INTRODUCTION
The article that follows, is taken from Encyclopaedia Britanica and reproduced here with the aim to point out the following essential facts:
1. The demise of the Khilafah (The Islamic State) signified a practical dissolution of the 'Islamic Order' consequently obliterating any 'real' threat posed by a consolidated Ummah.
2. 'Nationalism' and its inevitable manifestation in the form of 'Nation States' contributed to the division of the Ummah.
3. The idea of 'secularism' and 'sovereignty belongs to the nation' proved to be the cornerstones of the new era in the Muslim Word.
TURKISH NATIONALISM
A new sense of Turkish identity began to develop in late 19th century and early 20th century. This new concept was fostered by educational work of the Turkish Society (1908) and the Turkish Hearth (1912). A political twist was given by the adherents of Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanianism. Pan-Turkism, which aimed at the- political union of all Turkish-speaking peoples, began among Turks in the Crimea and on the Volga. Its leading exponent was Ismail Bey Gasprinski (Gaspimb; 1851-1914), who attempted to create a common Turkish language. many Pan-Turkists migrated to Ottoman lands, especially after 1905. One of them Yusuf Akcuroaglu, argued in Uc tarz-l siyaset (1903; "Three Kinds of Policy") that Turkism provided a better basis for the Ottoman Empire than either Islam or Ottomanism. Pan-Turanianism developed from a now much-disputed 19th century theory of common origin of Turkish, Mongol, Tungus, Finnish, Hungarian, and other languages; in certain very limited circles it looked forward to a great political federation of speakers of these languages, extending from Hungary to Pacific. These ideas, however, found little support within the Ottoman government. The accusation that the Young Turks pursued a deliberate policy of Turkification within the empire so as to alienate non-Turkification within the empire so as to alienate non-Turks and promote the rise of Arab and Albanian nationalism is an oversimplification. The extension of government activity inevitably brought with it the language of government-Turkish. This produced some reaction from speakers of other languages, but evidence suggests that it did not override basic feelings of Muslim solidarity, except among some small minorities. It was among the Christian groups that distinct separatist ideas were developed.
WORLD WAR 1: ALLIED WAR AIMS & THE PROPOSED PEACE SETTLEMENT'
Entente proposals for the partition of Ottoman territories were formulated in a number of wartime agreements. By the Istanbul Agreements (March-April 1915) Russia was promised Istanbul and the Straits; and France, a sphere of influence in Syria and Cilicia. Britain had already annexed Cyprus and declared a protectorate over Egypt. By the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot Agreement (January 3, 1916) the French sphere was confirmed and extended eastward to Mosul in Iraq. A British sphere in Mesopotamia as far north as Baghdad, control of Haifa and Acre, and a linking sphere of influence were recognised. Palestine was to be placed under an international regime. In compensation, the Russian gains were extended (April-May 1916) to include the Ottoman provinces of Trabzon, Erzurum, Van, and Bitlis in Eastern Asia Minor. By the Agreement of St. -Jean-de-Maurienne (April 1917) Italy was promised a large area of south western Anatolia, including lzmir (Smyrna) and further sphere to the north. Britain made various promises of independence to Arab leaders, notably in the Husayn-MacMahon correspondence, 1915-1916, and, in the Balfour Declaration (November 2, 1917), promised to support the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
The Russian withdrawal in 1917 and post-war bargaining led to some modifications of these agreements, and the Allied terms were not finally presented until 1920. By the Treaty of Sevres (August 10, 1920) the Ottomans retained Istanbul and part of Thrace, but lost the Arab provinces and large area of Asia Minor to a newly created Armenian state with access to the sea, surrendered the Islands of lmroz and Bozcaada to Greece, and accepted arrangements that implied the eventual loss of lzmir to Greece. The Straits were internationalised, and strict European control of Ottoman finances was established. An accompanying tripartite agreement between Britain, France and Italy defined the extensive spheres of influence of the latter two powers. The treaty was ratifies only by Greece and was abrogated by the Treaty of Lausanne (July 24, 1923) as the result of a determined struggle for independence waged under the leadership of the outstanding Ottoman wartime general Mustafa Kemal, later known as "Ataturk".
THE EMERGENCE OF THE MODERN TURKISH STATE -KEMAL AND THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE, 1919-1923
Although the legal Ottoman government in Istanbul, under the 36th, and last, Ottoman Sultan Mehmed VI Vahideddin (ruled (1918-22) had decided that resistance to Allied demands was impossible, pockets of resistance remained in Asia Minor after the armistice. These included bands of irregulars and deserters, certain intact Ottoman forces, and various societies for the defence of rights. Resistance was stimulated by the Greek occupation of Izmir (May 15, 1919). At this time Mustafa Kemal was sent on an official mission to Eastern Asia Minor, landing at Samsun on May 19. He immediately began to organise resistance, despite official Ottoman opposition. Through the Association for the Defence of the Rights of Eastern Anatolia (founded march 3, 1919), he summoned a congress at Erzurum (July-August), followed by a second congress at Sivas (September) with delegates representing the whole country. A new Association for the Defence of the Rights of Anatolia and Rumelia was established, and an executive committee with Mustafa Kemal as chairman was created to conduct resistance.
The official government yielded to Kemalist pressure. The unpopular grand vizier, Damad Ferid Pasa, resigned and was replaced by the more sympathetic Ali Riza Pasa. Negotiations with the Kemalists were followed by the election of a new parliament, which met in Istanbul in January 1920. A large majority in parliament was opposed to the official government policy and passed the "Nation al Pact," which embodied the political aims of independence roughly within the October 1918 armistice lines and which had been formulated at Erzunim and Sivas. The Allies countered by extending the occupied area of Istanbul (March 16, 1920) and by arresting and deporting many deputies. Damad Ferid became grand vizier again on April 5 and, with religious support, set out to crush the Kemalists.
THE FUNDAMENTAL & ABOLITION OF SULTANATE
The Kemalists were now faced with local risings, official ottoman forces, and the Greeks. The first necessity was to establish a legitimate basis of action. A parliament (the Grand national Assembly) met at Ankara on April 23 and asserted that the Sultan's government was under infidel control and that it was the duty of Muslims to resist foreign encroachment. In the Fundamental Law of January 20, 1921, the assembly declared that sovereignty belonged to the nation and that the assembly was the "true and only representative of the nation." The name of the state was declared to be "Turkey" (Turkiye"); and executive power was entrusted to an executive council, headed by Mustafa Kemal, who could now concentrate on the war.
The result of the war and the peace settlement created a state in which the great majority spoke Turkish. though there has been a tendency to see this as the almost inevitable consequences of the rise of Turkish and Arab nationalism, it seems in fact to have been the accident of war that broke off the Arab provinces. Whatever the views of Mustafa Kemal himself, it is clear that the majority of his followers though of themselves primarily as Muslims; in the elaborate religious ceremony that preceded the opening of the Grand National Assembly there was no word of Turks or Turkey but only of the need to save “religion's last country.” The creation of a sense of Turkish nationhood was the product of a long effort in which Mustafa Kemal played the dominant role.
Construction of a new political system began with the abolition of the Sultanate and the declaration of a republic. Loyalty to the Ottoman dynasty was strong even among Kemalists; but Vahideddin's identification with the Allies weakened his support. An Allied invitation to the Sultan to nominate representatives to Lausanne aided Kemal-a split Turkish delegation would be self-defeating. With a brilliant mixture of threats and persuasion, Kemal was able, therefore, to induce the Assembly to abolish the sultanate (November 1, 1922). Vahideddin left Turkey, and his cousin Abdulmecid (died 1944) was installed as the first and last Ottoman Caliph who was not also Sultan.
DECLARATION OF THE TURKISH REPUBLIC
The Caliphate was finally abolished on March 3, 1924, and all members of the Ottoman dynasty were expelled from Turkey. Before that the assembly had declared Turkey to be a Republic and had elected Mustafa Kemal as first President (October 29, 1923). A full Republican Constitution was adopted on April 20, 1924; it retained Islam as the State Religion, but in April 1928 this clause was removed and Turkey became a purely Secular Republic.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Judges in the Ruling System of Islam
The judicial system of Islam is organised to settle the quarrels among the people of the state, to protect the society's rights, and to settle disputes arising between the rulers and the rest of the Ummah. It is the judge (Qadi) who performs the act of resolving the above disputes, by strictly following the guidelines prescribed by Allah (SWT).
Judges, within this judiciary, are appointed and dismissed by a Chief Judge (Qadi Al-Quda) who is himself appointed by the Head of the Islamic State-the Khalifah. The qualifications of the Chief Judge are based on the evidence that the Khalifah has the right to appoint a Wali (governor) on the judiciary system. This Wali, Qadi AI-Quda, is assigned to a particular function not general functions, as was the case with the Khalifahs Assistants (Muawin). Therefore, the Qadi Al-Quda becomes a ruler on the judiciary body. Because the Qadi Al-Quda is a ruler, the qualifications of a ruler would apply on him; i.e., he must be a male, mature, sane, and just, along with being a jurist (faqih). As the Prophet (saws) said, "... Those people who appoint a lady to handle their affairs will not succeed." Therefore, this position of ruling, as is the case in all positions of ruling, may not be held by a female.
The first Khalifah to appoint a Chief Judge (Qadi AI-Quda) was Harun Rasheed. He appointed Al-Qadi Abu Yusuf Al Kindi-a famous mujtahid who was a close companion of Abu Hanifah.
Regarding the clerks and other administrative employees of the judiciary system, they are appointed and handled by the Administrative System of the Islamic State (to be discussed in future issues of Ar. Raya, Insha' Allah).
All judges, in general, must meet the conditions of being Muslim, mature, sane, free, just, and a jurist (faqih). Therefore, women as well as men may become judges excluding the Chief Judge and the Judges of the Court for Acts of Injustice. The decision pronounced on any case must be performed by only one judge. Other judges are permitted to assist and advise the presiding judge on the decision he is about to pronounce. Yet, they have no authority to actually pronounce the decision and their advice is not binding on the presiding judge. The evidence for this is that the Prophet (saws) never appointed more than one judge to any particular case. As far as giving advice, it is allowed for one to express an Islamic opinion to a judge who is hearing a case.
The judges, in the judicial system of Islam, are of divided into three categories:
The Judges Who Settle Quarrels Among The People
One of the types of judges (who are, as stated above, appointed by the Chief Judge, Qadi Al-Quda) are those who settle the quarrels among people.
If two parties, who are quarrelling over an issue, go before the Court to decide their case, they must abide by the Court's decision. Also, the judge may not pronounce his or her judgement except in Majlis-e-Qada (a Court Session). This is because the Prophet (saws) said, “two conflicting parties must be present before the judge.” And, in a like manner, all evidences and oaths must be presented only during a Court Session. Furthermore, we realise that a Muslim is innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecuting party bears the burden of evidence against the defence. We must also remember that evidence, presented in a Court, must be one which is allowed by Sharia' as a valid evidence. Therefore, in the case of murder, the evidence presented before the Court must be that of an eye witness or confession and nothing else, as prescribed by the Sharia'.
These Courts (those which decide among two quarrelling parties) may be further divided, themselves, based on the types of cases. Such as the incident which Abdullah bin Zubair narrated in which the Amirs of Al-Basra in a Masjid empowered a judge to rule in cases involving amounts below 200 dirhams and 20 dinars. Also, the Prophet (saws) gave Amr bil Aas the authority to judge upon one particular case only. Therefore, this Court may be divided and the judges within it may be appointed to handle particular cases. We find similar types of courts in today's judiciary, such as the small claims court.
Unlike present day judiciaries, the Islamic judiciary has no appellate courts. Therefore, once a Qadi has issued a judgement on a particular case, no one may override or invalidate his decision. As a matter of fact the Qadi, himself, may not reverse his judgement if he gains a new understanding of the Sharia' regarding the case he decided upon. Also, there are no "precedents" in cases, as we find in today's judiciary. In Islam, every case is handled on its own criteria. Therefore, the decision taken on an old case may not have to apply to a similar new case. Hence, any case brought forward to this Court will be decided by the judge presiding over the case, in a manner which is binding upon both parties and final in its authority.
Ar-Raya Magazine
Judges, within this judiciary, are appointed and dismissed by a Chief Judge (Qadi Al-Quda) who is himself appointed by the Head of the Islamic State-the Khalifah. The qualifications of the Chief Judge are based on the evidence that the Khalifah has the right to appoint a Wali (governor) on the judiciary system. This Wali, Qadi AI-Quda, is assigned to a particular function not general functions, as was the case with the Khalifahs Assistants (Muawin). Therefore, the Qadi Al-Quda becomes a ruler on the judiciary body. Because the Qadi Al-Quda is a ruler, the qualifications of a ruler would apply on him; i.e., he must be a male, mature, sane, and just, along with being a jurist (faqih). As the Prophet (saws) said, "... Those people who appoint a lady to handle their affairs will not succeed." Therefore, this position of ruling, as is the case in all positions of ruling, may not be held by a female.
The first Khalifah to appoint a Chief Judge (Qadi AI-Quda) was Harun Rasheed. He appointed Al-Qadi Abu Yusuf Al Kindi-a famous mujtahid who was a close companion of Abu Hanifah.
Regarding the clerks and other administrative employees of the judiciary system, they are appointed and handled by the Administrative System of the Islamic State (to be discussed in future issues of Ar. Raya, Insha' Allah).
All judges, in general, must meet the conditions of being Muslim, mature, sane, free, just, and a jurist (faqih). Therefore, women as well as men may become judges excluding the Chief Judge and the Judges of the Court for Acts of Injustice. The decision pronounced on any case must be performed by only one judge. Other judges are permitted to assist and advise the presiding judge on the decision he is about to pronounce. Yet, they have no authority to actually pronounce the decision and their advice is not binding on the presiding judge. The evidence for this is that the Prophet (saws) never appointed more than one judge to any particular case. As far as giving advice, it is allowed for one to express an Islamic opinion to a judge who is hearing a case.
The judges, in the judicial system of Islam, are of divided into three categories:
The Judges Who Settle Quarrels Among The People
One of the types of judges (who are, as stated above, appointed by the Chief Judge, Qadi Al-Quda) are those who settle the quarrels among people.
If two parties, who are quarrelling over an issue, go before the Court to decide their case, they must abide by the Court's decision. Also, the judge may not pronounce his or her judgement except in Majlis-e-Qada (a Court Session). This is because the Prophet (saws) said, “two conflicting parties must be present before the judge.” And, in a like manner, all evidences and oaths must be presented only during a Court Session. Furthermore, we realise that a Muslim is innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecuting party bears the burden of evidence against the defence. We must also remember that evidence, presented in a Court, must be one which is allowed by Sharia' as a valid evidence. Therefore, in the case of murder, the evidence presented before the Court must be that of an eye witness or confession and nothing else, as prescribed by the Sharia'.
These Courts (those which decide among two quarrelling parties) may be further divided, themselves, based on the types of cases. Such as the incident which Abdullah bin Zubair narrated in which the Amirs of Al-Basra in a Masjid empowered a judge to rule in cases involving amounts below 200 dirhams and 20 dinars. Also, the Prophet (saws) gave Amr bil Aas the authority to judge upon one particular case only. Therefore, this Court may be divided and the judges within it may be appointed to handle particular cases. We find similar types of courts in today's judiciary, such as the small claims court.
Unlike present day judiciaries, the Islamic judiciary has no appellate courts. Therefore, once a Qadi has issued a judgement on a particular case, no one may override or invalidate his decision. As a matter of fact the Qadi, himself, may not reverse his judgement if he gains a new understanding of the Sharia' regarding the case he decided upon. Also, there are no "precedents" in cases, as we find in today's judiciary. In Islam, every case is handled on its own criteria. Therefore, the decision taken on an old case may not have to apply to a similar new case. Hence, any case brought forward to this Court will be decided by the judge presiding over the case, in a manner which is binding upon both parties and final in its authority.
Ar-Raya Magazine
Obliterating Kufr Is An Obligation Upon All Muslims
Ramadan is the month in which the Qur'an was revealed and brought down as a guidance to mankind. In this blessed month, the righteous feelings withhin Muslims arise, and they look to Allah (swt) hoping to gain His reward and His pleasure. So we pray to Allah (swt) that He may bestow upon us and the Islamic Ummah the guidance and the help to achieve the good deeds, and honor us with His victory, and make all our actions good and for His sake alone.
Muslims, this month, listen to lectures and khutbahs about fasting, prayer, making Hajj, Zakat, du'a, istighfar, morals and many other concepts. These are all part of Islam and they are all necessary, but there is another very important part of Islam which you very rarely hear about, and even when you do hear about it, it is often part of an incomplete or a mis-interpreted speech. It is the part of Islam related to the function of the government or the ruling authority, and this is not limited to one country alone, it is unfortunately the same in all Muslim countries. In this short piece, we would like to expose the lack of understanding and importance associated with this area of government, and in so doing, we hope that Allah (swt) will guide us to the right work and the right opinion. Allah (swt) says,
"Whoever does not govern (rule) with whatever Allah has revealed, those are the unbelievers" [TMQ 5:44]
It is, therefore, clear that this matter is very serious, and of a very dangerous nature, because this issue could take a person from the Millah of Islam to the Millah of Kufr. So who are those rulers upon whom this verse applies, and under what case and what circumstances does the ruler become Kafir? There are other verses which come in the same context such as:
"Whoever does not govern (rule) with whatever Allah has revealed, those are the wrong doers" [TMQ 5:45]
"Whoever does not govern (rule) with whatever Allah has revealed, those are the fasiq, evil doers" [TMQ 5:47]
The word govern (rules) here, includes every person who has the authority and the responsibility to decide the matter and to implement it, whether this person is the head of state, his assistants, ministers or anyone who takes his authority from the head of state. So every responsibility to decide any matter and execute it would come under the term govern (rule) which came in these verses and others. So whoever settles the matter and implements it in any way that Allah has revealed, whether he did it out of ignorance, or absent mindedly, or knowingly and intentionally, and whether he brings an excuse or he really seeks other than the law of Allah with confidence and assurance. So if the one who governs with other than what Allah has revealed and does it intentionally and is convinced of the truthfulness of what he is doing, then he is of the unbelievers (kafir) and outside the deen of Islam.
The question arises as to how does the Muslim know whether the ruler who governs with other than what Allah has revealed, does so with confidence and conviction or without conviction? The Muslim does not know for sure, but he has to accept what appears to him, and he does not need to dive in to the heart of the matter. So if the evidence that the Muslim has established, is that the ruler does rule with laws other than Allah's and does so with conviction, then he can evaluate that the ruler is an unbeliever and the Muslim can even announce this openly to the people. The Muslim then has to take all the necessary measures against the ruler to remove him, measures which Shari'a has ordered the Muslim to take. But the evidence on the question of Takfir (calling a Muslim kafir) are different than those in the other issues. In the other issues, it is not enough that the evidence to accepted is likely to be true. But in the case of Takfir, it is necessary that the evidence be decisive and with full assurance because the Prophet (saaws) said, "Except only if you have seen a clear (or open) kufr, upon which you have a proof from Allah." [TMQ 5:44]
And it is clear that this person has not governed with what Allah has revealed. Other instances which would come under the same category is making halal (allowing) usury, alcohol, gambling, adultery, apostasy from Islam, and neglection of prayer. By the use of the term making halal we mean allowing such things to occur officially. Similar to that is stopping the implementation of hudood, and thus, instead of implementing the amputation of the hand of the thief, the stoning of the adulterer, the execution of the apostate, lashing the one who accuses the honor of people without proof, and punishing the one who drinks alcohol, some other non-Islamic punishment is implemented.
However, there is a difference between the one who deals with usury and believes it is haram, and the one who deals with usury and says that it is not haram. The first is Assi (disobedient), while the latter is kafir (unbeliever). This is because the first one agrees with the divine rule but he disagrees with it in action, i.e. he is disobedient. Whilst the second person not only disagrees with the divine rule but he also denies it (rejects it) and thus he puts himself in the position of being a kafir since he knowingly and decisively separates himself from the Shari'a. This is in the case of the ruler who puts the law, then once he gives up the divine rule, which is decisive, and puts instead other laws in its place thinking that these laws are better than the divine rule, then he would be a kafir, and he could not be considered a Muslim even if he claims to be.
Let us now examine the rulers in the Muslim countries. Do they give up some of the divine rules (Islamic rules) which are decisive, and put in their place other laws which are adopted from the West or the East? The answer to this question is undoubtedly yes! Do they recognize that they have given up the laws of the Shari'a and put in its place other laws? Have they done this willingly and with full conviction? The answer again is yes! Therefore, they are unbelievers, and they cannot claim other than that, unless there are a few of them who may have some excuse which might save them from this crime of kufr. However, even if these few people have saved themselves from being kafir, they do not save themselves from Fisk (evil doing) or Zulm (wrong doing).
Now let us come to the members of the parliament in Muslim countries, which is also known as the legislative council. If these people adopt laws and legislation which disagree with and contradict with Islamic texts which are decisive in their proof (like the Qur'an and hadith mutawatir) and decisive in their meaning, then in reality they are adopting clear kufr. Every member who announces or declares his conviction and acceptance with that, and he defends the issue of taking the laws of kufr, then he is a kafir and this cannot be refuted even if he claims otherwise.
Now let us come to those Ulema (scholars) of the rulers. In every Muslim land, we find that the ruler brings within his entourage some people whom he presents as the people of knowledge, and he leaves to them the issue of making Tafsir (interpretation) of the religion and issuing Fatwas in the way which agrees with his desires. These people who become the court of the ruler, or part of his regime and who have become his mouth piece, they are really the most dangerous of groups within the Ummah. And most of these are not actually of the Ulema, because the Ulema are the inheritors of the Prophets, and the 'Alem should be one of the people with Taqwa (piety). Allah (swt) says, "Those who really fear Allah from His servants, are those with knowledge." [TMQ Fatir:28]
Actually most of the government scholars are of the hypocrites who misinterpret Islam, and change it to agree with the whims and desires of their rulers and their masters. We find such people in every country, in Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, in Iran and in almost every Muslim land we find some of these people. So what is the divine rule for such people in the Shari'a of Allah? If such an 'Alem was brought in front of the ruler, and he defends a law in direct way that contradicts with a divine text, which is decisively proved and is decisive in its indication, and encourages the adoption of such a law, such an 'Alem is unfortunately Jahil (ignorant), and is undoubtedly a kafir even if he fasts, prays, makes hajj, gives zakat, and claims to be a Muslim. This is because he is munafiq (hypocrite), an evil-doer, and a kafir. How many of these hypocrites, who do not recognize their corruption and do not recognize that they are Safih (shameless). Let us read what Allah (swt) has to say of such people in Surah Al-Baqara.
"Some of the people say that we have become believers, we believe in Allah and the Hereafter, but they are not believers. They try to deceive Allah and the believers, but really they deceive only themselves without feeling that. There is a disease in their hearts, and thus Allah has increased their disease, and they deserve a great torment because of their lies. If it is said to them do not make corruption in the land, they say no we make peace. Verily they are the corrupters, but they do not feel it. And if it is said to them believe like the people have believed, they say should we believe like the fools believe? But no they are the fools but they do not know" [TMQ 2:8-13]
So how many kafir are there that think of themselves as doing good things? Allah (swt) said in the chapter of the cave,
"Do I tell you about those who are the most lost in their actions, it is those who went astray in their lives, and they thought that they were doing good." [TMQ 18:103-104]
And Allah (swt) says in the chapter of Al-A'araf,
"They took Satan as their friend instead of Allah, and they think they are themselves guided." [TMQ 7:30]
So it is not surprising that everybody claims to be guided. How many people have had bad things brought to their eyes disguised as good, but which are not, because the measure of actions should be the Shari'a of Allah, not the whims and the desires of the people!
As we know, Allah (swt) has sent Muhammad (saaws) with the message of Islam to all the people. So whoever believed in the Prophet, and that the Qur'an is from Allah, and that the Shari'a of Islam is a revelation from Allah, and it is a guidance to the people, and his heart is assured of this, then he would not leave this faith or select other than this faith. Because it is inconceivable to any sensible man to leave a system, which Allah (swt), the Wise and th All-knowing, has brought to us, and to adopt instead another system which weak and ignorant people have made and imposed; be they the UN, the US or any of their surrogates. If, however, such a change does occur to such a so-called scholarly man, it is a clear sign that he became an unbeliever. So take notice of what Allah (swt) says in the chapter of Al-Nisa'a.
"Do not you see those who claim that they believed in what was revealed unto you and what was revealed before you, they want to arbitrate the Taghoot (non-Islam), while they have been commanded to disbelieve it, but Satan wants to misguide them away. And if it is said to them come to what Allah has revealed, and to the Messenger, you find the hypocrites turn away from you surely." [TMQ 4:60-61]
In the chapter of Al-Noor, Allah (swt) says,
"Verily, we have revealed clear verses, and Allah guides whom He wishes to the straight path. And they say we believe in Allah and in the Messenger and we obey, then a party of them turn away after that, and those are not the believers. If they have been called unto Allah and His Messenger to govern between them, you will find some of them turn away. If the right was on their side, they will come to you submitting. Is there any disease in their hearts, or are they in doubt, or do they fear that Allah and His Messenger will be unjust to them. No, but they are the Zalim (the wrong doers). Whilst the believers, if they have been called to Allah and His Messenger to govern between them, they say 'We hear and we obey' and those are the real successful ones. Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger and fears Allah and protects himself (of His anger), those are the real winners" [TMQ 24:46-51]
So the Muslim ruler, should never leave the Shari'a of Allah and judge with other than what Allah has revealed, and if he does so with conviction and acceptance, then he is not a Muslim. Here is a decisive word of Allah on this matter as read in the chapter of Al-Nisa'a.
"By your Lord, they would not be true believers, unless they make you govern in all disputes among them, and they would not have any difficulty in their hearts about what you have decided (for them), and they submit completely." [TMQ 4:65]
So beware Muslims, may Allah (swt) shower his mercy upon us all, of certain actions which you may consider easy, but which are very grave to Allah (swt). It could be some matter which takes a Muslim away from Islam, when he is not aware of it, and later on it will not benefit him, however much he prays or fasts. And Allah (swt) has informed us of the people of the Book before us who took their priests and their bishops as gods other than Allah. When the Prophet (saaws) was asked how did they take them as gods, the Prophet (saaws) replied, "They made to them the haram as halal and the halal as haram and then they obeyed them."
So look at your rulers. Don't they make the haram halal and the halal haram for you, and don't you obey them? Undoubtedly, they have made halal for you many things which Allah has made haram for you (to make peace with usurpers of Muslim lands, to invite the kafir to our lands, to give the authority to the kafir, to allow usury, insurance, etc.), and they have prohibited upon you many things which Allah has made halal for you. But what about you? Are you accepting this in your heart? If you have done so, then you have taken them as gods other than Allah, and we surely seek the protection of Allah from involving ourselves in such an action.
The Prophet (saaws) said, "Whoever of you sees a Munkar (wrong), he has to change it by his hand, if he cannot, then by his tongue, and if he cannot, then by his heart, and this is the weakest Iman."
In another narration, instead of saying "and this is the weakest Iman," he said, "and after that there is not even an atom weight of Iman." So these rulers are really the head of Munkar and their regimes are the source of Munkar. If the Muslim could not change this Munkar by the hand and by his tongue, and if he does not hate it and deny it in his heart, then his heart is the heart of a Kafir, which does not have even an atoms weight of Iman.
From all this, it is clear that most of the rulers of Muslims are not only disobedient or Fasik, but they are truly unbelievers, with a disbelief which takes them away from the Deen of Islam. And it seems clear that the media which praises these rulers and the kufr rules which they apply. They are actually a media of hypocrites and even unbelievers, and their disbelief is real, which takes them away from the Deen of Islam. Similarly those who accept these rulers, and the rules of kufr which they implement upon us, in their hearts, they are also real kafir, with a disbelief which takes them away from Islam. May Allah (swt) forgive us and save us from falling in that great sin.
It is not enough to deny the Munkar by your heart because it is the weakest of Iman. Most of the Muslims are capable of denying it with their tongues, and even some are in a position to change it with their hands (like the influential or the military). So the one who takes a stand against the ruler because of his Munkar, by his tongue or by his hand, he puts himself in a position of danger as he may be subjected to harm from the ruler or from his mistaken soldiers. So to what extent does Islam make it a duty upon a
Muslim to bear this harm and danger in the way of Allah (swt), and in the way of changing this Batil and supporting the truth? Allah (swt) commands us to 'Obey Allah as much as you can.' And the Prophet (saaws) said, "If I commanded you with something, make of it as much as you can."
The jurisprudents have decided the limits of that capability, and they are the limits of repression and persecution in which death is most likely to occur, or where damage would render the people incapable of performing natural tasks in life, such as taking their eyes, cutting their hands or legs, breaking their backs, or paralyzing some of their limbs. Therefore, it is not halal for any Muslim to leave any duty, or commit any haram unless he has been forced to this extent. But the mere threatening with lashing, with imprisonment, or being deprived of a job and other such things, they are not a license for the Muslim to leave a duty or to commit haram, because these matters are not outside his capability, rather they are within the capabilities. This is the duty of Muslims. Even though it is permitted to stop when those limits have been reached, it is still recommended for the Muslim to go to the extent of death. Islam has encouraged the Muslim to stand against a Munkar and the people of Munkar even if he sacrifices his life and not only his money and his time for the sake of Allah (swt). The Prophet (saaws) said, "The master of the martyrs is Hamza, and the person who stood up to an unjust ruler, and he advised him but was killed by him."
So Muslims, stand up for your duty and may Allah (swt) shower us with His mercy. Stand up for your society against the corruption, and this can only be done by demolishing the systems and rules of kufr, their rulers and the heads of kufr, and their helpers, and by taking the power from them and putting it in the hands of the people, who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and who govern by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saaws).
O Muslims! The reward of the obedience in this month is great, it is greatly multiplied than in any other time, and it is the best of times to work to establish, Insha' Allah, the guided Islamic Khilafah by which Allah (swt) will honor us with victory over the Jews and those who support the Jews and the Kafir. And by which Allah will, Insha' Allah, unite the Muslims. And by which he will purify our mind's, our hearts, and our societies of the diseases of kufr which invaded us. And by which the Islamic Ummah returns back as a mighty Ummah as Allah (swt) deemed us to be the best Ummah brought for mankind, calling for Ma'ruf (the good), denying Munkar (wrong) and believing in Allah. And Allah (swt) says,
"Allah promised those of you who believe and do good deeds that He will make them governors of the land as He made those before you, and He will establish to them their Deen which He accepted to them, and He will turn their fear into security, on condition that they worship me and do not associate anything with me." [TMQ 24:55]
Ar-Raya Magazine
Muslims, this month, listen to lectures and khutbahs about fasting, prayer, making Hajj, Zakat, du'a, istighfar, morals and many other concepts. These are all part of Islam and they are all necessary, but there is another very important part of Islam which you very rarely hear about, and even when you do hear about it, it is often part of an incomplete or a mis-interpreted speech. It is the part of Islam related to the function of the government or the ruling authority, and this is not limited to one country alone, it is unfortunately the same in all Muslim countries. In this short piece, we would like to expose the lack of understanding and importance associated with this area of government, and in so doing, we hope that Allah (swt) will guide us to the right work and the right opinion. Allah (swt) says,
"Whoever does not govern (rule) with whatever Allah has revealed, those are the unbelievers" [TMQ 5:44]
It is, therefore, clear that this matter is very serious, and of a very dangerous nature, because this issue could take a person from the Millah of Islam to the Millah of Kufr. So who are those rulers upon whom this verse applies, and under what case and what circumstances does the ruler become Kafir? There are other verses which come in the same context such as:
"Whoever does not govern (rule) with whatever Allah has revealed, those are the wrong doers" [TMQ 5:45]
"Whoever does not govern (rule) with whatever Allah has revealed, those are the fasiq, evil doers" [TMQ 5:47]
The word govern (rules) here, includes every person who has the authority and the responsibility to decide the matter and to implement it, whether this person is the head of state, his assistants, ministers or anyone who takes his authority from the head of state. So every responsibility to decide any matter and execute it would come under the term govern (rule) which came in these verses and others. So whoever settles the matter and implements it in any way that Allah has revealed, whether he did it out of ignorance, or absent mindedly, or knowingly and intentionally, and whether he brings an excuse or he really seeks other than the law of Allah with confidence and assurance. So if the one who governs with other than what Allah has revealed and does it intentionally and is convinced of the truthfulness of what he is doing, then he is of the unbelievers (kafir) and outside the deen of Islam.
The question arises as to how does the Muslim know whether the ruler who governs with other than what Allah has revealed, does so with confidence and conviction or without conviction? The Muslim does not know for sure, but he has to accept what appears to him, and he does not need to dive in to the heart of the matter. So if the evidence that the Muslim has established, is that the ruler does rule with laws other than Allah's and does so with conviction, then he can evaluate that the ruler is an unbeliever and the Muslim can even announce this openly to the people. The Muslim then has to take all the necessary measures against the ruler to remove him, measures which Shari'a has ordered the Muslim to take. But the evidence on the question of Takfir (calling a Muslim kafir) are different than those in the other issues. In the other issues, it is not enough that the evidence to accepted is likely to be true. But in the case of Takfir, it is necessary that the evidence be decisive and with full assurance because the Prophet (saaws) said, "Except only if you have seen a clear (or open) kufr, upon which you have a proof from Allah." [TMQ 5:44]
And it is clear that this person has not governed with what Allah has revealed. Other instances which would come under the same category is making halal (allowing) usury, alcohol, gambling, adultery, apostasy from Islam, and neglection of prayer. By the use of the term making halal we mean allowing such things to occur officially. Similar to that is stopping the implementation of hudood, and thus, instead of implementing the amputation of the hand of the thief, the stoning of the adulterer, the execution of the apostate, lashing the one who accuses the honor of people without proof, and punishing the one who drinks alcohol, some other non-Islamic punishment is implemented.
However, there is a difference between the one who deals with usury and believes it is haram, and the one who deals with usury and says that it is not haram. The first is Assi (disobedient), while the latter is kafir (unbeliever). This is because the first one agrees with the divine rule but he disagrees with it in action, i.e. he is disobedient. Whilst the second person not only disagrees with the divine rule but he also denies it (rejects it) and thus he puts himself in the position of being a kafir since he knowingly and decisively separates himself from the Shari'a. This is in the case of the ruler who puts the law, then once he gives up the divine rule, which is decisive, and puts instead other laws in its place thinking that these laws are better than the divine rule, then he would be a kafir, and he could not be considered a Muslim even if he claims to be.
Let us now examine the rulers in the Muslim countries. Do they give up some of the divine rules (Islamic rules) which are decisive, and put in their place other laws which are adopted from the West or the East? The answer to this question is undoubtedly yes! Do they recognize that they have given up the laws of the Shari'a and put in its place other laws? Have they done this willingly and with full conviction? The answer again is yes! Therefore, they are unbelievers, and they cannot claim other than that, unless there are a few of them who may have some excuse which might save them from this crime of kufr. However, even if these few people have saved themselves from being kafir, they do not save themselves from Fisk (evil doing) or Zulm (wrong doing).
Now let us come to the members of the parliament in Muslim countries, which is also known as the legislative council. If these people adopt laws and legislation which disagree with and contradict with Islamic texts which are decisive in their proof (like the Qur'an and hadith mutawatir) and decisive in their meaning, then in reality they are adopting clear kufr. Every member who announces or declares his conviction and acceptance with that, and he defends the issue of taking the laws of kufr, then he is a kafir and this cannot be refuted even if he claims otherwise.
Now let us come to those Ulema (scholars) of the rulers. In every Muslim land, we find that the ruler brings within his entourage some people whom he presents as the people of knowledge, and he leaves to them the issue of making Tafsir (interpretation) of the religion and issuing Fatwas in the way which agrees with his desires. These people who become the court of the ruler, or part of his regime and who have become his mouth piece, they are really the most dangerous of groups within the Ummah. And most of these are not actually of the Ulema, because the Ulema are the inheritors of the Prophets, and the 'Alem should be one of the people with Taqwa (piety). Allah (swt) says, "Those who really fear Allah from His servants, are those with knowledge." [TMQ Fatir:28]
Actually most of the government scholars are of the hypocrites who misinterpret Islam, and change it to agree with the whims and desires of their rulers and their masters. We find such people in every country, in Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, in Iran and in almost every Muslim land we find some of these people. So what is the divine rule for such people in the Shari'a of Allah? If such an 'Alem was brought in front of the ruler, and he defends a law in direct way that contradicts with a divine text, which is decisively proved and is decisive in its indication, and encourages the adoption of such a law, such an 'Alem is unfortunately Jahil (ignorant), and is undoubtedly a kafir even if he fasts, prays, makes hajj, gives zakat, and claims to be a Muslim. This is because he is munafiq (hypocrite), an evil-doer, and a kafir. How many of these hypocrites, who do not recognize their corruption and do not recognize that they are Safih (shameless). Let us read what Allah (swt) has to say of such people in Surah Al-Baqara.
"Some of the people say that we have become believers, we believe in Allah and the Hereafter, but they are not believers. They try to deceive Allah and the believers, but really they deceive only themselves without feeling that. There is a disease in their hearts, and thus Allah has increased their disease, and they deserve a great torment because of their lies. If it is said to them do not make corruption in the land, they say no we make peace. Verily they are the corrupters, but they do not feel it. And if it is said to them believe like the people have believed, they say should we believe like the fools believe? But no they are the fools but they do not know" [TMQ 2:8-13]
So how many kafir are there that think of themselves as doing good things? Allah (swt) said in the chapter of the cave,
"Do I tell you about those who are the most lost in their actions, it is those who went astray in their lives, and they thought that they were doing good." [TMQ 18:103-104]
And Allah (swt) says in the chapter of Al-A'araf,
"They took Satan as their friend instead of Allah, and they think they are themselves guided." [TMQ 7:30]
So it is not surprising that everybody claims to be guided. How many people have had bad things brought to their eyes disguised as good, but which are not, because the measure of actions should be the Shari'a of Allah, not the whims and the desires of the people!
As we know, Allah (swt) has sent Muhammad (saaws) with the message of Islam to all the people. So whoever believed in the Prophet, and that the Qur'an is from Allah, and that the Shari'a of Islam is a revelation from Allah, and it is a guidance to the people, and his heart is assured of this, then he would not leave this faith or select other than this faith. Because it is inconceivable to any sensible man to leave a system, which Allah (swt), the Wise and th All-knowing, has brought to us, and to adopt instead another system which weak and ignorant people have made and imposed; be they the UN, the US or any of their surrogates. If, however, such a change does occur to such a so-called scholarly man, it is a clear sign that he became an unbeliever. So take notice of what Allah (swt) says in the chapter of Al-Nisa'a.
"Do not you see those who claim that they believed in what was revealed unto you and what was revealed before you, they want to arbitrate the Taghoot (non-Islam), while they have been commanded to disbelieve it, but Satan wants to misguide them away. And if it is said to them come to what Allah has revealed, and to the Messenger, you find the hypocrites turn away from you surely." [TMQ 4:60-61]
In the chapter of Al-Noor, Allah (swt) says,
"Verily, we have revealed clear verses, and Allah guides whom He wishes to the straight path. And they say we believe in Allah and in the Messenger and we obey, then a party of them turn away after that, and those are not the believers. If they have been called unto Allah and His Messenger to govern between them, you will find some of them turn away. If the right was on their side, they will come to you submitting. Is there any disease in their hearts, or are they in doubt, or do they fear that Allah and His Messenger will be unjust to them. No, but they are the Zalim (the wrong doers). Whilst the believers, if they have been called to Allah and His Messenger to govern between them, they say 'We hear and we obey' and those are the real successful ones. Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger and fears Allah and protects himself (of His anger), those are the real winners" [TMQ 24:46-51]
So the Muslim ruler, should never leave the Shari'a of Allah and judge with other than what Allah has revealed, and if he does so with conviction and acceptance, then he is not a Muslim. Here is a decisive word of Allah on this matter as read in the chapter of Al-Nisa'a.
"By your Lord, they would not be true believers, unless they make you govern in all disputes among them, and they would not have any difficulty in their hearts about what you have decided (for them), and they submit completely." [TMQ 4:65]
So beware Muslims, may Allah (swt) shower his mercy upon us all, of certain actions which you may consider easy, but which are very grave to Allah (swt). It could be some matter which takes a Muslim away from Islam, when he is not aware of it, and later on it will not benefit him, however much he prays or fasts. And Allah (swt) has informed us of the people of the Book before us who took their priests and their bishops as gods other than Allah. When the Prophet (saaws) was asked how did they take them as gods, the Prophet (saaws) replied, "They made to them the haram as halal and the halal as haram and then they obeyed them."
So look at your rulers. Don't they make the haram halal and the halal haram for you, and don't you obey them? Undoubtedly, they have made halal for you many things which Allah has made haram for you (to make peace with usurpers of Muslim lands, to invite the kafir to our lands, to give the authority to the kafir, to allow usury, insurance, etc.), and they have prohibited upon you many things which Allah has made halal for you. But what about you? Are you accepting this in your heart? If you have done so, then you have taken them as gods other than Allah, and we surely seek the protection of Allah from involving ourselves in such an action.
The Prophet (saaws) said, "Whoever of you sees a Munkar (wrong), he has to change it by his hand, if he cannot, then by his tongue, and if he cannot, then by his heart, and this is the weakest Iman."
In another narration, instead of saying "and this is the weakest Iman," he said, "and after that there is not even an atom weight of Iman." So these rulers are really the head of Munkar and their regimes are the source of Munkar. If the Muslim could not change this Munkar by the hand and by his tongue, and if he does not hate it and deny it in his heart, then his heart is the heart of a Kafir, which does not have even an atoms weight of Iman.
From all this, it is clear that most of the rulers of Muslims are not only disobedient or Fasik, but they are truly unbelievers, with a disbelief which takes them away from the Deen of Islam. And it seems clear that the media which praises these rulers and the kufr rules which they apply. They are actually a media of hypocrites and even unbelievers, and their disbelief is real, which takes them away from the Deen of Islam. Similarly those who accept these rulers, and the rules of kufr which they implement upon us, in their hearts, they are also real kafir, with a disbelief which takes them away from Islam. May Allah (swt) forgive us and save us from falling in that great sin.
It is not enough to deny the Munkar by your heart because it is the weakest of Iman. Most of the Muslims are capable of denying it with their tongues, and even some are in a position to change it with their hands (like the influential or the military). So the one who takes a stand against the ruler because of his Munkar, by his tongue or by his hand, he puts himself in a position of danger as he may be subjected to harm from the ruler or from his mistaken soldiers. So to what extent does Islam make it a duty upon a
Muslim to bear this harm and danger in the way of Allah (swt), and in the way of changing this Batil and supporting the truth? Allah (swt) commands us to 'Obey Allah as much as you can.' And the Prophet (saaws) said, "If I commanded you with something, make of it as much as you can."
The jurisprudents have decided the limits of that capability, and they are the limits of repression and persecution in which death is most likely to occur, or where damage would render the people incapable of performing natural tasks in life, such as taking their eyes, cutting their hands or legs, breaking their backs, or paralyzing some of their limbs. Therefore, it is not halal for any Muslim to leave any duty, or commit any haram unless he has been forced to this extent. But the mere threatening with lashing, with imprisonment, or being deprived of a job and other such things, they are not a license for the Muslim to leave a duty or to commit haram, because these matters are not outside his capability, rather they are within the capabilities. This is the duty of Muslims. Even though it is permitted to stop when those limits have been reached, it is still recommended for the Muslim to go to the extent of death. Islam has encouraged the Muslim to stand against a Munkar and the people of Munkar even if he sacrifices his life and not only his money and his time for the sake of Allah (swt). The Prophet (saaws) said, "The master of the martyrs is Hamza, and the person who stood up to an unjust ruler, and he advised him but was killed by him."
So Muslims, stand up for your duty and may Allah (swt) shower us with His mercy. Stand up for your society against the corruption, and this can only be done by demolishing the systems and rules of kufr, their rulers and the heads of kufr, and their helpers, and by taking the power from them and putting it in the hands of the people, who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and who govern by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saaws).
O Muslims! The reward of the obedience in this month is great, it is greatly multiplied than in any other time, and it is the best of times to work to establish, Insha' Allah, the guided Islamic Khilafah by which Allah (swt) will honor us with victory over the Jews and those who support the Jews and the Kafir. And by which Allah will, Insha' Allah, unite the Muslims. And by which he will purify our mind's, our hearts, and our societies of the diseases of kufr which invaded us. And by which the Islamic Ummah returns back as a mighty Ummah as Allah (swt) deemed us to be the best Ummah brought for mankind, calling for Ma'ruf (the good), denying Munkar (wrong) and believing in Allah. And Allah (swt) says,
"Allah promised those of you who believe and do good deeds that He will make them governors of the land as He made those before you, and He will establish to them their Deen which He accepted to them, and He will turn their fear into security, on condition that they worship me and do not associate anything with me." [TMQ 24:55]
Ar-Raya Magazine
The Judiciary in the Ruling System Of Islam
The judicial system in Islam is solely based on the Shari'ah. Therefore, this part of The Ruling System of Islam will be based on introducing the Shari'ah of Islam and the process of bringing justice in Islam.
Shari'ah is an Arabic word meaning "path to be followed". Literally it connotes 'the way to a watering place'. It is the Shari'ah which leads humanity to its rightful direction of the worship of its Creator. Shari'ah liberates man from the shackles of man-made ruling systems, to the rightful place of the Sovereignty of Allah. It is through this Shari'ah that man can truly attain the 'best of both worlds'; i.e., peace of mind and tranquillity of heart in this world, and the procurement of Jannah in the Hereafter.
This is the reason why Muslims are obligated by Allah to denounce all other ruling systems and abide by the Truth- the Islamic ruling system. Allah says, -in translation- "We made for you a law, so follow it, and not the fancies of those who have no knowledge." Since humanity, as a limited being with limited powers, is incapable to understand man's true nature, we become bound to observing the commandments of Allah, in order to live under a system which truly leads to our happiness.
The Shari'ah becomes the backbone of a Muslim's life, as an individual and as a member of his society. His every action is based upon the commands of Allah (SWT). The society as a whole governs itself through this Shari'ah. Remaining within the boundaries of Allah's Law is essential. To do otherwise, would lead to the punishment of the individual by Allah, or by the Islamic state (the state is also bound by Allah to punish those who transgress the limits prescribed by Allah).
It is with this in mind that we analyze the judicial system of Islam. It is through this judicial system that the people settle their quarrels, the society is protected from detrimental elements, and disputes are settled between the rulers and the ruled. If we, individually and collectively, are perspicacious in applying this system to our daily affairs we will have truly attained Allah's satisfaction and will have found true Justice. For Allah says, -in translation- "We sent aforetime our Apostles with Clear Signs and sent down with them The Book and The Balance (of right and wrong), that men may stand forth in Justice." We must be mindful of the fact that Justice can not be fully served until and unless Islam is applied in its totality. To do otherwise, would mean leaving parts of Allah's commandments and accepting the rule of man as better able to cope with the issue at hand. This not only leads to the disruption of the society's well-being but is also an acknowledgment that Allah is not truly the Sovereign. We find in the Quran Allah (SWT) saying to the prophet (saaws), -in translation- "But no by thy Lord they can have no (real) faith until they make thee judge in all disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions but accept them with the fullest conviction." The entire Muslim Ummah must live under the Shari'ah to which every member has to submit, with sovereignty belonging to Allah alone.
The responsibility of the application of the Shari'ah rests with the Ummah. This is so because the Quran and Sunnah of the prophet (saaws), the basis upon which Shari'ah itself lies, is given to the entire Ummah. Therefore, the Ummah is collectively responsible for its implementation. Also, we can declare from this that no individual or group may encroach upon this right of the Ummah, by physically snatching it from them. Since this Shari'ah came to the entire Ummah, no one is exempt from its injunctions. Unlike present day systems, the rich and powerful among the Ummah must comply with the Shari'ah as well as the average Muslim. As Allah (SWT) says in the Quran, -in translation-"O you who believe: Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor. For Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you distort (justice), verily Allah is well-acquainted with what you do."
We must also remember that Justice is administered in the name of Allah, one of whose attributes is al-Adil (the Just). Therefore, no human may claim that his own words are the law of the land. This claim entails that sovereignty no longer belongs to Allah, but to this person. This is a grave sin, punishable by Allah through Jahannum (Hell-Fire).
In general, therefore, every Muslim who has the ability to give sound judgments on matters of Shari'ah may interpret the law of Allah, if an interpretation is called for. These Muslims who extract or expound from the laws of Allah impart the Islamic verdict on the actions they commit, actions others commit, or disputes arising between two parties. As such, they form the body of judges within the Ummah. We notice that the judges do not necessarily have to be produced by an institutionalized body. As a matter of fact, every member of the Ummah is expected to obtain the ability of pronouncing judgments, based on Quran and Sunnah. The Sahaba were not by-products of formal educational centers, in which they obtained degrees to distinguish themselves from others. Rather, all of the Sahaba attained their learning by listening to the Quran, observing the Prophet (saaws) and through the normal interactions with one another, whereby they would exchange the information they possessed regarding an issue. This does not imply that all the Sahaba knew everything about Islam, but as a collective whole they were well aware of all Islamic injunctions. Therefore the individual, within his own capacities, and the governing Islamic state, within its, must aim to achieve the scenario we find in the lives of the Sahaba - their ability to administer justice (both sources, for the administration of justice, are still readily available; i.e., the Quran and Sunnah). As the prophet (saaws) said, -in translation- "I leave two things for you. You will never go astray while holding them firmly. The Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet."
In the administration of justice, the judge (Qadi) should remain attentive to the Islamic rulings regarding the matter he is about to pronounce judgment upon. He must always remember that if he commits a wrong action, through his verdict, he is not only responsible to the people but, also, to Allah (SWT). For the Qadi, pronouncements of judgments are an immense responsibility, not to be taken lightly. He must refrain from executing judgments based on personal whims, natural human sympathy for the accused, or the influence of the parties concerned. He must exert his utmost in trying to achieve the verdict only through the sources prescribed by Shari'ah. As the Messenger of Allah said, -in translation- "The Qadis (judges) are of three types. One type will go to paradise and the remaining two will end up in the fire of hell. The person who will go to paradise is the one who understood the truth and judged accordingly. The one who judged unjustly after understanding the truth, will go to hell. Likewise, the Qadi who judged in ignorance also will go to hell." To the Qadi, the parties with the dispute are not the criterion for judgment. Rather, it is the facts related to the case, and the Islamic injunctions related to these facts. It is with this in mind, that the Qadi should treat the case of those who are the bourgeois elements of the society. As the prophet (saaws) said, -in translation- "The previous nations were destroyed because they let off persons of high rank and punished the poor and the helpless."
Therefore, it is with the proper utilization of the Shari'ah and his faith in Allah as Sovereign that the Qadi brings justice upon the case presented before him.
Ar-Raya Magazine
Shari'ah is an Arabic word meaning "path to be followed". Literally it connotes 'the way to a watering place'. It is the Shari'ah which leads humanity to its rightful direction of the worship of its Creator. Shari'ah liberates man from the shackles of man-made ruling systems, to the rightful place of the Sovereignty of Allah. It is through this Shari'ah that man can truly attain the 'best of both worlds'; i.e., peace of mind and tranquillity of heart in this world, and the procurement of Jannah in the Hereafter.
This is the reason why Muslims are obligated by Allah to denounce all other ruling systems and abide by the Truth- the Islamic ruling system. Allah says, -in translation- "We made for you a law, so follow it, and not the fancies of those who have no knowledge." Since humanity, as a limited being with limited powers, is incapable to understand man's true nature, we become bound to observing the commandments of Allah, in order to live under a system which truly leads to our happiness.
The Shari'ah becomes the backbone of a Muslim's life, as an individual and as a member of his society. His every action is based upon the commands of Allah (SWT). The society as a whole governs itself through this Shari'ah. Remaining within the boundaries of Allah's Law is essential. To do otherwise, would lead to the punishment of the individual by Allah, or by the Islamic state (the state is also bound by Allah to punish those who transgress the limits prescribed by Allah).
It is with this in mind that we analyze the judicial system of Islam. It is through this judicial system that the people settle their quarrels, the society is protected from detrimental elements, and disputes are settled between the rulers and the ruled. If we, individually and collectively, are perspicacious in applying this system to our daily affairs we will have truly attained Allah's satisfaction and will have found true Justice. For Allah says, -in translation- "We sent aforetime our Apostles with Clear Signs and sent down with them The Book and The Balance (of right and wrong), that men may stand forth in Justice." We must be mindful of the fact that Justice can not be fully served until and unless Islam is applied in its totality. To do otherwise, would mean leaving parts of Allah's commandments and accepting the rule of man as better able to cope with the issue at hand. This not only leads to the disruption of the society's well-being but is also an acknowledgment that Allah is not truly the Sovereign. We find in the Quran Allah (SWT) saying to the prophet (saaws), -in translation- "But no by thy Lord they can have no (real) faith until they make thee judge in all disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions but accept them with the fullest conviction." The entire Muslim Ummah must live under the Shari'ah to which every member has to submit, with sovereignty belonging to Allah alone.
The responsibility of the application of the Shari'ah rests with the Ummah. This is so because the Quran and Sunnah of the prophet (saaws), the basis upon which Shari'ah itself lies, is given to the entire Ummah. Therefore, the Ummah is collectively responsible for its implementation. Also, we can declare from this that no individual or group may encroach upon this right of the Ummah, by physically snatching it from them. Since this Shari'ah came to the entire Ummah, no one is exempt from its injunctions. Unlike present day systems, the rich and powerful among the Ummah must comply with the Shari'ah as well as the average Muslim. As Allah (SWT) says in the Quran, -in translation-"O you who believe: Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor. For Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you distort (justice), verily Allah is well-acquainted with what you do."
We must also remember that Justice is administered in the name of Allah, one of whose attributes is al-Adil (the Just). Therefore, no human may claim that his own words are the law of the land. This claim entails that sovereignty no longer belongs to Allah, but to this person. This is a grave sin, punishable by Allah through Jahannum (Hell-Fire).
In general, therefore, every Muslim who has the ability to give sound judgments on matters of Shari'ah may interpret the law of Allah, if an interpretation is called for. These Muslims who extract or expound from the laws of Allah impart the Islamic verdict on the actions they commit, actions others commit, or disputes arising between two parties. As such, they form the body of judges within the Ummah. We notice that the judges do not necessarily have to be produced by an institutionalized body. As a matter of fact, every member of the Ummah is expected to obtain the ability of pronouncing judgments, based on Quran and Sunnah. The Sahaba were not by-products of formal educational centers, in which they obtained degrees to distinguish themselves from others. Rather, all of the Sahaba attained their learning by listening to the Quran, observing the Prophet (saaws) and through the normal interactions with one another, whereby they would exchange the information they possessed regarding an issue. This does not imply that all the Sahaba knew everything about Islam, but as a collective whole they were well aware of all Islamic injunctions. Therefore the individual, within his own capacities, and the governing Islamic state, within its, must aim to achieve the scenario we find in the lives of the Sahaba - their ability to administer justice (both sources, for the administration of justice, are still readily available; i.e., the Quran and Sunnah). As the prophet (saaws) said, -in translation- "I leave two things for you. You will never go astray while holding them firmly. The Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet."
In the administration of justice, the judge (Qadi) should remain attentive to the Islamic rulings regarding the matter he is about to pronounce judgment upon. He must always remember that if he commits a wrong action, through his verdict, he is not only responsible to the people but, also, to Allah (SWT). For the Qadi, pronouncements of judgments are an immense responsibility, not to be taken lightly. He must refrain from executing judgments based on personal whims, natural human sympathy for the accused, or the influence of the parties concerned. He must exert his utmost in trying to achieve the verdict only through the sources prescribed by Shari'ah. As the Messenger of Allah said, -in translation- "The Qadis (judges) are of three types. One type will go to paradise and the remaining two will end up in the fire of hell. The person who will go to paradise is the one who understood the truth and judged accordingly. The one who judged unjustly after understanding the truth, will go to hell. Likewise, the Qadi who judged in ignorance also will go to hell." To the Qadi, the parties with the dispute are not the criterion for judgment. Rather, it is the facts related to the case, and the Islamic injunctions related to these facts. It is with this in mind, that the Qadi should treat the case of those who are the bourgeois elements of the society. As the prophet (saaws) said, -in translation- "The previous nations were destroyed because they let off persons of high rank and punished the poor and the helpless."
Therefore, it is with the proper utilization of the Shari'ah and his faith in Allah as Sovereign that the Qadi brings justice upon the case presented before him.
Ar-Raya Magazine
Eclipsing the Ramadan
Every year Muslims all over the world face the same problem: determining the beginning of Ramadan and Shawwal. Some insist on their own sighting of the moon, while others follow astronomical calculations, and still others follow the first sighting of the moon anywhere. This has lead to a wide gulf difference; Last year, some began their fasting on Wednesday, others on Thursday and yet others on Friday. This was the scenario of Ramadan '92.
Those who insist on their own sighting of the moon base their opinion on the adoption of "Ikhtilaf al-Matalea". This opinion means that different regions should sight their own moon. This opinion is what was reported by Imam Muslim that Kuraib said:
Um-Fadl sent me to Muawiyah in al-Sham. I accomplished the objective of my travel. Ramadan came while I was there and the moon was seen on Friday night. At the end of the month I returned back to Medina where Ibn Abbas asked me, ‘When did you see the moon?’ I answered, ‘Friday night,’ Ibn Abbas further inquired, ‘Did you see it with your eyes? ’ I replied, ‘Yes, and also the people saw it. Thus the people and Muawiyah fasted.’ Ibn Abbas said, ‘But we saw it on Saturday night and will keep fasting until we finish the 30 days or see the moon.’ I asked Ibn Abbas, ‘Don't we follow Muwiyah's sighting and fast?’ Ibn Abbas replied, ‘No, that is what Rasul Allah (saaws) ordered us.’ Reported Muslim.
Imam Shawkani said with regards to Ibn Abbas's Statement, "We are asked to follow what Ibn Abbas reported from Prophet (saaws), not his (Ibn Abbas) understanding of what the Prophet (saaws) said." The statement means that this was Ibn Abbas's understanding of the Prophet's order. Therefore, Ibn Abbas's statement has no authority.
In addition, since Ibn Abbas said, "No, that's what Rasul Allah ordered us" people adopting Ikhtilaf al-Matalea believe that every location has its own sighting. Many Imams have discussed this statement of Ibn Abbas and have concluded that the Muslims are asked to follow what the Prophet (saaws) has said and not the understanding of what the Prophet (saaws) said. In this incident it is the understanding of Ibn Abbas of what the Prophet (saaws) said.
Furthermore, the Prophet (saaws) said, "Don't fast until you sight the moon." (Bukhari & Muslim) In another Hadith reported by Muslim the Prophet (saaws) said, "Fast for its sighting" implying the fasting commences by the physical sighting of the moon. These two Hadiths address the Ummah as the global Ummah not individuals.
The words Sumu (in the plural form addressing all Muslims) li Ruyuatih and Ruyuatih denotes fasting and sighting of the moon to all the Muslims, without any restriction including geographic boundaries. Furthermore, the Prophet (saaws) ordered the Muslims to fast if the moon is sighted. These Hadiths are general and do not require a sighting for every location. Once, Rasul Allah (saaws)fasted upon a traveler coming and reporting (the traveler was a Bedouin) that he had sighted the moon. This action indicates that he (saaws) fasted without sighting the moon in Medina.
Technically speaking the moon is born at one time only, but it can't be sighted in all places. If the moon is born above India, Muslims in India can't see it, (because of the latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates of India in relation to the path of the moon.) However, Muslims in Morocco can see it. Thus, the Muslims in India don't have to wait another day to sight the moon, since it has been sighted, and the Prophet (saaws) ordered us to fast by its sighting.
Therefore, Ramadan begins on only one day for all Muslims all over the world, as it does for the beginning of Shawwal.
One would say that since the times of prayers are different around the earth, the time of fasting may be different. This is correct if we are talking about the beginning of fasting each day and ending the fast on each day, since the time of fajr and maghrib are fixed on the solar time table. It should be noted that the solar system is different than the lunar system. For example, if a brother breaks his fast in New York, this does not give us the reason to break our fast in California, as it is known that a fast can only be broken via sunset. In contrast to this example the beginning of the lunar month is the same for all localities. Therefore, one can easily see the contrast between the two systems.
Here in the US, saying that we are living in a unique situation, some Muslim organizations like ISNA are trying to conduct an independent sighting in concordance with ‘Ikhtilaf al-Matalea’. But at the same time they want to make their sighting and decision binding upon all Muslims in the US, and thus adopting ‘Ittihad Matalea’, a tactic that ISNA employs.
In 1992, one of the fiqh council members in ISNA said in a local newspaper that Thursday marked the beginning of Ramadan. This statement was issued despite the moon not being sighted on this continent. Since it was sighted in Egypt and Sudan, it was possible that the moon was in the sky. Later on it was announced by ICNA that even Thursday was an incorrect date and that Ramadan should have begun on Friday.
One would ask on which basis was it decided that Thursday was the initial day of Ramadan? If it was based on Ittihad Matalea then it should have begun on Wednesday. If it was based on Ikhtilaf al-Matalea, it should have begun on Friday. But we can't mix the two opinions together like ISNA did. Let us stick to the text and call Muslims to use the sighting by the eye that Allah (swt) gave in lieu of astronomical calculations, since the text is very clear.
Regarding astronomical calculations, it can't replace the sighting because the Hadith is very clear in its text. It cannot be interpreted in another way because any interpretation must have linguistic justification. It should be interpreted according to the rules of Usul al-Fiqh.
In the context of an object, the word ‘Ra'a’ means to actually visualize it through the sensory organs of sight. For example, in the Arabic language if one is using this word with regards to an object then it can only mean visualizing it through the eye, therefore in this context it can only mean the actual visualization through the eye. In the conceptual arena, it can also mean knowing via intellect if you are talking about abstract things such as thoughts. For example, the other possible meaning could be about a thought, such as a phrase used in English ‘I see your point.’ However, this Hadith is talking about the moon, which is something tangible.
Claiming that since Muslims use calculations for their prayer, they should use calculations for fasting is an absurdity because in ibadat we cannot exercise Qiyas (analogical reasoning). Also, our timings for prayers depend on the movement of the sun. The solar movement is fixed and does not change, unlike the lunar, so the prayer schedule is based on the schedule of the sun. This same timetable is applied in the opening and the breaking of the fast.
Muslims in the past were pioneers in astronomy but they never used its calculation properties in determining the beginning of each month in the Islamic calendar.
OH MUSLIMS! Let us be a part of the unified body of the Muslim Ummah. We cannot be divorced from each other and we should not give any group or individual the chance to disassociate ourselves from the rest of the global Ummah. The only rule which can unite the entire Ummah is Ittihad Matalea.
Let us work on implementing this rule and fast together and later on if any error was discovered in sighting the moon, it can be corrected but such an error is not a reason for us to abandon Ittihad Matalea.
The Prophet (saaws) states regarding the trial (fitna) that, "The knots of Islam will be broken one after another. This first knot to be broken is the knot of ruling; the last is the knot of prayer." The knot of ruling was broken in 1924 when the Khilafah was demolished. Let us work to prevent the knot of fasting from being broken by these practices.
Ar-Raya Magazine
Those who insist on their own sighting of the moon base their opinion on the adoption of "Ikhtilaf al-Matalea". This opinion means that different regions should sight their own moon. This opinion is what was reported by Imam Muslim that Kuraib said:
Um-Fadl sent me to Muawiyah in al-Sham. I accomplished the objective of my travel. Ramadan came while I was there and the moon was seen on Friday night. At the end of the month I returned back to Medina where Ibn Abbas asked me, ‘When did you see the moon?’ I answered, ‘Friday night,’ Ibn Abbas further inquired, ‘Did you see it with your eyes? ’ I replied, ‘Yes, and also the people saw it. Thus the people and Muawiyah fasted.’ Ibn Abbas said, ‘But we saw it on Saturday night and will keep fasting until we finish the 30 days or see the moon.’ I asked Ibn Abbas, ‘Don't we follow Muwiyah's sighting and fast?’ Ibn Abbas replied, ‘No, that is what Rasul Allah (saaws) ordered us.’ Reported Muslim.
Imam Shawkani said with regards to Ibn Abbas's Statement, "We are asked to follow what Ibn Abbas reported from Prophet (saaws), not his (Ibn Abbas) understanding of what the Prophet (saaws) said." The statement means that this was Ibn Abbas's understanding of the Prophet's order. Therefore, Ibn Abbas's statement has no authority.
In addition, since Ibn Abbas said, "No, that's what Rasul Allah ordered us" people adopting Ikhtilaf al-Matalea believe that every location has its own sighting. Many Imams have discussed this statement of Ibn Abbas and have concluded that the Muslims are asked to follow what the Prophet (saaws) has said and not the understanding of what the Prophet (saaws) said. In this incident it is the understanding of Ibn Abbas of what the Prophet (saaws) said.
Furthermore, the Prophet (saaws) said, "Don't fast until you sight the moon." (Bukhari & Muslim) In another Hadith reported by Muslim the Prophet (saaws) said, "Fast for its sighting" implying the fasting commences by the physical sighting of the moon. These two Hadiths address the Ummah as the global Ummah not individuals.
The words Sumu (in the plural form addressing all Muslims) li Ruyuatih and Ruyuatih denotes fasting and sighting of the moon to all the Muslims, without any restriction including geographic boundaries. Furthermore, the Prophet (saaws) ordered the Muslims to fast if the moon is sighted. These Hadiths are general and do not require a sighting for every location. Once, Rasul Allah (saaws)fasted upon a traveler coming and reporting (the traveler was a Bedouin) that he had sighted the moon. This action indicates that he (saaws) fasted without sighting the moon in Medina.
Technically speaking the moon is born at one time only, but it can't be sighted in all places. If the moon is born above India, Muslims in India can't see it, (because of the latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates of India in relation to the path of the moon.) However, Muslims in Morocco can see it. Thus, the Muslims in India don't have to wait another day to sight the moon, since it has been sighted, and the Prophet (saaws) ordered us to fast by its sighting.
Therefore, Ramadan begins on only one day for all Muslims all over the world, as it does for the beginning of Shawwal.
One would say that since the times of prayers are different around the earth, the time of fasting may be different. This is correct if we are talking about the beginning of fasting each day and ending the fast on each day, since the time of fajr and maghrib are fixed on the solar time table. It should be noted that the solar system is different than the lunar system. For example, if a brother breaks his fast in New York, this does not give us the reason to break our fast in California, as it is known that a fast can only be broken via sunset. In contrast to this example the beginning of the lunar month is the same for all localities. Therefore, one can easily see the contrast between the two systems.
Here in the US, saying that we are living in a unique situation, some Muslim organizations like ISNA are trying to conduct an independent sighting in concordance with ‘Ikhtilaf al-Matalea’. But at the same time they want to make their sighting and decision binding upon all Muslims in the US, and thus adopting ‘Ittihad Matalea’, a tactic that ISNA employs.
In 1992, one of the fiqh council members in ISNA said in a local newspaper that Thursday marked the beginning of Ramadan. This statement was issued despite the moon not being sighted on this continent. Since it was sighted in Egypt and Sudan, it was possible that the moon was in the sky. Later on it was announced by ICNA that even Thursday was an incorrect date and that Ramadan should have begun on Friday.
One would ask on which basis was it decided that Thursday was the initial day of Ramadan? If it was based on Ittihad Matalea then it should have begun on Wednesday. If it was based on Ikhtilaf al-Matalea, it should have begun on Friday. But we can't mix the two opinions together like ISNA did. Let us stick to the text and call Muslims to use the sighting by the eye that Allah (swt) gave in lieu of astronomical calculations, since the text is very clear.
Regarding astronomical calculations, it can't replace the sighting because the Hadith is very clear in its text. It cannot be interpreted in another way because any interpretation must have linguistic justification. It should be interpreted according to the rules of Usul al-Fiqh.
In the context of an object, the word ‘Ra'a’ means to actually visualize it through the sensory organs of sight. For example, in the Arabic language if one is using this word with regards to an object then it can only mean visualizing it through the eye, therefore in this context it can only mean the actual visualization through the eye. In the conceptual arena, it can also mean knowing via intellect if you are talking about abstract things such as thoughts. For example, the other possible meaning could be about a thought, such as a phrase used in English ‘I see your point.’ However, this Hadith is talking about the moon, which is something tangible.
Claiming that since Muslims use calculations for their prayer, they should use calculations for fasting is an absurdity because in ibadat we cannot exercise Qiyas (analogical reasoning). Also, our timings for prayers depend on the movement of the sun. The solar movement is fixed and does not change, unlike the lunar, so the prayer schedule is based on the schedule of the sun. This same timetable is applied in the opening and the breaking of the fast.
Muslims in the past were pioneers in astronomy but they never used its calculation properties in determining the beginning of each month in the Islamic calendar.
OH MUSLIMS! Let us be a part of the unified body of the Muslim Ummah. We cannot be divorced from each other and we should not give any group or individual the chance to disassociate ourselves from the rest of the global Ummah. The only rule which can unite the entire Ummah is Ittihad Matalea.
Let us work on implementing this rule and fast together and later on if any error was discovered in sighting the moon, it can be corrected but such an error is not a reason for us to abandon Ittihad Matalea.
The Prophet (saaws) states regarding the trial (fitna) that, "The knots of Islam will be broken one after another. This first knot to be broken is the knot of ruling; the last is the knot of prayer." The knot of ruling was broken in 1924 when the Khilafah was demolished. Let us work to prevent the knot of fasting from being broken by these practices.
Ar-Raya Magazine
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Tawwakul: Absolute trust in Allah (SWT)
In this article the issue of "Tawwakul" is addressed, because it is a fundamental part of the Islamic Aqeedah. Tawwakul is translated here as either trust or dependence. Putting our trust in Allah (SWT) is a matter of belief and contributes to our view regarding this life. To make this point clear, some of the ayahs are quoted as below:
Allah (SWT) says in Surah Al-Imran:160 "If Allah helps you, none can overcome you: If He forsakes you, who is there after that, that can help you ? In Allah, then, let Believers put their trust."
In Surah At-Tauba: 51, Allah (SWT) says "Say: 'Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us: He is our protector': And on Allah let the Believers put their trust."
In Surah Ash-Shu'araa:217 Allah (SWT) says "And put thy trust on the exalted in Might, The Merciful."
In Surah Al-Imran:159, Allah (SWT) says"...Then, when thou hast taken a decision, put thy trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him)."
All of the above ayahs order Muslims to wholly and exclusively rely on Allah (SWT) in their lives. It is only Allah who controls this universe, and both good and bad are His decree. The significant element that should always be kept in mind, is the omnipotence of Allah (SWT). Therefore our actions and the material resources available to us do not guarantee the outcome of any of our undertakings. For example our material and physical strength may deceive us into believing that victory in a battle field is inevitable. The truth is that our strength or weakness has no bearing on the outcome of the battle, and it is only by the will of Allah (SWT) that we become victorious or get defeated by the enemy. It was this firm belief that led a handful of Muslims during and after the time of prophet Muhammad (SAAW) to fight so valiantly against a formidable enemy over and over again.
One may ask, why then do we strive to accomplish any task if we cannot influence its outcome ? The answer is rather simple. The actions that we take fall into three categories: They are either obligated upon us by Allah (SWT), recommended by Him or we are simply allowed to do them. The obligatory actions are taken because Allah (SWT) has ordered them as compulsory. The recommended actions are taken to be rewarded in addition to the rewards we get upon accomplishing the fard. In both of these cases we seek to please Allah (SWT). Actions falling under the third category are taken to achieve certain objectives we anticipate to fulfill. However the certainty of accomplishing those objectives is not under our control. Therefore the cause of initiating any action is not whether we control its outcome. It is the anticipated goal we aim to achieve.
This brings us to an important misconception among the Muslims, where some of them associate "effort" with having trust in Allah (SWT). For example, it is a popular notion that earning provides rizq, and tawwakul in Allah (SWT) should come after one has made a sincere effort to earn a living. Some of the Muslims who hold such a view often present the following Hadith in their defense:
A man came to the prophet Muhammad (SAAW) and said "I will not tie my camel and trust Allah", the prophet Muhammad (SAAW) said " tie it and trust Allah."
This Hadith does not indicate any pre-requisite for trusting Allah (SWT). It does not, therefore suggest that somehow there is a link between tying the camel (an action ) and putting one's trust in Allah (SWT). However the Hadith conveys an important lesson to all of us: that while trust in Allah (SWT) is absolute being independent of what we do, it is our responsibility to act on what we intend to accomplish. In this case tying the camel was a right thing to do, if the person feared that the camel would run away. Therefore he should have taken the precaution regardless of his trust in Allah (SWT). Tying the camel does not take away from his trust in Allah (SWT), nor does it become a requirement for trusting Allah (SWT). Regardless of how he had acted the outcome would remain in accordance with the will of Allah (SWT). This understanding is in accordance with the above verses of the Quran, where the concept of absolute trust in Allah (SWT) is emphatically reiterated.
Hence tawwakul in Allah (SWT) is not in any way related to our actions, and is a belief that we are ordered to believe in by Allah (SWT) irrespective of our efforts and the circumstances surrounding us. This belief should help us live this life according to the commands of Allah (SWT), even if we face hardships in doing so. Disappointment, hopelessness should not daunt us, because we have put our trust in Allah (SWT), our Creator and the only Sustainer. Many Muslims indulge in prohibited actions arguing that it is the only alternative, otherwise they would face disastrous consequences. A vivid example is giving riba when buying a house on mortgage. They regard owning a house as a necessity and are willing to sacrifice Islam in doing so. They fail to realize that it is only Allah (SWT) who provides security for them and their offsprings and they need only to put their absolute trust in Him. Unfortunately the materialistic thought that we have acquired from the Kuffar, who depend on material gains for their very survival, has drastically influenced our view towards this life as well...we take pride in our wealth and what we do, and have displaced the trust in Allah (SWT) by relying solely on material possessions. May Allah (SWT) restore our trust in Him, for only then can we truly succeed.
Ar-Raya Magazine
Allah (SWT) says in Surah Al-Imran:160 "If Allah helps you, none can overcome you: If He forsakes you, who is there after that, that can help you ? In Allah, then, let Believers put their trust."
In Surah At-Tauba: 51, Allah (SWT) says "Say: 'Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us: He is our protector': And on Allah let the Believers put their trust."
In Surah Ash-Shu'araa:217 Allah (SWT) says "And put thy trust on the exalted in Might, The Merciful."
In Surah Al-Imran:159, Allah (SWT) says"...Then, when thou hast taken a decision, put thy trust in Allah. For Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him)."
All of the above ayahs order Muslims to wholly and exclusively rely on Allah (SWT) in their lives. It is only Allah who controls this universe, and both good and bad are His decree. The significant element that should always be kept in mind, is the omnipotence of Allah (SWT). Therefore our actions and the material resources available to us do not guarantee the outcome of any of our undertakings. For example our material and physical strength may deceive us into believing that victory in a battle field is inevitable. The truth is that our strength or weakness has no bearing on the outcome of the battle, and it is only by the will of Allah (SWT) that we become victorious or get defeated by the enemy. It was this firm belief that led a handful of Muslims during and after the time of prophet Muhammad (SAAW) to fight so valiantly against a formidable enemy over and over again.
One may ask, why then do we strive to accomplish any task if we cannot influence its outcome ? The answer is rather simple. The actions that we take fall into three categories: They are either obligated upon us by Allah (SWT), recommended by Him or we are simply allowed to do them. The obligatory actions are taken because Allah (SWT) has ordered them as compulsory. The recommended actions are taken to be rewarded in addition to the rewards we get upon accomplishing the fard. In both of these cases we seek to please Allah (SWT). Actions falling under the third category are taken to achieve certain objectives we anticipate to fulfill. However the certainty of accomplishing those objectives is not under our control. Therefore the cause of initiating any action is not whether we control its outcome. It is the anticipated goal we aim to achieve.
This brings us to an important misconception among the Muslims, where some of them associate "effort" with having trust in Allah (SWT). For example, it is a popular notion that earning provides rizq, and tawwakul in Allah (SWT) should come after one has made a sincere effort to earn a living. Some of the Muslims who hold such a view often present the following Hadith in their defense:
A man came to the prophet Muhammad (SAAW) and said "I will not tie my camel and trust Allah", the prophet Muhammad (SAAW) said " tie it and trust Allah."
This Hadith does not indicate any pre-requisite for trusting Allah (SWT). It does not, therefore suggest that somehow there is a link between tying the camel (an action ) and putting one's trust in Allah (SWT). However the Hadith conveys an important lesson to all of us: that while trust in Allah (SWT) is absolute being independent of what we do, it is our responsibility to act on what we intend to accomplish. In this case tying the camel was a right thing to do, if the person feared that the camel would run away. Therefore he should have taken the precaution regardless of his trust in Allah (SWT). Tying the camel does not take away from his trust in Allah (SWT), nor does it become a requirement for trusting Allah (SWT). Regardless of how he had acted the outcome would remain in accordance with the will of Allah (SWT). This understanding is in accordance with the above verses of the Quran, where the concept of absolute trust in Allah (SWT) is emphatically reiterated.
Hence tawwakul in Allah (SWT) is not in any way related to our actions, and is a belief that we are ordered to believe in by Allah (SWT) irrespective of our efforts and the circumstances surrounding us. This belief should help us live this life according to the commands of Allah (SWT), even if we face hardships in doing so. Disappointment, hopelessness should not daunt us, because we have put our trust in Allah (SWT), our Creator and the only Sustainer. Many Muslims indulge in prohibited actions arguing that it is the only alternative, otherwise they would face disastrous consequences. A vivid example is giving riba when buying a house on mortgage. They regard owning a house as a necessity and are willing to sacrifice Islam in doing so. They fail to realize that it is only Allah (SWT) who provides security for them and their offsprings and they need only to put their absolute trust in Him. Unfortunately the materialistic thought that we have acquired from the Kuffar, who depend on material gains for their very survival, has drastically influenced our view towards this life as well...we take pride in our wealth and what we do, and have displaced the trust in Allah (SWT) by relying solely on material possessions. May Allah (SWT) restore our trust in Him, for only then can we truly succeed.
Ar-Raya Magazine
Politics in Islam
The influence of Western thought on the minds of many Muslims considerably changed their view-point on several issues regarding their way of life. Western philosophy and institutions have become exemplary to many Muslims. The definition and the subsequent role of politics has been and continues to be understood by many Muslims within the framework of the European theory and practice. Muslim scholars, in an effort to confront the corruption of thought among the Muslims declared that politics is evil and should not become a field of work for true believers. However by doing so, they acknowledged the Western outlook towards politics thereby falling victim to the idea of secularism. This meant that Muslims should not resort to politics because religion had no place for it. This lead to a large number of devout Muslims preaching Islam in a manner that was meaningful only to the individual as his private affair. The resulting isolation became an obstacle for many Muslims to actively participate in changing the society according to the precepts of Islam. Indeed many among them failed to realize, if at all, there was a need for change. It is our intention to present a general view towards politics, its role and institutions according to the Islamic Sharia. Furthermore to clarify many misconceptions within the realm of political activity, we have chosen a comparative approach, bringing forth the western view point towards politics as well.
Definition
The word "siyasah" can be understood to mean politics. Siyasah is a derivative of the root "sasa" which literally means taking care of. The Arabic word "sa'is" is another derivative of the same root, and refers to one who takes care of the animals. Hence "siyasah" refers to taking care of the affairs of a nation. By this token the shara'i definition of siyasah is 'taking care of the affairs of a nation according to Islam'. This view is supported by the saying of Prophet Muhammad (SAAW)," The one who does not care about the affairs of the Muslims is not a Muslim" (Muslim).
It is worth noting at this point that the concept of politics in the west is considerably different, as summarized by Machivelli, who is considered to be a founder of modern political theory in the west. He said of politics that "it is the art practiced by the powerful to exploit the weak". He further argues that a good politician should not be concerned with morality, but should aim to achieve his goals in a calculated and subtle manner.
A Brief Comparison
While capitalism permits and encourages interest group politics under the garb of a just and fair democratic process, Islam strictly subjects a politician to the laws of Allah (swt).
There is a striking contrast between the above two definitions regarding politics. In Islam politics is subjected to the laws of Allah (SWT) and political aims are formulated on the basis of the Sharia. Politics in Islam is not directed by self interest as suggested by Machivelli. The authority exercised by rulers is not derived through a powerful elite to secure their interests as practiced in the west. In Islam political activity is accompanied by responsibility as well as accountability. Hence politics in Islam is not an art of deception aimed to assure the survival of the fittest. Contrary to this is the politics practiced in the west and the rest of the world, where accusations and convenient propaganda are the tools employed to win political battles. Such politics breeds on corrupt men who exercise their power for selfish gains. However the contemporary politics, both on national and international levels, should not come as a surprise to us, simply because the goals and the means to achieve them stem out of capitalism and are preserved by its "democratic" institutions. Capitalism has profoundly affected the politics of the West. It considers the 'good' of the society as a variable, that relies almost wholly on what benefits the corporation. In reality, politics in the West literally adheres to the description Machivelli alluded to.
Politics...A Dilemma
Although politics involves tact, foresight and skillful planning it nevertheless flows within an ideological framework. While capitalism permits and encourages interest group politics under the garb of a just and fair democratic process, Islam strictly subjects a politician to the laws of Allah (SWT). It was the political practice of the west that forced some Muslim scholars to declare that politics was not part of Islam and was a source of corruption. After witnessing that, the precedent laid by the west became a source of inspiration as well as a standard practice among the Muslims, these scholars resorted to political isolation instead of confronting the situation boldly. Consequently one factor, among others, for the failure of Islamic movements in certain parts of the Muslim world, was the quick acceptance by many Muslims of a secular leadership. With this attitude towards politics, it became harder for many Muslims to understand Islam in its socio-political context. Politics and political parties are still considered to be secular in nature by many Muslims. Not realizing the far reaching implications of political function, and more importantly its absolute necessity in changing the society, many Muslims have chosen to present Islam as a belief that
influences individual practice only. Unfortunately many among us fail to realize that it is the duty of this Ummah to be continually involved with politics and only by doing so will we change our condition. We will now briefly mention what major political functions Muslims are required to engage in.
Major Political Functions
Allah (SWT) says "And rule among them by that which Allah has revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires..." (Surah Maidah:48). This clearly commands Prophet Muhammad (SAAW) to rule among people by Islam, hence it is also an order for all Muslims to establish the rule of Allah (SWT). Ruling is a political function and cannot be ignored because the Ayah makes it an obligation. This perhaps is the most significant political function that the Ummah is entrusted with. Khilafah is the institution that is responsible to carry out the obligation of implementing Islam and carrying it to the rest of mankind.
Allah (SWT) orders by saying "Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good , enjoining what is right , and forbidding what is wrong: they are the ones to attain felicity". This requires us to form a party which invites to Islam and forbids what is wrong. Enjoining what is good requires that this group carry Islam in its totality and forbidding wrong includes checking on the implementation of Islam in all aspects. Hence inside the Islamic State Muslims, individuals as well as groups, are required to be active in politics as well. However under the present circumstances this party should engage in a political and intellectual struggle to establish the authority of Islam in the society. Establishment of Islam on a society is incumbent upon all Muslims due to the various commands of Allah (swt) that order us to rule by Islam. This objective should become our top-most priority, because only then can we accomplish the most significant political function mentioned in the preceding paragraph, i.e., ruling by Islam.
Political struggle does not imply participating in a Kufr system nor does it require compromising on the principles of Islam on the grounds of expediency. Political struggle requires that the rulers, who implement Kufr and safeguard the interests of the Kuffar, be confronted without reluctance. It also necessitates that the Da'awah of Islam be given to those who either hold some sort of power or influence in the society as well as the general Muslim population.
Ar-Raya Magazine
Definition
The word "siyasah" can be understood to mean politics. Siyasah is a derivative of the root "sasa" which literally means taking care of. The Arabic word "sa'is" is another derivative of the same root, and refers to one who takes care of the animals. Hence "siyasah" refers to taking care of the affairs of a nation. By this token the shara'i definition of siyasah is 'taking care of the affairs of a nation according to Islam'. This view is supported by the saying of Prophet Muhammad (SAAW)," The one who does not care about the affairs of the Muslims is not a Muslim" (Muslim).
It is worth noting at this point that the concept of politics in the west is considerably different, as summarized by Machivelli, who is considered to be a founder of modern political theory in the west. He said of politics that "it is the art practiced by the powerful to exploit the weak". He further argues that a good politician should not be concerned with morality, but should aim to achieve his goals in a calculated and subtle manner.
A Brief Comparison
While capitalism permits and encourages interest group politics under the garb of a just and fair democratic process, Islam strictly subjects a politician to the laws of Allah (swt).
There is a striking contrast between the above two definitions regarding politics. In Islam politics is subjected to the laws of Allah (SWT) and political aims are formulated on the basis of the Sharia. Politics in Islam is not directed by self interest as suggested by Machivelli. The authority exercised by rulers is not derived through a powerful elite to secure their interests as practiced in the west. In Islam political activity is accompanied by responsibility as well as accountability. Hence politics in Islam is not an art of deception aimed to assure the survival of the fittest. Contrary to this is the politics practiced in the west and the rest of the world, where accusations and convenient propaganda are the tools employed to win political battles. Such politics breeds on corrupt men who exercise their power for selfish gains. However the contemporary politics, both on national and international levels, should not come as a surprise to us, simply because the goals and the means to achieve them stem out of capitalism and are preserved by its "democratic" institutions. Capitalism has profoundly affected the politics of the West. It considers the 'good' of the society as a variable, that relies almost wholly on what benefits the corporation. In reality, politics in the West literally adheres to the description Machivelli alluded to.
Politics...A Dilemma
Although politics involves tact, foresight and skillful planning it nevertheless flows within an ideological framework. While capitalism permits and encourages interest group politics under the garb of a just and fair democratic process, Islam strictly subjects a politician to the laws of Allah (SWT). It was the political practice of the west that forced some Muslim scholars to declare that politics was not part of Islam and was a source of corruption. After witnessing that, the precedent laid by the west became a source of inspiration as well as a standard practice among the Muslims, these scholars resorted to political isolation instead of confronting the situation boldly. Consequently one factor, among others, for the failure of Islamic movements in certain parts of the Muslim world, was the quick acceptance by many Muslims of a secular leadership. With this attitude towards politics, it became harder for many Muslims to understand Islam in its socio-political context. Politics and political parties are still considered to be secular in nature by many Muslims. Not realizing the far reaching implications of political function, and more importantly its absolute necessity in changing the society, many Muslims have chosen to present Islam as a belief that
influences individual practice only. Unfortunately many among us fail to realize that it is the duty of this Ummah to be continually involved with politics and only by doing so will we change our condition. We will now briefly mention what major political functions Muslims are required to engage in.
Major Political Functions
Allah (SWT) says "And rule among them by that which Allah has revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires..." (Surah Maidah:48). This clearly commands Prophet Muhammad (SAAW) to rule among people by Islam, hence it is also an order for all Muslims to establish the rule of Allah (SWT). Ruling is a political function and cannot be ignored because the Ayah makes it an obligation. This perhaps is the most significant political function that the Ummah is entrusted with. Khilafah is the institution that is responsible to carry out the obligation of implementing Islam and carrying it to the rest of mankind.
Allah (SWT) orders by saying "Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good , enjoining what is right , and forbidding what is wrong: they are the ones to attain felicity". This requires us to form a party which invites to Islam and forbids what is wrong. Enjoining what is good requires that this group carry Islam in its totality and forbidding wrong includes checking on the implementation of Islam in all aspects. Hence inside the Islamic State Muslims, individuals as well as groups, are required to be active in politics as well. However under the present circumstances this party should engage in a political and intellectual struggle to establish the authority of Islam in the society. Establishment of Islam on a society is incumbent upon all Muslims due to the various commands of Allah (swt) that order us to rule by Islam. This objective should become our top-most priority, because only then can we accomplish the most significant political function mentioned in the preceding paragraph, i.e., ruling by Islam.
Political struggle does not imply participating in a Kufr system nor does it require compromising on the principles of Islam on the grounds of expediency. Political struggle requires that the rulers, who implement Kufr and safeguard the interests of the Kuffar, be confronted without reluctance. It also necessitates that the Da'awah of Islam be given to those who either hold some sort of power or influence in the society as well as the general Muslim population.
Ar-Raya Magazine
Hikmah: A Departure from Sharia
"You have to use Hikmah, brother" one often hears. "Yes we agree with you 100%, but Hikmah must be used", and "You are too aggressive, use some Hikmah" are on the tongue of many Muslims. Such concept exists among active and non-active Muslims alike. Its validity or invalidity must be discussed so that Muslims know where they stand.
First, the concept of Hikmah must be put in context. It has been used frequently in issues such as, asking for help from the UN or the US for Bosnia or Kashmir, entering into the political process of the US, gradual implementation of Islam in the Muslim world... etc. Each of the above mentioned examples has a proof (actually several ones) from the Quran and the Sunnah to make it prohibited. In each of the above mentioned situation, the proof is mentioned to prohibit such act, however met with a famous statement "Brother, we agree with you 100%, but Hikmah must be used! Can't you see Muslims in Bosnia how they are treated, we must save them by any means! Can't you see that nothing gets done unless the US and the UN wishes it?..."
In reality, this concept of Hikmah is alien to Islam, for there is no text from the Quran or the Sunnah, where the word Hikmah is mentioned, carries the same meaning associated with it today. Upon researching the word Hikmah, one will find that it is derived from the Arabic word 'Hukm' which means 'rule'. The word Hikmah appears in the Holy Quran twenty times. It appears with various meanings, depending on the context, such as prophet hood, the Quran, the Sunnah, knowledge of the reality of things, deep knowledge followed by actions based on this knowledge...etc. Some of the Ayahs are as follows:
-in translation-
"Our Lord! send amongst them a Messenger of their own, Who shall rehearse Thy Signs To them and instruct them In Scripture and WISDOM, and purify them:" (al-Baqara:129)
"And Allah will teach him The Book and WISDOM..." (al-e-Imran:48)
"Allah did confer A great favor on the Believers When He sent among them A Messenger from among Themselves, rehearsing Unto them the Signs Of Allah, purifying them, And instructing them In Scripture and WISDOM..." (al-e-Imran:164)
"Invite (all) to the Way Of thy Lord with WISDOM..." (an-Nahl:125)
"And recite what is Rehearsed to you in your Homes, of the Signs of Allah And His WISDOM..." (al-Ahzab:34)
"There have already come To them such tidings As contain a deterrent, A WISDOM far-reaching: -but (the preaching of) Warners Profits them not." (al-Qamr:4,5)
Thus there is no Islamic or linguistic meaning to Hikmah that is similar to that associated with it nowadays.
As a matter of fact one finds that the word, in this specific context, is synonymous with the word 'Benefit" that is in Capitalism. this is so because its usage is the same usage of 'benefit' among the capitalists. Both parties make it as the yardstick of their actions, with the difference that Muslim say we follow Islam while Capitalists admit they follow that which is beneficial to them.
It is extremely strange that an active Muslim, working for Islam that is, would abandon a clear hadith or an Ayah for that which he thinks to be good. Such idea is invalid as well as dangerous for the following reasons.
a) The Muslim is to abide by the divine rule in every action. The divine rule is found only in the Quran, Sunnah, Consensus of the Companions, and Analogy (Qiyas). Hikmah, that which the person sees good, is not one of them. Allah (swt) says,
-in translation-
"It is not allowed for a believing man or a believing man or a believing woman, if Allah and His Messenger give an order to have a choice in their matter."
b) All actions of all human beings are addressed by the divine rule. The divine rule is divided into five categories. Every action must fall in one of these categories. The five categories are:
1) The obligation (fard), which is defined as the action that the person is rewarded for doing and punished for not performing, such as, Salah, Zakah, Jihad, establishing the Khilafah.
2) The forbidden (Haram). It is the action that a person is punished for doing and rewarded for not doing i.e., Zina, back biting, ruling by kufr, doing injustice to an orphan...etc.
3) The liked or preferable (Mandub or Mustahab) is the action where the person is rewarded for doing but not punishable for leaving. Example of such rule are charity, praying Nafil, growing the beard, doing Zikr, etc.
4) The disliked (Makrooh) is that which the person is rewarded for abandoning however not punishable for committing, such as, sleeping on the stomach,...etc.
5) Allowed (Mubah) is the action which the person is not rewarded or punishable for doing or abandoning. Talking, sleeping, walking, eating, are some examples. The question that arises, therefore, is in which category does the Hikmah fall? If it falls in the Fard or Haram, or Macro or Mandub, it is nonsense for a Muslim who wants the pleasure of Allah to abandon the divine rule and follow his/her desire.
If, however, it falls in the Mubah category, there is no argument that Allah (swt) has given humans the choice to do or abstain. It is very unfortunate that the Hikm that is addressed here is used in the Haram and Fard area and not in the Mubah. That is the real problem.
Same people cite the example of the Messenger as a proof for using the Hikmah. the example of the treaty of Hudybiyah is the main issue used to prove their point. In that treaty, the Messenger (saaws) accepted to remove "The Messenger of Allah" and "The Most Merciful the Most Compassionate" from the document. Those Muslims see in such actions some sort of Hikmah or compromise.
Such conclusion is definitely wrong on several accounts, two of which are:
a) Both demands made by the Kuffar to the Messenger (saaws) did not go against any divine rule. Removing the wording "Messenger of Allah" from the document was not Haram, for that was a pure political document that had nothing to do with anyone's belief. the Messenger (saaws) was not asked to deny his Prophet hood but merely not to write it in the document. Also removing the word of "The Most Merciful, the Compassionate" from the paper is not against Islam. This is due to the fact that we are ordered to mention the name of Allah (swt) on any matter of importance, not to write it. The Messenger (saaws) said, "Anything of importance that doesn't start by mentioning the name of Allah is incomplete." There was no abandonment of the divine rule at all in the above case.
b) This document was signed based on an order of the Wahi. It was due to this reason that the Messenger (saaws) said to his companions where they refused to shave their heads as a sign of anger, "I am the slave of Allah and His Messenger. And I will not disobey His order." Therefore, signing that treaty was a divine rule from Allah that the Messenger adhered to.
We Muslims must learn, not as a matter of theory, but as a matter of practice that the good is only that which Allah (swt) and His Messenger have said. We must learn that the criterion for our actions is the Halal and Haram not Hikmah or benefit. We Muslims must learn that the Hikmah is in following the Islamic text as is without twisting or changing. We Muslims must remember that putting our minds as the yardstick of actions instead of the divine law is going back to Jahiliyah and taking the secular standard of judgment taken by the West.
Ar-Raya Magazine
First, the concept of Hikmah must be put in context. It has been used frequently in issues such as, asking for help from the UN or the US for Bosnia or Kashmir, entering into the political process of the US, gradual implementation of Islam in the Muslim world... etc. Each of the above mentioned examples has a proof (actually several ones) from the Quran and the Sunnah to make it prohibited. In each of the above mentioned situation, the proof is mentioned to prohibit such act, however met with a famous statement "Brother, we agree with you 100%, but Hikmah must be used! Can't you see Muslims in Bosnia how they are treated, we must save them by any means! Can't you see that nothing gets done unless the US and the UN wishes it?..."
In reality, this concept of Hikmah is alien to Islam, for there is no text from the Quran or the Sunnah, where the word Hikmah is mentioned, carries the same meaning associated with it today. Upon researching the word Hikmah, one will find that it is derived from the Arabic word 'Hukm' which means 'rule'. The word Hikmah appears in the Holy Quran twenty times. It appears with various meanings, depending on the context, such as prophet hood, the Quran, the Sunnah, knowledge of the reality of things, deep knowledge followed by actions based on this knowledge...etc. Some of the Ayahs are as follows:
-in translation-
"Our Lord! send amongst them a Messenger of their own, Who shall rehearse Thy Signs To them and instruct them In Scripture and WISDOM, and purify them:" (al-Baqara:129)
"And Allah will teach him The Book and WISDOM..." (al-e-Imran:48)
"Allah did confer A great favor on the Believers When He sent among them A Messenger from among Themselves, rehearsing Unto them the Signs Of Allah, purifying them, And instructing them In Scripture and WISDOM..." (al-e-Imran:164)
"Invite (all) to the Way Of thy Lord with WISDOM..." (an-Nahl:125)
"And recite what is Rehearsed to you in your Homes, of the Signs of Allah And His WISDOM..." (al-Ahzab:34)
"There have already come To them such tidings As contain a deterrent, A WISDOM far-reaching: -but (the preaching of) Warners Profits them not." (al-Qamr:4,5)
Thus there is no Islamic or linguistic meaning to Hikmah that is similar to that associated with it nowadays.
As a matter of fact one finds that the word, in this specific context, is synonymous with the word 'Benefit" that is in Capitalism. this is so because its usage is the same usage of 'benefit' among the capitalists. Both parties make it as the yardstick of their actions, with the difference that Muslim say we follow Islam while Capitalists admit they follow that which is beneficial to them.
It is extremely strange that an active Muslim, working for Islam that is, would abandon a clear hadith or an Ayah for that which he thinks to be good. Such idea is invalid as well as dangerous for the following reasons.
a) The Muslim is to abide by the divine rule in every action. The divine rule is found only in the Quran, Sunnah, Consensus of the Companions, and Analogy (Qiyas). Hikmah, that which the person sees good, is not one of them. Allah (swt) says,
-in translation-
"It is not allowed for a believing man or a believing man or a believing woman, if Allah and His Messenger give an order to have a choice in their matter."
b) All actions of all human beings are addressed by the divine rule. The divine rule is divided into five categories. Every action must fall in one of these categories. The five categories are:
1) The obligation (fard), which is defined as the action that the person is rewarded for doing and punished for not performing, such as, Salah, Zakah, Jihad, establishing the Khilafah.
2) The forbidden (Haram). It is the action that a person is punished for doing and rewarded for not doing i.e., Zina, back biting, ruling by kufr, doing injustice to an orphan...etc.
3) The liked or preferable (Mandub or Mustahab) is the action where the person is rewarded for doing but not punishable for leaving. Example of such rule are charity, praying Nafil, growing the beard, doing Zikr, etc.
4) The disliked (Makrooh) is that which the person is rewarded for abandoning however not punishable for committing, such as, sleeping on the stomach,...etc.
5) Allowed (Mubah) is the action which the person is not rewarded or punishable for doing or abandoning. Talking, sleeping, walking, eating, are some examples. The question that arises, therefore, is in which category does the Hikmah fall? If it falls in the Fard or Haram, or Macro or Mandub, it is nonsense for a Muslim who wants the pleasure of Allah to abandon the divine rule and follow his/her desire.
If, however, it falls in the Mubah category, there is no argument that Allah (swt) has given humans the choice to do or abstain. It is very unfortunate that the Hikm that is addressed here is used in the Haram and Fard area and not in the Mubah. That is the real problem.
Same people cite the example of the Messenger as a proof for using the Hikmah. the example of the treaty of Hudybiyah is the main issue used to prove their point. In that treaty, the Messenger (saaws) accepted to remove "The Messenger of Allah" and "The Most Merciful the Most Compassionate" from the document. Those Muslims see in such actions some sort of Hikmah or compromise.
Such conclusion is definitely wrong on several accounts, two of which are:
a) Both demands made by the Kuffar to the Messenger (saaws) did not go against any divine rule. Removing the wording "Messenger of Allah" from the document was not Haram, for that was a pure political document that had nothing to do with anyone's belief. the Messenger (saaws) was not asked to deny his Prophet hood but merely not to write it in the document. Also removing the word of "The Most Merciful, the Compassionate" from the paper is not against Islam. This is due to the fact that we are ordered to mention the name of Allah (swt) on any matter of importance, not to write it. The Messenger (saaws) said, "Anything of importance that doesn't start by mentioning the name of Allah is incomplete." There was no abandonment of the divine rule at all in the above case.
b) This document was signed based on an order of the Wahi. It was due to this reason that the Messenger (saaws) said to his companions where they refused to shave their heads as a sign of anger, "I am the slave of Allah and His Messenger. And I will not disobey His order." Therefore, signing that treaty was a divine rule from Allah that the Messenger adhered to.
We Muslims must learn, not as a matter of theory, but as a matter of practice that the good is only that which Allah (swt) and His Messenger have said. We must learn that the criterion for our actions is the Halal and Haram not Hikmah or benefit. We Muslims must learn that the Hikmah is in following the Islamic text as is without twisting or changing. We Muslims must remember that putting our minds as the yardstick of actions instead of the divine law is going back to Jahiliyah and taking the secular standard of judgment taken by the West.
Ar-Raya Magazine
The Conflict Between the Democratic System and the Ruling System In Islam
The democratic system conflicts with the Islamic system in the fundamentals as well as the branches. It is not proper to equate both systems if there exist some similarities between them. Since democracy is Kufr and Islam if belief the term 'democracy' or any of its meaning was not used by the Islamic State that continued in its implementation of Islam for thirteen centuries. In the absence of the system of Islam, people started seeing a democratic system as opposed to dictatorship and military system. Naturally, people chose the democratic system over the oppressing ones; while all of them are systems of Kufr. When we say no to democracy, we do not mean yes to oppressive, dictatorial systems. Rather, we mean the Islamic system which is mercy mankind, revealed from the most Merciful the most Compassionate. However, if certain processes in the Islamic system, such as the election of the Khalifah thereby giving him the bay'a, are similar to the election of a public official in a Democratic system, we should not conclude that democracy is part of Islam. Following is a summary of both systems:
| Democratic System | Islamic System |
| 1. Its bases are made by humans. 2. The ruling systems is in the form of republics (Pakistan, Egypt), or kingship (Jordan, Saudi Arabia). And it allows any structure of government acceptable to people. 3. Democracy is established on two premises; I. Supremacy is for the people. II. The people are the source of authorities. The ruling structure is composed of three authorities which legislate laws and implements them; I. The Executive Branch II. The Legislative branch III. The Judicial Branch other institutions support these authorities, such as, the army, internal security, etc. 4. Since supremacy is for the people, they have the power to legislate. 5. The judiciary system is a civil one. 6. In the democratic system, the foreign policy is based on honoring the international borders and waters because they are a manifestation of respect to people's freedom in choosing their systems, laws, and rulers. 7. The democratic system stands for disunity and for the existence of several state. This is called respecting the independence of these states. 8. Not only that the democratic systems recognizes nationalities and races, but they also encourage them to exist and protect them. 9. The ruler is elected for a specific period of time, (four to six years). 10. In democracy it is permissible to revolt, demonstrate against the ruler. 11. It is allowed to form opposition parties that are not based on Islam, such as, secular, & nationalist parties. 12. Under democracy, political frame is divided into a ruling party and an opposition. 13. Democracy allows all members of society to compete for the ruling position. This is regardless of his credentials, or personal qualities, or religious commitment. 14. Democracy is not consultation. Democracy is a method of ruling that contains major guidelines and details. It does not emanate from Sharia. Thus, it is not a divine law as Shura. 15. Democracy emphasizes "compromise" solution. 16. Democracy is established on the belief of capitalism i.e., separation of religion and state. 17. The democratic way of life emanates from a civilization established on benefit and neglects other values. 18. In democracy, majority rules. 19. Democracies sanctifies liberties. Individual's freedom determines what a society should be. | 1. Its basis is taken from revelation from Allah (swt). 2. The ruling system is that of Khilafah. This system has no succession by inheritance. And it does not allow switching form Al-Khilafah to republicanism or kingship. 3. In Islam, the supremacy is for the Sharia and not for the people. The Ummah appoints somebody to implement and rule by the Sharia. As for the structure of the ruling system, it is as follows: I. The Khalifah II. The Associates (Mu'awen-ul-Tafweed) III. The Associate who carries out orders IV. The Ameer of Jihad V. Governors VI. Judges VII. The Administrative System VIII. Majlis-Shura IX. The Army 4. The revelation is the source of laws; and the people elect the person to implement the Sharia. 5. The judiciary system in Islam is a Sharia one (only). 6. Under the Islamic ruling system, the foreign policy is tied with Jihad, conquest and spread of Islam. It destroys borders and physical barriers to save humanity from worshipping each other to worshipping the Lord of humanity. 7. The system of Khilafah does not recognize the physical borders or the independence of one Muslim country from another. 8. The Islamic ruling system does away with all nationalities, tribalistic bonds and races and melts them into Islam. 9. The Khalifah is chosen for life as long as he is able, wise (Aqil) and not known for misconduct. 10. The only case where it is allowed to disobey the ruler is when he orders to disobey Allah (swt). 11. It is not allowed to form parties which are not based on Islam as a doctrine and a way of life. 12. Society is not divided in such a manner. However, the people or the Ummah council question the ruler. if he deserves to be removed, the court of injustices (Mahakmatul mathalim) takes that decision. 13. Islam demands the candidate to be male, Muslim, adult, free, and not known of misconduct and disobedience to Allah. 14. Consultation (Shura) is not a method of governing that contains major guidelines and details. Also it is not one of the ruling pillars. Rather, it is merely taking an opinion which is binding in some cases and not binding in others. However, Shura is a divine rule. 15. Islam, on the other hand, obligates its followers to take that which the Messenger (saaws) brought i.e., Quran and Sunnah 16. The Islamic civilization is established on the spiritual base i.e., believing in Allah (swt) and Halal and Haram are the criterion for all actions in life. 17. Happiness in Islam is achieving the pleasure of Allah the Supreme. 18. In Islam, Sharia rules. 19. Islam has its own rules regarding the rights of the individual and of the Jama'a. This is in contrast to the Western notion of freedom and liberties. |
Saudi Constitution In the Light of Quran and Sunnah
Modern day kingdom of Saudi Arabia came into existence as a result of a conspiracy and a revolt against The Islamic Khilafah State. Al-Saud family played the most important role in this revolt with the help of the British in the 1916 and as a result secured the position of future rulers of Hijaz. They had so much trust and confidence in their British masters and were so sure and confident of their possession that they called it Saudi Arabia - after their family name. More Ironically, they have always been insisting on calling it an Islamic State. To prove this claim they used variety of deceptive techniques which range from hiring the so-called Islamic scholars to introducing the so-called Islamic Constitution recently. In the following paragraphs, the contradictions and contrast between some of the articles of the recent Saudi constitution and the Islamic system are revealed.
Some Features of the Saudi Constitution:
The Ruling System (section 2):
Article 5:
a. The ruling system in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of Kingship.
c. The King chooses his successor and dismisses him in a Royal decree.
Article 7:
The rule in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia derives its authority from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saaws).
The System of Consultative Assembly:
Article 3:
The Consultative Assembly is composed of a president and sixty members chosen by the king to be people of knowledge, experience, and specialty. The right of the members and their duties and all of their affairs are to be specified by a Royal decree.
Article 5 of the Saudi constitution proclaims monarchy or kingship as the state's ruling system. Monarchical ruling system is defined as ruling system in which a single person holds absolute sovereignty or undivided rule over a state. Islamic ruling system is not one of kingship. The Ruling System in the Islamic State is the Khilafah Ruling system in which the sovereignty belongs to the shari'a. Khalifah is bound by the sharia and can be removed in case he deviates from it.
According part c of article 5, the king has the authority to choose or remove his successor in a royal decree. In Islamic State, the Khalifah does not possess the authority to appoint his successor. A Khalifah can only be selected through the process of bay'a. This bay'a is invalid in case there is already a Khalifah ruling as proven by the hadith, "If two Khalifahs are given the bay'a, kill the second one.”
While keeping in mind that this section was made to keep the successor in line with the American policy, it must be made clear that it is also Haram.
As for Article 3, the consultative assembly can not be appointed in Islam. It must be chosen (elected) by the people. This is because the consultative assembly is the representative (wakil) of Muslims. Since their position is that of wukulah, they must be chosen and not appointed. In addition, in the second allegiance at Aqaba, the Messenger (saaws) said to the Ansars: “Bring out for me twelve representatives” which means the people choose their representative. Moreover, they need not be people of knowledge, because the above mentioned Hadith does not contain any conditions. Inreality the proposed consultative assembly in Saudia is not designed to represent the people. It is designed to represent the King.
Ar-Raya Magazine
Some Features of the Saudi Constitution:
The Ruling System (section 2):
Article 5:
a. The ruling system in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of Kingship.
c. The King chooses his successor and dismisses him in a Royal decree.
Article 7:
The rule in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia derives its authority from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saaws).
The System of Consultative Assembly:
Article 3:
The Consultative Assembly is composed of a president and sixty members chosen by the king to be people of knowledge, experience, and specialty. The right of the members and their duties and all of their affairs are to be specified by a Royal decree.
Article 5 of the Saudi constitution proclaims monarchy or kingship as the state's ruling system. Monarchical ruling system is defined as ruling system in which a single person holds absolute sovereignty or undivided rule over a state. Islamic ruling system is not one of kingship. The Ruling System in the Islamic State is the Khilafah Ruling system in which the sovereignty belongs to the shari'a. Khalifah is bound by the sharia and can be removed in case he deviates from it.
According part c of article 5, the king has the authority to choose or remove his successor in a royal decree. In Islamic State, the Khalifah does not possess the authority to appoint his successor. A Khalifah can only be selected through the process of bay'a. This bay'a is invalid in case there is already a Khalifah ruling as proven by the hadith, "If two Khalifahs are given the bay'a, kill the second one.”
While keeping in mind that this section was made to keep the successor in line with the American policy, it must be made clear that it is also Haram.
As for Article 3, the consultative assembly can not be appointed in Islam. It must be chosen (elected) by the people. This is because the consultative assembly is the representative (wakil) of Muslims. Since their position is that of wukulah, they must be chosen and not appointed. In addition, in the second allegiance at Aqaba, the Messenger (saaws) said to the Ansars: “Bring out for me twelve representatives” which means the people choose their representative. Moreover, they need not be people of knowledge, because the above mentioned Hadith does not contain any conditions. Inreality the proposed consultative assembly in Saudia is not designed to represent the people. It is designed to represent the King.
Ar-Raya Magazine
The Belief In The Existence Of Allah
The belief in the existence of Allah (SWT) is a fundamental part of the Islamic Aqeedah. Therefore it is important for all muslims to understand and substantiate their belief in the existence of the Creator. The Islamic Aqeedah requires us to submit to the will of Allah (SWT) completely and find no hardship in pleasing Him. However it is very hard to submit if the belief in Allah (SWT) in not firm in our hearts. Therefore an argument dealing with the existence of Allah (SWT) is important in two ways. Firstly, it concerns with the basis of our Aqeedah and secondly we hope it will enable us to become better muslims by recognizing the deficiencies in us, and the perfection of Allah (SWT) who is the Creator of all that exist,
Allah (SWT) says, "Verily, in the creation of heavens and earth, and in the difference between night and day are signs for those who have minds." (Al-Imran:190)
We are told in the Quran to contemplate about the universe and all that it contains in order to reach the conclusion that Allah (SWT) is indeed the Creator of all that exists. Hence we begin by observing all that is around us. We can identify three distinct forms of existence.
(i) Animals (including man)
(ii) Life (something that makes living different from non-living.)
(iii) Universe (including celestial bodies, elements that constitute the heavenly bodies and interstellar matter)
EXISTANCE OF THE CREATOR
Let us proceed to examine each of these cases separately. Our investigation should enable us to establish one of the only two possible conclusions regarding man, life and the universe. That,either man, life and the universe (all that we observe) are limited, and therefore a creation, or it is infinite and needs no creator. The term "limited" needs further explanation. First of all it is a description of essence. In other words it is an attribute or characteristic of an object. In the following essay the word "limited" is used in an all encompassing and a very general meaning. "Limited", therefore includes depending (suggesting a "need"), a measure of size, a slot in time etc...
Man (and other animals) is clearly dependent in everything he does. For example, he depends on food and water to survive, on other men/women to live in a society. Various relationships exist in a society, and each serves to fulfil a certain "need" that man has. Man is limited in size, knowledge and power. Hence it is sufficiently established that man's sustenance is beyond his control. Therefore man is limited in all aspects of his existence.
As for life, it is manifested in the living things. We cannot observe it, but we sense the effects of its presence. Hence, we know it exists, and is separate from us or the rest of matter. But life is also limited. Both in physical dimension and in time. It is manifested only in finite bodies, therefore it cannot be considered infinite. It starts with birth and ends with death. Therefore it occupies a definite time slot.
Lastly, the universe (planets, stars, interstellar matter) is indeed a large expanse that we live in. But its immense dimensions should not mislead us to conclude it is infinite. Our observation regarding the universe suggests, quite the opposite view. We know that the planets, stars and intergalactic matter make up the universe. Moreover, these are finite objects by themselves. And since a collection of "finite" objects will always result in a larger but still finite body, likewise the universe being a larger set of finite objects, by necessity remains finite. Furthermore, simply because we fail to perceive the end of the universe does not imply it has no end! Also worth noting is the process of addition does not transform the attributes of the operands. Hence limited objects will not transform into infinite objects simply by becoming greater in number. (See preceding paragraph for the meaning of the word "limited".) An example to clarify this point is that adding more sheep to a herd will not make them horses. The result is simply a larger (but finite) herd. Therefore everything that we observe is limited. The obvious question that we should ask ourselves is who limited us and all that is in the universe? It can only be some one who is infinite in every aspect of His existence. He should be above any prescribed limits (either of time, size, power, knowledge etc...) Therefore He cannot be a creation of anybody else. Also the possibility that He is self created is to be ruled out because it implies a contradiction. He should not depend on anything for His sustenance. For if He does, he becomes limited and therefore He is not the "infinite" that we are talking about. Hence only infinite and eternal can be the requirements of independence. Now since we already exist, then His existence becomes an inevitable necessity. Therefore what we just described were the conditions of the creator, who created all that exists in the universe. It is Allah (SWT), the Supreme, the Lord of the universe. Acknowledging the existence of Allah (SWT) is undoubtedly the only correct answer to our inquiries into the origin of the universe, man and life. Moreover when we truly accept this answer, we will find it not only intellectually convincing but alsoin harmony with the human nature. The instinct of worshipping in man can now be rightly satisfied. While the ignorant ones may satisfy their instinct of worshipping by whatever that meets their immediate need, the one that Allah (SWT) guides submits only to Him. And it is the submission to Allah (SWT) which raises man to his rightful place as Allah's best creation. All other form of submissions are intellectually invalid.
Ar-Raya Magazine
Allah (SWT) says, "Verily, in the creation of heavens and earth, and in the difference between night and day are signs for those who have minds." (Al-Imran:190)
We are told in the Quran to contemplate about the universe and all that it contains in order to reach the conclusion that Allah (SWT) is indeed the Creator of all that exists. Hence we begin by observing all that is around us. We can identify three distinct forms of existence.
(i) Animals (including man)
(ii) Life (something that makes living different from non-living.)
(iii) Universe (including celestial bodies, elements that constitute the heavenly bodies and interstellar matter)
EXISTANCE OF THE CREATOR
Let us proceed to examine each of these cases separately. Our investigation should enable us to establish one of the only two possible conclusions regarding man, life and the universe. That,either man, life and the universe (all that we observe) are limited, and therefore a creation, or it is infinite and needs no creator. The term "limited" needs further explanation. First of all it is a description of essence. In other words it is an attribute or characteristic of an object. In the following essay the word "limited" is used in an all encompassing and a very general meaning. "Limited", therefore includes depending (suggesting a "need"), a measure of size, a slot in time etc...
Man (and other animals) is clearly dependent in everything he does. For example, he depends on food and water to survive, on other men/women to live in a society. Various relationships exist in a society, and each serves to fulfil a certain "need" that man has. Man is limited in size, knowledge and power. Hence it is sufficiently established that man's sustenance is beyond his control. Therefore man is limited in all aspects of his existence.
As for life, it is manifested in the living things. We cannot observe it, but we sense the effects of its presence. Hence, we know it exists, and is separate from us or the rest of matter. But life is also limited. Both in physical dimension and in time. It is manifested only in finite bodies, therefore it cannot be considered infinite. It starts with birth and ends with death. Therefore it occupies a definite time slot.
Lastly, the universe (planets, stars, interstellar matter) is indeed a large expanse that we live in. But its immense dimensions should not mislead us to conclude it is infinite. Our observation regarding the universe suggests, quite the opposite view. We know that the planets, stars and intergalactic matter make up the universe. Moreover, these are finite objects by themselves. And since a collection of "finite" objects will always result in a larger but still finite body, likewise the universe being a larger set of finite objects, by necessity remains finite. Furthermore, simply because we fail to perceive the end of the universe does not imply it has no end! Also worth noting is the process of addition does not transform the attributes of the operands. Hence limited objects will not transform into infinite objects simply by becoming greater in number. (See preceding paragraph for the meaning of the word "limited".) An example to clarify this point is that adding more sheep to a herd will not make them horses. The result is simply a larger (but finite) herd. Therefore everything that we observe is limited. The obvious question that we should ask ourselves is who limited us and all that is in the universe? It can only be some one who is infinite in every aspect of His existence. He should be above any prescribed limits (either of time, size, power, knowledge etc...) Therefore He cannot be a creation of anybody else. Also the possibility that He is self created is to be ruled out because it implies a contradiction. He should not depend on anything for His sustenance. For if He does, he becomes limited and therefore He is not the "infinite" that we are talking about. Hence only infinite and eternal can be the requirements of independence. Now since we already exist, then His existence becomes an inevitable necessity. Therefore what we just described were the conditions of the creator, who created all that exists in the universe. It is Allah (SWT), the Supreme, the Lord of the universe. Acknowledging the existence of Allah (SWT) is undoubtedly the only correct answer to our inquiries into the origin of the universe, man and life. Moreover when we truly accept this answer, we will find it not only intellectually convincing but alsoin harmony with the human nature. The instinct of worshipping in man can now be rightly satisfied. While the ignorant ones may satisfy their instinct of worshipping by whatever that meets their immediate need, the one that Allah (SWT) guides submits only to Him. And it is the submission to Allah (SWT) which raises man to his rightful place as Allah's best creation. All other form of submissions are intellectually invalid.
Ar-Raya Magazine
Ramadan The Month Of Revelation And Our Responsibility
As this blessed month approaches, feelings of virtue within Muslims arise, and they look to Allah (SWT) that He may bestow upon us and the Islamic Ummah guidance and help to achieve good deeds, and honor us with His victory, and make all our actions committed for His sake alone. Muslims listen to lectures and sermons about fasting, prayer, making hajj, zakat, du'aa, istighfar, morals and about other Islamic - concepts. These are all part of Islam and they are all necessary, but there is another very important part of Islam, which you very rarely hear about, and even when you do hear about it, you listen to an incomplete or a misinterpreted speech. It is the part of Islam related to the function of the government or the ruling authority. This is not limited to one country alone. It is unfortunately the same in all the Muslim countries.
Allah (SWT) says,
" Whoever does not govern (rule) with what Allah has revealed, those are the disbelievers.'
It is therefore, clear that the matter is very serious, and of a very dangerous nature, because this issue could take a person from the ummah of Islam to the ummah of Kufr. So who are those rulers upon whom this verse applies, and under what case and what circumstance does the ruler become Kafir? There are other verses that come in the same context such as:
"Whoever does not govem (rule) with what Allah has revealed, those are the Zalim (the oppressors), "
"Whoever does not govem (rule) with what Allah has revealed, those are the fasiq (the evildoers) ".
The word govern (rules) here, includes every person who has the authority and the responsibility to decide the matter and to implement its appropriate divine rule, whether this person is the head of state, or any of his assistants, or helpers, or any one else who takes his authority from the head of the state. So every responsibility to decide any matter and execute it would come under the term govern (rule) which came in the above verses and others. So whoever settles the matter and implements it in any way that Allah did not permit then he governs (rules) with other than what Allah has revealed, whether he did it out of ignorance, negligence, or knowingly and intentionally, and whether he brings an excuse or he really seeks other that the law of Allah with confidence and assurance. So if the one who governs with other than what Allah has revealed, and does it intentionally and fully convinced with the truthfulness of what he is doing, then he is of the disbelievers.
The question is how can the muslim know whether the ruler governs by other than what Allah has revealed? The believer does not know for sure, but he has to accept what appears to him, and he does not need to dive into the heart of the matter. So if the evidence that the muslim has established is that the ruler does what he does with conviction, and he governs accordingly, and selects other than the Shari'ah of Allah, then he can evaluate that ruler as a disbeliever, and can even announce this openly to the people. The devotee then has to take all measures against the ruler, that the Shari'ah has ordered the muslim to take against the disbelieving ruler. However, the evidences in the question of Takfir (calling a muslim Kafir) are necessary to be decisive and with f ull assurance, because the Prophet (saw) said,
"Except only if you have seen a clear (or open) Kufr, upon which you have a proof from Allah. "
Thus for example, considering Riba (usury) as haram, is decisive, because it is decisively proved in the verse and decisively proved in the meaning. So if a ruler puts a law in which he legitimized Riba (usury), then in that case he seeks and governs with other than what Allah has revealed, and he makes Halal what Allah has made Haram. Therefore, if a ruler does make such a law, and he adopts this law, and he has appointed officials, such as police to protect and enforce that law, then he has acknowledged Kufr, and this matter does not require ljtihad, it is a matter of applying the text on this matter directly,
"Those who do not govern (rule) by what Allah has revealed, are the disbelievers, "
Other examples of pure kufr are making alcohol, gambling, adultery (zinah), apostasy from Islam, and neglect of the prayer Halal. By the use of the term making Halal we mean allowing such things to occur officially. Similarly, stopping the implementation of the hudood (penal code) and thus instead of implementing the amputation of the hand of the thief, or the stoning of the adulterer, or the execution of the apostate, or lashing the one who attacks the honor of people without proof, or punishing the one who drinks alcohol, the state adopts other penal codes.
However, there is a difference between the one who deals with usury believing it is haram, and the one who deals with usury and says that it is not haram. The first person is Assi (disobedient or sinful), while the latter is Kafir. The first one agrees with the divine rule but he disagrees with it in action i.e., he is disobedient, whilst the second person does not only disagree wfth the divine rule, but rejects it, and thus he puts himseft in the position of being a Kafir, since he knowingly and decisively separates himself from the Shari'ah. In the case of the ruler who gives up the divine rule, which is decisive, and puts in its place other laws, thinking-that they are better than the divine rule, then he would be a Kafir (disbeliever), and he is not a Muslim, even if he claims to be one.
Let us now examine the rulers in the Muslim countries. Do they give up some of the divine rules (Islamic rules) which are decisive, and put in their place other laws that are adopted from the West or East? The answer is YES. Do they recognize that they have given up the laws of the Shari'ah and adopted other laws, wilfully and with full conviction? The answer to this question is also YES. There are a few of them who may have some excuse that might save them from this crime of Kufr. But even then these rulers cannot save themselves from Fisq (wrongdoing) or Zuim (evil-doing).
Now let us come to the members of the parliament, which is also known as the legislative council. If these people adopt laws and legislation that disagree and contradict wish the Islamic texts, which are decisive in their proof (like Quran and Hadith Mutawatir) and decisive in their meaning, then in reality they are adopting clear kufr. Every member who declares his conviction and acceptance with that, defends the issue of taking the laws of kufr, is then a Kafir, and this cannot be refuted even if he claims otherwise.
In every muslim land we find that the ruler brings within his entourage some people whom he presents as the people of knowledge, and he leaves to them the issue of making Tafsir (interpretation) of the religion and issuing Fatwas in the way that agrees with his desires. These people comprise the court of the ruler, or part of his regime and they have become his mouthpiece. They are really of the most dangerous groups within the Ummah. And most of them are not actually Ulema, because the Ulema are the inheritors of the Prophets, and the Alem would be one of the people of Taqwa (piety). Allah (SWT) says,
"Really those who fear Allah from His servants are the Ulema. "
But actually most of these are hypocrites who misinterpret Islam, and change it to agree with the whims and desires of their rulers and their master. We find such people in every country. We find them in Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. So what is the divine rule regarding such people in the Shari'ah of Allah? If such an Alem is brought in front of the ruler, and he defends in a direct way a law that contradicts with a divine text, which is decisively proven and is decisive in as indication, and he encourages the adoption of such a law, then such an Alem is unfortunately jahil (ignorant), and is undoubtedly a Kafir even if he fasts, prays, makes hajj, gives zakat, and claims to be a muslim. This is because he is a munafiq (hypocrite), evil-doer, and a Kafir. How many of these hypocrftes do not recognize their corruption and do not recognize that they are safih (evilspeaker)! Let us read what Allah (SWT) says of such people in Surat Al Baqara: 13,
"Some of the people say that we have become believers, we believe in Allah, and the hereafter, but they are not believers. They try to deceive Allah and the believers, but really they deceive only themselves without feeling that. There is a disease in their hearts, and thus Allah has increased them more in disease, and they deserve a great torment because of their lies. If it is said to them do not make corruption in the land, they say, no we make lslah (reform). Verily they are the corrupters, but they do not feel it. And if it is said to them believe like the people have believed, they say should we believe like the Sufha'a, no they are the Sufha'a, but they do not know that "
So how many Kafir think of themselves as doing good things? Allah (SWT) said in Surah Kahf:102,
"Should I tell you about those who are the most lost in their actions, it is those who went astray in their lives, and they thought that they are doing good?"
And Allah (SWT) says in Surah AI-A'raf,
"They took Satan as their Friend insead of Allah, and they think they are themselves guided."
How many people have had bad things brought to their eyes disguised as good? The measure of actions should be the Shari'ah of Allah, not the whims and the desires of the people!
As we know, Allah (SWT) has sent Mohammed (saaws) with the message of Islam to all people. So whoever believed in the Prophet Mohammed (saaws), and that the Quran is from Allah, and that the Shari'ah of Islam is a revelation from Allah, and it is a guidance to the people, and his heart is assured of this, then he would not leave this faith or select other that this fafth. If, however, such a change does occur to a so-called sensible man, it is a clear sign that he became a disbeliever. So take notice of what Allah (SWT) says in the Chapter of AI-Nisa'a,
"Don't you look at those who claim that they believed in what was revealed unto you and what was revealed before you, they want to arbitrate to the Taghoot while they have been commanded to make disbelief in it but Satan wants to misguide them away? And if it is said to them come to what Allah has revealed, and to the Messenger, you find the hypocrites tum away from you surely."
In the Chapter of AI-Noor Allah (SWT) says,
"Verily we have revealed clear verses, and Allah guides whom He wishes to the straight path. And they say we believe in Allah and in the Messenger and we obey, then a party of them turns away after that and those are not the believers. If they have been called unto Allah and His Messenger to govem between them you will find sonme of them turn away. If the fight was on their side they will come to you submitting. Is there any disease in their hearts, or are they in doubt or do they fear that Allah and His Messenger will be unjust to them. No, but they are the Zalim (the wrong-doers). Whilst the believers, if they have been called to Allah and His Messenger to govern between them, they say 'we hear and we obey,' and those are the successful ones. Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger, and fears Allah and protects himself (of His anger), those are the real winners."
So the muslim ruler will never leave the Shari'ah of Allah and judge with other than what Allah has revealed, and if he does so with conviction and acceptance then he is not muslim. And here is the decisive word of Allah on this matter from the Chapter of AI-Nisa'a,
"By your Lord, they will not be true believers unless they make you judge of whatever disputes are among them, and they would not have any difficulty in their hearts about what you have decided (for them), and they submit completely."
So beware of certain actions that you may take lightly, but which are very grave to Allah (SWT). It could be a matter that takes a muslim away from Islam, when he is not aware of it, and later on it will not benefit him, however much he prays and fasts. And Allah (SWT) has informed us of the people of the Book before us who took their priests and their bishops as gods other than Allah (SWT). When the Prophet (saaws) said,
"They made to them the haram as halal and the halal as haram and then they obeyed them "
So look at your rulers, don't they make the haram halal for you, and make the halal haram for you, and don't you obey them? Undoubtedly, they have made Halal for you many things which Allah has make haram for you. And they have prohibited upon you many things which Allah has made Halal for you. But what about you? Are you accepting this in your heart? If you have done so, then you have taken them as gods other than Allah, and we surely seek the protection of Allah from involving ourselves in such an action.
The Prophet (saaws) said,
"Whoever of you see a Munkar (evil), he has to change it by his hand, if he can't then by his tongue, and if he can't then by his heart and this is the weakest Iman."
And in another narration instead of saying 'and this is the weakest Iman,' he said, 'and after that there is not even an atom's weight of lman.'
So these rulers are really the head of Munkar and their regimes are the source of Munkar. If the muslim could not change this Munkar by his hand and by his tongue, and if he did not hate it and deny it in his heart, then his heart is the heart of a Kafir, which does not have even an atom-weight of lman.
From all this, clearly most of the rulers of Muslims now are not only disobedient or Fasiq, but they are really and truly disbelievers, a disbelief which takes them away from the Deen of Islam. And clearly the media praises these rulers and the Kufr rules that they apply, are actually a media of hypocrites and even disbelievers, and their disbelief is real that takes them away from the Deen of Islam. Similarly, those who accept in their hearts these rulers, and the rules of Kufr that they implement upon us, are also Kafir, with a disbelief that takes them away from Islam. May Allah (SWT) forgive us and save us from failing into that great sin.
So it is not enough to deny the Munkar by your heart because it is the weakest Iman. However, most of the Muslims are capable of denying it with their tongues and hands. But the one who takes a stand against the ruler because of the ruler's Munkar, by his tongue or by his hand, he puts himself in a position of danger as he may be subjected to harm from the ruler or from his soldiers. So to what extent does Islam make it a duty upon a muslim to bear this harm and danger in the way of Allah, and in the way of changing this Batil (corruption) and supporting the truth? Allah (SWT) says,
"Obey Allah as much as you can"
and the Prophet (saaws) said,
"If I comrmnded you with something, make of it as much as you can."
The jurisprudents have decided the limits of that capability. They are those limits of repression and persecution in which death is most likely to occur, or where damage would render the people incapable to perform natural tasks in life, such as taking their eyes, or cutting their hands or their legs, or breaking their backs, or paralysing some of their limbs. Therefore, it is not Halal (allowed) for any muslim to leave any duty, or commit any haram unless he has been forced to that extent. But threatening with lashing, or with prison, or being deprived of a job and other such similar things, are not a license for the muslim to leave a duty or to commit haram, because these matters are not outside his capabilfty. This is the duty of Muslims. However, even though it is permitted to stop when those limits have been reached. It is still recommended for the muslim to go to the extent of death. Islam has encouraged the muslim to stand against a Munkar and the people of Munkar even if he sacraices his life, and not only his money and his time for the sake of Allah (SWT). The Prophet (saaws) said,
"The master of the martyrs is Hamza, and the person who stood up to an unjust ruler, and advised him but he killed him"
So Muslims stand up for your duty, may Allah (SWT) give you His mercy. Stand up for your society against the corruption. This can only be done by demolishing the systems and rules of Kufr, the rulers and the heads of Kufr and their helpers, and by taking the power from them and putting it in the hands of the people, who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and who govern by the rule of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saaws).
O Muslim, the reward of the obedience in this month is great. It is multiples greater than in any other time. And it is one of the best times to work to establish, Insha' Allah, the guided Islamic Khilafah by which Allah (SWT) will honor us with victory over the Jews and those who support the Jews and the Kafir. And by which Allah will lnsha' Allah, unite the Muslims. And by which He will purify our minds, our hearts, and our society from the disease of Kufr that has invaded us. And by which the rules of Allah will return to our lands. And by which the Islamic Ummah returns as a mighty Ummah as Allah (swt) deemed us to be.
"Allah promised those of you who believe and do good deeds that He will make them Khalifahs of the land as He made those before you Khalifahs, and He will establish to them their Deen which He accepted to them, and He will turn their fear into security, on condition that they worship Me and do not associate anything with Me."
Ar-Raya Magazine
Allah (SWT) says,
" Whoever does not govern (rule) with what Allah has revealed, those are the disbelievers.'
It is therefore, clear that the matter is very serious, and of a very dangerous nature, because this issue could take a person from the ummah of Islam to the ummah of Kufr. So who are those rulers upon whom this verse applies, and under what case and what circumstance does the ruler become Kafir? There are other verses that come in the same context such as:
"Whoever does not govem (rule) with what Allah has revealed, those are the Zalim (the oppressors), "
"Whoever does not govem (rule) with what Allah has revealed, those are the fasiq (the evildoers) ".
The word govern (rules) here, includes every person who has the authority and the responsibility to decide the matter and to implement its appropriate divine rule, whether this person is the head of state, or any of his assistants, or helpers, or any one else who takes his authority from the head of the state. So every responsibility to decide any matter and execute it would come under the term govern (rule) which came in the above verses and others. So whoever settles the matter and implements it in any way that Allah did not permit then he governs (rules) with other than what Allah has revealed, whether he did it out of ignorance, negligence, or knowingly and intentionally, and whether he brings an excuse or he really seeks other that the law of Allah with confidence and assurance. So if the one who governs with other than what Allah has revealed, and does it intentionally and fully convinced with the truthfulness of what he is doing, then he is of the disbelievers.
The question is how can the muslim know whether the ruler governs by other than what Allah has revealed? The believer does not know for sure, but he has to accept what appears to him, and he does not need to dive into the heart of the matter. So if the evidence that the muslim has established is that the ruler does what he does with conviction, and he governs accordingly, and selects other than the Shari'ah of Allah, then he can evaluate that ruler as a disbeliever, and can even announce this openly to the people. The devotee then has to take all measures against the ruler, that the Shari'ah has ordered the muslim to take against the disbelieving ruler. However, the evidences in the question of Takfir (calling a muslim Kafir) are necessary to be decisive and with f ull assurance, because the Prophet (saw) said,
"Except only if you have seen a clear (or open) Kufr, upon which you have a proof from Allah. "
Thus for example, considering Riba (usury) as haram, is decisive, because it is decisively proved in the verse and decisively proved in the meaning. So if a ruler puts a law in which he legitimized Riba (usury), then in that case he seeks and governs with other than what Allah has revealed, and he makes Halal what Allah has made Haram. Therefore, if a ruler does make such a law, and he adopts this law, and he has appointed officials, such as police to protect and enforce that law, then he has acknowledged Kufr, and this matter does not require ljtihad, it is a matter of applying the text on this matter directly,
"Those who do not govern (rule) by what Allah has revealed, are the disbelievers, "
Other examples of pure kufr are making alcohol, gambling, adultery (zinah), apostasy from Islam, and neglect of the prayer Halal. By the use of the term making Halal we mean allowing such things to occur officially. Similarly, stopping the implementation of the hudood (penal code) and thus instead of implementing the amputation of the hand of the thief, or the stoning of the adulterer, or the execution of the apostate, or lashing the one who attacks the honor of people without proof, or punishing the one who drinks alcohol, the state adopts other penal codes.
However, there is a difference between the one who deals with usury believing it is haram, and the one who deals with usury and says that it is not haram. The first person is Assi (disobedient or sinful), while the latter is Kafir. The first one agrees with the divine rule but he disagrees with it in action i.e., he is disobedient, whilst the second person does not only disagree wfth the divine rule, but rejects it, and thus he puts himseft in the position of being a Kafir, since he knowingly and decisively separates himself from the Shari'ah. In the case of the ruler who gives up the divine rule, which is decisive, and puts in its place other laws, thinking-that they are better than the divine rule, then he would be a Kafir (disbeliever), and he is not a Muslim, even if he claims to be one.
Let us now examine the rulers in the Muslim countries. Do they give up some of the divine rules (Islamic rules) which are decisive, and put in their place other laws that are adopted from the West or East? The answer is YES. Do they recognize that they have given up the laws of the Shari'ah and adopted other laws, wilfully and with full conviction? The answer to this question is also YES. There are a few of them who may have some excuse that might save them from this crime of Kufr. But even then these rulers cannot save themselves from Fisq (wrongdoing) or Zuim (evil-doing).
Now let us come to the members of the parliament, which is also known as the legislative council. If these people adopt laws and legislation that disagree and contradict wish the Islamic texts, which are decisive in their proof (like Quran and Hadith Mutawatir) and decisive in their meaning, then in reality they are adopting clear kufr. Every member who declares his conviction and acceptance with that, defends the issue of taking the laws of kufr, is then a Kafir, and this cannot be refuted even if he claims otherwise.
In every muslim land we find that the ruler brings within his entourage some people whom he presents as the people of knowledge, and he leaves to them the issue of making Tafsir (interpretation) of the religion and issuing Fatwas in the way that agrees with his desires. These people comprise the court of the ruler, or part of his regime and they have become his mouthpiece. They are really of the most dangerous groups within the Ummah. And most of them are not actually Ulema, because the Ulema are the inheritors of the Prophets, and the Alem would be one of the people of Taqwa (piety). Allah (SWT) says,
"Really those who fear Allah from His servants are the Ulema. "
But actually most of these are hypocrites who misinterpret Islam, and change it to agree with the whims and desires of their rulers and their master. We find such people in every country. We find them in Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. So what is the divine rule regarding such people in the Shari'ah of Allah? If such an Alem is brought in front of the ruler, and he defends in a direct way a law that contradicts with a divine text, which is decisively proven and is decisive in as indication, and he encourages the adoption of such a law, then such an Alem is unfortunately jahil (ignorant), and is undoubtedly a Kafir even if he fasts, prays, makes hajj, gives zakat, and claims to be a muslim. This is because he is a munafiq (hypocrite), evil-doer, and a Kafir. How many of these hypocrftes do not recognize their corruption and do not recognize that they are safih (evilspeaker)! Let us read what Allah (SWT) says of such people in Surat Al Baqara: 13,
"Some of the people say that we have become believers, we believe in Allah, and the hereafter, but they are not believers. They try to deceive Allah and the believers, but really they deceive only themselves without feeling that. There is a disease in their hearts, and thus Allah has increased them more in disease, and they deserve a great torment because of their lies. If it is said to them do not make corruption in the land, they say, no we make lslah (reform). Verily they are the corrupters, but they do not feel it. And if it is said to them believe like the people have believed, they say should we believe like the Sufha'a, no they are the Sufha'a, but they do not know that "
So how many Kafir think of themselves as doing good things? Allah (SWT) said in Surah Kahf:102,
"Should I tell you about those who are the most lost in their actions, it is those who went astray in their lives, and they thought that they are doing good?"
And Allah (SWT) says in Surah AI-A'raf,
"They took Satan as their Friend insead of Allah, and they think they are themselves guided."
How many people have had bad things brought to their eyes disguised as good? The measure of actions should be the Shari'ah of Allah, not the whims and the desires of the people!
As we know, Allah (SWT) has sent Mohammed (saaws) with the message of Islam to all people. So whoever believed in the Prophet Mohammed (saaws), and that the Quran is from Allah, and that the Shari'ah of Islam is a revelation from Allah, and it is a guidance to the people, and his heart is assured of this, then he would not leave this faith or select other that this fafth. If, however, such a change does occur to a so-called sensible man, it is a clear sign that he became a disbeliever. So take notice of what Allah (SWT) says in the Chapter of AI-Nisa'a,
"Don't you look at those who claim that they believed in what was revealed unto you and what was revealed before you, they want to arbitrate to the Taghoot while they have been commanded to make disbelief in it but Satan wants to misguide them away? And if it is said to them come to what Allah has revealed, and to the Messenger, you find the hypocrites tum away from you surely."
In the Chapter of AI-Noor Allah (SWT) says,
"Verily we have revealed clear verses, and Allah guides whom He wishes to the straight path. And they say we believe in Allah and in the Messenger and we obey, then a party of them turns away after that and those are not the believers. If they have been called unto Allah and His Messenger to govem between them you will find sonme of them turn away. If the fight was on their side they will come to you submitting. Is there any disease in their hearts, or are they in doubt or do they fear that Allah and His Messenger will be unjust to them. No, but they are the Zalim (the wrong-doers). Whilst the believers, if they have been called to Allah and His Messenger to govern between them, they say 'we hear and we obey,' and those are the successful ones. Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger, and fears Allah and protects himself (of His anger), those are the real winners."
So the muslim ruler will never leave the Shari'ah of Allah and judge with other than what Allah has revealed, and if he does so with conviction and acceptance then he is not muslim. And here is the decisive word of Allah on this matter from the Chapter of AI-Nisa'a,
"By your Lord, they will not be true believers unless they make you judge of whatever disputes are among them, and they would not have any difficulty in their hearts about what you have decided (for them), and they submit completely."
So beware of certain actions that you may take lightly, but which are very grave to Allah (SWT). It could be a matter that takes a muslim away from Islam, when he is not aware of it, and later on it will not benefit him, however much he prays and fasts. And Allah (SWT) has informed us of the people of the Book before us who took their priests and their bishops as gods other than Allah (SWT). When the Prophet (saaws) said,
"They made to them the haram as halal and the halal as haram and then they obeyed them "
So look at your rulers, don't they make the haram halal for you, and make the halal haram for you, and don't you obey them? Undoubtedly, they have made Halal for you many things which Allah has make haram for you. And they have prohibited upon you many things which Allah has made Halal for you. But what about you? Are you accepting this in your heart? If you have done so, then you have taken them as gods other than Allah, and we surely seek the protection of Allah from involving ourselves in such an action.
The Prophet (saaws) said,
"Whoever of you see a Munkar (evil), he has to change it by his hand, if he can't then by his tongue, and if he can't then by his heart and this is the weakest Iman."
And in another narration instead of saying 'and this is the weakest Iman,' he said, 'and after that there is not even an atom's weight of lman.'
So these rulers are really the head of Munkar and their regimes are the source of Munkar. If the muslim could not change this Munkar by his hand and by his tongue, and if he did not hate it and deny it in his heart, then his heart is the heart of a Kafir, which does not have even an atom-weight of lman.
From all this, clearly most of the rulers of Muslims now are not only disobedient or Fasiq, but they are really and truly disbelievers, a disbelief which takes them away from the Deen of Islam. And clearly the media praises these rulers and the Kufr rules that they apply, are actually a media of hypocrites and even disbelievers, and their disbelief is real that takes them away from the Deen of Islam. Similarly, those who accept in their hearts these rulers, and the rules of Kufr that they implement upon us, are also Kafir, with a disbelief that takes them away from Islam. May Allah (SWT) forgive us and save us from failing into that great sin.
So it is not enough to deny the Munkar by your heart because it is the weakest Iman. However, most of the Muslims are capable of denying it with their tongues and hands. But the one who takes a stand against the ruler because of the ruler's Munkar, by his tongue or by his hand, he puts himself in a position of danger as he may be subjected to harm from the ruler or from his soldiers. So to what extent does Islam make it a duty upon a muslim to bear this harm and danger in the way of Allah, and in the way of changing this Batil (corruption) and supporting the truth? Allah (SWT) says,
"Obey Allah as much as you can"
and the Prophet (saaws) said,
"If I comrmnded you with something, make of it as much as you can."
The jurisprudents have decided the limits of that capability. They are those limits of repression and persecution in which death is most likely to occur, or where damage would render the people incapable to perform natural tasks in life, such as taking their eyes, or cutting their hands or their legs, or breaking their backs, or paralysing some of their limbs. Therefore, it is not Halal (allowed) for any muslim to leave any duty, or commit any haram unless he has been forced to that extent. But threatening with lashing, or with prison, or being deprived of a job and other such similar things, are not a license for the muslim to leave a duty or to commit haram, because these matters are not outside his capabilfty. This is the duty of Muslims. However, even though it is permitted to stop when those limits have been reached. It is still recommended for the muslim to go to the extent of death. Islam has encouraged the muslim to stand against a Munkar and the people of Munkar even if he sacraices his life, and not only his money and his time for the sake of Allah (SWT). The Prophet (saaws) said,
"The master of the martyrs is Hamza, and the person who stood up to an unjust ruler, and advised him but he killed him"
So Muslims stand up for your duty, may Allah (SWT) give you His mercy. Stand up for your society against the corruption. This can only be done by demolishing the systems and rules of Kufr, the rulers and the heads of Kufr and their helpers, and by taking the power from them and putting it in the hands of the people, who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and who govern by the rule of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saaws).
O Muslim, the reward of the obedience in this month is great. It is multiples greater than in any other time. And it is one of the best times to work to establish, Insha' Allah, the guided Islamic Khilafah by which Allah (SWT) will honor us with victory over the Jews and those who support the Jews and the Kafir. And by which Allah will lnsha' Allah, unite the Muslims. And by which He will purify our minds, our hearts, and our society from the disease of Kufr that has invaded us. And by which the rules of Allah will return to our lands. And by which the Islamic Ummah returns as a mighty Ummah as Allah (swt) deemed us to be.
"Allah promised those of you who believe and do good deeds that He will make them Khalifahs of the land as He made those before you Khalifahs, and He will establish to them their Deen which He accepted to them, and He will turn their fear into security, on condition that they worship Me and do not associate anything with Me."
Ar-Raya Magazine
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)