Caliphate Online

Is history repeating itself with new measures to tackle Muslims in the UK?

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sun, 26 May 2013 16:16:00 +0000

In 1290 King Edward I expelled all Jews from England. Is a similar fate awaiting Muslims in the UK?

In 1275 the King of England Edward I issued a law called “The Statute of the Jewry” which placed a number of restrictions on Jews living in England. These included:

1. Usury was outlawed in every form.

2. Debtors of Jews were no longer liable for certain debts.

3. Jews were not allowed to live outside certain cities and towns.

4. Any Jew above the age of seven had to wear a yellow badge of felt on his or her outer clothing, six inches by three inches.

5. All Jews from the age of 12 on had to pay a special tax of three pence annually.

6. Christians were forbidden to live among Jews.

7. Jews were licensed to buy farmland to make their living for the next 15 years.

8. Jews could thenceforth make a living in England only as merchants, farmers, craftsmen or soldiers.

The UK government’s Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure (TPim) operates outside the criminal justice system and the threshold for applying a TPim on someone is extremely low. In the wake of the Woolwich killing the use of TPims is likely to increase dramatically and someone deemed to have ‘extremist’ (anti-government) ideas could be subject to this. The Telegraph has already called for Anjem Choudary to be placed under a TPim simply for having views the government doesn’t like even though he has broken no law.

Interestingly there are many similarities between being under a TPIM and the restrictions applied in the 1275 statute. Some restrictions applied by a TPIM can include:

• Leaving your house overnight

• Going beyond the geographical boundaries decided by the Home Office

• Taking off your electronic monitoring tag

• Talking to or meeting with whoever you wanted

• Stopping the police or staff from the monitoring company entering and searching your home without a warrant

• Having friends or family to your home unless approved by the Home Office, approval which can be removed at any time

• Travelling overseas

An electronic tag is a modern version of a yellow badge. Preventing someone travelling outside their area is the same as the 1275 statute. Restricting the professions a Muslim can work in is already happening through classifying them as a security risk as happened to one Muslim airline pilot who was prevented from working in his chosen profession.

Fifteen years after placing these restrictions on Jews, Edward I in 1290 went a step further and issued another statute called The Edict of Expulsion which expelled all Jews from England. They only returned 350 years later when for economic reasons Oliver Cromwell encouraged their return.

In 1492 King Ferdinand of Spain followed England’s example and issued his own Edict of Expulsion called the Alhambra Decree. The Jews were expelled from Spain but were welcomed in to the Islamic State by the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II who famously said: “How can you call this Ferdinand wise – he who has impoverished his dominions in order to enrich mine?”

This was proved true because the Jews played a major role in contributing to the economic activity of the Islamic State. Jewish physicians from the school of Salanca were employed in the service of the Sultan and the Viziers (ministers). In many places glass making and metalworking were Jewish monopolies, and with their knowledge of foreign languages, they were the greatest competitors of the Venetian traders. (Cecil Roth, “The House of Nasi: Dona Gracia”)

No matter what tests and trials are in store for the Muslims of the UK, ultimately there is khair (good) in them because Allah سبحانه وتعالى tests the believers out of mercy not hatred. A future Caliphate needs the wealth and skills of Muslims in the west in order to build itself back to a world superpower. Any plans for an ‘edict of expulsion’ or lesser measures will simply accelerate this.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

وَيَمْكُرُونَ وَيَمْكُرُ اللّهُ وَاللّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ

“They were planning and Allah was planning, but Allah is the Best of planners.”

(Al-Anfal, 8:30)

Attacks on Muslims increase in wake of Woolwich killing: "Do not consider Allah to be unaware of what the wrongdoers perpetrate."

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sat, 25 May 2013 13:43:00 +0000

In the wake of the Woolwich killing, attacks on Muslims in the UK have soared and the media has gone in to overdrive in generating hatred against Islam. The British government which worked tirelessly to destroy the last Caliphate in the 19th and 20th centuries, will no doubt bring out more measures to label Islamic thoughts as extreme.

Some Muslims may feel disheartened at these attacks but we must always remember that Allah سبحانه وتعالى knows full well what the oppressors are doing. He سبحانه وتعالى says:

وَلَا تَحْسَبَنَّ اللَّهَ غَافِلًا عَمَّا يَعْمَلُ الظَّالِمُونَ ۚ إِنَّمَا يُؤَخِّرُهُمْ لِيَوْمٍ تَشْخَصُ فِيهِ الْأَبْصَارُ

"Do not consider Allah to be unaware of what the wrongdoers perpetrate. He is merely deferring them to a Day on which their sight will be transfixed, rushing headlong – heads back, eyes vacant, hearts hollow."

(Ibrahim, 14:42-43)

We must also remember that Allah سبحانه وتعالى tests the believers out of mercy not hatred. These tests and trials (fitna) are preparation for fulfilling Islamic duties, wiping out sins and raising our rank in jannah. Ultimately these experiences strengthen us.

Al-Azhari said: "The Arabic word fitnah includes meanings of testing and trial. The root is taken from the phrase fatantu al-fiddah wa’l-dhahab (I tested the quality of gold and silver), meaning I melted the metals to separate the bad from the good…" (Tahdheeb al-Lughah, 14/196)

Allah سبحانه وتعالى has declared war on those who attack the believers.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,

إنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى قَالَ: "مَنْ عَادَى لِي وَلِيًّا فَقْد آذَنْتهُ بِالْحَرْبِ

"Verily Allah ta’ala says: 'Whosoever shows enmity to a wali (friend) of Mine, then I have declared war against him.'" (al-Bukhari)

This was seen in the time of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم when the enemies of Islam were destroyed.

Ibn Ishaq said: Yazid bin Ruman told me that `Urwah bin Az-Zubayr or one of the other scholars said that Jibril came to the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم when he was performing Tawaf around the House (Ka`bah). He (Jibril) stood and the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم stood next to him. Al-Aswad Ibn Al-Mutalib passed by, and he (Jibril) threw a green leaf in his face, and he became blind.

Al-Aswad bin `Abd Yaghuth passed by, and he (Jibril) pointed to his stomach, which swelled up and he died (of dropsy).

Al-Walid bin Al-Mughirah passed by, and he (Jibril) pointed at a wound on lower of his ankle, which he got two years earlier when he once was trailing his garment and he passed by a man who was feathering his arrows. One of the arrows got caught in his garment and scratched his foot. It was an insignificant wound, but now it opened again and he died of it.

Al-`As bin Wa'il passed by, and he (Jibril) pointed to the instep of his foot. He (Al-`As) set off on his donkey, heading for At-Ta'if. He rested by a thorny tree, a thorn pierced his foot and he died from it.

Al-Harith bin At-Talatilah passed by and he (Jibril) pointed at his head. It filled with pus and killed him.'

Insha'Allah we pray that the rightly guided Caliphate is established soon which will be a safe haven for Muslims in the west and elsewhere to live and practice their deen in peace and security.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

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)

Q&A: Does the Khaleefah have the power to abolish the Majlis ul-Ummah?

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 22:09:00 +0000

The Majlis ul-Ummah is one of the governance and management institutions. The existence of a system for consultation and accounting has divine evidence, even if the method of electing the Shura and accounting representatives is different. Therefore, it is not permissible for the Khaleefah to abolish the Majlis ul-Ummah, and he would be sinful if he abolished it.

Military Intervention by the Muslim armies is the only solution to Gaza

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:01:00 +0000

Israel once again bombs the men, women and children of Gaza. Predictably the rulers in the Muslim world give their usual lip service condemnation. Egypt's Mohamed Mursi said, "The Israelis must realize that we don't accept this aggression and that it can only lead to instability in the region." But like his predecessor Mubarak, Mursi indeed accepts this aggression by refusing to take any concrete action such as tearing up the 1979 peace treaty or sending the army in to Sinai to annex Gaza back to Egypt.

Since its inception Israel has committed atrocity after atrocity against the Muslim ummah leading some of those in positions of power to become weak and frightened of standing up to such a 'powerful' state. But Israel is not the first arrogant aggressor to attack the Muslim ummah. In the mid-13th century the Mongol Empire under the leadership of Hulagu Khan (Genghis Khan's grandson) invaded the Islamic Khilafah, occupying its lands and even killing the Khaleefah Al-Musta'sim in Baghdad. The Mongols slaughtered tens of thousands of Muslims and looted and destroyed mosques, libraries and hospitals.

After the invasion of Iraq, Hulagu occupied Palestine and sent envoys to Sultan Qutuz in Cairo, demanding his surrender. Hulagu like Israel's leaders saw himself as undefeatable. He arrogantly wrote:

"From the King of Kings of the East and West, the Great Khan. To Qutuz the Mamluk, who fled to escape our swords. You should think of what happened to other countries and submit to us. You have heard how we have conquered a vast empire and have purified the earth of the disorders that tainted it. We have conquered vast areas, massacring all the people. You cannot escape from the terror of our armies. Where can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. Fortresses will not detain us, nor armies stop us. Your prayers to God will not avail against us. We are not moved by tears nor touched by lamentations. Only those who beg our protection will be safe. Hasten your reply before the fire of war is kindled. Resist and you will suffer the most terrible catastrophes. We will shatter your mosques and reveal the weakness of your God and then will kill your children and your old men together. At present you are the only enemy against whom we have to march."

Sultan Qutuz feared Allah سبحانه وتعالى and was not weakened by the Mongol threats. Rather he responded by mobilising the Muslim army and marching it out of Egypt, through Gaza and in to Palestine inflicting a humiliating defeat on the Mongols at the famous Battle of Ain Jaloot.

We must remember that the responsibility of halting Israel's aggression falls on the Muslim Ummah and specifically those with the capability to halt it which is the Muslim armies. These armies will only be released by a Khaleefah who like Sultan Qutuz fears none but Allah سبحانه وتعالى and doesn't fear the Jews or the Christians, Israel and America, or their allies.

قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ وَيُخْزِهِمْ وَيَنْصُرْكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَشْفِ صُدُورَ قَوْمٍ مُؤْمِنِينَ

"Fight them! Allah will punish them at your hands, and disgrace them and help you against them, and heal the hearts of those who have iman."

(al-Taubah, 9:14)

BOOK: Accountability in the Khilafah, 2nd Edition

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:56:00 +0000

Download the book.

INTRODUCTION TO SECOND EDITION

In this new edition I have made some cosmetic changes to the layout, fonts and Qur’anic verses. Chapter 6 – Counterbalances to the executive power of the Khaleefah, has been completely reformatted to make it easier to read.

Section 1.4 - Binding the Khaleefah to specific conditions, has been rewritten because previously it came across that it was permitted to impose an unrestricted condition on the Bay’ah to bind the Khaleefah to a particular opinion. This is not correct. In origin it is not allowed unless it will unify the ummah for their own good. This is an exception to the general rule derived from the consensus (ijma) of the sahaba.

Chapter 8 - Accountability is a right of all citizens, contains a reference to an incident between Mu’awiya and Jariya which is partly narrated in Suyuti’s book History of the Caliphs. However, the final part where Mu’awiya is discussing with the Romans is not narrated in Suyuti’s book. It was taken from an old Al-Waie magazine article published in the mid 1990’s. Instead of removing this last section I have added a reference to the Al-Waie magazine reference in the footnotes based on trust. If I find the full historical reference in the future then I will update this in a later edition. I have left the original introduction because the examples are still relevant post Arab spring. The conclusion however has been updated.

Abdul-Kareem Jamil

Shawwal 1433, September 2012

The Caliphate will protect the honour of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wasallam)

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:51:00 +0000

A new anti-Islamic film 'The Innocence of Muslims' has been released in America. Unable to control their venom and hatred for Islam, the kuffar have once again unleashed a vicious attack on our beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Sam Bacile, the film's creator is not the first to produce a drama insulting the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. In 1889 Henri de Bornier, a French poet and dramatist wrote an anti-Islamic play called Mahomet. Even though the Ottoman Caliphate was in a declined state and dubbed the 'sick-man of Europe', the French Prime Minister Charles de Freycinet banned the play in 1890 after opposition from the 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)

After failing to defeat Islam and its noble values intellectually all the west has left are insults, lies and fabrications. These attacks will ultimately fail. They will strengthen the believers and they will generate greater interest in Islam among the non-Muslim populations in western countries who are embracing Islam in greater numbers.

يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطْفِئُوا نُورَ اللَّهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَاللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ

"They desire to extinguish Allah's Light with their mouths but Allah will perfect His Light, though the kafirun hate it."

(as-Saff, 61:8)

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

O Syrian Army Commanders! Follow in the footsteps of the Roman General who defected to the Muslim army at the Battle of Yarmuk, and died shaheed, the greatest death

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 19:01:00 +0000

The Battle of Yarmuk was part of the campaign to conquer Syria and open it to Islam. The Amir of Jihad was Khalid bin Walid who was appointed by the Khaleefah Umar ibn al-Khattab. At the start of the battle a Roman general by the name of George emerged from the Roman centre and rode towards the Muslims. Halting a short distance from the Muslim centre, he raised his voice and asked for Khalid bin Walid (Amir of Jihad). From the Muslim side Khalid rode out, delighted at the thought that the battle would begin with himself fighting a duel. He would set the pace for the rest of the battle.

As Khalid drew near, the Roman made no move to draw his sword, but continued to look intently at Khalid. The Muslim advanced until the necks of the horses crossed, and still George did not draw his sword. Then he spoke, in Arabic: "O Khalid, tell me the truth and do not deceive me, for the free do not lie and the noble do not deceive. Is it true that Allah sent a sword from heaven to your Prophet and that he gave it to you and that never have you drawn it but your enemies have been defeated?"

"No!" replied Khalid.

"Then why are you known as the Sword of Allah?"

Here Khalid told George the story of how he received the title of Sword of Allah from the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. George pondered this a while, then with a pensive look in his eyes, asked, "Tell me, what do you call me to?"

"To bear witness", Khalid replied, "that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Slave and Messenger; and to believe in what he has brought from Allah."

"If I do not agree?"

"Then pay the Jizya, and you shall be under our protection."

"If I still do not agree?"

"Then the sword!"

George considered the words of Khalid for a few moments, then asked, "What is the position of one who enters your faith today?" "In our faith there is only one position. All are equal."

"Then I accept your faith!" 1

To the astonishment of the two armies, which knew nothing of what had passed between the two generals, Khalid turned his horse and rode slowly with the Roman to the Muslim army. On arrival at the Muslim centre George repeated after Khalid: "There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah!" A few hours later the newly-converted George would fight heroically for the faith which he had just embraced and would die in battle as a shaheed the greatest death. 2

O Syrian Army Commanders!

You have the power to end the bloodshed, to remove the corrupt Assad regime and to give support (nusra) for the establishment of Khilafah. This Khilafah will bring peace and unity once again to the blessed land of ash-Sham after decades of oppression.

Seize this opportunity in the month of Ramadhan to become one of the heroes of ash-Sham like Khalid bin Walid and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah, and achieve the greatest prize of all - Al-Jannah.

Allah says:

فَلْيُقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يَشْرُونَ الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا بِالْآخِرَةِ ۚ وَمَنْ يُقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَيُقْتَلْ أَوْ يَغْلِبْ فَسَوْفَ نُؤْتِيهِ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا وَمَا لَكُمْ لَا تُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاءِ وَالْوِلْدَانِ الَّذِينَ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا أَخْرِجْنَا مِنْ هَٰذِهِ الْقَرْيَةِ الظَّالِمِ أَهْلُهَا وَاجْعَلْ لَنَا مِنْ لَدُنْكَ وَلِيًّا وَاجْعَلْ لَنَا مِنْ لَدُنْكَ نَصِيرًا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۖ وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ الطَّاغُوتِ فَقَاتِلُوا أَوْلِيَاءَ الشَّيْطَانِ ۖ إِنَّ كَيْدَ الشَّيْطَانِ كَانَ ضَعِيفًا

“So let those who sell the life of this world for the Next World fight in the Way of Allah. If someone fights in the Way of Allah, whether he is killed or is victorious, We will pay him an immense reward. What reason could you have for not fighting in the Way of Allah – for those men, women and children who are oppressed and say, ‘Our Lord, take us out of this city whose inhabitants are wrongdoers! Give us a protector from You! Give us a helper from You!’? Those who have iman fight in the Way of Allah. Those who are kafir fight in the way of false gods (taaghoot). So fight the friends of Shaytan! Shaytan’s scheming is always feeble.” 3

1. Tabari: Vol. 2, p. 595

2. Lieutenant-General A.I. Akram, ‘The Sword of Allah: Khalid bin Al-Waleed, His Life and Campaigns,’ October 1969

3. Holy Qur’an, Surah An-Nisaa, 74-76

The Righteous Sheikh Ali al-Qattan was jailed for 15 years in Egypt for saying “Fear Allah” to the tyrant Mubarak!

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Wed, 23 May 2012 17:16:00 +0000

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

أَفْضَلُ الْجِهَادِ كَلِمَةُ عَدْلٍ عِنْدَ سُلْطَانٍ جَائِرٍ

“The best Jihad is the word of Justice in front of the oppressive Sultan.”

(Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, ibn Maja)

In 1993, Sheikh Ali al-Qattan was praying at the Prophet's صلى الله عليه وسلم mosque in Medina, when he was surprised to find Hosni Mubarak entering the prayer hall.

"It was a spontaneous incident, I didn't plan for this," Sheikh Qattan told Egyptian television talk show "Al Haqiqa" (The Truth) this week.

"After we finished the prayer I turned and I saw the president; it was strange because they had emptied a large section of the prayer hall for him to enter. He had bodyguards around him that were heavily armed; it all looked very hostile and made the atmosphere in the masjid uncomfortable."

Sheikh Qattan then stood up and walked closer to the former president and told him to "fear Allah" in a display of his anger at how Mubarak was leading the country.

At that time Sheikh Qattan explains "security forces would roam Egypt's streets and randomly fire at Egyptians."

After saying his words, Sheikh Qattan said Mubarak "immediately looked uneasy." "He spun left and right to look around him to call his bodyguards. The guards immediately seized me violently and surrounded Mubarak, pushing him quickly outside of the prayer hall. I then understood that he was probably scared that some sort of violent attack on him would follow."

The guards then put their hands over my mouth, as if to stop me from saying anything more, but I hadn't planned to. They took me out of the hall, not even giving him a chance to wear my shoes. "They carried out a body search to look for a bomb or a weapon. When they couldn't find anything on me, one officer told me: 'You've embarrassed us. You should have told [Mubarak] that in Egypt.'"

To that, Sheikh Qattan responded: "We're in a mosque; it's for all of the international Muslim community and it felt right to say such a [religious] comment in a mosque."

Sheikh Qattan was taken from Medina to a Jeddah province to be interrogated. He recalls being dragged down by a "10-kilogram chain and ball" whilst walking in the airport to the plane.

After he was questioned in Saudi Arabia, a group from Egypt's National Security came to take him back to Egypt.

"It was as if I was a terrorist. They tied me up with several chains and handcuffs. They even wanted to sedate me, pressuring me to drink the sedative, but I told them I was fasting and would not drink anything," he said.

The former prison officer at the jail Sheikh Qattan was detained in, Major-General Ibrahim Abd al-Ghaffar, described how Sheikh Qattan was treated during his imprisonment.

"For years he was locked up in solitary confinement and not allowed to have visitors by an order from the interior minister. I decided to take him out of the room he was locked in and every day I would tell him to come to my office, where he could sit with me and drink tea. I knew he was being tyrannized."

During his television interview, Sheikh Qattan mentioned that in Islamic history, the term "Fear Allah" was said to the Caliphs of Islam. "Caliphs used to urge people to advise them to fear Allah. When they heard it, they would not be infuriated [like Mubarak was], but they would welcome it as advice," he said.

The Sheikh is correct; the Rightly Guided Caliphs were pleased when the ummah stood up and accounted them.

One day Caliph Umar bin al-Khattab stood up and delivered a speech in which he said: “O people, whoever among you sees any crookedness in me, let him straighten it.” A man stood up and said: “By Allah, if we see any crookedness in you we will straighten it with our swords.” Umar said: “Praise be to Allah Who has put in this ummah people who will straighten the crookedness of Umar with their swords.”

[Dr Muhammad as-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, His life and Times,’ vol. 1, p. 213]

Even after the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs there were rulers who were pleased with being accounted by the ummah.

The governor of Iraq from 694-714CE was Hajjaj bin Yusuf. He is well known for being a harsh and feared ruler who was severe against the ummah yet similar to Sheikh Qattan there was another Sheikh who wasn’t afraid to account Hajjaj when he saw him doing wrong.

Abu Abdullah bin Katheer narrated that Hajjaj bin Yusuf performed prayer once beside Sa’eed bin Al-Musayyab (famous scholar from the Tabi’een) and Hajjaj was raising his head and going down before the Imam. When the Imam made the Salam, Sa’eed held Hajjaj by his garment while he (Sa’eed) was still doing some Dhikr that he used to say after the prayer and Hajjaj was struggling to free his garment so that he could stand up and go. Sa’eed kept pulling him back to sit down until he finished his Dhikr. When Sa’eed finished he reached for his shoes and raised them as if he wanted to hit him with them and said: “Thief! Treacherous! This is how you perform prayer?! I had wanted to strike your face with these shoes!”

Hajjaj then went away. He was on Hajj and went back to Syria. Later, he was sent to Al-Madinah as its governor. When he arrived there, he went to the mosque aiming for the place of Sa’eed bin Al-Musayyab. The people said: “He only came to Sa’eed to take revenge from him.” So, Hajjaj came and sat in front of Sa’eed and said: “Are you the one who uttered those words?” He struck his own chest confidently and said: “Yes, I am the one!” Hajjaj then said: "May Allah reward you with the best reward that a teacher and educator can get! Ever since I left you, I have not performed prayer without remembering those words of yours." He then rose up and left.

[Salaahud-Deen Ali Abdul-Mawjood, ‘Biography of Sa’eed bin Al-Musayyab,’ p. 174]

The ummah needs more people like Sheikh Qattan who fear nothing but Allah and are not afraid to account the tyrant ruler even if it leads to torture and imprisonment.

US war budget for 2013 is $642.5 billion. "Those who disbelieve spend their wealth to avert people from the way of Allah"

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sun, 20 May 2012 13:32:00 +0000

The US House of Representatives voted on Friday to authorise $642.5 billion in 'defense' spending next year.

Allah Most High says in the Holy Qur'an:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا يُنْفِقُونَ أَمْوَالَهُمْ لِيَصُدُّوا عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۚ فَسَيُنْفِقُونَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ حَسْرَةً ثُمَّ يُغْلَبُونَ ۗ وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِلَىٰ جَهَنَّمَ يُحْشَرُونَ

"Those who disbelieve spend their wealth barring access to the Way of Allah. They will spend it; then they will regret it; then they will be overthrown. Those who are disbelievers will be gathered into Hell."

[Al-Anfaal, 8:36]

Christians of Homs under the Caliphate: 'Your rule and justice are dearer to us than the oppression that we used to suffer.'

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:57:00 +0000

Last month the Muslims of Homs in Syria held a rally calling for a return of the Khilafah to replace the tyranny and oppression of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. This is not the first time Syria (ash-Sham) has been ruled by a tyrannical ruler. When Homs was first opened to Islam during the time of Khaleefah Umar bin al-Khattab, ash-Sham was part of the Byzantine Empire under the leadership of Emperor Heraclius. A few years after Homs was conquered and opened to Islam the Muslims were forced in to a temporary retreat back to Damascus. Faced with being ruled again by the Byzantines a similar call for the Khilafah was heard in Homs but this time from the Christian dhimmi. Although these Christians had only lived under the Khilafah for a short period of time, compared to years living under the oppressive Byzantine Empire, they preferred the Islamic rule.

Abu 'Ubaydah, Amir of Jihad in Syria ordered his commander Habeeb ibn Maslamah, "Give back to the local people with whom we made a treaty (Christian dhimmi) what we took from them, for we should not take anything from them if we do not protect them."

And he said to them, “We are bound by the same terms between us and you, and we will not retract anything so long as you do not do so. The only reason why we are returning your wealth to you is that we do not want to take your wealth when we cannot protect your land. We are simply moving to some other land and sending for our brothers to come to us, then we will face our enemy and fight. If Allah causes us to prevail, then we will fulfil our covenant with you, unless you change your minds.”

The next day Abu 'Ubaydah ordered the Muslim army to march to Damascus, and Habeeb ibn Maslamah called the people from whom he had taken the jizyah and returned their wealth to them. He told them what Abu 'Ubaydah had said, and the people of Homs started saying, “May Allah bring you back to us, and may Allah curse the Byzantines who used to rule over us. By Allah, they would not have returned anything to us, rather they would have confiscated it and taken whatever they could of our wealth. Your rule and justice are dearer to us than the oppression that we used to suffer.”
[Dr Ali Muhammad as-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab his life and times,’ vol. 2, p. 306]

The reason these dhimmi in Homs preferred Islamic rule is because the foreign policy of the Khilafah is dawah and jihad. The objective of offensive jihad is not to kill, it is to rule, i.e. make Allah’s word the highest in the land. The Muslim army doesn’t fight for materialistic interests or revenge as we witness the western armies doing in Afghanistan. Rather the Muslim army fights seeking the pleasure of Allah (swt) and achieves one of two best things, victory or martyrdom.

قُلْ هَلْ تَرَبَّصُونَ بِنَا إِلَّا إِحْدَى الْحُسْنَيَيْنِ

“Say: ‘What do you await for us except for one of the two best things?” [at-Tawba, 9:52]

Insha’Allah Bashar al-Assad’s tyrannical regime will go the same way as the Byzantine Empire - in to the dustbin of history.

The torturers of Dr Abdul Qayyum will not escape justice in a future Caliphate

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:10:00 +0000

The punishment for torturers in the hereafter is severe.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُعَذِّبُ الَّذِينَ يُعَذِّبُونَ النَّاسَ فِى الدُّنْيَا

"Allah tortures those who torture the people in this life." (Sahih Muslim)

The Islamic 'aqeeda is not only a spiritual belief which leaves matters of justice and punishment to the Day of Judgement. Rather the Islamic 'aqeeda is both spiritual and political obliging the Muslim ummah to practically implement all the sharia rules on earth through a state. These rules include a comprehensive judicial and punishment system.

The general principle for contracts, transactions and courts' verdicts before the establishment of the Khilafah is that they stand and would not be annulled. However, cases involving people who harmed Islam and Muslims are excluded from this general principle and the Khilafah will hunt them down and bring them to court to face justice in this life.

The evidence permitting this is from the sunnah. When the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم conquered Makkah he declared the blood of some people to be shed with impunity as they used to harm Islam and Muslims in Jahiliyyah. He asked that their blood be shed even if they hung themselves to the curtains of the Ka'bah. This is despite the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم saying: "Islam removes that which comes before it", as narrated by Ahmad and Tabarani from Amr ibn Al-As. This means the one that harmed Islam and Muslims is excluded from this hadith.

Since the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم forgave some of them later, such as forgiving Ikrimah ibn Abu Jahl, the Khaleefah is allowed to start a lawsuit against them or forgive them. This applies to those who used to torture Muslims for saying the truth or those who defamed Islam. The hadith: "Islam removes that which comes before it", [Ahmad, Musnad, 4/199] does not apply to them, for they are excluded from it, and a case is started against them according to the opinion of the Khaleefah.

VIDEO: Muslims, Jews and Christians living in Jerusalem under the Ottoman Caliphate in 1896

noreply@blogger.com (AK) — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:09:00 +0000

Narrated by Ibn ‘Asaakir, from Maseerah b. Jaleese, where he heard the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم:

“This matter (the Khilafah) will continue after me in Al-Madina, then (move to) Al-Shaam, then to the peninsula, then to Iraq, then to the city, then to Bait-ul-Maqdis. So if it reaches Bait-ul-Maqdis, then it would have reached its (natural resting place); and no people who remove it (i.e. the capital of the Khilafah) from their land will ever get it back again (for them to be the capital again).”

The scholars said they believe that what he صلى الله عليه وسلم meant by ‘the city’ is the city of Heraclius (Constantinople).

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 Jamil

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.

“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 Jamil

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.