Muslims do not need freedom of speech, they have enjoining the good and forbidding the evil
Whenever Muslims engage themselves in a debate with non Muslim journalists and media outlets on free Speech, the conversation ends up with the Muslims being told that the only reason they are able to speak is because of the freedom of speech they are entitled to in democracies and that this is the reason they can be critical and disagree in the west.
This whole argument is based upon a premise which assumes that the reason Muslims speak out against the injustices which they see around the world is because that they have the freedom to do so and for this reason Muslims should be grateful. This could not be further from the truth!
The fact of the matter is that even before the birth of the concept of free speech in the west, Islam had given Muslims a concept more precious and worthwhile then free speech, enjoining the good and forbidding the evil.
Islam made an obligation upon Muslims to enjoin the good and to forbid the evil no matter where they lived and how big or small the good or evil maybe. This is why you find Muslims all across the global enjoining the good or speaking against injustices regardless of whether they live in democracies or dictatorships. Organisations like Hizb ut-Tahrir have been known to speak out against tyrant rulers in the Muslims world, for which reason their members have been tortured and in many cases murdered like in Uzbekistan. The point here being, it is not freedom of speech that motivates Muslim to raise their voices against injustices; Muslims are motivated by the words of their Lord when He says,
كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ
"You are the best nation produced for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah." (Quran 3:110)
It is this that is the driving engine behind a Muslims that makes him/her speak out against any injustices that they may witness whether in the West or in the Muslim world.
I said earlier that the concept of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil is more worthwhile than freedom of speech and there is a very good reason why this is the case. Freedom of speech in itself is a right which a citizen of a democratic state is able to uphold and discard when the individual likes. This is because free speech gives you the choice to decide if you wish to speak up against injustices or if you wish to ignore and we see this everyday in the streets of London.
You will find that yobs and criminals are causing all sorts of problems for local people, but every a few people intervene or attempt to intervene to stop these types of acts. One famous example being when a few years ago a couple of teenagers were breaking the glass door of a store in a public market in board daylight, with many people walking the streets and nobody intervening to stop this vandalism, except an elderly man who confronted these teenagers and was then attacked by them and even still no one from the public came to his aide, with this elderly man fighting of these thugs. Where was the good sense of the people to come and stop this or even aid this elderly, rather people just ignored and continued on with their travels. This is the type of mentality freedom of speech creates, a passive mentality to crime, a passive mentality towards other people's feelings and sentiments, a mentality of I will only use freedom of speech when it benefits me.
The concept of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil is mandatory on Muslims hence it creates a proactive mentality where the Muslims will involve themselves in stopping the injustices and if necessary in many cases put their own lives at risk for others. Anybody who has been to the Muslims world would know that when any incident occurs of injustice people from the street involve themselves to resolve these issues and if necessary stop the injustice, even if both the perpetrator and victim are complete strangers. This creates a level of security within the society where people can feel a sense of peace that people will help them in their time of need. The reason Muslims feel the need to enjoin the good and forbid the evil is because it has been placed as an obligation upon them by their Lord for which they will be immensely rewarded or punished if not undertaken, and this is why it is not subject to being discarded at the whims and desires of people.
So next time western commentators see a Muslims speaking out injustices against governments in the west or Muslim world, let them remember that it was because of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil and not freedom of speech.
Monday, 3 January 2011
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Ruling System
Does Islam have a Ruling System?
It is strange that some are attempting to cast doubt on the political aspects of Islam in a time when this would so obviously aid the enemies of Islam. In an attempt to confuse those with less knowledge they play with semantics and misconstrue the statements of scholars. In the name of ‘independent thinking’ they have borrowed from the arguments of modernists like Ali Abdul Raziq (1888-1966 CE) of Egypt, a student of Muhammad Abduh who attempted to confine Islam to ritual spiritual issues. He claimed that Islam did not define a ruling system or form of government thus denying the clear obligation of Khilafah (caliphate). He wrote in his book ‘Al-Islam Wa Usul al Hukm’ (Islam and the principles of government):
"Islam is innocent of this institution of the caliphate as Muslims commonly understand it. Religion has nothing to do with one form of government rather than another and there is nothing in Islam which forbids Muslims to destroy their old political system and build a new one on the basis of the newest conceptions of the human spirit and the experience of nations."
Islam, according to him, is a religion whose religious precepts are binding only on individual conscience and have nothing to do with power and politics. Thus religion and Siyasa (politics) are worlds apart. He claims the political history of the Muslims under the Khilafah contradicts the teachings of Islam which aims at personal salvation and operates within the confines of individual morality. This is why the extension of religion to political domain in the guise of what he calls ‘the theory of caliphate’ is taken by him to be the innovations of jurists and theologians. Sound familiar?
Without going into a lengthy discussion I want to highlight some of the fallacies of the arguments I have seen:
Playing with semantics - The issue of Dar al-Islam
The twisted logic goes something like this, as some of the scholars differed on the definition of Dar al-Islam it is therefore justified for the rulers in the Muslim world today to rule by Kufr, as the definition of Dar al-Islam is not Qat’i (definitive).
Regardless of the Ikhtilaf (difference of opinion) on the definition of Dar al-Islam, everyone agrees that ruling by other than what Allah (swt) revealed is a Qat'i prohibition which governments in the Muslim world do today. Of course scholars do disagree whether people who do that become Kafir automatically or remain as Fasiq (open sinners) and Dhalim (oppressors).
Ibn al-Qayyim said: "The correct view is that ruling according to something other than that which Allah has revealed includes both major and minor Kufr, depending on the position of the judge. If he believes that it is obligatory to rule according to what Allah has revealed in this case, but he turns away from that out of disobedience, whilst acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment, then this is lesser Kufr. But if he believes that it is not obligatory and that the choice is his even though he is certain that this is the ruling of Allah, then this is major Kufr." [Madaarij as-Saaliheen, 1/336-337]
The lesser Kufr here refers to sin as is also reported in the famous opinion from Ibn Abbas (ra).
However according to Ibn Taymiyyah: "Undoubtedly, whoever does not believe that it is obligatory to rule according to that which Allah has revealed to His Messenger is a Kafir, and whoever thinks it is permissible to rule among people according to his own opinions, turning away and not following which Allah has revealed is also a Kafir...So in matters which are common to the Ummah as a whole, it is not permissible to rule or judge according to anything except the Quran and Sunnah. No one has the right to make the people follow the words of a scholar or Ameer or shaykh or king. Whoever believes that he can judge between people according to any such thing, and does not judge between them according to the Quran and Sunnah is a Kafir." [Minhaj as-Sunnah, 5/130-132]
Ash-Shawkani also held this view, he said in one of his essays:
a) That referring for judgement to Taghoot (evil i.e. non Islam) constitutes major Kufr.
b) That referring for judgement to Taghoot is just one of a number of actions of Kufr, each of which in its own is sufficient to condemn the one who does it as a Kafir.
c) He gives examples of Kufr, such as people agreeing to deny women their rights of inheritance and their persisting in co-operating in that, and he states that is major kufr. [Ar-Rasaa'il as-Salafiyah by Ash-Shawkani, pg. 33-34]
Therefore differences on terminology is only semantics in reality - it is completely prohibited to rule by other than what Allah (swt) revealed.
The Fatawa of Mufti’s in the Ottoman state
This one even fails to even be remotely connected to an evidence, it seems to be designed to play on the mind of those who accept the Ottoman state as a Khilafah and know that the Ottoman state in its last days implemented some non-Islamic laws.
It is true that towards the last period of the Uthmani Khilafah due to the ignorance of the Ulema at the time the state passed some laws which were non-Islamic like in 1288 A.H (1870 C.E) when they divided of the courts into two: Shari’ah courts and official law courts.
Firstly, when did history become a source of Shari’ah? Of course its not, so regardless of what happened it’s not an argument.
Secondly, it is possible for there to be difference of opinion whether the Uthmani Khalifah ceased to be a Khilafah in the latter part of the 1800's when they adopted these Kufr laws. There is a difference of opinion on this matter due to the ahadith about 'Kufr Bu'ah (open)' and 'Kufr Sareeh (clear)' - scholars differ upon this as if they adopted it out of ignorance would they fit within the definition of implementing not only Kufr but Kufr Bu’ah (open Kufr) which was known by them or were they ignorant of this.
This does not mean in any way that it is acceptable for rulers to rule by Kufr today just because some Mufti's legitimise it. As mentioned earlier - ruling by other than what Allah (swt) revealed is a definitive matter which is indisputable.
Thirdly, it is incorrect to consider what the Ottoman Mufti’s did as having a Shubhat Daleel (semblance of an evidence) and therefore a legitimate opinion as some claim. See the chapter entitled ‘Adopting the Western laws’ in How the Khilafah was destroyed by Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom.
Misquoting the scholars
Quoting the names of a few prominent scholars and the titles of their books is always a good one for deceiving people away from the truth and legitimising the rule of the tyrants. I thought I’d mention some of the quotes of those scholars, they would be distraught if they knew how their names are being misused today:
Some of the quotes are so obviously misconstrued. Such as quoting Mawardi or any other as saying that it is a legitimate view that the Khilafah is only a rational necessity and not textually proved. It is true that scholars like Mawardi make mention of the deviant views like that of the Ithna Ashari Shi’a who believe the Khalifah has to be divinely appointed by Allah and of the view of some philosophers who held the view that proof of the obligation of appointing a Khalifah was rational, this doesn’t mean they were saying these views are legitimate. Just because the scholars mentioned the Ithna Ashari Shi’a views about the Khalifah being appointed by Allah (swt) and having to be infallible are we going to accept them as legitimate?
Ibn Khaldun says:
“The position of imam is a necessary one. The consensus of the men around Muhammad and the men of the second generation shows that (the imamate) is necessary according to the religious law. At the death of the Prophet, the men around him proceeded to render the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr and to entrust him with the supervision of their affairs. And so it was at all subsequent periods. In no period were the people left in a state of anarchy. This was so by general consensus, which proves that the position of imam is a necessary one.
Some people have expressed the opinion that the necessity of the imamate is indicated by the intellect (rational reasons), and that the consensus which happens to exist merely confirms the authority of the intellect in this respect. As they say, what makes (the position of imam) intellectually (rationally) necessary is the need of human beings for social organization and the impossibility of their living and existing by themselves. One of the necessary consequences of social organization is disagreement, because of the pressure of cross-purposes. As long as there is no ruler who exercises a restraining influence, this (disagreement) leads to trouble which, in turn, may lead to the destruction and uprooting of mankind. Now, the preservation of the (human) species is one of the necessary intentions of the religious law.”
“Or, we might say (against the alleged rational necessity of the caliphate): In order to remove disagreement, it is sufficient that every individual should know that injustice is forbidden him by the authority of the intellect. Then, their claim that the removal of disagreement takes place only through the existence of the religious law in one case, and the position of the imam in another case, is not correct. (Disagreement) may (be removed) as well through the existence of powerful leaders, or through the people refraining from disagreement and mutual injustice, as through the position of the imam. Thus, the intellectual proof based upon that premise does not stand up. This shows that the necessity of (the position of imam) is indicated by the religious law, that is, by general consensus, as we have stated before.” [Al-Muqadimah, Chapter 3]
He and other scholars also mention the view of the deviants who rejected the obligation of having an Imam, this doesn’t mean that the scholars accepted that as a legitimate view. He says:
“Some people have taken the exceptional position of stating that the position of imam is not necessary at all, neither according to the intellect nor according to the religious law. People who have held that opinion include the Mu'tazilah al-Asamm and certain Kharijites, among others. They think that it is necessary only to observe the religious laws. When Muslims agree upon (the practice of) justice and observance of the divine laws, no imam is needed, and the position of imam is not necessary. Those (who so argue) are refuted by the general consensus.” [Al-Muqadimah, Chapter 3]
Furthermore Ibn Khaldun mentioned, “Some people have expressed the opinion that the necessity of the imamate is indicated by the intellect (rational reasons), and that the consensus which happens to exist merely confirms the authority of the intellect in this respect.” This means that they didn’t reject the consensus rather they said it conforms with what can be rationally perceived.
"Appointing the Imam is obligatory which was known to every one with the consensus of the companions and their followers. The companions of the Prophet (saw) hurried to appoint Abu Bakr (ra) as their Khalifah after the death of the prophet (saw). The Muslims had a Khalifah in every age afterwards, and they were not left in chaos (without a Khalifah) in any age. This was viewed as a consensus among the scholars that the Imam (Khalifah) must be appointed.” [Al-Muqadimah, Ibn Khaldun, p. 210]
Having more than one Khalifah & multiple states
This is addressed in The obligation of having one Khalifah
Difference of opinion by the scholars on details = No politics in Islam?
Another of the strange views espoused is that as there is a lot of difference of opinion by the classical Ulema in the details of the Khilafah this means the whole thing is speculative and therefore there are no definitive aspects of the ruling system in Islam.
This is like discounting the obligation of Salah by the fact that a lot of the details of Salah are subject to wide difference of opinion amongst the scholars. That would be ridiculous as although there are differences on the details the obligation and the key fundamentals are definitive.
This is the same for the issue of ruling. Regardless of the terminological differences and the areas of legitimate ikhtilaf (difference of opinion) there are clear definitive Ahkam Shariah relating to ruling, whether you like to call it the Tariqa (method) of Islam or a system or not is irrelevant. These are not applied by the governments in the Muslim world today.
Let us look at some of definitive Ahkam related to ruling, of course in the details of these areas there may be difference of opinion. These are definitive at least in meaning, some are also definitive in transmission as is well known the difference being the rejection of one leads to fisq (open sin) and the rejection of those which are Qat’i Thuboot (definitive in transmission) and Qat’i in Dalalah (meaning) leads to Kufr:
- The obligation of having a Khalifah
There is no need to repeat the multiple evidences and quotation of the scholars for this, one will suffice. The scholars differ on some of the conditions of the Khalifah and details some of which are definitive such as him being Muslim.
Imam an-Nawawi (d. 1278 CE) said, "(The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khaleefah.” [Sharhu Sahih Muslim, An-Nawawi, Vol 12, p. 205]
Others are available from Exposing the call for the reformation of Islam - Part 2
- The obligation of Bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) to the Khalifah. Of course there are various differences amongst the scholars in the details of this area, the following discusses them in some detail http://www-personal.umich.edu/~luqman/Belief/Khilafah/eleven.html
- It is clear from the Sunnah and Ijma as-Sahaba that a Khalifah can have Wali’s (governors) and Amils (mayors) who rule over the provinces and cities.
- Ruling by whatever Allah (swt) has revealed [Addressed earlier] – This is applicable for all the rulers including the Khalifah, Wali’s (governors) and Amils (mayors).
- The prohibition of having more than Khalifah [Addressed earlier]
- It is clear from the Sunnah and Ijma as-Sahaba that the Khalifah can appoint judges who judge cases according to the Shariah. Hence the pillar of judiciary of which again there is difference of opinion in the details such as the conditions for the different types of judges, etc.
- Enforcing the Hudud punishments, many of the Hudud as well as the law of Qisas have been specified in the Qur’an.
- Undertaking and managing Jihad – There are 119 verses in the Qur’an related to Jihad and it is a well known subject.
- Collection and distribution of the Zakah – Besides the fact that one of categories mentioned in the Qur’an is the state’s collector of Zakah. It is also established clearly by the Sunnah and is Ijma as-Sahaba. Abu Bakr (ra) fought those who refused to pay it.
- The Khalifah has the right to adopt the Ahkam Shariah in which there is legitimate difference of opinion, his opinion becomes binding. The obedience to the Ulil Amr (people in authority) is mentioned in the Qur’an, there are many ahadith obliging the obedience to the Khalifah and the issue of adoption is established by Ijma as-Sahabah.
These are some (not all) of the agreed upon issues. Different Mujtahideen have different views about certain aspects of the state based upon their understanding of the evidences just as they do for Salah, Hajj, fasting, marriage, contracts and other Ahkam Shariah. Some of these areas include the conditions of the Khalifah, the ahkam of Shura, the Mahkamat al-Mazalim (court of unjust acts), etc. The following are some of the differing views of the classical scholars on the details:
Majlis ash-Shura
- Al-Mawardi has written that each member should satisfy three conditions: he must be just, he must have enough knowledge of Islam to differentiate between a potentially good Khalifa and a bad one, and he must have sufficient wisdom and judgment to select the best leader.
- Al-Juwayni has four conditions for the Majlis-ash-Shura: each member must be a man, knowledgeable, above average relatively, and Muslim.
- Abdul-Jabbar is of the opinion that the members must have enough knowledge to select he who can be Khalifa - enough Islamic knowledge in particular, and wisdom and judgment in general.
- Al-Baghdadi believed that the Khalifa and the Majlis-ash-Shura should be selected from amongst those who can choose wisely.
Election of the Khalifah
- Some scholars say that at least a majority of the Majlis-ash-Shura must agree on the new Khalifa.
- Al-Ashari believes the Khalifa could be given to an eligible person even by a single vote if he comes from the Majlis-ash-Shura and has a good Islamic character. There must also be no valid objection supported by evidence or witnesses.
- Another group of scholar's opinion is that the Khalifa must have two votes for him in the Majlis-ash-Shura who are good Muslims (two because the Majlis-ash-Shura is a jama'a which is at least three people).
- A fourth opinion is that the Khalifa must have four votes (with no countering objection) because witnessing to a charge of adultery in Islam requires four witnesses.
A fifth opinion holds that at least three votes are necessary to make the decision have the strength of a jama'a behind it.
- A sixth opinion is that at least five votes are needed to make an even stronger decision.
Finally, a seventh group of scholars believes that it requires 40 members of the Majlis-ash-Shura to vote for the same candidate for him to become the new Khalifa since Friday prayer requires 40 people to be valid (according to some scholars).
Removing the Khalifah
- Al-Mawardi believed that if the Khalifa has followed the Qur'an and Sunnah, the people must follow and support him. On the other hand, if he becomes either unjust or handicapped to the point of ineffectiveness (such as blindness or an amputation), then he must be removed.
- Al-Baghdadi believed that if the Khalifa deviates from justice, the ummah needs to warn him first to return to the straight path. If this fails, then he can be removed.
- Al-Juwayni held that since Islam is the goal of the ummah, any Khalifa who steps away from this goal must be removed.
- Ashighistani wrote that if the Khalifa is found to be ignorant, oppressive, indifferent, or a kafir after his selection, then he must be removed.
- Al-Ghazali believed that an oppressive Khalifa must be told to desist from his crimes. If he does not, then he must be removed.
- Al-Iji believed the ummah has a definite list of permissible reasons to remove the Khalifa.
- Al-Asqalani wrote that if the Khalifa starts to act as an unbeliever, it is prohibited to obey him and obligatory to fight him. It is obligatory to stand against him if one can - and this entails a big reward. Those people who choose to ignore the situation are in sin, whereas those who cannot fight should emigrate (to organize resistance). Al-Asqalani used two ayahs from the Qur'an in particular to support his position. The first is from surat Al-Ahzab 67-68, "...And they would say, 'Our Lord! We obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they deceived us as to the right path. Our Lord! Give them a double penalty and curse them with a very great curse'...", and the second is from surat Al-Baqara 167, "...And those who followed would say, 'If only we had one more chance, we would clear ourselves of them, as they have cleared themselves of us.' Thus will Allah show them (the fruits of) their deeds as (nothing but) regrets. Nor will there be a way for them out of the Fire..."
Muslim reported that Ibn Umar said the Prophet ordered every Muslim to obey their leader unless commanded to do something bad, in which case they must neither obey nor listen. Muslim also reported that Ibn Malik said the best leader is the one where mutual love exists between him and the people, and the worst leader generates mutual hate. However, even in the latter case, fighting the Khalifa is prohibited unless he enters kufr by stopping prayers or zakat for example.
Ibn As-Samit reported that the Prophet said to obey him in all things and situations, and not to remove the leaders unless they openly practice kufr.
For more details on the different views of the scholars see: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~luqman/
It strikes me as intellectual insincerity by those who quote scholars like Mawardi and at the same time claim that Islam has no Ruling system even though Mawardi wrote the book ‘Al-Ahkamus-Sultaniyyah’ about the Ahkam of government in Islam.
It is not obligatory for the state to adopt then this means all you need is a Muslim as the ruler to have an Islamic state
I don’t think this one is worthy of a detailed response. The Khalifah can either adopt in the details or leave it to the governors and judges to rule by their own opinion – as long as they rule & judge by Islam!
Taqwa must be the basis in taking knowledge from people
The master of Hadith, Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri said, "Be careful from whom you take your knowledge, because that is your Deen."
This is of vital importance in these times where the enemies of Islam are using all the means at their disposal in order to distort the understanding of our Deen. Included within their armoury are scholars, ones who recite the Qur’an, former Islamic activists, academics, writers and Imams.
We must realise from our history that even hypocrites (munafiqeen), apostates, fasiq’s (open sinners) and even disbelievers (kuffar) can have knowledge of Islam, this doesn’t mean we should take it from them. Our beloved Prophet (saw) warned us of this:
“The thing that I fear the most for my ummah is a hypocrite with an eloquent tongue who argues with the Quran.” [Ahmed, Bazaar, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr. P 439]
Amongst these are those who are attempting to blur the definitive ahkam of Islam such as the obligation of having one Khalifah for the Muslims, the prohibition of ruling by man-made law, it has reached to an extent where some are even attempting to debate the prohibition of homosexuality in Islam.
We should also be aware of those who always find the weak and rogue opinions of the scholars.
Imam Al-Baihaqi reported: “Isma’eel Al Qadi said: ‘One day I entered to Al Mu’tadid, one of the Abbasid Khaleefahs, and immediately he showed me a book to read. I found that the author had compiled in it, the strange sayings of every ‘Alim. So I told the Khaleefah that the author of this book is a heretic. The Khaleefah asked why this was so, and I told him that those sayings were not presented by the scholars as they are presented in this book. He who legalised the Mu’tah marriage did not legalise singing, while he who legalised one action would not legalise another action. Additionally, each ‘Alim has strange opinions, so if one would compile the pitfalls of all the Imams, and adopt them, then the Deen would be lost. The Khaleefah then ordered the book to be burned.”
Imam Al-Awza’i said: “He who traces the strange opinions of the scholars is out of Islam. You would find a scholar with a lot of knowledge and value, and also with a pitfall. So if a person was to collect the pitfalls of all the scholars and form a new Madhab, then what kind of ‘Ilm would you have?’” [Who has the right to make Ijtihad, Salman Al Udeh, p. 13]
Just because someone is well read, have a good memory and seem intellectual this doesn’t mean that we should take our knowledge from them and give them our allegiance. Even people of vast knowledge who wrote voluminous works of fiqh have deviated from Islam in the past, so who are the comparative amateurs today?
Ibn Rushd (Averroes, 1126-1198 CE) was a Maliki scholar who wrote the famous work of fiqh, ‘Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihāyat al-Muqta’id’ is well known to have gone into philosophy and deviated. Others like the famous scientist and thinker Ibn Sina ended up thinking the world is eternal and would never end thus becoming an apostate.
We may find people of knowledge; however we should be careful from taking knowledge from them unless they fulfil the criterion of Taqwa. The following are some key points, like an acid test to consider when taking knowledge from someone:
- They do not go against definitive matters of the Deen
- That their words don’t contradict their actions.
- They are not two faced. Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "One of the most evil of people is the two-faced person who shows one face to these people and another face to those people." [Agreed upon]
- They don’t violate the Ahkam shariah
- They don’t have the characteristics of Nifaq as mentioned in the ahadith. It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Prophet (saw): "Signs of a hypocrite are three: whenever he speaks he lies; whenever he promises, he breaks his promises; and whenever he has been entrusted, be betrays his trust; even if he fasts and prays and even if he claims he is a Muslim." [Bukhari & Muslim] And in another narration in the book of Imam Bukhari on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Umar: “The Prophet said, "Whoever has (the following) four characters will be a hypocrite, and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy until he gives it up. These are: (1) Whenever he talks, he tells a lie; (2) whenever he makes a promise, he breaks it; (3) whenever he makes a covenant he proves treacherous; (4) and whenever he quarrels, he behaves impudently in an evil insulting manner."
The issue of hypocrisy has two aspects, one is the hypocrisy of belief and one is of action.
‘Uqbah bin ‘Aamir (ra) narrates that Rasul ul Allah (saaw) said: “The majority of the Munafiq’s found in my Ummah are its Quraa (ones who recite)’.” [Sahih: Reported by Ahmed, at-Tabrani and others. See Sahih al-Jami‘ #1203]
Al-Imam al-Manawi in Fayd ul Qadir comments on this hadith by saying:
“They are those who interpret it to mean other than what was intended, and they place it in its wrong place. They may also memorize its words while not accepting its dictates. The Munafiqun during Rasul ul Allah (saaw) time were of this persuasion.”
Az-Zamakhshari comments:
“Rasul ul Allah (saaw) meant Riyaa’ (performing acts of worship to impress people) when he mentioned Nifaq. Since both of these characteristics signify an outer deed that is contrary to the inner belief.”
It is also stated that Rasul ul Allah (saaw) meant the Nifaq of ‘Amal not the Nifaq of Kufr.
The Munafiq outwardly displays belief in Allah to ensure the security of his property and life, while denying belief internally. The person who has Riyaa’ outwardly displays the deeds that earn a great reward in al-Akhira (Hereafter) while seeking for these deeds a handsome share in the worldly life. A (misguided) Qari outwardly proclaims that he seeks reward from Allah alone while seeking to have people praise him, his knowledge and deeds. The three all have one thing in common – their hidden intentions are different to their public actions.
For this reason Imam al-Ghazali states:
“Beware of Quraa’ if they have these four characteristics:
* Al-Amal (Hope for worldly reward and renumeration)
* Al-‘Ajlah (hastiness in seeking reward for his deeds)
* Al-Kibr (Pride and boastful arrogance)
* Al-Hasad (Wishing to have what others possess while also wishing for them to lose their possession, namely, envy).”
In seeking a share of the Dunya (Worldly life) a misguided Qari may do all that is deviant, and unethical. He may lie, defame, slander and cheat in a manner of which a criminal would be ashamed.
Al-Imam an-Nawawi states:
“I do not fear to be slandered except by al-Quraa’ and al-‘Ulamaa’ (who have been led astray).”
Those who heard him say this showed their aversion to the statement. He replied,
“I am not the originator of the statement. Ibrahim an-Nakha‘i (rh) preceded me.”
‘Attah said:
”Beware of al-Quraa’. If I was to disagree with one of them about (something as insignificant) as the state of a fruit by saying it is sweet and they saying it is rotten; they would seek to have my blood sanctioned (my death or punishment) from a tyrannical Sultan (ruler).”
Al-Fudayl bin ‘Iyyad (rh) said to his son:
“Purchase a home that is at a great distance from the (deviant) Quraa’. What do I need (or benefit) from them? If one of my shortcomings is uncovered they will seek my demise. And if one of my virtues were to be made public they would envy me for it. You see that they are arrogant, unaccommodating, and surly in their dealings with people. It is as if they feel that their prayer is greater than everyone else. They act as if they have received a divine revelation promising them Jannah and salvation from the Fire. It is as if they seek personal happiness and satisfaction while seeking the wretchedness of all others. Yet, with all of this arrogance and conceitedness they will dress in shabby garments acting meek (to appear humble).”
[End of the Abridged words of al-Manawi (Vol. 2 Pg. 80-81)]
We must think of the consequences of following the arguments of those proposing a secular Islam, if we were to follow their views it would lead to legitimising the tyrant rulers in the Muslim world, the division of Muslim land, the occupation of our lands by the colonialists, the legitimisation of arresting sincere Muslim da’wah carriers and the ultimately loss in this life and in the hereafter.
By Al-Tabarani in Al-Kabeer wal-Bazaar, by the Istinad of the men of Sahih, from 'Awf bin Maalik from the Prophet (saw), who said: "My Ummah will be divided into seventy-something divisions, of them, the greatest Fitna (trial) upon my Ummah are a people who measure matters with their opinion, so they make the forbidden permissible and the permissible forbidden." [Also narrated by Al-Haithami in Majma' Al-Zawaa'id, Part 1/ the Book of Knowledge in the section of Al-Taqleed wal-Qiyas]
Abu Shamah had narrated, via the Sanad of Abi Ziyad bin Hudayr, saying: "Omar said to me: Do you know what destroys Islam? I said, No! He said: A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray".
It is strange that some are attempting to cast doubt on the political aspects of Islam in a time when this would so obviously aid the enemies of Islam. In an attempt to confuse those with less knowledge they play with semantics and misconstrue the statements of scholars. In the name of ‘independent thinking’ they have borrowed from the arguments of modernists like Ali Abdul Raziq (1888-1966 CE) of Egypt, a student of Muhammad Abduh who attempted to confine Islam to ritual spiritual issues. He claimed that Islam did not define a ruling system or form of government thus denying the clear obligation of Khilafah (caliphate). He wrote in his book ‘Al-Islam Wa Usul al Hukm’ (Islam and the principles of government):
"Islam is innocent of this institution of the caliphate as Muslims commonly understand it. Religion has nothing to do with one form of government rather than another and there is nothing in Islam which forbids Muslims to destroy their old political system and build a new one on the basis of the newest conceptions of the human spirit and the experience of nations."
Islam, according to him, is a religion whose religious precepts are binding only on individual conscience and have nothing to do with power and politics. Thus religion and Siyasa (politics) are worlds apart. He claims the political history of the Muslims under the Khilafah contradicts the teachings of Islam which aims at personal salvation and operates within the confines of individual morality. This is why the extension of religion to political domain in the guise of what he calls ‘the theory of caliphate’ is taken by him to be the innovations of jurists and theologians. Sound familiar?
Without going into a lengthy discussion I want to highlight some of the fallacies of the arguments I have seen:
Playing with semantics - The issue of Dar al-Islam
The twisted logic goes something like this, as some of the scholars differed on the definition of Dar al-Islam it is therefore justified for the rulers in the Muslim world today to rule by Kufr, as the definition of Dar al-Islam is not Qat’i (definitive).
Regardless of the Ikhtilaf (difference of opinion) on the definition of Dar al-Islam, everyone agrees that ruling by other than what Allah (swt) revealed is a Qat'i prohibition which governments in the Muslim world do today. Of course scholars do disagree whether people who do that become Kafir automatically or remain as Fasiq (open sinners) and Dhalim (oppressors).
Ibn al-Qayyim said: "The correct view is that ruling according to something other than that which Allah has revealed includes both major and minor Kufr, depending on the position of the judge. If he believes that it is obligatory to rule according to what Allah has revealed in this case, but he turns away from that out of disobedience, whilst acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment, then this is lesser Kufr. But if he believes that it is not obligatory and that the choice is his even though he is certain that this is the ruling of Allah, then this is major Kufr." [Madaarij as-Saaliheen, 1/336-337]
The lesser Kufr here refers to sin as is also reported in the famous opinion from Ibn Abbas (ra).
However according to Ibn Taymiyyah: "Undoubtedly, whoever does not believe that it is obligatory to rule according to that which Allah has revealed to His Messenger is a Kafir, and whoever thinks it is permissible to rule among people according to his own opinions, turning away and not following which Allah has revealed is also a Kafir...So in matters which are common to the Ummah as a whole, it is not permissible to rule or judge according to anything except the Quran and Sunnah. No one has the right to make the people follow the words of a scholar or Ameer or shaykh or king. Whoever believes that he can judge between people according to any such thing, and does not judge between them according to the Quran and Sunnah is a Kafir." [Minhaj as-Sunnah, 5/130-132]
Ash-Shawkani also held this view, he said in one of his essays:
a) That referring for judgement to Taghoot (evil i.e. non Islam) constitutes major Kufr.
b) That referring for judgement to Taghoot is just one of a number of actions of Kufr, each of which in its own is sufficient to condemn the one who does it as a Kafir.
c) He gives examples of Kufr, such as people agreeing to deny women their rights of inheritance and their persisting in co-operating in that, and he states that is major kufr. [Ar-Rasaa'il as-Salafiyah by Ash-Shawkani, pg. 33-34]
Therefore differences on terminology is only semantics in reality - it is completely prohibited to rule by other than what Allah (swt) revealed.
The Fatawa of Mufti’s in the Ottoman state
This one even fails to even be remotely connected to an evidence, it seems to be designed to play on the mind of those who accept the Ottoman state as a Khilafah and know that the Ottoman state in its last days implemented some non-Islamic laws.
It is true that towards the last period of the Uthmani Khilafah due to the ignorance of the Ulema at the time the state passed some laws which were non-Islamic like in 1288 A.H (1870 C.E) when they divided of the courts into two: Shari’ah courts and official law courts.
Firstly, when did history become a source of Shari’ah? Of course its not, so regardless of what happened it’s not an argument.
Secondly, it is possible for there to be difference of opinion whether the Uthmani Khalifah ceased to be a Khilafah in the latter part of the 1800's when they adopted these Kufr laws. There is a difference of opinion on this matter due to the ahadith about 'Kufr Bu'ah (open)' and 'Kufr Sareeh (clear)' - scholars differ upon this as if they adopted it out of ignorance would they fit within the definition of implementing not only Kufr but Kufr Bu’ah (open Kufr) which was known by them or were they ignorant of this.
This does not mean in any way that it is acceptable for rulers to rule by Kufr today just because some Mufti's legitimise it. As mentioned earlier - ruling by other than what Allah (swt) revealed is a definitive matter which is indisputable.
Thirdly, it is incorrect to consider what the Ottoman Mufti’s did as having a Shubhat Daleel (semblance of an evidence) and therefore a legitimate opinion as some claim. See the chapter entitled ‘Adopting the Western laws’ in How the Khilafah was destroyed by Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom.
Misquoting the scholars
Quoting the names of a few prominent scholars and the titles of their books is always a good one for deceiving people away from the truth and legitimising the rule of the tyrants. I thought I’d mention some of the quotes of those scholars, they would be distraught if they knew how their names are being misused today:
Some of the quotes are so obviously misconstrued. Such as quoting Mawardi or any other as saying that it is a legitimate view that the Khilafah is only a rational necessity and not textually proved. It is true that scholars like Mawardi make mention of the deviant views like that of the Ithna Ashari Shi’a who believe the Khalifah has to be divinely appointed by Allah and of the view of some philosophers who held the view that proof of the obligation of appointing a Khalifah was rational, this doesn’t mean they were saying these views are legitimate. Just because the scholars mentioned the Ithna Ashari Shi’a views about the Khalifah being appointed by Allah (swt) and having to be infallible are we going to accept them as legitimate?
Ibn Khaldun says:
“The position of imam is a necessary one. The consensus of the men around Muhammad and the men of the second generation shows that (the imamate) is necessary according to the religious law. At the death of the Prophet, the men around him proceeded to render the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr and to entrust him with the supervision of their affairs. And so it was at all subsequent periods. In no period were the people left in a state of anarchy. This was so by general consensus, which proves that the position of imam is a necessary one.
Some people have expressed the opinion that the necessity of the imamate is indicated by the intellect (rational reasons), and that the consensus which happens to exist merely confirms the authority of the intellect in this respect. As they say, what makes (the position of imam) intellectually (rationally) necessary is the need of human beings for social organization and the impossibility of their living and existing by themselves. One of the necessary consequences of social organization is disagreement, because of the pressure of cross-purposes. As long as there is no ruler who exercises a restraining influence, this (disagreement) leads to trouble which, in turn, may lead to the destruction and uprooting of mankind. Now, the preservation of the (human) species is one of the necessary intentions of the religious law.”
“Or, we might say (against the alleged rational necessity of the caliphate): In order to remove disagreement, it is sufficient that every individual should know that injustice is forbidden him by the authority of the intellect. Then, their claim that the removal of disagreement takes place only through the existence of the religious law in one case, and the position of the imam in another case, is not correct. (Disagreement) may (be removed) as well through the existence of powerful leaders, or through the people refraining from disagreement and mutual injustice, as through the position of the imam. Thus, the intellectual proof based upon that premise does not stand up. This shows that the necessity of (the position of imam) is indicated by the religious law, that is, by general consensus, as we have stated before.” [Al-Muqadimah, Chapter 3]
He and other scholars also mention the view of the deviants who rejected the obligation of having an Imam, this doesn’t mean that the scholars accepted that as a legitimate view. He says:
“Some people have taken the exceptional position of stating that the position of imam is not necessary at all, neither according to the intellect nor according to the religious law. People who have held that opinion include the Mu'tazilah al-Asamm and certain Kharijites, among others. They think that it is necessary only to observe the religious laws. When Muslims agree upon (the practice of) justice and observance of the divine laws, no imam is needed, and the position of imam is not necessary. Those (who so argue) are refuted by the general consensus.” [Al-Muqadimah, Chapter 3]
Furthermore Ibn Khaldun mentioned, “Some people have expressed the opinion that the necessity of the imamate is indicated by the intellect (rational reasons), and that the consensus which happens to exist merely confirms the authority of the intellect in this respect.” This means that they didn’t reject the consensus rather they said it conforms with what can be rationally perceived.
"Appointing the Imam is obligatory which was known to every one with the consensus of the companions and their followers. The companions of the Prophet (saw) hurried to appoint Abu Bakr (ra) as their Khalifah after the death of the prophet (saw). The Muslims had a Khalifah in every age afterwards, and they were not left in chaos (without a Khalifah) in any age. This was viewed as a consensus among the scholars that the Imam (Khalifah) must be appointed.” [Al-Muqadimah, Ibn Khaldun, p. 210]
Having more than one Khalifah & multiple states
This is addressed in The obligation of having one Khalifah
Difference of opinion by the scholars on details = No politics in Islam?
Another of the strange views espoused is that as there is a lot of difference of opinion by the classical Ulema in the details of the Khilafah this means the whole thing is speculative and therefore there are no definitive aspects of the ruling system in Islam.
This is like discounting the obligation of Salah by the fact that a lot of the details of Salah are subject to wide difference of opinion amongst the scholars. That would be ridiculous as although there are differences on the details the obligation and the key fundamentals are definitive.
This is the same for the issue of ruling. Regardless of the terminological differences and the areas of legitimate ikhtilaf (difference of opinion) there are clear definitive Ahkam Shariah relating to ruling, whether you like to call it the Tariqa (method) of Islam or a system or not is irrelevant. These are not applied by the governments in the Muslim world today.
Let us look at some of definitive Ahkam related to ruling, of course in the details of these areas there may be difference of opinion. These are definitive at least in meaning, some are also definitive in transmission as is well known the difference being the rejection of one leads to fisq (open sin) and the rejection of those which are Qat’i Thuboot (definitive in transmission) and Qat’i in Dalalah (meaning) leads to Kufr:
- The obligation of having a Khalifah
There is no need to repeat the multiple evidences and quotation of the scholars for this, one will suffice. The scholars differ on some of the conditions of the Khalifah and details some of which are definitive such as him being Muslim.
Imam an-Nawawi (d. 1278 CE) said, "(The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khaleefah.” [Sharhu Sahih Muslim, An-Nawawi, Vol 12, p. 205]
Others are available from Exposing the call for the reformation of Islam - Part 2
- The obligation of Bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) to the Khalifah. Of course there are various differences amongst the scholars in the details of this area, the following discusses them in some detail http://www-personal.umich.edu/~luqman/Belief/Khilafah/eleven.html
- It is clear from the Sunnah and Ijma as-Sahaba that a Khalifah can have Wali’s (governors) and Amils (mayors) who rule over the provinces and cities.
- Ruling by whatever Allah (swt) has revealed [Addressed earlier] – This is applicable for all the rulers including the Khalifah, Wali’s (governors) and Amils (mayors).
- The prohibition of having more than Khalifah [Addressed earlier]
- It is clear from the Sunnah and Ijma as-Sahaba that the Khalifah can appoint judges who judge cases according to the Shariah. Hence the pillar of judiciary of which again there is difference of opinion in the details such as the conditions for the different types of judges, etc.
- Enforcing the Hudud punishments, many of the Hudud as well as the law of Qisas have been specified in the Qur’an.
- Undertaking and managing Jihad – There are 119 verses in the Qur’an related to Jihad and it is a well known subject.
- Collection and distribution of the Zakah – Besides the fact that one of categories mentioned in the Qur’an is the state’s collector of Zakah. It is also established clearly by the Sunnah and is Ijma as-Sahaba. Abu Bakr (ra) fought those who refused to pay it.
- The Khalifah has the right to adopt the Ahkam Shariah in which there is legitimate difference of opinion, his opinion becomes binding. The obedience to the Ulil Amr (people in authority) is mentioned in the Qur’an, there are many ahadith obliging the obedience to the Khalifah and the issue of adoption is established by Ijma as-Sahabah.
These are some (not all) of the agreed upon issues. Different Mujtahideen have different views about certain aspects of the state based upon their understanding of the evidences just as they do for Salah, Hajj, fasting, marriage, contracts and other Ahkam Shariah. Some of these areas include the conditions of the Khalifah, the ahkam of Shura, the Mahkamat al-Mazalim (court of unjust acts), etc. The following are some of the differing views of the classical scholars on the details:
Majlis ash-Shura
- Al-Mawardi has written that each member should satisfy three conditions: he must be just, he must have enough knowledge of Islam to differentiate between a potentially good Khalifa and a bad one, and he must have sufficient wisdom and judgment to select the best leader.
- Al-Juwayni has four conditions for the Majlis-ash-Shura: each member must be a man, knowledgeable, above average relatively, and Muslim.
- Abdul-Jabbar is of the opinion that the members must have enough knowledge to select he who can be Khalifa - enough Islamic knowledge in particular, and wisdom and judgment in general.
- Al-Baghdadi believed that the Khalifa and the Majlis-ash-Shura should be selected from amongst those who can choose wisely.
Election of the Khalifah
- Some scholars say that at least a majority of the Majlis-ash-Shura must agree on the new Khalifa.
- Al-Ashari believes the Khalifa could be given to an eligible person even by a single vote if he comes from the Majlis-ash-Shura and has a good Islamic character. There must also be no valid objection supported by evidence or witnesses.
- Another group of scholar's opinion is that the Khalifa must have two votes for him in the Majlis-ash-Shura who are good Muslims (two because the Majlis-ash-Shura is a jama'a which is at least three people).
- A fourth opinion is that the Khalifa must have four votes (with no countering objection) because witnessing to a charge of adultery in Islam requires four witnesses.
A fifth opinion holds that at least three votes are necessary to make the decision have the strength of a jama'a behind it.
- A sixth opinion is that at least five votes are needed to make an even stronger decision.
Finally, a seventh group of scholars believes that it requires 40 members of the Majlis-ash-Shura to vote for the same candidate for him to become the new Khalifa since Friday prayer requires 40 people to be valid (according to some scholars).
Removing the Khalifah
- Al-Mawardi believed that if the Khalifa has followed the Qur'an and Sunnah, the people must follow and support him. On the other hand, if he becomes either unjust or handicapped to the point of ineffectiveness (such as blindness or an amputation), then he must be removed.
- Al-Baghdadi believed that if the Khalifa deviates from justice, the ummah needs to warn him first to return to the straight path. If this fails, then he can be removed.
- Al-Juwayni held that since Islam is the goal of the ummah, any Khalifa who steps away from this goal must be removed.
- Ashighistani wrote that if the Khalifa is found to be ignorant, oppressive, indifferent, or a kafir after his selection, then he must be removed.
- Al-Ghazali believed that an oppressive Khalifa must be told to desist from his crimes. If he does not, then he must be removed.
- Al-Iji believed the ummah has a definite list of permissible reasons to remove the Khalifa.
- Al-Asqalani wrote that if the Khalifa starts to act as an unbeliever, it is prohibited to obey him and obligatory to fight him. It is obligatory to stand against him if one can - and this entails a big reward. Those people who choose to ignore the situation are in sin, whereas those who cannot fight should emigrate (to organize resistance). Al-Asqalani used two ayahs from the Qur'an in particular to support his position. The first is from surat Al-Ahzab 67-68, "...And they would say, 'Our Lord! We obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they deceived us as to the right path. Our Lord! Give them a double penalty and curse them with a very great curse'...", and the second is from surat Al-Baqara 167, "...And those who followed would say, 'If only we had one more chance, we would clear ourselves of them, as they have cleared themselves of us.' Thus will Allah show them (the fruits of) their deeds as (nothing but) regrets. Nor will there be a way for them out of the Fire..."
Muslim reported that Ibn Umar said the Prophet ordered every Muslim to obey their leader unless commanded to do something bad, in which case they must neither obey nor listen. Muslim also reported that Ibn Malik said the best leader is the one where mutual love exists between him and the people, and the worst leader generates mutual hate. However, even in the latter case, fighting the Khalifa is prohibited unless he enters kufr by stopping prayers or zakat for example.
Ibn As-Samit reported that the Prophet said to obey him in all things and situations, and not to remove the leaders unless they openly practice kufr.
For more details on the different views of the scholars see: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~luqman/
It strikes me as intellectual insincerity by those who quote scholars like Mawardi and at the same time claim that Islam has no Ruling system even though Mawardi wrote the book ‘Al-Ahkamus-Sultaniyyah’ about the Ahkam of government in Islam.
It is not obligatory for the state to adopt then this means all you need is a Muslim as the ruler to have an Islamic state
I don’t think this one is worthy of a detailed response. The Khalifah can either adopt in the details or leave it to the governors and judges to rule by their own opinion – as long as they rule & judge by Islam!
Taqwa must be the basis in taking knowledge from people
The master of Hadith, Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri said, "Be careful from whom you take your knowledge, because that is your Deen."
This is of vital importance in these times where the enemies of Islam are using all the means at their disposal in order to distort the understanding of our Deen. Included within their armoury are scholars, ones who recite the Qur’an, former Islamic activists, academics, writers and Imams.
We must realise from our history that even hypocrites (munafiqeen), apostates, fasiq’s (open sinners) and even disbelievers (kuffar) can have knowledge of Islam, this doesn’t mean we should take it from them. Our beloved Prophet (saw) warned us of this:
“The thing that I fear the most for my ummah is a hypocrite with an eloquent tongue who argues with the Quran.” [Ahmed, Bazaar, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr. P 439]
Amongst these are those who are attempting to blur the definitive ahkam of Islam such as the obligation of having one Khalifah for the Muslims, the prohibition of ruling by man-made law, it has reached to an extent where some are even attempting to debate the prohibition of homosexuality in Islam.
We should also be aware of those who always find the weak and rogue opinions of the scholars.
Imam Al-Baihaqi reported: “Isma’eel Al Qadi said: ‘One day I entered to Al Mu’tadid, one of the Abbasid Khaleefahs, and immediately he showed me a book to read. I found that the author had compiled in it, the strange sayings of every ‘Alim. So I told the Khaleefah that the author of this book is a heretic. The Khaleefah asked why this was so, and I told him that those sayings were not presented by the scholars as they are presented in this book. He who legalised the Mu’tah marriage did not legalise singing, while he who legalised one action would not legalise another action. Additionally, each ‘Alim has strange opinions, so if one would compile the pitfalls of all the Imams, and adopt them, then the Deen would be lost. The Khaleefah then ordered the book to be burned.”
Imam Al-Awza’i said: “He who traces the strange opinions of the scholars is out of Islam. You would find a scholar with a lot of knowledge and value, and also with a pitfall. So if a person was to collect the pitfalls of all the scholars and form a new Madhab, then what kind of ‘Ilm would you have?’” [Who has the right to make Ijtihad, Salman Al Udeh, p. 13]
Just because someone is well read, have a good memory and seem intellectual this doesn’t mean that we should take our knowledge from them and give them our allegiance. Even people of vast knowledge who wrote voluminous works of fiqh have deviated from Islam in the past, so who are the comparative amateurs today?
Ibn Rushd (Averroes, 1126-1198 CE) was a Maliki scholar who wrote the famous work of fiqh, ‘Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihāyat al-Muqta’id’ is well known to have gone into philosophy and deviated. Others like the famous scientist and thinker Ibn Sina ended up thinking the world is eternal and would never end thus becoming an apostate.
We may find people of knowledge; however we should be careful from taking knowledge from them unless they fulfil the criterion of Taqwa. The following are some key points, like an acid test to consider when taking knowledge from someone:
- They do not go against definitive matters of the Deen
- That their words don’t contradict their actions.
- They are not two faced. Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "One of the most evil of people is the two-faced person who shows one face to these people and another face to those people." [Agreed upon]
- They don’t violate the Ahkam shariah
- They don’t have the characteristics of Nifaq as mentioned in the ahadith. It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Prophet (saw): "Signs of a hypocrite are three: whenever he speaks he lies; whenever he promises, he breaks his promises; and whenever he has been entrusted, be betrays his trust; even if he fasts and prays and even if he claims he is a Muslim." [Bukhari & Muslim] And in another narration in the book of Imam Bukhari on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Umar: “The Prophet said, "Whoever has (the following) four characters will be a hypocrite, and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy until he gives it up. These are: (1) Whenever he talks, he tells a lie; (2) whenever he makes a promise, he breaks it; (3) whenever he makes a covenant he proves treacherous; (4) and whenever he quarrels, he behaves impudently in an evil insulting manner."
The issue of hypocrisy has two aspects, one is the hypocrisy of belief and one is of action.
‘Uqbah bin ‘Aamir (ra) narrates that Rasul ul Allah (saaw) said: “The majority of the Munafiq’s found in my Ummah are its Quraa (ones who recite)’.” [Sahih: Reported by Ahmed, at-Tabrani and others. See Sahih al-Jami‘ #1203]
Al-Imam al-Manawi in Fayd ul Qadir comments on this hadith by saying:
“They are those who interpret it to mean other than what was intended, and they place it in its wrong place. They may also memorize its words while not accepting its dictates. The Munafiqun during Rasul ul Allah (saaw) time were of this persuasion.”
Az-Zamakhshari comments:
“Rasul ul Allah (saaw) meant Riyaa’ (performing acts of worship to impress people) when he mentioned Nifaq. Since both of these characteristics signify an outer deed that is contrary to the inner belief.”
It is also stated that Rasul ul Allah (saaw) meant the Nifaq of ‘Amal not the Nifaq of Kufr.
The Munafiq outwardly displays belief in Allah to ensure the security of his property and life, while denying belief internally. The person who has Riyaa’ outwardly displays the deeds that earn a great reward in al-Akhira (Hereafter) while seeking for these deeds a handsome share in the worldly life. A (misguided) Qari outwardly proclaims that he seeks reward from Allah alone while seeking to have people praise him, his knowledge and deeds. The three all have one thing in common – their hidden intentions are different to their public actions.
For this reason Imam al-Ghazali states:
“Beware of Quraa’ if they have these four characteristics:
* Al-Amal (Hope for worldly reward and renumeration)
* Al-‘Ajlah (hastiness in seeking reward for his deeds)
* Al-Kibr (Pride and boastful arrogance)
* Al-Hasad (Wishing to have what others possess while also wishing for them to lose their possession, namely, envy).”
In seeking a share of the Dunya (Worldly life) a misguided Qari may do all that is deviant, and unethical. He may lie, defame, slander and cheat in a manner of which a criminal would be ashamed.
Al-Imam an-Nawawi states:
“I do not fear to be slandered except by al-Quraa’ and al-‘Ulamaa’ (who have been led astray).”
Those who heard him say this showed their aversion to the statement. He replied,
“I am not the originator of the statement. Ibrahim an-Nakha‘i (rh) preceded me.”
‘Attah said:
”Beware of al-Quraa’. If I was to disagree with one of them about (something as insignificant) as the state of a fruit by saying it is sweet and they saying it is rotten; they would seek to have my blood sanctioned (my death or punishment) from a tyrannical Sultan (ruler).”
Al-Fudayl bin ‘Iyyad (rh) said to his son:
“Purchase a home that is at a great distance from the (deviant) Quraa’. What do I need (or benefit) from them? If one of my shortcomings is uncovered they will seek my demise. And if one of my virtues were to be made public they would envy me for it. You see that they are arrogant, unaccommodating, and surly in their dealings with people. It is as if they feel that their prayer is greater than everyone else. They act as if they have received a divine revelation promising them Jannah and salvation from the Fire. It is as if they seek personal happiness and satisfaction while seeking the wretchedness of all others. Yet, with all of this arrogance and conceitedness they will dress in shabby garments acting meek (to appear humble).”
[End of the Abridged words of al-Manawi (Vol. 2 Pg. 80-81)]
We must think of the consequences of following the arguments of those proposing a secular Islam, if we were to follow their views it would lead to legitimising the tyrant rulers in the Muslim world, the division of Muslim land, the occupation of our lands by the colonialists, the legitimisation of arresting sincere Muslim da’wah carriers and the ultimately loss in this life and in the hereafter.
By Al-Tabarani in Al-Kabeer wal-Bazaar, by the Istinad of the men of Sahih, from 'Awf bin Maalik from the Prophet (saw), who said: "My Ummah will be divided into seventy-something divisions, of them, the greatest Fitna (trial) upon my Ummah are a people who measure matters with their opinion, so they make the forbidden permissible and the permissible forbidden." [Also narrated by Al-Haithami in Majma' Al-Zawaa'id, Part 1/ the Book of Knowledge in the section of Al-Taqleed wal-Qiyas]
Abu Shamah had narrated, via the Sanad of Abi Ziyad bin Hudayr, saying: "Omar said to me: Do you know what destroys Islam? I said, No! He said: A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray".
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Taqwa
The True Meaning of Taqwa
"O you who believe! fear Allah as He should be feared and die not except in a state of Islam." [TMQ 3:102]
Allah (swt) in the Quran emphasises the concept of Taqwa to us many times in the Quran.
Taqwa is one of the most profound concepts in Islam. Taqwa is an avenue by which Muslims relate to one another in society and a means to channel their actions. Because of the great importance of taqwa, it has been referred to numerous times in the Qur’an and Sunnah in order to emphasise its relevance and significance to the Muslims.
Allah (swt) strongly emphasises the rewards of people with taqwa in this life and the Hereafter. It is these muttaqeen that Allah (swt) grants assistance, victory and provides for. Thus, understanding the concept of taqwa is vital and mandatory for every Muslim.
Unfortunately, this is the very concept which some of us have left behind, as a result of intellectual decline. The disbelievers in the distant past, as well as in present times, have understood the importance of taqwa and the Islamic creed, and how it could jeopardise their interests. They realised how taqwa and the Islamic creed (‘aqeedah) were the roots of power to the Muslims. Today we see a campaign to destroy the concept of Taqwa by making us divide the Deen from the Dunya, to secularise our understanding of Islam such that we limit it to personal Ibadat and akhlaq (morals) and detach from any other aspect of life such as economics, politics or social affairs. Allah (swt) warned us in the Quran about their continuous attempts to extinguish his light i.e. Islam, He (swt) said:
"They wish to extinguish Allah's Light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His Light is perfected even though the kuffar may detest it." [TMQ 9:32]
Unfortunately due to the influence of the idea of separating the Deen and Dunya, we can see many misunderstandings amongst us as to who is defined as the Mutaqqi. A picture of a person who over emphasises prayer, fasting, and things such as donating to the masjid, while living a secluded and isolated life would be the one with taqwa, even though the same person would deal with usury, lie and do nothing towards reviving the Ummah.
Due to this idea, people look to Islam as a religion like the other religions who are not complete Deen’s that have come with solutions to every aspect of life. So if I were to ask anyone from amongst the general population of Muslims, ‘what are the rules of Salah?’ I am sure most people would be able to answer this question. But if I was to ask ‘what is the ruling or economic system of Islam?’, ‘what are the Shariah rules relating to contracts and company structures’ or ‘what is our shar’iah responsibility towards the Muslims around the world who are being attacked such as in Iraq and Palestine?’ then I think many people would not know the answers to these questions, we must ask why? Didn’t Allah (swt) reveal to us a complete Deen covering all aspects of life? Didn’t Allah (swt) say in the Quran:
“And We have sent down to you the Book as an explanation of everything, a guidance, a mercy and glad-tidings for those who submitted themselves to Islam.” [TMQ 16:89]
So let us understand the true meaning of Taqwa. In contrast to the distorted picture that people have today, the Qur’an and Sunnah defines the idea of taqwa as protecting oneself from the Hellfire by following the orders of Allah (swt) by doing what He (swt) has commanded and avoiding what He (swt) has forbidden. Many ayat in the Qur’an point to this:
“And unto Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth. And, verily, We have recommended to the people of the Scripture before you, and to you (O Muslims) that you (all) fear Allah, and keep your duty to Him, But if you disbelieve, then unto Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, and Allah is Ever Rich, Worthy of all praise.” [TMQ An-Nisa’ 4: 131]
Taqwa comes from the word 'waqiya', which means to protect. It is protection from the Anger of Allah (swt) and His (swt) punishment. This is why Taqwa is used to describe the performing of actions, which pleases Allah (swt) and abstaining from all actions that displeases Him (swt).
Taqwa in essence means god consciousness, being conscious of Allah (swt) in all our actions and affairs.
Also, in the Prophet’s (saw) last khutbah he said, “I ask you to fear Him (swt), listen to Him (swt), and obey.” Both the ayah, as well as the hadith, are commanding Muslims to have taqwa. A person should have taqwa as a barrier between himself and the Anger and Displeasure of Allah (swt). Through taqwa, the Muslim strives to obey Allah (swt) and abstains from His prohibitions.
The son of ‘Ali (ra), Al-Hasan (ra) once said, “The people who have taqwa (al-muttaqoon) are the people who avoided whatever Allah (swt) has prohibited and have done whatever Allah (swt) has ordained.”
‘Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (ra) once said, “Taqwa is not by fasting the day and not by praying the night. And its not by mixing between the two of them. But taqwa is leaving what Allah (swt) has made Haram and by doing what Allah (swt) has made Fard. After one has done this, Allah (swt) will provide good things for that person.”
Ibn Juzayy said in his dictionary of terms from the introduction to his tafsir: "Taqwa's meaning is fear, clinging to obedience to Allah and abandoning disobedience to Him. It is the sum of all good."
A true muttaqoon is a person who strives to possess a solid understanding and knowledge of the rulings of Allah (swt) through the Qur’an and Sunnah. Without proper knowledge of the Islamic rulings, a person would not know what is asked of him/her. Therefore, it is a must to understand Islam properly as well as to have the proper intention of pleasing Allah (swt) in carrying out these actions.
Imam Ahmad mentions a hadith, narrated by a Sahabi, whereby a person once asked, “Oh Messenger of Allah, give me some advice.” The Prophet (saw) responded, “I advise you to fear Allah (swt) because it is the head of everything.” In another occasion the Prophet (saw) replied, “Fear Allah (swt) because it is the collection of all goodness.” Allah (swt) also promises to be with those who have taqwa. Allah (swt) says,
“Truly, Allah is with those who fear Him, keep their duty unto Him, and those who are muhsinun (doers of good for Allah’s sake only).” [TMQ An-Nahl 16:128]
Also taqwa constitutes a reason, that Allah (swt) has provided, in order to help one who is experiencing hardship and distress. Allah (swt) promises,
“Whoever fears Allah, Allah will grant him a way out of hardship.” [TMQ At-Talaq 65:2]
Allah (swt) had also promised forgiveness of sins to those people who are muttaqoon.
“And whoever fears Allah, and keeps his duty to Him, He will forgive his sins from him and will enlarge his reward.” [TMQ At-Talaq 65:5]
Allah (swt) has given the glad tidings for those who have taqwa. The news of paradise is assured to such people, giving hints at the vast rewards to those who take Allah (swt) as their Lord in their actions.
“Verily those who are fearful of Allah (have taqwa ) are the people who, when an evil thought comes to them from Shaitan, they remember Allah and indeed they then see aright.” [TMQ Al-A‘raf 7:201]
“And he (Muhammad) who has brought the truth and those who believe therein, those are al-muttaqoon (the pious and the righteous).” [TMQ Az-Zumar 39:33]
Hence, from what Allah (swt) has outlined through the wahi, we can see that a person who possesses taqwa is not one who lives an isolated life, only praying, fasting and maintaining good character alone. Instead, the muttaqoon are those who fear Allah (swt) and look to what Allah (swt) has ordained in carrying out his actions to avoid His (swt) displeasure and anger. These people are involved with the Ummah, active in his/her life, concerned with the affairs of the Muslims, while at the same time praying, fasting, spending in Allah’s cause, having good morals and are forgiving. All these descriptions can be attributed to a person who has taqwa.
The Deen has come to regulate the Dunya, not be separated from it. There is no concept of monasticism in Islam i.e. being like a monk. The Prophet (saw) said, “There is no monasticism in Islam.”
Umar ibn al Khattab once looked at those praying and said, "The great number of times any of you raises and lowers his head does not deceive me. The [real] deen is being cautious and meticulous in the deen of Allah, and refraining from what Allah has forbidden, and acting according to what Allah permits and forbids.”
Narrated Abu Huraira, the Prophet (saw) said, "The dunya is a prison for the believer and Paradise for the kafir (disbeliever)," [Sahih Muslim, vol.4, #7058]
This means that we live within the prison of the Shariah, that every single action we undertake is based upon the revelation of Allah (swt). This means we must accept Islam completely and all of its rules including the rules relating to society, economics and Khilafah. This does not mean that we deny the world and that seeking material development and advancement according to the rules of Shariah is wrong.
In fact once when Imam Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, a famous scholar in the past who died in 852 AH, who wrote the commentary of Sahih al Bukhar entitled ‘Fath al Bari’, was walking with his grand entourage through the town, they came upon a miserable, poor and dejected Jew. When the Jew recognized Ibn Hajar, he called out to him, "O scholar of Islam! Is it not true that your Prophet has said that this life is a prison for the believer and Paradise for the kafir? How is it that you are living in lavish wealth being a so-called believer, and yet I live this meagre and miserable existence?" Ibn Hajar responded, "What you say of the Prophet (saw) of what he has said is true. You should know that this opulence you see me living in, is a prison compared to what awaits for me in the Hereafter. And, you should know that what you are living is Paradise compared to what Allah has prepared for you in the akhira."
We must realise that that every Muslim is obliged to believe in the Islamic Shari’ah as a whole otherwise we would be Kafir. Therefore the concept of secularism i.e. to separate the Deen from the Dunya is a Kufr concept. It is Kufr to deny the AHkam Shari’ah as a whole, or any definite (qaT'ai)detailed hukm of them. This is the case whether these ahkam (rules)are connected with worships (ibadaat), transactions (mu'amalaat), punishments (uqoobaat), foodstuffs, etc. So the rejection of the verse:
"So establish regular prayer"[Al-Baraqah:43]
Is the same as rejecting the verses:
"But Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury,"[Al-Baraqah:275]
"As to the thief, male or female, cut of f his or her hands,"[Al-Ma’idah:38]
And is the same as rejecting the following verse calling the believers brothers regardless of their colour, language or ethnic origin – thus prohibiting nationalism i.e. to believe that we are better than others based upon our ethnic origin. So the Muslims in Iraq, Palestine and Iraq are our brothers just as the Muslims in Delhi, Bangkok or Jakarta:
“The believers are nothing else but brothers” [TMQ Al-Hujurat: 10]
Or the verses to do with ruling by what Allah has revealed, which we see the rulers in the Muslim world today ignoring, such as:
“And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Zaalimun (unjust, oppressors).” [TMQ 5:45]
“And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you.” [TMQ 5:48]
In fact Allah (swt) has explicitly told us in the Quran that we are not believers unless we accept all of the rules of Islam. He (swt) said:
"But no, I swear by your lord (allah), they will have no Iman, until they make you, (o prophet) rule between them in whatever they dispute amongst themselves, and then they find no resistance in their souls from what you have decided, instead they submit with absolute submission". [TMQ An Nisa: 65]
Allah (swt) warned us of only taking Islam partially, He (swt) has condemned us if we think that politics is not part of Islam or that economics is not part of Islam, or that Islam has nothing to say about the current world situation. We must accept Islam as an Aqeeda and a system. Allah (swt) said:
“So do you believe in some part of the Book and disbelieve in some. The penalty awaiting those who do this is nothing but humiliation in this life and the severest of punishment on the day of Judgement.” [2:85]
Allah (swt) has revealed to us the best system to regulate the affairs of the Dunya so why are many of us even unaware of it?
Let us look at some examples of Taqwa from the Sahaba:
Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of Ibn Abi Awfa (may Allah be pleased with them both) who said:
“We were struck by extreme hunger on the nights of Khaybar. On the day of Khaybar we found some domestic Asses so we slaughtered them. When the pots began to boil the caller of the Messenger of Allah called out to us and said: overturn your pots and do not eat anything of the meat of donkeys. ‘Abd Allah said: we said that the Prophet forbade them because the Khumus (i.e. a fifth of the spoils) had not been taken out of it. He said others said that he has prohibited them completely. I asked Sa’eed b. Jubayr who said, he has prohibited them completely.”
Al-Bukhari reported on the , he said:authority of Anas b. Malik: “I was serving drinks to Abu Talha al-Ansari, ‘Ubaidah b. al-Jarrrah and Ubayy b. Ka'b prepared from unripe dates and fresh dates when a visitor came and he said: Verily liquor has been prohibited. Thereupon, Abu Talha said: O Anas! Stand up and break this pitcher. I stood up and (took hold) of a pointed stone and struck the pitcher with its lower part until it broke into pieces.”
Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of ‘Ayisha (may Allah be Pleased with her) who said: “We have been told also that when Allah revealed the order that the Muslims should return to the pagans what they had spent on their wives who emigrated (after embracing Islam) and that the Muslims should not keep unbelieving women as their wives, 'Umar divorced two of his wives.”
Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of ‘Ayisha (may Allah be pleased with her) who said:
“May Allah have mercy on the Muhajir women. When Allah revealed the verse: “And let them draw their headscarfs all over necks and bosoms” [TMQ An-Nur:31] they tore their wrappers and concealed themselves with them.”
Abu Dawud reported on the authority of Safiyyah bint Shaybah who reported on the authority of ‘Ayisha (may Allah be pleased her) that:
She (‘Ayisha) mentioned the women of Ansar, praised them and said good words about them. She then said: “When Surat an-Nur came down, they took the curtains, tore them and made head covers of them.”
Ibn Ishaq said: “…Al-Ash’ath b. Qays came to the Messenger of Allah as part of the Kindah delegation. Az-Zuhri informed to me that he came with eighty riders from Kindah. They entered the mosque of the Messenger of . They had long hair and put kohl (in their eyes). They wore Jubbahs with silk hems. When they entered the presence of Allah’s Messenger he said to them: did not you embrace Islam ? They said: Yes. He asked: ‘then what is this silk put around your necks? So they tore the silk and threw it away.”
Hanzalah b. Abi ‘Aamir (may Allah be pleased with him) who was bathed by the angels heard the call to the battle of Uhud. He hurriedly responded to the call. He was martyred on the day of Uhud. Ibn Ishaq said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“Your companion is being bathed by the angels, ask his family what happened to him?” His wife was asked. She had been a bride on that night. She said he went out in a state of impurity when he heard the call. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “That is why the angels have bathed him”.
So let us be the ones who have Taqwa in its true meaning. Let us take Islam completely. Let us take heed from the words of Allah (swt) and may He (swt) strengthen us so that we can follow what He has said.
"O you who Believe! Enter into the Fold of Islam completely. And follow not the footsteps of Satan, for he is to you a clear enemy" [TMQ 2: 208]
"O you who believe! fear Allah as He should be feared and die not except in a state of Islam." [TMQ 3:102]
Allah (swt) in the Quran emphasises the concept of Taqwa to us many times in the Quran.
Taqwa is one of the most profound concepts in Islam. Taqwa is an avenue by which Muslims relate to one another in society and a means to channel their actions. Because of the great importance of taqwa, it has been referred to numerous times in the Qur’an and Sunnah in order to emphasise its relevance and significance to the Muslims.
Allah (swt) strongly emphasises the rewards of people with taqwa in this life and the Hereafter. It is these muttaqeen that Allah (swt) grants assistance, victory and provides for. Thus, understanding the concept of taqwa is vital and mandatory for every Muslim.
Unfortunately, this is the very concept which some of us have left behind, as a result of intellectual decline. The disbelievers in the distant past, as well as in present times, have understood the importance of taqwa and the Islamic creed, and how it could jeopardise their interests. They realised how taqwa and the Islamic creed (‘aqeedah) were the roots of power to the Muslims. Today we see a campaign to destroy the concept of Taqwa by making us divide the Deen from the Dunya, to secularise our understanding of Islam such that we limit it to personal Ibadat and akhlaq (morals) and detach from any other aspect of life such as economics, politics or social affairs. Allah (swt) warned us in the Quran about their continuous attempts to extinguish his light i.e. Islam, He (swt) said:
"They wish to extinguish Allah's Light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His Light is perfected even though the kuffar may detest it." [TMQ 9:32]
Unfortunately due to the influence of the idea of separating the Deen and Dunya, we can see many misunderstandings amongst us as to who is defined as the Mutaqqi. A picture of a person who over emphasises prayer, fasting, and things such as donating to the masjid, while living a secluded and isolated life would be the one with taqwa, even though the same person would deal with usury, lie and do nothing towards reviving the Ummah.
Due to this idea, people look to Islam as a religion like the other religions who are not complete Deen’s that have come with solutions to every aspect of life. So if I were to ask anyone from amongst the general population of Muslims, ‘what are the rules of Salah?’ I am sure most people would be able to answer this question. But if I was to ask ‘what is the ruling or economic system of Islam?’, ‘what are the Shariah rules relating to contracts and company structures’ or ‘what is our shar’iah responsibility towards the Muslims around the world who are being attacked such as in Iraq and Palestine?’ then I think many people would not know the answers to these questions, we must ask why? Didn’t Allah (swt) reveal to us a complete Deen covering all aspects of life? Didn’t Allah (swt) say in the Quran:
“And We have sent down to you the Book as an explanation of everything, a guidance, a mercy and glad-tidings for those who submitted themselves to Islam.” [TMQ 16:89]
So let us understand the true meaning of Taqwa. In contrast to the distorted picture that people have today, the Qur’an and Sunnah defines the idea of taqwa as protecting oneself from the Hellfire by following the orders of Allah (swt) by doing what He (swt) has commanded and avoiding what He (swt) has forbidden. Many ayat in the Qur’an point to this:
“And unto Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth. And, verily, We have recommended to the people of the Scripture before you, and to you (O Muslims) that you (all) fear Allah, and keep your duty to Him, But if you disbelieve, then unto Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, and Allah is Ever Rich, Worthy of all praise.” [TMQ An-Nisa’ 4: 131]
Taqwa comes from the word 'waqiya', which means to protect. It is protection from the Anger of Allah (swt) and His (swt) punishment. This is why Taqwa is used to describe the performing of actions, which pleases Allah (swt) and abstaining from all actions that displeases Him (swt).
Taqwa in essence means god consciousness, being conscious of Allah (swt) in all our actions and affairs.
Also, in the Prophet’s (saw) last khutbah he said, “I ask you to fear Him (swt), listen to Him (swt), and obey.” Both the ayah, as well as the hadith, are commanding Muslims to have taqwa. A person should have taqwa as a barrier between himself and the Anger and Displeasure of Allah (swt). Through taqwa, the Muslim strives to obey Allah (swt) and abstains from His prohibitions.
The son of ‘Ali (ra), Al-Hasan (ra) once said, “The people who have taqwa (al-muttaqoon) are the people who avoided whatever Allah (swt) has prohibited and have done whatever Allah (swt) has ordained.”
‘Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (ra) once said, “Taqwa is not by fasting the day and not by praying the night. And its not by mixing between the two of them. But taqwa is leaving what Allah (swt) has made Haram and by doing what Allah (swt) has made Fard. After one has done this, Allah (swt) will provide good things for that person.”
Ibn Juzayy said in his dictionary of terms from the introduction to his tafsir: "Taqwa's meaning is fear, clinging to obedience to Allah and abandoning disobedience to Him. It is the sum of all good."
A true muttaqoon is a person who strives to possess a solid understanding and knowledge of the rulings of Allah (swt) through the Qur’an and Sunnah. Without proper knowledge of the Islamic rulings, a person would not know what is asked of him/her. Therefore, it is a must to understand Islam properly as well as to have the proper intention of pleasing Allah (swt) in carrying out these actions.
Imam Ahmad mentions a hadith, narrated by a Sahabi, whereby a person once asked, “Oh Messenger of Allah, give me some advice.” The Prophet (saw) responded, “I advise you to fear Allah (swt) because it is the head of everything.” In another occasion the Prophet (saw) replied, “Fear Allah (swt) because it is the collection of all goodness.” Allah (swt) also promises to be with those who have taqwa. Allah (swt) says,
“Truly, Allah is with those who fear Him, keep their duty unto Him, and those who are muhsinun (doers of good for Allah’s sake only).” [TMQ An-Nahl 16:128]
Also taqwa constitutes a reason, that Allah (swt) has provided, in order to help one who is experiencing hardship and distress. Allah (swt) promises,
“Whoever fears Allah, Allah will grant him a way out of hardship.” [TMQ At-Talaq 65:2]
Allah (swt) had also promised forgiveness of sins to those people who are muttaqoon.
“And whoever fears Allah, and keeps his duty to Him, He will forgive his sins from him and will enlarge his reward.” [TMQ At-Talaq 65:5]
Allah (swt) has given the glad tidings for those who have taqwa. The news of paradise is assured to such people, giving hints at the vast rewards to those who take Allah (swt) as their Lord in their actions.
“Verily those who are fearful of Allah (have taqwa ) are the people who, when an evil thought comes to them from Shaitan, they remember Allah and indeed they then see aright.” [TMQ Al-A‘raf 7:201]
“And he (Muhammad) who has brought the truth and those who believe therein, those are al-muttaqoon (the pious and the righteous).” [TMQ Az-Zumar 39:33]
Hence, from what Allah (swt) has outlined through the wahi, we can see that a person who possesses taqwa is not one who lives an isolated life, only praying, fasting and maintaining good character alone. Instead, the muttaqoon are those who fear Allah (swt) and look to what Allah (swt) has ordained in carrying out his actions to avoid His (swt) displeasure and anger. These people are involved with the Ummah, active in his/her life, concerned with the affairs of the Muslims, while at the same time praying, fasting, spending in Allah’s cause, having good morals and are forgiving. All these descriptions can be attributed to a person who has taqwa.
The Deen has come to regulate the Dunya, not be separated from it. There is no concept of monasticism in Islam i.e. being like a monk. The Prophet (saw) said, “There is no monasticism in Islam.”
Umar ibn al Khattab once looked at those praying and said, "The great number of times any of you raises and lowers his head does not deceive me. The [real] deen is being cautious and meticulous in the deen of Allah, and refraining from what Allah has forbidden, and acting according to what Allah permits and forbids.”
Narrated Abu Huraira, the Prophet (saw) said, "The dunya is a prison for the believer and Paradise for the kafir (disbeliever)," [Sahih Muslim, vol.4, #7058]
This means that we live within the prison of the Shariah, that every single action we undertake is based upon the revelation of Allah (swt). This means we must accept Islam completely and all of its rules including the rules relating to society, economics and Khilafah. This does not mean that we deny the world and that seeking material development and advancement according to the rules of Shariah is wrong.
In fact once when Imam Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, a famous scholar in the past who died in 852 AH, who wrote the commentary of Sahih al Bukhar entitled ‘Fath al Bari’, was walking with his grand entourage through the town, they came upon a miserable, poor and dejected Jew. When the Jew recognized Ibn Hajar, he called out to him, "O scholar of Islam! Is it not true that your Prophet has said that this life is a prison for the believer and Paradise for the kafir? How is it that you are living in lavish wealth being a so-called believer, and yet I live this meagre and miserable existence?" Ibn Hajar responded, "What you say of the Prophet (saw) of what he has said is true. You should know that this opulence you see me living in, is a prison compared to what awaits for me in the Hereafter. And, you should know that what you are living is Paradise compared to what Allah has prepared for you in the akhira."
We must realise that that every Muslim is obliged to believe in the Islamic Shari’ah as a whole otherwise we would be Kafir. Therefore the concept of secularism i.e. to separate the Deen from the Dunya is a Kufr concept. It is Kufr to deny the AHkam Shari’ah as a whole, or any definite (qaT'ai)detailed hukm of them. This is the case whether these ahkam (rules)are connected with worships (ibadaat), transactions (mu'amalaat), punishments (uqoobaat), foodstuffs, etc. So the rejection of the verse:
"So establish regular prayer"[Al-Baraqah:43]
Is the same as rejecting the verses:
"But Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury,"[Al-Baraqah:275]
"As to the thief, male or female, cut of f his or her hands,"[Al-Ma’idah:38]
And is the same as rejecting the following verse calling the believers brothers regardless of their colour, language or ethnic origin – thus prohibiting nationalism i.e. to believe that we are better than others based upon our ethnic origin. So the Muslims in Iraq, Palestine and Iraq are our brothers just as the Muslims in Delhi, Bangkok or Jakarta:
“The believers are nothing else but brothers” [TMQ Al-Hujurat: 10]
Or the verses to do with ruling by what Allah has revealed, which we see the rulers in the Muslim world today ignoring, such as:
“And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Zaalimun (unjust, oppressors).” [TMQ 5:45]
“And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you.” [TMQ 5:48]
In fact Allah (swt) has explicitly told us in the Quran that we are not believers unless we accept all of the rules of Islam. He (swt) said:
"But no, I swear by your lord (allah), they will have no Iman, until they make you, (o prophet) rule between them in whatever they dispute amongst themselves, and then they find no resistance in their souls from what you have decided, instead they submit with absolute submission". [TMQ An Nisa: 65]
Allah (swt) warned us of only taking Islam partially, He (swt) has condemned us if we think that politics is not part of Islam or that economics is not part of Islam, or that Islam has nothing to say about the current world situation. We must accept Islam as an Aqeeda and a system. Allah (swt) said:
“So do you believe in some part of the Book and disbelieve in some. The penalty awaiting those who do this is nothing but humiliation in this life and the severest of punishment on the day of Judgement.” [2:85]
Allah (swt) has revealed to us the best system to regulate the affairs of the Dunya so why are many of us even unaware of it?
Let us look at some examples of Taqwa from the Sahaba:
Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of Ibn Abi Awfa (may Allah be pleased with them both) who said:
“We were struck by extreme hunger on the nights of Khaybar. On the day of Khaybar we found some domestic Asses so we slaughtered them. When the pots began to boil the caller of the Messenger of Allah called out to us and said: overturn your pots and do not eat anything of the meat of donkeys. ‘Abd Allah said: we said that the Prophet forbade them because the Khumus (i.e. a fifth of the spoils) had not been taken out of it. He said others said that he has prohibited them completely. I asked Sa’eed b. Jubayr who said, he has prohibited them completely.”
Al-Bukhari reported on the , he said:authority of Anas b. Malik: “I was serving drinks to Abu Talha al-Ansari, ‘Ubaidah b. al-Jarrrah and Ubayy b. Ka'b prepared from unripe dates and fresh dates when a visitor came and he said: Verily liquor has been prohibited. Thereupon, Abu Talha said: O Anas! Stand up and break this pitcher. I stood up and (took hold) of a pointed stone and struck the pitcher with its lower part until it broke into pieces.”
Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of ‘Ayisha (may Allah be Pleased with her) who said: “We have been told also that when Allah revealed the order that the Muslims should return to the pagans what they had spent on their wives who emigrated (after embracing Islam) and that the Muslims should not keep unbelieving women as their wives, 'Umar divorced two of his wives.”
Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of ‘Ayisha (may Allah be pleased with her) who said:
“May Allah have mercy on the Muhajir women. When Allah revealed the verse: “And let them draw their headscarfs all over necks and bosoms” [TMQ An-Nur:31] they tore their wrappers and concealed themselves with them.”
Abu Dawud reported on the authority of Safiyyah bint Shaybah who reported on the authority of ‘Ayisha (may Allah be pleased her) that:
She (‘Ayisha) mentioned the women of Ansar, praised them and said good words about them. She then said: “When Surat an-Nur came down, they took the curtains, tore them and made head covers of them.”
Ibn Ishaq said: “…Al-Ash’ath b. Qays came to the Messenger of Allah as part of the Kindah delegation. Az-Zuhri informed to me that he came with eighty riders from Kindah. They entered the mosque of the Messenger of . They had long hair and put kohl (in their eyes). They wore Jubbahs with silk hems. When they entered the presence of Allah’s Messenger he said to them: did not you embrace Islam ? They said: Yes. He asked: ‘then what is this silk put around your necks? So they tore the silk and threw it away.”
Hanzalah b. Abi ‘Aamir (may Allah be pleased with him) who was bathed by the angels heard the call to the battle of Uhud. He hurriedly responded to the call. He was martyred on the day of Uhud. Ibn Ishaq said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“Your companion is being bathed by the angels, ask his family what happened to him?” His wife was asked. She had been a bride on that night. She said he went out in a state of impurity when he heard the call. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “That is why the angels have bathed him”.
So let us be the ones who have Taqwa in its true meaning. Let us take Islam completely. Let us take heed from the words of Allah (swt) and may He (swt) strengthen us so that we can follow what He has said.
"O you who Believe! Enter into the Fold of Islam completely. And follow not the footsteps of Satan, for he is to you a clear enemy" [TMQ 2: 208]
Saturday, 17 October 2009
The True Understand of Victory (Nasr) being from Allah
“Verily those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (men) from the way of Allah and so they will continue to spend it, but in the end will become an anguish for them. They will be overcome and those disbelievers will be gathered in Hell" [TMQ Al-Anfal: 36].
Ibn Kathir in his Tafseer mentions that this verse was revealed during the battle of Badr in particular concerning Abu Sufyan ibn Harb. Moments before the battle it is narrated that Abu Sufyan delivered a speech calling on the Quraish to donate their wealth for the war (harb) and in particular to get rid of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) once and for all.
He also narrates from Ibn Abbas (ra) from Mujahid (ra) that it was revealed concerning Abu Sufyan because he donated his wealth to kill the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam).
Dahhak (ra) said: "This verse was revealed concerning the people of Badr and all those capable of doing (what the ayah mentions). The Sabab an Nuzul (circumstance of revelation) was concerning a specific incident i.e. at Badr. Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) has informed us that the Kuffar will spend their wealth so as to hinder people from following the Tareeqa (path) of Haq (truth), and they spend their wealth for this purpose until they become miserable … they wish to extinguish the light of Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) and to make their word prevail over the word of truth but Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) raises his light although the Kuffar may detest this and He helps his Deen and makes it prevail over all other Deens and this is their humiliation in this life and punishment of hellfire in the hereafter." [Tafseer Ibn Kathir]
This verse is applicable to the current reality where the Kuffar have launched a crusade against Islam and are continuing this during the blessed month of Ramadhan. This verse was revealed during the month of Ramadhan when the Quraish were gathering their forces and wealth in order to quell Islam, which culminated in the famous battle of Badr. Today the forces of Kufr are also attempting to curb Islam by attacking the Muslims of Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and other parts of the Islamic land. They spend their wealth not only to fight the Muslims physically but also to colonise the minds of the Muslims by attempting to sever them from their Aqeedah (belief) and distort the Islamic culture.
Unlike the battle of Badr, the Muslims today do not stand side by side under a single leadership, which implements Islam. Rather since the destruction of the Khilafah, the Muslims have been in the absence of the shepherd, shield and protector whom the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) called the shade of Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) upon the earth.
Al-Tabarani and Al-Baihaqi reported that the Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: "The Sultan is the shade of Allah on earth".
Without this Sultan, Imam or Khalifah we are exposed to attack from all sides without having a leadership that protects our lives, property and dignity. In this situation it is of paramount importance that we understand the concept of Nasr (victory) being from Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) in the correct manner. It can be noticed, from looking at their statements and behaviour, that some Muslims misunderstand this concept.
Some find it hard to believe that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) can provide us the victory when we are drowning in a sea of problems and the ship of the Kuffar seems so powerful. They see the heads of Kufr such as America and its modern Ahzab (Alliance or Coalition) as too strong economically, militarily and politically for the Muslims to overcome. They become mesmerised by the spider’s web (Bait al Ankabut) and can’t see through its weak structure. This has led to some being defeated by the current onslaught and has resulted in their inactivity and failure to try to liberate the Ummah from the Fir’awn of the world by standing up and re-establishing the Khilafah. Defeatism should never enter the heart of the true believer who knows that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) will provide the victory.
Another misunderstanding that people fall into is one of mixing the Aqeedah (belief) and the Ahkam Shari’ah (Shari’ah rules). They believe that Allah Azza wa jall will provide us with victory but they rely on this without undertaking the actions that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) ordered us with. This error in understanding leads people to remain inactive to change the situation around them and leaves them content in waiting for the victory to come, often the only action they call for is Du’a to Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) and the asking of help from Him (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala). This diseased view is a corruption in the Islamic mentality and can lead Muslims into fatalism and neglecting their Fara’id (obligations). To demonstrate this we can look at the belief in the Rizq (provision) being from Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala). We belief that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) is Ar-Raaziq (The one who provides) however when it comes to our actions we must follow His commands and prohibitions otherwise we would be violating the Qur’an which he revealed to us as a Furqan (criterion) and we would definitely fall into sin.
It was narrated that Umar bin Al-Khattab (ra) passed by some people, who were known as readers of the Qur’an. He saw them sitting and bending their heads, and asked who they were. He was told: "They are those who depend (al-mutawwakiloon) upon Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala)." Umar replied; "No, they are the eaters who eat the people’s properties. Do you want me to describe who those who really depend upon Allah (al-mutawwakiloon) are?" He was answered in the affirmative, and then he said: "He is the person who throws the seeds in the earth and then depends on his Lord, The Almighty, The Exalted."
Umar bin al Khattab (ra), of whom the Shaytan was afraid, explained to us how depending upon Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) does not mean leaving his obligations and not working to achieve his responsibilities. The Muslim man is commanded by Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) to earn a living for himself and his family although he has the permanent belief that effort is not proportional to Rizq. Hence there is a difference between the matters of Aqeedah and the following of the Ahkam Shari’ah.
Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) once shook the hand of Sa’ad ibn Muadh (ra) and found his hands to be rough. When the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) asked about it, Sa’ad said; “I dig with the shovel to maintain my family.” The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) kissed Sa’ad’s hands and said; “(They are) two hands which The Supreme loves.” The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “Nobody would ever eat food that is better than to eat of his own hand’s work.”
As Muslims, we know that the Ajal (lifespan) can be only terminated by Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala). As He (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) said,
“And no person can ever die except by Allah's leave and at an appointed term” [TMQ Ale-Imran: 145].
Although our death cannot be avoided the knowledge of this should not lead to us abandoning any cures to illnesses or other means from the reality. Rather we seek cures for illnesses in response to the Hadith, “For every disease there is a cure. So seek the cure.”
Unfortunately we can see contradictions in those who restrict themselves to Du’a when it comes to solving the dire problems the Ummah is faced with like the bombardment of the innocent Muslims of Afghanistan. They would not limit themselves to Du’a when it comes to seeking their Rizq (provision) rather we would find them studying, working and striving in order to achieve it. Nor would we find them leaving their property unattended and their houses insecure even though they believe that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) is Ar-Raaziq (The Provider). When they are ill we would find them going to the doctor and taking medicine. Then how can it be, when Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) has commanded us to motivate the people of power like the armies in the Islamic world to undertake their duty of repelling the aggressor and crushing the crusaders that they remain inactive praying for the Mahdi to emerge or for the victory to be granted? How can it be that they remain silent when Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) has commanded us to undertake the intellectual and political struggle in order to remove the corrupt rulers in the Islamic land and replace them with the Khilafah? As if we are like a feather in the wind with no accountability.
We must understand that victory is only granted by Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) just as Rizq (provision) is, however we have not been left on this earth without a Shari’ah wandering aimlessly. Rather He (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) revealed the Qur’an in the month of Ramadhan as a guidance for mankind together with the clear proofs of this guidance for us to follow.
The two extremes of defeatism and fatalism are both incorrect and did not exist in the Sahabah (ra). The Muslims in the battle of Badr as in all the other battles understood that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) is the provider of the victory even if they were outnumbered, so they didn’t become defeated by the difficult reality around them, rather they knew that they were entrusted with the obligation of doing their utmost to defeat the enemy. The example of Badr is sufficient to demonstrate this.
In the second year of Hijrah the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) set out on the 8th of Ramadhan with three hundred and five of his companions mounted on seventy camels - ‘Amr ibn Umm Maktum was assigned to lead the prayer whilst Abu Lubabah was left in charge of Madinah. They rode the camels in turn heading towards a caravan led by Abu Sufyan. As they marched on they sought news of the caravan until they had reached the valley of Dafran where they settled, and news reached them there that Quraish had set out from Makkah to protect their caravan. The whole affair then assumed different proportions for it was no longer simply a raid on a caravan, the question was whether to confront Quraish or not. So Allah’s Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) consulted the Muslims. Abu Bakr (ra) followed then by ‘Umar (ra) voiced their opinions respectively, then al-Miqdad ibn ‘Amr (ra) arose and said, "O Messenger of Allah! Go where Allah tells you, for we are with you. We shall not say as the children of Israel said to Moses ‘You and your Lord go and fight and we will stay at home’, but you and your Lord go and fight and we will fight with you.""Give me advice O men!" by which he meant the Ansar who had paid allegiance to him at al-’Aqabah. They had pledged to protect him as they protected their wives and children, with the stipulation that they were not responsible to fight with him outside Madinah. When the Ansar sensed that he (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) meant them, Sa’ad ibn Mu’adh (ra) who was holding their banner said, "It seems as if you mean us, O Messenger of Allah." He (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, "Yes.” Sa’ad said, "We believe in you, we declare your truth, and we witness that what you have brought us is the truth, and we have given you our word and agreement to hear and obey; so go where you wish, we are with you; and by He who sent you, if you were to ask us to cross this sea and you plunged into it, we would plunge into it with you; not a man would stay behind. We do not dislike the idea of meeting our enemy tomorrow. We are experienced in war, trustworthy in combat. It may well be that Allah will let us show you something which will bring you joy, so take us along with Allah’s blessing." The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) was delighted with Sa’ad’s words and said, "Forward in good heart, for Allah had promised me one of the two parties, and by Allah, it is as though I now saw the enemy lying prostrate."
Then the two sides advanced and drew near each other on Friday morning on the 17th of Ramadhan. The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) straightened the ranks and incited the Muslims to fight. The Muslims were encouraged by the words of Allah’s Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and went forward. The fighting broke out fiercely and the heads of the Quraishi fighters went flying from their bodies, the Muslims becoming stronger all the time chanting ‘Ahad! Ahad!’ (The One, the One). Allah’s Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) whilst standing in the midst of the confrontation took a handful of pebbles and threw them at Quraish saying, "Foul be those faces!" Then he (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) ordered his companions to charge and they duly obliged until the battle was over, and the foe was routed. The Muslims emerged victorious despite being outnumbered three to one, they slew many warriors and tribal leaders of Quraish and took captive many more. The Quraish fled the battlefield and the Muslims returned to Madinah having achieved a truly great victory.
In these difficult days it is vital for us to have the mentality the Sahabah (ra) had regarding the issue of Nasr (victory). We must believe that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) will provide it whenever He (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) wishes, we shouldn’t become defeated if we don’t see it, nor should we remain idle waiting for it to come about. We have to do our utmost in implementing all the orders of Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) including those regarding changing the status quo and re-establishing the Khilafah. This life is a test and in pursuit of political change we may face all types of tribulations as the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and the Sahabah (ra) faced.
“Or do you think that you shall enter the gardens of Bliss (al-Jannah) without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you?” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 214]
Indeed Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) has promised us His (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) help and victory.
“So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior (in victory) if you are indeed (true) believers” [TMQ Ale-Imran: 139].
“O you who believe if you aid the cause of Allah he will aid you and make your foothold firm” [TMQ Muhammad: 7].
Ibn Kathir in his Tafseer mentions that this verse was revealed during the battle of Badr in particular concerning Abu Sufyan ibn Harb. Moments before the battle it is narrated that Abu Sufyan delivered a speech calling on the Quraish to donate their wealth for the war (harb) and in particular to get rid of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) once and for all.
He also narrates from Ibn Abbas (ra) from Mujahid (ra) that it was revealed concerning Abu Sufyan because he donated his wealth to kill the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam).
Dahhak (ra) said: "This verse was revealed concerning the people of Badr and all those capable of doing (what the ayah mentions). The Sabab an Nuzul (circumstance of revelation) was concerning a specific incident i.e. at Badr. Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) has informed us that the Kuffar will spend their wealth so as to hinder people from following the Tareeqa (path) of Haq (truth), and they spend their wealth for this purpose until they become miserable … they wish to extinguish the light of Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) and to make their word prevail over the word of truth but Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) raises his light although the Kuffar may detest this and He helps his Deen and makes it prevail over all other Deens and this is their humiliation in this life and punishment of hellfire in the hereafter." [Tafseer Ibn Kathir]
This verse is applicable to the current reality where the Kuffar have launched a crusade against Islam and are continuing this during the blessed month of Ramadhan. This verse was revealed during the month of Ramadhan when the Quraish were gathering their forces and wealth in order to quell Islam, which culminated in the famous battle of Badr. Today the forces of Kufr are also attempting to curb Islam by attacking the Muslims of Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and other parts of the Islamic land. They spend their wealth not only to fight the Muslims physically but also to colonise the minds of the Muslims by attempting to sever them from their Aqeedah (belief) and distort the Islamic culture.
Unlike the battle of Badr, the Muslims today do not stand side by side under a single leadership, which implements Islam. Rather since the destruction of the Khilafah, the Muslims have been in the absence of the shepherd, shield and protector whom the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) called the shade of Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) upon the earth.
Al-Tabarani and Al-Baihaqi reported that the Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: "The Sultan is the shade of Allah on earth".
Without this Sultan, Imam or Khalifah we are exposed to attack from all sides without having a leadership that protects our lives, property and dignity. In this situation it is of paramount importance that we understand the concept of Nasr (victory) being from Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) in the correct manner. It can be noticed, from looking at their statements and behaviour, that some Muslims misunderstand this concept.
Some find it hard to believe that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) can provide us the victory when we are drowning in a sea of problems and the ship of the Kuffar seems so powerful. They see the heads of Kufr such as America and its modern Ahzab (Alliance or Coalition) as too strong economically, militarily and politically for the Muslims to overcome. They become mesmerised by the spider’s web (Bait al Ankabut) and can’t see through its weak structure. This has led to some being defeated by the current onslaught and has resulted in their inactivity and failure to try to liberate the Ummah from the Fir’awn of the world by standing up and re-establishing the Khilafah. Defeatism should never enter the heart of the true believer who knows that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) will provide the victory.
Another misunderstanding that people fall into is one of mixing the Aqeedah (belief) and the Ahkam Shari’ah (Shari’ah rules). They believe that Allah Azza wa jall will provide us with victory but they rely on this without undertaking the actions that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) ordered us with. This error in understanding leads people to remain inactive to change the situation around them and leaves them content in waiting for the victory to come, often the only action they call for is Du’a to Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) and the asking of help from Him (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala). This diseased view is a corruption in the Islamic mentality and can lead Muslims into fatalism and neglecting their Fara’id (obligations). To demonstrate this we can look at the belief in the Rizq (provision) being from Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala). We belief that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) is Ar-Raaziq (The one who provides) however when it comes to our actions we must follow His commands and prohibitions otherwise we would be violating the Qur’an which he revealed to us as a Furqan (criterion) and we would definitely fall into sin.
It was narrated that Umar bin Al-Khattab (ra) passed by some people, who were known as readers of the Qur’an. He saw them sitting and bending their heads, and asked who they were. He was told: "They are those who depend (al-mutawwakiloon) upon Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala)." Umar replied; "No, they are the eaters who eat the people’s properties. Do you want me to describe who those who really depend upon Allah (al-mutawwakiloon) are?" He was answered in the affirmative, and then he said: "He is the person who throws the seeds in the earth and then depends on his Lord, The Almighty, The Exalted."
Umar bin al Khattab (ra), of whom the Shaytan was afraid, explained to us how depending upon Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) does not mean leaving his obligations and not working to achieve his responsibilities. The Muslim man is commanded by Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) to earn a living for himself and his family although he has the permanent belief that effort is not proportional to Rizq. Hence there is a difference between the matters of Aqeedah and the following of the Ahkam Shari’ah.
Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) once shook the hand of Sa’ad ibn Muadh (ra) and found his hands to be rough. When the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) asked about it, Sa’ad said; “I dig with the shovel to maintain my family.” The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) kissed Sa’ad’s hands and said; “(They are) two hands which The Supreme loves.” The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “Nobody would ever eat food that is better than to eat of his own hand’s work.”
As Muslims, we know that the Ajal (lifespan) can be only terminated by Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala). As He (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) said,
“And no person can ever die except by Allah's leave and at an appointed term” [TMQ Ale-Imran: 145].
Although our death cannot be avoided the knowledge of this should not lead to us abandoning any cures to illnesses or other means from the reality. Rather we seek cures for illnesses in response to the Hadith, “For every disease there is a cure. So seek the cure.”
Unfortunately we can see contradictions in those who restrict themselves to Du’a when it comes to solving the dire problems the Ummah is faced with like the bombardment of the innocent Muslims of Afghanistan. They would not limit themselves to Du’a when it comes to seeking their Rizq (provision) rather we would find them studying, working and striving in order to achieve it. Nor would we find them leaving their property unattended and their houses insecure even though they believe that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) is Ar-Raaziq (The Provider). When they are ill we would find them going to the doctor and taking medicine. Then how can it be, when Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) has commanded us to motivate the people of power like the armies in the Islamic world to undertake their duty of repelling the aggressor and crushing the crusaders that they remain inactive praying for the Mahdi to emerge or for the victory to be granted? How can it be that they remain silent when Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) has commanded us to undertake the intellectual and political struggle in order to remove the corrupt rulers in the Islamic land and replace them with the Khilafah? As if we are like a feather in the wind with no accountability.
We must understand that victory is only granted by Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) just as Rizq (provision) is, however we have not been left on this earth without a Shari’ah wandering aimlessly. Rather He (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) revealed the Qur’an in the month of Ramadhan as a guidance for mankind together with the clear proofs of this guidance for us to follow.
The two extremes of defeatism and fatalism are both incorrect and did not exist in the Sahabah (ra). The Muslims in the battle of Badr as in all the other battles understood that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) is the provider of the victory even if they were outnumbered, so they didn’t become defeated by the difficult reality around them, rather they knew that they were entrusted with the obligation of doing their utmost to defeat the enemy. The example of Badr is sufficient to demonstrate this.
In the second year of Hijrah the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) set out on the 8th of Ramadhan with three hundred and five of his companions mounted on seventy camels - ‘Amr ibn Umm Maktum was assigned to lead the prayer whilst Abu Lubabah was left in charge of Madinah. They rode the camels in turn heading towards a caravan led by Abu Sufyan. As they marched on they sought news of the caravan until they had reached the valley of Dafran where they settled, and news reached them there that Quraish had set out from Makkah to protect their caravan. The whole affair then assumed different proportions for it was no longer simply a raid on a caravan, the question was whether to confront Quraish or not. So Allah’s Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) consulted the Muslims. Abu Bakr (ra) followed then by ‘Umar (ra) voiced their opinions respectively, then al-Miqdad ibn ‘Amr (ra) arose and said, "O Messenger of Allah! Go where Allah tells you, for we are with you. We shall not say as the children of Israel said to Moses ‘You and your Lord go and fight and we will stay at home’, but you and your Lord go and fight and we will fight with you.""Give me advice O men!" by which he meant the Ansar who had paid allegiance to him at al-’Aqabah. They had pledged to protect him as they protected their wives and children, with the stipulation that they were not responsible to fight with him outside Madinah. When the Ansar sensed that he (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) meant them, Sa’ad ibn Mu’adh (ra) who was holding their banner said, "It seems as if you mean us, O Messenger of Allah." He (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, "Yes.” Sa’ad said, "We believe in you, we declare your truth, and we witness that what you have brought us is the truth, and we have given you our word and agreement to hear and obey; so go where you wish, we are with you; and by He who sent you, if you were to ask us to cross this sea and you plunged into it, we would plunge into it with you; not a man would stay behind. We do not dislike the idea of meeting our enemy tomorrow. We are experienced in war, trustworthy in combat. It may well be that Allah will let us show you something which will bring you joy, so take us along with Allah’s blessing." The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) was delighted with Sa’ad’s words and said, "Forward in good heart, for Allah had promised me one of the two parties, and by Allah, it is as though I now saw the enemy lying prostrate."
Then the two sides advanced and drew near each other on Friday morning on the 17th of Ramadhan. The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) straightened the ranks and incited the Muslims to fight. The Muslims were encouraged by the words of Allah’s Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and went forward. The fighting broke out fiercely and the heads of the Quraishi fighters went flying from their bodies, the Muslims becoming stronger all the time chanting ‘Ahad! Ahad!’ (The One, the One). Allah’s Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) whilst standing in the midst of the confrontation took a handful of pebbles and threw them at Quraish saying, "Foul be those faces!" Then he (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) ordered his companions to charge and they duly obliged until the battle was over, and the foe was routed. The Muslims emerged victorious despite being outnumbered three to one, they slew many warriors and tribal leaders of Quraish and took captive many more. The Quraish fled the battlefield and the Muslims returned to Madinah having achieved a truly great victory.
In these difficult days it is vital for us to have the mentality the Sahabah (ra) had regarding the issue of Nasr (victory). We must believe that Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) will provide it whenever He (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) wishes, we shouldn’t become defeated if we don’t see it, nor should we remain idle waiting for it to come about. We have to do our utmost in implementing all the orders of Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) including those regarding changing the status quo and re-establishing the Khilafah. This life is a test and in pursuit of political change we may face all types of tribulations as the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and the Sahabah (ra) faced.
“Or do you think that you shall enter the gardens of Bliss (al-Jannah) without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you?” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 214]
Indeed Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) has promised us His (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) help and victory.
“So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior (in victory) if you are indeed (true) believers” [TMQ Ale-Imran: 139].
“O you who believe if you aid the cause of Allah he will aid you and make your foothold firm” [TMQ Muhammad: 7].
Monday, 15 June 2009
Shariah
Is Shariah only about punishments?
When the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams recently tried to discuss the accommodation of aspects of Shariah law in Britain he triggered a vicious attack on the Islamic Shariah. This was shortly preceded by an incident involving schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons who was detained in Sudan - a country which selectively implements Shariah rules. This followed an uproar in the media regarding a survey where a significant percentage of Muslims, when asked, responded that they wished ‘to live by Shariah'. These incidents along with many others indicate the level of hostility that has developed in the Western world towards the notion of Shariah, even when it relates to what Muslims want implemented in their own countries.
Whilst Western governments have expressed a negative view of the Islamic Shariah, and any system of law other than their own, the political classes, media and others like the neo-conservatives have become extremely vocal in their attack. Criticisms that Western politicians initially made was aimed at addressing terrorism, which was then used to address extremism and is now directed against the fundamental tenants of Islam. Since the launch of the War on Terror, the western world, particularly America, Britain and other European countries, both at a state and media level have been engaged in a frenzied attempt to try to convince the Muslims that a state implementing the Islamic Shariah rules is not viable and would lead to a "pre-feudal State", as expressed by Tony Blair.
What is Shariah?
The Ahkam Shariyyah (Shariah Rules) is the body of rules that are derived from the revelation sent by Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him - Sallalahu Alayhi Wassalam). These rules relate to all aspects of human life, whether they be regarding ritual worships, manners and morals, economics, political, governmental, social, judicial and international affairs.
The Shariah rules aim at protecting the society in which they are implemented. They are not prescribed by man, but rather by the commands and prohibitions of Allah, which are constant, neither changing nor evolving. They aim to achieve the protection of human life, mind, human dignity, private property, religion, security and the state. These rules establish a set of values for Muslims which ensures balance, dignity and respect within the society.
Some of these rules are a personal code for Muslims on how to act, informing the individual of the obligations and prohibitions that have been placed upon him. Other rules are implemented by a state and are forbidden for Muslims to implement individually such as the hudood (punishments), which can only be implemented by the person appointed by the Khalifah (authorised leader) of the Muslims. Unfortunately none of the Muslim countries today apply the Islamic Shariah comprehensively and therefore cannot be regarded as Islamic states.
The Attack on the Shariah: Is the West in a Position to Criticise or Advocate Secular Laws?
The West has based its criticism of the Shariah law on the basis of a relative comparison to itself. This is in no way an objective measure of the effectiveness of a law system. The effectiveness of the system should be measured on its ability to achieve protection and the security of the people in the society. While not implemented today, we have historical precedence from as recently as the 1900's when current day Turkey and the Middle East implemented the Islamic Shariah.
Can we say today that societies in the west are characterised by high levels of personal security, or that their dignity is protected? Sadly, the reality is that Western societies are characterised by girls as young as 12 being treated for sexually transmitted diseases and alcoholism. In the 8 years from 1998 to 2006 the statistics provided by the government indicate that violent crime has doubled from approximately half a million reported crimes annually to over a million. In that time crime against property has remained approximately constant at two million reported crimes annually and sexual crimes for the period has gone up approximately 177percent from 35 thousand to 62 thousand. These figures are an indictment of a society and system of law which is incapable of the protection of the society.
Can Muslims living in Britain today say that they feel secure given the incarceration of people without trial and draconian legislation targeted at them? This climate of fear has been created only because Muslims wish to speak out against Western colonial foreign policy and the oppression in the Muslim world.
It is correct to say that the Islamic shariah is in certain circumstances harsher than the west in its punishment of criminals. It does so in order to protect the innocent; it has safeguarded these most serious of punishments with a burden of proof that exceeds the British judicial system.
How does Shariah Address Peoples' Lives?
Shariah guides us to worship Allah (swt), who we turn to when we feel low, or burdened with problems. It gives us hope and strength because our convictions are built on strong intellectual reasoning. It provides us an objective in life and a source of comfort in hardships. The lack of such a strong basis and worship of the Creator means that people have nowhere to turn to when problems mount. In this society we witness people turn to drugs, alcohol abuse or other forms of escapism when they feel low. The rate of suicide is at an all time high as people struggle with depression and other mental problems.
The Shariah provides guidance about valuing oneself and the relationship between a person and themselves; it gives a code by which people can stay clean and hygienic, eat and drink the halal things and abstain from that which we have been warned against. A society that shuns this code, is a society characterised by binge drinking, drug taking and many other types of self destructive behaviour. The Metropolitan police reported that most anti-social crime is fuelled by a combination of drink and drugs, which stop people from acting "reasonably".
The Shariah also provides guidance on valuing other people and regulates relationships between a person and other people. By contrast, in the west disrespecting others is taken as the norm. We find abandoning the elderly to a life of solitude is common, such that an estimated 23,000 elderly people die of cold every winter in Britain alone. The lack of respect for others has had a devastating effect around us; children are murdered daily at school and on the streets, teachers are abused verbally and physically, paedophilia is rife across the society as well as other sexual crimes such as rape.
Shariah and the State
Of course the Shariah is not complete without the regulation of the State - a legitimate Islamic authority. This is the Islamic Khilafah system that Allah and His messenger mandated for the Muslims. This implements the Shariah rules in terms of government, criminal law, judicial system, economic system and social system. THe lack of these Shariah laws has led to the existence of dictatorships, the corruption of democracy, tyranny and manifest injustice, poverty and colonial exploitation. It is left to the very same unstable capitalist system that is causing so much concern today even in the west.
In this context, the Shariah rules dictate how the government is accounted; how people are protected from poverty; how the healthcare and education of citizens is provided; how people appoint their ruler and can remove him if he violates his contract.
Brothers and Sisters, we live in a world where the comprehensive implementation of Shariah is totally absent. Shariah gives value to the needs of the society - not to give priority to the individual at the expense of the wider society. The real barbarism that exists are the wars declared in the name of freedom and democracy; the self damaging behaviour by people in the west in the name of freedom of choice; the exploitation of women in the name of freedom of expression; and the dire poverty of millions in the name of the free market. To follow the Shariah is the submission of man to Allah, by his free choice. To follow any other legal code is to submit to the slavery to rich and powerful men, who decide the fate of millions according to their own, often purely financial interests.
Conclusion
Today, 66 percent of Egyptians, 60 percent of Pakistanis and 54 percent of Jordanians say that Shariah should be the only source of legislation in their countries.
Muslims are faced with this kind of pressure every week from the western media, who are simply spreading propaganda for the governments' imperialist adventures in the Muslim world, where they actively work to prevent the return of the Islamic Khilafah and Shariah system, through military occupation and support for corrupt brutal regimes. Hence Muslims must understand the dangers of this attack, and its role in the work to try and secularise Islam. Shariah is in no need for reinterpretation; Shariah is much more than just about punishments; and the west is in no position to condemn the Shariah of Allah.
When the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams recently tried to discuss the accommodation of aspects of Shariah law in Britain he triggered a vicious attack on the Islamic Shariah. This was shortly preceded by an incident involving schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons who was detained in Sudan - a country which selectively implements Shariah rules. This followed an uproar in the media regarding a survey where a significant percentage of Muslims, when asked, responded that they wished ‘to live by Shariah'. These incidents along with many others indicate the level of hostility that has developed in the Western world towards the notion of Shariah, even when it relates to what Muslims want implemented in their own countries.
Whilst Western governments have expressed a negative view of the Islamic Shariah, and any system of law other than their own, the political classes, media and others like the neo-conservatives have become extremely vocal in their attack. Criticisms that Western politicians initially made was aimed at addressing terrorism, which was then used to address extremism and is now directed against the fundamental tenants of Islam. Since the launch of the War on Terror, the western world, particularly America, Britain and other European countries, both at a state and media level have been engaged in a frenzied attempt to try to convince the Muslims that a state implementing the Islamic Shariah rules is not viable and would lead to a "pre-feudal State", as expressed by Tony Blair.
What is Shariah?
The Ahkam Shariyyah (Shariah Rules) is the body of rules that are derived from the revelation sent by Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him - Sallalahu Alayhi Wassalam). These rules relate to all aspects of human life, whether they be regarding ritual worships, manners and morals, economics, political, governmental, social, judicial and international affairs.
The Shariah rules aim at protecting the society in which they are implemented. They are not prescribed by man, but rather by the commands and prohibitions of Allah, which are constant, neither changing nor evolving. They aim to achieve the protection of human life, mind, human dignity, private property, religion, security and the state. These rules establish a set of values for Muslims which ensures balance, dignity and respect within the society.
Some of these rules are a personal code for Muslims on how to act, informing the individual of the obligations and prohibitions that have been placed upon him. Other rules are implemented by a state and are forbidden for Muslims to implement individually such as the hudood (punishments), which can only be implemented by the person appointed by the Khalifah (authorised leader) of the Muslims. Unfortunately none of the Muslim countries today apply the Islamic Shariah comprehensively and therefore cannot be regarded as Islamic states.
The Attack on the Shariah: Is the West in a Position to Criticise or Advocate Secular Laws?
The West has based its criticism of the Shariah law on the basis of a relative comparison to itself. This is in no way an objective measure of the effectiveness of a law system. The effectiveness of the system should be measured on its ability to achieve protection and the security of the people in the society. While not implemented today, we have historical precedence from as recently as the 1900's when current day Turkey and the Middle East implemented the Islamic Shariah.
Can we say today that societies in the west are characterised by high levels of personal security, or that their dignity is protected? Sadly, the reality is that Western societies are characterised by girls as young as 12 being treated for sexually transmitted diseases and alcoholism. In the 8 years from 1998 to 2006 the statistics provided by the government indicate that violent crime has doubled from approximately half a million reported crimes annually to over a million. In that time crime against property has remained approximately constant at two million reported crimes annually and sexual crimes for the period has gone up approximately 177percent from 35 thousand to 62 thousand. These figures are an indictment of a society and system of law which is incapable of the protection of the society.
Can Muslims living in Britain today say that they feel secure given the incarceration of people without trial and draconian legislation targeted at them? This climate of fear has been created only because Muslims wish to speak out against Western colonial foreign policy and the oppression in the Muslim world.
It is correct to say that the Islamic shariah is in certain circumstances harsher than the west in its punishment of criminals. It does so in order to protect the innocent; it has safeguarded these most serious of punishments with a burden of proof that exceeds the British judicial system.
How does Shariah Address Peoples' Lives?
Shariah guides us to worship Allah (swt), who we turn to when we feel low, or burdened with problems. It gives us hope and strength because our convictions are built on strong intellectual reasoning. It provides us an objective in life and a source of comfort in hardships. The lack of such a strong basis and worship of the Creator means that people have nowhere to turn to when problems mount. In this society we witness people turn to drugs, alcohol abuse or other forms of escapism when they feel low. The rate of suicide is at an all time high as people struggle with depression and other mental problems.
The Shariah provides guidance about valuing oneself and the relationship between a person and themselves; it gives a code by which people can stay clean and hygienic, eat and drink the halal things and abstain from that which we have been warned against. A society that shuns this code, is a society characterised by binge drinking, drug taking and many other types of self destructive behaviour. The Metropolitan police reported that most anti-social crime is fuelled by a combination of drink and drugs, which stop people from acting "reasonably".
The Shariah also provides guidance on valuing other people and regulates relationships between a person and other people. By contrast, in the west disrespecting others is taken as the norm. We find abandoning the elderly to a life of solitude is common, such that an estimated 23,000 elderly people die of cold every winter in Britain alone. The lack of respect for others has had a devastating effect around us; children are murdered daily at school and on the streets, teachers are abused verbally and physically, paedophilia is rife across the society as well as other sexual crimes such as rape.
Shariah and the State
Of course the Shariah is not complete without the regulation of the State - a legitimate Islamic authority. This is the Islamic Khilafah system that Allah and His messenger mandated for the Muslims. This implements the Shariah rules in terms of government, criminal law, judicial system, economic system and social system. THe lack of these Shariah laws has led to the existence of dictatorships, the corruption of democracy, tyranny and manifest injustice, poverty and colonial exploitation. It is left to the very same unstable capitalist system that is causing so much concern today even in the west.
In this context, the Shariah rules dictate how the government is accounted; how people are protected from poverty; how the healthcare and education of citizens is provided; how people appoint their ruler and can remove him if he violates his contract.
Brothers and Sisters, we live in a world where the comprehensive implementation of Shariah is totally absent. Shariah gives value to the needs of the society - not to give priority to the individual at the expense of the wider society. The real barbarism that exists are the wars declared in the name of freedom and democracy; the self damaging behaviour by people in the west in the name of freedom of choice; the exploitation of women in the name of freedom of expression; and the dire poverty of millions in the name of the free market. To follow the Shariah is the submission of man to Allah, by his free choice. To follow any other legal code is to submit to the slavery to rich and powerful men, who decide the fate of millions according to their own, often purely financial interests.
Conclusion
Today, 66 percent of Egyptians, 60 percent of Pakistanis and 54 percent of Jordanians say that Shariah should be the only source of legislation in their countries.
Muslims are faced with this kind of pressure every week from the western media, who are simply spreading propaganda for the governments' imperialist adventures in the Muslim world, where they actively work to prevent the return of the Islamic Khilafah and Shariah system, through military occupation and support for corrupt brutal regimes. Hence Muslims must understand the dangers of this attack, and its role in the work to try and secularise Islam. Shariah is in no need for reinterpretation; Shariah is much more than just about punishments; and the west is in no position to condemn the Shariah of Allah.
Monday, 9 March 2009
Liberalism
Liberalism & its Effect on Society
Introduction
Liberalism has directly contributed to social problems. These problems range from child abuse and neglect to violent crime and rape. A common trend in liberal societies, such as the UK and US, is that social breakdown has become a norm, and has shaped academic and popular culture discourse. Professor Daniel Bell, lecturer in Political Science at the University of Singapore, states,
“Liberalism, it is claimed, contributes to, or at least does not sufficiently take account of, the negative social and psychological effects related to the atomistic tendencies of modern liberal societies. There is undoubtedly a worrying trend in contemporary societies towards a callous individualism that ignores community and social obligations, and liberal theory does not seem up to the task of dealing with this problem.”[1]
It is the scope of this article to highlight Liberalism’s negative effects on society using philosophical and practical arguments. This article will conclude by briefly discussing the Islamic solution to the liberal phenomenon of social decay.
Philosophical Perspective
Individualism: The False Premise of Liberal Values Liberalism is a “disputatious family of doctrines”[2] which share the same core political values. These values are the priority of individual rights and an emphasis on individual freedoms; it can be argued that these values form Liberalisms intellectual foundations. The ‘Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics’ reflects this position and describes Liberalism as,
“...the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximise freedom of choice.”[3]
The proposition upon which these values are based on - in other words, the premise for Liberalism’s core political values - is atomism or individualism. Political Philosopher Marilyn Friedman adds that,
“…individualism…underlies some important versions of liberal political theory.”[4]
Individualism is the consideration that individual human beings are social atoms abstracted from their social contexts, attachments and obligations.[5] In light of this, is individualism a correct premise to base a political outlook or philosophy? If it can be shown that individualism is ontologically false, this should raise fundamental questions about the validity of Liberalism as a suitable ideology for humanity.
Individualism views, and seeks to understand, the self - in other words the human being - as an abstract entity divorced from its social reality. This is incorrect because:
1. There are social and communal attachments which determine the individual.[6]
2. Aims and values must be considered when determining the individual, and aims and values can only be truly understood within a social context.[7]
3. There are dynamic links between society’s values and behaviour. Social Constructionist Vivien Burr concludes that key features – or values – of a specific society will affect an individual’s personality.[8]
It can be concluded that the premise of Liberalism – individualism – is a false one. As its attempt to understand the individual or the self is incorrect. Its effort to comprehend the human being is false as it seeks to dissociate the self from its social reality, in other words, it argues that the individual is shaped, influenced and developed without any reference to social links. It logically follows that if an entire political outlook is based upon a false premise, its results will also be incorrect.
Practical Perspective
Non-Cohesive Political Values
Liberalism’s political values of individual freedom and the primacy of individual rights, based upon the false premise of individualism, are non-cohesive. What is meant by non-cohesive is that these values do not facilitate social cohesion and do not evoke ideas that construct positive behaviours.
Since modern liberal states emphasise and propagate these values within western societies, their effects must be examined. If social breakdown is on the increase and it seems to be a permanent feature of liberal society, then it can be argued that the propagated non-cohesive values have had a role to play.
Practical Perspective: The Negative Effects of Liberal Values
The political values of liberalism have caused the social decay being witnessed today. In February 2009 the Children’s Society[9] launched ‘A Good Childhood: Searching for Values in a Competitive Age’[10] report and it presented evidence that supports this essays thesis. The reports states,
“Britain and the U.S. have more broken families than other countries, and our families are less cohesive in the way they live and eat together. British children are rougher with each other, and live more riskily in terms of alcohol, drugs and teenage pregnancy. And they are less inclined to stay in education. This comes against a background of much greater income inequality: many more children live in relative poverty in Britain and the U.S.”[11]
The report also supports this essays conclusions that social breakdown and decay is due to the premise of liberalism – individualism.[12]
Individualism has affected our societies in an immense way, below are some statistical accounts of social breakdown in the two most liberal nations, the UK and US. There is a plethora of statistics that strongly indicated social decay in these countries however I have specifically chosen child abuse, the treatment of women and crime to bring to light the conclusion that the UK and US are experiencing social breakdown.
Child Abuse
The atomistic trends in modern liberal societies have effected the treatment towards the most vulnerable. The seventeen months of torture and agony inflicted on ‘Baby P’ is probably one of the worst stories of child abuse in the UK. The baby was found dead after months of torture with broken ribs and a broken back.[13] In the UK, according to NSPCC research, 7% of children experienced serious physical abuse at the hands of their parents or carers during childhood.[14] In the US an estimated 3.6 million children were accepted by state and local child protection services as alleged victims of child maltreatment for investigation or assessment.[15]
Treatment of Women
Liberalism’s political values have affected the way UK society treats women. According to Amnesty International (UK)[16], 167 women are raped everyday in the UK. Domestic violence accounts for nearly a quarter of all recorded violent crime in England and Wales - one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime and one incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute The UK is not alone in its maltreatment of women, in the US a woman is raped every 6 minutes and battered every 15 seconds.[17]
Crime: UK
The effect of Liberalism’s non-cohesive values can also be seen in the following U.K. crime figures,
2,164,000 violent incidents during 2007/08 against adults in England and Wales[18]
Approximately 47,000 rapes occur every year in the U.K.[19]
Increase in murder rates. Metropolitan Police reported the most incidents, with 167 murders in 2007/8, up from 158.[20]
Crime: US
The US is also suffering from social breakdown and social decay[21], the US suffers from,
16,204 murders a year[22]
9,369 murders with firearms in one year[23]
2,019,234 prisoners and this has increased since 2002[24]
420,637 robberies per year[25]
11,877,218 total crimes per year[26]
It can be seen that the UK and US are suffering from social breakdown and social decay. The social collapse of the two most liberal nations is due to their ideological convictions – liberalism. There is a direct correlation between Liberalism’s non-cohesive political values and the social problems highlighted in this article.
The Islamic Solution
Since non-cohesive liberal values have directly contributed to social breakdown, then an obvious solution is to propagate cohesive values with the relevant social models and mechanisms to achieve a cohesive society. It can be strongly argued that Islamic cohesive political values are an answer to the problems faced by liberal societies. Islam’s view on society doesn’t rest on a false premise; rather it has a unique view on the society and the individual. This philosophy is best described by the following hadith[27],
“God’s messenger gave an example of people sailing on a boat having an upper deck and a lower deck. The people from the lower deck require water and request water from the people of the upper deck. The people from the upper deck refuse water, so the people from the lower deck decide to make a hole in the floor of the ship and get water from the sea. God’s messenger said, ‘If the people from the upper deck don't stop the people at the bottom from making a hole, the ship will sink and all the people travelling will drown.’”[28]
This hadith gives a clear view that individuals are part of society and the society is part of the individual. It highlights the need for a symbiotic relationship between society and the individual. Certain actions, values and behaviour of individuals in a society can affect it in negative way, especially if these actions and values are non-cohesive. Hence, Islam propagates cohesive values in its society to prevent the ‘boat’ from sinking, in other words preventing social breakdown and facilitating social cohesion.
These cohesive values include justice, compassion, empathy, distribution of resources, tolerance and accountability. The source texts of Islam, namely the Qur’an and the Hadith (also known as the Sunnah), which are the bedrock of Islamic Law known as the Shariah, seeks to propagate these cohesive values. The Qur’an and the Hadith strongly emphasise these values, for example:
“Let there be among you people that command the good, enjoining what is right and forbidding the wrong. They indeed are the successful.”[29]
“What will explain to you what the steep path is? It is to free a slave, to feed at a time of hunger, an orphaned relative or a poor person in distress, and to be one of those who believe and urge one another to steadfastness and compassion”[30]
“...bear witness impartially: do not let the hatred of others lead you away from justice, but adhere to justice, for that is closer to the awareness of God. Be mindful of God...”[31]
These cohesive values were once propagated in the Muslim world. Many commentators argue that these essential political values have disappeared due to Muslim nations not adopting Islamic political theory comprehensively. However, much evidence can be sited via historical references, when the Islamic cohesive political values were once disseminated in the Muslim world.
It must be noted here that the cohesive Islamic values can not be established successfully without a fully functioning Islamic Government, also known as the Caliphate. This is because Islamic Governance is a comprehensive system where all of its models and mechanisms are interdependent and interlink with one another. In Islamic history, when the cohesive values of Islam were propagated via the implementation of the Caliphate system, the conclusions made by some historians are unparalleled. The Jewish historian Amnon Cohen states that the Jewish minorities sought justice from the Islamic courts rather than their own,
“The Jews went to the Muslim court for a variety of reasons, but the overwhelming fact was their ongoing and almost permanent presence there. This indicates that they went there not only in search of justice, but did so hoping, or rather knowing, that more often than not they would attain redress when wronged…”[32]
Many liberals may argue that these values are shared by all; however Islam propagates these values and doesn’t create a competition between cohesive values and non-cohesive values like we see in liberal societies. Hence, Islam makes its cohesive values part of its political and social make up, which is in contrast to Liberalism’s individualistic and atomistic outlook. Islam should be investigated and used as a reference in the dynamics of political discourse as its political values rest on a strong premise and its core political values are cohesive.
Conclusion
Liberalism has failed humanity. The premise of Liberalism - individualism - is philosophically incorrect as it views the human being as an abstract entity divorced from necessary social attachments. It has also produced atomistic tendencies in modern societies resulting in social breakdown and social decay. Liberalisms core political values of individual freedoms and the primacy of individual rights are non-cohesive values that have facilitated the social problems faced by liberal societies. These non-cohesive values propagated in western nations have affected their collective behaviour. In contrast to this, Islam has a unique view on society and its propagated cohesive values have produced positive results.
Significantly it must be noted that policy and legislative changes will not solve the social crisis experienced in liberal societies. We have already tried that method and failed. Now it is time to question the underlying values of liberal nations and find workable solutions based upon cohesive values that will bring us out of this social decay. I believe that these cohesive values must be the Islamic values and the workable solution is Islamic Governance also known as the Caliphate.
The most practical way of this being achieved is that Islamic Governance must be implemented in the Muslim world. By doing so, it can be the example to western liberal nations - in the hope that they would realise that Islam is a positive solution to our broken society.
Monday, 23 February 2009
Britain / Spanish Inquisition
Britain one step away from the return of the Spanish Inquisition
On Feb 17 the Guardian newspaper reported that British government was considering plans that would lead to thousands more Muslims being branded as extremists. The proposals are in a counterterrorism strategy which ministers and security officials are drawing up that is due to be unveiled next month. Some say the plans would see views held by most Muslims in Britain being classed by the government as extreme. According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:
· They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.
· They promote Sharia law.
· They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world.
· This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
· They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.
· They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Contest 2 would widen the definition of extremists to those who hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values. Contest 2 is still being finalised by officials and ministers. Those considered extreme would not be targeted by the criminal law, but would be sidelined and denied public funds.
No doubt such measures will fail to halt the tide of Islamic awareness that now encompasses the whole world. But real question is—how long before Britain and the rest of Europe resort to a modern day Spanish Inquisition in a desperate bid to purge their Muslim populations for so called “belief crimes”.
Jim Rodgers on the current economic crisis: Get yourself a tractor and learn how to farm
In an interview with Sir David Frost on Al Jazeera television, veteran investor Jim Rogers attacked Obama’s economic plan, blamed the Federal Reserve for the economic crisis and said that the World Bank and the IMF should be abolished, not given more power, if a recovery is to be made. Rogers strongly slammed Obama's stimulus package, pointing out that more good money was being thrown after bad, and that the bailouts were only making things worse. The veteran investor said that the U.S. was following the same disastrous policies as Japan in propping up companies that should be allowed to fail, and that the same consequences would be reaped as much as 20 years into the future.
"The way the system is supposed to work, when times like this come, the solid people, the competent people, take over the assets from the incompetent people and then you start over again from a sound base, this is what South Korea did, this is what Russia did, and they did fine. What they're doing this time is they're taking the assets away from the competent people and giving them to the incompetent people and saying now you compete with the competent people with their assets and their money - it's terrible economics and it's not going to work, it hasn't worked before and it's not going to work this time," said Rogers. Rogers said that price had to be paid for 15 years of excess, but that the crisis could have been overcome in two or three years had zombie companies and banks been allowed to go to the wall.
"The central bank in the United States, the Federal Reserve, would not let people fail," said Rogers. Asked if he had any respect for the World Bank and the IMF, Rogers responded, "Zero....the best thing that would happen would be if we could abolish the World Bank and the IMF, they were set up in 1945 and '46 with very sound goals and very sound aspirations - they have far far left behind those aspirations and goals, they're now run by people who do little more than take care of themselves....look at their projects and you would be mortified." In response to a question about what if any sectors would be profitable amidst the crash, Rogers advised people invested in stocks to "get yourself a tractor and learn how to farm".
America reveals Pakistan’s complicity in providing airbases for drone attacks
On Feb 14 the Pakistani English newspaper The Dawn revealed that Pakistan had granted permission to the US to use its airbase(s) to carry airstrikes in FATA. Expressing surprise over Pakistan’s opposition to the campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against targets inside the Pakistani border, Senator Feinstein said: “As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base.” The CIA declined to comment, but former US intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that Senator Feinstein’s account was accurate. Later, Philip J. LaVelle, a spokesman for the senator, said her comment was based solely on previous news reports that Predators were operated from bases near Islamabad. Another Pakistani English newspaper The News reported that the US was secretly flying unmanned drones from the Shamsi airbase in Pakistan's southwestern province of Baluchistan as early as 2006, according to an image of the base from Google Earth. It also stated that the drones were Global Hawks — which are generally used only for reconnaissance, flying for up to 36 hours, at more than 400mph and an altitude of up to 60,000ft. The existence of drone bases inside Pakistan demonstrates that the Pakistani leadership is fully involved in the slaughter of its own citizens to please America.
Indonesia wants America to ‘educate’ its army officers
The cash-strapped and poorly equipped Indonesian Armed Forces, or TNI, has no plans to purchase military equipment from the United States but would welcome assistance in the area of officer training, Defence Minister Juwono Sudarsono said on Feb 18. Juwono told reporters that he had asked Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda to relay the message to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is currently in Jakarta for a two-day visit.“We want to enhance cooperation with the United States in order to give our military officers better educational and training opportunities,” Juwono said, adding that an exchange program involving TNI officers would be more constructive than an equipment purchase deal. Juwono said the TNI needed its officers to undergo advanced training programs, to enable them to lead the military in a more professional manner. American military programmes are renowned for producing loyal agents through which America secures her vital interests. Calling for such programmes is dangerous and is a betrayal of the Indonesian people. Rather the defence minister should have announced a complete cessation of ties with the US and demanded that America ends its military presence in the area.
On Feb 17 the Guardian newspaper reported that British government was considering plans that would lead to thousands more Muslims being branded as extremists. The proposals are in a counterterrorism strategy which ministers and security officials are drawing up that is due to be unveiled next month. Some say the plans would see views held by most Muslims in Britain being classed by the government as extreme. According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:
· They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.
· They promote Sharia law.
· They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world.
· This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
· They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.
· They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Contest 2 would widen the definition of extremists to those who hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values. Contest 2 is still being finalised by officials and ministers. Those considered extreme would not be targeted by the criminal law, but would be sidelined and denied public funds.
No doubt such measures will fail to halt the tide of Islamic awareness that now encompasses the whole world. But real question is—how long before Britain and the rest of Europe resort to a modern day Spanish Inquisition in a desperate bid to purge their Muslim populations for so called “belief crimes”.
Jim Rodgers on the current economic crisis: Get yourself a tractor and learn how to farm
In an interview with Sir David Frost on Al Jazeera television, veteran investor Jim Rogers attacked Obama’s economic plan, blamed the Federal Reserve for the economic crisis and said that the World Bank and the IMF should be abolished, not given more power, if a recovery is to be made. Rogers strongly slammed Obama's stimulus package, pointing out that more good money was being thrown after bad, and that the bailouts were only making things worse. The veteran investor said that the U.S. was following the same disastrous policies as Japan in propping up companies that should be allowed to fail, and that the same consequences would be reaped as much as 20 years into the future.
"The way the system is supposed to work, when times like this come, the solid people, the competent people, take over the assets from the incompetent people and then you start over again from a sound base, this is what South Korea did, this is what Russia did, and they did fine. What they're doing this time is they're taking the assets away from the competent people and giving them to the incompetent people and saying now you compete with the competent people with their assets and their money - it's terrible economics and it's not going to work, it hasn't worked before and it's not going to work this time," said Rogers. Rogers said that price had to be paid for 15 years of excess, but that the crisis could have been overcome in two or three years had zombie companies and banks been allowed to go to the wall.
"The central bank in the United States, the Federal Reserve, would not let people fail," said Rogers. Asked if he had any respect for the World Bank and the IMF, Rogers responded, "Zero....the best thing that would happen would be if we could abolish the World Bank and the IMF, they were set up in 1945 and '46 with very sound goals and very sound aspirations - they have far far left behind those aspirations and goals, they're now run by people who do little more than take care of themselves....look at their projects and you would be mortified." In response to a question about what if any sectors would be profitable amidst the crash, Rogers advised people invested in stocks to "get yourself a tractor and learn how to farm".
America reveals Pakistan’s complicity in providing airbases for drone attacks
On Feb 14 the Pakistani English newspaper The Dawn revealed that Pakistan had granted permission to the US to use its airbase(s) to carry airstrikes in FATA. Expressing surprise over Pakistan’s opposition to the campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against targets inside the Pakistani border, Senator Feinstein said: “As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base.” The CIA declined to comment, but former US intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that Senator Feinstein’s account was accurate. Later, Philip J. LaVelle, a spokesman for the senator, said her comment was based solely on previous news reports that Predators were operated from bases near Islamabad. Another Pakistani English newspaper The News reported that the US was secretly flying unmanned drones from the Shamsi airbase in Pakistan's southwestern province of Baluchistan as early as 2006, according to an image of the base from Google Earth. It also stated that the drones were Global Hawks — which are generally used only for reconnaissance, flying for up to 36 hours, at more than 400mph and an altitude of up to 60,000ft. The existence of drone bases inside Pakistan demonstrates that the Pakistani leadership is fully involved in the slaughter of its own citizens to please America.
Indonesia wants America to ‘educate’ its army officers
The cash-strapped and poorly equipped Indonesian Armed Forces, or TNI, has no plans to purchase military equipment from the United States but would welcome assistance in the area of officer training, Defence Minister Juwono Sudarsono said on Feb 18. Juwono told reporters that he had asked Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda to relay the message to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is currently in Jakarta for a two-day visit.“We want to enhance cooperation with the United States in order to give our military officers better educational and training opportunities,” Juwono said, adding that an exchange program involving TNI officers would be more constructive than an equipment purchase deal. Juwono said the TNI needed its officers to undergo advanced training programs, to enable them to lead the military in a more professional manner. American military programmes are renowned for producing loyal agents through which America secures her vital interests. Calling for such programmes is dangerous and is a betrayal of the Indonesian people. Rather the defence minister should have announced a complete cessation of ties with the US and demanded that America ends its military presence in the area.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)