Caliphate Online

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

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:47:00 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We cannot compromise Islam to protect the tourist industry

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:29:00 +0000

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

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

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

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

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

لَا تَرْتَكِبوُا مَا ارْتَكَبَتِ الْيَهُودُ فَتَسْتَحِلُّوا مَحَارِمَ اللهِ بِأَدْنَى الْحِيَل

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

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

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

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

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

فَلَمَّا عَتَوْا عَنْ مَا نُهُوا عَنْهُ قُلْنَا لَهُمْ كُونُوا قِرَدَةً خَاسِئِينَ

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

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

Will there be tourism in the Khilafah?

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

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

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

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

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

Article 184

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islam is the only cure to Britain's alcohol crisis

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:43:00 +0000

Allah Most High describes the harmful nature of alcohol in the Holy Qur'an:

يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ ۖ قُلْ فِيهِمَا إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَإِثْمُهُمَا أَكْبَرُ مِنْ نَفْعِهِمَا

“They will ask you about alcoholic drinks and gambling. Say, ‘There is great wrong in both of them and also certain benefits for mankind. But the wrong in them is greater than the benefit.’” [Al-Baqarah, 2:219]

An article in today’s Independent on Sunday states:

New research from the Department of Health underlines how excess alcohol affects almost every aspect of British life. More than 2.6m children in the UK now live with a parent who drinks at hazardous levels. Mortality rates from liver disease among under-75s rose by 16 per cent between 2001 and 2009, new statistics show. And lost productivity because of hung over staff cost businesses £1.7bn a year.

Medical experts in Britain are calling for a minimum price on alcohol to dissuade people from binge drinking which they partly attribute to the wide availability of cheap booze. This solution of using high prices to control demand for harmful things is already used for tobacco and was also proposed for fatty foods to control obesity. The Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is correct when he warns that deep-rooted drinking habits in some areas mean that boosting the price of booze will do little to curb excess. This can be seen with illegal drugs where high prices and risk of prison do not deter people from buying them, leading some to call for their legalisation.

The only way to stop people drinking alcohol is to replace their current belief in freedom with belief in a Creator Allah Most High who will account them for all their actions when they die. When the narrowness of this short life is compared with the ever-lasting life of the hereafter it becomes easy to give up short term pleasures like alcohol in return for unimaginable pleasures in Paradise which will never end.

This is the belief of Islam. It’s this belief that led to the problem of alcohol being resolved 1400 years ago in the first Islamic State of Medina, something the most powerful countries on earth in the 21st century cannot resolve.

The following hadith describes the situation in Medina at the time when alcohol was banned and is narrated by Anas ibn Malik who was a bartender at the time.

Anas ibn Malik narrates: ‘The alcoholic drink which was spilled was Al-Fadikh. I used to offer alcoholic drinks to the people at the residence of Abu Talha. Then the order of prohibiting Alcoholic drinks was revealed, and the Prophet ordered somebody to announce that: Abu Talha said to me, "Go out and see what this voice (this announcement ) is." I went out and (on coming back) said, "This is somebody announcing that alcoholic beverages have been prohibited." Abu Talha said to me, "Go and spill it (i.e. the wine)," Then it (alcoholic drinks) was seen flowing through the streets of Medina. At that time the wine was Al-Fadikh. The people said, "Some people (Muslims) were killed (during the battle of Uhud) while wine was in their stomachs." So Allah revealed:

لَيْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ جُنَاحٌ فِيمَا طَعِمُوا

“On those who believe and do good deeds there is no blame for what they ate (in the past).” [Al-Maaida, 5:93]

(Sahih al-Bukhari, Book #60, Hadith #144)

Pakistan government allows NATO to kill 28 of its soldiers

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:34:00 +0000

The humiliation of Muslims in Pakistan continues unabated with the active support of Zardari's government. The killing of 28 soldiers in Pakistan adds to the growing death toll of Muslims at the hands of US-led NATO forces.

The obvious question is why a nuclear-power with a huge army and airforce cannot protect its own Muslim citizens from being attacked by so-called allies? This question was answered by the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم when he described a situation like what is happening in the Muslim world today.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "The People will soon summon one another to attack you from every place in the same way that a pack calls around its prey." Someone asked, "Will that be because of our small numbers at that time?" He replied, "No, you will be numerous at that time: but you will be froth and scum like that carried down by a torrent (of water), and Allah will take the fear of you from the breasts (hearts) of your enemy and cast al-wahn into your hearts." Someone asked, "O Messenger of Allah , what is al-wahn?" He replied, "Love of the world and dislike of death." (Ahmed)

It's wahn that has infected the government of Pakistan, the army leadership and the general public. Unless we remove wahn from our hearts, remove the corrupt government and army leadership and replace them with the righteous Caliphate, the humiliation will simply get worse.

France banned anti-Islamic play in 1890 after opposition from the Ottoman Caliphate

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 09:19:00 +0000

Henri de Bornier, a French poet and dramatist wrote an anti-Islamic play called Mahomet in 1889. The French Prime Minister Charles de Freycinet banned the play in 1890 after opposition from the Ottoman Caliphate.

“Bornier himself was the victim of blind and unreasoning Muslim prejudice in regard to his Mahomet. The play was being rehearsed in 1889 when a Turkish newspaper reproduced from a French journal the news of its forthcoming production. The French Foreign Ministry assured the Turkish ambassador in Paris, Es’at Pasha, that the play did not constitute an attack on the Prophet and on the cherished beliefs of the Muslims. Bornier pointed out that the Persian ta’ziyas or passion plays regularly depicted the death of Muhammad as well as those of the Shi’ite martyrs, and he offered to accept prohibition of his work's being played in Algeria and Tunisia. These arguments still failed to satisfy the Turkish authorities, and in 1890 the head of the government, Freycinet, banned the production of Mahomet in France, a prohibition which, it was reported, gave much pleasure to the Sultan Abd al-Hamid II. It must be admitted that Muslims would undeniably find offensive a play in which their Prophet killed himself because of a woman and because of inferiority feelings vis-a-vis Christianity, but there is no evidence that either the Turkish ambassador or the Sultan had seen the play, much less read it, when they first objected to it. The French government's surrender to this Turkish pressure was plausibly attributed by Martino to the contemporary political situation, for in 1889 the German Emperor William II was beginning his journey to Istanbul and the Near East, and France feared to do anything which might drive Turkey further into Germany's arms; the susceptibilities of France's numerous Muslim subjects in North Africa must also have been a consideration. Not till 1896 were excerpts from Mahomet presented to the public in a special arrangement for theatrical declamation. Since Bornier's time, no major European dramatist seems to have essayed a play on the life of the Prophet.”

Source: C. E. Bosworth, 'A Dramatisation of the Prophet Muhammad's Life: Henri de Bornier's "Mahomet",' Numen, Vol. 17, Fasc. 2 (Aug., 1970), p. 116

A future Caliphate will use all its political, economic and military resources to protect the honour of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) and all the other Prophets including Adam, Noah (Nuh), Moses (Musa) and Jesus son of Mary (Isa ibn Maryam), peace be upon them all.

By Abdul-Kareem Newell

Refutation of the paper – 'The Tanzimat: Secular Reforms in the Ottoman Empire'

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:53:00 +0000

وَلَنْ تَرْضَىٰ عَنْكَ الْيَهُودُ وَلَا النَّصَارَىٰ حَتَّىٰ تَتَّبِعَ مِلَّتَهُمْ

“The Jews and the Christians will never be pleased with you until you follow their religion.”

[Al-Baqara, 2:120]

At the beginning of the 21st century the Jews and Christians (western world) launched a new crusade against the Islamic ummah with the aim of destroying Islam. This war takes many forms from the killing of Muslims in the war on terror to attacking Islamic thoughts under the guise of reforming Islam. The recently published paper ‘The Tanzimat: Secular Reforms in the Ottoman Empire’ by Ishtiaq Hussain is an attempt at ‘reforming’ Muslims view towards the Islamic concept of Caliphate (Khilafah).

Any idea that contradicts Islam by its nature is weak although it may look strong due to the lies, misquotations and twisted arguments used to propagate it. This is what the Arabic word kufr means which is derived from the root verb kafara (to cover, to hide) i.e. to cover up the truth. This paper on the Ottoman Empire is one such example.

The paper’s fundamental premise is that Islamic groups view the Ottoman State as a model for establishing a future Caliphate. In short this premise is false which undermines the rest of the paper’s claims. Islamic groups working to re-establish the Caliphate such as Hizb ut-Tahrir do not view the later period of the Ottoman State as a model and have in fact devoted many books to discussing this period in detail and labelling it as a period of decline.

Fiyaz Mughal in the forward writes:

"Islamists often bypass these facts and use a warped interpretation of history in order to weave their own narrative into mainstream debate. They project their own picture of a ‘perfect’ Ottoman society, living under a deeply rigid interpretation of Shariah Law in order to argue for the building of a modern day Islamic Caliphate."

Ironically Mughal contradicts his above statement by quoting Osama bin Laden twice where Osama explicitly states his model of Caliphate is the “righteous Caliphate” or “Khilafah Rashida” in Arabic not the Ottoman Caliphate. The term Khilafah Rashida refers to the first 30 years of the Khilafah under the leadership of the noble companions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Interestingly the author starts the paper agreeing with Hizb ut-Tahrir’s interpretation of history that the mid-18th century was a period of decline.

Hussain writes:

“During the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire was at its peak as a world super power, but by the mid-18th Century it had considerably weakened.”

Hizb ut-Tahrir states:

"Since the middle of the twelfth century Hijri (eighteenth century C.E.) the Islamic world has been rapidly declining from its correct position and sinking horribly to the abyss of decline." [Concepts of Hizb ut-Tahrir]

After a detailed discussion of the Tanzimat reforms Hussain concludes:

“Whilst Hizb-u-Tahrir does not espouse violence in communities, their pamphlets and literature regularly promote a narrow historical view of the Ottoman Empire by harping back to a misleading narrative on the Khilafah. In so doing, they ignore the pragmatism that formed the basis of the Tanzimat period of the Ottoman Empire.”

Rather than making up facts about Muslims which is haram and a major sin in Islam (although permissible under liberal values) let’s see what HT actually says in its core book Concepts of Hizb ut-Tahrir concerning this period. The full book is widely and freely available to read here. [http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/PDF/EN/en_books_pdf/Concepts.pdf]

At the end of the 13th century Hijri (19th century C.E.) the misunderstanding of the Islamic Shari’ah and its application on the society became obvious. Islam was interpreted in ways incompatible with its texts in order to adapt to the present society, [PRAGMATISM] although what was required was to change the society to adapt with Islam, and not the other way round. For the issue was the corruption of society which needed to be reformed by an ideology (mabda’a), so the ideology had to be applied as it is, and the society had to be changed completely and radically on the basis of this ideology. Thus, it was necessary for those who attempted to reform the society to apply the Islamic rules as they are, regardless of society, era, time or place.

However, they didn’t do this; rather they misinterpreted the Islamic rules to adapt them to contemporary life. The excesses of this error could be seen in the derivation of general and detailed principles. They derived general principles and detailed rules that agreed with this viewpoint. Thus, they established numerous erroneous general principles, such as; “It is not prohibited to change the rules according to the changing of the time”, and like, “Tradition is the arbiter” etc. They issued fatwas without any support or evidence from Shar’a, and some of them even contradicted the definite Qur’anic text. For example, they permitted a little usury (riba) on the pretext that it is not multiple, and by the excuse of its necessity for the funds of the minor (qassir). The judge who was called a Shar’ai judge came to judge with usury (riba) on the deposits of the orphans. The judge, whom they called the regular judge also ruled with usury (riba).

They gave fatwa to suspend Hudood (penal code) and allowed the Hudood to be taken from a source other than Islam. Thus they laid down rules contradicting Shar’a using the excuse that these agree more with the time, and it is necessary that Islam suit every age, time and place. This resulted in the detachment of Islam from life. This erroneous understanding and incorrect rules was used by the enemies of Islam to introduce their laws and principles. The Muslims did not see in them any contradiction with Islam, due to what had been established in their minds based on the erroneous understanding that Islam suits every time and place. The misinterpretation of Islam to suit every school of thought, ideology, incident and every principle - even if the interpretation disagreed with the ideology of Islam and its viewpoint - became prevalent. This helped in the separation of Islam from life and consequently the failure of every reformist movement working according to this erroneous and poor comprehension was inevitable.

Conclusion

Muslims should take a very important lesson from the secular tanzimat reforms and vow never to repeat this mistake again. As the above excerpt mentions distancing oneself from the Islamic ideology will bring disaster on the ummah as we have witnessed. The conclusion of these reforms was the weakening of the Caliphate until it was finally destroyed as an institution in 1924. The kuffar colonialists Britain and France carved up the Muslim lands (Sykes-picot) between them, raping the resources and propping up brutal regimes to torture and subjugate the people. These plans are beginning to unravel after the Arab spring which has removed a major obstacle in the path of establishing a future Caliphate namely fear of the brutal pro-western regimes.

The model for a future Caliphate is the sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs (Khulufa Rashida).

On the authority of Abu Najih Al-Erbadh bin Sariah, who said: The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم gave us a sermon by which our hearts were filled with fear and tears came to our eyes. We said: "O Messenger of Allah, it is as though this is a farewell sermon, so counsel us." He صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "I counsel you to fear Allah and to give absolute obedience even if a slave becomes your leader. Verily he among you who lives [long] will see great controversy, so you must keep to my sunnah and to the sunnah of the rightly-guided Khalifahs - cling to them stubbornly. Beware of newly invented matters, for every invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is a going astray, and every going astray is in Hell-fire." [Abu Dawud and Al-Tirmidhi]

The Islamic Caliphate is not a utopia but is a state where Islam is implemented by human beings upon human beings who by their nature are weak and prone to commit errors. The Caliphate went through many different periods in its history which were summarised in a prophecy by the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "There will be Prophethood for as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be Khilafah on the Prophetic method and it will be for as long as Allah wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be biting Kingship for as long as Allah Wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be oppressive kingship for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method" and then he remained silent. (Ahmed)

Muslims are working to establish the righteous Caliphate based upon the Prophetic method as the hadith mentions. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of history. Having said this although the Ottoman State towards its demise severely declined in many areas this doesn’t negate the sharia rules which were implemented correctly in both the earlier and later periods. For example Sultan Abdul-Hamid II stance on Palestine continues to inspire us to this day.

"Advise Dr. Herzil not to take any further steps in his project. I cannot give away a handful of the soil of this land for it is not my own, it is for all the Islamic Nation. The Islamic Nation that fought Jihad for the sake of this land and they have watered it with their blood. The Jews may keep their money and millions. If the Islamic Khilafah State is one day destroyed then they will be able to take Palestine without a price! But while I am alive, I would rather push a sword into my body than see the land of Palestine cut and given away from the Islamic State. This is something that will not be, I will not start cutting our bodies while we are alive." [Sultan Abdul-Hamid II]

We must never forget the great conquest of Constantinople which was opened up to Islam by the Ottomans fulfilling one half of the famous Islamic prophecy. The future Caliphate should aspire to fulfil the second half of this prophecy i.e. the opening of Rome to Islam.

Abu Qubayl said: “We were with Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As, and he was asked which of the two cities would be conquered first, Constantinople or Rome? Abdullah called for a box that had rings and took a letter out of it. He said: “Whilst we were with the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, we would write things down. When he was asked which of these two cities would be conquered first, Constantiple or Rome, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “The city of Heraclius will be conquered first”, meaning Constantinople.” [Ahmad, Ad-Darimi, Abu Shaybah, Al-Hakim]

By Abdul-Kareem Newell

Somalia Famine: Aid as a weapon of war and a future Caliphate’s response

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:53:00 +0000

Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari related that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "This nation of mine is one upon which there is mercy; there is no punishment upon it in the Hereafter; its punishment is in this world - with trials, earthquakes, and killings." [Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah]

Ten million Muslims are suffering in the Horn of Africa amidst the worst drought seen in 60 years. Poverty has become extreme: children are dying of starvation, pregnancies are resulting in miscarriages and farmers’ livelihoods are being destroyed.

Many mothers along with their children say they have walked for a month on bare and bloodied feet to refugee camps in Kenya. Journeys of more than 300 miles are common. In their search for food and water, they have slept for weeks on burning sand under open skies.

Water is now so scarce that the governor of the Middle Shabelle region, Abdullahi Moalim Hussain, recently said: ‘Water is so expensive in the area that people are being buried without being washed, which is compulsory in Islam.’

Aid as a weapon of war

The international community has generously pledged hundreds of millions of dollars, but aid distribution is being hampered because America is using food as a weapon in its war against Al-Shabab who opposes the US backed government in Mogadishu.

America claims Al-Shabab fighters are making the crisis worse by restricting some UN aid agencies from operating independently in areas under their control. However only last year UN officials intensified their criticism of the American government saying that Washington was imposing ''impossible'' conditions on aid deliveries for Somalia and holding up tens of millions of dollars of desperately needed food based on unfounded accusations that it would be diverted to terrorists.

Mistrust of UN Aid Agencies

In 1992 Somalia was also struck by a famine and America used it to launch an invasion under the pretext of humanitarian assistance. This ‘humanitarian aid’ was delivered to Somalia under the authority of the United Nations peacekeeping force (UNOSOM). The real goal of the operation however was revealed by Colin Powell who stated at the time that pulling US troops out of Somalia would be “devastating to our hopes for the New World Order ..."

Americans considered Somalis less than human, calling them "skinnies" or "sammies." Lieutenant-General William G Boykin, an Evangelical Christian was head of the U.S. Army’s Delta Force in Somalia. In one speech, he recalled a Muslim fighter in Somalia who said he had the protection of Allah against US forces.

"Well you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his," said Lt Gen Boykin. "I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

U.S. troops often flew their powerful Black Hawk helicopters low over markets, streets and neighborhoods at any hour of the day or night. The intense downdraft from the helicopter blades damaged and destroyed entire neighborhoods, blowing down homes, mosques, market stalls and walls. It would terrify cattle. Women would have clothes torn off their bodies and infants torn out of their arms.

On one raid, the U.S. troops handcuffed a woman who would not stop screaming. Finally, a half hour later, a translator arrived and discovered that her baby had been blown down the street by the downdraft from the Black Hawk just before the U.S. troops handcuffed her. On September 19, 1993, helicopters from the U.S. Army 10th Mountain Division shot missiles into a crowd, killing 100 unarmed people.

UN atrocities in Somalia were not only confined to Americans.

Belgian UN troops forced a young Somali to eat pork, drink salt water, and then eat his own vomit! Others were photographed "roasting" a Somali boy over a flaming fire and urinating on a murdered Somali!

وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ

أَلَا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَٰكِنْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ

"When they are told, ‘Do not cause corruption on the earth,’ they say, ‘We are only putting things right.’ No indeed! They are the corrupters, but they are not aware of it." [Al-Baqara, 2:11-12]

Understandably, Muslims fear these UN aid agencies will be misused by America as a cover for intelligence gathering in its dirty war against Islam. The US already operates and funds a secret prison in Mogadishu in which it interrogates Al-Shabab prisoners. Last month, the US launched its first drone attack on Somalia and more are to follow. We know from these attacks in Pakistan that innocent civilians bear the brunt of the casualties.

A future Caliphate’s response to famine

The Muslim ummah is one and its suffering is one.

مَثَلُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ كَمَثَلِ الْجَسَدِ إِذَا أَلِمَ بَعْضُهُ تَدَاعَى سَائِرُهُ

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “The example of the believers is like the body, if part of it hurts the rest of it is summoned.” [Ahmed]

The wealth in the Muslim world with its abundant natural resources is immense. There should be no need to rely on America, the UN and other western powers for aid. Rather the Caliphate should be the leading nation that is giving aid not receiving it.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "The upper hand is better than the lower hand (i.e. he who gives in charity is better than him who takes it). One should start giving first to his dependents. And the best object of charity is that which is given by a wealthy person (from the money which is left after his expenses). And whoever abstains from asking others for some financial help, Allah will give him and save him from asking others, Allah will make him self-sufficient." [Bukhari, Narrated by Hakim bin Hizam]

In 1845, the onset of the Great Irish Famine resulted in over a million deaths. Ottoman Sultan Caliph Abdul-Majid I declared his intention to send 10,000 sterling to Irish farmers but Queen Victoria requested that the Sultan send only 1,000 sterling, because she had sent only 2,000 sterling herself. The Sultan sent the 1,000 sterling but also secretly sent 3 ships full of food. The English courts tried to block the ships, but the food arrived in Drogheda harbor and was left there by Ottoman Sailors. Due to this the Irish people, especially those in Drogheda, are friendly to the Turks.

The Caliphate is not a union of independent states like the EU or an empire where wealth is taken from the regions and concentrated in the capital. It is one state with a central government, divided up administratively in to provinces (wiliayaat). If any province of the Caliphate suffers a disaster such as a famine then funds will be collected from all other provinces to alleviate the problem. The Charities Department (Diwan as-Sadaqat) and the Public Properties department of the Treasury (Bait ul-Mal) will allocate funds to the famine. Natural resources like oil cannot be owned by individual royal families to misuse as they please, buying super cars, foreign football clubs and propping up western interest-based banks. They are public resources owned by the citizens of the Caliphate.

Distribution of the aid and resolving the crisis will require pooling resources from many government agencies and the armed forces. The Caliph can personally take charge of this or send an Assistant Caliph (Mu’awin Tafweed) who has the same powers as the Caliph in his capacity as a deputy. The Assistant Caliph can then take control of all government agencies and armed forces involved in the disaster relief operation, cutting bureaucracy which could delay aid distribution.

Alternatively the governor (wali) of the affected province could be assigned full authority over his wiliyah to manage the disaster. This would only be temporary since governors in the Caliphate have a restricted (khass) mandate to prevent independent, autonomous regions appearing.

In the year 18AH during the Caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab the Arabian Peninsula was struck by a severe famine and drought, and hunger grew so severe that the wild animals started coming in to the towns, and if a man slaughtered a sheep he would not be able to eat it because it was so scrawny, and the flocks died of hunger. This year was called the year of ar-Ramadah because the wind blew the dust around like ashes (ar-ramad). [Dr Ali Muhammad as-Sallabi, “Umar ibn al-Khattab his life and times,” Vol. 1, p. 409]

Umar was the Caliph and took personal control of resolving the famine. He made an oath that he would not taste any meat or ghee until the famine was over and the people went back to normal.

He established refugee camps in the desert for the thousands of Arabs who converged on Medina. Umar set up an institution to help the refugees and appointed workers at these camps. He divided the work up so every worker knew exactly what he was supposed to be doing, and did not duplicate the work assigned to someone else. He appointed people in different parts of Medina to supervise the distribution of food. When evening came, they would meet with him and tell him about what they had done, and he would give them further instructions. Umar also worked in the refugee camps.

Umar had already established an institution called Dar ad-Daqeeq with the purpose of distributing food to those who came to Medina. It distributed flour, saweeq, dates and raisins from its stores before supplies arrived from the other regions of the state.

Umar also wrote to all his governors in Egypt, Iraq, Persia and Syria requesting they send aid. All responded and sent huge quantities of aid to the capital.

Finally, Umar organised prayer for rain (al-istisqa) in Medina and through the regions of the Caliphate. Allah accepted this dua and it began to rain.

In the absence of the Caliphate Muslims must strive to re-establish it and give as much assistance and money as they can to those sincere, trustworthy Muslim charities working in Somalia to alleviate some of the suffering of our brothers and sisters.

'Iddi b. Haatim narrated that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Protect yourselves from the Fire, even if by giving half a date (in charity).” [Bukhari]

Anti-government protests: Allah is preparing the Ummah for victory

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:44:00 +0000

As anti-government protests sweep the Muslim world and tyrants begin to fall the question of who will replace them is now on the minds of the ummah.

If we look back to the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his struggle to establish the first Islamic State, we see he صلى الله عليه وسلم approached many tribes seeking the support (nussrah) for establishing the authority of Islam. He صلى الله عليه وسلم suffered persecution and difficulty in seeking the nussrah most notably in Ta’if where they hurled insults and stones at him until the whole of his body including his feet bled.

Whilst the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and sahaba were struggling in the dawah in Makkah, Allah سبحانه وتعالى was preparing two tribes with the honour of becoming the future Ansar who supported the establishment of the first Islamic State in Medina.

These two tribes were Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj and five years before the hijra a severe battle took place between them called the Battle of Bu’ath, which led them on the path to becoming Muslim and giving the final nussrah.

'Aisha (ra) narrates about this point: The day of Bu'ath was a day (i.e. battle) which Allah caused to take place just before the mission of His Messenger so that when Allah's Messenger came to Medina, they (the tribes) had divided (into hostile groups) and their nobles had been killed; and all of that facilitated their conversion to Islam. [Bukhari]

The Battle of Bu’ath was a defining moment in the history of Islam and the anti-government demonstrations today may also turn out to be such a turning point.

Today, the ummah is feeling the shocks of the regimes collapsing and martyrs falling in the streets and this will generate an intellectual process which seeks answers for a way forward.

This is mentioned by Taqiudeen an-Nabhani in the book Attakattul el-Hizbi (Structuring of a Party):

Vitality usually streams into the Ummah when severe shocks occur in the society and produce a common feeling. This collective feeling leads to an intellectual process, which in turn produces a host of propositions and ideas as a result of discussions about the causes and effects of the shock, as well as the direct and indirect means to save the Ummah.

The problems people face in life will naturally provoke thinking in the person as they search for a solution. Similarly, the severe problems and shocks faced by the ummah during the fall of the tyrants have provoked many elements of the society to question and debate the next steps. The scholars, politicians, media, political parties, army, Islamic groups and western governments are all involved in this debate to varying degrees of influence. Even if after the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and beyond a Khilafah does not emerge, this should not be a source of despair for the ummah and the dawah carriers in particular. Rather these demonstrations have achieved many positive outcomes for the Islamic revival and are a step closer to the victory of Allah سبحانه وتعالى and the establishment of the Khilafah.

1. For any idea to become a concept that shapes people’s behaviour it must have a reality that people can perceive and relate to. During the 1950’s and 60’s in the Arab world there was widespread support for the rulers even though they were dictators ruling by non-Islam who upheld the interests of their colonial masters. At this time Hizb ut-Tahrir exposed the rulers, their oppression and their subservience to the west but this was viewed as “strange” by many in the ummah. However, actions speak louder than words, and over time through decades of oppression the ummah has realised who their rulers truly are. The hatred of the tyrants, the destruction of their portraits and hounding them out the country shows the ummahs true feelings towards them.

2. The ummah were in fear of the rulers who tortured, abused and imprisoned them. Those few dawah carriers who stood up were dealt with brutally to the point where thousands languished in the dungeons of the tyrants. But these demonstrations removed the fear from the ummah who faced the tanks and live ammunition with their bare chests chanting Allahu Akbar!

3. The hypocrisy of western leaders who supported and armed these tyrants is now plain for the ummah to see, such as when the police use anti-riot weapons with “made in Britain” on them or when the British PM tours the Middle East with arms companies in tow.

4. The Hizb adopted a clear and precise method for establishing the Islamic State from the sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, which stressed the importance of building a public opinion for revival and gaining the physical support (nussrah) from those who prop up the rulers (primarily the armies). Many Islamic groups rejected this method in favour of compromise, gradualism and power sharing with the governments. Yet the millions protesting in Tunis and Cairo proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the power of public opinion in generating change.

5. Some Islamic movements condemned the Muslim armies as corrupt and began developing their own nussrah by creating armed groups to fight the governments directly, or ignored the armies completely in their dawah believing public opinion was enough. However, the pivotal role the armies played in propping up the regimes became clear when the armies removed their support for Ben Ali and then Mubarak. The army in Tunisia, Egypt and now Libya refused to fire on demonstrators and many held their own demonstrations and joined the protestors. The days spent mingling with the armies has helped break down the barriers imposed by the tyrants and will lead to greater dialogue and trust in the future between the armies and the wider society.

6. Another positive outcome is an awakening of the scholars who may now begin to distance themselves from the corrupt regimes and take their place as leading figures in the Islamic revival.

A statement issued by 90 preachers and religious scholars from all over the Muslim world praised the revolutions that ousted the dictatorships of Tunisia and Egypt for defeating oppression and ushering in a new era of justice and freedom.

The statement, however, criticized the revolution's call for the installation of full democracies. Democracy, Muslim clerics argued, allows the people have the final say in their countries' affairs, which leads to the prevalence of several un-Islamic practices.

"In democracies, people might vote for things that are prohibited in Islam like establishing brothels, allowing homosexuality, drinking alcohol, and usury, and prohibiting the call for prayers or the veil."

Calling itself the Network of Free Ulema of Libya, the group of over 50 Muslim scholars said the government and its supporters "have demonstrated total arrogant impunity and continued, and even intensified, their bloody crimes against humanity.

"They have thereby demonstrated total infidelity to the guidance of God and his beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم," said the undated statement obtained by Reuters on Monday.

"This renders them undeserving of any obedience or support, and makes rebelling against them by all means possible a divinely ordained duty," said the scholars, who asked not to be named for security reasons.

7. In Tunisia Islam was suppressed for decades. The post “independence” leader Bourguiba called the hijab an "odious rag", seized properties held by Islamic trusts, closed their courts and enshrined secular family codes. He even went so far as arguing that fasting during Ramadan should not be observed for it reduces productivity! He then appeared on television with his cabinet, eating and drinking during Ramadan! His successor Ben Ali was no different. Women who wore hijab were denied access to education and jobs. Many say police used to stop them in the streets, strip them of their headscarves and force them to sign papers renouncing the hijab. Men with long beards were similarly treated.

A similar suppression occurred in Central Asia under the Soviets where they closed down mosques and drove Islam underground. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union Central Asia saw Muslims re-opening their mosques, women wearing hijab and people starting to learn their religion. Central Asia today has millions of supporters for Khilafah. Tunisia may go in a similar direction. The mosques are beginning to fill up, women openly wearing hijab and public protests calling for Islam.

The Muslims living in the future Khilafah may very well study these protests in their history books and see the part they played in reviving the ummah and establishing the Khilafah, just as the Battle of Bu’ath did in establishing the first Islamic State.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى tests the Muslim ummah so they become purified and return to the straight path – sirat ul-mustaqim. These tests bring us closer to the victory of establishing the Khilafah and prepare the ummah for being the future rulers of the world.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “A man will continue to be tested until he walks upon the face of the earth with no sin on him.” [Ahmed]

The dawah carriers now face a test to answer the ummah’s questions that have arisen as a result of these shocks and explain the correct Islamic concepts and Islamic method for moving the Muslim world forward. Even if these protests bring no immediate change we shouldn’t be disheartened or become defeated that we can never establish the Khilafah. Rather it means we need to work harder to gain Allah’s سبحانه وتعالى pleasure and work righteous deeds so we are worthy of victory.

وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَىٰ لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا ۚ يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا ۚ وَمَنْ كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

“Allah has promised those of you who have iman and do right actions that He will make them successors in the land as He made those before them successors, and will firmly establish for them their deen with which He is pleased and give them, in place of their fear, security. ‘They worship Me, not associating anything with Me.’ Any who are kafir after that, such people are deviators.” [An-Nur, 24:55]

Verily, Allah Most High gives rope to the oppressor so that when He seizes him, he does not get away

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:29:00 +0000

In Bukhari on the authority of Abu Musa the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "Verily, Allah Most High gives rope to the oppressor so that when He seizes him, he does not get away." The he (Allah bless him and give him peace) recited:

وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَخْذُ رَبِّكَ إِذَا أَخَذَ الْقُرَىٰ وَهِيَ ظَالِمَةٌ ۚ إِنَّ أَخْذَهُ أَلِيمٌ شَدِيدٌ

“Such is the iron grip of your Lord when He seizes the cities which do wrong. His grip is painful, violent.” [Hud, 11:102]

Let the removal of Mubarak be a warning to all the tyrants and oppressors ruling the Muslim world today. Allah (Most High) gave Mubarak a long life and allowed him to stay in power for 30 years accumulating masses of wealth. Yet Allah (Most High) has power over all things and Mubarak will go down in history as a fallen dictator, whose people hated him and his name will become a synonym for oppression just as his predecessor Pharaoh (firawn) was.

فَالْيَوْمَ نُنَجِّيكَ بِبَدَنِكَ لِتَكُونَ لِمَنْ خَلْفَكَ آيَةً ۚ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ النَّاسِ عَنْ آيَاتِنَا لَغَافِلُونَ

“Today We will preserve your body so you can be a Sign for people who come after you. Surely many people are heedless of Our Signs.” [Yunus, 10:92]

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been working for nearly 60 years to establish the Khilafah and has never deviated from its goal or compromised the Islamic method. Its members have proven they are ready to sacrifice their lives for this deen with thousands imprisoned and tortured across the Muslim world including Egypt. Its senior leadership are all well qualified for the post of Khaleefah fulfilling the seven contractual conditions of the bayah and many of the preferable conditions.

Hizb ut-Tahrir has a draft constitution for the Khilafah along with detailed books and thousands of research papers and articles on how to rule the Islamic state.

We call upon Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi and the Higher Military Council controlling Egypt to fear Allah (Most High) and to remember that this life is short and each of us will taste death, after which we will stand in front of Allah (Most High) to be judged on our good and bad deeds.

You have been given a golden opportunity by Allah (Most High) near the end of your lives to become the new Ansar and give a pledge of allegiance (bayah) to a Khaleefah who will establish the Khilafah in Egypt as a launching point for unifying the entire Muslim world.

The reward for such a noble deed is Jannah as stated by the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) at the second pledge of al-Aqaba. The Ansar asked: “But what is our reward if we observe all the items of this pact?” The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) replied: “Paradise is in store for you.”

We finish with a hadith for you to contemplate over.

The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "By Allah, other than Whom there is no god, verily one of you behaves like the people of Paradise until there is but an arm's length between him and it, and that which has been written over takes him and so he behaves like the people of Hell-fire and thus he enters it; and one of you behaves like the people of Hell-fire until there is but an arm's length between him and it, and that which has been written over takes him and so he behaves like the people of Paradise and thus he enters it." [Bukhari and Muslim]

Protestors lose their fear of the Egyptian regime and perform the best jihad - the word of justice in front of the oppressive ruler

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 21:37:00 +0000

The Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

"The best Jihad is the word of Justice in front of the oppressive ruler." (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, ibn Maja)

Hundreds of thousands of people are on the streets of Egypt tonight calling for the removal of the tyrant Hosni Mubarak. Inspired by the protests in Tunisia which forced another tyrant Ben Ali from power the Muslims of Egypt are losing their fear of the regime and its security forces. They bravely face the tanks, guns and water cannons demanding an end to the decades of tyranny under Mubarak, the close friend of Obama.

As with Tunisia, western hypocrisy has been exposed for all to see. The US Vice-President Joe Biden was asked if he would characterize Mubarak as a dictator. Biden responded: "Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he's been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with - with Israel. ... I would not refer to him as a dictator."

The west has no problems with dictators and their brutal policies if they continue to serve western interests. As US President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously remarked on Nicaragua's dictator, "Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch."

Egypt was opened up to Islam during the Khilafah of Umar bin al-Khattab. The Christians living in Egypt at the time witnessed the justice of the Islamic system compared to the man-made system of the Byzantines.

Nabil Luqa Bebawy, a Coptic, religious author compares the conditions of Copts before and after Islamic rule. He said that Orthodox Christians were brutally tortured at the hands of Byzantines. The number of Copts who were killed during the rule of the Byzantine emperor Diocletianus [284-305 AD] is estimated up to one million Coptic Egyptians. The is why the Orthodox Coptic Church called that age the age of martyrs and the Coptic calendar starts at this age.

When Islam came to Egypt, all conditions changed dramatically and Copts witnessed an age of freedom that they had not known before. About the Jizya imposed on non-Muslims, Dr. Bebawy says that they were part of the "security pact" made between Muslims and Copts. Jizya was a tax paid in exchange for exempting Copts from joining the Islamic army.

Finally, Dr. Nabil Luqa Bebawy stresses that the ill practices of some Muslims rulers in dealing with Copts are individual behaviors that have nothing to do with Islamic teachings.

Today, both Muslims and Christians in Egypt are facing oppression at the hands of a tyrannical regime implementing a man-made secular system, ruled over by a modern Pharaoh who cares only for accumulating the wealth and luxury of the world.

The way forward is to establish the Khilafah in Egypt as a starting point for change throughout the Middle East, North Africa and the rest of the Muslim world. Egypt would then become the seat of the Khilafah once again as it was from 1261 to 1517, after the ransacking of Baghdad and the murder of the Khaleefah by the Mongols.

We need Muslims in the government and armed forces like Ubadah ibn as-Samit, one of the commanders who opened Egypt to Islam.

Ubadah was sent as the head of a delegation to the Byzantine ruler of Egypt where he said:

"The reason for our campaign against our enemies who wage war against Allah is not hope of worldly gains or the accumulation of wealth; rather Allah has permitted that to us and made the booty we acquire permissible for us. But none of us cares whether he has a qintar of gold or has nothing but a dirham, because all we want from this world is something to eat and ward off hunger, and a cloth to wrap around ourselves. If one of us owns nothing more than that, that is enough. If he gets a qintar of gold he will spend it for the sake of Allah and be content with the little that is left in his hand, because the pleasure of this world is not true pleasure and its luxury is not true luxury; rather real pleasure and luxury come in the Hereafter." [Dr Ali Muhammad as-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab his life and times,' Vol. 2, p. 327]

Egypt’s Copts need the Caliphate

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 23:01:00 +0000

By Abdul-Kareem Newell

World attention is focussing on Egypt’s Coptic Christians after a bomb exploded outside a Church in Alexandria killing 21 people and injuring 70 more.[1] The attack sparked clashes between Egyptian police and Copts protesting against government inaction in protecting their community and places of worship. "Now it's between Christians and the government, not between Muslims and Christians," shrieked one Christian woman as several hundred young men clashed with helmeted riot police in the street outside the targeted church hours after the blast.[2]

At a protest in Shubra, downtown Cairo, some 500 Muslim and Coptic activists, politicians and other civil society leaders shouted the slogan, "Not a police state, not a religious state, we want Egypt to be a secular state."[3]

Egypt is already a secular state where religious political parties are banned and those calling for the implementation of Islamic law (sharia) in society (Islamists) are heavily persecuted. Copts in Egypt do face oppression but so do Muslims and the cause is not sharia but the absence of sharia in Egyptian society. In the absence of any religious restrictions on the conduct of ministers, politicians, judges and police, ordinary Egyptians - both Muslim and Christian - must suffer at the hands of policies which further the interests of the ruling party, their families and supporters. This is why Egypt is a police state, ruled under a state of emergency since 1967 apart from 18 months between 1980 and 1981. The law of emergency is used to restrict any non-governmental political activity: street demonstrations, non-approved political organisations, and unregistered financial donations are formally banned. Some 17,000 people are detained under the law, and estimates of political prisoners run as high as 30,000.[4]

In one horrific example of police abuse, Imad Kabir, a Muslim, was filmed being tortured and sexually assaulted by police officers. Instead of the police officers being punished the victim Imad was subsequently jailed for three months on the charge of ‘resisting authority.’[5]

The law of emergency is applied under the excuse of fighting terrorism which means clamping down on the Islamist opposition, who are the only threat to the brutal Egyptian regime. However, as Abdullah al-Ashaal, professor at the American University in Cairo said, “I think the terrorism is from the government for neglecting the needs of the people and not serving the national interests. This intensifies the tensions in Egypt…And if any terrorism arises, it is because of the government policies - raising prices, the detention of people and the injustices which are prevailing everywhere.” [6]

In regards to some of the issues blamed for inflaming tensions between Muslims and Copts in recent years such as killings, kidnappings and forced conversions, those with a wider political agenda use them as evidence to claim Muslims are oppressing Christians and Islam should be further removed from societal affairs, i.e. more secularism. French President Sarkozy’s comment, that "We cannot accept and thereby facilitate what looks more and more like a particularly wicked program of cleansing in the Middle East, religious cleansing,"[7] shows how the issue is being inflamed by the west to justify meddling in the affairs of the Muslim world. The hypocrisy of Sarkozy’s statement is clear when we look at France and other western countries silence and inaction over the Rwandan Genocide where 800,000 Christians were actually cleansed from the country.

A closer examination of these crimes against Copts shows the motivation is not necessarily religious. In Egypt as in any other country criminals exist. Some of these criminals are Muslim and some are Copts. Murders take place, and a Muslim may murder a Copt or a Copt may murder a Muslim. This is crime and cannot be viewed solely through a Muslim vs. Christian lens.

On the allegations of kidnappings and forced conversions of Christians, Youssef Sidhoum, the editor of a well-respected Christian newspaper, says the allegations are always difficult to prove. Often, he says, they are love stories that have gone wrong. Very often they are not kidnapping or forced conversions, but relationships between Christian girls and Muslim boys. Sometimes it is their parents who say they have been kidnapped in order to hide their shame, when in fact the girl has married a Muslim of her own choice. "They tend to exaggerate the cases," he said. "We have investigated lots of cases, again and again. This is an important issue to us and we go wherever the cases are. "But I don't recall since 1997 more than three definite cases where we had clear evidence that there was kidnap and forced conversion."[8]

So what is the way forward for Copts and Muslims in Egypt? Is the problem a growing ‘Islamisation’ of Egyptian society as those with a wider political agenda to secularise Egypt and reshape Islam are claiming?

In answer to this we need to examine the sharia laws relating to Christian and other non-Muslim citizens living in an Islamic State and look at some historical examples of when these sharia laws were applied on the Copts of Egypt.

Non-Muslims citizens living in a Caliphate have an honourable status and are referred to as dhimmi (people of contract). Their places of worship, lives and property are protected and they are not persecuted for their beliefs.

The Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah.”[9]

The Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) wrote to the people of Yemen: “Whoever is adamant upon Judaism or Christianity will not be tormented for it.”[10]

The classical scholars of Islam also detailed the rights of the Muslims towards the dhimmi. The famous Maliki jurist, Shaha al-Deen al-Qarafi said:

"The covenant of protection imposes upon us certain obligations toward the ahl al-dhimmah. They are our neighbours, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), and the religion of Islam. Whoever violates these obligations against any one of them by so much as an abusive word, by slandering his reputation, or by doing him some injury or assisting in it, has breached the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), and the religion of Islam." [11]

Dhimmi are not forced to become Muslim or leave their beliefs, values and worships. They are permitted to drink alcohol, eat pork, marry and divorce according to their religions. In all other areas of society they are viewed and treated in the same way as Muslims unless belief in Islam is a pre-requisite for the action.

Allah (Most High) says in the Holy Qur’an:

لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ

“There is no compulsion in religion” [12]

Christianity and other religions do not have detailed rules and systems governing societal affairs such as government, foreign affairs and economy. Christianity for example adopts the principle:

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”[13]

Therefore dhimmi in their societal transactions will obey the law of the land which in the Caliphate happens to be sharia (Islamic law). This will not be a source of conflict since these laws do not contradict any religious rulings. A good example of this is the spread of Islamic finance based on sharia throughout the western world. Even a country such as France which is staunchly secular and anti-Islamic, passed laws last year aimed at making France a hub for Islamic finance.[14] This is not because France has any love for sharia but because of the economic benefit derived from the transactions.

The general atmosphere in an Islamic society towards its non-Muslim minority is shaped by the above Islamic evidences and does not lead to a hostile atmosphere of persecution. However, the Caliphate is not a utopia and crime will exist and a dhimmi might be attacked and murdered by a criminal as happens in all societies.

An accusation brought by Copts in Egypt is that Muslims are not punished for crimes against their communities or given lesser punishment. In a Caliphate Muslims and dhimmi have equal status when it comes to crimes such as assault, rape and murder. An Islamic judiciary judging by sharia will not apply disparate punishments as found in secular Egypt.

Allah (Most High) says in the Holy Qur’an:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ لِلَّهِ شُهَدَاءَ بِالْقِسْطِ ۖ وَلَا يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَىٰ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا ۚ اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَىٰ ۖ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ

“You who believe, be steadfast in your devotion to Allah and bear witness impartially: do not let hatred of others lead you away from justice, but adhere to justice, for that is closer to awareness of Allah. Be mindful of Allah: Allah is well aware of all that you do.” [15]

The dhimmi is allowed to be a witness in an Islamic court against a Muslim and their evidence is acceptable. The conditions of being a witness apply equally to Muslims and dhimmi. The conditions of a witness are: sane, mature and ‘adl (trustworthy).

Punishments for crimes are applied equally to both Muslims and dhimmi with no distinction. The only distinction is that dhimmi will not be punished for those actions which are permitted for them such as drinking alcohol, whereas a Muslim would be.

The Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “The diyyah (blood money) of the Jews and Christians is like the Muslim’s diyyah.”[16]

It is narrated in a hadith that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) killed a Muslim for a mu’ahid (citizen of a foreign state with which the Caliphate has a treaty) and said, “I am the most noble of those who fulfil their dhimmah.”[17]

This hadith clearly indicates that if a Muslim kills a mu’ahid he is punished with death.[18] This applies to the dhimmi who has more rights than a mu’ahid since the dhimmi is a full citizen of the Islamic State.

If we look to the history of Copts in Egypt when they lived under the Caliphate we can see these sharia rules detailed above being implemented in practice. Whilst there were times during the Caliphate when dhimmi did suffer some persecution at the hands of tyrant rulers we cannot generalise and paint the entire 1300 year history as one of persecuting non-Muslims. The fact that Coptic Christians and their places of worship exist today is proof enough that the Caliphate did not adopt a policy of religious cleansing like Europe did.

Thomas Arnold mentions this point: "But of any organised attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the Caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years." [19]

When Islam came to Egypt, all conditions changed dramatically and Copts witnessed an age of freedom that they had not known before. About the Jizya imposed on non-Muslims, Dr. Bebawy says that they were part of the “security pact” made between Muslims and Copts. Jizya was a tax paid in exchange for exempting Copts from joining the Islamic army.

Finally, Dr. Nabil Luqa Bebawy stresses that the ill practices of some Muslims rulers in dealing with Copts are individual behaviors that have nothing to do with Islamic teachings.[20]

Hani Shukrallah, a Coptic Christian and a former editor of the newspaper Al-Ahram writes:

“It is not easy to empty Egypt of its Christians; they’ve been here for as long as there has been Christianity in the world. Close to a millennium and half of Muslim rule did not eradicate the nation’s Christian community, rather it maintained it sufficiently strong and sufficiently vigorous so as to play a crucial role in shaping the national, political and cultural identity of modern Egypt.

Yet now, two centuries after the birth of the modern Egyptian nation state, and as we embark on the second decade of the 21st century, the previously unheard of seems no longer beyond imagining: a Christian-free Egypt, one where the cross will have slipped out of the crescent’s embrace, and off the flag symbolizing our modern national identity...”[21]

Even during the Crusades when western Christians invaded and occupied parts of the Islamic State, the Copts of Egypt defended the Caliphate under the rule of Salahudin Ayyubi who was the governor of Egypt during the Abbasid Caliphate.

Carole Hillenbrand, in ‘The Crusades: Islamic perspectives’ says:

“…Saladin had a private secretary, ibn Sharafi, who was a Copt and Saladins brother al-Adil put a Copt named ibn al-Muqat in charge of the army ministry (diwan al-Jaysh). The appointment of a Christian to a position of such power in war-time and in an area that was military so sensitive tells its own story. Indeed, the loyalties of the Copts in the Ayyubid period seem often to have lain more with the Muslims and with their own local interests than with the Crusaders. This was demonstrated in the Crusade of Damietta in 1218 when the Copts helped to defend the city, and as a consequence suffered greatly at the hands of the Crusaders.” [22]

These are some of the reasons why Egypt’s Copts need the Caliphate, and in fact all the non-Muslims of the Muslim world need the Caliphate.

Notes

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12101748
2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110101/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt_church_attack
3. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/01/egypt-hundreds-protest-in-denouncement-of-copts-killings.html
4. http://herewww.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50634
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6249027.stm
6. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/20105116134595496.html
7. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/01/07/132545.html
8. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8424599.stm
9. Reported by al-Tabarani in Al-awsat on good authority
10. Abu ‘Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam, ‘The Book of Revenue,’ Translation of Kitab al-Amwal, Garnet Publishing Ltd, p. 25
11. Shaha al-Deen al-Qarafi, Al-furuq
12. Holy Qur’an, Chapter 2, al-Baqarah, Verse 256
13. Matthew 22:21
14. http://arabnews.com/economy/islamicfinance/article127437.ece
15. Holy Qur’an, Chapter 5, Al-Maidah, Verse 8
16. Narrated from Amru bin Shuaib from his father from his grandfather
17. Al-Bayhaqi, extracted from the hadith of Abdurrahman Al-Bailimani
18. Abdurrahman Al-Maliki, ‘The Punishment System,’ translation of Nidham ul-uqubat, Dar Ul-Ummah, Beirut, Second Edition, Chapter: Al-Qawad
19. Thomas W.Arnold, 'The Preaching of Islam,' Second Edition, Kitab Bhavan Publishers, p. 72
20. http://www.arabwestreport.info/node/6709
21. http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8820&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29
22. Carole Hillenbrand, 'The Crusades: Islamic perspectives,' p. 414

Q&A: What is the evidence for the Majlis ul-Ummah's power of removing the Assistants and Mayors?

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:49:00 +0000

One of the mandatory powers of the Council of the Ummah (Majlis ul-Ummah) is they can express no-confidence in the Assistants (mu’awinoon), Governors (wulah) and Mayors (aamileen). The Caliph then removes them based on the Council of the Ummah (Majlis ul-Ummah)’s opinion. The evidence (daleel) for this mandatory power relates specially to the removal of the governors so how can it also apply to the Assistants and Mayors?

In answer to this the powers of the Caliph include the appointment in ruling and administration.

Whatever is part of the ruling comes under the same subject. So the Caliph’s Assistant (mu’awin) is a waali (ruling position), the Governor (waali) is a waali and the Mayor (aamil) is a waali, and their work is looking after the affairs of the people in their domain.

As the governor is removed if his flock, i.e. the people in his province (wiliyah) complained of him, the Assistant is also removed if his flock, i.e. the people in his wiliyah (ruling area) complained of him, and the Aamil as well is removed if his flock, i.e. the people in his wiliyah (ruling area) complained of him.

This is similar to prohibiting each type of alcohol, describing each as haram, because they are all types of the same subject. Thus, the divine ruling of a particular issue applies to all of its members.

NOTE: The Waali, although commonly used to mean a governor of a province has another more general meaning. The Waali is a ruler, because the Wilayah (ruling matter or province) means the ruling. In the dictionary Al-Muhit, it has been defined as "the Imarah (leadership) and the authority." It requires an appointment by the Caliph or by whoever is delegated to do so on his behalf.

The Waali is the deputy of the Caliph and performs what the Caliph authorises him to do on his behalf. According to the Shar’a (Islamic law), the Wilayah has no specific limit, so anyone appointed by the Caliph to act on his behalf over any matter of ruling would be a Waali in that matter in accordance with the terms the Caliph used in his appointment.

Q&A: Is it permitted for the Caliph to resign and can a time limit be added to the bay’ah?

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 11:36:00 +0000

Is it allowed for the Caliph to abdicate at anytime i.e. relinquish his bay’ah? This is what Imam Hassan did when he became the Caliph after the death of his father Imam Ali. Hassan then abdicated from the Caliphate and offered it to Mu’awiyah who became the 6th Caliph. [Suyuti, tarikh ul-Khulufa, History of the Caliphs]

Since the bay’ah is a contract where the time limit is unrestricted (mutlaq) like marriage (nikah), can the Caliph say, “I will relinquish the bay’ah after 5 years of office”? Similar to someone saying, “I will divorce my wife after 5 years of marriage.” This effectively places an informal time limit on the nikah.

In answer to this the duration of the mandate of the Caliph is not time-bound. Once the nation gave him her bay’ah his mandate continues as long as he implemented the law of Allah and fulfilled the contractual conditions of his contract.

It is not permissible to mention a time limit in the bay’ah; he is rather pledged to work according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger without time limit.

Unlimited term contracts should not contain a time clause otherwise the contract would become invalid (batil). The marriage contract for example, is of an unrestricted (mutlaq) term. So, if a time limit was mentioned in the contract it would become an invalid contract.

Therefore, it is invalid to have a bay'ah to the Caliph with a time limit, i.e. for a certain period.

However, if the Caliph wished to resign from his post, it is permissible for him to do so. We have mentioned this in the constitution in the case of the vacancy of the Caliph post - Article 32, which reads as follows:

"If the post of the Caliph became vacant due to the death, resignation or dismissal of the Caliph, a Caliph must be appointed in his place within three days and their nights starting from the date of the vacancy of the post."

It is therefore clear that "resignation" is permissible.

Is the Caliphate an Extreme Islamic goal?

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:11:00 +0000

This article has been reproduced from New Civilisation Magazine.

The word ‘extreme’ only takes on meaning when defined against some benchmark. ‘Extreme’ weather is a serious departure from a normal, expected climate; extremely hot or cold water is defined as such when compared against, say, lukewarm. The word is relative and defined in relation to some ‘norm’. Ideas are not different.

So to the question - is the Caliphate an extreme ‘Islamic’ goal - Islam is the benchmark against which the Caliphate’s normality is measured. Is the Caliphate a serious departure from Islam, an outlier belief that represents an extreme from the norm of Islamic orthodoxy?

There is of course an altogether different question posed by the west in which ‘extreme’ is measured not in relation to Islam, but to the west, or liberal secular democracy. That’s where on the rare occasion it is accompanied with some definition. In most cases, ‘extreme’ is not qualified and used simply to brand Islamic ideas as beyond the pale.

To the first question, whether the Caliphate is extreme when compared with Islam, this can be answered from a doctrinal, legal and historical perspective.

Historically, the Caliphate dominates some 94% of Islamic history. It formally came to an end in 1924 CE; the first Caliph was elected some 1300 hundred years prior in 632 CE. Despite its strengths and weaknesses, peaks and troughs, the historical norm was for Muslims to live with a Caliphate. So deeply established was it historically, some academics believe the current weakness of Muslim nation states is a consequence of the deep roots and trans-national nature of the Caliphate and ummah that now challenge post-colonial borders. On the occasion of its termination, confusion reigned, prayers suspended, people grappled to assume its title from Egypt to the Sharif of Mecca, and movements formed almost immediately to secure its restoration. If the Caliphate represented an extreme, what explains its dominance in Islamic history and the deep sense of loss and impact that accompanied its collapse?

Legally, the Caliphate represents the executive authority charged with the implementation of the Shariah. Jurists throughout Islamic history, from as early as Shaybani’s Siyar (a treatise on international relations), Abu Yusuf’s Kitab al Kharaj through Mawardi’s ahkam al Sultaniyah to the multitudes through the centuries, have written extensively on the role, rights and remit of the Caliphate. The institution of the Caliphate is foundational to Islamic law. Whilst much is made of ‘hudud’ punishments by the west, the fact these can only be administered by a state is often totally missed. Islamic Law has always recognised Islam’s temporal jurisdiction: classically its scope comprises ibadat - personal worships - and mu’amalat - temporal law. The Shariah therefore that not only addresses morality, rituals, person and family, but comprises a vast body of law relating to state and society. Furthermore, rather than an outlier, classical Islamic law considers the Caliphate an ‘obligation’ on Muslims to ensure it exists. The classical jurist Abu Hanifa, founder of the school of law followed by 70% of Sunni Muslims, described the Caliphate as the ‘mother’ of all Islamic obligations. This may explain ongoing demands for its restoration - these being not just a function of its ‘appeal’ but because it represents a core Islamic requirement.

Doctrinally, Islamic belief considers the notion of God’s sovereignty an essential aspect of Tawhid, the belief in one God. Whilst the agent of human reasoning attempts to understand the law and apply it, the origin of law is divine and the sole legitimate reference in the resolution of disputes and law. Islamic law rests upon this premise and explains its character and scope.

Unfortunately for the west, these are not the arguments of ‘islamists’. Each can be verified independently against the classical, orthodox books of law and theology. Whilst some may de-prioritise the Caliphate, consider it too difficult to form immediately, or choose to defer its establishment, these are a function of practical considerations not a challenge to the requirement of governing according to Islam under a Caliphate. Those who have attempted to challenge this requirement directly have found themselves ostracized from classical Islamic learning, whether by the Ulema or the people at large. Examples of such attempts are therefore not many, but Ali Abdul Razzaq’s represent one of the more recent and public (although that was a century ago). Even modernisers have avoided challenging this core requirement, choosing instead to re-define or re-interpret its form.

Dr Noah Feldman in his book “The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State” in the chapter “What Went Right?’ describes how many in the Muslim world consider the Islamic State: “if one notices that for thirteen hundred years, Islam provided the dominant language of politics in the middle east...then the re-emergence of Islam looks like the return to the norm.”

As for the question posed by the west, that needs to be addressed separately. But suffice to say here, just as the west describe the Caliphate extreme in relation to western values, many Muslims describe western moral, social and economic values and decay extreme when compared to Islamic values. Clearly the approach is relative, and concludes no more than the obvious fact that Islam and secular liberal democracy are different. It’s time we move beyond the labels and assess the substance of each set of claims.

Conquest of Egypt: Ubadah ibn as-Samit’s address to the Egyptian Ruler Al-Muqawqis

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:02:00 +0000

Amr ibn Al-‘As was commander of the army sent to conquer Egypt during the Caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab. After the conquest Amr became Egypt’s first Islamic governor (wali).

The Muslim forces laid siege to the Babylon Fortress in 641CE (in the area known as Coptic Cairo today) where al-Muqawqis, the Egyptian Ruler was holed up. General Amr ibn Al-‘As sent a delegation of ten men, headed by Ubadah ibn as-Samit, to speak with al-Muqawqis.

Ubadah was black, and when the delegation travelled by boat to al-Muqawqis and entered his place, Ubadah stepped forward and al-Muqawqis was alarmed because of his blackness.

He said, “Take this black man away from me and let someone else come and speak to me!”

They said, “This black man is the best of us in knowledge and wisdom. He is our leader and the best of us, and has been appointed over us. We all refer to his opinion, and our leader has appointed him over us and ordered us not to go against him.”

Al-Muqawqis said to the delegation, “How could you accept this black man as the best among you? Rather he should be the least among you.”

They said, “No; even though he is black as you can see, he is the best in status among us, one of the foremost among us and one of the wisest. Blackness is not something bad among us.”

Al-Muqawqis said to Ubadah, “Come forward, O black man, and speak to me gently, for your blackness alarms me, and if you speak harshly that will alarm ne further.”

Ubadah went forward and said, “I have heard what you said. Among my companions whom I left behind are a thousand men who are all as black as me, and even blacker than me and more terrifying to behold. If you saw them you would be even more alarmed. My youth has gone, but nevertheless I would not be scared if one hundred men of my enemy wanted to face me all at once, and the same is true of my companions, for our hope and our desire is to strive in jihad for the sake of Allah, seeking the pleasure of Allah.

The reason for our campaign against our enemies who wage war against Allah is not hope of worldly gains or the accumulation of wealth; rather Allah has permitted that to us and made the booty we acquire permissible for us. But none of us cares whether he has a qintar of gold or has nothing but a dirham, because all we want from this world is something to eat and ward off hunger, and a cloth to wrap around ourselves. If one of us owns nothing more than that, that is enough. If he gets a qintar of gold he will spend it for the sake of Allah and be content with the little that is left in his hand, because the pleasure of this world is not true pleasure and its luxury is not true luxury; rather real pleasure and luxury come in the Hereafter.

This is how our Lord has guided us and our Prophet has taught us; he advised us that our ambition in this world should be just to have enough to ward off hunger and cover our awrahs (nakedness); our main concern should be to please our Lord and strive in jihad against His enemies.”

When al-Muqawqis heard that, he said to those who were around him: “Have you ever heard anything like what this man is saying? His appearance alarmed me but his words alarm me more than his appearance. Allah has sent this man and his companions out to destroy the world! I think that they are bound to prevail over the entire world.”

Dr Ali Muhammad as-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab his life and times,’ Vol. 2, p. 327

Q&A: Is it permitted to add extra conditions to the bay’ah?

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:05:00 +0000

When Uthman bin Affan accepted the bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) he agreed to rule by the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of the Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the actions of Abu Bakr and Umar. The bay’ah is a contract and follows the ahkam (rules) of contracts. Is it therefore allowed to add extra conditions to the bay’ah contract such as the one added to Uthman’s bay’ah?

If Uthman bin Affan once he was Caliph decided not to rule according to the actions of Abu Bakr and Umar and instead conducted his own ijtihad would this make the bay’ah contract fasid (defective) and therefore make the Caliph eligible for removal by the Qadi Mazalim (Judge of Unjust Acts)?

In answer to this there are a few points to consider.

1. There is something that needs to be explained regarding this question. The texts reported about the bay’ah emphasized necessity of abidance by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace). It is not allowed to add any issue in the bay’ah that obliges the Caliph to adopt it unless there is a specific text providing for that, because adoption is one of the mandatory powers of the Caliph.

2. A clause may be mentioned in the bay’ah if the unity of Muslims requires that as happened with the bay’ah of Uthman, where the adoption of Abu Bakr and Umar was added to the Qur'an and Sunnah in his bay’ah, for this was for the unity of the Muslims.

3. So, if the unity of Muslims necessarily requires addition of commitment by a certain adoption, approved by the Mahkamat ul-Mazalim (Court of Unjust Acts) , this adoption may be added in the text of the bay’ah.

The consent of the Mahkamat ul-Mazalim is mentioned because examination of the legislative texts related to the constitution, law and all other adopted legal provisions are one of its powers.

4. If such a condition was added to the text of the bay’ah, the Caliph is obliged to implement, and he would be sinful if he did not execute it.

Q&A: Can the Caliphate have elected governors?

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:19:00 +0000

One of the mandatory powers of the Caliph is that he appoints and removes the governors (wulah).

Since the Council of the Ummah (Majlis ul-Ummah) has the right to remove the governors then the Caliph should appoint those who the Majlis approves of. The Caliph should therefore take shura (consultation) from the Majlis on who the governors and Assistants should be.

A possible style for this is the Regional Assembly (Majlis ul-Wiliyah) votes in a governor and then the Caliph based on this vote ratifies their decision, so the final decision is with the Caliph.

This is what happened in the Caliphate of Uthman bin Affan when the influential people (ahl hali wal-aqd) from Egypt came to complain about their governor ibn Abi Sarh.

Uthman said to the ahl hali wal-aqd, “Choose from amongst yourselves a man whom I shall appoint over you in his (ibn Abi Sarh’s) place.” They said, “Appoint Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr over us.” Uthman wrote his covenant and appointed him. [Suyuti, Tarikh ul-Khulufa]

I believe this was undertaken in the presence of the companions (sahaba) so constitutes ijma us-sahaba (consensus of the companions).

Based upon the above evidence (daleel) is it therefore allowed to have elected governors (wulah) in the Caliphate?

In answer to this the powers of the Caliph include “the appointment and dismissal of governors”. The provisions over this matter are general, so it is not allowed to specify any of these general provisions unless there is evidence. If there is no evidence the powers of the Caliph remain general concerning appointment and dismissal. This power belongs to him alone, and no one else can oblige the Caliph to appoint or dismiss a governor without an evidence of specification.

There is evidence to dismiss the governors if their provinces (wiliyaat) complained about them. Therefore, the Caliph is obliged to dismiss the Governors if their provinces complained about them, i.e. if the Regional Assembly or the Council of the Ummah complained about them. There is no place here for divine analogy because the evidence is general so it is subject to specification, and it does not depend on a divine reason (‘illah) to allow analogy (qiyas).

Therefore, although the Council of the Ummah can oblige the Caliph to dismiss a governor, they cannot oblige the Caliph to appoint a governor, because the specification came regarding the dismissal rather than the appointment of the governor.

As regards the issue of appointing Mohammad bin Abu Bakr by Uthman (ra) as requested by the people of Egypt, and describing this as consensus (ijmaa') for it took place in the presence of the Sahabah, this is not true. This is because everything that is subject to the opinion of the Caliph is not considered a consensus, even if the companions were silent. In other words, everything of the powers of the Caliph does not come under the consensus. Appointment of governors is the right of the Caliph, so no one can oblige the Caliph by removing any of his powers unless there is evidence upon that. The evidence came over the dismissal of the governor if the province complained about him, but not over the appointment of a governor if requested by the province. Rather the appointment depends on the opinion and diligence of the Caliph.

Therefore, the approval of Uthman (ra) to appoint Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr was subject to his opinion and diligence and not imposed upon him. He rather considered it a good action so he agreed to the request of the people of Egypt. Thus, the matter was discharged based on his opinion and diligence. Had Uthman (ra) rejected to appoint him he would not have violated a divine ruling.

In conclusion, the Caliph is not obliged to appoint a particular governor upon the request of the Council of the Ummah, he rather consults them, but the appointment decision is subject to his opinion and diligence because it is of his powers.

The Attack on Halal Meat and How to Respond

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:22:00 +0000

Halal meat has become the latest battleground in the clash of civilisations between Islam and the west. There was a media frenzy recently over reports that halal meat was unknowingly being served to the British public with the Daily Mail claiming 'Britain goes halal'.

According to the Mail, “Animal welfare campaigners have long called for a ban on the traditional Islamic way of preparing meat.” Interestingly halal meat is singled out in these articles with no real focus on Jews and kosher meat except in the small print. This shows that Islamic practices rather than any sincere concern for animal welfare is at the heart of such articles.

Yesterday’s Independent waded in to the halal meat debate with an article by Johann Hari under the headline 'The religious excuse for barbarity.' Unlike the tabloid press more prominence was given to kosher meat alongside halal meat with emphasis on religion in general being used to inflict animal cruelty. Hari as an atheist naturally distances himself from any religious guidance on the slaughtering of animals and instead falls back to science and personal bias for his views.

He quotes the UK’s Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) who has demanded an end to halal and kosher slaughter calling it ridiculous that the animals do not suffer. He does quote opposing views from a Jew and Muslim who support animal slaughter through throat cutting but according to Hari, “This has been proven by science to be false.” In fact this is not the case and there is a lot of scientific evidence and highly qualified scientists who dispute FAWC’s claims which can be read here in an old article by Dr. Abdul Majid Katme.

When defending the Islamic method of animal slaughter many Muslims respond through quoting their own scientific research to prove that it's not cruel or painful for the animal. The problem with this type of response is the debate becomes centered around quotes from scientists with both sides simply quoting scientific evidence that supports their point of view. Scientific results by their nature are not definite and different scientists will conclude different results from them. Some may view the result as strong whilst others view the result as weak. For a layman with no scientific background and even for scientists themselves more often than not it’s other views and personal biases that shape their final opinion. This is especially true when theoretical physicists discuss the origins of the universe.

As Muslims who submit themselves to the will of Allah (Most High), the Creator, there is a very clear, simple and strong answer to any who dispute the Islamic method of animal slaughter which is that Allah (Most High) knows best. He (Most High) created human beings and the animals and therefore knows which animals should be eaten and how they should be killed. No human scientific research can ever match the unlimited knowledge of the Creator Allah (Most High).

Furthermore, unless the Islamic rule (sharia) has been revealed with a divine reason (‘illah) we cannot use our minds to make up a reason, even if that reason is based on scientific evidence. This is because the ‘illah (divine reason) is bound to the Islamic rule, so if the 'illah exists then the rule exists but if the ‘illah does not exist then the rule does not exist. So if someone invents a divine reason (‘illah) for the Islamic method of animal slaughter that it’s to minimise pain to the animal, and scientific research proves that stunning is less painful, then halal slaughter through throat cutting would cease and be replaced with stunning. This in fact is where the debate is heading which is why arguing on the basis of scientific research is dangerous to the sharia.

The sharia rules related to foodstuffs have been revealed without any divine reason (‘illah). So Muslims don’t eat pork because Allah (Most High) forbade it in the Qur’an not because pork is unclean or poses health risks, because pork clearly poses little if any health risks when it’s eaten.

Allah (Most High) says:

حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنْزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَالْمَوْقُوذَةُ وَالْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَالنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَا أَكَلَ السَّبُعُ إِلَّا مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ

“You are forbidden to eat carrion; blood; pig’s meat; any animal over which any name other than God’s has been invoked; any animal strangled, or victim of a violent blow or a fall, or gored or savaged by a beast of prey, unless you still slaughter it [in the correct manner]; or anything sacrificed on idolatrous altars.” [Al-Maida, 5:3]

It should be pointed out that there are many Islamic rules governing the slaughtering of animals and Muslims are ordered to spare suffering to the animal. The Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

إنَّ اللَّهَ كَتَبَ الْإِحْسَانَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ، فَإِذَا قَتَلْتُمْ فَأَحْسِنُوا الْقِتْلَةَ، وَإِذَا ذَبَحْتُمْ فَأَحْسِنُوا الذِّبْحَةَ، وَلْيُحِدَّ أَحَدُكُمْ شَفْرَتَهُ، وَلْيُرِحْ ذَبِيحَتَهُ

"Verily Allah has prescribed proficiency in all things. Thus, if you kill, kill well; and if you slaughter, slaughter well. Let each one of you sharpen his blade and let him spare suffering to the animal he slaughters." [Narrated by Abu Yaala Shaddad bin Aws in Sahih Muslim]

Although this hadith states, “let him spare suffering to the animal” this is not a divine reason (‘illah) for slaughtering (ذبح) and is qualified by the words “he slaughters” (ذَبِيحَتَهُ). Therefore the method of slaughtering (ذبح) meaning killing by cutting the throat is fixed.

Today Islam and its noble beliefs, laws and values are squarely in the sights of the west. Nothing is off limits and the intellectual attack will continue until the declaration of faith (kalimah) of “there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger” will itself come under attack for being extremist and intolerant. This intellectual attack is inevitable and we must respond to it using wisdom and good debate but most importantly the basis of arguing and defending Islam must be correct.

Who will fill the government posts in a future Caliphate and from where in society will they be selected from?

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:39:00 +0000

By Abdul-Kareem Newell

In answer to this there are two factors that need to be considered for someone to be suitable for a ruling position in the Caliphate - capability and strength of ideology.

Capability to Rule

Capability in carrying out the task of ruling is an explicit shar’i (Iegal) condition for the Caliph, Assistants (mu’awinoon) and the governors (wulah).

This ruling capability is manifested in certain traits that will enable the person to fulfil the responsibilities of office and manage the affairs of state. These traits are strength of personality, consciousness of Allah (taqwa), kindness and that he should not be one who causes aversion.

1. Strength of personality - The Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) stipulated that the ruler must be strong and that the weak person is not suitable to become a ruler.

Muslim narrated from Abu Dharr who said: “I said: O Messenger of Allah, will you not appoint me as a governor/ruler? He (Allah bless him and give him peace) struck my shoulder with his hand then said: “O Abu Dharr, you are weak and it is a trust (amanah). On the Day of Judgement it will be a disgrace and regret except for the one who took it by its right and fulfilled his duty in it.”

Strength of personality means the intellectual and emotional strength. It is necessary that this mentality be the ruling mentality by which he understands matters and relationships, and that his emotional disposition (nafsiyya) is that of a ruler who understands he is a ruler so his inclinations are of a leader.

2. Consciousness of Allah (taqwa) - Since the personality trait of strength has within it the potential of domination there is an obvious need for the ruler to have an attribute which protects him from the evil of domination. It is therefore necessary that he has the attribute of taqwa in taking care of the Ummah.

Muslim and Ahmad from Sulayman bin Buraydah from his father: “Whenever the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) would appoint an Amir over an army or expedition, he would command him with taqwa with himself and to be good to those Muslims who are with him.”

The ruler, if he is conscious of Allah and fears Him, and accounts himself in his own soul secretly and openly, then this would prevent him from tyranny in the first instance.

3. Kindness - Taqwa alone would not prevent the Caliph from harshness and severity since in his taking account of Allah he would restrict himself to His commands and prohibitions. And since he is a ruler, it is natural in his position to be severe and hard, and because of this the Lawgiver (Ash-Shari’) commanded him to be friendly and not to be hostile to the citizens.

From Aisha who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) saying in his house of mine: “O Allah, whoever is appointed over any matter of my Ummah and is hostile to them, then be hostile to him! And whoever is appointed over any matter of my Ummah and is friendly to them, then be friendly to him!” [Muslim]

4. Doesn’t cause aversion - He also commanded to be one who gives glad tidings not one who repels or turns people away.

From Abu Musa who said: When the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) sent one of his companions in some of his affairs, he would say to him: “Give glad tidings and do not repel people, be easy and do not be hard (to the people).” [Muslim]

Strength of Ideology

The Caliphate is an ideological Islamic State where the Islamic aqeeda (belief) is the basis of the state, its institutions, systems and societal relationships. The Caliphate’s strength will depend directly on the strength of the ideology within the state. This means those in ruling positions must be of those who will work in protecting, implementing and propagating the Islamic ideology so the state remains strong and becomes a leading nation in the world.

This means those in ruling positions must be Muslim. This is because the Shari’a (Islamic law) has restricted ruling positions to those who believe in the ideology of the state i.e. Islam. This is no different to any ideological state within the world today. America or Western Europe for example would never accept a Muslim or Communist as President or Prime Minister. The fact that during Obama’s Presidential election campaign he was forced to distance himself from any hint of being a ‘secret Muslim’, such as removing two Muslim women in headscarfs from standing behind him in a speech is clear evidence of this.

Muhammad Asad in his book ‘The Principles of State and Government in Islam,’ writes on this point.

“One cannot escape the fact that no non-Muslim citizen – however great his personal integrity and his loyalty to the state – could, on psychological grounds, ever be supposed to work wholeheartedly for the ideological objectives of Islam; nor, in fairness, could such a demand be made of him. On the other hand, no ideological organization (whether based on religious or other doctrines) can afford to entrust the direction of its affairs to persons not professing its ideology. Is it, for instance, conceivable that a non-Communist could be given a political key position – not to speak of supreme leadership of the state – in Soviet Russia? Obviously not, and logically so: for as long as communism supplies the ideological basis of the state, only persons who identify themselves unreservedly with its aims can be relied upon to translate those aims into terms of administrative policy.”

Those in ruling positions must also be just (‘adl) and it is forbidden for them to be transgressors of the ideology (fasiq). The Shari’a has made justice a condition for the witness.

Allah (Most High) says:

وَأَشْهِدُوا ذَوَيْ عَدْلٍ مِنْكُمْ

“Call two just witnesses from amongst you.” [At-Talaq, 65:2]

Since the Caliph, Assistants and Governors rule over witnesses, by greater reason (Bab Awla) they must also be just (‘adl).

Having established the characteristics of those suitable for taking up ruling positions within the Caliphate the next question is where in the state would we find such capable people?

Selection of Rulers during the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphate

After the period of the Rightly Guided Caliphs the rulers in the Caliphate were on the whole selected based on family ties where the Caliph would choose the next Caliph from his family. This led to the creation of ruling dynasties in the form of the Umayyads, Abbasids and later the Ottomans. The executive branch of the Caliphate started to resemble a monarchy, a period to which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) referred to in the hadith narrated by Ahmed as a ‘biting kingship’.

Despite the misapplication of appointing rulers in the executive branch, the Islamic State was still a Caliphate, with the legislative and judicial branches held by the ulema (scholarly) class who ensured the shari’a was always implemented by the executive. Conflict between the ulema and executive always existed and ensured the independence of the judicial and legislative branches of government. This conflict came to a head during the inquisition (mihna) of Abbasid Caliph al-Ma’mun where Ahmed bin Hanbal refused to concede the Islamic position that the Qur’an was not created in favour of al-Ma’mun’s deviant view that the Qur’an was created. Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Malik, Imam Nawawi and Ibn Taymiyyah all faced persecution during their times for accounting the rulers and ensuring shari’a was always implemented by the executive.

One of the benefits cited for a monarchy is the clear line of succession for future rulers of the Kingdom. Historically, this was seen as providing a stable system that prevents a power vacuum after the King dies. When Mu’awiyah was Caliph he was the first to introduce the concept of hereditary bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) where the Caliph would nominate his son or other close relative to succeed him. In Mu’awiyah’s case he nominated his son Yazeed and took bay’ah for him before he died. The first to convince Mu’awiyah of such an idea was Al-Mughirah ibn Shu’bah who was Mu’awiyah’s governor in Basrah. He visited Mu’awiyah in Ash-Sham and said, “O Leader of the Believers! You are aware of what this Ummah faced of disorder (fitnah) and difference, and death is due on you; and I am afraid when it comes to you what had happened after the murder of Uthman will happen to the people. So assign to the people an outstanding person so that they take refuge in him, and make that person your son Yazeed.”

Mu’awiyah became convinced of the benefits in nominating his son and proceeded to implement this plan despite opposition from the senior companions (sahaba) within the state.

Regardless of the perceived benefit in having a clear line of succession as in a monarchy, Muslims are restricted by the shari’a rules. This deviation from the shari’a rules in misapplying the bay’ah resulted in severe weaknesses creeping in to the political structures of the state and in fact the hereditary bay’ah made the Caliphate less stable.

This weakness and instability occurred because restricting the post of Caliph to an elite few prevented any other aspiring candidates from reaching a ruling position. Political parties within the state were then forced to rebel and seize power militarily since no other mechanism was available to them for achieving power.

This is what the Abbasids did by seizing Persia and Iraq and using them as a platform to capture total power away from the Umayyads whom they then killed. They then followed in the footsteps of the Umayyads restricting the authority to the family of Banu Hashim in place of Banu Ummayyah.

Later the Fatimids took over the province of Egypt and established a state there. They tried to use this as a support point for transferring the rule of the Islamic State to the sons of Fatimah, daughter of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace). Their action caused instability within the Islamic State and stalled the Jihad allowing the crusaders to occupy the holy lands.

Selection of rulers by the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs

A future Caliphate will not follow in the footsteps of the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphate’s by selecting rulers based on tribal and family ties. The model for ruling is taken from the sunnah and the ways of the Rightly Guided Caliphs (Khulufa Rashida).

On the authority of Abu Najih Al-Erbadh bin Sariah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) gave us a sermon by which our hearts were filled with fear and tears came to our eyes. We said: "O Messenger of Allah, it is as though this is a farewell sermon, so counsel us." He (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "I counsel you to fear Allah and to give absolute obedience even if a slave becomes your leader. Verily he among you who lives [long] will see great controversy, so you must keep to my sunnah and to the sunnah of the rightly-guided Caliphs - cling to them stubbornly. Beware of newly invented matters, for every invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is a going astray, and every going astray is in Hell-fire." [Abu Dawud and Al-Tirmidhi]

If we look back to the first Islamic State in Medina and the states of the Rightly Guided Caliphs we find those appointed to positions of authority were those who were strong in the Islamic ideology, and had the capability to rule i.e. they had a ruling mentality.

Those Muslims who before Islam were tribal leaders or from the ruling class already had this ruling mentality looking after the affairs of their tribe. An example is Mu’awiya, the sixth Caliph who before the conquest of Makkah was the crown prince primed for ruling Makkah after his father Abu Sufyan. Mu’awiya was appointed by Umar bin al-Khattab as governor of ash-sham (Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon) and remained in office until he took over the Caliphate from Imam Hasan.

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “You will find people to be like mines. The best of them in the Jahiliyya (days of ignorance) are the best of them in Islam when they have understanding.” [Bukhari, narrated by Abu Hurayra]

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) also cultured the personalities of the sahaba and appointed them to positions of authority which developed their political experience. This political experience nurtured their ruling mentality and resulted in the sahaba becoming the future rulers once he (Allah bless him and give him peace) had passed away. The sahaba were also the guarantors of the continued implementation of Islam even if they were not in government.

We can see this from the Rightly Guided Caliphs who were all Delegated Assistants (wazirs) at some point before becoming the Caliph. Abu Bakr and Umar were the wazirs for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). Umar was also the wazir when Abu Bakr was Caliph. Uthman and Ali were the wazirs when Umar was Caliph. Ali and Marwan ibn al-Hakam were the wazirs when Uthman was Caliph

In addition to holding the posts of wazir the Rightly Guided Caliphs held other positions within the state. Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali were chosen by the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the people of shura (consultation) and effectively formed part of the Shura Council (majlis ush-shura) in Medina.

“The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) sent ‘Umar as responsible for sadaqah.” [Bukhari & Muslim]

“When the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) returned back from the umrah of Ji’ranah, he sent Abu Bakr responsible for hajj.” [Al-Nasa’i, reported by Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban]

He (Allah bless him and give him peace) appointed ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan as an ambassador to Quraysh during the Hudaybiyah Treaty affair.

He (Allah bless him and give him peace) appointed ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib as a judge over Yemen, as secretary of agreements and peace treaties and commander of the Muslim army at different periods during his (Allah bless him and give him peace) rule in Medina.

Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab was very strict in ensuring he didn’t resemble a King and that family ties would have no place in ruling. One day ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “By Allah, I do not know whether I am a Caliph or a king, for if I am a king then this is a tremendous matter!” [Suyuti, History of the Caliphs]

When Umar was dying the Muslims came to him and requested him to assign a Caliph after him. One of the Muslims said to him: “Recommend your son ‘Abdullah.” Umar said: “May Allah fight you, by Allah you did not seek Allah’s pleasure by this opinion. Woe to you! How can I recommend a man who was unable to divorce his wife? There is no desire for us (family of Al-Khattab) in your affairs. I did not praise it (Caliphate) so as to like it to be for anyone from my family. If this matter (of Caliphate) was good then we have got our share. If it was bad then it is enough for family of ‘Umar that one person from them be accounted and be asked about the affairs of the Ummah of Muhammad. Really, I exerted myself and I deprived my family. If I managed to save myself sufficiently without sin and without reward, then I am happy.”

Selection of rulers in the future Caliphate

A ruling mentality is something generic that may be exhibited in both Muslim and non-Muslim rulers and is developed through political experience whether this is gained in government or not.

As an example America is a capitalist ideological state. Its rulers would therefore be from people who are strong in the Capitalist ideology which primarily means links to large corporations. For example Dick Cheney, the former Vice-President was chairman of Halliburton and Michael Bloomberg, the current New York Mayor is the eighth richest in America. The bulk of election campaign funding is received from major corporations in all government elections whether they are Presidential, Mayoral or Congress elections.

US Presidents are selected from those with former political experience such as governors, Senators, Vice-Presidents or military generals. George Washington was a former Military General, George Bush Junior was a former governor of Texas and Barack Obama a former Senator.

Obama was in fact attacked during his election campaign for not having enough political experience since he was only a Senator for three years, compared to John McCain’s long running political and military career. Obama used his grass-roots political work as a community organizer in Chicago as evidence of his political experience for the post of President.

Similarly a future Caliphate will choose rulers based on their ruling capability and strength of ideology as discussed previously. They will be those with a ruling mentality and political experience who have the skills to manage the affairs of state.

In practice this means the Caliph will be drawn from the pool of existing government posts. The Caliph may be a former governor, Ameer of Jihad, Delegated Assistant or Treasury Secretary with a wealth of political experience and well known to the ummah. As we saw with the Rightly Guided Caliphs it’s likely the Caliph will always have served as a former Delegated Assistant.

For the other government posts the Caliph is free to choose whoever fulfils the contractual conditions of that post and is able to perform the task at hand. These posts may be filled by former university professors, military generals, newspaper editors, heads of political parties, tribal leaders, imams, members of the Regional Assemblies (Majlis ul-Wiliyah) and members of the Council of the Ummah (Majlis ul-Ummah).

In practice the majority of government posts will be drawn from the Majlis ul-Ummah since this is where the majority of politicians and statesman will be in the Caliphate.

A question arises, is it permissible for a member of the Majlis ul-Ummah to also be a member of the Caliphate government?

If we look back to the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and give him peace) state in Medina we find he (Allah bless him and give him peace) appointed fourteen men for shura (consultation) because they were the representatives of their people. There were seven from the Muhajiroon and seven from the Ansar. These fourteen men effectively formed a Shura Council (Majlis ush-Shura). Among the members of this council were Abu Bakr and Umar. Abu Bakr and Umar were also Delegated Assistants in the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and give him peace) state so they held both positions, i.e. they were majlis members and rulers at the same time.

Therefore in a future Caliphate the state may adopt that Majlis Members can also be members of the government as we find in the UK where the elected representatives (MP’s) hold a dual role as Ministers and even the Prime Minister. However, due to the expansion in the role of the Majlis and its importance as a counterbalance to the executive power of the Caliph and his cabinet, the best solution would be for the Majlis Member to resign his position when taking up a government post. This is what happens in America when a Senator or Congressman is selected for government.

Path to government

As mentioned above closing off ruling positions to an elite few is not permitted in Shari’a and can cause huge problems to the Caliphate’s future stability. Therefore there needs to be a clear path to government and even the post of Caliph for any of the state’s citizens with such aspirations. This will be done primarily through allowing the formation of numerous Islamic political parties, establishment of Regional Assemblies (Majlis ul-Wiliyah) in each province and the empowerment of a central Council of the Ummah (Majlis ul-Ummah) in the Caliphate’s capital in the heart of government.

The scenario below attempts to illustrate this path.

Abdullah joins an Islamic political party in his youth. He is an activist of the party through his schooling and university. After completing university he pursues a full time career as an army officer in the Caliphate’s army. He rises up the ranks and then decides on pursuing a full time political career. His political party put him forward as a candidate for the 5-yearly majlis elections. He campaigns and wins his seat. He then becomes a member of the Majlis ul-wiliyah and makes a strong impression on his constituency and the majlis. In the elections for his second term he gains enough votes for a seat on the Majlis ul-ummah in the Caliphate’s capital. His work on some on the majlis committees impresses the Assistants (Mu’awinoon) who recommend his appointment to a government position. He works his way through various government posts finally becoming Foreign Affairs Secretary which is a cabinet position. From there he becomes a Delegated Assistant and when the Caliph unexpectedly dies he is shortlisted by the Majlis ul-Ummah for candidacy for the post of Caliph. His previous political and military experience wins over the Ummah who believe he can successfully manage their affairs and be the commander in chief of the armed forces. He gains the majority of votes during the election and becomes the Caliph.

Caliphate FAQ

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Mon, 17 May 2010 17:00:00 +0000

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

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

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

Explain in brief the key principles of the Islamic political system

The Islamic political system has a number of key principles, two of the fundamental ones are that:

1. Legislation is derived from the divine sources i.e. the Qur’an and Sunnah, Ijmaa as-Sahaba (Consensus of the Companions of the Prophet) and Qiyas (Analogical reasoning)

2. The authority lies with the people.

The former principle contravenes the key tenet of secular democracies, while the second principle undermines the key features of dictatorships.

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

This means in origin that the people are the ones who hold the authority of ruling and they contract the ruler (Caliph) to rule according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. The contract or bai’ah stipulates that the ruler is permitted to rule the people as long as he rules according to the Quran and Sunnah. The appointment of the ruler is thus through popular consent from the people via an electoral process.

A ruler must have a mandate from the population or is considered illegitimate. This completely puts to rest the myth that the Caliphate would be some kind of religious dictatorship imposed upon the people through religious order.

People say this would be an election that is ‘one-man one-vote one-time’

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

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

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

Apart from the head of State are there any other elected institutions in the Caliphate?

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

What are the powers of these assemblies?

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

Allah says in the Qur'an:

وَشَاوِرْهُمْ فِي الْأَمْرِ ۖ فَإِذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To a certain extent, though since 9-11 we are seeing a greater intolerance of people who are challenging fundamental ideas. Within an Islamic political system, accounting leaders and their decisions is not merely encouraged – it is mandatory.

Allah says in the Qur'an:

وَلْتَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ ۚ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

‘Let there arise from amongst you group(s) who call to the khair, enjoin maaroof and forbid munkar. They are those who are successful.’ [al-Imran, 3:104]

meaning that there must at any one time be groups within the Ummah that account the rulers. We also know that Islamic history has a long record of accounting rulers, debate and discussion, and Islam draws a clear line between debate, criticism of authority on one hand and gratuitous abuse of key beliefs – unlike Europe’s position during the Danish cartoons abuse.

How can this be reconciled with a ‘free media’?

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

If legislation is sourced from divine law, how can you progress and solve new challenges and problems?

Islamic jurisprudence has detailed solutions and key principles derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah that are timeless. These can be applied to any new challenge or problem. This is well established in Islamic jurisprudence under the discipline of Ijtihad. Most democratic states still cite the Magna Carta in 1215 and the United States is based on a constitution written in 1776. In addition pan-national treaties or conventions like the European Convention on Human Rights or the Geneva Conventions are also viewed by their supporters as timeless accords.

Furthermore if one studies Islamic history one can see how during the Islamic Caliphate the Muslim world was at the forefront of science, technology and progress.

Are you therefore saying that people have no role in policies because everything is divinely ordained?

No, Islam evaluates human actions in five ways. Some actions are mandatory (fard), others are prohibited (haram) while some are disliked (makhruh) or recommended (mandoub or Sunnah). In any of these four categories, people have no right in setting policy – these matters can be seen as fixed principles in the state.

However the fifth category is that which is categorised as permissible actions (mubah) i.e. actions that human beings are free to do without divine restriction – many state policies may well be amongst the mubah actions. Here people have every right via their elected assemblies to fully debate and decide the best course for the State. There are many occasions from the life of the Prophet where people were not just consulted but their collective decisions were considered binding. These issues are generally related to areas of communal interest that do not require specialist scrutiny in areas of education, health, the economy, industry and agriculture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correct. No one - including the head of state, their family, or any religious scholar - is above the law. And unlike the West where justice is skewed to those that are more powerful and wealthier, Islamic courts have historically - and will do so in the future - exercised justice for the weak, minorities and the less well off. This was because of the saying of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم mentioned in Bukhari and Muslim when he was petitioned to intercede for a noble lady who had committed theft: ‘The nations before were destroyed because if a noble person committed theft, they used to leave him, but if a weak person amongst them committed theft, they used to inflict the legal punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, committed theft, Muhammad would cut off her hand!’

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

No this is a common accusation but has no grounding in fact. The Caliphate is mandated by divine law to treat non-Muslim citizens well; protecting their right to their religious beliefs and protecting their places of worship.

The State is forbidden from discriminating at all between the individuals in terms of rule, judiciary and management of affairs or anything similar. Rather, every individual should be treated equally regardless of race, creed, colour or anything else.

Allah says in the Qur'an:

وَإِذَا حَكَمْتُمْ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ أَنْ تَحْكُمُوا بِالْعَدْلِ

'And if you judge between people, judge with justice.' (al-Nisa, 4:58]

وَلَا يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَىٰ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا ۚ اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَىٰ

'And let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is nearer to piety' [Al-Maida, 5:8]

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

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

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

No Islam completely rejects this. Islam does not believe in arbitrary arrest or torture or rendition or internment. Every person has the right to a presumption of innocence, a right to privacy and a right to a fair trial. Secular democracies do not have a monopoly over respecting the rights of its citizens.

Islam prohibits the State from spying on its citizens – something endemic in Muslim countries but also on the increase in many Western countries: Spying on Muslims is haram as stipulated in this verse.

Allah says in the Qur'an:

وَلَا تَجَسَّسُوا

'And do not spy on each other' [Hujraat, 49:12]

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

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

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

Didn’t religious rule in Europe in the medieval period hold Western society back in terms of material progress?

Yes but this was specific to Europe where science was seen as an enemy to established tenets of the Church. The opposite happened in the Muslim world, the Caliphate actually drove scientific and technological progress on the back of Islamic tenets. Islam never mandated divine rules relating to science, administrative or technical issues. The significant achievements and advancements of the Caliphate historically have been recognised by many non-Muslim commentators, historians and experts.

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

China may have an amazing economic growth record but is a state that crushes its individuals and denies them any political rights. For China people are resources to be managed through the capitalist market not human beings who should be respected and treated like human beings.

Killing innocent people in cold blood for protesting in a public square is not a sign of a civilisation at ease with itself. Chinese internal policies in Xinjiang and Tibet are harsh and severe and are characterised by paranoia and the requirement for absolute obedience. China often accuses the West for engaging in brutal behaviour, however its treatment of the Uighurs shows its inability to build a cohesive society that can be attractive to minorities.

Despite attempts by Chinese politicians to portray the whole of China as vibrant, almost 40% or 500 million of China’s population live on less than $2 a day. Despite the great strength of China’s economy, too little of the new found wealth has circulated to the poor and the needy.

China has a terrible record when it comes to religious persecution. Its treatment of all religions but specifically Christianity and Islam is nothing short of horrific. Despite a huge propaganda effort to convince the world that China is becoming much more open and free since the June 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, religious persecution has been intensifying. Chinese authorities have intensified their violent campaign against religious believers, including Evangelical Christians, Roman Catholics, Uighur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and other groups, such as the Falun Gong.

Eyewitness Account: Saudi Arabia’s mistreatment of the pilgrims during the Volcanic Ash crisis

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:41:00 +0000

By Abdul-Kareem Newell

When the volcanic ash cloud hit Europe last week I along with thousands of other Muslims was caught stranded in Saudi Arabia after performing the umra (minor pilgrimage).

As we set off for Jeddah Airport we were obviously concerned since our flight had been cancelled and we were unsure what assistance would be provided to us by the Saudi government’s Hajj ministry and Saudi Airlines.

In the days prior to our departure from Makkah we watched the news reports showing passengers stranded at airports across the world. On the whole these airports were providing those stranded with food, blankets and makeshift beds in an attempt to ease their plight. Thousands of others were being accommodated in hotels by their airlines because any airline based in the EU must by law provide food, drinks, and hotel accommodation.

On reaching the Saudi Airlines terminal at Jeddah Airport it very quickly became apparent that unlike the hundreds of other airlines and airports across the world the Saudi government would be providing absolutely no assistance to those stranded. The Hajj ministry and Saudi Airlines refused to provide any financial assistance to those affected saying they couldn’t afford to accommodate so many people. This is despite the fact that King Abdullah is the richest leader in the world with an estimated wealth of $21 billion!

The majority of those stranded and flying back to Europe were returning from performing umra and were not only guests in the country but were guests of Allah (Most High).

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “The one who fights for the sake of Allah and the pilgrim who goes for Hajj or Umrah are all guests of Allah. He called them and they responded; they ask of Him and He will give them.” [Ibn Majah: 2893]

In Pre-Islamic Arabia a period commonly referred to as jahiliyyah (days of ignorance) the Arab tribes had a strong tradition of hospitality towards the guests. Much of their poetry was dedicated to the merits and honour of entertaining the guests and this practice remained strong even though they were mushrikeen (idol worshippers).

The Arab tribe ruling Makkah was known as Qureysh. They had an added responsibility towards the guests since they were in charge of the Holy Ka’bah and those performing the pilgrimages were not ordinary guests but the guests of Allah (Most High). Providing food and water to the guests of Allah (Most High) was considered a great honour and this honour fell to one of the families of Qureysh called Banu Hashim from which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is descended. The word Hashim in Arabic means the crushing of bread and it was the nickname of the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and give him peace) great-grandfather ‘Amr bin ‘Abd Munaf who upgraded the meals of the pilgrims by crushing bread in to the soup of meat that used to be cooked and given to them.

When Islam was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) this tradition of honouring the guests continued.

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "Let whosoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day honour his guest." [Bukhari & Muslim]

The majority of the Arabian Peninsula today is ruled by King Abdullah and the Saudi royal family. They are now the ruling authority in Makkah as Qureysh were before Islam. Yet despite claiming to implement shari’a in their constitution (even though a Kingdom contradicts the Islamic ruling system of a Caliphate) those in power are even worse than pre-Islamic Makkah in terms of honouring the guests and providing for the guests of Allah (Most High).

Abu Maryam al-Azdi narrated that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "Whoever is put in charge of any of the affairs of the Muslims and remains aloof from them and pays no attention to their needs and poverty, Allah will remain aloof from him on the Day of Resurrection, and will pay no attention to his needs and poverty." [Abu Dawood, Ibn Maajah, Al-Haakim]

Although I was in the fortunate position Alhamdulillah of only spending one day at Jeddah airport before finding alternative hotel accommodation many were not so fortunate. There were women, children, sick, disabled and old people at the airport who were not even offered water by the airport officials!

"It's been absolutely awful. It's the worst experience I've ever had in my life," 35-year-old Rayhanah Runnell told AFP by phone on Thursday, hours before boarding a flight back to Britain. "I have a daughter of three and a son of seven years old, and they'd been sleeping on the benches and in the masjid (mosque) downstairs. They treat you like a piece of filth. There's been no sense of humanity whatsoever in this place since we have arrived."

However not all guests in the Kingdom are treated this badly. When Barak Obama came to Saudi Arabia in June 2009 he was housed at King Abdullah’s lavish desert horse farm and awarded the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit, the country's highest honour. This is the same award George Bush received the year before, despite both US Presidents occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and being responsible for the daily deaths of Muslims.

This is the reality of living under a monarchy ruled by an oppressive King. There is no rule of law since the King is sovereign and the constitution is not worth the paper it’s written on. In Islam there is one ruling system which is the Caliphate ruling system where the rule of law exists based on shari’a.

‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph said, “By Allah, I do not know whether I am a Caliph or a king, for if I am a king then this is a tremendous matter.” Someone said, “Amir al-Mu’minin there is a distinction between the two of them.” He said, “What is it?” He said, “A Caliph does not take except what is due and he does not use it except in the right way, and you, praise be to Allah, are like that. The king treats people unjustly, and takes from this one and gives to that one.” ‘Umar was silent. [Suyuti, History of the Caliphs]

Throughout the history of the Caliphate facilities were provided for the travellers and guests, and in a future Caliphate such infrastructure will exist again inshAllah.

In the Caliphate of Umar bin al-Khattab, he set aside a large number of camels – which were a means of transportation available at that time – to make it easy for those who had no mounts to move between the Arabian Peninsula, Syria and Iraq. He also set up something known as dar ad-daqeeq (lit. House of flour) which was a place where saweeq, dates and raisins, and other requirements of life were stored, which could be used by stranded wayfarers and guests who were strangers. On the road between Makkah and Madeenah he provided whatever travellers would need and mounts to take them from oasis to oasis. Umar was following the guidance of the Qur’an which suggests that cultural development requires effective communications, which leads to security, so the traveller did not need to carry water or provisions with him. And Umar issued instructions to the tribes, generals and governors telling them to do the same.
[Dr Ali Muhammed as-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab his life and times,’ volume 1 p. 388]

It was narrated from Katheer bin Abdullah, from his father, that his grandfather said: “We came with Umar ibn al-Khattab for Umrah in 17AH, and the people of the oases on the way asked him to let them build their houses between Makkah and Madeenah, where there had been nothing before, and he gave them permission, but he stipulated that the wayfarers had more right to the water and shade.” [Ahkam as-Sultaniyah by Al-Mawardi]

Although we were treated badly by the Saudi authorities a distinction must be made between the regime and the ordinary people who live under this regime as is the case in all Muslim countries today. The average person and low level government officials try to make good of a bad situation as best they can, and it’s with them that the future revival of this ummah lies.

Omar Farouk, who was also a stranded passenger in Jeddah complained of the treatment by the Saudi Authorities but said he was touched by the "kindness shown by some of the local people" who brought them food every day. "They're buying toys for the children and making sure the children are getting enough vitamins," he said.

I also witnessed this in Masjid al-Haram (Holy Mosque) where ordinary Muslims would go to the zam zam taps and bring cups of water to those performing tawwaf.

The descendants of the Muhajireen and Ansar living in Saudi Arabia today need to follow in the footsteps of their noble ancestors and re-establish the Caliphate in the blessed land of the Arabian Peninsula once again. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) gave good news that this period of oppressive kingship we are living under today would come to an end and the Caliphate (Khilafah) would be established once again.

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "There will be Prophethood for as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be Khilafah on the Prophetic method and it will be for as long as Allah wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be biting Kingship for as long as Allah Wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be oppressive kingship for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method" and then he remained silent. [Ahmed]

Treatment of Jews in the 19th Century Ottoman Caliphate

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:48:00 +0000

A team was dispatched from the US State Department in 1877 to assess the treatment of Jews in the Ottoman Caliphate. Their findings that Jews were very well treated and not persecuted are described in the news article below published on Wednesday 23rd August 1877 by the New York Times.

"The United States Minister says that justice to the Turk compels him to admit that the Israelites have been better treated by the Ottomans than by many of the Western powers and that the impression prevails that they are better treated in the Empire than the Christians."

ISRAELITIES IN TURKEY.

STATISTICS RECEIVED FROM THE UNITED STATES MINISTER.

500,000 HEBREWS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

THEY ARE BETTER TREATED THAN CHRISTIANS BY THE TURKS.

PROTECTION EXTENDED BY THE UNITED STATES OFFICIALS.

WASHINGTON, Aug, 22. A dispatch has been received at the Department of State from the United States Minister to Turkey giving interesting details concerning the number, status, and persecution of the Israelites in the Ottoman Empire. The total number of Israelites in the Empire is given at 500,000. Of this total, Roumania contains 250,000, Asiatic Turkey 80,000, European Turkey 75,000. Servia 2,000, &c. The United States Minister says that justice to the Turk compels him to admit that the Israelites have been better treated by the Ottomans than by many of the Western powers and that the impression prevails that they are better treated in the Empire than the Christians. They are recognized as independent religious community with the privileges of their own ecclesiastical rule, their chief Rabbi, Chacham Bashi, possessing, in consequence of his functions, great influence.

The Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs protested to Mr. Maynard that where Turkish rule obtained the Israelites always enjoyed every privilege and immunity accorded by the laws to Ottoman subjects. The only maltreatment of Israelites which has been brought to the notice of the United States Legation at Constantinople during the official term of Mr. Maynard, was that of the Rabbi Sneersohn, an American citizen. On Nov. 28, 1874, the Rabbi was set upon by his co-religionists, certain Jews at Tiberias, robbed of a considerable amount, and most shamefully maltreated by being imprisoned, stoned, stripped naked, and ridden in that condition through the streets of Tiberias, barely escaping with his life. The United States Consul at Beyrout went to Tiberias and had the perpetrators arrested. Some claimed British protection, and escaped by flight. The friends of the others assembled, overpowered the authorities, and rescued them. The legation at Constantinople then took up the subject, and it was being satisfactorily pushed-as fast as possible under the circumstances-when the Rabbi, doubtless tired out and impoverished, left for France and in his absence nothing further could be done.

The position which the Israelites hold in the Empire, the complex systems and situations, and the heterogenity of the races by which they are surrounded, the state of civilization and the religious animosities which prevail, the little authority exercised by the Ottoman Government over the provinces even in ordinary times, (protesting that it should not be held responsible for abuses in the provinces,) render whole subject not only difficult of solution, but even difficult of explanation. Some of the Israelites claim to be under British protection, others have been under Russian protection. Many hold themselves us an independent people, owing no allegiance to any Government, and it is only when persecuted or outraged that they seek the protection of any or all human powers. While all Governments, the United States Government foremost of all, are most anxious to extend the necessary sympathy and protection, international questions and equities interfere with and prevent that full protection which they would receive were they fixed citizens of any Government.

The United States Minister at Constantinople has requested the consular officers of his Government, throughout the Ottoman Empire, to observe carefully the condition of the Israelites within their several jurisdictions, and to report to the legation at Constantinople without delay any instances of persecutions of that people which may occur.

Published: August 23, 1877, The New York Times

Source

RELATED ARTICLE - DHIMMI - Non-Muslims living in the Caliphate

The famous Maliki jurist, Shaha al-Deen al-Qarafi states: "The covenant of protection imposes upon us certain obligations toward the ahl al-dhimmah. They are our neighbours, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, and the religion of Islam. Whoever violates these obligations against any one of them by so much as an abusive word, by slandering his reputation, or by doing him some injury or assisting in it, has breached the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, and the religion of Islam."

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah." [Tabarani]

How much will the Caliph get paid?

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:25:00 +0000

In most Muslim countries today the ruler and his extended family are some of the wealthiest individuals in the nation and in some instances even the world.

According to the official 2006 Forbes rich list of world leaders, the top three richest leaders are in Muslim countries.

First place is King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia with an estimated wealth of $21 billion. The royal family derives most of its wealth through oil, which represents 45% of the country’s $340 billion GDP.

Second place is the Sultan of Brunei with wealth of $20 billion. This wealth is gained from Brunei’s extensive petroleum and natural gas fields.

Third place is Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed, President of the UAE with wealth of $19 billion. Most of his family’s wealth comes from the emirate’s oil wealth; it holds more than 90% of the 2.5 million barrels a day exported from the UAE.

The wealth of all these leaders is derived primarily from the country’s oil and natural resources. In Islam natural resources such as large quantities of oil and gas cannot be owned by private individuals. They are considered public property whose revenues must benefit all the Muslims.

Ibn ‘Abbas narrated that the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Muslims are partners (associates) in three things: in water, pastures and fire,” reported by Abu Dawud. (Fire here refers to the fire based fuels.)

Unfortunately, a study of most of our leaders today reveals that they treat the country’s state treasury like their own personal bank accounts. Much of their true wealth is siphoned away from the Ummah and hidden offshore in Swiss bank accounts.

Reading through Islamic history we also find many examples of Caliph’s and wulah (governors) living very lavish lifestyles and taking very large sums of money from the state treasury (bait ul-mal) for their personal allowance.

So how much will the Caliph in a future Caliphate get paid?

To answer this question we need to look to the first Caliph of Islam Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (ra) and how this was dealt with in his Caliphate.

A short while after Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (ra) was appointed as Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah (ra) were walking in Medinah when they met Abu Bakr (ra) carrying garments on his shoulders and going to the marketplace to trade.

Umar asked Abu Bakr, “What are you doing?”
Abu Bakr replied, “I am going to trade.”
Umar said: “After you became responsible for all the Muslims???”

Abu Bakr said, “But I have to feed my family.”
So Umar said, “Lets go and we will pay you an allowance.” [from the state treasury Bait ul-Mal]

Umar and Abu Ubaidah decided to pay Abu Bakr 250 dinars a year and a daily allowance of half a sheep in food.

Some time later Umar was walking in Medinah when he came across a group of women. He asked them “What are you doing?”

They replied, “We are waiting for the Caliph.”

Abu Bakr did not turn up for office that day so Umar went searching for him and found him in the marketplace trading again.

Umar grabbed the hand of Abu Bakr and said, “What are you doing?”
Abu Bakr replied, “The allowance you gave me is not enough.”
Umar said, “Fine, we will increase it for you.”
Abu Bakr said, “I want 300 dinars a year and a daily allowance of a whole sheep in food.”
Umar said, “No. We are not going to give you that.”
Imam Ali (ra) intervened and said, “Give it to him.”
Umar said, “You think so?”
Ali replied, “Yes.”
So Umar said, “We agree.”

Abu Bakr then stood on the minbar in the masjid and called the sahaba. He said, “You have paid me 250 dinars a year and a daily allowance of half a sheep in food, and that wasn’t enough for me. So Umar and Ali have given me an increase to 300 dinars a year and a daily allowance of the whole sheep. Do you agree?”

The sahaba replied, “We agree.”

Points we can take from the above incident are as follows.

Firstly, the Caliphate is not an employee who gets paid a wage, since he is not hired by the Ummah. The Caliph is given a pledge of allegiance (bay’ah) by the Ummah to implement the Sharia and convey the Islamic Da’wah to the world. Although the Caliph is not paid a wage an allowance is assigned to him from the bait ul-mal to meet his needs. This allowance is a compensation for him since he is kept busy with the obligation of Caliphate and cannot work and pursue his own business interests.

This also applies to any of the ruling positions within the Caliphate such as the wulah and mu’awinoon (assistants).

Secondly, ruling is an act of ibadat (worship) performed purely for the pleasure of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. Therefore the office of Caliph should not be viewed as a means of becoming rich and amassing huge wealth as we find the Muslim rulers doing today. The Caliph will be paid an allowance that covers his expenses to a level that he can function comfortably in office and meet his needs.

Thirdly, the Majlis ul-Ummah (Council of the Ummah) will decide through shura (consultation) how much the Caliph’s allowance should be. They are the elected representatives of the Ummah and giving them the ultimate decision prevents any abuse of the public funds by the Caliph.

The Anthem of the Caliphate

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:12:00 +0000

Adopting a slogan/anthem that can be acclaimed to distinguish a certain group of people from others, or a certain state from others is one of the permissible matters. The Muslims in the past had a slogan which they used when they met their enemies on the battle field. This was used at the time of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and by his agreement. They took the slogan of (Ha Mim, they are not helped) in the battle of the trench and Qurayzah, and the slogan of (You, the helped, bring death, bring death) in Banu Al-Mustaliq, and so on.

This is besides the favours bestowed by Allah سبحانه وتعالى upon man of the characteristics created in him such as hearing, sight and speaking, all of these are included in the evidences of ibaha. So, man sees, speaks and applauds whatever he wants unless there is specific evidence related to any of them, which then he must observe.

Therefore, it is allowed for the Islamic State to adopt a slogan with which it applauds and by which it distinguishes itself from other states, where it uses it in its relations with other states, and it accompanies the Khalifah in his visits to other heads of states or during their visits to him. It can also be used by the public in their occasions, where they applaud with it in their assemblies, public gatherings, schools and broadcasts, and the like.

In regards to the method of applauding, i.e. the intensity of the voice, the lowering, or speaking with or without a nasal sound etc, all of this is allowed, because the Muslims used to declaim their poems with an exciting voice in accordance with the occasion they were applauding.

The state has adopted that it should have an anthem, which it uses when necessary, and it accompanies the Khalifah in his official meetings with the heads of states. Additionally the Ummah would use it on certain occasions.

The following has been noted for the anthem of the second rightly guided Caliphate after its establishment by the permission of Allah سبحانه وتعالى:

1-It should mention the fulfilment of the glad tidings of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم regarding the return of the second guided Caliphate, and the rise again of the banner of the Uqab, the banner of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم.

2-It should mention the glad tidings of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم when the Caliphate is established and the earth will bring out its treasures and the heaven will send down its blessings, and the earth will be filled with justice after being filled with tyranny.

3-It should mention the conquests and spreading of goodness in all of the worlds regions with the Caliphate ruling over all, particularly the lands of the three mosques to which journeys are made: al-Masjid ul Haram, the prophetic masjid, and al-Masjid ul-Aqsa after uprooting the Jewish State.

4-It would be concluded by the return of the Ummah as Allah wanted her to be: The best Ummah brought to mankind, where its main goal is to attain the good pleasure of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, Who would honour her with His favour, Mercy and the High Garden of Al-Firdaws.

5-Takbeer has to be repeated in it. This is because takbeer has a special impact in Islam and in a Muslim’s life. It is takbeer that reiterates in their victories, and in their holidays, and on their tongues and is mentioned on every effective occasion.

A century-old Ottoman legacy in China

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:35:00 +0000

The opening ceremony for Hamidiye University

MESUT ÇEVIKALP/OSMAN EROL
Today's Zaman

An Austrian steamship which left İstanbul silently on April 28, 1901, stopping briefly in both İzmir and Alexandria, and then passed through the Red Sea and headed towards the Far East, wound up spurring all of the various Western agents and envoys in the region into action.

Before the steamship had even reached China, the Western envoys in Beijing were all sending encrypted messages back to their capitals: “The ‘tricky Sultan’ in İstanbul has started up new maneuvers to try and pull the Muslims in China onto his side. A nine-person delegation is arriving in China.”

When, after a long and difficult journey, the Ottoman delegation reached China, there were celebrations in the region. Crowds of Chinese Muslims rushed to the Shanghai port to see the steamship. And not only Western newspapers, but in fact the world press turned over generous amounts of space to the coverage of this event at the time. Though the Chinese leadership greeted the visiting Ottoman delegation warmly, the Western colonial powers present in China at the time were not as relaxed. There was great curiosity about what the real reason behind the visit to China by Enver Pasha -- sent by Sultan Abdülhamid II himself -- really was. This being the case, the pasha and his accompanying delegation (composed of his wife, two clerks, two scholars, two soldiers, and various manservants) spent the next four months of their visit basically surrounded by a circle of Western agents and envoys. In his fluent French, and through his influential style, Enver Pasha told both the Chinese Muslims and the various foreign envoys that he was in China to deliver messages of peace from Sultan Abdülhamid II. The Westerners, however, were not inclined to believe these assurances.

Actually, the outwardly apparent reason behind this visit was an attempt to calm the uprisings that were taking place at the time in China against the colonizing German and British presence. To wit, in the wake of the Boxer rebellion of 1901 in China -- when the German ambassador to Peking was killed and then had his body dragged through the streets -- the German emperor at the time, Kaiser Wilhelm II, had personally asked for assistance from Sultan Abdülhamid II. Kaiser Wilhelm asked the Turkish Sultan if he would send a delegation to China to help quell unrest among the protestors, among whom there were Muslims. At the same period of time, some Western countries, wishing to punish China, sent mixed units to China to put down the rebellions. As for the Ottoman Empire, it resisted sending any military units to China at the time, not wanting to draw negative reactions from the estimated 50-60 million Chinese Muslims present in the country. At the same time though, the Ottoman Empire (with its population of around 30 million or so) was extremely interested in maintaining the balance of its relations with the West, Germany in particular.

Known for his skills in diplomacy, Sultan Abdülhamid II found a formula that would both prevent damage to Ottoman-German relations, as well as incline Chinese Muslims to feel warm towards İstanbul. Obtaining the approval of Cemaleddin Efendi, the chief religious official of the time in the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan decided he would send a nine-person delegation -- a “Nasihat” or “Counsel” delegation -- to China. And to head up this critical mission, he chose one of the shining officers from the palace, Enver Pasha. In addition to Enver Pasha, another high-ranking military officer, Binbaşı Nâzım Bey, was also chosen to go. Also accompanying the group as a man of religion would be Mustafa Şükrü Efendi (the grandfather of former Turkish Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit).

Calculating that support from Islamic countries would be critical in keeping the Ottoman Empire strong in the face of colonizing Western nations, Sultan Abdülhamid II was fast to try and develop relations with Chinese Muslims.

Followed by Western agents

After a long and difficult month’s journey, the delegation from Istanbul arrived in Shanghai at the start of May 1901. Not only did the delegation meet up with Chinese Muslims in this large city, but it also set out to visit regions of China known to be heavily populated by Muslims. The delegation also used these regional meetings as opportunities to distribute a declaration written in the name of the “Caliphate of all Muslims,” Sultan Abdülhamid II. The declaration had been translated into Chinese. The delegation also participated in local Friday prayers, having “hutbes” or sermons read out in the name of the sultan. At the same time, Western envoys in China, noting that the mission of the Ottoman delegation was in fact not to “quell uprisings,” but instead to gather Chinese Muslims under the protection of the Caliphate of Abdülhamid, cut all ties with the delegation and with Enver Pasha himself. Even the German envoy in China, who had personally welcomed Enver Pasha on his arrival, did not visit the delegation again.

A message sent by the French ambassador to Peking to the French capital, Paris, on June 4, 1901 read: “My dear Minister, as an addition to my letter, you will also find some information regarding the Turkish delegation sent by the Ottoman Sultan specifically to set up closer relations with the Muslims in China... Under the current conditions here, I think it would be advantageous to learn just what it is İstanbul wishes to see happen on this topic. It is said that this visit was advised by the German government. Any pan-Islamic movement in Guangxi, Guangdong and especially the heavily Muslim area of Yunnan could be dangerous, and thus I will attempt to obtain from our envoy in İstanbul as much information as possible about the mission of this delegation under Enver Pasha. The fact that there are many Muslims in the colonized neighboring regions means that the very presence of this Ottoman delegation could in fact be a sign of pan-Islamic movements which we need to follow very closely. I will do what I can to uncover the true intentions of this delegation, which is staying in Shanghai...”

Over the course of their four-month stay in China, the Ottoman delegation headed by Enver Pasha ran into financial problems. Anti-Western Russians present in China at the time took advantage of this opportunity, and came to the assistance of the Ottoman delegation. The fact that Enver Pasha’s wife was Austrian turned out to be an advantage for the Ottoman delegation, as the Austrian diplomatic presence in China at the time came to the assistance of the visiting group. Just at the same time that Enver Pasha was preparing to make his return home, he received a telegraph from the Russian czar. The czar was inviting Enver Pasha to visit Russia. After receiving permission from İstanbul, Enver Pasha and his delegation thus left China for Russia.

Abdülhamid’s interest in China

Calculating that support from Islamic countries would be critical in keeping the Ottoman Empire strong in the face of colonizing Western nations, Sultan Abdülhamid II is fast to try and develop the relations with Chinese Muslims that Enver Pasha had been sent to investigate. Thus, in the wake of Enver Pasha’s visit to China, the Sultan then sent one of his favorite men, Muhammed Ali (who was, according to some sources, also the Sultan’s best “hafiye” or detective/sleuth) to China. Once in China, Muhammed Ali, dressed to give the impression that he was an “erudite tourist” in religious clothing, managed to make his way around the inner regions of China, forming some formidable ties with Muslims there. The fact that Ali knew both Arabic and English turned out to be a very important asset in his visit. He even convinced some of the Muslim families with whom he meets to send their children to İstanbul to be educated.

At the same time, Ali also distribute monetary help from İstanbul to Chinese Muslims, while sending frequent reports back to the sultan about the relationships he was developing in the region. These reports were then used by Sultan Abdülhamid II in the various strategies he was employing to tie the 50-70 million or so Muslims living in a nation of 500 million more closely to İstanbul. During his visit to China, Ali met Imam Wang Haoren, an important religious leader for Chinese Muslims, telling the imam of some of the projects that the Ottomans have in mind for the Islamic world.

Imam Haoren (1848-1919) was one of the most important Muslim scholars in China at the time, and a defender of the need to modernize the medreses, or theological schools. It was Imam Haoren who first pushed to have Chinese culture and language included in the lessons offered at the Muslim theological schools in China, which had previously only offered education in Arabic. He is remembered in Chinese history as being a “unifying bridge,” and an “activist.”

As it turned out, Wang was deeply influenced by the unofficial Ottoman envoy as well as by the efforts of Sultan Abdülhamid II, who was doing so much to propel modern education forward. After Imam Wang made his first hajj in 1906, accompanied by one of his students, Ma Debao, he went from Mecca to İstanbul. Here, he was warmly met by Sultan Abdülhamid II. While in İstanbul, Wang spent time investigating Ottoman educational methods as well as various points of sensitivity on the topic of Islam and education. He took notice of some of the differences he had seen, and on his return to China, Imam Wang mentioned in his conversations and religious sermons what he had seen of the Ottoman Empire, the sultan and Islam practiced by the Turks.

An idea forms: a university in Peking

Sultan Abdülhamid II did not send this important Chinese Muslim leader home empty handed. In fact, reasoning that there were not many Islamic masterpieces present in China at the time, the sultan sent Imam Wang back with more than 1,000 books, asking him to share these works with other Chinese scholars when he returned. Along these lines, too, the sultan told Imam Wang when he was visiting İstanbul of his desire of seeing an Ottoman university opened in Peking. Wang, himself a strong supporter of modern education, told the sultan he would do what he could to shore up support for this plan in China.

Only one year passed after Wang’s visit to İstanbul before two Ottoman teachers were sent to Peking on the orders of the sultan. The two teachers found Wang, and, on the orders of the sultan, asked him for support. Imam Wang then took “Muallim” (master or teacher) Ali Rıza Efendi and Muallim Bursalı Hafız Hasan Efendi with him to the Niujie Mosque. Here, he told people of the plans held by those Turkish teachers, who had come from 10,000 kilometers away to open a school in China. It should be noted that at that time the Niujie Mosque was an important meeting point for Muslims. The Chinese Muslims turned over the gardens of this mosque to the Turkish teachers. At the same location, an empty building underwent repairs, and two more lesson halls were also built.

After a year of work, Peking Hamidiye University finally opened, amidst tears and prayers, in 1908. The presence of this new university had an immediate and enlivening effect on Ottoman-Chinese relations. In a sense, it managed to bring these two societies closer together. Using the opportunities available to him, what Sultan Abdülhamid II had essentially achieved was to -- despite the opposition of the West -- bring Chinese Muslims closer to both İstanbul and the Caliphate.

As Yang HaiHaipeng, head of the Chinese Muslim History and Culture Department, sees it, the opening of Hamidiye University under the conditions in place at the time was a very important event.

Historian HaiHaipeng notes that it is due to the sensitivities of the Chinese Muslims that the school has been able to stay standing despite the passage of 101 years since its opening. He says: “When in 1907 the two Turkish teachers arrived from İstanbul and met with Imam Haoren, construction began on what was to be called the ‘Training Institute for Islamic Teachers.’ And today, this university, referred to in Turkish sources as Hamidiye University, still stands on a piece of land behind the Niujie Mosque in Beijing, with one main building and three lesson halls.”

When the Turkish teachers sent by the sultan left China at the end of 1908 -- for reasons that are still unclear -- the university was taken over by local Muslims. After awhile, due to a lack of professors, the university began to be used as a primary school. Then, after the Maoist revolution of 1949, Arabic and religious education were brought to an end at the school, and instead only Chinese was taught. Later, a lack of funds led to the complete closure of the school. In recent years, the mosque community decided to see one of the lesson halls of the former university used for religious lessons for the youth. Despite the passing of many years, the school still stands in good condition. Some of the Ottoman motifs have been erased, but the architecture is still clearly Islamic in style. One of the lesson halls has even been turned into a museum that shows the history of the Niujie Mosque.

The occasion of the Beijing Olympics in 2008 saw the restoration of the 1,000-year-old Niujie Mosque and the Hamidiye University buildings still standing in its gardens in the Xuanwu district of Beijing. There are an estimated 200,000 Muslims who live in Beijing.

On bayrams and Friday prayers, it is nearly impossible to find space amongst the crowds at the 6,000-square-meter Niujie Mosque. Those who want to pray but cannot find space in the mosque itself crowd into the empty lesson halls of the Hamidiye University buildings.

Though the name of Sultan Abdülhamid II is no longer read out loud at Friday sermons at the Niujie Mosque, those who know the real story behind the history of the Hamidiye University have a hard time holding back their tears. They see the Ottoman structure in the garden of the Niujie Mosque as a stamp from the Ottoman times.

20.01.2010