beliefs carried by Ahl ul Kitab. When it come to a particular person he cannot be considered a Kafir until Islam is presented in an effective way and s/he rejects it deliberately knowing that it is the Haqq. If Islam did not reach this person, then s/he cannot be considered as such.

"Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his ownself. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another's burden. And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)" [TMQ, Al-Isra' 17:15]

However, when it came to deal with this type of person in this life, such as a Kafir woman from the Ahl ul Kitab marrying a Muslim man, then it is permitted. This individual still takes the status of the Kafira in the legal aspect and holds her accountable in the Hereafter.

Abrahamic Religions
As a result of the confusion in understanding Islam and its uniqueness, many alien ideas have surfaced among the Muslims that are designed to obliterate the clear distinction between Islam and Kufr. The call to adopt the concept of "Abrahamic Religions" has risen to the forefront of ideas. Those who call for this absurdity claim that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share the same roots because they all emanate from the same source, the Prophet Ibrahim (as). As a result of such a call, "Trialogues" have emerged in which Muslims would sit together with the Christians and Jews to discuss their commonalties and establish a common linkage between them as offshoots of the same prototypic religion of Ibrahim (as).

The concept of Abrahamic Religions states that a commonality exists between Islam and Kufr, whereas no such concept exists. No one can claim that such a commonality among religions exists without directly contradicting the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Allah (swt) states in the Qur'an:

"Say (O Muhammad): "O People of the Book. Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords beside Allah. Then, if they turn away, say, 'Bear witness that we are Muslims. O People of the Book! Why do you dispute about Abraham, while the Torah and the Injeel were not revealed until after him? Have you then no sense?" [TMQ, Al-Imran 3:64-65]

"Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian. But he was a true Muslim Hanifan, and bowed his will to Allah, and he joined not gods with Allah. Without doubt, among men, the nearest of kin to Ibraham are those who follow him, AS ARE ALSO THIS MESSENGER and those who believe. And Allah is the Protector of those who have faith." [TMQ Al-Imran 3:67-68]

Many people who call for Abrahamic Religions justify their claims by citing that they are following the Sunnah of the Prophet (saaw). Those individuals should draw their attention towards the following incident: 'Umar ibn al Khattab narrates that he brought a copy of the Torah to Allah's Messenger (saaw) and said, "Allah's Messenger, this is a copy of the Torah." When he began to read it, he noticed that the color of the face of Allah's Messenger (saaw) underwent a change, whereupon Abu Bakr said, "Would that your mother mourn you, don't you see the face of Allah's Messenger?" 'Umar saaw the face of Allah's Messenger (saaw) and said, "I seek refuge with Allah from the Wrath of Allah and the wrath of Allah's Messenger. We are well pleased with Allah as the Lord, with Islam as our Deen, and with Muhammad as the Prophet." Allah's Messenger then said, "By Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, even if Musa were to appear before you and you were to follow him, leaving me aside, you would certainly stray into error, for if Musa were alive and he found me, he would have definitely followed me (Miskhat al Masabih)."

Such incidents clearly indicate that Muhammad (saaw), far from promoting a brotherly understanding of Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions or encouraging practices such as Abrahamic Faiths and Trialogues, was the first person to address the Ahl ul Kitab as Kuffar and did not hesitate to use the word Kafir.

Every Muslim acknowledges that Allah (swt) and His Messenger speak the truth. Allah (swt) and the Messenger (saaw) state that Truth and Falsehood will never join hands, that the Ahl ul Kitab are Kuffar and have no relationship to Ibrahim or to Islam, and that Islam will clash with other ideas. When voices emerge claiming that the Truth and Falsehood share the same roots and can coexist, and that the Ahl ul Kitab and Muslims are brothers in faith and the offspring of Ibrahim's family tree, the Muslims must reject such calls as an open invitation to destruction in this life and in the Hereafter. The enemies of Islam have injected into the Ummah such calls as Abrahamic Religions to dilute the clear and distinct understanding of Islam in the Muslim Ummah and to busy the Muslims in trumpeting slogans that neither exist in Islam nor in reality.
Muslimeen and Kafireen

Many Muslims hesitate in referring to the non-Muslims as Kuffar because they believe that the word carries a derogatory meaning. Using such vocabulary, according to many, would contradict certain principles of Islam that emphasize fair conduct, decency in behavior, and kindness towards non-Muslims. The question emerges: How can a sincere believer, who adheres to such principles, simultaneously use terms like "Kafir, Kuffar, and Kufr"?

Answering this question requires the understanding that Allah (swt) ordered all Muslims to obey His orders and to submit to His Laws, which are found in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Anything that Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saaw) have decreed, the Muslims must submit to willingly and without any hesitation, whether it sounds easy or difficult, practical or improbable, reasonable or unreasonable. When Allah (swt) obliges the Muslims to carry the Da'wah to the world, all Muslims are ordered to submit to this command by virtue of being Muslims. Similarly, when Allah (swt) orders the Muslims to be nice, possess good morals, maintain good relationships with others, and help other human beings, the Muslims must submit to these commands for no other reason than because Allah (swt) commanded them. Moreover, the Muslims are bound by the orders of Allah (swt) to perform their actions following the Sunnah of the Prophet (saaw):

"He who obeys the Messenger has indeed obeyed Allah..." [TMQ, An-Nisa'4:80]

"And whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids for you, abstain." [TMQ 59:7]

"Say (O Muhammad), 'If you (really) love Allah then follow me (i.e. accept Islam and follow the Qur'an and Sunnah). Allah will love you and forgive your sins.'" [TMQ, Al-Imran 3:31]

"Say (O Muhammad), 'Obey Allah and the Messenger.' But if they turn away, then Allah does not like the disbelievers." [TMQ, Al-Imran 3:32]

"Say you (O Muhammad), 'This is my way. I invite unto Allah with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me.'" [TMQ, Yusuf 12:108]

Based on these ayat, the Muslims are ordered to carry the Da'wah and work to establish the Islamic State according to the Seerah of the Prophet (saaw).

Similarly, the Prophet (saaw) showed the Muslim when to be nice and when to be rude, when to be angry and when to be merciful, as well as how and to whom. Thus, every situation, act, issue, or problem has an Islamic ruling, or a Hukm Shari', and the Muslims must take all the rules and submit to them comprehensively, looking at each situation or issue as a distinct one with its own specific Hukm.

Addressing the non-Muslims and the terms that Islam refers to them by are one issue, distinct from carrying the Da'wah of Islam and the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. Whether carrying the Da'wah according to what Islam dictates results in resentment among the Kafireen or not, the Da'wah must continue to be conveyed in that manner. No human being has the right to say that the methodology of the Prophet (saaw) should be changed to suit the current situation as the Islamic method does not constitute "good behavior" towards the non-Muslims. If Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saaw) address the non-Muslims as Kafireen and address their beliefs and actions under the heading of Kufr, then this terminology is cemented until the Day of Judgment. Nobody has the right to change the terminology that Allah (swt) has used to describe the non-Muslims and their beliefs, in the same way that no one can claim that the Jinn are creatures created from clay or that Hell-fire is the reward from Allah and Jannah is Allah's Punishment.

If the Muslims are ordered to carry the Da'wah, they must carry the Da'wah. If the Muslims are ordered to be nice to the non-Muslims, then they must be nice to them. If the Muslims are ordered to address the non-Muslims as Kafireen, then they must address them as Kafireen. If the Muslims are ordered to refer to anything outside of Islam or contradicting Islam, then they must label such a thing as Kufr. The Muslims must take Islam comprehensively and willingly. Islam defines how the Muslims should interact with the non-Muslims and how to address them, as well as how to carry the message of Islam and how to establish the Islamic system and implement the rules of Allah (swt).

If the Kuffar resent the Muslims for practicing Islam and submitting to Allah's (swt) rules in their totality, such a scenario cannot be avoided because Allah (swt) states:

"Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) nor Al Mushrikun like that there should be sent down unto you any good from your Lord." [TMQ, Al-Baqarah 2:105]

"Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you until you follow their religion." [TMQ, Al-Baqarah 2:120]

Such a conflict does not excuse the Muslims to neglect some aspects of Islam or to make justifications in order to save their skin or to appease the Kuffar. Every Muslim has the choice: He can either please the Kuffar or please Allah (swt). Based on the above mentioned ayat, Allah's (swt) Sunnah very clearly states in no equivocal language that the Muslims cannot have both.

The Deeds of the Kuffar
With the correct understanding of this issue, such an discussion should never arise among the Muslims, but the current state of affairs has made the issue of whether or not the Kuffar are going to enter Hell-Fire into a controversy. Some would look at the issue from a moral or a human perspective and conclude that the Kuffar, if they perform good deeds and abstain from all sorts of vices, will end up in Jannah, regardless of what their beliefs are. Others would claim that Allah (swt) never explicitly defined the criteria for determining who would enter Jannah and Hell-Fire. Still others would attempt to avoid the issue altogether by saying that no person has the right to even raise such an issue because the act of Judging belongs solely to Allah (swt), using such a premise as a justification to claim that the Kuffar may be admitted into Jannah even if they retain their beliefs.

Islam addresses the issue with such clarity that no lengthy discussion is necessary. In the Qur'an, Allah (swt) states:

"The parable of those who disbelieve in their Lord is that their works are as ashes, on which the wind blows furiously on a stormy day, and they shall not be able to reap what they have earned." [TMQ, Ibrahim 14:18]

"Say: 'Shall We tell you the greatest losers in respect of their deeds, those whose efforts have been wasted in this life while they thought that they were acquiring good by their deeds? They are those who deny the Ayat of their Lord and the meeting with Him. So their works are in vain, and on the Day of Resurrection, We shall not give them any weight. That shall be their recompense. Hell, because they disbelieved and took My Ayat and My Messengers by way of jest and mockery.'" [TMQ, Al-Kahaf 18:103-106]

"As for those who disbelieve, their deeds are like a mirage in a desert. The thirsty one thinks it to be water, until he comes up to it, and he finds it to be nothing, but he finds Allah with him, Who will pay him his due. And Allah is Swift in taking account. Or is like the darkness in a vast deep sea, overwhelmed with a great wave topped by a great wave, topped by dark clouds, darkness, one above another. If a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it. And he for whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light." [TMQ, An-Nur 24: 39-40]
"But those who disbelieve, for them is destruction, and (Allah) will make their deeds vain. That is because they hate that which Allah has sent down (this Qur'an), so He has made their deeds fruitless." [TMQ, Muhammad 47: 8-9]

The question which arises is, are the Kuffar destined for Hell-Fire? As mentioned earlier, Islam states that anyone who dies as a disbeliever, rejecting Islam after it was presented to him in an effective manner and cognizant that it is the Haqq, will be admitted into the Hell-Fire, no matter how many good deeds that person performed, no matter how revered or adorable that person was in the eyes of others, and no matter how pious or righteous that person was.

Conclusion
The Islamic verdict is clear: Islam is one thing, and Kufr is something else. The Muslims are those who believe in Islam, and anyone else is a Kafir. When the Prophet (saaw) first received revelation, the ayat in the Qur'an immediately confronted the Kufr that existed in Makkah. Since that time, the Muslims possessed the clear understanding of Islam, as opposed to Kufr, as well as what each side stood for. As a result of this clear understanding, the Muslims understood what was expected from them, which was to continue to carry the message of Islam through Da'wah and Jihad until the Deen of Allah (swt) was supreme. Allah (swt) stated this objective very clearly in the Qur'an:

"It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Deen of Haqq (Islam) to make it superior over all Deens (ways of life), even though the Mushrikun (disbelievers, polytheists) hate (it)." [TMQ, At-Taubah 9:33]

"He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with Guidance and the Deen of Haqq (Islam) to make it victorious over all other Deens, even though the Mushrikun hate (it)." [TMQ, As-Saff 61:9]

When the Qur'an and the Sunnah speak of the Kuffar as open enemies, the early Muslims understood this to mean not to be loyal to them or to follow their way of life. When the Qur'an and the Sunnah speak of Islam as the belief in Allah (swt) and His Messenger, the early Muslims understood this to mean that belief in anything else constitutes Kufr. When the Qur'an and the Sunnah state that Islam came to dominate the world, the Muslims understood this fact and continued to carry the Da'wah and struggle with other nations to achieve this objective. As a result of their clear understanding of Islam, the Muslims had a clear reference and agenda, which caused them to progress in all facets of life.

Today, the Muslim Ummah has no clear understanding of Islam, and as a result, it has no reference. Such a level of understanding has ultimately resulted in the Muslims debating over issues that Islam has a clear-cut answer for, issues that the Muslims never debated since the time of the Prophet (saaw). As long as Islam remains misunderstood, the discussion of such issues will persist, and the Muslim Ummah will remain distracted from its objectives and its purpose. The only way to restore the Ummah's focus and to eliminate the confusion that exists is to understand the nature of Islam with clarity and certainty. Allah (swt) says:

"The revelation of the Book (this Qur'an) is from the Rabb il al Amin (mankind, jinn, and all that exists) in which there is no doubt!" [TMQ, Al-Sajdah 32:2]

Allah (swt) is stating in plain terms that Islam is clear, and there is no doubt in His Message. When issues that are clear, such as "Who is a Kafir," is being discussed, it points up the sad fact that there is doubt regarding Islam amongst the Muslim Ummah. As long as the doubt remains, the Muslims will remain uncertain in their objectives and their purpose, and the enemies of Islam will continue to find it easy to manipulate the Muslim Ummah under false slogans as "Abrahamic Religions." Thus, there is an urgent need in the Muslim Ummah to eliminate its doubt and return to Islam as its only source for its 'Aqeedah, its culture, its laws and rules, its standards, and its solutions.

Source: http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-is-kafir.html

Clarifying the meaning of Jihad

2011-05-01T07:11:00.000+10:00

‘Jihad’ is extracted from the source, ‘Jaahada’ and it measured upon the fourth verb structure, which means interaction between two sides, al-Mufa’ala. Another example is ‘Al-Khisaam’ which means to quarrel and is extracted from its roots source – Khaasama. Also, there is the example of ‘Jidaal’, which means to discuss or to argue and is taken from the root source ‘Jaadala’.

In the tongue of the Arabs, al-Jihad means, ‘exerting ability and effort to do an action or express opinions’.

In Al-Munjid, the words Jaahada, Mujaahada and Jihadan means, ‘exerting effort and ability to push the other away’. In the Tafseer of al-Naysaboori it is clearly stated that ‘al-Jihad’ means to exert effort to achieve the objective or what is intended.

After all of these related definitions of the word ‘al-Jihad’ in the language, it is possible to give a clear linguistic definition, which is: ‘al-Jihad is the exerting of all effort and ability between two sides by the least.’

Based on the linguistic definition, the exerted effort could be via material weapons or without a weapon, with money or without money. Also it could be the struggle between two opposing desires exerting effort (Jihad) to overcome the other. It could also be by words and could be by refusing to do an action or to speak. An example of this is like the one who disobeys his parents when they order him to disobey Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) and the person becomes patient and perseveres when his parents insist in ordering him. And it is like the one who abstains from committing a haram desire when his nafs calls him to it. This is what is mentioned in Hashiyat Al-Jamal in al-Jalalayn: “Jihad is to have patience on difficulties. It could be during war and it could be inside the nafs.”

Based on this linguistic definition, the opponent that the Muslim engages Jihad against could be his own nafs, or the shaiytan, or the transgressor or the kuffar. Additionally, by this definition, Jihad could also be that which is in the way of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) ‘Fi Sabeel Lillah’’. So the Jihad could be undertaken to please Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) or to please the shaiytan, like the Jihad of the Kuffar against others. Al-Naysaboori, wrote, “It is exerting effort to achieve the objective or what is intended regardless of the nature of the objective intended by the one who is exerting the effort.” The Quran used the word ‘Jihad’ in describing the activity of the kaafir fathers to make their believing children reject true belief. Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says:

وَإِن جَاهَدَاكَ عَلى أَن تُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا

“If they do Jihad to make commit association with me…do not obey them” (tmq Surah Luqman 31:15)

In the Shariyah, the word ‘al-Jihad’ was transferred from the general linguistic meaning to a special confined (restricted) meaning in the Quran and the Sunnah. It is, “the exerting of the effort to fight in the Way of Allah directly or by financial aid, or opinion and the like” This special meaning of Jihad was given in Medina. In Mecca, the legislation concerning Jihad was not revealed and that is why the subject of Jihad in the Mecci surahs carries the general linguistic meaning. They are the three verses (ayaat) in Surah al-Ainkaboot:

وَمَن جَاهَدَ فَإِنَّمَا يُجَاهِدُ لِنَفْسِهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَغَنِيٌّ عَنِ الْعَالَمِين

“And if any struggle ‘Jaahid’ (with might and main), they do so for their own souls: for Allah is free of all needs from all creation.” (tmq 29:6)

وَإِن جَاهَدَاكَ لِتُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا إِلَيَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَأُنَبِّئُكُم بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ

“But if they (either of them) struggle ‘Jaahada’ (to force) you to join with Me (in worship) anything of which you have no knowledge, obey them not. You have (all) to return to me, and I will tell you (the truth) of all that ye did.” (tmq 29:8)

وَالَّذِينَ جَاهَدُوا فِينَا لَنَهْدِيَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَمَعَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ

“And those who strive in Our cause ‘Jaahadu’- We will certainly guide them to our Paths: For verily Allah is with those who do right.” (tmq 29:69)

Also in surah Luqman verse 15, the word Jihad is used in the linguistic context. Regarding the verse in surah Al-Nahl talking about Jihad, it mentioned ‘al-Hijra’, which means that this is a Madani verse in a Mecci surah (chapter) – and this was mentioned by the al-Mufasiroon. The verse is:

ثُمَّ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لِلَّذِينَ هَاجَرُواْ مِن بَعْدِ مَا فُتِنُواْ ثُمَّ جَاهَدُواْ وَصَبَرُواْ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ مِن بَعْدِهَا لَغَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

“But verily Your Lord- those who leave their homes after trials and persecutions,- and who thereafter struggle ‘Jaahadu’ and fight for the faith and patiently persevere,- Your Lord, after all this is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful”. (tmq 16:110)

The subject of Jihad in Medina occurs 26 (twenty-six) times and the majority of them carry the clear meaning of Fighting, ‘Qitaal’. From these verses are:

لاَّ يَسْتَوِي الْقَاعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُوْلِي الضَّرَرِ وَالْمُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ دَرَجَةً وَكُـلاًّ وَعَدَ اللّهُ الْحُسْنَى وَفَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا

“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). To all (in Faith) has Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight has He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” (tmq 4:95)

It is clear in this verse that al-Jihad is in the meaning of going out to fight and that it is better than staying at home. Also from the verses about Jihad in surah Al-Tawba:

انْفِرُواْ خِفَافًا وَثِقَالاً وَجَاهِدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ وَأَنفُسِكُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ ذَلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ

“Go forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the cause of Allah. That is best for you, if you (but) knew.” (tmq 9:41)

The order of ‘Nafr’ (going out) means that Jihad is fighting.

لَـكِنِ الرَّسُولُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَعَهُ جَاهَدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ لَهُمُ الْخَيْرَاتُ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

“But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.” (tmq 9:88)

Also in surah Al-Saf, after mentioning fighting (Jihad) at the beginning, Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِهِ صَفًّا كَأَنَّهُم بُنيَانٌ مَّرْصُوصٌ

“Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.” (tmq 61:4)

It is clear in the Madani verses that the subject of Jihad is specifically related to fighting and what fighting entails naturally from finance, weapons and the like. Also these verses demonstrate aspects of the conditions that precede the action of fighting and are conditional for its legality i.e. propagating the invitation for non-Muslims to embrace Islam (as this is the original condition for fighting as has been mentioned in ‘Mughni al-Muhtaj) and/or accept the Islamic authority over them. From the Sunnah of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam), Jihad has been mentioned also with this shariyah meaning i.e. fighting and what it entails.

On the authority of Abi Hurayrah, who said: “People asked, “Oh Rasoolallah, tell us about an action that is equal to the Jihad fi Sabeel Lillah?” Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) replied, “You will not find it bearable.” They replied, “Tell us oh Rasoolallah, maybe we can be able to withstand it.” Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “The example of a mujahid Fi Sabeel Lillah is like the fasting man, the one who stays up at its night and prays and the one who is obedient to the verses of Allah, does not get tired of fasting, nor stops sadaqah until the mujahid returns back to his family.”

It is clear from the wording of the hadith that the question was about the mujahid with the meaning of the fighter in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) specifically. The answer also indicated the same meaning when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “Until the mujahid returns back to his family” i.e. returns back from the fighting. Also by the authority of Jaabir, that the people asked Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam), “Which Jihad is better?” He (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “The one in which one’s horse is wounded and one’s blood is split in it.” On the authority of ibn Abbas, he said that Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “When your brothers were killed in the battle of Uhud, Allah put their souls inside green birds that wonder inside Jannah landing on the rivers of Jannah and eats from its fruits. When they see how they spend their time and they look at their food and drink and how great it was, they say, ‘How we wish that our people know about how Allah rewarded us, so that they may love Jihad and not refrain from it.’ So then Allah says to them that, ‘I will tell you people and your brothers on your behalf.’ So they became happy with that news.” Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) sent this in surah Al-Imran on the occasion of the Battle of Uhud:

وَلاَ تَحْسَبَنَّ الَّذِينَ قُتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ أَمْوَاتًا بَلْ أَحْيَاء عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يُرْزَقُونَ

“Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.” (tmq 3:169)

From all of these shariyah texts, it is clear that the Legislator transferred the word Jihad from its general linguistic meaning to a special meaning, which is ‘al-Qitaal’ (fighting) and whatever is linked to it directly and indirectly, as has been mentioned earlier. Moreover, it relates to the words, which carry the same meaning of al-Jihad like war. From this we can see that the shariyah texts defined Jihad as fighting (qitaal) in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) and this can be found in the books of fiqh, which dealt with the shariyah meaning of Jihad and laws related to it.

In Badi’ul Sanai’ of the Hanafi Mazhab, it states the following: “Jihad in the language is exerting effort. In the understanding of the Shara, it is exerting effort and energy in fighting fi sabeel lillah by nafs, finance, tongue or another.”

In Manhul Jaleel of the Maliki Mazhab, al-Jihad is defined as the, “fighting by a Muslim against a kaafir (who does not have a treaty with the Muslims) to make the word of Allah the highest…. or for a Muslim to arrive to do Jihad or to enter the Kaafir’s land for fighting.” Ibn Arafa defined this.

According to the Shafi Mazhab in Al-Iqna, Jihad is fighting ‘Fi Sabeel Lillah’. Al-Shirazi in Al-Muhazab said that Jihad is ‘qitaal’.

In Al-Mughni according to the Hanbali Mazhab, Ibn Qudama did not give any other definition. In the section ‘kitab ul-Jihad’ whatever is related to war, whether it was fard ul-kifaya (collective obligation) or fard ul-ayn (individual obligation) or whether it was in the form of guarding the believers from the enemy and the guards ‘ribat’ at the borders, all of this is connected to Jihad. He also said, “If the enemy arrives, Jihad becomes fard ul-ayn on the murabitoon (border guards). If it becomes evident that the enemy arrived, then they do not leave to meet them except by an order of the Ameer, since the Ameer is the one who has the authority for issuing orders in the matters of war.”

So it is clear that the meaning of Jihad was transferred from the linguistic to the shariyah meaning, such that it was understood to mean fighting and nothing else. Such purity and clarity over its meaning today is clearly vague, from what is heard from the lips of rulers over the Islamic lands and even amongst the Muslim ummah itself, as a result of the dominance and pollution of western political thought and reeling from a defeatist mentality that seeks to be apologetic.

So what emerged and dominated the opinion were those who sincerely but incorrectly took Jihad as the rule for all matters whilst others reduced Jihad as a matter connected to defending the ‘nafs’ and identity i.e. defensive fighting as opposed to offensive fighting. Others went further to say that Jihad is of the ‘nafs’ and overcoming desires only, calling it the ‘Great Jihad’, further saying that it is better than the small Jihad which is ‘qitaal’ (fighting). Such are those that have become lazy and feeble, with their hearts filled with the fear of the enemy.

So the protection of the Deen, hatred of the Kuffar and the love of Jihad has become replaced with the protection of the nation-state (nationalism), pleasing the colonialists and the love of excessive material gain. Since these incorrect concepts have become common between Muslims and the clear definition of Jihad is absent from the minds, the incentive and love to do Jihad, for many, has died (though the increased hostility and aggression of the western nations in the Islamic lands has served to re-kindle the correct desire).

It is, therefore, naturally important to clarify this matter such that the Muslims are able to refute the erroneous misunderstandings that exist, refute false claims and rekindle the love of Jihad.

Greater/Smaller Jihad

Firstly, the common understanding of Muslims is that Jihad is divided into two sections: Jihad ul-Akbar (the ‘Greater Jihad’), which is connected to Jihad ul-Nafs i.e. fighting the inner desires and shaiytan etc… Jihad ul-Asghar (the ‘Smaller Jihad’), which is fighting the kaafir enemy in battles and what is related to it.

Of the evidences that are quoted from the Islamic texts, the main one is the hadith, where Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “We have arrived from the small Jihad to the great Jihad”. So they asked, “What is the great Jihad?” He (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) replied, “It is Jihad ul-Nafs (against the inner self).”

In another narration, Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) referred to the“…Jihad of the slave against his desires.”

Though it is correct that there is a Jihad against the nafs, like against shaiytan, however, it is not greater in the sight of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) from the physical Jihad against the Kuffar and it (Jihad ul-Nafs) does not cancel nor invalidate it.

This Jihad against the Kaafir enemies is continuous until the Day of Judgment as is the Jihad against the nafs also continuous until the Day of Judgement. But one should know that the evidences of doing Jihad against the nafs are different to the evidences of Jihad against the Kuffar.

Each has a situation different from the other (context) and it is not permitted to mix the two or to use the evidence of one for the other or to change one in place of the other. Rather there is a need for each, but in its correct context and each of them is a responsibility when put in their correct contexts.

This is why saying that ‘Jihad ul-nafs’ is better and greater in the sight of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) is both very dangerous and an outright mistake, which contradicts the understanding of Jihad in the Way of Allah.

It is invalid from many angles:

1. Jihad has two meanings as mentioned previously, a linguistic and a shariyah meaning. Jihad of the nafs comes under the linguistic meaning and not the shariyah meaning. 2. The evidences used to say that Jihad ul-nafs is greater than Jihad against the Kuffar cannot be used to prove this and this is clear from the reality of the evidences that are used. This is because,

a. The hadith is ‘mardood riwayatan’

b. The hadith is ‘mardood dirayatan’

With regards to its invalidation from narration that is because the hadith is weak ‘Da’eef’ as is clarified in Al-Ajmi Al-Saghir by Imam Suyuti. As for its invalidation by meaning that is because it is contradicting definite text, which makes Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah obligatory and makes it the greatest of action.

This can be seen from three aspects:

a. The verses that mention the value of the Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah and that it is from the best actions like the verse:

لاَّ يَسْتَوِي الْقَاعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُوْلِي الضَّرَرِ وَالْمُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ دَرَجَةً وَكُـلاًّ وَعَدَ اللّهُ الْحُسْنَى وَفَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا

“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). To all (in Faith) has Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight has He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” (tmq 4:95)

b. The verses that praise Jihad and the Mujahideen Fi Sabeel Lillah like the verse,

لَـكِنِ الرَّسُولُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَعَهُ جَاهَدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ لَهُمُ الْخَيْرَاتُ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

“But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.” (tmq 9:88)

إِنَّ اللّهَ اشْتَرَى مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُم بِأَنَّ لَهُمُ الجَنَّةَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَيُقْتَلُونَ وَعْدًا عَلَيْهِ حَقًّا فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنجِيلِ وَالْقُرْآنِ وَمَنْ أَوْفَى بِعَهْدِهِ مِنَ اللّهِ فَاسْتَبْشِرُواْ بِبَيْعِكُمُ الَّذِي بَايَعْتُم بِهِ وَذَلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ

“Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” (tmq 9:111)

c. The verses that condemn and promises punishment to those who do not participate in Jihad, the ones left behind and the lazy neglectful ones,

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَا لَكُمْ إِذَا قِيلَ لَكُمُ انفِرُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ اثَّاقَلْتُمْ إِلَى الأَرْضِ أَرَضِيتُم بِالْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا مِنَ الآخِرَةِ فَمَا مَتَاعُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فِي الآخِرَةِ إِلاَّ قَلِيلٌ

“O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that, when you are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter.” (tmq 9:38)

In addition to this are the sayings of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) that the best action to Allah is Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah and the fighting (qitaal) against the Kuffar: From the many narrations, Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, ”Taking a journey in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) is better than the duniya and what is in it.”

“Those who guard (the borders) for one day in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) is better than the duniya and what is in it.” ”If anyone takes a position in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) it is better than his prayer ‘salah’ in his house for 70 years. Don’t you want Allah to forgive you your sins and enter you in the Jannah? Invade, in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah).”

Therefore what has been mentioned in the text shows clearly that Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah is one of the best actions and of the highest degree, which is clearly shown by the shariyah indicators, ‘Qarain’, that connect praise, condemnation, reward and punishment to expose the fact that Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah is greater and better than Jihad against the nafs. This is why the hadith is invalid in meaning ‘dirayatan’ because it contradicts the definite texts and therefore it is invalid ‘baatil’ to use as an evidence (i.e. to show that Jihad ul-nafs is a greater action).

Is Jihad is defensive only?

As for the opinion that Jihad in Islam is defensive and not offensive by using the evidence (and similar evidences):

وَإِنْ جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ
“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that Hears and Knows (all things)” (tmq 8:61)

وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.” (tmq 2:190)

This is also incorrect and invalid for its application upon this matter is incorrect for the following reasons:

1. The evidences of Jihad are general ‘mutlaq’ evidences and include all offensive and defensive actions e.g. waging warm to pre-empt an attack, to protect the borders, killing on the battlefield. To restrict or specify the evidences only to defensive and not offensive Jihad, requires a textual evidence to show that the Jihad is restricted to defensive Jihad only. And there is no such text in the Quran or the Sunnah that restricts or specifies this. Therefore, the evidences regarding Jihad remain general and to be used for all types of war and all types of fighting with the enemy. So it is invalid (baatil) to use the verse,

وَإِن جَنَحُواْ لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do you…” (tmq 8:61), to show that Jihad is only defensive.

That is also the case with the rest of the evidences that are used by proponents of this erroneous understanding. This and similar verses cannot be used to specify or restrict the generality of the verses in surah al-Tawba because they were the last verses revealed regarding Jihad and what came prior to these verses regarding Jihad does not specify the verses which were revealed after them or came afterwards. And the verse does not restrict the latter revealed verses either. There has to be a text present to restrict or specify the general verse and they also must be revealed after the initial, which are general or mutlaq or even they (i.e. those verses which are restricted or specific) should be mentioned together with the general verses so that the two situations can be shown (i.e. to show the different situations upon which they apply). So Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says: وَإِن جَنَحُواْ لِلسَّلْمِ , which is regarding the time of the peace. And He (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says,

قَاتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”, (tmq 9:29) which is at the time of war and fighting.

So peace and fighting are two situations, which remain un-abrogated, i.e. neither abrogates the other.

2. In addition to this, the saying and actions of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) show that Jihad definitely is to start (offensive) fighting the kuffar to make the Words of Allah the highest and to propagate (da’wa) the call of Islam. Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said,

“I have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness that, ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger’ and they establish the prayer and the zakat. And if they do this, then from me is protected their blood and their wealth except by the right granted by Allah.”

As for his (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) actions, they are full of actions that show Jihad is to start the fighting. So when he went out to Badr to take the caravan belonging to the Quraysh, this was going out to fight, this is offensive – as Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) initiated the action before the Quraysh.

Likewise, when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) invaded Hawazin in the battle of Hunayn, when he (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) seiged Ta’if and the battle of Mutah to fight the Romans and the Battle of Tabuk – all of these are evidences to show that Jihad is to start fighting kuffar (offensive). This should clarify the erroneous view that in origin Jihad is defensive.

3. From Ijma as-Sahabah, it is clear that Jihad is fighting Fi Sabeel Lillah to carry Islam and that it is offensive. The evidence, which is sufficient to explain this, is the opening of Iraq, Persia, Sham, Egypt and North Africa. They were all opened at the time of the Sahabah with their Ijma’ (consensus). Therefore, all what we mentioned are sufficient evidences to refute the claim that Jihad is defensive.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Muslims should gain the confidence to present the reality of Jihad to our ummah and raise the level of thinking on this issue such that the Muslims become clearer about its meaning, obligation, gain an increased love for it and importantly, understand the contexts in which it exists and is applied.

The Islamic Ummah, served with the responsibility to present and guard Islam should not allow the rulers over the Islamic lands to pollute the meaning of Jihad and remove its love from the hearts of the believers. Indeed, the Islamic Ummah should not allow these rulers to commit the greater crime to rule over her by other than Islam and dilute the purity of the whole of Islam with their shamelessness, implementation of kufr and humiliating subservience to a part of the creation i.e. their colonial masters, instead of their subservience to the Creator and Master of all that is seen and unseen, Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala).

As for the interaction with the non-Muslims, it is important that the Muslims have the clarity and strength to tackle the malicious, incorrect and hateful propaganda that is focussed on Jihad that is presented as barbaric against peaceful people with the objective to force them to embrace Islam by compulsion and the sword.

The Islamic ummah should tackle this from two perspectives.

Firstly, the Muslims should expose the violent, barbaric and inhumane foreign policy of the ‘civilised’ colonial powers that have destroyed nations, states and people; left millions to starve for the sake of securing capitalist interests, appointed and protected oppressive regimes that suppress the will of their people; plundered resources of the lesser developed and invade lands with brute force, terrorising the local civilian people with indiscriminate policies of killing, imprisonment, rape, ‘carpet bombing’; razing whole villages and towns into the ground; and forcing the people to adopt their life-styles, values and political structures. What right do such people have after witnessing the implementation of such a wicked and brutal foreign policy with their own eyes – in South America, Africa, Palestine, Afghanistan and more recently in Iraq, from the various credible news sources – to even begin laying a criticism against Jihad.

Non-Muslims need to see the reality of their own governments and not be blinded the hysterical and deceitful propaganda that increasingly is aimed at Islam and its values.

Secondly, Muslims should demonstrate some of the rules that surround Jihad and state that offensively carrying the struggle against non-Islam does not permit Muslims to compel the local people to embrace Islam. This is because Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) does not allow compulsion:

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ

"There is no compulsion in deen" (tmq)

Likewise Islam does not allow the exploitation, plundering, razing and desecration of places of worship, people’s homes and honour – when Jihad is carried offensively. Rather Jihad is carried offensively to cleanse the earth from the kufr, with the implementation of Islam as a system thus liberating man from the rule of man. The history of the Islamic conquests, the presence of Christians and Jews, who lived in security and prosperity under the Islamic State and the safe-haven that the Islamic authority provided for people savaged by the forefathers of the modern colonialists is sufficient proof for this.

On the horizon, as the struggle between Iman and kufr increases day by day – it is imperative for the Muslims to hold to the truth of Islam, its rules and not permit the dilution of its intellectual wealth – a wealth which soon will transform the darkness of colonial rule to the mercy and shade of the Islamic authority, Al-Khilafah, by Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala's) permission.

Source: http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/2008/05/clarifying-meaning-of-jihad.html

Q&A: Hijra from land of the disbelivers & having an Amir in Dar al-Kufr?

2011-05-01T07:05:00.000+10:00

The following is a translation from Arabic.

Question 1: In origin is it permitted for Muslims to live in the land of the disbelievers as some ahadith indicate that this is prohibited. The Prophet (saw) said in translation, “I am not responsible for any Muslim who stays among polytheists.” They asked: ‘Why, Apostle of Allah?’ He said: ‘Their fires should not be visible to one another’, and he (saw) said, “Whoever joins the polytheists and lives with them then he is like them” and he (saw) said: “Migration will not end until repentance ends, and repentance will not end until the sun rises in the West.” (”Al-Musnad“, Vol.4/99, Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Jihad, Vol.3/7, Hadith 2479, and ad-Darami, Kitab as-Siyyar, Vol.2/239. Albani classifies it as Sahih. See: “Sahih al-Ja’mi’ as-Sagheer”, Vol.6/186, Hadith 7346) How do we understand these evidences?

Answer: The issue of migration.

Texts of mentioned Ahadith are as follows:

«أنا بريء من كل مسلم يقيم بين أظهر المشركين قالوا يا رسول الله ولم؟ قال لا تراءى ناراهما» أبو داود من طريق جرير بن عبد الله رقم (1530، 2274)

“I am not responsible for any Muslim who stays among the Mushrikeen. They asked: Why, Apostle of Allah? He said: Do not take light from their fire.” [Narrated by Jareer bin Abdullah, in Abu Dawood: No. 1530 and 2274]

«لا تنقطع الهجرة ما تُقبلت التوبة، ولا تزال التوبة مقبولةً حتى تطلع الشمس من المغرب» رواه أحمد من طريق معاوية.
“As long as repentance (Taubah) is accepted, hijrah will not cease, and repentance will be accepted until sun rises from the west.” [Reported by Ahmad on the authority of Mu’awiah]

The first Ahadith are regarding staying in dar al kufr when dar al Islam i.e. Khilafah exists.

The Hukm Shar’ai is to migrate from dar al kufr to dar al Islam. One may stay there while hoping to migrate to dar al-Islam or it is forbidden, as the reality may require.

Anyone who cannot declare his deen, or is not free to practice the Ahkam of Islam expected of him, while he stays there, and is in a position to migrate, it becomes obligatory on him to undertake hijrah to dar al Islam.

The evidence for this is the ayah:

“Verily those whom the angels take in death while they are oppressing themselves. They said: ‘In what (situation) were you?’ They reply: ‘We were weak and oppressed in the earth.’ They say: ‘Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?’ For them is the abode of Hell, and what an evil destination!” [TMQ 4:97]

And in addition, the hadith first cited above.

Anyone who can declare his deen, and is free to practice the Ahkam of Islam expected of him, while he stays there, and is in a position to migrate, the hijrah is recommended for him and not obligatory on him to undertake hijrah to dar al Islam.

The evidence for this being the ayaat of hijrah, like:

إن الذين آمنوا والذين هاجروا وجاهدوا
“Those who believe and emigrated and fought in the way of Allah with their lives have greater rank before Allah and those are the successful ones” [TMQ]

By Qareenah, it is established that this request is not decisive for a person who is able to declare his deen in dar al kufr.

This is also indicated in the hadith reported by Ibn Hajr in al-Isabah on the authority of Nu’aim al-Nuham

It is narrated that when Nu’aim al-Nuham intended to emigrate, his people, Banu Adiyy, came and said to him:

“Reside with us and you are upon your deen, and we will prevent anyone intending to harm you. And you will suffice us with whatever you used to suffice us in. He used to supervise the orphans of Banu Adiyy and their widows. So he delayed emigration then emigrated afterwards. The Prophet (saw) said to him: Your people were better to you than my people to me. My people forced me to leave and wanted to kill me, while your people protected you and prevented (harm from reaching) you. He said: O Messenger of Allah, rather your people forced you to leave to the obedience of Allah and fighting His enemies, but my people hindered me from emigration and the obedience of Allah.”
This qareenah (indication) specifies that the order is not decisive for a person who is able (to declare his deen), i.e. the order is a recommendation or mandoob.

The hijrah from dar al kufr is haram in the case of a person who is able to declare his deen, carry out the Ahkam of Sharee’ah expected of him, and is in a position, either by himself or with the assistance of his group, to change the status of that dar al kufr to dar al Islam, either by merging it with the Khilafah state or facilitating its opening. It becomes an obligation for him to remain in dar al kufr and his migration from there becomes haram because this amounts to escaping from the obligation of changing the status from dar al kufr to dar al Islam of which he is capable either singularly or with his people.

This is as an overview of the issue of hijrah, for details, refer to Shakhsiyah, Vol. 2 , chapter on migrating from dar al kufr to dar al Islam, pages 266 to 270 of the Arabic edition.

However in the absence of a dar al Islam, it is permitted to stay anywhere, except where a Muslim is either not allowed to perform his deen’s activities freely, like the salah may have been prohibited, etc. or is prohibited from declaring his deen. In such an event he has to migrate to a land where it may be possible for him to act in accordance with the deen.

The above hadith cited regarding the continuation of hijrah, it simply means that hijrah will continue till the day of judgement. When dar al Islam is established, the hukm of hijrah will be applied, it will not be just the first hijrah from Makkah to Madina which was undertaken on the establishment of the first state, but will remain in force at a time when a dar al Islam exists and will be in force as we have explained.

(For details refer to the chapter in Shakhsiyyah Islamiyyah Vol 2 by Sheikh Taqi ud-deen an-Nabhani)

In short, the Ahadith concerning migration from dar al kufr to dar al Islam are linked to the existence of dar al Islam, and the hukm of hijrah remains valid to the day of judgement, so long as a dar al Islam exists, and hijrah is not limited to the first hijrah alone.

Question 2: Is it fard for Muslims living in non-Muslim lands to have an Ameer for themselves, as the hadith seems to indicate: Ahmad narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. Amr that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said in translation: “It is not allowed for three persons (to be) without appointing one of them as an Ameer.”

Answer: The hadith reported by Ahmad on the authority of Abdullah bin ‘Amr:

«لا يحل لثلاثة نفر يكونون بأرض فلاةٍ إلا أمَّروا عليهم أحدهم»

“It is not allowed for three persons (to be) without appointing one of them as an Ameer.”
The hadith means that it is necessary for a group of people gathered on an issue, to appoint one among them as Ameer.

Those who have gathered for undertaking a journey, it is on them to appoint one Ameer for the journey.

Those who have gathered for a group (takattul), it is for them to appoint an Ameer for that takattul (structure), etc.

However administering the affairs requires the establishment of ruling (system) in a ma’roof manner. It is for this reason that it is not required of the Muslims living in the land of kuffar to appoint an Ameer on them as the Ameer for administering the affairs is the person with authority, and since these Muslims are living in the lands of kuffar, they cannot have an Ameer.

As for those living in the Muslim lands, it is incumbent upon them to establish the Islamic ruling and for it in accordance with the Ahkam al-Sharee’ah.

For Muslims living in the lands of kuffar, those Ahkam will be applied to them as were applied to the Muslims in Makkah before the establishment of the (Islamic) state in Madina. But while an Islamic state exists, those Ahkam of Islam will be applied as were applicable to the Muslims who remained in Makkah even after formation of the state, i.e. the Ahkam of migration as explained in the answer to the first question.

April 16th, 2007 C.E
____________________

The following is a draft translation from the section referred to in the Q&A from the Arabic book Shaksiyyah Islamiyyah (The Islamic Personality) Volume 2:

THE EMIGRATION (HIJRAH) FROM DAR AL-KUFR TO DAR AL-ISLAM

Emigration (hijrah) is leaving from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam. The Supreme said: “Verily those whom the angels take in death while they are oppressing themselves. They said: ‘In what (situation) were you?’ They reply: ‘We were weak and oppressed in the earth.’ They say: ‘Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?’ For them is the abode of Hell, and what an evil destination!” [TMQ 4:97].

And Abu Dawud narrated via the way of Jareer bin Abdullah from the Prophet (SAW) who said: “I am free from every Muslim residing in the midst of the polytheists. They said: Why, O Messenger of Allah? He said: Do not take light from their fire.” The emigration from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam remains without termination (inqat’a). As for what Al-Bukhari narrated of his (AS) statement: “No emigration after the conquest of Makkah” and his statement: “No emigration after the conquest” and his statement: “The emigration has terminated but (there remains) jihad and intention.” And what was narrated about Safwan bin Umayya that when he became Muslim, it was said to him there is no deen for the one who does not emigrate so he came to Madinah and the Prophet said to him: ‘What did you come with, O Abu Wahab? He said: It was said there is no deen for the one who does not emigrate. He said: Return, Abu Wahab, to the (abatih) of Makkah. Reside in your residences. Emigration has terminated but (there remains) jihad and intention, and when you are asked to go forth (in jihad) then go forth.” All this is negating emigration after the conquest of Makkah. However this is reasoned with a Shari’ah reason deduced from the hadith itself since his statement: “after the conquest of Makkah” came in a way including reasoning similar to his (AS) statement: “Do not make into wine (tanbadhu) dates and raisins together” (narrated by Abu Dawud). His statement “together” came in a way including reasoning so the reason was the prohibition on making into wine (intibadh). This means that the conquest of Muslim is the reason for negating the emigration which means that the reason revolves around the reasoned (matter) in existence and absence, nor is it specified to Makkah but rather conquering any land by the evidence of another narration “no emigration after conquest.” This is strengthened by what Al-Bukhari narrated from Aisha who was questioned about the emigration and said: “There is no emigration. The believer would flee with his deen to Allah and His Messenger for fear of being persecuted. As for today, Islam has become dominant and the believer worships his Lord wherever he wishes.” This indicates that the emigration was upon the Muslim before the conquest fleeing with his deen fearing he would be persecuted. It was negated after the conquest as he become able to show his deen and perform the rules of Islam. So the conquest which resulted in that became the reason for negating the emigration; nor is it the conquest of Makkah alone. Therefore that means there is no emigration after conquest from the land which was conquered. His (AS) statement to Safwan “it has teminated/ended” means from Makkah after it was conquered since emigration is leaving from the land of disbelievers and the Dar al-Kufr, so if the land is conquered and becomes Dar al-Islam it no longer remains a land of disbelievers or a Dar al-Kufr so emigration no longer remains. Similarly there remains no emigration from all conquered lands. This is strengthened by what Ahmad narrated via the way of Muawiya who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) saying: “Emigration will not end as long as repentance is accepted, and repentance will continue being accepted until the sun rises in the west.” Ahmad also narrated that the Prophet (SAW) said: “Emigration will not end as long as there is jihad” and in another narration: “Emigration will not end as long as disbelievers are fought” which indicate that emigration from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam remains and has not ended. As for the rule of emigration, it is in relation to the one capable of it obligatory in some situation and recommended in other situations. As for the one not capable, verily Allah forgave him and it is not required from him.

That is due to his inability to emigration either due to illness, compulsion to stay or weakness like women, children and their like as came at the end of the ayah of emigration.
Whoever is capable to emigration and unable to show/display his deen nor perform the Islamic rules required of him, then emigration is obligatory upon him due to what came in the ayah of emigration. The Supreme said: “Verily those whom the angels take in death while they are oppressing themselves. They said: ‘In what (situation) were you?’ They reply: ‘We were weak and oppressed in the earth.’ They say: ‘Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?’ For them is the abode of Hell, and what an evil destination!” The information here means the command and it is of the language of request as if He said: Emigrate therein. The request in this ayah is linked with emphasis (ta’keed) and linked with a severe threat upon leaving emigration. So it is a decisive request which indicates that emigration in this situation is obligatory upon the Muslim and he sins if he does not emigrate. As for the one able to emigrate but is capable to manifest his deen and perform the Shar’a rules requested from him, emigration is recommended not obligatory. As for its being recommended, this is because the Messenger (SAW) would encourage the emigration from Makkah before the conquest when it was Dar al-Kufr and there came ayah explicit about that. The Supreme said: “Verily those who believe and those who fought in the way of Allah, those are the ones hoping for the mercy of Allah and Allah is forgiving, merciful” [TMQ ]. And He said: “Those who believe and emigrated and fought in the way of Allah with their lives have greater rank before Allah and those are the successful ones” [TMQ ]. And He said: “As for those who believed and did not emigrate then you have no (wilayah) with them in anything until they emigrate. And if they ask your support in the deen, support is obliged upon you except with a people whom between you and them is a (mithaq)” [TMQ 7: ]. And He said: “Those who believed afterwards and emigrated and fought together with you, those are of you” [TMQ ]. All this is explicit in requesting emigration. As for its not being obligatory, the Messenger (SAW) did consent to those who remained in Makkah of the Muslims. It is narrated that when Nu’aim An-Nahham intended to emigrate his people, Banu Adiyy, came and said to him:

“Reside/Stay with us and you are upon your deen, and we will prevent anyone intending to harm you. And you will suffice us with whatever you used to suffice us in. He used to supervise the orphans of Banu Adiyy and their widows. So he delayed emigration then emigrated afterwards. The Prophet (SAW) said to him: Your people were better to you than my people to me. My people forced me to leave and wanted to kill me, while your people protected you and prevented (harm from reaching) you. He said: O Messenger of Allah, rather your people forced you to leave to the obedience of Allah and fighting His enemies, but my people hindered me from emigration and the obedience of Allah.” All this is in relation to Dar al-Kufr i.e. a land of war as it is irrespective of its residents being Muslims or disbelievers since the rule of the land does not differ according to the residents but rather differs by the system which it rules with and the security by which its people are secured. Accordingly there is no difference between Indonesia and the (Qafqas), or between Somalia and Greece. Except for the one able to manifest his deen and perform the requested Shar’a rules where he is able to change Dar al-Kufr wherein he resided to Dar al-Islam; it is forbidden for him in this situation to emigrate from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam. This is the same whether he possesses the ability by himself or his group structure (takattul) with the Muslims in his land or by seeking assistance of Muslims outside his land or by cooperation with the Islamic State or any (other) means. It is obligatory upon him to work to make Dar al-Kufr into Dar al-Islam and at that point it is forbidden for him to emigrate from it. The evidence for this is that if there resides disbelievers in the land within which he live and is ruled by kufr, it is obliged upon Muslims to fight its people until they become Muslims or pay the jizyah and be ruled by Islam. This is also obliged upon him in his attribute as a Muslim and in his consideration as one whom the disbelievers are next to and of those who are closer to the enemy. If those residing therein are Muslims and they are ruled by other than Islam i.e. by the system of kufr, it is obliged upon Muslims to fight their rulers until they rule by Islam. This is also obliged upon him in his consideration as one of the Muslims who is ruled by kufr. So in any case, fighting is obliged upon him and preparing for fighting if he is capable of it. The situation of the Muslim who lives in Dar al-Kufr does not go out of one of these two situations, so he is either of those upon whom jihad is obliged against the disbelievers near him or of those upon whom fighting the ruler ruling by kufr is obliged. In these two situations, it is considered that his leaving the Dar al-Kufr which rules by other than Islam i.e. by kufr as fleeing from the jihad from a place wherein it is obliged upon him or fleeing from fighting the one who rules by kufr, both of which are great sins before Allah. Accordingly it is not allowed for the one capable of changing Dar al-Kufr into Dar al-Islam to emigrate from it as long as he possesses the capability to change it into Dar al-Islam; this is the same in Turkey, Spain, Egypt and Albania without difference between them as long as they are ruled by the system of kufr.

Source: http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/2007/04/q-hijra-from-land-of-disbelivers-having.html

Is Saudi Arabia a State of Islam or Kufr ?

2011-05-01T07:00:00.000+10:00

Every Muslim must know whether his/her Deen is implemented in any country. This is due to the fact that Muslims must pledge allegiance to the country that rules by the Deen of Allah (swt). In other words, that state would be the Khilafah State that is headed by the Khaleefah whom Islam obligated us to obey. Therefore, this presentation is not hypothetical, nor for pure academic reasons. In other words, the Muslims must know if king Fahd is the Khaleefah of the Muslims, and whether Saudi is the Islamic State. If we conclude that Saudi is the Islamic State, then the obligation of re-establishing the Islamic state is removed (and the Islamic movements are actually wasting their time working for a goal that is already achieved).

Muslims perception

Many Muslims view Saudi Arabia to be an Islamic state. This is due to the lack of criterion to
determine whether a state is Islamic or not. It is also due to the lack of knowledge of the reality of the situation in that country because of the facade that is put by this state. After all, every year Saudi donates millions of copies of the honorable Qur’an, Islamic books, and a lot of money to build Masajid etc. all over the world. As a result people believe it to be Islamic. Therefore,
Muslims must know its reality.

The Criterion for a state to be Islamic
For a state to be Islamic, it must base its constitution, laws, structure, foreign relations, as well as solve its problems on the basis of the Islamic ‘Aqeedah. If a state does not rule by Islamic laws or imports rule from a non-Islamic basis in any sphere of its affairs, it is not Islamic i.e. Kufr state.

Now based on this criterion, let us examine Saudi.

Saudi and Man-Made Laws

Saudi rules by a mix of laws, some of which are Islamic and some are man-made. However, to maintain the Islamic perception, it refrains from calling them laws. Saudi uses specific terminologies to differentiate between the Islamic laws and the man-made ones. In an Arabic book titled “The Constitutional Laws of the Arab Countries” under the subtitle “The Constitution of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” the author states, “The words ‘law (anoon)’ and ‘Legislation (Tashree’)’ are only used in Saudi to refer to the rules taken from the Islamic Shari‘ah ..... As for the man-made such as systems (Anthimah)’ or ‘ instructions (Ta’leemaat)’ or ‘ edict (Awamir)’......” In an Arabic book titled Al-Wajeez fi Tareekh Al-Qawneen (The Compact in the History of Cannons) by Dr. Mahmood Al-Maghribi, p443, after mentioning that legislation in the past was Islamic and simple, he complements Saudi by saying, “this situation has changed after the rise of the Saudi State and the natural resources. This new situation required reforms and changes ... Due to these changes, there was a need for new laws. As a result, laws were formulated in the following areas; Laws in the basis of court systems, trade, penal code, labour, Taxation, among others ..”

Regarding Trade laws, he stated “The trade laws, land and sea, which are known as ‘The Trade System’ are considered one of the most important Saudi trade laws. This law was issued in 1931
and is similar to the modern trade laws, be they Arab or European.” With regard to the Islamic
penal code, he said they are implemented (of course), “with some alterations required by the public interest.” He also added, “ Public interest also required making taxation revenue laws or the state...”

The author is actually telling us that Saudi has been implementing non-Islamic laws in trade, “similar to the modern trade laws.” He also tells us that Al-Saud have altered the Deen of Allah (swt) by changing some of his laws due to “public interest”.

In actuality, there are many man-made laws which the author did not mention such as:

• The system of observing banks issued by the king’s edict #M/5 in 1386 AH.
• The system of the Saudi Arab citizenship decided by the ministers Council resolution #4 on 25th January 1974 and approved by the king in his speech in High Council #8/5/8604 on 22nd February 1974 to put it in effect.
• The system of printed material and publication issued by the king’s edict #M/17 in 13/4/1402 AH.
•The law of reviving the dead land used to be according to Islam, where if a person works a piece of land that becomes his. This was the case until an edict was issued declaring the nullification of this Islamic law starting from 1987 onwards.
• The system of marrying non-Saudi woman.
• The general rule for taxes, approved by the king’s edict #M/9, on 4/6/1395 AH.

Shar’i And Civil Courts

In Saudi , as in other states, in addition to Shari’ah courts, there are civil courts or courts that rule by man-made laws. As stated earlier , they do not call them civil courts, so as not to shock the Muslims there or embarrass their scholars, who are the biggest pillars of the state. In Saudi, manmade laws are introduced through legal forums councils and committee, such as Dewan of
Mathalim (council of injustices). These forums are equal to civil courts in other countries.

Scholars of Saudi refer to the civil courts in other countries as Kufr, but dare not say the same about these councils. These legal forums address issues that are not part of Shari‘ah, such as cases of Riba, forgery, bribes, etc. These councils are composed of Sheikhs and lawyers, from colleges such as the Sorbonne, who pass verdicts according to certain articles and edicts which are not Islamic.

For example, military courts are placed under a special Dewan called Dewan of Military Courts. In it, Saudi uses man-made laws called “the System of the Saudi Arab Army” issued on 11/11/1366 AH. This system is a combination of Shari’i and non-Shari’i law which are exclusive to military personnel. An example of a Shar’i rule is that of Hirabah, killing anyone who tries to overthrow the regime. In reality, this law was introduced as a measure to deter Islamic activists and especially the army from attempting to remove the entity of Al-Saud and replace it with the Islamic one. As for the punishment for theft, which they claim is subject to Islam, it is not implemented. It is known that the Islamic punishment for theft is cutting off the hand, whether the thief is a civilian, soldier or the Khaleefah himself. In “the System of the Saudi Arab Army” chapter 8 article no.12 states, “The officers and the soldiers who steal something that belongs to other officers and soldiers or their moneys, and the item is consumable, then the thief is to pay its value, if consumed, and be imprisoned for a period ranging from a month and a half to three months...” Furthermore, if an officer commits theft and wants to repent and get punished according to article 20 and 22 from chapter 3 of the same system that places some crimes under the authority of the Shar’i courts and others under the “Council of trials”.

We ask the scholars and the supporters of this British-made, American maintained state: Are the laws of Islam applicable to some people and inapplicable to others? What is the rule of Islam
regarding legislating a punishment other than what Allah has revealed?

Saudi takes and gives Riba whoever takes a stroll near the Haram will see the British-Saudi Bank, American-Saudi Bank, Arab-National Bank, the Cairo-Saudi Bank etc. These banks with their Riba transactions are allowed to operate in accordance to Section B, article 1 of the Saudi law, issued by the king’s edict no.M/5 in 1386 AH. It is well known that any case dealing with Riba and banks is automatically transferred to the monetary establishment where it is handled by specific committees. Cases of such nature do not go to Shar’i courts. Prior to this law, whenever a person borrowed money from a bank or an establishment and was late in paying it back, and got charged interest, he would go to a Shar’i court judge, who would nullify the interest. This led to a conflict.

On the one land they needed the Shar’i courts, at least to keep up the farce, and at the same time they needed their banks. To resolve this conflict, Shar’i courts were prohibited from interfering in such cases under the “Specialisation” law (articles 20 and 21 from chapter 3 of the System of Saudi Arab Army).

Saudi and its Riba based relations with GCC (Gulf Cooperation council) Article 22 of the Unified Economic Agreement stated, “The member states coordinate their financial monetary banking and increase cooperation among monetary establishments and the central bank ...” Its clear that deal with interest since banks and monetary establishments are based on Riba.

Saudi and the AMF (Arab Monetary Fund)

The Arab Monetary Fund, based in Abu Dhabi, is a huge Riba institution that was established by an agreement on 4/7/76 in Morocco. Saudi is the biggest share holder in it; it receives, as every one else in the Fund, Riba of an average of 3.2% on its shares.

Saudi and IMF (International Monetary Fund)

It is worth mentioning that Saudi has the 6th largest share and power of rate. It had 3.5% of the
total shares which enabled it to occupy a permanent seat in the executive board.

So we ask: How can a state that is involved in Riba as a set policy be Islamic? Maybe because it
donates copies of Qur’an and the Al-Saud ‘scholars’ say so!!

Saudi and External relations: The International Court of Justice

It is well known that Saudi is a member of the UN. According to article 92 of the UN constitution, the International court of Justice (ICJ) is the main Judicial branch of the UN. The ICJ performs its duties based on a system that is part of the UN constitution and must be respected and approved by every member state. Article 94 states “Every member of the UN is to submit to the ICJ in any case in which he is a part.”

Is the International Law taken from the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His messenger
(saw)? What is Saudi submitting to? The UN, which was created to counter Islam, or Islam?
Saudi is not merely a member of the UN. It is a pioneer in supporting the UN. Some even go the
extent of saying that it was one of the founding members. In a speech given by the then foreign
minister, prince Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, in 1945 in the San Francisco conference, he said: “...Let us
abide by the principles which we wrote here on paper... and let this constitution be the basis on
which we will build our new and better world.”

Saudi and UNESCO

The UNESCO was formed in 1946 Saudi showed great interest in this organisation, lending it $4.6 million , interest free,and donating $50,00 in support of its projects. This organisation is designed to spread the Western ideas as well as distorting Islam. For example, in the Encyclopedia on the History of the Human Race and its Scientific Development, issued by this organisation, in volume 3 chapter 10 it states:

1. Islam is a fabricated religion that is composed of Judaism, Christianity and Arabian Polytheism .
2. Qur’an is a book that has no tolerance to others.
3. The Prophet’s traditions where made up by some people, a long time after the prophet, and
attributed to him.
4. Muslim Jurists put down their jurisprudence based on the Roman, Persian and Church laws as well as the Old Testament...”

As a matter of fact, Tala Noor Attar, complemented Saudi in his book, “Saudi and the UN”, saying that it donated to the UNESCO $17,040,000.

Is it that the government of Saudi is illiterate and never heard of what the UNESCO writes about the Deen they are supposedly propagating, or is it this is exactly what they donating for?!

Saudi and the Arab League

Saudi is not only a member of this nationalistic organisation, but it is one of the founders. Article 8 of the Arab League Constitution states, “Every participating member of the League must respect the established ruling system of the other participating states in the League, it should consider it as a right of these states and obligate it self not to do any action that is aimed at changing their systems.”

Assuming that Saudi is Islamic, is it permissible for it to recognise the Kufr, support it and promise not to change it? So the Baathi regime of Iraq and Alawyite in Syria should be respected!? And we have not mentioned the rule for nationalism which Saudi is propagating, for we think it is well known.

Excuses

Some claim that Saudi takes its stand without free will and under pressure. This may be said about a specific incident that occurred or a statement that it made, but no one can say this when the above mentioned set a basis of its policies since its establishment by the British. At any rate, King Fahd declares otherwise, “Every citizen should hold his head high, for his country in any way. We base our friendly relations with other countries based on our mutual benefits in a way that dose not permit any foreign country to have a hold in the Saudi Arab kingdom.” [Thursday 8th of Safar 1405 AH]

It is clear, therefore, that Islam is not implemented in Saudi. Consequently, the work to resume the Islamic way of life via the re-establishment of the Khilafah is an obligation upon Muslims.

An in-depth Q&A on the Khiafah and it’s plan for the Muslim World

2011-04-19T09:38:00.002+10:00

1 How will the Islamic state deal with different Madhabs (Schools of Thought in Islam)?

The Muslims are united under the Islamic ‘Aqeedah and by the fact that the Qur’an and the Sunnah are sources of Shari’ah, none of the madhabs differed on this issue at all. Due to Ijtihad, they differed in the understanding of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and as a result of this difference various schools of thought emerged. Ultimately Muslims are commanded by the Divine rule and not by the Madhab. He/she takes the rule by means of Ijtihad if he can, otherwise he takes it by following a Madhab if he is unable to make Ijtihad. As long as all the Madhahib embraced the Islamic ‘Aqeedah, and believed in the Qur’an and Sunnah – as the sole source of Shari’ah – they would be considered Islamic.
The Khilafah would not interfere with Madhabs as long as they do not deviate from fundamental Islamic principles.

2. Is the Khilafah state solely for Muslims?

Islam is a universal message for all of mankind. Many ayah in the Qur’an outline that Islam has come for all of mankind. Non-Muslims who live within the Khilafah territories are citizens and enjoy all the rights of security, opportunity and prosperity like any other citizen. Throughout most of Islamic history Muslims were the minority,
According to Albert Hourani, the English historian, in his book: ‘A History of the Arab Peoples: “At the end of the Umayyad period, less than 10% of the people in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Spain were Muslim. Only on the Arabian peninsula was the proportion of Muslims among the population even higher than this.”

3. Are you working to establish the Khilafah in Western states like Britain?

The work for resuming the Islamic way of life and establishing the Khilafah is focused in the Muslim world. This is the natural place for its establishment, as it is the history of the region and part of its heritage. The work outside these territories is focussed towards building the case for Political Islam and defending the Ummah and Islam.

4. Will women be given education?
All people within the Islamic territories irrespective of gender, religion or creed have the right to education. It is an Islamic command to gain knowledge and this applies equally to men and women.
Education is central to building the Islamic personality and ensuring Islamic culture takes root and both men and women are central to this.

5. What will the Khilafah teach other than Islamic education in it's schools?

An Islamic education is one which addresses the temporal and the spiritual, the ideological and the practical. The Khilafah would seek to educate the people in a manner such that well rounded individuals are developed ready to participate in all areas of society. The curriculum of the Khilafah shall equip students with all the necessary skills needed to develop a prosperous economy and an advanced nation. This means that subjects such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, engineering and other sciences shall be taught to the point where the Ummah once again becomes the leading nation in these fields. In addition to this, subjects such as languages, philosophy, politics, economics and other ideological subjects will also be taught in order to elevate the intellectual level of the Ummah.

6. What will be the Khilafah's view towards technology and the internet?
Islam’s view towards technology and industry is that in generality all objects are permitted. However, their use has been restricted as all actions require a Shari’ah evidence. Islam views all the material matters which include the sciences, technology and industry, as merely the study of the reality and a study of how matter can be manipulated to improve the condition and living standards of humanity. This is the view of Islam on science and technology. Therefore Islam permits the use of telecommunication technologies and will provide funding to such areas to develop the Khilafah.

7. Can the Khilafah solve the problems of poverty in our countries?
The poverty in the Muslim lands exist due the architecture the departing colonists left in the Muslim lands and the subsequent neglect by the Muslim rulers of their own people. Add to this some very questionable IMF and World Bank structural adjustment polices and you have the reasons for poverty in the Muslim lands. The Muslim territories may have some of the world’s coveted minerals but none of this has lifted the many who lumber in poverty. The Islamic economic system is composed of various rules and policies that outline the method of distributing wealth and ensuring it circulates throughout the economy. The Islamic lands are not even established upon their strengths, this would be the first policy of the Khilafah.

8. Will the Khilafah close itself to the foreign world like North Korea and other rogue states?
The objective of the foreign policy of the Khilafah is to call all mankind to light of Islam. This is in contrast to the foreign policy objectives of capitalist states, which is to subjugate all other nations in order to extract the maximum amount of wealth possible. This is also in contrast to the foreign policies of all existing Muslim states, which beyond obtaining a few favorable trade deals and consolidating the grip of the ruling elite upon the country, is geared to serve the interests of foreign colonialists. The Khilafah will have a new ideology for the world and as a result it will not have a passive foreign policy but one where it will shape global issues.

9. How will a Khilafah state emerge?
A Khilafah state will emerge when a number of key factors converge within a suitable land within the Muslim world. Firstly, when the people wholeheartedly reject the current system/s that oppress them. Secondly, when there is a public opinion for the Islamic Ruling system as the system of government for the people. Thirdly, when those people who hold the balance of power in that society appreciate that the only viable alternative to misery, exploitation and chaos for them is the Islamic Khilafah and a political path independent of Western colonial powers.

10. What will be the basis of foreign relations?
Recent examples of Afghanistan have shown a lack of political thinking. We seem to equate an Islamic state with a state that wages war on the world. The basis of foreign relations will be Islam and the invitation to Islam. The Khaleefah is the one who will allow trade agreements, diplomatic relations and treaties according to Islam. The Khilafah does not seek to live in a bubble but to have normal relations with other nations for the benefit of the state and it’s citizens. The Khilafah will buy and sell from other nations, attend international conferences and summits and partake in international norms. All of these relationships however will based upon the Islamic Shariah and no action can be partaken by that state that violates it. Abiding by the Shariah on the global stage is an ideal opportunity to show the justice of Islam to the world, in stark contrast to the conniving tricks and double standards the world is put under by the colonial, capitalist nations that seek to rape the world for the benefit of corporations and powerful individuals. In addition, the Muslim Ummah as a whole has a duty to mankind in general: to enjoin good and forbid evil, and to be the Ummatan Wasata – a just, middle Ummah – to witness over mankind according to this justice. Accordingly the Khaleefah, as the representative ruler of the Muslims, has the duty to be interested and involved in global affairs, to speak out against injustices and invite other nations to behave according to what is good and just, and to invite them to Islam.

11. How will your Islamic state deal with political actions such as embargoes, isolation and other political actions from hostile states?

There can be little doubt, from the actions and rhetoric of colonial states, that they plan to embark on belligerent measures against the Khilafah state – before and after it is established. As such the Khilafah state can be under no illusions about those who will try to threaten its security from day one. That will require an enormous effort to:
a) expose the plans of the colonial states internally and to the international community, who have for too long, maintained their hegemony over the world
b) engage with other states in the world to develop treaties and trade independent of the grasp of the colonial powers
c) prepare the state’s military and defence capability
d) unify the population around the Islamic constitution to pre-empt and counter colonial attempts to sow the seeds of division
e) rally neighbouring Muslims lands to join with the Khilafah, forcing the colonial powers to reassess such actions

12. How will your Islamic state deal with Israel?

The Khilafah state will work to end the occupation of Palestine, which was occupied by the British in 1917 and then in 1948 by the Zionists, who went on to usurp further lands in subsequent years. The people and the land must be liberated from this brutal occupation and the Khilafah will utilise all its tools towards this end, including: a diplomatic offensive around the world exposing the horrendous crimes of this occupying entity; enforcement of an economic and travel embargo of the occupier; and the mobilisation of the Islamic military to counter a brutal 60 year military occupation.
It is a fact that the only period when this region saw significant stability and tranquility – for Jews Christians and Muslims – was under the Islamic Khilafah.

13. What will be the basis of relationships with other Muslim countries?

The relationship will be aimed to unify the Islamic lands which have been artificially divided for decades. The Khaleefah is the leader for all believers in the world, and not only those that lie within the state’s current borders. Therefore it will be the duty of Muslims, in particular the Muslim armies out side of the Khilafah to unify with it, remove the treacherous tyrants in their lands and have the Khilafah implement Islam on their lands once more.

14. Will your state be run by clerics?
No. The state will be run by a capable Islamic politician of integrity, along with other capable Islamic politicians of integrity as assistants, deputies, governors and delegates. The basis of the Khilafah state is the Aqeeda of Islam and the Shariah of Allah, which has been derived by scholars throughout our rich history and to present day scholars who will need to derive laws for the new issues we face today. It is the role of the Islamic politicians of the Khilafah state to implement the Shariah of Allah throughout the different regions and aspects of the state. A more detailed view of the state’s political structure can be seen in this organisational chart [View Chart]

15. Would the Caliph be elected and held accountable for all his actions?

Yes. Contrary to notions of the Islamic Caliphate being a religious dictatorship presiding over an authoritarian system, the head of state is elected within an open transparent election and is directly accountable for all his actions to the people. This accountability is maintained by having a vibrant open society and political parties, the presence of strong institutions including independent courts as well as the presence of strong values. There are many Islamic evidences that are well known that obliged enjoining good and forbidding evil (amr bil maaroof wa nahi anil munkar) upon rulers.

Within the Caliphate there is a specific institution called the Court of Unjust Acts (Mahkamut ul Madhalim), which has the mandatory power to look into any complaint against the Head of State, his advisers, any assistants or the governors in the provinces. Indeed the court itself has the right to look into any case of injustice by the executive even if nobody filed a complaint.

16. Explain in brief the key principles of the Islamic political system

The Islamic political system has a number of key principles, two of the fundamental ones are that:
1. Legislation is derived from the divine sources i.e. the Qur’an and Sunnah, Ijmaa as-Sahaba (Consensus of the Companions of the Prophet) and Qiyas (Analogical reasoning)
2. The authority lies with the people.
The former principle contravenes the key tenet of secular democracies, while the second principle undermines the key features of dictatorships.

17. What do you mean by ‘authority belongs to the people’?

This means in origin that the people are the ones who hold the authority of ruling and they contract the ruler (Caliph) to rule according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. The contract or bai’ah stipulates that the ruler is permitted to rule the people as long as he rules according to the Quran and Sunnah. The appointment of the ruler is thus through popular consent from the people via an electoral process.
A ruler must have a mandate from the population or is considered illegitimate. This completely puts to rest the myth that the Caliphate would be some kind of religious dictatorship imposed upon the people through religious order.

18. People say this would be an election that is ‘one-man one-vote one-time’
There is no fixed-term limit for a leader. The Court of Unjust Acts can remove him at any time, if he breaches the constitutional contract of ruling or contravenes any of the qualifying conditions to rule. There is no need to wait five years for the next election to do this. The principle is rooted in divine law but can be seen as providing long term continuity as well as avoiding the compromises and money dependency that short term electoral cycles bring in modern democracies.

19. But with no fixed-term limits, doesn’t this just become an elected dictatorship?

No a leader if he contravenes the constitutional limits or commits egregious acts he can be removed by the Court of Unjust Acts at any juncture. This court is independent from the executive and can listen to any complaint. In addition accountability – by ordinary citizens, political parties, independent media and the elected assembly is a constant obligation on the people – not to be exhibited once every four or five years via a ballot box.

20. Apart from the head of State are there any other elected institutions in the Caliphate?
Yes there are. There are regional assemblies (Majlis ul-Wilyiah) in each province (wiliyah) that are directly elected and whose term limit is five years and whose representatives then elect from amongst themselves a national assembly known as the Council of the Ummah (Majlis al-Ummah).

21. What are the powers of these assemblies?

They have the responsibility to account the Head of State at the national level and account the appointed Governors at the local level. In addition their views/decisions sought on general public interest matters is considered binding. Allah says in the Qur’an:

‘And do consult them in the matter, and if you decide (on an action/opinion) put your trust in Allah’ [al-Imran, 3:159]

The regional assembly can also by majority vote remove the locally appointed Governor by passing in effect a vote of no confidence.

22. If legislation is divine in origin, does that not make the Islamic State a theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia?

No! Theocracies at their heart believe that there is a group or leaders who are infallible and who have an exclusive right to interpret the word of God, where no one is allowed to challenge their interpretation and anyone doing so is condemned. Muslims believe Prophets are selected by God but that subsequent political leaders are not. Their legitimacy must emanate from the authority of the people. The Islamic political system is not theocratic in nature with anyone allowed to challenge any ruling by either scholars or the head of state. We also do not accept either Iran or Saudi Arabia as valid models; the former has a split religious-secular model, neither Islamic nor democratic; while the latter is a hereditary monarchy that uses the religious establishment as a tool to control opposition to their capitalist and pro-West agenda.

23. Political parties who adhere to the constitution should operate freely within the system. But if you believe the Caliphate is not theocratic, then surely your state is religious and therefore not pluralistic?

Like most states, an Islamic state would have a written constitution that governs the society and therefore allows individuals and political parties to operate within that constitutional construct. Of course an Islamic constitution would be different to a constitution that promoted free-market capitalism and social liberalism. However constitutions, written or implied, in democratic states also constrain individuals and parties to ensure that everyone operates within the same political rules and systems. The Islamic system in that sense is no different.

24. But aren’t people in the West are free to criticise their leaders and their political systems?

To a certain extent, though since 9-11 we are seeing a greater intolerance of people who are challenging fundamental ideas. Within an Islamic political system, accounting leaders and their decisions is not merely encouraged – it is mandatory.
Allah says in the Qur’an:
وَلْتَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ ۚ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
‘Let there arise from amongst you group(s) who call to the khair, enjoin maaroof and forbid munkar. They are those who are successful.’ [al-Imran, 3:104]
meaning that there must at any one time be groups within the Ummah that account the rulers. We also know that Islamic history has a long record of accounting rulers, debate and discussion, and Islam draws a clear line between debate, criticism of authority on one hand and gratuitous abuse of key beliefs – unlike Europe’s position during the Danish cartoons abuse.

25. How can this be reconciled with a ‘free media’?
Media in the Caliphate is independent, in general not require any permission for work. Every citizen in the Caliphate is allowed to set up any kind of media operation within the agreed general guidelines of the laws – which prevents libellous attacks, the promotion of any kind of sexual depravity, racism or issues relating to national security. But scrutinising policy, questioning and accounting the executive and other branches of government is fully within their mode of action.

26. If legislation is sourced from divine law, how can you progress and solve new challenges and problems?
Islamic jurisprudence has detailed solutions and key principles derived from the Qur’an and Sunnah that are timeless. These can be applied to any new challenge or problem. This is well established in Islamic jurisprudence under the discipline of Ijtihad. Most democratic states still cite the Magna Carta in 1215 and the United States is based on a constitution written in 1776. In addition pan-national treaties or conventions like the European Convention on Human Rights or the Geneva Conventions are also viewed by their supporters as timeless accords.
Furthermore if one studies Islamic history one can see how during the Islamic Caliphate the Muslim world was at the forefront of science, technology and progress.

27. Are you therefore saying that people have no role in policies because everything is divinely ordained?
No, Islam evaluates human actions in five ways. Some actions are mandatory (fard), others are prohibited (haram) while some are disliked (makhruh) or recommended (mandoub or Sunnah). In any of these four categories, people have no right in setting policy – these matters can be seen as fixed principles in the state.
However the fifth category is that which is categorised as permissible actions (mubah) i.e. actions that human beings are free to do without divine restriction – many state policies may well be amongst the mubah actions. Here people have every right via their elected assemblies to fully debate and decide the best course for the State. There are many occasions from the life of the Prophet where people were not just consulted but their collective decisions were considered binding. These issues are generally related to areas of communal interest that do not require specialist scrutiny in areas of education, health, the economy, industry and agriculture.

28. Political leaders should represent the interests of all the people, not just a narrow elite. You are obviously critical of the closeness of big business in democratic societies, but how would you stop that happening in the Caliphate?

The Western cocktail of money and politics has caused huge problems in generating corruption, a degeneration of society’s values and instability in global peace and security as worldwide resources are constantly fought over. The Islamic system would take the money out of modern politics. The electoral circus every four or five years (every two years for the House of Representatives in the United States) in the West positively encourages the growth of money in politics forcing politicians to either raise grotesque amounts of money for re-election or maximise their own wealth before they get booted out.

The Islamic system, though not immune from the temptations on offer, seeks to actively detach both finance and the interests of corporations from politics by avoiding the constant electoral circus. In addition whereas capitalism and democracies are fused at the hip in the West, so creating a class of politicians who are either personally corrupt or beholden to a corporate class, no such influence is permitted in an Islamic political model where strong restrictions surrounding relationships and influence are in force.

The Islamic economic system is also the complete antithesis to the capitalist economy, putting the problems of the ordinary man over big business. Moreover, a record of corruption is a matter that would violate a contractual condition of ruling for the Caliph – meaning such a person would either not be allowed to take office, or would be removed once in office.

29. There should be a judiciary independent of the executive and who can hold the executive to account. Are you saying the judiciary is therefore independent from the State in the Caliphate?

Yes, absolutely! Judges and courts are completely independent from the head of state and the executive and are key parts of the Caliphate’s institutions. Moreover, a sitting judge who is investigating a matter relating to the executive cannot be dismissed till the conclusion of the investigation.

30. Are you therefore saying that no individual or group is above the law?

Correct. No one – including the head of state, their family, or any religious scholar – is above the law. And unlike the West where justice is skewed to those that are more powerful and wealthier, Islamic courts have historically – and will do so in the future – exercised justice for the weak, minorities and the less well off. This was because of the saying of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم mentioned in Bukhari and Muslim when he was petitioned to intercede for a noble lady who had committed theft: ‘The nations before 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!’

31. Are you saying that the Caliphate will not discriminate against any of its citizens on the basis of creed, race, gender or disability? Surely by being based on Islam, Muslims will always be favoured and surely secularism is the best way to go?

No this is a common accusation but has no grounding in fact. The Caliphate is mandated by divine law to treat non-Muslim citizens well; protecting their right to their religious beliefs and protecting their places of worship.
The State is forbidden from discriminating at all between the individuals in terms of rule, judiciary and management of affairs or anything similar. Rather, every individual should be treated equally regardless of race, creed, colour or anything else.

Allah says in the Qur’an:
وَإِذَا حَكَمْتُمْ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ أَنْ تَحْكُمُوا بِالْعَدْلِ
‘And if you judge between people, judge with justice.’ (al-Nisa, 4:58]

وَلَا يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَىٰ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا ۚ اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَىٰ
‘And let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is nearer to piety’ [Al-Maida, 5:8]

Also the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ‘He who kills a covenanted person unjustly shall not find the scent of heaven; its scent is found the distance of a hundred year march.’ [Tirmidhi]

Historically Jews and Christians were well protected and examples of Islamic Spain and the refuge given to Jews by Istanbul at the time of the Inquisition are documented examples. In one famous case from the early period of Islamic rule a non-Muslim took the head of state to court over a property dispute and won the case. Non-Muslims of any creed (or none) have no fear from an Islamic system and for many who see Western societies increasingly mired in materialism and political corruption may seem pleasantly surprised at the Caliphate’s alternative model.

32. Arbitrary arrest, spying on citizens, internment, torture and extraordinary rendition should be absolutely prohibited. However if you do not believe in democratic rights, wouldn’t people say that made the system a Police State?

No Islam completely rejects this. Islam does not believe in arbitrary arrest or torture or rendition or internment. Every person has the right to a presumption of innocence, a right to privacy and a right to a fair trial. Secular democracies do not have a monopoly over respecting the rights of its citizens.
Islam prohibits the State from spying on its citizens – something endemic in Muslim countries but also on the increase in many Western countries: Spying on Muslims is haram as stipulated in this verse.
Allah says in the Qur’an:

وَلَا تَجَسَّسُوا
‘And do not spy on each other’ [Hujraat, 49:12]

This is a general prohibition of spying confirmed by the hadith reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawud in their narration from Al-Muqdad and Abu Umamah when they said:

The Messenger of Allah said: ‘If the amir sought for suspicion amongst the people he would undermine them.’ [Abu Dawud, Sunan, #4889 and al-Haythami, Majma’ al-Zawa’id, vol.5, p.218]

There are also clear constitutionally enshrined Islamic prohibitions on torture and abusive behaviour amongst other things – applied to the police, armed forces and security services as well as the general population – as a protection from such forceful rule.

33. Didn’t religious rule in Europe in the medieval period hold Western society back in terms of material progress?
Yes but this was specific to Europe where science was seen as an enemy to established tenets of the Church. The opposite happened in the Muslim world, the Caliphate actually drove scientific and technological progress on the back of Islamic tenets. Islam never mandated divine rules relating to science, administrative or technical issues. The significant achievements and advancements of the Caliphate historically have been recognised by many non-Muslim commentators, historians and experts.

34. Even if you reject the Western model based on its corruption and inability to tackle longterm challenges isn’t China an alternative?

China may have an amazing economic growth record but is a state that crushes its individuals and denies them any political rights. For China people are resources to be managed through the capitalist market not human beings who should be respected and treated like human beings.
Killing innocent people in cold blood for protesting in a public square is not a sign of a civilisation at ease with itself. Chinese internal policies in Xinjiang and Tibet are harsh and severe and are characterised by paranoia and the requirement for absolute obedience. China often accuses the West for engaging in brutal behaviour, however its treatment of the Uighurs shows its inability to build a cohesive society that can be attractive to minorities.

Despite attempts by Chinese politicians to portray the whole of China as vibrant, almost 40% or 500 million of China’s population live on less than $2 a day. Despite the great strength of China’s economy, too little of the new found wealth has circulated to the poor and the needy.
China has a terrible record when it comes to religious persecution. Its treatment of all religions but specifically Christianity and Islam is nothing short of horrific. Despite a huge propaganda effort to convince the world that China is becoming much more open and free since the June 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, religious persecution has been intensifying. Chinese authorities have intensified their violent campaign against religious believers, including Evangelical Christians, Roman Catholics, Uighur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and other groups, such as the Falun Gong.

35. How would you choose a ruler in the Khilafah?

We can VOTE for our ruler as long as he rules by what Allah has revealed. Voting is not the same as democracy. Voting means to elect an individual to do an action on your behalf – i.e. to represent you or, in Arabic, to be your wakeel. Representation or wakala has an established set of rules in Islamic jurisprudence as we said before the key question is: what will the person represent you in doing.
In the Second Bai’ah (pledge) of Al-Aqabah, the Messenger (saw) said to leaders of the tribes of al-Aws and al- Khazraj (mentioned in Seerah of Ibn Hisham): “Select for me from amongst you twelve chiefs, who will be responsible for their people, including themselves…” This means he asked them to select and elect their representatives.
Also, in the example of the selection of the Khaleefah at the time of the passing of Ameer al Mu’mineen Sayyidina Omar ibn Khattab (RA) a group of 6 were chosen by him, on his death bed, to select/elect from amongst them the new Khaleefah – and he instructed to kill anyone who opposed the matter after 3 days and 2 nights – an instruction agreed upon by the Sahabah, which established an ijma of obligation of this matter of electing a Khilafah within this time. In the end, the people of Medina were consulted about the two nominees from this group and Sayyidina Uthman ibn Affan was elected.
Hizb ut-Tahrir has adopted that this process would work in the next Khilafah through the body known as the Majlis al Ummah – or the Ummah’s council. This body is elected from the people, by an election process and voting so the people chose their real representatives. Then these representatives would be responsible for reducing a list of nominees to 6 final candidates – checked by the Mahkamat al Mathalim – the Judge who would establish that they fulfilled the criteria for ruling. The Majlis would then elect the Khalifah from this shortlist and give the bay’ah. This is the practical manifestation of the principle that the authority is with the Ummah.
Thus, in the Islamic system, Sovereignty is for Allah and His Shariah alone – and authority is with the Ummah.

36. How is a ruler accounted or changed in the Islamic Khilafah system?

Islam doesn’t make accounting a government a right, it makes it a DUTY. This is an individual duty on Muslims if they are able; a duty to have groups that account the government according to Islam; a media that should be open and frank in their accounting; the elected people’s assembly – Majlis al Ummah – has a role in accounting; and a judge called the Qadi Mazalim – whose role it is to judge between the government, it’s office bearers and the people – who even has powers to remove the Khaleefah if he violates his terms of contract. Thus a ruler could be removed, if necessary, well before the average 4 year term in Britain and America; or he could continue in office if he is serving his people well according to Islam.

Source: http://www.hizb.org.uk/what-is-khilafah/qa-on-khilafah#_

How can we be certain that the Quran is an unaltered divine texts ?

2011-04-02T09:57:00.000+11:00

Quran is the only book in the present world which can be proven as divine and remained free from human alteration since it's revelation. We can follow a few fundamental rational criterions to accept any book that claims to be divine. Those are:

1. It (contents of the book) must remain as it was revealed without any alteration.
2. It must have some evidence to show that it is indeed from God.
3. It must be consistent with the rational and intuitive conclusion on God.
4. It must be free from contradictions.

Now let us see if Quran can withstand these criterions or not.

1. The contents of the book must remain in it's original form without any alteration.

"Barring one or two slightly different manuscripts [which differ only in very minor issues like the angle some signs indicating the vowels in Arabic scripts are scribed] the Qur'an the world over is exactly the same book This can be tested easily for there are thousands of huffaz [individuals who have committed the Qur'an to memory] who have memorized the Qur'an the world over. They recite the Qur'an every day in salat [prayer]. During the month of Ramadhan the entire Qur'an is recited aloud in salat in masjids around the world. Were anyone to recite it differently it would immediately be recognized. Any Muslim is familiar with this, for we have all witnessed the correcting of the Imam [Leader in prayer] should he falter or make an error in prayer.

Consider what this means. It means that over the last 1400 years as Muslims have moved to live all over the globe, there has been no alteration at all to any of the manuscripts of the Qur'an. If there had been then there would definitely be variants of the Qur'an. The Qur'an held by a man in London would be different than one held by a woman in Vienna. As the Qur'an is the same the world over this has not occurred.

One can imagine this as a spider's web. Each strand represents the spread of Muslims around the world and over time. If there were changes to the Qur'an at any point the manuscripts at the end of the web would be different at different points. As they are not it means that we hold the same Qur'an as the version at the center of our imaginary web.

The centre of the web represents the period where Uthman the third Khalifah of Islam gathered together all variant manuscripts and produced one standard manuscript based on the version that Abu Bakr had used. The sahabi [companions of the prophet] reached a consensus regarding the correct nature of this version as the Prophet had himself made the majority of them memorize the Qur'an before his death. This version was distributed to the other Muslims of the state. As currently we all have the same version of the Qur'an it must be the very same copy of Abu Bakr's that Uthman standardized for everyone as previously explained.

It cannot be argued the Qur'an may have been tampered with at this point, and that we possess other than that which Allah revealed. If anything had been added into the Qur'an or altered by men, then these verses would have lost their inimitable quality, their miraculous nature (discussed later). As the entire Qur'an to this day still possesses these attributes, what was compiled by Uthman and the companions was definitely all revelation from the Creator." [1]

Please be mindful that there exists numerous translations of the Quran which varies in their translated meaning but not the Arabic text in which it was revealed. There are some who raised doubts about the preservation of the Quran. Scholars of Islam have addressed these doubts with due responses. I have added a weblink below for the interested readers who want to dig further into this topic:

http://www.islamic-life.com/other-refutations/quran/article-quran-preserved

2. It must have evidence to show that it is from God.

Before we establish that the 'Quran is a miracle, hence it must be from God'; I would like to first explain the differences between miracle and magic.

" One good definition of miracle: An event that appears so inexplicable by the laws of nature, that it is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God. So if a man for example split the red sea in the name of God or split the moon into two parts, his claims to prophet-hood would be verified in the eyes of those who witnessed the miracle, or later who verified its occurrence by some other means.

The breaking of natural law may only occur via the permission of the one who defined them and brought them into existence; the Creator of the universe. As all of mankind, like everything else in the universe is bound by these laws, the proclaimed messenger who performs a miracle has proven, he is indeed a messenger. For only God may alter or suspend the natural laws. Thus the messenger has done so by His permission alone as there is no other way and so authenticated his claims. No ordinary man has the ability to do this.

It would not be correct to say that illusionists and the like appear to break the natural law. Their illusions cannot withstand scrutiny, rather they are revealed to merely be deception. The miracles of the past were so apparent as to withstand any scrutiny. The two examples mentioned already demonstrate this; the splitting of the red sea and the splitting of the moon. In the times of these two miracles, attributed to prophet Musa and Muhammad (Peace be upon them) respectively, there were no cameras, special effects or television.

Any sincere and intelligent man who witnessed prophet Isa (peace be upon him) give life to the dead or saw prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) emerge from the raging fire unharmed would believe they were indeed, as they claimed to be, messengers of God. There is no other explanation for a miracle, an event which defies the laws of nature, the only possibility is that it occurs by the permission of the Creator. As there is no other possibility this reason must be true, it must be the cause for the effect witnessed." [2]

So basically Magic is a deception employed by the magicians which can be exposed through scrutiny and Miracle is an event which defies the laws of nature in reality for which there can be no other explanation except that it's an act of God. Now let us see how we can conclude that the Quran is a miracle. It can be proven by the following:

a. The linguistic and literary inimitability

b. It contains prophecies that have been fulfilled.

c. It mentions some scientific facts that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation

2.a. The linguistic and literary inimitability:

" The Qur’an states:

'If you are in doubt of what we have revealed to our messenger, then produce one chapter like it. Call upon all your helpers, besides Allah, if you are truthful' [Qur’an 2:23]

Muslim and non-Muslim exegete have commented that these verses, and other verses similar to it, are an open challenge to humanity to try and match the literary and linguistic feature/nature of the divine text. It is not surprising that this chapter is often quoted and its significance highlighted by those propagating the Islamic way of life.

This chapter is used as a proof of the Islamic creed. If someone can meet the challenge, then the text cannot be from the Divine. All that they need to do is to produce one chapter like that of the Quran and the smallest chapter in the Quran is consist of only three sentences. However if the challenge can not be met, even though there are a finite set of literary and linguistic ‘tools’ at their disposal; then the question of authorship has great implications.

The Qur’an was revealed more than 1400 years ago and for this amount of time the challenge has remained. This however does not mean that no one has attempted to match the literary and linguistic style/feature/nature of the text. Throughout the centuries thinkers, poets, theologians and literary critics have attempted to challenge the Qur’an. Some of these challengers include Musaylamah, Ibn Al-Mukaffa‘, Abu'l-'Ala Al-Marri, Yahya b. Al-Hakam al-Ghazal, Sayyid 'Ali Muhammad, Ibn al-Rawandi, Bassar bin Burd, Sahib Ibn 'Abbad, Abu'l - 'Atahiya and the contemporary Christian Missionaries who developed the ‘True Furqan’.

Even though the challengers have had the same set of ‘tools’, which are the 29 letters, finite grammatical rules and the blue print of the challenge – which is the Qur’an itself; they have failed to:

Replicate the Qur’ans literary form

Match the unique linguistic genre of the Qur’an

Select and arrange words like that of the Qur’an.
Select and arrange particles like that of the Qur’an.
Match the Qur’ans phonetic superiority.
Equal the frequency of rhetorical devices
Match the level of informativity
Equal the Qur’ans conciseness and flexibility " [3]

" Given the Arabic language, given the blueprint of the entire Qur'an itself, it should definitely be possible to imitate the style for only three lines. But the challenge to this day remains unmet. How can this be? If a man had produced the Qur'an then another man would have been able to copy the process and achieve the same result. It should be noted that the process only need be replicated for only 3 lines! The fact that this cannot be done defies all the known laws of language, and yet it is the case.

This is analogous to giving a team of expert Ferrari engineers the blueprint to a Ferrari, all of the building materials and tools and yet they are unable to assemble it. Pharmaceutical companies may spend years and invest millions of pounds in producing a new drug, but they immediately patent the drug to prevent other companies from producing the same thing. This is because the drug can be examined in a laboratory, its composition analyzed, the process replicated. The same rules apply to language, any style can be examined, its rules understood, the style replicated. But with the Qur'an this has never been done." [4]

" What makes the Qur’an a miracle, is that it lies outside the productive capacity of the nature of the Arabic language. The productive capacity of nature, concerning the Arabic language, is that any grammatically sound expression of the Arabic language will always fall within the known Arabic literary forms of Prose and Poetry. All the possible combinations of Arabic words, letters and grammatical rules have been exhausted and yet the Quran’s literary form has not been imitated. The Arabs who were known to have been Arab linguists par excellence failed to successfully challenge the Qur’an. Forster Fitzgerald Arbuthnot who was a notable British Orientalist and translator states:

“…and that though several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far as elegant writing is concerned, none has as yet succeeded.” ( F. F. Arbuthnot. 1885. The Construction of the Bible and the Koran. London, p 5 )

The implication of this is that there is no link between the Qur’an and the Arabic language; however this seems impossible because the Qur’an is made up of the Arabic language! On the other hand, all the combinations of Arabic words and letters have been used to try and imitate the Qur’an. Therefore, it can only be concluded that a supernatural explanation is the only coherent explanation for this impossible Arabic literary form – the Qur’an.

William Shakespeare, who was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language, is often used as an example of unique literature. The argument posed is that if Shakespeare expressed his poetry and prose in a unique manner - and he is a human being - then surely no matter how unique the Qur’an is, it must also be from a human being.

However there are some problems with the above argument. It does not take into account the nature of the Qur’an’s uniqueness and it doesn’t understand the uniqueness of literary geniuses such as Shakespeare. Although Shakespeare composed poetry and prose that received an unparalleled aesthetic reception, the literary form he expressed his works in was not unique. In many instances Shakespeare used the common Iambic Pentameter (The Iambic pentameter is a meter in poetry. It refers to a line consisting of five iambic feet. The word "pentameter" simply means that there are five feet in the line.)

However in the case of the Qur’an, its language is in an entirely unknown and unmatched literary form. The structural features of the Qur’anic discourse render it unique and not the subjective appreciation of its literary and linguistic makeup." [5]

2.b. It contains prophecies that have been fulfilled.

I will just provide two examples of fulfilled prophecies here.

Prophecies fulfilled during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (saw):

The Quran states:

"Perished are the two hands (works) of Abu Lahab, and he is perished. His money and whatever he has accomplished will never help him. He will enter a fire full of flames.”(Source: Holy Quran, Surah Masad, Ayah 1 to 3)

Abu Lahab was uncle of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and still was among the worst enemies of Mohammad (PBUH), his followers and his message. His wife supported him in his mission against Islam. This Surah predicted that he and his wife will never embrace Islam and will die as disbelievers. Hence both will enter the hell-fire.

Inspite of Mohammad’s (PBUH) continuous preaching, the ill-fated man never embraced Islam. It is reported from Ibn Masud (RA) that when the messenger of Allah (PBUH) called people to faith, Abu Lahab said:
“Even if what my nephew says is true, I will save myself from the painful torment on the Day of Judgement with my wealth and my children.”

Notice that this was a golden opportunity for Abu Lahab and his wife to belie the Qur’an by embracing Islam (even superficially as a Hypocrite) and hence break the whole foundation of Islam that Qur’an is a divine revelation and it cannot be false or wrong. But they failed to do so although they had time of over 11 years to prove Qur’an wrong. Ultimately, they died as a disbeliever.

Prophecies fulfilled after the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (saw):

The Quran states:
“Absolutely, We have revealed the reminder (The Qur’an), and, absolutely, We will preserve it.” (Source: Holy Qur’an: Surah Hijr, Ayah 9)

Since it's revelation more than 1400 years ago, the original Qur’an is still fully preserved and intact word by word as it was when it was first revealed on the holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). This proven fact has been discussed in section 1 in this article.

2.c. It mentions some scientific facts that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation

There are numerous evidences of scientific facts that are mentioned in Quran which have been proven by science in recent past. I am going to mention here one example only.

The Quran states:

"Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exhange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise" [Quran chanpter 4, verse 56]

This verse indicates that there is something in the skin which makes us feel pain. This is exactly what modern science tells us i.e. pain receptors are responsible for feeling pain. It was thought that the sense of feeling and pain was dependent only on the brain. Recent discoveries however prove that there are pain receptors present in the skin, without which a person would not be able to feel pain. When a doctor examines a patient suffering from burn injuries, he verifies the degree of burns by a pinprick. If the patient feels pain, the doctor is happy, because it indicates that the burns are superficial and the pain receptors are intact. On the other hand, if the patient does not feel any pain, it indicates that it is a deep burn and the pain receptors have been destroyed.

Prof. Tegatat Tejasen, Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University in Thailand, has spent a great amount of time on research of pain receptors. Initially he could not believe that the Qur'an mentioned this scientific fact 1,400 years ago. He later verified the translation of this particular Qur'anic verse. Prof. Tegatat Tejasen was so impressed by the scientific accuracy of the Quranic verse, that at the 8th Saudi Medical Conference held in Riyadh on the Scientific Signs of Qur'an and Sunnah, he proudly proclaimed in public: "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad (Peace Be upon Him) is His Messenger."

The Ayat under discussion mentions the burning of the skin. The severity of a burn depends on its depth, its extent, and the age of the victim. Burns are classified by depth as first, second, and third degree. First-degree burns cause redness and pain (e.g., sunburn). Second-degree burns are marked by blisters (e.g., scald by hot liquid). In third-degree burns, both the epidermis and dermis (external and internal parts of the skin) are destroyed, and underlying tissue may also be damaged. Further burn in the skin would damage the pain receptors and hence the person would not feel pain. Quran rightly mentions this 'extreme' stage for the change of skin. The Arabic word used is نضجت which indicates the burning to the extreme stage. Ibn e Faris says that its basic meaning includes burning something to the last stage.

3. It must be consistent with the rational and intuitive conclusion on God.

For example if a book describes God as dependent and limited being like humans (God dying or eating food) then we can safely assume that this book is not from God, as God by necessity must be external to the universe, eternal and omnipotent. [read here for explanations on these rational necessities of God].

The most concise definition of God in Islam is given in the four verses of Surah Ikhlas which is Chapter 112 of the Quran:

"Say: He is Allah, The One and Only. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him." [Al-Quran 112:1-4]

2. It must be free from contradictions.

To find out if Quran contains contradictions or not one needs to read Quran by him/herself. So far no one could come up with a justified claim of contradiction in the Quran. There are some unscrupulous claims regarding contradictions in Quran, which have been addressed by Islamic scholars in depth. One can easily find those in the web. I have added a web link below for the interested readers on this topic:

http://www.answeringchristianity.net/quran/quranerr.htm

Conclusion

"The sincere and deep man who scrutinizes the miracle of the Qur'an will easily arrive at the realization that mankind is in possession of a perfectly preserved codex of revelation from his Creator. This book, the Qur'an is the only such book in the world today. It explains clearly how all of mankind must live their lives and organize their societies. It teaches him right from wrong and gives us knowledge of life after death and creation that we would otherwise never know. It directs us in each and every one of our personal matters, our family issues, from how we pray and clean ourselves to the relationships between nations and how a state governs itself." [6]

[1] http://www.caliphate.eu/2007/10/proof-of-quran.html
[2] http://www.caliphate.eu/2007/10/proof-of-quran.html
[3] http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/2007/07/three-lines-that-changed-world.html
[4] http://www.caliphate.eu/2007/10/proof-of-quran.html
[5] http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/2009/01/questions-how-does-qurans-uniqueness.html
[6] http://www.caliphate.eu/2007/10/proof-of-quran.html

What is the meaning of "Jama’ah of Muslims" ?

2011-04-01T20:00:00.001+11:00

Jama’ah is a term used quite loosely these days to mean ‘majority’. When someone refers to the Jama’ah of Muslims they usually mean the majority of Muslims in a particular country or city. Its usage becomes frequent before the two Eids when Masjids and groups start blaming each other for creating division among Muslims and separating them from the Jama’ah because of celebrating Eids on different days. Without going into a Fiqhi discussion about when to celebrate Eid and whether to sight the moon globally, locally or use calculations, let us look at what Jama’ah actually means in Islam.

The following Hadith is often quoted to make the point that if one does not celebrate Eid on the same day as the majority are celebrating, or the day that the government or the local religious authority (e.g. board of Imams) has declared Eid, then he is separating himself from the Jama’ah:

“…he who separates himself from the community (Jama’ah) by even so much as a hand span and dies (in this state), he will die the death of Jahiliyyah.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

However, a look at the full text of the Hadith reveals what our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) meant when he prohibited separation from the Jama’ah:

“’The one who sees in his Ameer something which displeases him, let him remain patient, for he who separates himself from the community (Jama’ah) by even so much as a hand span and dies (in this state), he will die the death of Jahiliyyah.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

In the above Hadith, distancing oneself from the Ameer (leader) of the Muslims is referred to as separating oneself from the Jama’ah. Another very similar Hadith narrated by Ibn Abbas states this point more explicitly:

”If anybody sees in his Ameer something which displeases him, he should remain patient, for he who separates himself from the authority (Sultan) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, he would die the death of the days of ignorance.” [Muslim]

These Hadith make it clear that the Jama’ah that we are commanded to stick to is not just any group or community of Muslims; nor is it the majority of the Muslims in a particular country or city. Rather, it is the Muslim Ummah as a whole united under an Islamic leadership. Therefore, the existence of a Jama’ah is essentially linked to the existence of a leader.

It must be understood, however, that in the above mentioned Hadith, ‘Ameer’ of the believers refers to a leader who implements the laws of Allah (SWT). Islam does not give legitimacy to the authority of those who do not rule by Islam. They are rather referred to as ‘kafir’ (disbeliever), ‘fasiq’ (rebellious) or ‘zalim’ (oppressor) in the Qur’an [Surah Ma’idah, verses 44, 45 & 47].

The absolute necessity of the existence of a leader over the Jama’ah of Muslims is further expounded in the following Hadith:

“Whoever removes himself from the Jama’at (the unified Muslim Ummah) by a hand span then he has taken Islam from his neck until he returns. Whoever dies and does not have a leader of the Jama’at over him then his death is a death of jahiliyya” [Hakim]

However, when there is no Imam, are we required to follow the majority? The Hadith of Hudhayfah bin al Yaman (RA) sheds some light on this matter:

Al-Bukhari narrated about Bisr ibn Obaydellah al-Hadhrami that he heard Abu Idrees al-Khoolani say that he heard Huthaifah ibn al-Yaman saying: “The people used to ask the Prophet of Allah (saw) about the good and I used to ask him about the bad in fear that it might catch me. So I said: O Prophet of Allah! We were in times of jahilliyah and mischief then Allah brought us this good, so is there any mischief after this good? He (saw) said: Yes. I said: Will there be any good after that mischief? He said: Yes, and it has smoke. I said: What is its smoke? He said: (Some) people guide without any guidance, you recognise some (from them) and deny some. I said: Will there be a mischief after that good? He said: Yes, (some) people who invite at the doors of hell, whoever accepted their invitation they throw him in it (hell). I said: O Prophet of Allah, describe them to us. He said: They are of our own skin (of our people) and talk our language. I said: What do you order me to do if that (matter) caught me? He said: Adhere to the jama’ah of Muslims and their Imam. I said: What if the Muslims have no jama’ah nor an Imam? He said: Then you abandon all those groups, even if you have to grab with your teeth the trunk of a tree till death comes to you as such.”

In the above Hadith, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the time when there will be no Jama’ah and no Imam, he did not order us to follow the majority. This once again clarifies the point that Jama’ah does not mean majority.

Therefore, it is incorrect to accuse each other of breaking away from the Jama’ah if the difference exists only on Fiqhi matters. It is well known that Islam allows difference of opinion and the Sahabah and the early scholars had difference of opinions amongst themselves. However, Islam does not allow political disunity amongst Muslims and hence the stern warning against distancing oneself from the community of believers and their ‘Ameer. This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered harsh punishment for anyone seeking to cause political disunity amongst the Muslims:

“When you all (Muslims) are united (as one block) under a single Khalifah, and a man comes up to disintegrate you and separate you into different groups, then kill that man.” [Muslim]

Also, there are many Hadith of our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) condemning nationalism or tribalism. The following Hadith is one of them and it exemplifies the meaning of unity in Islam:

Whoever separates from the Jama’at and leaves obedience (to the leader of the Muslims) and dies then he dies the death of one of jahiliyya, and whoever sets out against my Ummah with his sword, and strikes the good of them and the evil of them, not keeping away from a believer due to his iman, and does not fulfil the covenant with the one who took it, then he is not from my Ummah and whoever is killed while under a flag of ignorance, getting angry for the sake of tribalism or fighting for the sake of tribalism or calling to tribalism then his death is that of jahiliyya. [Ahmed]

Therefore, unity means sticking to the Jama’ah of the Muslims, being obedient to the Khalifah, not fighting the Muslims and staying away from nationalism. The existence of different Fiqhi opinions amongst Muslims is not disunity. Rather the existence of different countries and states based on nationalism and the absence of a leader that rules according to the Book of Allah are the real causes of disunity – something that our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) has prohibited and warned us against over and over again.
This topic can be aptly concluded with the wise words of the second Khalifah of Islam, Ameer-ul-Mu’mineen, Umar ibn al Khattab (RA), who said:

”There is no Islam without Jamaa’ah and there is not Jamaa’ah without Imaarah (leadership). And there is no Imaarah (leadership) without obedience.” (Reported by ad-Darimi in his Sunan)

- Shafi

The Islamic perspective on Companies and Shares

2011-04-01T19:54:00.000+11:00

Islam provides us guidance regarding the types of companies that can be formed if two of more people want to enter into business together. The capitalist model of companies contradicts the conditions laid down by the Shari’ah and is therefore not permissible for Muslims to invest in.
In Islam, 5 types of companies are allowed. They are:
1. The Company of Equals (Al-’Inan): this is where both partners put their money into a business and work with it. Both partners would have the right to buy and sell and take the company forward, hence all partners are all equal in their disposal.
2. The Company of Bodies (Al-Abdan): this is where two or more people come together with their skills such as a consultant, doctor or craftsmen. Although they use their money, the skill they have is what constitutes the basis of the company.
3. The Company of Body and Capital (Mudharaba): this is where one funds the capital of the business and the other partner works with it. The partner who provides the capital element is a silent partner and takes no part in the running of the business. The other partner buys and sells on behalf of the company.
4. The Company of Reputation (Wujooh): this is a company similar to mudharabah but the capital is provided by a silent partner who has respect and standing and based upon this the company trades. The partner could be a rich merchant, which would mean debts will always be paid by this company as they are backed by a wealthy individual.

5. Company of Negotiation (Mufawadha) this is any combination of the above.

If we study the types of companies allowed in Islam, we will find that some of the criteria for a valid company are as follows:

There has to be offer and acceptance between the partners.
The responsibility of running the business rests with at least one of the partners.
The company and the partners are not separate entities, but a single unit.
The company is dissolved if a partner withdraws, dies, or becomes insane or incompetent.

If any of the above conditions are absent from a company, it is not valid in Islam. Now, let us look at how the current form of corporations in the capitalist system violates these conditions:

The corporation is not formed by an offer and acceptance amongst the partners. If someone wants to be a shareholder in a corporation, he can simply buy shares of that company and become an owner of the company. The other shareholders do not offer him to join business with them. Nor does he make an offer to the others that the latter accept. Rather, by buying the company’s shares, he voluntarily accepts the terms and conditions of the company and contributes his capital to the company. Hence there is only acceptance and no real offer. For example, when Malcolm Glazer, an American business tycoon, took over Manchester United, he gradually bought out majority of the shares of the club although other shareholders were bitterly opposed to it. Hence, by buying shares, he simply accepted to bind himself to the terms and conditions of the club of his own accord without any of the other shareholders offering him to join business with them.
In Islamic companies, at least one of the partners is required to be responsible for running the business. He is not allowed to hire someone else to run the company on his behalf. According to western corporate law, the shareholders of a company have no say in managing the business. At most, they can elect the board of directors and they are the ones that manage the company’s day-to-day operations. The shareholders’ decisions regarding the company’s operations are not binding upon the Board of Directors or managers.
The capitalist corporations are considered a separate legal entity to that of their owners. So the corporation can buy and sell, sue and be sued, and enter into any different contracts as it likes as though it is a separate person on its own. This allows the shareholders to have limited liability, which means, the shareholders are not fully liable for the company’s debts – they are only liable to the extent of their contribution towards the company’s capital. But in Islam, the company does not have a separate entity to that of its owners. They are one and the same. And it is the owners that buy and sell and enter into contracts for the company, not the company itself as a separate legal entity. Therefore, the owners are liable for the full debt of the company, and cannot escape with just partial liability if the company falls into debt.
Western corporations have a permanent life and continue to exist even if a shareholder dies or becomes insane or incompetent. In contrast, companies in Islam do not have a permanent life. If any of the partners withdraws, dies, becomes insane or is judged incompetent, the company is dissolved. In the case of a partner’s death, if he leaves behind an inheritor of mature age, he has the choice of either dissolving the company or becoming a partner in the company with the other owners’ consent.

In light of the above discussion, the current form of companies that exist in the capitalist countries are not valid according to the Shari’ah and are therefore not permissible for Muslims to invest in.

References:
The Economic System in Islam, Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, Hizb ut Tahrir
Companies in Islam: http://khilafah.com/index.php/the-khilafah/economy/1029-companies-in-islam

- Shafi

The Islamic perspective on insurance

2011-04-01T19:49:00.000+11:00

To determine the Islamic view on insurance let us first understand how insurance works by looking at the simple example below:

Mr Rich buys the latest model of BMW and gets it insured with Dodgy Insurance. As per the terms of the agreement, Mr Rich will pay Dodgy Insurance a yearly premium in return for a promise that if the car is stolen or damaged in an accident, Dodgy Insurance will pay Mr Rich for the loss.
From the above example we can tell that insurance is a contract, as it involves offer and acceptance between two parties, the insurer (Dodgy Insurance) and the insured (Mr Rich). Therefore, to be allowed in Islam it must meet the criteria laid down by the Shari’ah for allowable contracts.
In Islam, a contract has to be concluded over either:

An object, where the object is exchanged for some compensation (e.g. selling, trading), or given away without compensation (e.g. gifts), or,
A benefit, where the benefit is provided for some compensation (e.g. leasing), or without compensation (e.g. loans).

If we carefully consider the insurance contract, we will find that the contract is neither over an object, nor a benefit. Rather, the contract is concluded over a promise. For example, in the scenario mentioned previously, Mr Rich was paying a premium to Dodgy Insurance merely for the promise by the latter to compensate him should the new BMW be stolen or damaged in an accident. The guarantee in itself carries no benefit, because Mr Rich would still have to pay the premium to Dodgy Insurance even if nothing ever happened to his car. Therefore, the insurance contract contradicts the Shari’ah.

Also, as Dodgy Insurance has promised to compensate Mr Rich for any damage to the car, the insurance contract can be considered a form of guarantee. Once again, we need to use the Islamic yardstick to assess whether the insurance contract is a legitimate form of guarantee.

The Shar’a requirements of a valid guarantee can be derived from the following Hadith:
Abu Dawud narrated from Jabir who said: “The Prophet (saw) would not pray over any person who died while indebted. A dead man was brought. He (saw) said: ‘Is he indebted?’ They said: ‘Yes, two dinars.’ He (saw) said: ‘Pray for your companion.’ Abu Qatadah al-Ansari said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, they are upon me.’ The Messenger of Allah (saw) then prayed over him.
From the above Hadith, we can say that a valid guarantee in Islam has the following characteristics:

There must exist an immediate or potential financial liability on someone for which the guarantee is made.
There must exist a guarantor, a person guaranteed for and a guaranteed person. For example, in the Hadith, the guarantor was Abu Qatadah (may Allah be pleased with him), the person guaranteed for was the deceased, and the guaranteed person was the one who had lent the money to the deceased.
The guarantor takes responsibility of the financial liability of the person guaranteed for.
The guarantee is made without any compensation being charged by the guarantor.
The person guaranteed for and the guaranteed person need not be known at the time of making the guarantee.

Using the above criteria to judge insurance contracts, we’ll find that the insurance contract contradicts a valid Shar’a guarantee in the following ways:

In an insurance contract, generally the guarantee is made without the existence of an actual financial liability on anyone, whether immediate or potential. Therefore, there does not exist a person guaranteed for, rather only the guarantor (the insurance company) and the guaranteed (the insured). For example, if Mr Rich accidentally hits his expensive BMW against a pole on the street, Dodgy Insurance would reimburse him the cost of repair as per the contract. However, Dodgy Insurance’s promise to pay for the damage was not made on behalf of someone who actually or potentially owed Mr Rich money for the damage. Therefore, the person guaranteed for does not exist.
Besides, an insurance contract requires the insured to pay a premium, whereas, in Islam, no remuneration or compensation is charged in return for a guarantee.

Considering the above points, we can see that insurance is void as a contract and also as a guarantee according to the Shari’ah, and therefore not permitted in Islam.
Reference:
The Economic System of Islam by Taqi ud-deen an-Nabhani

- Shafi

Q n A on the issue of participating in elections in Democracy

2011-03-25T20:34:00.001+11:00

[The following article was published in 2004 Australia, prior to State elections]

On the 9th of October 2004, Australia will decide who is best to lead this country for the next three years. In the context of this campaign, the Muslims of Australia have come to question their role, if any, in this coming election. This debate is profoundly significant and long overdue. It uniquely encapsulates the values and identity dilemma confronting all Muslims today.

As Muslims living in Australia, we must question our fundamental roles and responsibilities in this country. We must question the source of our identity in this country, and we must certainly question the extent to which Islam and the Muslims can help shape the future of this country. To ensure this discussion proceeds in an enlightened and productive manner, the following points regarding elections are presented to you for consideration.

What is the Islamic position on the impending elections?

It is important for Muslims to realise that all their actions must emanate from Islam. As Muslims, we acknowledge by way of reason that Allah (swt) created life and all its elements. As a product of this belief, we appreciate the favour that Allah (swt) bestowed upon humanity by providing eternal guidance through the complete systems of Islam. So before any action is undertaken in life, the Muslim must be thoroughly acquainted with its Islamic ruling prior to its performance.

"Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good see it! And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil shall see it." [TMQ 99:7-8]

In a democracy, it is the whims of humans that direct the lawful and unlawful. No credence is given to religion, tradition, custom or any other measurement. When elections are held in a democracy, its purpose is not only to elect representatives, but to elect representatives who will legislate on the peoples behalf.

Democracy in the West is underpinned by the secular basis of western civilisation. From the early 15th century CE, Western Europe underwent a revolutionary phase known as the period of enlightenment. In this period, a fierce struggle endured between the people and the clergy, the end result of which was the relegation of the church to the private sphere and the promotion of man’s whims to the public sphere. In this period, a clear line was drawn between religion and politics – a division that remains sacrosanct today.

Islam is a complete system of life. Its codes encompass everything from prayer and fasting to politics and economics. There is no distinction in Islam between the spiritual and the temporal. In Islam, Allah (swt) legislated for all aspects of life. As Muslims, we cannot claim to accept the guidance of Allah (swt) in our personal lives, but reject His (swt) guidance in the public life. Allah (swt) says,

"and We have sent down to you the Book explaining all things, a guide a Mercy and glad tidings to Muslims." [TMQ 16:89]

Moreover, sovereignty in Islam belongs to Allah (swt) alone. It is He (swt) that determines the halal and haram, not the whims and desires of man. We have in the Quran the complete orders of Allah (swt) and in the Messenger Muhammad (saw) the best example by which we implement these orders.

"But no by your Lord they can have no (real) Faith until they make you (O Mohamed) a judge in all disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions but accept them with fullest conviction." [TMQ 4:65]

Through this understanding, we can appreciate the inherent contradiction between Islam, Democracy and Secularism. If we were to embrace the western secular creed, then we would be obliged to reject the guidance of Allah (swt) in the matters that encompass the public domain. Similarly, in a democracy, we would be obliged to place the whims of man above the guidance of Allah (swt). How can a Muslim accept any laws to be placed higher than the laws of Allah (swt)? Clearly, directly participating in the elections would be promoting a system that fundamentally contradicts Islam.

Isn’t Democracy like Shura in Islam?

Shura in Islam is the consultative mechanism by which Muslims decide through consensus (by majority or otherwise) upon a given matter. It is important to remember that Shura in Islam is limited to the area of Mubah (permissible matters). There is no Shura in Islam when it comes to the halal and haram, for it is Allah (swt) alone that determines the halal and haram.

It is true that elections are a part of Islam. The Khalifah of the Muslims is elected by the people and the members of Majlis Shura are also elected by the people. Of course, the Khalifah is elected to rule by the book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw), whilst the Majlis Shura is restricted to addressing matters of the Mubah (permissible).

A democracy is more than an election. Elections are merely one aspect of the democratic process. It is true that representatives in a democracy are chosen through elections, but unlike Islam, these representatives are elected to implement man made laws, not the laws of Allah (swt). We cannot separate the question of sovereignty with the question of representation. Moreover, just because two systems may be similar in one detail do not make both systems equal, especially when they both contradict each other in their fundamentals.

Isn’t there a benefit in participating in the elections?

Indeed there are perceived benefits! The Muslims in this country are strong and determined. Whenever we are confronted with pressing priorities, time and time again we will plan, coordinate and execute any endeavour that ensures the betterment of our communities and wider society.

The elections are no exception. The Muslims have the ability to group for this purpose. We can work with a strong voice and an even stronger agenda. We can influence governments of all persuasion. We can effect legislation to a degree, and we can secure better funding and better resources. There are some benefits to be accrued through the election process.

However, benefit is not the criterion for action in Islam. It is the halal and haram stipulated by the Shariah. When we undertake actions as Muslims, we don’t ask whether there is a benefit or harm, we ask if it is halal or haram. When Allah (swt) asks the Muslims to pray, do we seek a benefit such as improved fitness to justify performing the prayer? If we could not see a benefit, or if we could see a harm, would we then abandon the prayer? Furthermore, are we not convinced that it is Allah (swt) that is in the best position to determine the harm and benefit?

Although there are various gains to be acquired by participating in the elections, the question we must first ask is whether it is permitted by Allah (swt)? We cannot allow our whims to override the decision of Allah (swt). Since the elections are an inherent part of the democratic and secular process, then how can we justify participating in a system that contradicts the very basis of Islam?

What about voting for Muslim candidates?

The reality of Capitalist politics is that every action is driven by benefit. This benefit can either agree with Islam or disagree with Islam. As every candidate in a democratic election is obliged to abide by the secular framework, then a Muslim candidate must be willing to place the rule of man above the rule of Allah (swt). It is one thing for a non-Muslim to implement kufr, but what can be said of a Muslim that does the same? Here, the emphasis in on participating in the legislative process and not whom you elect to do it.

It is argued of course that voting for a Muslim candidate will assist them in their cause. Notwithstanding the arguments surrounding benefit in Islam, we only have to consider the pitiful ineptitude of Muslim parliamentarians in the Islamic world to see the glaring fallacies of this logic. If a majority Muslim presence in the parliaments of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia failed to prevent the massacre of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, then how much influence will one or two candidates in Australia wield?

The reality is that even the non-Muslims have awoken to the fallacies of democracy. Whilst the overwhelming majority of Australians were opposed to the war on Iraq, the government rejected their calls and joined hands with the invaders of Iraq. If the very proponents of democracy have shunned their own system, then why do some Muslims continue to naively prescribe to this utopian view?

But does not Islam advocate the lesser of two evils?

It is rightly stated that there does exist a principle in Islam known as the lesser of two evils. But in order to use this argument, we must first accept that participating in a democratic and secular process is inherently haram, which of course, it is!

But we must also ask two questions: Firstly, what are the options open to the Muslims and are there only two? And secondly who defines the greater or lesser evil?

Is it correct to say that the only two options open to the Muslims are either to vote or not to vote? It could be argued that there are other options such as conveying the message of Islam or even emigrating from Australia.

Conveying the message of Islam when done in an organised manner can, due to the strength of the Deen, create a public opinion in Australia that is more conducive to Islam rather than antagonistic towards it. There is no reason why this work must be performed only within the mainstream political process. We all have the ability to access the influential people as well as the wider society through talks, meetings, publications, conferences, protests and more. The Muslims have established countless mosques, schools and community organisations without compromising their Deen. The end result of all this work would be the alleviation of some of the problems confronting the Muslims as well as the spreading of the noble values of Islam in a Capitalistic-benefit driven society.

Emigrating from Australia is another option available to the Muslims. Australia is certainly in the minority when it made voting compulsory. If the Muslim is sincere in avoiding a haram, and is convinced that the only manner in which to avoid sin of voting is to emigrate, then what is to prevent that Muslim from emigrating to the countless other countries where voting is not compulsory?

So not voting means that the Muslim is in fact preventing himself from committing a clear violation of Islam. Conveying the message of Islam in Australia and speaking out against corruption is something that is clearly recommended in Islam. And to emigrate is permissible and can even be an obligation when a person is forced in a particular land to commit a forbidden act or to be prevented from performing an obligation.

In this respect, participating in the elections is the only action that is evil in origin! Where is the justification then in resorting to the principle of the lesser of the two evils?

As for the question of who has right to decide which of the evils is greater or lesser, is it Allah (swt) that determines the evil or is it the human mind?

Further to this, it cannot be said that by doing evil we are able to bring about a greater good and thus prevent harm. From this point, one could then argue that the Madrid bombings was an evil that brought about the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq, and occupation and killing of Muslims is a greater evil hence this was a justifiable action!

"Say: Shall we tell you of those who lose most in respect of their deeds? Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life while they thought that they were acquiring good by their works" [TMQ 18:103-104]

What about the Shariah of the previous Prophets?

We should be aware of the apparent contradiction in this argument. In the previous point the use of the justification of the lesser of the two evils implicitly accepts that participating in elections is Haram. However, using the story of previous Prophets, such as Yusuf (as), as a justification implies that it is not haram. So either it is permitted by Islam or it is haram? It has to be one or the other!

The proponents who use this argument state that Prophet Yusuf (as) was allowed to enter a non-Islamic government and hence we can also enter such a government. They also state that Prophet Yusuf (as) ruled by non-Islamic laws in a non-Islamic government.

A detailed refutation of this argument is beyond the scope of this piece. However, one must question how can Prophet Yusuf (as) on the one hand call to the straight path away from shirk and yet be of those that implements Kufr? This can never be!

In fact the Prophet Muhammad (saw) and his Sahaba faced countless similar situations as a Muslim minority living amongst the majority Kuffar who ruled by Kufr. Yet when the Prophet (saw) was asked to compromise and work within the system of the Quraysh by offering kingship, women, money and a share in their rule, his response was clear “…By Allah if they were to put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left, on condition that I relinquish this matter, I would not relinquish it until Allah made it dominant or I perish therein”

Similarly Allah (swt) warned the Prophet (saw) by saying,

“So obey not to those who deny (the Truth). They wish that you should compromise with them, so they too would compromise with you” [TMQ 68:8-9]

But isn’t living in the country already participating in the system?

No! This would be analogous to the Prophet (saw) living in Mecca and trading with the Quraysh. We would never say that the Prophet (saw) was implicitly supporting the rule of Kufr by virtue of living and trading there, nor could it be said that he (saw) was implicitly supporting the policy of torture and killing of the Sahabah.

But some parties are traditionally more friendly to Islam and the Muslims

This is a serious point.

We must first understand that Islam is a complete way of life. It is ideological. Islam cannot coexist with Capitalism or Socialism, just as Capitalism cannot coexist with Socialism and vice versa. As such, there will always be a struggle between competing ideologies. It is natural and it is to be expected.

Australia is a Capitalist nation. It embraces the Capitalist doctrine that has its roots in the secular creed. Every political party in this country - of every persuasion - adopts and works for the Capitalist ethos. It is the collective role of these parties to ensure the politics of this country function within the Capitalist framework. So every lobby group and every constituency that wishes to be heard by these parties must do so within this framework.

The Muslims in this country are of no exception. If we wish to form a valid constituency by which we exert our pressure on these political parties, then we must do so within the Capitalist framework. For a Muslim this means accepting the imposition of Capitalism, Secularism and Democracy over Islam. At the same time, it means that we must relegate Islam to our personal affairs and not the public domain. In this way, we must accept an authority higher than the authority of Allah (swt) and we must accept a set of laws other than the laws of Allah (swt). Those Muslims who argue for participation in elections should ask themselves the following question: at what cost is the perceived benefit gained?

So the argument over which political party is better for the Muslims is redundant considering all political parties are working to ensure Capitalism prevails over Islam. In any case, it would be naive to think that Islam could be derived through kufr, or that halal could be derived through haram.

But if I don’t vote, how can I counter the threat of voices hostile to Islam?

Firstly, which voice is not hostile to Islam!
It is true that the climate of Islamophobia may intensify in the short term but by no means could this be a justification for committing an act that violates the sanctities that Allah (swt) has laid down.

Secondly, on which basis is it claimed that voting in the elections is the only way to project the Muslim voice?

The only way to remove the anti-Islamic propaganda is to engage with the non-Muslims in the wider society to show and explain the sublime values of Islam thereby removing ignorance and fear of Islam. Unfortunately, we see this as a difficult task to undertake yet our faith is strengthened through struggle and sacrifice.

Thirdly, who said the only two options are to vote or not to vote?

Just because you refuse to engage in the secular and democratic political process does not mean you choose to disengage from the political process altogether. On the contrary, Islam commands the Muslim to carry Islam and enjoin all the good and forbid all the evil. A Muslim could never isolate himself/herself from the wider society. It is that Islam is carried within the bounds of Islam, not kufr.

What is the objective of a Muslim in this country?

In answering this question, it is important that our reality be the subject of thinking rather than its source.

Allah has placed the Muslims as witnesses over mankind. It is then incumbent upon us that we spread the Deen of Allah wherever we may live, ensuring that our Islamic identity is preserved and our conduct be an example for the wider society. The example of our beloved Prophet (saw) should be our only consideration when delivering the call, challenging all that contradicts Islam and presenting the Islamic alternative. In a time when the enemies of Islam are working relentlessly against the Deen of Allah (swt), the Muslims wherever they may be must respond in a way that accords with the Shariah, never deviating from the path of haqq and justice.

A brief look at the reality around us reveals a society whose basis has resulted in epidemic crime levels and a wider social discontent. The Muslim community should aim at becoming the glitter amongst the worn particles, a ray of light that attracts those whom long for tranquillity, contentment and solutions. The Muslims have at their disposal a comprehensive system revealed by the Almighty Creator of the universe. Muslims must generate sincere debate, and present this system using different styles to various aspects of society, individual thinkers, and communities alike.

Most importantly, Muslims must realise that they are not a minority, rather part of a global Ummah whose strength is derived from the Islamic Creed (Aqeedah), and whose destiny is one that The Creator has so willed. A destiny that places His (swt) Deen beyond and above all other ways of life, and a destiny that never allows the rule of man (or any other) to be placed over His (swt) rule.

The advocacy to vote in non-Islamic systems where the justification is benefit for Muslims, is at best indicative of a defeated, secular mentality, and at worst a desire to cooperate in the plan to distance Muslims from the pure and unadulterated Islam. It is thus obliged that the Muslims in this country continue to avoid swimming in a sea of kufr and dive into the cool sparkling purifying waters of Islam, and it is only with this dive that we refuse the crumbs that are offered and we opt for the whole solution.

The Muslims are one global Ummah. The objective of the Muslims living in Australia is the same as every Muslim around the world. We must unite intellectually and work towards uniting politically under Islam. The fate of the Muslim community in this country is inextricably linked with the fate of the Muslims globally. The successes, pains, and tribulations of the Ummah will reach all its members in all corners of the world.

Our problem is none other than the absence of the application of Islam as a complete and comprehensive system. We all have a duty to support and actively work towards the re-establishment of the Islamic state in the Islamic lands, which will implement Allah’s (swt) Deen in totality, unite the Muslims, carry Islam to the world, and defend the lives and honour of every man, women, and child under the protection of the state.

Dear brothers and sisters in Islam, you are invited to raise your vision, break away from the shackles of the status quo, and realise the Ummah is indeed a giant awakening from slumber.

“O you who believe! Respond to Allah and His apostle when He calls you to that which will give you life” [TMQ 8:24]

Who created the Creator ?

2011-02-20T08:21:00.002+11:00

[ The following response of the above question has been taken from the cambridge union debate between Br Hamza Tzortizis and Professor Simon Blackburn. The full article can be read from here ]

The Professor argued that even if we can conclude there must have been a designer for the fine-tuning that is apparent in the universe, this doesn’t stop us from asking “who designed the designer?”, in other words there can be a meta-metaphysical designer, and a meta-meta-metaphysical designer and so on.

Br Hamza argued that in the Philosophy of science the best explanation doesn’t require an explanation. Anyone with a basic understanding of the philosophy of science will conclude that in the inference to the best explanation, the best explanation doesn’t require an explanation! I used an example similar to the one that follows to illustrate this point.

Imagine 500 years from now a group of futuristic archaeologists were to start digging in on the moon only to find parts of a car and a bus. They would be completely justified in inferring that these finds were products of an unknown civilisation. However if they were to argue that we can’t make such inferences because we do not know anything about this civilization, how they lived and who created them, would that make the archaeologists conclusions untrue? Of course not!

Additionally he (Hamza) concluded this response by saying that even if we were to apply this type of question to every attempt at explaining the explanation, we would end up with an infinite regress of explanations. And an infinite regress of explanations would defeat the whole purpose of science in the first place, which is to provide an explanation!

Weblinks for Documentaries

2011-02-12T18:07:00.003+11:00

Link to view Documentaries on Islamic Issues:

http://nahdaproductions.org/documentaries

Link to view Documentaries on Global Issues:

http://freedocumentaries.org/

Links to Download Islamic Books

2011-02-12T18:01:00.006+11:00

You can download some excellent books on Islamic issues from the following link:

http://www.universal-islam.com/
(You need to use the scroll bar downwards on the upper right hand side of the web page to view the link to download Books)

Some Reminders From The Sunnah

2011-02-12T11:46:00.005+11:00

"Sadaqah (charity) extinguishes sin as water extinguishes fire."
[ Tirmidhi ]

"Do you not hear? Do you not hear? Simplicity (in life) is part of faith, Simplicity is part of faith."
[Abu Dawud]

"Nothing is heavier in the scales of a believer on the day of judgement than his good behavior. Allah detests a person who is obscene and shameless."
[Tirmidhi]

"May he be disgraced! may he be disgraced! may he be disgraced, whose parents one or both, attain old age during his life time, and he does not enter Jannah (by being dutiful to them)."
[Muslim]

"Look at those who are inferior to you and do not look at those who are superior to you, this will keep you from belittling Allah's favour to you."
[Bukhari and Muslim]

"Anyone who has no mercy for others will receive no mercy from Allah."
[Bukhari and Muslim]

"None of you will be a true believer until he loves for his brother that which he loves for himself."
[Bukhari]

'A man asked the messenger of Allah (saw), what in Islam is the best? He (saw) answered:" To feed people and to greet everyone (to say Assalamu Alikum) whether you know him or not."
[Bukhari and Muslim]

".....It is enough evil for a person that he should look down upon his Muslim brother."
[Muslim]

"Avoid suspicion, for suspicion is the greatest lie. Do not be inquisitive about one another, or spy on one another. Do not outbid one another with a view to raising the price. Do not feel jealous and do not hold grudges against one another. Do not backbite, but be the servants of Allah like brothers amongst yourselves."
[Bukhari and Muslim]

"Avoid envy, for envy devours good deeds just as fire consumes dry wood."
[Abu Dawud]

"He who has in his heart an atom's weight of pride, will not enter Paradise."
[Muslim]

"Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should either say something good or keep silent." [Tirmidhi]

"The metaphor of someone who stops at the limits of Allah and someone who transgresses them is that of some people who draw lots on a boat. Some of them get the upper deck and some of them the lower. When those in the lower deck want to get water, they have to pass by those above them. Then they say, 'If we were to make a hole in our deck, we would not have to bother those above us.' If they were to let them do what they wanted, all of them would perish. If they seize hold of their hands and stop them, they will be saved and all of them will be saved." [al-Bukhari]

“ When people see an oppressor but do not prevent him from (doing evil), it is likely that Allah will punish them all.”
[(Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi]

“ By Him in Whose Hand my life is, you either enjoin good and forbid evil, or Allah will certainly soon send His punishment to you. Then you will make supplication and it will not be accepted.” [At-Tirmidhi]

"Visit the sick person who doesn't visit you when you are sick, and give gifts to the one who doesn't give gifts to you."
[Bukhari]

Some Reminders From The Holy Quran

2011-02-12T10:06:00.014+11:00

"And surely, We have created many of the jinn and mankind for Hell. They have hearts wherewith they understand not, and they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones."
[Chapter 7: Verse 179]

"Have you (O Muhammad SAW) seen him who has taken as his ilâh (god) his own vain desire? Would you then be a Wakîl (a disposer of his affairs or a watcher) over him?"
[Chapter 25: Verse: 43]

"Say: "Nothing shall ever happen to us except what Allâh has ordained for us. He is our Maulâ (Lord, Helper and Protector)." And in Allâh let the believers put their trust."
[Chapter 9: Verse: 51]

"Say: "Truly, my Lord enlarges the provision for whom He wills of His slaves, and (also) restricts (it) for him, and whatsoever you spend of anything (in Allâh's Cause), He will replace it. And He is the Best of providers."
[Chapter 34: Verse: 39]

"And whosoever fears Allâh and keeps his duty to Him, He will make a way for him to get out (from every difficulty). (2) And He will provide him from (sources) he never could imagine. And whosoever puts his trust in Allâh, then He will suffice him. Verily, Allâh will accomplish his purpose. "
[Chapter 65: Verse: 2-3]

"Say: If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your kindred, the wealth that you have gained, the commerce in which you fear a decline, and the dwellings in which you delight are dearer to you than Allâh and His Messenger, and striving hard and fighting in His Cause[], then wait until Allâh brings about His Decision (torment). And Allâh guides not the people who are Al-Fâsiqûn (the rebellious, disobedient to Allâh)"
[Chapter 9: Verse: 24]

"O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion, indeed some suspicions are sins. And spy not, neither backbite one another. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? You would hate it (so hate backbiting)[] . And fear Allâh. Verily, Allâh is the One Who forgives and accepts repentance, Most Merciful."
[Chapter 49: Verse: 12]

"And say to My slaves (i.e. the true believers of Islâmic Monotheism) that they should (only) say those words that are the best. (Because) Shaitân (Satan) verily, sows state of conflicit and disagreements among them. Surely, Shaitân (Satan) is to man a plain enemy."
[Chapter 17: Verse: 53]

"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts). That is purer for them. Verily, Allâh is All-Aware of what they do. (30) And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent"
[Chapter 24: Verse: 30-31]

"And those who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you (Muslims of the whole world collectively) do not do so [i.e. become allies, as one united block under one Khalifah (a chief Muslim ruler for the whole Muslim world) to make victorious Allâh’s religion of Islâmic Monotheism], there will be Fitnah (wars, battles, polytheism) and oppression on the earth, and a great mischief and corruption (appearance of polytheism)."
[Chapter 8: Verse: 73]

"Those (i.e. believers) unto whom the people (hypocrites) said, "Verily, the people (pagans) have gathered against you (a great army), therefore, fear them." But it (only) increased them in Faith, and they said: "Allâh (Alone) is Sufficient for us, and He is the Best Disposer of affairs (for us).[]" (173) So they returned with Grace and Bounty from Allâh. No harm touched them; and they followed the good Pleasure of Allâh. And Allâh is the Owner of Great Bounty. (174) It is only Shaitân (Satan) that suggests to you the fear of his Auliyâ' [supporters and friends (polytheists, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh and in His Messenger, Muhammad SAW)], so fear them not, but fear Me, if you are (true) believers. "
[Chapter 3: Verse: 173-175]

“And the believers, men and women, are protecting friends one of another; they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and they establish worship and they pay the poor-due, and they obey Allah and His messenger. As for these, Allah will have mercy on them. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise.”
[Chapter 9: Verse: 71]

"Do you believe in a part of the Book and reject the rest? What else, then should be the retribution of those among you who do this than that they should live in degradation in the present life, and that on the Day of Resurrection they should be sent to the severest chastisement?" [Surah Al-Baqarah 2:85]”

“Perhaps you may dislike something which is really good for you or like something bad for you, but Allah knows (what is best for you) and you do not know” Al-Baqarah 2:216

“Those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are disbelievers.” Al-Maaidah 44

“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad SAW) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.” An-nisaa 65

“It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.” (Al- Ahzab 36)

How do we know God is ONE ?

2010-12-30T21:21:00.002+11:00

Source of this Article :
http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-do-we-know-god-is-one-theological.html

One of the many common questions that were asked during the Islamic Awareness Tour was “If God does exist what reasons do we have to believe He is one?” This question is important as it addresses a fundamental concept in Islamic theology, the concept of oneness. The oneness of God, in Arabic tawhid, is a central theme in the Qur’an and a message of all of the Prophets, the Qur’an eloquently describes the nature of God and His oneness in the 112th chapter, “Say: He is God, the One. God the Eternal. He begot no one nor was He begotten. No one is comparable to him.”

Before I begin to answer the question, it is important to add that the concept of oneness in Islam is not limited to God’s singularity and uniqueness. There are many aspects to this concept which involve the way human beings should worship God, how they should understand His lordship, and how they should understand God’s names and attributes. It doesn’t stop there as these ideas transform an individual’s world view and outlook, as a famous Asian-subcontinent thinker once wrote,

“A believer in this…can never be narrow in outlook. He believes in a God Who is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, the Master of the East and the West and Sustainer of the entire universe. After this belief he does not regard anything in the world as a stranger to himself. He looks on everything in the universe as belonging to the same Lord he himself belongs to. His sympathy, love and service are not confined to any particular sphere or group. His vision is enlarged, his intellectual horizon widens, and his outlook becomes as liberal and as boundless as is the Kingdom of God. How can this width of vision and breadth of mind be achieved by an atheist, a polytheist or one who believes in a deity supposed to possess limited and defective powers like a man?”

In light of this there are many ways to answer the question referring to God’s singularity and uniqueness, thereby providing a positive case for the oneness of God, and they range from theological to philosophical arguments. I will present the following 5 arguments:

1. Occam’s Razor

2. Qur'anic Argument

3.Conceptual Differentiation

4. Uniqueness

5. Revelation

Occam’s Razor

The Qur’an rhetorically asks the question “Did the universe come out of nothing?” The answer seems quite obvious due to the metaphysical and undeniable logic that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and since the universe began to exist, therefore it must have a cause. It would be irrational to posit more than one cause for the universe, as an infinite regress of causes is impossible. The reasons for this include the absurdity of the actual infinite existing in reality; take the following examples into consideration,

1. You have an infinite number of people in a room, if I take two people away, how many do you have left? The answer is infinity minus two. However does this make sense? If there are less than an infinite number of people in a room you should be able to count that number in the real world. But you can’t, in other words the infinite doesn’t make sense in the real world. In light of this Mathematicians Kasman and Newman state "The infinite certainly does not exist in the same sense that we say ‘There are fish in the sea’”.

2. Imagine I am a soldier and I want to shoot an enemy. In order for me to shoot I have to ask permission from the soldier behind me to shoot, but he has also has to ask permission from the soldier behind him to shoot, now imagine this continued forever, in other words an infinite amount of time? Will I ever shoot the enemy? The answers is plain obvious. In the same light an infinite regress of causes for the universe would mean there would be no universe in existence in the first place.

So the conclusion that the universe has a single independent uncaused cause seems quite plausible, however you can still posit a plurality of causes all occurring at the same time. Is this a sound argument? I believe it is not strong argument if we take Ockham’s Razor into consideration. Ockham’s Razor is a philosophical principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. This principle enjoins “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate”, in English “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” In other words the simplest explanation is the best explanation.

Essentially it means that in absence of any evidence for a plurality of causes we should hold onto the simplest explanation rather than argue from ignorance. In this case we have no evidence to say the cause for the universe is actually a combination of two, three or even one thousand causes so the simplest explanation is that this cause is one. Even if you had the option of two explanations, one being a plurality of causes and the other a single cause, Occam’s Razor will enjoin you to take the simplest explanation because it is the best explanation from a philosophical perspective. The reason the simplest explanation is the best explanation is because with a plurality of causes more questions are raised which will require more answers in contrast to the simplest explanation, in this case a single cause.

Qur’anic Argument

The argument the Qur’an uses to show that God is one is explained in the following verse, the divine book says, “If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides God, the heaven and the earth would have collapsed in disorder and chaos." The Qur’an points out that if there were more than one God who created the universe it would be in chaos and there would not be the level of order we find in the cosmos. However you may point out that your car was made by more than one creator, one person fitted the wheels, and someone else installed the engine and another person the computer system. So from this example there can be more than one creator with the created thing still able to exhibit order and stability.

In order to respond to this contention what has to be understood is that the Qur’an mentions the word ‘God’ and not ‘designer’ or ‘creator’. There may be a possibility of multiple designers or creators, as highlighted by the car example, but there cannot be more than one God. This is because God by definition is the being that has an unlimited imposing will, if there were two or more Gods that would mean that they would have a competition of wills and that would result in chaos and disorder. However you may argue that they can agree to have the same will or each have their own domain, but that would mean that their wills are now limited and passive, which would mean they are not Gods anymore by definition!

Conceptual Differentiation

What makes us appreciate difference and duality? How do we differentiate between two people walking in the street? The answer lies in what is called conceptual differentiation. These concepts include space, distance, form, and physical features. Take the following diagram into consideration,

The reason you can perceive two objects above is due to differences in colour, size, and shape, including their placement, in other words there is a distance between them. In absence of these concepts could you perceive the two objects or any objects at all? You could not, because these concepts are required to perceive any number of entities. Now since the cause of the universe is outside the universe (if the cause was part of the universe it would mean that the universe created itself, this is absurd as it would necessitate the universe to exist and not exist at the same time!), you can safely assume that there are no conceptual differentiators such as distance, shape, colour and size; because these concepts only make sense within the universe. Therefore if there are no knowable conceptual differentiators we cannot claim a multiplicity of causes, as I have explained above the impossibility of perceiving plurality or multiplicity in absence of these concepts.

Since you have no concepts to acknowledge a plurality of causes does this mean that even a single cause can’t exist? No it doesn’t, because if there were no cause for the universe then that would mean the universe, in the words of Bertrand Russell, “Is just there and that’s all”. In other words it would mean the universe is infinite, however this cannot be the case, as mentioned above the universe began to exist. Therefore a single independent cause is rationally necessary to explain the fact that the universe began to exist and that a plurality of causes cannot be perceived due to the absence of conceptual differentiators.

Uniqueness

The cause of the universe must be unique, as the Qur’an says “There is nothing like Him”. If the cause of the universe was not unique that would mean there are some similarities between the cause of the universe and the universe itself. This is not possible as that would place the cause of the universe within the universe (if you define the universe as the sum of all matter) and this would lead to an absurdity as it would imply that the universe created itself. Now you may ask the question: why can’t the cause of the universe resemble the universe? The answer is straight forward; this cause must be immaterial because it created the sum of all material – which is the universe itself – and another principle that supports this is the 1st law of thermodynamics, it states “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”, simply put energy (in other words matter) cannot create itself. If the cause was material then it would defy this principle as it would mean matter and energy self create. So you can conclude that the cause of the universe must be immaterial and therefore unique.

How does this relate to the oneness of God? Well if there were more than one cause for the universe that would mean they are not unique anymore. However you may still argue that there can be two immaterial causes, and I would reply: what does that mean? It would seem that you are violating Occam’s Razor and I would refer you to the first argument.

Revelation

A simpler way of providing evidence for God’s oneness is by referring to revelation. The argument here is that if God has announced himself to humanity and this revelation can be proven to be from Him, then what He mentions about himself is obviously true. The daring assumptions, from an agnostic perspective at least, are how do you know God has announced himself to mankind and in what form is this revelation?

Let’s take the last assumption first. If God has announced himself to mankind there are only two possible ways to find out: externally and internally. What I mean by “internally” here is that you can find out who God is solely by introspection and internalisation and what I mean by “externally” is that you can find out who God is via communication outside of yourself, in other words it is instantiated in the mind-independent world. Finding out about God internally is implausible for the following reasons,

1. Human beings are different. They have, what Psychologists call, “individual differences”, these individual differences include DNA, experiences, social context, intellectual and emotional capacities, gender differences, amongst many more. These differences play a role in your ability to internalise via introspection or intuition, therefore the results of introspection or relying on your intuition will differ. So you can see that if these processes where solely used to find out about God there would be inevitable differences in our conception of Him. This is true from a historical point of view, since the ancient world 6000 BCE, there are records of approximately 3,700 different names and concepts for God!

2. Since the method used to conclude that God does exist is a “common sense” method, or what philosophers call rational thought and what Muslim theologians may call innate thinking, then internally trying to find out about God would lead to fallacies. This is because what can be concluded using the universe as evidence for a transcendental independent cause is that it must be eternal, unique, powerful and personal; anything else would be speculation. The Qur’an aptly mentions “Why do you say about God of that which you have no knowledge?” If you try and internalise what God is would be equivalent of a mouse trying to conceptualise and think like an Elephant. It is obvious that the human being is not eternal, unique and powerful, therefore the human being could not conceptualise who God is. God would have to tell you via external revelation.

Take the following example into consideration, you know God exists like the knocking of the door, you safely assume that something is there, but do you know who it is? You weren’t expecting anyone, so you cry out “who is it?” in order to find out, and the only way to find out is if the person behind the door tells you. So you can conclude that if God has said or announced anything it must be external to the human being.

From an Islamic perspective this external communication is the Qur’an as it is the only text to claim to have come from God that fits the criteria for a divine text, these criteria include,

1. It must be consistence with the rational and intuitive conclusion on God. For example if a book says God is an Elephant with 40 arms you could safely assume that this book is not from God, as God must be external to the universe.

2. It must be internally and externally consistence. In other words if it says on page 20 that God is one and then on page 340 its says God is 3 that would be an internal inconsistency. Additionally if the book says that the universe is only 6,000 years old then that would be an external inconsistency as reality as we know it s that the universe is older the 6,000 years.

3. It must have signposts to transcendence. In simple terms it must have evidence to show that it is from God.

In the case of the Qur’an - and this post is not the place to discuss this in any depth - cannot be explained naturalistically therefore supernatural explanations are the best explanation. Some of these signposts include:

a. The linguistic and literary inimitability

b. There are historical accounts that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation

c. There are some descriptions of natural phenomena that could not have been known by man at the time of revelation

To conclude, since the only way to know what God has announced to mankind is via external revelation, and this revelation can be proven to be the Qur’an - then what is says about God is true. In the context of this discussion the Qur’an says “Know that your Lord God is one”.

Conclusion

These are some of the arguments that can be used to show that God is one; however this topic – once truly understood – will have some profound effects on the human conscious. The oneness of God is not only related to the fact that He is uniquely one, rather it refers to His worship, lordship, names and attributes, something that can only be tasted by pondering on reality, meditating on the meaning of the Qur’an, and becoming a manifestation of its message.

Can we believe in God with certainty without having any tangible proof ?

2010-12-11T17:45:00.057+11:00

To many of us may be the answer is "No, it's not possible." But in reality it is possible and we conclude on many different things 'beyond doubt' using only rational (intangible) proof. For example, can anyone prove me that I had a great great ........ great grandmother 1000 years ago through tangible proof? To prove this through tangible evidences, one has to get the remains of all my previous grandmothers and extract DNAs to link it with my DNA. It's not possible to find the remains of all my grandmothers, hence we are unable to link my DNA with my grandmother who lived long back in time. Does that mean my grandmother didn't exist 1000 year ago ? Obviously not. Cause we know from the reality that every human being need a mother to be born and from this reality we can make a rational conclusion that I had a grandmother 1000 year ago. And we derive this conclusion without any doubt through rational proof but not through tangible proof.

Similarly when we find ancient drawings on the rock from thousands of years ago, we don't come to conclusions that elephants or monkeys did these drawings, rather we conclude that humans did it without having any tangible evidence to link that to a human being. So, the point I am trying to make is, we can and we do derive decisive conclusions in our daily life on things without having tangible proof. In other words, using only rational proof we can believe in something with certainty. Hence it is evident from the discussion above that we don't need tangible proof to come to a decisive conclusion about the existence of God.

Now, the next point I would like to address is "Tangible proof is not applicable to prove the existence of God." Simply because we can NOT comprehend through our senses anything beyond the time and space of this universe. And God by definition has to be an independent eternal being who is beyond the limits of this universe. So how can we measure or test something eternal with our non-eternal capabilities ?? God has to be eternal and absolutely independent by necessity, otherwise He would be dependent on something else. And if He is somehow dependent on anything, then that other thing has to exist for His existence. And that nullifies Him being an eternal being, hence He can't be the almighty God. So we can't have tangible evidence to prove the existence of God.

Again, One might argue "If God is beyond this universe and human mind incapable of comprehending something beyond this universe, then how can one believe in His existence ?" This argument is false cause comprehending the existence of God and comprehending His essence is two different things. Ability to comprehend the existence of God is not dependent on comprehending His essence. For example, if someone knocks at your door then you are sure of somebody outside your door (existence of a person) but you don't know whether it is he or she, what is his/her height, what is the color of his/her dress ......etc (characteristics of that person). Similarly we can rationally comprehend that Creator exists by analyzing the creations in this universe without comprehending His essence. These creations are within the limits of what the mind can comprehend and thus, from comprehending the creations, man can comprehend the existence of the Creator for these things, who is God the almighty (this point is explained further in subsequent paragraphs). So comprehending the essence of God is not necessary to comprehend His existence.

I would like to remind the readers few important points discussed so far:

a. Rational proof can provide us with certainty on believing things. Tangible proof is not necessary to derive conclusion with certainty.

b. Seeking tangible evidence for the existence of God is irrational as tangible God would mean He is within the limits of this universe and thus nullifies Him as being a creator. Hence we need to use rational proof to prove the existence God.

c. Comprehending the essence of God is not necessary to comprehend the existence of God.

Now let us discuss how we can rationally comprehend the existence of God through comprehending the creations on this universe.

* "Let’s take a shirt for example. Let’s say it’s a black cotton shirt, with a little logo on the front, with two short sleeves and is about 60cm in height, 40cm in width and has a 50cm collar (in diameter), and the ends of the sleeves are folded in and sewn, as is the bottom of the shirt. Now why would we immediately conclude that a human made this shirt, even if it was with the help of a machine, but definitely a human was involved at some point? A simple answer is the degree of “design” and “purpose” behind every aspect of the shirt, and the fact that every aspect of the shirt has a particular purpose, which immediately negates any possibility of chance being the cause of every aspect of its design. This clearly indicates the existence of an intelligent being behind the existence of the shirt (i.e. a human). "

The above example makes perfect sense to anyone without any doubt but when it comes to nature or this universe suddenly things changes and people start to think irrationally. The degree of design and complexity in nature is far more greater than we can even think of but still we somehow think it came into existence by chance or by itself. Consider the following example to understand how irrational it is to think that life forms came to exist by chance.

** "Proteins are the building blocks of a cell. These proteins again consist of smaller units called "amino acids" that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The absence or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. An average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids and contains 12 different types of amino acids, which can be arranged in 10³⁰⁰ different ways (1 followed by 300 zeros). Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule and the rest are useless or potentially harmful for living things. Again one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered H39, contains 600 types of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility ( In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10⁵⁰ - 1 followed by 50 Zeros- are thought of as "zero probability). English mathematician and astronomer sir Fred Hoyle (an evolutionist himself) stated in "Nature Magazine" November 12, 1981 that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. In other words, it is absolutely impossible for the universe to have come into existence by chance. If someone still claims that it is still a possibility, then there is no point discussing with that person, as the basis of our discussion should be rational proof, not far-fetched, imaginary and irrational arguments.

One can also rationally conclude the existence of a creator by reflecting on the things that the mind can comprehend i.e. man, life and universe. All of them are inherently limited, weak, imperfect, and depend on other than themselves to exist. Man is limited because he grows in every aspect to a certain limit that he cannot surpass and depends on food, water, oxygen and numerous other things to survive.

Sometimes life is perceived to be “eternal”, but there is nothing to support this theory at all. Life is completely dependent on the being it lives in. It cannot be transferred, or returned to a dead body once it leaves. It starts with a body, and ends with that body, and we all know that everything on this earth dies. Therefore, life is limited and it comes to an end. Anyone who claims that “life is transferred to others” then he needs to provide evidence for that. It is clear that the population of the earth is increasing, so how is this possible if life is just being transferred? The numbers do not add up. Clearly, that theory is baseless and is just a figment of someone’s imagination.

*** Again some claims ' Matter exists with no beginning and it is eternal. Since this universe is composed of different forms of matter, this universe as a whole is eternal.' Let us point our attention to the things that exists in this universe to answer this false claim as well. All matters that exists are incapable of creating anything from nothingness, whether individually or collectively. It's incapability to create from nothingness is tangibly conspicuous. This means that it is not eternal, because an eternal thing must not be characterized with incapability. In order for the creator to be deemed eternal, It must have the ability to create things from nothing, that means the created things must depend on the creator for it's creation. Consequently, the universe is not eternal because it is incapable of creating anything from nothing. Incapability of something to create from nothingness is definite evidence that it is not eternal.

We can clearly observe that everything on this universe is limited, weak, imperfect and in need of something other than itself for it's existence (non-eternal). Anything that is not eternal requires a beginning (starts to exist at some point in time), and anything that starts to exist must be caused/initiated by something other than itself (nothing can create itself when itself doesn't exist). Hence something uncaused/uninitiated, eternal existed before anything that exists in this Universe and that is the almighty God who created everything from nothing.

This is the rational proof of the existence of the Creator .

Conclusion:

It appears to us that believing in the existence of God is something complex and in need of high intellect. But in fact it is just the opposite. Few years back I went to Bangladesh and asked a person who is not literate "Why do you think God exists?" She was at once astonished to hear such question from me. I could see her expressions on the face which gave me the feeling that I was asking her a stupid question. She gave me a short but profound reply which I still remember and that is "Do you think this world came into existence by itself?" All on a sudden I realized that It's an obvious conclusion to anyone with a clear set of mind irrespective of his/her educational status. It is the current secular world which has corrupted our mind to the point that we can't even think straight. In the Quran Allah (swt) addresses us :

" Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief." [At-tur, Verse 35-36]

"Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alteration of night and day, these are indeed signs for men of understanding." [Al-E-Imran, Verse 190]

* http://awaremuslim.blogspot.com/2007/05/rational-proof-in-existence-of-creator.html** http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_specialpreface.php

*** Ash-Shakhsia al-Islaamiya Volume I by Sheikh Taqiuddin an Nabhani

This is Imaan

2010-03-13T07:48:00.000+11:00

The Prophet SAW in his ascent to Jannah could smell a beautiful smell and asked Jibrael what the beautiful smell was. He SAW was told this was the smell of the hairdresser of the daughter of Firaun, and her children,.

Who may this woman and her children be, we may ask? Yet another figure in an Islamic history book? But surely, my dear sisters, this woman is more than a dormant figure in a book. This woman is the magnificent, most beautiful example for us all, on what Iman really means. What steadfastness upon the Haq really means. And what sacrifice fi sabeelilah really means.

And the hadith narrated in Ahmad and Ibn Majah is as follows:

The hairdresser of the daughter of the Firaun, a nobody, another servant in the expansive quarters of the Firaun was one day combing the hair of her master's daughter. And as she was doing so, she accidentally dropped the comb and after picking it up to resume her combing, she subconsciously uttered Bismillah. Just as we do, my dear sisters, before we eat, before we do any action, the utterance of bismillah is alhumdulilah of second nature to us, as it alhumdulilah was to her. But this utterance in no way had the same repercussions as maybe out utterances do today. Swiftly the daughter asked her what she had said, asking her whether she was mentioning the name of her father.

But this brave and valiant woman's reply was - No. I mention Allah, my God and the God of your father. Immediately the daughter became angry and rushed to her father to tell him what had happened. He, in his anger, at finding this out, summoned her to him.

And she came and stood, a woman, a woman, sisters, in front of this great, most tyrannical and dictatorial Pharaoh. And he said to her, 'who is your god?' And she said, 'Allah is my lord.' He said 'who is Allah?' She said 'Allah is my god and yours.' Yes, she was cornered and put in a place, when she had to answer, she answered. No compromise, no thinking about how it would affect her job, her livelihood and most of all her 5 children.

Her answer made the Firaun furious and he ordered for chains to be brought. They whipped her, punsihed her but her reply was the same 'Allah is my lord and yours.'

And so he ordered for them to bring a large container and he spilt boiling oil in to this container, and then he said, 'bring me all her children!' And her first child was brought. A child who for a mother, her heart aches for, when he may graze his knee, bang his head. Yet as the Firaun asked her the same question again and her response was the same, this child was put into the boiling oil, for his flesh to melt away from his bones, leaving his mother in this dunya.

But my dear sisters, the pain of the loss of a child, in front of your very eyes, in a manner which could make the coldest of hearts weep, did in no way weaken this jewel of Allah. She continued to watch all four of her children being immersed in the boiling oil and killed in this way. And then came the fifth, a baby who was still breastfeeding. And she was about to pull back. Imagine sisters, the innocent form of a baby whose total dependence on the mother for all form of nourishment, imagine how a mother would feel to think of the fate that laid for him. And then Allah SWT, the Lord of the heavens and the earth, in his magnificence, enabled this baby to speak to his mother. 'Be patient my mother, you are in the truth, Allah Allah has promised you with a great heaven, keep going mother.' SubhanAllah!

And the same fate befall the innocent baby.

She knew she was next and she began to cry. The tyrant, Firaun, then asked her why she was crying. And sisters, it was not in regret of what she had done, or in anger for Allah's test upon her. No. It was because she had a request she wanted to ask this man, but she did not know whether he would comply. And what was this request?

This request was - After she was also boiled alive, that all that remained of her and her children should be gathered together and buried in the same grave. This is so, on Yawm Ul Qiyamah, she could be raised with all the children beside her and enter Jannah with them.

Sisters, what are our tests? Comfort? Ease? The fear of what people will say to us? The sacrifice of wealth, status, career? Just think of this fragant jewel of Jannah, and remember that nothing is too big a sacrifice for the sake of our Rabb.

Source: http://life-before.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-is-iman.html

Message To Muslims Living In The West

2010-03-02T09:12:00.002+11:00

The Islamic creed is unique in its scope and profoundness. It is a creed that transcends race, class and geography, and it moves the mind as much as it moves the heart. A Muslim’s attachment to this creed is independent of time, place or context. A Muslim’s belief in Islam, and its profound universality, is a matter that is proudly adhered to irrespective of prevailing conditions. The Khilafah is an extension of the Islamic creed and an essential pillar of Islam. It is for this reason that the work for Khilafah is as relevant to Muslims in the West as it is to Muslims living in the Muslim world. We all have a role to play in the re-establishment of the Khilafah, and we may even have a greater role to play after the establishment of the Khilafah. In this light, the following words of advice are offered to Muslims living in the West:

Preserving our Islamic identity
– we must be vigilant against the dilution of any aspect of our Islamic identity. The Islamic personality is unique as its basis is the Islamic creed (Islamic Aqeedah). It is the Islamic creed that defines for us our viewpoints about life, our objectives in life and the manner in which we engage in this life. It would be an immense loss for humanity if we accepted the erosion of our Islamic identities, for the implications would be to deprive humanity of a unique (and correct) set of outlooks that form the basis of the noblest of human interactions.

Resisting assimilation efforts
– assimilation policies are not defined by semantics. Whether it is assimilation, integration or multiculturalism, all these policies have the express purpose of contorting our Islamic values such that it accords with Western conceptions of ‘modernity’. We must be resolute in our rejection of any attempt to restrict the manifestation of our Islamic values, and we must confidently advance the correctness of our Islamic values even if it contradicts the prevailing values systems.

We must also be vigilant against the false conflation of what are inherently two separate considerations
– values and laws. Values are personal, whereas laws are public. It is the role of government to institute laws that are equally applicable to every citizen, but it is not the role of government to usurp the thinking and values systems of its citizens.

Resisting efforts to sever our universal bonds
– there is currently a concerted campaign aimed at distancing Muslims in the West from their brethren in Muslim lands. At times the rationale is that Muslims in the West have a unique set of problems that require a unique set of solutions. Other justifications include the argument in favour of a localized version of Islam, a modern and secular version that sits comfortably within existing secular frameworks. At other times, Muslims are forcefully fed the patriotic card whose allegiances are always under suspicion. The net result of these myriad lines of rationale is the attempt by the West to develop a Western version of Islam, the purpose of which is to break the universal bonds of brotherhood that are a natural extension of the Islamic creed. Severing the bonds of brotherhood is essential if the West is to continue its deplorable history of colonial interference in the Islamic lands, without the ‘inconvenience’ of accountability at home. At the same time, the West is all too aware of the enormous challenges that would be posed by a more united Muslim populace.

Building the confidence of the Muslim community
– it is essential that Muslims understand and manifest their divine duty as guardians over mankind. But such duties cannot be discharged if the Muslim community is characterised by confusion, insolence or weakness. Every effort must be expended to instill confidence within the community, whether it is political, cultural or ideological. There is much within the community to praise, so let us all acknowledge and nurture the good whilst not neglecting the not so good.

Building the spirit of political activism

– Muslims have a unique responsibility as guardians over mankind. It is essential that the spirit of political activism is installed as one of the pillars of the Muslim community. Apathy, neglect and insolence are contrary to our Islamic requirements, and it is our responsibility to foster an environment from where the community can fulfill its role as leaders of humanity. The activism of the Muslim community must be constructed upon a unique basis that has its roots in Islam alone. The defining objectives and modus operandi must similarly be built upon the same basis. The Muslim community must stand as the epitome of strength, courage and sincerity. We cannot allow ourselves to be silenced or intimidated, nor can we allow ourselves to be distracted by trivial considerations. We are part of a global Ummah with nothing less than global aspirations.

Be the voice-eyes-ears of the Ummah globally
– If Muslims around the world are silenced under the yoke of tyranny, then we must do all that is within our capacity to further their cause. If we can speak, we should speak resolutely. If we can stand as witnesses, we should speak resolutely. If we can stand as witnesses, we should stand tall. If we can hear their cries, then we should listen attentively. We should stand as the voice of the silenced, the eyes of the blinded and the ears of the deafened.

Challenge Western imperialism at home
– the struggle before us is a universal struggle. It is a struggle that transcends race and geography. It is a struggle that is rooted in values but manifests itself in politics, economics and the military. We have a unique opportunity, and a divine obligation, as Muslims in the West to challenge the barbarity of Western interference in the Islamic lands. Whether it is political subservience, economic exploitation or military adventurism, the Muslim community is uniquely positioned to challenge Western governments, its policies, its apologists, and the values that drive them.

Ummah decided her destiny decades ago
– the Muslim Ummah commenced the tedious task of revival many decades ago. The choice before it was the curse of Communism, the crisis of Capitalism or the honour of Islam. The choice was not as simple as it may sound today, for the Ummah was at one time suffering from the depths of its backwardness and was nearing almost complete destruction. The Islamic revival we witness today are the fruits of decades of struggle. The Ummah was successful in freeing itself from the shackles of Western ideology, for the battle of hearts and minds was firmly won by the Muslim camp. But the Ummah has yet to free itself politically, economically and militarily, and it is this struggle – the struggle for Khilafah - that rages on today. Muslims in the both the East and the West must continue to champion the Islamic call that seeks to free the Muslim world from Western subservience. We must be clear about the fault lines that are integral to this struggle, and commit ourselves to assisting the cause of Islam and opposing the forces that seek to oppose Islam.

Intensity of onslaught is a sign of impending victory
– nobody fogs a dead horse! The increasing strength and determination of the Muslims, coupled with their comprehensive rejection of Western designs over Islamic lands, has forced Western governments to intensify their war against Islam in both the Muslim world and the Western world. Western agents in the Islamic lands are in a dangerously precarious situation, and it is the loss of confidence in them by their Western masters that has necessitated the direct return of the crusading armies. The intensity of the persecution directed towards the Prophet (saw) was directly correlated to the relative strength of his (saw) dawah. The greater the success, the more intense the persecution.

Ummah is strong and confident
– Contrary to popular propaganda, the Ummah is not weak, fragmented, or lacking in ability. The few chances the Ummah is afforded to articulating its concerns, massive numbers rise to make their position unambiguously clear. The conflicts in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan; the desecration of the Quran; the insults to the Prophet (saw) and much more, are testimony to the sincerity and desire of the Muslims to have their affairs directed by Islam The Ummah is not lacking in material power. Collectively, the Ummah easily possesses the greatest army and the bravest soldiers. The Ummah occupies the most strategic lands, has in its possession the lion’s share of resources, and is home to a very educated professional class. The Ummah is not lacking in ability or enthusiasm. On the contrary, it is the West and its agents in the Muslim land that direct every efort at killing this overriding confidence.

Only Muslims can rescue humanity from its misery
– Muslims possess an unshakable conviction in the correctness of their creed and the beauty of its systems. It is only Islam that can rescue humanity from the barbarity of Western colonialism and military adventurism. Muslims understand very well the desire of the world, in both the East and the West, to be rescued from the travesties of liberalism and the destructiveness of individualism. The work for Khilafah is as much about rescuing the Muslim world as it is about standing as a model of justice and mercy for the rest of the world.

Nobody can challenge the will of Allah (swt) – the ascendancy of the Muslims has already been foretold in many instances throughout the Quran and the ahadith. The emergence of the Khilafah is a case of when, not if. It is our responsibility then to hasten the victory of the Muslims by working for this task with the utmost steadfastness and sincerity. The plots of the enemies of Islam are of no hindrance, for a Muslim is unshakable in his belief that nobody can alter a matter that has already been promised by Allah (swt).

Source: Rajab Campaign Booklet 2009, Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia

Why has the Muslim world failed to Develop?

2010-01-26T10:38:00.001+11:00

The Muslim world has bewildered many experts who have researched the potential of the Islamic lands. Many have questioned how it is even possible that a people who are so rich and so plentiful in resources came to be so poor in reality. Many have an unfortunate tendency to compare the development of the West and conclude that the absence of liberal values will always act as an obstacle to industrial development in the Muslim world. There are a number of factors that have hindered development in the Muslim world, many of them originate from outside the Muslim world.

1. Colonialism – Much of this currant situation in the Muslim lands stems from the colonial era and is summed up best by David Fromkin, Professor and expert on Economic History at the University of Chicago: "Massive amounts of the wealth of the old Ottoman Empire were now claimed by the victors. But one must remember that the Islamic empire had tried for centuries to conquer Christian Europe and the power brokers deciding the fate of those defeated people were naturally determined that these countries should never be able to organize and threaten Western interests again. With centuries of mercantilist experience, Britain and France created small, unstable states whose rulers needed their support to stay in power. The development and trade of these states were controlled and they were meant never again to be a threat to the West. These external powers then made contracts with their puppets to buy Arab resources cheaply, making the feudal elite enormously wealthy while leaving most citizens in poverty." Throughout the 18th century European nations competed with each other in conquering territories, enslaving the host population and stripping the conquered people of their mineral resources. In November 1917 when the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, Lenin’s communists discovered amongst the documents of the czarist foreign ministry a secret document that outlined plans to carve up the Ottoman Empire after the war (WW1) and the distribution of its constituent parts to the victorious allies. The details were worked out in February 1916 before the beginning of the war. The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a secret understanding between the governments of Britain and France defining their respective spheres of post-World War I influence and control in the Middle East. The region was carved up and given boundaries, dividing the people in the region who had lived as one nation for over 1000 years. Historian Mehran Kamrava outlined the geopolitics at the time, “It is here that geo-political boundaries clash violently with demographic realities, constructing a number of societal problems, many of which have not been resolved to this day. In some cases this was due to historical ignorance, but in others it was a deliberate choice to weaken the occupied people. France divided Lebanon and Syria against religious demographics in this very fashion to guard against anti-French resistance rallied under Sunni Muslim solidarity. The British created Transjordan from the western portion of Palestine and gave it an entirely separate government under the Hashemites. The national boundaries created during this time visibly outline those still seen today, and are the source of much conflict due to mistakes made in their drawing.”17 The effect of such colonialism has meant that although the colonial nations eventually physically departed from such lands their influence has remained and the colonised nations remain linked to the nations that enslaved them. It remains in the interests of the West even today to ensure the colonized nations do not develop and gain independence.

“But one must remember that the Islamic empire had tried for centuries to conquer Christian Europe and the power brokers deciding the fate of those defeated people were naturally determined that these countries should never be able to organize and threaten Western interests again. With centuries of mercantilist experience, Britain and France created small, unstable states whose rulers needed their support to stay in power. The development and trade of these states were controlled and they were meant never again to be a threat to the West.”
In Iraq Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, through a number of his publications exposed the coups the US initiated which include bringing Saddam Hussain’s Baath party to power

2. During the colonial era most of the colonial nations made use of elements form the conquered territories to deal with the day-to-day running of colonies. In the post WW2 era although many of the conquered territories were given so called independence, an architecture that was nurtured over a generation was left in place ensuring the colonised nations remain linked to their masters. To maintain superiority, control and influence over the region, the West placed corrupt leaders into positions of power and supported the overthrow of those that were not seen as favourable. This has also served to keep the host populations at bay, in return for militarisation, power and personal wealth for the elite. The struggle to control access to important resources such as oil has even led to competition between the West. The links between the British and the house of Saud are no secret, it was the British Empire that brought the Saud family into power and provided them with the arms and technical help to dismember from the Khilafah. The Saud’s close work with the British empire at the time was repaid through giving Trans-Jordan to King Abdullah and Iraq to King Faisal. Similarly the US brought Gamal Abdul Nasser to power overthrowing the pro-British King Farook, during the same period in Operation Ajax both Britain and the US collaborated in bringing the Shah to power over-throwing the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadeq. In Iraq Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, through a number of his publications exposed the coups the US initiated which include bringing Saddam Hussain’s Baath party to power. In the Far East for long the US provided military assistance to the Suharto regime. Such foreign interference which continues today has meant Western agents abandoned the nation’s interest and because rulers were never independent this stifled the prospect of any industrial development that would have benefited the nation. On the few occasions where a Western inspired coup turned its back on the West it was very quickly on the receiving end of a counter coup – as the Shah of Iran found in 1979. Such interference continues today and continues to act as an obstacle to any development in the Muslim world. A recent case of this was the Anglo-America plans to bring Benezir Bhutto to power in 2008. In order to replace General Musharraf dozens of meetings took place in the UK and Dubai between former US and UK ambassadors in order to agree the terms of her return. Sir Mark Lyall Grant former British ambassador to Pakistan led the negotiations and confirmed the meetings that took place between the Bhutto faction, the Musharraf faction and representatives of the US.18 Zardari confirmed the deal in September 2009.19 It is such agent rulers that have been a disaster for the Muslim world and will ensure no independent development will ever occur.

"The United States has viewed all multilateral organisations including the World Bank, as instruments of foreign policy to be used in support of specific US aims and objectives…US views regarding how the world economy should be organised, how resources should be allocated and how investment decisions should be reached were enshrined in the Charter and the operational policies of the bank."

3. The IMF and World Bank through their structural adjustment polices and many other highly questionable polices in countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Egypt have ensured such nations never develop the necessary fundamental industry to even start an industrial revolution. Both Bretton Woods institutes prescribed policies of concentrating on exports and focusing on repaying the loans borrowed. In the nations that comprise of the Middle East and North Africa 14% of regional export earnings go to debt service. In Lebanon, debt service accounts for 47% of the government's budget. Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey all spend more on debt service than they do on education; all spend twice as much on debt service than they do on health care. Sudan and Yemen are among the 41 countries identified as Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs). Pakistan continues reeling with external debts of over $50 billion. The loans and development advice provided has only caused more structural problems to the economies of the Muslim world and this has severely stunted any development, the loans in reality are the obstacle to development. The Brooking institute confirmed in a report "The United States has viewed all multilateral organisations including the World Bank, as instruments of foreign policy to be used in support of specific US aims and objectives…US views regarding how the world economy should be organised, how resources should be allocated and how investment decisions should be reached were enshrined in the Charter and the operational policies of the bank."20

4. The Muslim rulers and many who have positions in the governments across the Muslim world have been unable to develop anything in the realm of policy. This has resulted in no consistent basis form which policies could be derived giving the nation direction. As a result many of the Muslim economies are full of contradictions and the economy as a whole fails to move in a unified direction. Examples of this include:
-
Pakistan continues to import Coal even though it has the world’s largest Coal field and the world’s largest Coal reserves after the US.
-
Iran is flush with huge oil reserves and Gas, but due to a refinery shortage it imports gasoline and diesel to keeps its cars and trucks rolling.
-
Pakistan is the worlds 14th largest agricultural producer; however 52 million people live in poverty.
-
Saudi Arabia has been endowed with mineral wealth which is a prerequisite for industrialisation. Saudi Arabia has not only failed to develop but 20% of its population live under the poverty line.

5. The absence of any structured way of generating wealth and distributing wealth has created a situation where everyone in the Muslim world needs to fend for themselves and attempt to make the best out of a chaotic situation. This has compounded the problem further as many resort to bribery, stealing and fraud to make ends meet. This situation has allowed a minority in most of the Muslims lands to live in comfort and luxury at the expense of the rest of society. This situation means many of the elites refuse to invest in capital intensive industries and would rather place their wealth in the West and in the global financial markets.

6. Many of the Muslim economies are not built on their strengths. Many of the African nations have been forced to concentrate on single commodities rather than build their economies upon minerals and resources they have in abundance. Nigeria and Egypt have neglected their agricultural potential in order to build a service based economy. In the Middle East the abundance of fossil fuel has not translated into the development of industry, in fact countries such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are so focused towards oil this has stopped the development of other sectors which would have created millions of jobs. Pakistan and Bangladesh’s strengths lay in their agricultural landscape and mineral resources however recent government have geared the economies around foreign direct investment (FDI) and telecoms. Whilst the Western word is dominated by the service sector this has been after industrialising. By not structuring the Muslim economies around their strengths such resources have been squandered and on most occasions have been at the centre of Western interests.

7. The removal of Islam as a comprehensive system thorough the Islamic system of governance – the Khilafah in 1924 has stunted development. This is because Islam was the trajectory that drove development in the Muslim lands. After the death of the Messenger (saw) the expansion of the Islamic lands resulted in many economic, political and social problems not previously confronted by the Messenger(saw). The expansion of the Khilafah into new lands brought it into contact with foreign cultures, customs, languages, traditions and political structures. These included Greek, Persian, Roman, Berber, Asian and Assyrian. This created internal challenges of distribution and production of wealth, rights of minorities, administration of an expanding ruling apparatus, judiciary, appointment of local governors and accountability. Such issues were tackled through the process of Ijtihad, leading to the development of some of the most accomplished scholars in Islamic history. Islam itself drove many developments, the need to find the Qibla for the five daily prayers led to developments in the compass. Islam acted as a comprehensive basis which continuously solved all problems Muslim encountered. It was in this scenario that many prematurely reasoned that all issues had been addressed, this understanding stalled creativity and was ebbed away only to be replaced by intellectual apathy. The industrial revolution created a number of bizarre views and opinions leading to the demise of the Khilafah as a system. Ever since Muslims have been unable to tackle scientific, economic and social developments in a coherent way. Islam was the catalyst that led to the development of the Muslim lands in history, its absence remains one of the most fundamental reason stifling development today.

The above is an excerpt from the book "Constructing an Industrialised Muslim World" by Adnan Khan

Is it forbidden to live a luxurious life in Islam?

2010-01-26T10:32:00.000+11:00

Islam prohibited the individual from luxury, considered it a sin, and He warned the luxurious ones with torture.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى said:

وَأَصْحَابُ الشِّمَالِ مَا أَصْحَابُ الشِّمَالِ
فِي سَمُومٍ وَحَمِيمٍ
وَظِلٍّ مِّن يَحْمُومٍ
لَّا بَارِدٍ وَلَا كَرِيمٍ
إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ مُتْرَفِين

"And those of the left hand: What of those of the left hand? In scorching wind and scalding water, and shadow of black smoke. Neither cool nor refreshing. For they were, before that, indulged in sinful luxury." [Al-Waqi'a: 41-45]

i.e. they were arrogant, who do what they wish.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى also said:

حَتَّى إِذَا أَخَذْنَا مُتْرَفِيهِم بِالْعَذَابِ إِذَا هُمْ يَجْأَرُونَ
"Till when We grasp the (town's) luxurious ones with punishment, behold! They started to supplicate." [Al-Mu'minun: 64]

The luxurious ones here means the arrogant tyrants.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى said also:

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا فِي قَرْيَةٍ مِّن نَّذِيرٍ إِلَّا قَالَ مُتْرَفُوهَا إِنَّا بِمَا أُرْسِلْتُم بِهِ كَافِرُونَ

"And We sent not unto any township a warner, but its luxurious ones declared: Lo! We are disbelievers in that which you bring to us." [Saba'a: 34]

The luxurious ones are those who are haughty (arrogant) towards the believers because of their high level of wealth and children.
Allah سبحانه وتعالى said:
وَاتَّبَعَ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُواْ مَا أُتْرِفُواْ فِيهِ

"The wrongdoers followed that by which they were made surrounded with luxury." [Hud: 116]

What is meant by those who were surrounded with luxury is that they turned towards their whims i.e. followed their whims.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى said:

وَإِذَا أَرَدْنَا أَن نُّهْلِكَ قَرْيَةً أَمَرْنَا مُتْرَفِيهَا فَفَسَقُواْ فِيهَا
"And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its tyrant folk (luxurious ones) and afterward, they commit abomination therein." [Al-Isra: 16]

What is meant by tyrant folk is their tyrants who live at ease.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى said:
وَأَتْرَفْنَاهُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا
"We made them luxurious in the worldly life" [Al-Mu'minun: 33]

that is We made them insist on their tyranny out of their arrogance i.e. We made them arrogant.

Luxury (Taraf) linguistically means vanity and arrogance due to living a life of ease and comfort. When we say wealth made somebody luxurious, we mean it made him arrogant and corrupted him. That the person became luxurious means that he insisted on tyranny. He also transgressed and became haughty.

Therefore the luxury (Taraf) which the Qur'an condemned, and Allah سبحانه وتعالى prohibited and considered a sin is the Taraf that linguistically means haughtiness and arrogance due to ease of living, but not the ease of living itself. Therefore it is wrong to interpret Taraf as enjoying the wealth and ease of living by that which Allah سبحانه وتعالى provided, because ease of living and enjoying the provision of Allah are not condemned by Shari'ah.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى said
قُلْ مَنْ حَرَّمَ زِينَةَ اللّهِ الَّتِيَ أَخْرَجَ لِعِبَادِهِ وَالْطَّيِّبَاتِ مِنَ الرِّزْقِ
"Say: Who has forbidden the adornment of Allah which He has brought for His servants and the good things of His provision?" [Al-A'raf: 32]
At-Tirmidhi narrated from Abdullah ibn Amr who said:
‘The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "Allah likes to see the signs of His favour (bounties) on His servant,'"

i.e. He loves for His servants to enjoy His favour and enjoy the good things He has provided for him.

But Allah سبحانه وتعالى hates the haughtiness, arrogance and transgression that may result from a life of ease. So Allah سبحانه وتعالى hates the life of ease if it produced haughtiness, transgression, arrogance and tyranny. Since a life of ease and comfort by the abundant wealth could lead some people to arrogance, tyranny and haughtiness; that is it creates Taraf in them, Islam prohibited that type of luxury. So Islam prevented corruption if it resulted from the abundance of wealth and children, making people arrogant and tyrannical. Islam prohibited that strongly.

So when it is said that Taraf is Haram it does not mean the life of ease is Haram, it rather means that arrogance which results from the easy use of wealth is Haram, as Taraf would mean linguistically, and as luxury (Taraf) would mean from the verses of the Qur'an.

The above is an excerpt from the book "Economic System in Islam" by Hizb ut-Tahrir

http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-it-forbidden-to-live-luxurious-life.html

If God exists then how come He permits so much pain and suffering in the world ?

2010-01-26T10:00:00.005+11:00

A Phylosophical and Theological Response to the 'Problem of Evil'

- By Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

In the philosophy of religion ‘natural atheology’ is defined as the branch of philosophy that attempts to prove the central beliefs of theists (people who believe in a God) as false [1]. One of the most impressive and strongest arguments of natural atheology is to do with the problem of evil.

The problem of evil claims that it is unbelievable, if an omnipotent and good God exists, that he would permit so much pain and suffering in the world. The famous philosopher David Hume in his ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’ aptly puts it,

“Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”[2]

The problem of evil is without a doubt one of the key intellectual obstacles that a Muslim or theist has to overcome in order to be convinced that God exists (or convince others for that matter). There are two versions of the problem of evil, the internal problem of evil and the external problem of evil.

The internal problem of evil is presented as an argument whose premises the Muslim is committed to due to his belief in Islam. The external problem of evil is presented as an argument whose premises the Muslim is not committed to but can have good reasons to believe the premises to be true.

The Internal Problem of Evil

The internal problem of evil presents its premises as follows:

1. A good God that is omnipotent exist

2. Evil exists

3. Therefore a good God that is omnipotent doesn’t exist

H. J. McCloskey in his article ‘God and Evil’ summarises the problem well,

“Evil is a problem for the theist in that a contradiction is involved in the fact of evil, on the one hand, and the belief in the omnipotence and perfection of God on the other.”[3]

Responding to the Internal Problem of Evil

The first point that needs to be made is that statements (1) and (2) are not logically inconsistent as there is no apparent contradiction. For the atheist to jump to the conclusion that a good God that is omnipotent doesn’t exist is an unwarranted, unless he has assumed, in the words of Philosopher William Craig, “some hidden premises”[4]. These hidden premises seem to be the following,

4. If God is omnipotent, then he can create any world he wants

5. If God is good, then he prefers a world without evil

Statement (4) suggests that since God can create and do anything, then he can create free human beings who always decide to do the right thing and do not fall into evil or suffering. Statement (5) suggests that God is all good so much so that if he could create a world without evil and suffering he would. Otherwise he would himself be evil to prefer that humans experience evil and suffering.

The proponent of this version of the problem of evil has made some unjustified assumptions. These hidden premises make some daring assumptions; firstly it assumes a Christian type of God, one that is just good and omnipotent. Secondly it assumes that God doesn’t have any reasons to permit evil and suffering in the world.

Responding to the first assumption

Muslims do not only believe that God is just good and omnipotent. Muslims believe that part of God’s names and attributes include ‘the Just’, ‘the Severe in Punishment’, ‘the Wise’, ‘the Avenger’, and ‘the Compassionate’, amongst many others. So statements (1, 4 and 5) are inaccurate as the Muslim does not reduce God to parts, rather God is seen as one and unique in context of all his names and attributes. So if God was just good and omnipotent, then there may be problem in reconciling suffering and evil in the world. However if you include attributes such as ‘the Severe in Punishment’ and ‘the Wise’, these problems would not exist. Because perceived evil and suffering in the world can be due to,

• God’s punishment as a result of our sins and bad actions.

• God’s wisdom, as there may be divine wisdom in permitting evil and suffering. Even if we can’t evaluate what the wisdom is, it doesn’t mean it is not there. To argue such a thing would be a logical fallacy, known as the argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). The story of Khidr which can be found in the 18th chapter of Qur’an from verses 60 to 82 is an eloquent account of how God’s wisdom, whether understood or not, has positive results and benefits for humanity.

In addition to this the Muslim can argue that the problem of evil is logically posterior to the existence of God. You need to establish that God exists first before attempting to reconcile who God is with our perception of reality, in this case, evil and suffering.

Lastly the meaning of the word ‘good’ attributed to God needs to be understood in a divine context. In general terms the word ‘good’ has a meaning that relates to human experience, whereas in Islamic theology ‘good’ as an attribute of God is primarily viewed as a unique attribute that can be appreciated but not fully comprehended due to his uniqueness and transcendental nature. Therefore the underlying assumption that evil and a good God cannot coexist may be true with a Christian view of God. However it doesn’t apply to the Islamic concept of God as the atheist will have to reconcile evil and suffering with something that he cannot fully comprehend. So his premises are false due to his incorrect assumption that ‘good’ in the context of God is related to a human understanding of good.

Responding to the second assumption

A sufficient response to the second assumption is to provide a strong argument that God has justified reasons to permit suffering and evil in the world. The intellectual richness of Islamic Theology provides us with many reasons, some of which include:

1. The primary purpose of the human being is not happiness rather it is to know and worship God. This fulfillment of the divine purpose will result in everlasting bliss and happiness. So if this is our primary purpose other aspects of human experience our secondary. The Qur’an, the book of the Muslims states: "I did not create either jinn or man except to worship Me." [5]

2. God also created us for a test, and part of this test is to be tested with suffering and evil. The Qur’an mentions “The One Who created death and life, so that He may put you to test, to find out which of you is best in deeds: He is the all-Almighty, the all-Forgiving” [6]

3. Having hardship and suffering enables us to realise and know God’s attributes such as ‘the Victorious’ and ‘the Healer’. For example without the pain and suffering of illness we would not appreciate the attribute of God being ‘the Healer’. Knowing God is a greater good, and worth the experience of suffering or pain as it will mean the fulfillment of our primary purpose.

4. Suffering allows 2nd order good. 1st order good is physical pleasure and happiness and 1st order evil is physical pain and sadness. 2nd order goodness is elevated goodness such as courage and can only happen if suffering or evil exist. [7]

5. People can also suffer from past, present or future sins. God has knowledge of everything which is not contingent on time. Please refer to the story of Khidr in the Qur’an where it mentions Khidr’s reply to Prophet Moses “All this was done as a mercy from your Lord. What I did was not done by my own will. That is the interpretation of those actions which you could not bear to watch with patience.”[8]

6. God has given us free will, and free will includes choosing evil acts. [9]

The external problem of evil

The internal problem of evil fails to convince, however the external problem of evil seems more persuasive because it seems to acknowledge the co-existence of God and evil in the world, but denies God’s existence due to the level of the evil in the world. The external problem of evil argues the following:

1. A good God that is omnipotent exists

2. Gratuitous evil exists

3. Therefore, God does not exist

For the Muslim statement (2) is subjective and not entirely true. The Muslim will believe that evil exists, but not that gratuitous evil exists, and since this is based upon human subjectivity then the external problem of evil carries no weight. The proponent of this argument will have to show that gratuitous evil or evil itself are objective without reference to human subjectivity.

The essential problem with this argument is shown in the following questions:

• What makes our value judgments objectively true?

• What are our definitions of gratuitous evil?

The proponent of the problem of evil is faces a problem because God is required a rational basis for objective good and evil (whether gratuitous or not). Without God these terms are relative as there is no conceptual anchor, apart from God himself, which transcends human subjectivity. So the terms evil and good make no sense or are just ephemeral without God. Therefore in order for the atheist’s premise to make objective sense, God’s existence is necessary. In this light the Muslim or theist may argue:

1. If God did not exist, then objective moral values would not exist

2. Evil exists

3. Therefore objective moral values exists (from premise 2)

4. Therefore, God exists

Explaining the key premise: Premise (1)

The question about objective good or bad, in other words objective morality, has been discussed by many theists and non-theists alike. Many have concluded that there is no objective morality without God. Humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz aptly puts it,

“The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”[10]

Paul Kurtz is right because God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity, so without God there is no rational basis for objective morality. In God’s absence, there are only two possible alternative conceptual foundations.

• Social pressures

• Evolution

Both social pressures and evolution provide no objective basis for morality as they both claim that our morality is contingent on changes: biological and social. Therefore morality cannot be binding, in other words true regardless of who believes in them.

Therefore without God there is no objective basis for morality. God as a concept is not subjective therefore having God as basis for morality makes them binding and objective, because God transcends human subjectivity. The following statement by Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, correctly concludes,

“Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.”[11]

Therefore evil in the world actually proves that God exists. This argument shows how God and evil can co-exist without attempting to explain why. So in a rhetorical response to the atheist the Muslim or theist can pose the following question,

“How can the atheist formulate an argument against the existence of God when God is required as an objective basis for the formulation of the argument in the first place?!”

At first sight the problem of evil seems to present insuperable difficulties for the Muslim. However under intellectual scrutiny the problem of evil actually fails to present a convincing argument.

Concluding with the Emotional Argument

There is a well known Buddhist saying that states ‘desire causes suffering ‘and since human beings desire then we will always suffer. Whether this is true or not clearly reinforces our intuition that we will suffer and experience evil at some point in our lives. This suffering can be the making of our own hands, other peoples or external forces like natural disasters. A consequence of this suffering is that many of us may fall prey to our emotional dispositions thereby questioning God’s existence or entering into a state of some form psychological malady.

Islamic Theology however provides the conceptual ‘tools’ necessary for the Muslim to overcome this problem. Islamic Theology is derived from two main sources, the Qur’an and the hadith literature. The Qur’an is a divine book that Muslims believes to be the word of God, and the hadith are divinely inspired statements attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). The following verses from the Qur’an and sayings from hadith provide all the necessary comfort for the Muslim.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

"Amazing is the affair of the believer, verily all of his affair is good and this is not for no one except the believer. If something of good/happiness befalls him he is grateful and that is good for him. If something of harm befalls him he is patient and that is good for him." [12]

“Anyone who dies of the plague is a martyr. Anyone who dies of a stomach illness is a martyr. Anyone who drowns is a martyr.” [13]

"There are seven classes of martyrs except the one who is killed while fighting in the cause of God: one who dies in plague is a martyr; one who dies due to drowning is a martyr; one who is killed of Zat al-Janb disease (a disease that attacks ribs and causes inner ulcerations) is a martyr; one who dies of diseases of stomach is a martyr; one who is killed by fire is a martyr; one who is crushed under a wall is a martyr; and a woman who dies while delivery (or pregnancy) is a martyr." [14]

"No calamity befalls a Muslim but that Allah expiates some of his sins because of it, even though it were the prick he receives from a thorn." [15]

The Qur’an says,

“Do you think that you will enter paradise without any trials while you have known the examples of those who passed away before you? They were afflicted with suffering and adversity and were so violently shaken up that even the Prophet and the believers with him cried out: ‘When will God’s help come?’ Be aware, God’s help is close.” [16]

“Surely with every difficulty there is relief. Surely with every difficulty there is relief.” [17]

“Let there rise from among you a band of people who should invite to righteousness, enjoin good and forbid evil: such are the one, who shall be successful.” [18]

Since the Muslim is intellectually convinced that these statements are from God, then it follows they are truth claims that not only comfort the Muslim, but fills his heart with tranquility.

References

[1] Avin Plantinga. God, Freedom and Evil. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1977, p 7.

[2] David Hume. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 10.

[3] “God and Evil” Philosophical Quarterly, X (1960), p 97.

[4] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. IVP Academic, p 538.

[5] Qur’an 51:56-57

[6] Qur’an 67: 2

[7] Although this is contended by some philosophers such as John Mackie, philosopher Avin Plantinga provides an interesting response in his book God, Freedom and Evil.

[8] Qur’an 18:82

[9] This requires an in-depth discussion which will be discussed in another article

[10] Paul Kurtz. Forbidden Fruit. Prometheus. 1988, p 65.

[11] Richard Taylor. Ethics, Faith, and Reason. Prentice Hall. 1985, p. 83–84.

[12] Saheeh Muslim

[13] Ibid.

[14] Narrated Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah

[15] Saheeh Bukhari

[16] Qur’an 2:214

[17] Qur’an 94:5-6

[18] Qur’an 3:104

Source: http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/2009/09/philosophical-theological-response-to.html

What it really means by the word 'Ibadah' (worship)?

2010-01-20T13:16:00.002+11:00

“And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.” – Adh-Dhariyat:56
In the above verse of the Qur’an, Allah makes it clear that He has created us for no other reason but to worship Him. But what does it really mean to worship Him? Instead of trying to come up with a word-by-word definition, let us understand the meaning of worship from some events that we have been informed about in the Qur’an and Hadith.
The story of ‘Adi bin Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him):
When ‘Adi was still a Christian and he came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) in Madina wearing a silver cross around his neck, the Holy Prophet recited the following verse:
They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah…[at-Tawbah:31]
Upon hearing the verse, ‘Adi disagreed saying, ‘They did not worship them.’ But the Prophet responded, ‘Yes they did. They (rabbis and monks) prohibited the allowed for them (Christians and Jews) and allowed the prohibited, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them…’
The above verse and Hadith clarify that if we refer to anyone besides Allah for determining the Halaal and the Haraam, i.e. the legal and the illegal, then we are in effect worshipping them, be it a religious leader, a philosopher, a king, a president, a parliament, a supreme court etc. Therefore, a true Muslim refers solely to the Qur’an and Sunnah to derive laws governing life’s affairs.
Shu’ayb calls the People of Madyan to worship Allah
The message conveyed by every prophet to his people was to worship Allah, which in effect meant giving up their man-made practices, customs and traditions, and implementing Allah’s Laws instead in their private and public affairs. For example, when Shu’ayb (peace be upon him) called the people of Madyan to worship Allah, he also instructed them to abandon their corrupt economic and social practices. However his people rejected him saying, “O Shu’ayb, does your prayer command you that we should leave what our fathers worship or not do with our wealth what we please?” [Hud:87]
The response of the people of Madyan holds special significance today. They were in fact complaining to Shu’ayb that his religion should not interfere in their social and economic affairs. And this is the very essence of secularism – separation of religion from life’s affairs. Those who worship Allah, follow His Laws in their individual, as well as societal matters, and hence do not believe in secularism.
Iblis disobeys the command of Allah
When Allah created Adam (peace be upon him) and ordered all the angels to prostrate before him, everyone did so except Iblis (satan). Allah says in the Qur’an:
“And (remember) when We said to the angels: “Prostrate yourselves before Adam.” And they prostrated except Iblis (Satan), he refused and was proud and was one of the disbelievers (disobedient to Allah).” [al-Baqarah:34]
Prior to this incident, Iblis had been a very devout worshipper of Allah. Therefore he definitely knew that Allah existed, that He was the All-Mighty Creator, and that He was the only One worthy of worship. Despite this, Allah called him a disbeliever in the above verse. So how can Iblis, who believed in Allah’s existence, still be a disbeliever? This is because theoretical knowledge of Allah’s existence alone is not enough to have true Iman (faith). True Iman requires complete submission to the commands of Allah, as explained in the following verses:
“But no, by your Rabb, they can have no Iman (faith), until they make you the judge in all disputes between them and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions and accept (them) with full submission” [an-Nisa: 65]
“It is not fitting for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) have any option in their decision; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in plain error”. [Al-Ahzab:36]
Someone who truly worships Allah does not question or argue about Allah’s commands like Iblis did. Rather they accept Allah’s commands with full submission and fulfil them without any hesitation. Allah describes such believers as follows:
“The only statement of the [true] believers when they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge between them is that they say, ‘We hear and we obey.’ And those are the successful.” [an-Nur: 51]
Let us now look at a few examples of those who obeyed Allah with complete submission:
Ibrahim and Hajar (peace be upon them)
When Ibrahim left his wife, Hajar, and his little son, Isma’il, alone in Makkah, which was at that time a barren and uninhabited place, Hajar asked Ibrahim in bewilderment, “Where are you going Ibrahim, leaving us in this barren valley?”
She asked a second time but received no response. Finally she asked, “Did Allah command you to do so?” And Ibrahim replied ‘Yes.’ Then Hajar, a true worshipper of Allah, replied, “We are not going to be lost, since Allah who has commanded you is with us.”
Ismai’l (peace be upon him)
When Ibrahim told his son, Isma’il, about his dream where he saw that he must sacrifice his son, Isma’il replied, “O my father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, if Allah wills, of the steadfast.”
Musa’s mother (peace be upon them)
As Musa was born in the year when the Pharaoh was having all the newly born male babies of the Children of Israel killed, Allah commanded Musa’s mother to put Musa in a basket and set him adrift on the river Nile. Despite the dangers of throwing little Musa in the river, his mother put her trust in Allah and obeyed His command. And such was the decree of Allah that Musa ended up in the Pharaoh’s palace, adopted as a son by the Pharaoh’s wife, and Musa’s own mother was appointed as his wet nurse to breast-feed him.
The Sahabah (companions) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
The Sahabah, the best generation of the Ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him), have left behind them great examples of what true worship really means. Whenever a verse of the Qur’an would be revealed containing a command from Allah, the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them) would rush to implement it without any delay, as demonstrated in the following Hadith:
Al Bukhari reported on the authority of Anas b. Malik (R):
“I was serving drinks to Abu Talha al-Ansari, ‘Ubaidah b. al-Jarrah and Ubayy b. Ka’b prepared from unripe dates and fresh dates when a visitor came and he said: Verily liquor has been prohibited. Thereupon, Abu Talha said: O Anas! Stand up and break this pitcher. I stood up and (took hold) of a pointed stone and struck the pitcher with its lower part until it broke into pieces.”
Al Bukhari reported on the authority of A’ishah (R) who said:
“May Allah have mercy on the Muhajir women. When Allah revealed the verse: “And let them draw their headscarves all over necks and bosoms” [An-Nur: 31] they tore their wrappers and concealed themselves with them.”
Abu Dawud reported on the authority of Safiyyah bint Shaybah who reported on the authority of A’ishah (R) that:
She (A’ishah) mentioned the women of Ansar, praised them and said good words about them. She then said: “When Surat an-Nur came down, they took the curtains, tore them and made head covers of them.”
Allah’s promise to those who worship Him without associating any partners
True worship is due solely to Allah and requires complete submission to His will and firm adherence to His commands. And to those who do this with sincerity and steadfastness, Allah has made a great promise:
“Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them and that He will surely establish for them [therein] their religion which He has preferred for them and that He will surely substitute for them, after their fear, security, [for] they worship Me, not associating anything with Me. But whoever disbelieves after that – then those are the defiantly disobedient.” [an-Nur:55]
Source: http://roadtorevival.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/the-meaning-of-worship/

How The Khilafah Was Destroyed

2010-01-20T12:07:00.004+11:00

Islam was applied from the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw) until the collapse of the ‘Uthmani State. Towards the demise, the State grew feeble and its intellectual standard declined. The non-believers, who had once given up all hope of conquering the Islamic State and who possessed a conviction that the Muslim army was undefeatable began to exploit this decline. They commenced by propagating their ideas and culture to weaken the foundation upon which the Islamic State was built and hence to destroy its complete structure.

To achieve this aim they sent missionaries, built schools and hospitals, distributed leaflets and books and then established secret organisations. They infiltrated every class of people, but primarily they focused their attention of the diplomatic and educational circles. They succeeded in attracting many students from universities and schools and intellectuals who occupied positions in the State military. This induced a love for Western culture and jurisprudence, and attracted many to the West. They raised doubts about Islam and its unsuitability to be applied in modern times. Pretending to adhere to Islam these people loved everything that was Western. As a result, the body of the nation and structure of the State started to disintegrate. The carrying of Islam to the world ceased, and the unbelievers started to carry their laws to the Muslim world. Under the influence of the Kufr countries, in particular Britain and France, the intellectual and diplomatic circles played a major role in this decline. Realising that the situation had become dire the Kufr countries began to invade the borders of the State, taking it by force, piece by piece.

All the European countries became greedy, Russia and Germany tried to share in the spoils with England and France. Despite the differences between these countries they agreed to destroy the rule of Islam and the Khilafah. They thought of forcing the Khalifah to abandon the laws of Islam concerning its governance, society and politics and to implement Western jurisprudence, Capitalism and democracy in its place. In 1850 the European countries convened at the Berlin Conference, at which England was represented by a vicious Jewish Prime Minister - Disraeli - and Germany by her Premier Bismarck. The Conference agreed to send the Khaleefah a threatening letter, telling him to abandon the Islamic system and to adopt civil law in its place.

On receipt of this letter the Khaleefah (who by this time had been dominated by Western culture) displayed great venom and energy in calling for the implementation of civil law. This influenced the Khilafah and created a common cry for the removal of Islamic laws in the diplomatic and educational circles. In 1858 the State implemented the so called ‘Uthmani Penal Code and the Code of Rights and Commerce. This was followed by the adoption of the ‘Lawbook’ and the division of the courts into two types: the canonical and administrative courts. in 1878 the Penal Code and the Principles of Jurisprudence were implemented. These laws were applied after being approved by the fatawa (legal opinions) of the scholars. The fatawa were necessary to avoid provoking Muslim public opinion.

As for Egypt, she was ruled by the French agent Muhammad Ali and his sons, and it was not necessary to follow the same process of Westernisation as occurred within the Khilafah. Without any hesitancy or delay the government implemented the Western laws. In 1883 the civil law was copied from the French and even written in French. This is how efficiently Western jurisprudence replaced Islamic law, and the manner in which Western ideas captured the minds of the intellectuals and prevailed over the diplomats. Hence, the collapse of the Khilafah was inevitable. The Muslim Ummah had deserted Islam, particularly in jurisprudence and in governance. Those in power considered the abandonment of Islam and the implementation of Capitalism as a necessary change. Accordingly the destruction of the Khilafah was not a surprise, because the Muslims did not consider these happenings as fatal, and certainly they did not feel that they had to fight for it. Therefore, when Attaturk announced the annulment of the Khilafah system he was faced only with minor resistance, none of the Muslims stood up and forced him to return to the rule of Islam, even though they knew him to be a British puppet. Worse still was the backing given by the British against the Islamic State through the so-called Sharif Hussain (then governor of Hijaz), who claimed to be a descendent of the Messenger of Allah (saw).

So the Khilafah was destroyed and Islam was divorced from politics, society and government, and the unbelievers ruled the Muslims, applying their Capitalism and fragmenting the Muslim world into weak countries so that their grip could be easily maintained. They appointed as leaders Muslims who were more hostile to Islam and more intent on destroying it than unbelievers. These leaders made themselves guardians and adherents of the interests of the unbelievers and enemies of Islam. They ruthlessly punished the Muslims and stood with all their might against the reestablishment of the Khilafah.

This is how the unbelievers controlled the Muslim world and how the Western ideas captivated the minds of the Muslims. This made the Islamic countries a strategic location, a fertile ground and a consuming market for their products. To continue their control over us and to prevent us from liberation and establishing the Islamic State, the unbelievers established Israel to be a sword in our heart.

Frequently asked questions on the issue of Khilafah

2010-01-20T11:41:00.017+11:00

In this article the following questions have been addressed:

    What is Khilafah?

    Is establishing Khilafah compulsory ?

    Can there be more than one khalifa?

    What about the currents Muslim countries are they not Khilafah State (Islamic state)?

    What is the time limit for appointing a khalifa and the consequence of not fulfilling this duty ?

    Is it possible to re-establish khilafah now?

    How can we work to re-establish khilafah?

1. What is Khilafah?

The body responsible for the implementation of the divine laws (Ahkam Shariyah) and the propagation of Islam is known as the Khilafah. The Khilafah is the name given to the Islamic ruling system which is distinguishable from all other ruling systems. Based solely on the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet the Khilafah system is unique. Khilafah state is also referred to as Dar al-Islam or Islamic State.

Although some refer to the system by the name of Imamah, the actual ruling system is one and the same. Numerous authentic traditions (Ahadith Sahiha) of the Prophet confirm this. Whilst either name can be used to identify the system, Islam demands that the Muslims adhere totally to the Islamic system these Hadith describe.

The Khilafah means the common leadership of all Muslims in the world, which implements the divine (Shariah) laws and conveys the invitation (Dawah) of Islam to the world. The Imamah means the same. The Muslim Leader who is appointed by the Ummah as head of the Khilafah is known as Khalifa (also referred to as Imam or Amir ul Mu'minin).

Allah(swt) commanded us to live by His law and Rasulullah (saw) showed us how to implement those laws comprehensively through the Khilafah system. Implementation of Islam is impossible without the presence of Khilafah . Rasulullah (saw) said :

“ The affairs of Bani Israeel were looked after by the prophets. After each prophet died, he was succeeded by another prophet. There is no prophet after me, but there will be Khulafaa (plural of Khalifa). They asked,” what do you order us to do? He replied , “ Give them bay’ah one after another, for Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with.” [Bukhari]

“Indeed, the Khalifa is a shield, from behind whom you fight and by whom you are protected.” [Muslim]

2. Is establishing Khilafah compulsory ?

The establishment of a Khalif for Muslims is an obligation on all Muslims all over the world. The performance of this duty, like any of the duties prescribed by Allah , must be done. There is no choice in the matter. To be complacent, or to neglect this duty is one of the greatest sins for which Allah will punish severely. This understanding is supported by evidences from the Book of Allah , the Sunnah and the consensus of the companions of the Prophet , i.e. Ijma'a-as-sahaba. For detail evidences on this topic please read The Re-establishment of the Khilafah is an obligation upon all Muslims

3. Can there be more than one khalifa?

The Muslims are not allowed to have more than one khalifa and one state; this is confirmed by the following hadiths:

Abu Said al Khudri reported that the Prophet said: "When oath of allegiance (Baya) has been taken for two khalifas, kill the latter of them." [Muslim]

Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Ass reported that the Prophet said: "Whoso pledged allegaince (baya) 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." [Muslim]

Arfaja reported that the Messenger of Allah said: "Whoso comes to you, while your affair has been united under one man, intending to divide your staff or dissolve your unity, kill him." [Muslim]

When the Khilafah has been re-established its duty will be to annex all the other present day Muslim countries to it; thus forming one state for all Muslims. The existing boundaries that divide the Muslim Ummah must be removed. There is no Islamic evidence to support the view that they should remain once the Khilafah has been established. The modern state boundaries are completely artificial and are the creation of the colonialist nations that once occupied the land of Muslims.

4. What about the currents Muslim countries are they not Khilafah State (Islamic state)?

According to Shariah terminology, Dar al-Islam (Islamic state ) is defined as the land which is governed by the laws of Islam and whose security (Aman) is maintained by the security of Islam, i.e. by the authority and protection of Muslims inside and outside the land, even if the majority of its inhabitants are non-Muslims.

Dar al-Kufr is the land which is governed by the laws of Kufr, and whose security is not maintained by the security (Aman) of Islam, i.e. by other than the authority and security of Muslims, even if the majority of its inhabitants are Muslims.

So what matters in determining whether the land is Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Kufr is neither the land itself nor its inhabitants, rather it is the laws and the security. So if its laws are Islamic and its security is maintained by Muslims then it is Dar al-Islam. When its laws are the laws of Kufr (disbelief) and its security is not maintained by Muslims then it is Dar al-Kufr. These definitions have been derived from the Islamic evidences and discussed by the Ulema (scholars) in history.

[For or more clarification on Dar al-Islam and Dar al_kufr please read Clarifying the meaning of Dar al-Kufr & Dar al-Islam ]

When we look to the Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia we find all of them fundamentally contradicts Islam in many areas such as:

a. All these countries are nation states which uphold their nationalism:

Islamic state is founded on Islamic Aqeeda not on certain geographical entity, race or tribe. Nationalism is Haram in islam as it is evident from the following evidences:

"He is not one us who calls for `Asabiyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for Asabiyah or who dies for Asabiyah." [Abu Dawud]

" ...People should give up their pride in nations because this is a coal from the coals of hell-fire. If they do not give up this Allah (swt) will consider them lower than a lowly worm which pushes itself through filth." [abu Dawd and Tirmidhi].

"Leave it (refering to all forms of nationalism, racism, and tribalism) . It is Rotten " [Bukhari & Muslim]

b. Being part of the United Nations:

Every member of which has to agree with international law set by the UN. This puts the law of man above the law of Allah, which is Shirk.

c. Allying with the Kuffar against the Muslims:

Rulers of the Muslim countries have aligned themselves with the kuffar in war on Islam in the name of war on terror. They work with the kuffar to obstruct the Muslims from re-establishing Khilafah (Islamic state). Their intelligence service and military work hand in hand with the kuffar to capture, torture and kill Muslims. Many of the Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia have Kafir military presence which facilitate their objective to suppress Islam.

d. Accepting the legitimacy of the governments in the Muslim countries:

This is clear by the fact Muslim countries are part of the OIC and Muslim League and have their ambassadors in these different countries. This is definitively prohibited as Sharia doesn't allow Muslims to have more than one Khalifa.

The Prophet (saw) said: "When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the latter of them". (Narrated in Sahih Muslim by Sa'id al-Khudri)

Prophet (saw) also said: "Whoso comes to you while your affairs has been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him." (Narrated in Sahih Muslim by 'Arfajah)

e. Implementing some aspects of Sharia and neglecting the rest of it:

Just because Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country implement some part of Islamic laws such as in the judiciary, it doesn’t mean that it is an Islamic state or Khilafah. For example all these Muslim countries implement riba based economy. Muslims have no option to implement partial aspects of Islam.

Allah (swt) says in the Quran:

"So rule between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you" (TMQ 4:49).

"Then it is only a part of the Book that you believe in and do you reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who believe like this but disgrace in this life and on the day of judgement they shall be consigned to the most grieve chastisement." [Al-Baqarah: 85]

(for more on this please read Is Saudi Arabia a State of Islam or Kufr ?

5. What is the time limit for appointing a khalifa and the consequence of not fulfilling this duty ?

It is forbidden (Haram) for a Muslim to remain more than two nights without having a pledge of allegiance (Baya) on his neck.This is concluded from the consensus of the companions (ijma-assahaba).

As soon as the Sahaba heard the news that the Prophet was dead, they went to the courtyard of Banu Saida to discuss the appointment of a successor to the Messenger of Allah. At this time the Prophet had not been buried. The Sahaba continued discussing the matter into the second day following the death of the Prophet . Thereafter they gathered in the mosque to give the Baya to Abu Bakr. When the baya had been given, the Sahaba prepared the burial of the Prophet ; three days and two nights

after his death the Prophet was buried. Thus, the companions of the Prophet delayed the burial until after they had chosen a successor.

When Umar bin al-Khattab was close to death he nominated the six people among the companions who, when the Prophet had died, he had been pleased with them to select a khalifa from among themselves. The six included Uthman, Ali and Abdul Rahman bin Awf (may Allah be pleased with them). Omar decreed that if agreement on the choice of khalifa was not reached within three days, the one who disagrees should be beheaded after the three days. No one disputed this order, even though to kill someone without just cause is haram. And these six were not just anyone; they were the best of the companions who had been promised paradise. The agreement of the companions on this order is therefore an Islamic evidence for us that the Muslims are forbidden to be without a khalifa for more than three days. After the three days of discussion and consultation with the people of Medina, Uthman was chosen as khalifa.

The appointment of a khalifa is obligatory from the moment the previous khalifa dies or is disposed. If the delay exceeds two nights and the Muslims have not established a khalifa the matter must be examined: if the Muslims were busy engaging in appointing the khalifa, but due to overwhelming circumstances, they could not accomplish it within two nights, the sin will fall from them. This is so because they engaged in performing the duty but were unable to accomplish the duty in the prescribed time because of compelling circumstances. However, if they were not engaged in the duty they would be sinful.

To refrain from establishing a khalifa for Muslims is a great sin, because it is an absentation from fulfilling one of the most important duties of Islam. The implementation of the Sharia (divine law) and the very existence of Islam in the battlefield of life depend upon the fulfilment of this duty. Consequently, the Muslims as a whole commit a great sin if they refrain from establishing a khalifa for themselves. If they agree to abandon this duty, the sin would fall on every single Muslim in the entire world. If some of the Muslims embark on working to establish a khalifa whilst the others do not, the sin would fall from the shoulders of those working to establish the Khilafah, but would remain with the rest until the khalifa existed, becauseparticipating in the work to accomplish the duty (Fard) has the effect of removing the sin from the failure to fulfil the duty. This is the result of the participation in the work to accomplish it and a deep hatred of the thing that prevents the accomplishment of the duty.

Those who do not participate in the work to accomplish the duty will be sinful from three days after the departure of the khalifa until the new khalifa is appointed. This is so, because Allah had entrusted them with a duty that they neither carried out, nor participated in. Thus, they deserve the sin, the punishment and shame of Allah both in this life and the hereafter. They refrain from establishing the Khilafah and from performing the actions,which according to the divine law, establish him. The shunning of any obligatory duty that Allah has enjoined upon the Muslims, particularly the duty by which other duties are implemented, the divine law established the word of Allah exalted and Islam carried aloft, clearly deserves the punishment of Allah .

6. Is it possible to re-establish khilafah now?

Some Muslims carry the idea that it is not possible to unite the Ummah under one Khalifa as there are too many divisions and nationalistic feeling is widespread among the Muslims. So they surrender themselves to the status quo and refuse to take part in the work to re-establish Khilafah. They fail to recognize that the question of re-establishing khilafah is not a question of possibility or impossibility rather it's a hukm from Allah which has to be enacted. And Allah doesn't command us to do anything which is not possible.

"Allah doesn't place a burden upon a person except that which he is capable of " [Al-Baqara Verse 282]

So whatever obstacles blocking it's establishment has to be removed. It's defeatist mentality to give up by looking at some obstacles. Working to remove those obstacles is obligatory as establishing khilafah is obligatory.

When Sahaba established Khilafah over the vast lands, most of the inhabitants were non-muslims and they had different religion,culture,traditions and language. At that time people used to travel by camel or horse and means of communications was mouth to mouth. But now we live in information age and most of the people living in Muslim countries are Muslims. If it were not for the obstacles made by the rulers in our lands, khilafah would have been established in no time.

Khilafah is coming insha Allah and there is no doubt about it as Rasulullah (saw) told us in the following hadith:

"Prophethood shall remain with you as long as Allah Wills it. Then it shall be raised by Allah (His death SAAW) when He Wills to raise it. Then Khilafah upon the Manhaj (methodology and way of) Prophethood shall remain with you as long as Allah Wills it. Then it shall be raised by Allah when He Wills to raise it.Then their shall be kingship (inherited generation after generation) which shall remain with you as long as Allah Wills it. Then it shall be raised by Allah when He Wills to raise it. Then there shall be tyrannical governing which shall remain with you as long as Allah Wills it. Then it shall be raised by Allah when He Wills to raise it. Then there shall be Khilafah (once again) upon the Manhaj of Prophethood. Then he remained silent." [ Narrated by Ahmad]

So who can have any doubt after reading this Hadith?

7. How can we work to re-establish khilafah?

From examples set by Rasulullah (saw) we know that establishing khilafah is a group work. And the nature of the work is political. So we need to associate ourselves with an Islamic political group whose objective is to re-establish Khilafah. It is the Sharia not the mind who decides the method to re-establish Khilafah. Rasulullah (saw) has shown us how to establish it. The detail method has been explained in the article The Messenger's (saw) methodology of establishing the Deen

Established in Al-Quds (1953) Hizb ut Tahrir has been working to re-establish Khilafah in the Muslim Lands. For details you may visit the following links:

http://www.khilafah.com/

http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/

For more Questions and Answers on the issue of Khilafah please read http://flagbearersofislam.blogspot.com/2011/04/in-depth-q-on-khiafah-and-its-plan-for.html