“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].
Saturday, 17 October 2009
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.
Saturday, 17 January 2009
A Vision
Vision
A noble and beloved man sat in the remote Arabian peninsula, hundreds of years ago, and talked to his companions about a vision he had. A vision which he and his 30 odd followers would work to carry out. A vision of conquering the world.This man if you hadn't already guessed it, was Muhammad SAW. Our noble and beloved Prophet had upto 40 companions during his dawah work in Makkah, but this did not constrict the vision that he had. He SAW had a vision, that one day inshaAllah the Islam that he was propagating, which only a small group of people in the world had accepted; would one day rule on every inch of the globe.
The Prophet SAW and his companions were being persecuted to the extent in Makkah, that they were incessantly starved, tortured and humiliated and made up only a small minority of the society; as the Quraysh had their own plan to stamp out this deviant little new craze. Thus when the Quraysh heard about the Prophet SAW's vision, that Islam would one day would not only rule over Makkah, but over the globe, they thought it was nothing more than a big joke. In fact people thought his 'phase' of Islam would definitely come to some sort of end sooner rather than later, and it was Abu Talib, his very beloved Uncle who came to him, with love and affection, insinuating this and asking him to give up, sooner rather than later. But the response of the Prophet SAW, in a time, when it looked like not only would Islam never spread, but its followers may not even survive, was:
'If you put the sun in my right hand, and the moon in my left, I would not leave the struggle (for this deen) until either it is victorious, or I perish therein.'
For the Prophet SAW non-pursuance of this Deen was never an option. Whether it seemed easy or not, realistic or not, Islam was to be taken to humanity and offered as the alternative system by which it should live. We would say many wonderful things about this beloved Prophet of ours, but one thing we would never say, astighfirullah, was that he was a dreamer. An idealistic dreamer. But this was definitely how the Qurayshi society around him saw him.For those of us living in this dark and painful world of the 21st century, who have decided that the Islamic vision is the only way, the label of idealistic dreamer is all too familiar. We live in a world where Muslim lives are cheap, in many parts of the globe. Muslim blood was a small price to play for oil in Iraq, a pipeline and domination in Afganistan, and today for the strength of Israel. Today the Muslim Ummah have no less love for their Muslim brethren across the world, and everytime we are hit, we feel impulsed to respond. But it is how we respond that is key. We have taken up a certain mentality that we have to respond to such atrocities in a way which will reap most result, in the most pragmatic way. Hence it is easy for us to send over some charity, stop buying from Starbucks and M&S, and even make that all important dua to Allah SWT. These avenues of seeking a solution for our brethren, make us feel good perhaps, are instantaneous, easy to carry out and most of all we think have the most immediate impact. But we just need to look to the life of our Prophet SAW to see how he reacted to situations and crises in his Prophethood.
When the Prophet SAW was offered to share the rule in Makkah with the Quraysh, his refusal was stark. When tribes, which he approached for the military support for Islam, may have had the military capability but either wanted to share the rule with him or had particualr treaties with nations which meant they could not fight them in any event; his refusal was stark. Rather the Prophet SAW continued to work tirelessly, still trying to change the society in Makkah, and still approaching tribe after tribe for the military support, without any type of impatience or need for an instantaneous, pragmatic result. Rather he had the trust that the result would come from Allah. If the noble Prophet SAW is our example, then should our method be any different? We are working for the same Ummah he worked for, to protect the same Deen he sought to protect. If the Prophet SAW did not at all compromise or feel the need to pursue avenues which were most palatable and perceivably 'realistic' then why should we? After all we just need to put in the effort to try and implement the solution Allah SWT gives us for our problems, and doesn't the result come from him SWT?
Alhumdulilah we must make dua, we must give charity for the needy, but we must also realise that we need to work for a viable, sustainable solution for the oppressed Muslims of the world which will protect them, and of course protect Islam. This in the past, always was the Islamic rule, led by a sincere Islamic ruler. And if the Prophet SAW with his handful of comapnions could have a vision of this being the solution for the world, us, with our 1.5 billion Ummah; shouldn't we too?It is time the Muslims realise that practicality, realism, pragmatism, mean nothing without the blessing of Allah. It is Allah who can bring forth life from a stone and it is Allah who gives us all the barakah in our lives. Thus instead of worrying about what is practical and realistic or not, shouldn't we just channel our efforts into what is obligatory upon us or not? After all, we have been born with the blessing of this time, by the mercy of Allah. Allah chose, throughout the entire history of this world, to bring us into this dunya during the short few years when the Islamic Khilafah has not been in existence, by default giving us all the blessing and opportunity to partake in this work, just as the noble Sahabah and the Prophet SAW himself did.
It is high time we abandon the thoughts of what we think is realistic, practical and palatable for the rest of the world in how we conduct our politics. Rather we should work for what we think is right for humanity and will bring them back the mercy and ease of a just rule. This may mean that as others are busy doing the rounds to raise money for Gaza, and you write, discuss and propagate the idea of Khilafah, the label of 'unrealistic, idealistic dreamer without any sense of urgency' may come your way. But to those I would say than none is more unrealistic, idealistic and complacent, than those who believe that their solutions are better than Allah's, for our politics; and sit in the comfort of this thought. Rather it is the most brave and reliant on Allah who will strive forth, eager to carry the word of Islam, uncompromisingly, to the world, just waiting for his SWT victory.
Saturday, 10 January 2009
Al Quds
Jerusalem will become the capital of the Khilafah
In these difficult times we must not get defeated and be forcused, to have a vision and work to achieve and establish that vision. Israel will be defeated in the near future and Jerusalem will become the capital of the Islamic Khilafah Inshallah.
The following are evidences from the Quran and ahadith for this:
Allah (swt) States:
"And we decreed for the Children of Israel in the Scripture, that indeed you would do mischief on the earth twice and you will become tyrants and extremely arrogant! So, when the promise came for the first of the two, We sent against you slaves of Ours given to terrible warfare. They entered the very innermost parts of your homes. And it was a promise (completely) fulfilled. Then We gave you once again, a return of victory over them. And We helped you with wealth and children and made you more numerous in manpower. (And We said): 'If you do well, you do good for your ownselves, and if you do evil (you do it) against yourselves'. Then, when the second promise came to pass, (We permitted your enemies) to make your faces sorrowful and to enter the mosque (of Jerusalem) as they had entered it before, and to destroy with utter destruction all that fell in their hands. [And We Said in the Taurat (Torah)]: 'It may be that your Lord may show mercy unto you, but if you return (to sins), We shall return (to Our Punishment). And We have made Hell a prison for the disbelievers"
[TMQ Al-Isra, 17:4-8]
The indication in this verse that the second promise of Allah (swt) which will come to pass refers to the destruction of Israel is where it says, "to make your faces sorrowful and to enter the mosque (of Jerusalem) as they had entered it before". The Muslims opened Jerusalem to Islam under the rule of the second Khalifah Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra), the Islamic state ruled it with justice for hundreds of years. Even though it was captured by the Crusader Christians for a number of years it was never captured by the Jews previous to the formation of the state of Israel. So Allah (swt) promises that we will enter the mosque of Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem as we entered it before when we conquered it.
Narrated by Ibn ‘Asaakir, from Maseerah b. Jaleese, where he heard the Prophet (saw):
“This matter (the Khilafah) will continue after me in Al-Madina, then (move to) Al-Shaam, then to the peninsula, then to Iraq, then to the city, then to Bait-ul-Maqdis. So if it reaches Bait-ul-Maqdis, then it would have reached its (natural resting place); and no people who remove it (i.e. the capital of the Khilafah) from their land will ever get it back again (for them to be the capital again).”
The scholars said they believe that what he (saw) meant by ‘the city’ is the city of Heraclius (Constantinople). This hadith is talking about which cities would become the capital of the Khilafah, all the cities mentioned have been the capitals of the Khilafah in the past except Bait ul-Maqdis (Jerusalem). This will be our capital sometime in the future inshallah.
In addition there are others from Ibn ‘Asaakir, from Abdul Rahman b. Abi ‘Umayrah Al-Muzni, who said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw):
“There will be, in Bait-ul-Maqdis, a (rightly guided) Bay’a.”
These include narrations by Al-Haakim, which have been classified as Sahih. Of these is the narration from Abi Shareeh:
“…I have heard those who say that they will be twelve banners, and under each banner twelve thousand (men), and the Muslims will gather to their comrade (or Imam) in Bait-ul-Maqdis (Al-Quds).”
It was narrated by Ibn Habban in his book of Sahih Ahadith, that Al-Shaam (the region which covers Jordan, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and part of Iraq) will be the base of the land of the believers at the end of time. On the authority of Al-Nawas b. Sam’aan, who said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say,
“…and the ‘Uqr (natural origin) of the land of the believers is Al-Shaam.”
It was also narrated by Ahmad from the hadith by Salamah b. Nufayl,
“…verily, the‘Uqr of the land of the believers is Al-Shaam…”
Furthermore, it was narrated by Al-Tabarani, in ‘Al-Kabeer,’ on the authority of Salamah b. Nufayl:
“The ‘Uqr of Dar Al-Islam is in Al-Shaam.”
According to Al-Haythami, this was narrated by Al-Tabarani, and his men (chain of narration) are trustworthy.
This hadith was narrated by 5 Tabi’ Tabi’een, from two Tabi’een, from 2 of the Sahaba. Due to the nature of the definite truthfulness of the speaker (the Messenger of Allah (saw), this hadith is with regards to the second ‘Uqr of Dar Al-Islam, and not the ‘Uqr of the first, for the meaning of the ‘Uqr of the land is its centre and origin, and the ‘Uqr of the first Islamic State was in Al-Madina Al-Munawwarah; therefore, this means that what is meant here is the ‘Uqr of the second Islamic State.
It was narrated by Abu Dawud in ‘Al-Sunan’, on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Amr (ra):
“There will be a Hijrah after a Hijrah, so the best people on earth are those who keep to the (land of the) Hijrah of Ibrahim (i.e. Al-Shaam).”
This Hadith was also narrated by Al-Haakim, who said that it is Sahih according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs, and they have not narrated it. On the authority of Musa b. Ali b. Rabah, who said: I heard my father say: ‘…Abu Hurairah said, I was told by Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. Al-‘Aas (ra): I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say…’ and he mentioned the hadith. It was also narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad, on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Amr, and said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say…’ and he mentioned the hadith.
This hadith was narrated by at least five Tabi’ Tabi’een, from three Tabi’een, from two Sahaba. It indicates that there will be a Hijrah (emigration) to Al-Shaam after the Hijrah to Al-Madina. The purpose of Hijrah is to leave Dar Al-Kufr (land ruled by Kufr) and to emigrate to Dar Al-Islam (land ruled by Islam).
The first emigration was to Al-Madina, and the second emigration will be to Al-Shaam. This understanding supports the hadith regarding the ‘Uqr of Dar Al-Islam.It was narrated by Abu Dawud, on the authority of Ibn Zughb Al-Ayadi, who said that Ali Abdullah b. Hawalah Al-Azdi came to him and said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) sent us to seek booty on foot, so we returned and did not find anything, and he (saw) could see the exhaustion in our faces, so he stood up and said:
‘Oh Allah, do not leave them for me, where I would be too weak for them, and do not leave them to themselves, where they would be too weak for themselves, and do not leave them for the people, where they would keep (the good) from them, keeping it for themselves.’
Then he (saw) placed his hand on my head…” (or he said: “…on my forehead): ‘Oh, Ibn Hawalah, if you see that the Khilafah has come to the sacred land (Al-Quds), then the earthquakes, the troubles, and the great happenings have come, and the hour on that day is nearer to the people than my hand here on your head.’
Al-Haakim also narrated this hadith on the authority of Ibn Zughb Al-Ibaadi. He declared that this hadith has an authentic chain of narrators, and it was not narrated by the two Shaykhs. Ahmad narrated it with the same Isnad (chain of narrators) as Al-Haakim. If Ibn Zughb is Abdullah, then he is one of the Sahaba, and if he is Abdul-Rahman, then he is one of the Tabi’een. Therefore, this hadith was narrated by two Sahaba if he is the first (Abdullah), or one of the Sahaba if he is the second (Abdul-Rahman); and one of the Tabi’een if he is the first, or two of the Tabi’een if he is the second; and three Tabi’ Tabi’een in both cases.
This hadith indicates that the Khilafah will come to the land of Al-Quds. It cannot be said that the Khilafah came to it during the Khilafah of ‘Umar (ra), because the earthquakes, troubles and tumultuous events did not come at that time. This means that there will be a second coming of the Khilafah in which these events will follow.
The new Khilafah state is near, I hope and pray that we all witness it's coming. Insha-AllahTalla
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)