Islamic Ruling System - System Of Islam

Need a website? We partner with StudioToronto.ca!

Islamic Ruling System (94)

The first edition of the book The Ruling System was written in the early 1950’s CE.Western culture had a great effect on the minds of the educated sons of the Muslims. One of its effects, which dominated their thinking, was that Islam is a spiritual religion that does not have a system that can solve the problems we face today, that there was no ruling system for the state, and the state that Islam had was merely religious and spiritual.

Those undertaking the work for Islam used to call for it with general thoughts that were not crystallised. They lacked the clarity in showing Islam as a complete system for life, state and society. They used to call for a return to Islam in an open and general manner without them having a clear vision in their minds as to what the systems of Islam were or the manner in which they were going to restore the ruling by Islam. The fact that ruling by what Allah has revealed could not be restored without the Khilafah was absent from their da’wah. That is why establishing the Khilafah and reinstating the ruling by what Allah has revealed did not find a place in their program of work.

At such a time a structure undertook the study of the situation of the Ummah at her present time and the condition she had reached. And it studied her history, power and the authority she had in the State that was the leading state in the world. It was a state that was established on the Islamic ‘aqeedah and Ahkam Shar’iah that emanate from it and which the State apply, implement and convey it as a Message to the world. Then this structure undertook an aware study of Islam from its original sources in the Qur’an and Sunnah and came to the following conclusion that Islam is a complete and comprehensive system that solves all of life’s problems. So it wrote books explaining all of this in a general manner without touching upon the details. Thus it wrote books on the systems of Islam, such as the ruling, economic and social system. And in writing these books it observed the practical aspect so that the Muslims realise that Islam is a practical ideology and a complete system fit for implementation, so that they adopt its systems and work to bring it back in the realm of life via the establishment of the Khilafah State. The Khilafah State is the only method for applying these systems in the reality of life.

The understanding of these thoughts and systems expanded. This was owing to the structure conveying them to the Muslims, continuously discussing and talking about them, and by referring to their sources to crystallise them. All of this was in order to establish them in the realm of life. These thoughts and concepts were no longer confined to being only broad guidelines or just giving a general picture; especially after Islam had become the expectation of Muslims and their object of hope in rescuing themselves from the situation they were in. This was after realising that Islam was the complete and comprehensive system that solves all of life’s problems. Likewise it became an incentive for them to learn more details of the Khilafah State that they work to establish and to know more details about the systems of Islam which the Khilafah State would implement upon them. This was the incentive for us to expand these books and enrich them with many details that hitherto were not present in the first edition.

Regarding the third edition of the book The Ruling System, we worked to expand it and demonstrate in a detailed manner the reality of the Khilafah State, its apparatus and tasks and whatever relates to it. We elucidated how the form of ruling in Islam is unique and distinct, differing with all other ruling systems existent in the world. In addition, we have set forth the principles of ruling in detail and the apparatus of the Khilafah State, the method and styles of appointing a Khaleefah. Also, we explained that the Khilafah State is a human state and not a divine state. We also mentioned the Mu’awinoon (Assistants) and their mandatory powers, and the ruling regarding Shura (consultation) and its mandatory powers. And we presented the clarification that it is obligatory to implement Islam completely and comprehensively and that it is forbidden to implement its rules gradually. Similarly we have shown how it is forbidden for the State to be a police state and when obedience to the ruler is obligatory and when it is forbidden, and when we are obliged to unsheathe the sword in his face and that we are obliged to account him in every instance. In the third edition we missed the chance of giving the reference for the Ahadith and confining to the text mentioned in the books of hadith. In taking many of the Ahadith we used to rely on the texts mentioned in the trustworthy and recognised books of fiqh (jurisprudence) but the books of fiqh would sometimes transmit a hadith by meaning only or just confine itself to a portion of the hadith that it used as an illustration or evidence. So when the third edition went out of print we undertook the task of finding the references of all the Ahadith mentioned in the book and we mentioned from where each hadith had been taken and we confined to the text stated in the books of hadith. We excluded every hadith whose authenticity or suitability as a proof was not assured for us. Likewise we are convinced of all the reports cited in the books from their sources. Any report we were not sure of or if we found it to be weak, we omitted it from the book. Similarly we corrected certain concepts and rules as a result of the discussions and reviews. As a result, the book came out in this form, which we present to the Muslims.

We pray to Allah that He grants in this book much goodness and that He quickly honours the Muslims by establishing the Khilafah State so that what has been mentioned in the book is put in application and implementation. Verily, for Allah that is not a hard matter.

15th of the sacred month of Muharram 1417 AH

1/6/1996 ‘

Abdul Qadeem Zalloom

2 The Islamic State

The Islamic State is a Khaleefah implementing the Shar’a. It is a political and an executive body entrusted with the duty of implementing and executing the laws of Islam, and of conveying the Islamic Message to the world by means of da’wah and Jihad. It is the only method that Islam has laid down to implement its systems and general laws in life and society. It is the soul of the existence of Islam in temporal life, for without it, Islam would completely recede from being an ideology and a system of life and it would be confined to merely being a host of spiritual rites and moral values. Therefore the state is a permanent body and not a temporary one.

The Islamic State is only established on the Islamic ‘aqeedah; so this ‘aqeedah is its basis, and it is illegal to detach the State from it, by any means. When the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) established the authority of Islam in Madinah and took power, he based the ruling on the Islamic ‘aqeedah from the very first day. The verses of legislation had not been revealed yet, so (pbuh) he made the shahada “there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” as the basis of the Muslims life and of the relationships amongst people. He (pbuh) made the shahada the basis of averting injustice, settling disputes, that is, and the basis of the whole life, ruling and authority. He (pbuh) did not stop at that, but he decreed Jihad and made it an obligation on Muslims, so as to convey this ‘aqeedah to mankind. Al-Bukhari and Muslim both narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, who said that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

“I have been ordered to fight people until they profess that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, to establish the prayer and give the zakah; if they did so, their blood and their wealth would be inviolable to me, except by its right, and their account will be with Allah.” He (pbuh) made it obligatory on Muslims to have the Islamic ‘aqeedah as the basis for the state. He commanded Muslims to fight if the open disbelief emerged i.e. if the Islamic ‘aqeedah ceased to be the basis of ruling. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was asked once about the tyrant rulers, “Do we fight them?” He (pbuh) replied;

“No, as long as they established the salah amongst you.” In his pledge, he stipulated that Muslims should not dispute with the people in authority, unless they witness (in their actions) an open disbelief. Muslim narrated from ‘Awf ibn Malik regarding the wicked Imams,

it was said: “O Messenger of Allah! Do we fight them?’ He (pbuh) replied: “No as long as they established salah amongst you.” Al- Bukhari narrated from ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit that in the Bay’ah he (pbuh) said:

“And do not dispute with the people in authority, unless you see (in their actions) an open disbelief upon which you have a proof from Allah”. Al-Tabarani extracted the same hadith but with the wording

“a clear (suraah) disbelief ”. All this demonstrates that the basis of the state is the Islamic ‘aqeedah, for the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) established his authority on that basis and ordered the Muslims to fight in order to preserve it as such, and to perform Jihad in order to spread it worldwide.

Therefore, it is forbidden for the Islamic State to have any thought, concept, rule or criterion not emanating from the Islamic ‘aqeedah. It would be futile to have the ‘aqeedah as a basis for the State only in name; rather it should be represented in every single area related to the existence of the State in all of its affairs. So, it is not allowed that the State has any concept about life and authority unless it emanates from the Islamic ‘aqeedah. Accordingly, the concept of democracy should not be adopted by the State for it is not derived from the aqeedah, and besides that, it contravenes the concepts that are derived from it. Nationalism and patriotism should not hold any value whatsoever, for these are not derived from the Islamic ‘aqeedah, and concepts originating from the ‘aqeedah abhor, forbid and warn of the dangers of such concepts. The ruling system of Islam does not contain the ministerial departments, which operate in the democratic system of government, for this concept is not derived from the Islamic ‘aqeedah. It also does not have any imperial, royal or republican concepts, because they are not derived from the Islamic ‘aqeedah, and disagree with the concepts that emanate from it. It is also not allowed to account the State on other than the basis of the Islamic ‘aqeedah, whether by individuals, parties or groups. It is forbidden to establish any movements, groups or parties based on other than the basis of the Islamic ‘aqeedah. The fact that the Islamic ‘aqeedah is the basis of the State obliges all that, and makes it obligatory for the State to abide by such rulings, being obligatory on the head of State and on the subjects ruled by the State.

The obligation of having the Islamic ‘aqeedah as the basis of the Islamic State necessitates that the State’s constitution and rules are derived from the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh). Allah (swt) has ordered the Imam and the ruler to rule by that which Allah (swt) has revealed to His Messenger. He (pbuh) considered whoever ruled by other than that which Allah (swt) had revealed to be a disbeliever if he believed in it or believed that which Allah (swt) revealed is not suitable. He would be disobedient, a wrong doer, and a rebel if he ruled by other than that which Allah (swt) had revealed, but without believing in it. The command revealed is proved in the Qur’an and in the Sunnah. Allah (swt) says:

“But no, by Your Lord, they can have no (real) faith until they make you judge in all disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest submission.” [TMQ An-Nisa: 65]

Allah (swt) says:

“And rule between them by that which Allah has revealed.” [TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 49]

The legislation of the State has been restricted to that which Allah (swt) has revealed. He (swt) warns against ruling by other than that which He (swt) revealed i.e. ruling by Kufr. Allah (swt) says:

“And those who do not rule by that which Allah has revealed are the disbelievers.” [TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 44] The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“Any action which is not according to our matter is rejected.”

All this indicates that the State’s legislations, whether the constitution or laws, are restricted to what emanates from the Islamic ‘aqeedah in the form of divine laws. In other terms, it is restricted to that which has been revealed by Allah (swt) of rules in the Book and the Sunnah, and in whatever the Book and the Sunnah directed to of Qiyas (analogy) and Ijmaa’ al-Sahabah (general consensus of the companions). This is because the speech of the Legislator came related to the actions of the humans, and obliged the people to restrict themselves to it in all their actions, thus the organisation of actions comes from Allah (swt). The Islamic Shari’ah came in relation to all the actions of people, and all their relationships, whether the relationship was with Allah (swt), with themselves or with others. So there is no place in Islam for the people to put forward canons to the State for organising their relationships, because they are restricted to the Ahkam Shari’ah. And Allah (swt) says:

“Whatever the Messenger brings you take it, and whatever he forbids you leave it.” [TMQ Al-Hashr: 7] He (swt) also said:

“It is not fitting for a Muslim, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger (swt) have decreed a matter that they have a choice in their matter.” [TMQ Al-Ahzab: 36]

The Prophet (pbuh) said,

“Verily Allah puts down obligations so do not neglect them, and puts down limits so do not transgress them, and forbade some things so do not indulge in them, and remained silent about some things, as permitted to you not out of forgetfulness, so do not ask about them.” Muslim narrated from ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“whoever introduced into our matter that which is not from it, it is rejected.” So Allah (swt) put down the rules, and not the Imam, and He (pbuh) compelled the people and the rulers to follow them in their relationships and their actions, and He (pbuh) restricted them to these rules, and prevented them from following other than them.

Thus, there is no place for humans, in the Islamic State, to put down the rules for organising their relationships, nor in legislating the constitution or canons. There is also no place for the Imam to compel the people or to permit them to follow rules or canons introduced by man to organise their relationships.

The Prophet (pbuh) established the Islamic State in Madinah al- Munawwarah, together with the basis it was built on, its foundations, pillars, institutions, army and it’s domestic and foreign relationships. From the moment he arrived at Madinah he ruled over the Muslims, looked after their affairs, managed their matters and created the Islamic society. He also made a treaty with the Jews, Banu Dhamra and Banu Madlij, then with the Quraysh, with the people of Elat, Girba and Azrah. He gave the people a covenant that no one will be prevented from perfoming Hajj, and that no one is to be afraid in the month of Haram. He sent Hamza ibn ‘Abdul-Muttalib, ‘Ubaydah ibn Harith, and Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas in expeditions to fight the Quraysh. He sent Zayd ibn Harithah, Ja’far ibn Abi Talib, ‘Abdullah ibn Ruwahah to fight the Romans. He sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to fight the Domma of Jandal, and he (pbuh) himself led the army in numerous battles, where he engaged in severe fighting. He appointed wulah (governors) for the provinces, and ‘ummaal (mayors) for the cities. He appointed ‘Attab ibn Aseed over Makkah after its opening, and Bazan ibn Sasan as wali (governor) over Yemen, after he became Muslim. He appointed Mu’az ibn Jabal for the khazraj over Jund, and he appointed Khalid ibn Sa’id ibn al-’Aas as ‘amil (mayor) over San’aa, and Zayd ibn Labeed ibn Tha’laba al-Ansari over Hadramut. He appointed Abu Musa al-Ash’ari over Zabeed and Aden. He appointed ‘Amr ibn al- ’Aas over Oman. Abu Dujana was ‘amil for the Messenger (pbuh) over Madinah. When he (pbuh) would appoint governors he would choose them from those who were suitable for the job they were responsible for, and they would infuse the hearts of their subjects with Iman, and he (pbuh) used to ask them about the way they would act in their ruling. Al-Baihaqi, Ahmad and Abu Dawood narrated,

“That when the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) sent Mu’az to Yemen he (pbuh) said to him, ‘How would you judge if a matter was raised to you?’ He said, ‘By the Book of Allah.’ He (pbuh) said, ‘If you do not find it in the Book of Allah?’ He said, ‘I would judge by the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh).’ He (pbuh) said, ‘If you did not find it in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah?’ He said, ‘I would perform my own ijtihad, sparing no effort in doing that.’ He said, ‘He (the Messenger of Allah (pbuh)) hit his hand on my chest and said: Praise be to Allah who helped the messenger of the Messenger of Allah in that which pleases the Messenger of Allah’”. It was narrated from Sa’id from ‘Amr ibn Awf that the Messenger (pbuh) appointed Iban ibn Sa’id ibn al-’Aas over Bahrain and he (pbuh) said to him,

“Take care of Abdu Qais and respect their leaders.”

He (pbuh) used to send governors from the best of those who embraced Islam. He used to order the governors to teach Islam to those who had accepted Islam, and to take sadaqah from the people. On many occasions, he (pbuh) would delegate the governor the job of levying of taxes, and He (pbuh) would command him to exhort the people with good, teach them the Qur’an, educate them in the deen, and he (pbuh) advised him to be lenient with the people in the truth and be hard against them in situations of injustice. He (pbuh) also ordered the governors to forbid the people from calling to their tribes when there was agitation between the people, so that their call be to Allah (swt) alone without partner. He (pbuh) told the governors to take a fifth of the wealth and what was obliged upon the Muslims of sadaqah. And that whoever accepted Islam sincerely from the Jews or the Christians and submitted to the deen of Islam, he would be a believer whose rights are like their rights and his obligations are like their obligations; and whoever remained a Jew or a Christian, he should not be tempted from his deen.

Muslim and al-Bukhari narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that when the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) sent Mu’az to Yemen he (pbuh) said;

“You will be appointed over tribes from the People of the Book so let the first matter you call them to be the worship of Allah (swt). If they recognised Allah (swt) then inform them that Allah (swt) has obliged on them five prayers in the day and night. If they did that tell them that Allah (swt) obliged on them zakat which is taken from their wealthy people and paid to their poor people. If they obeyed, take (zakat) from them and stay away from their best property.” In another narration, they added,

“And protect you of the prayer (du’a) of the wronged (person), for there is no barrier between it and Allah (swt).”

On some occasions he (pbuh) appointed specific people to deal with financial matters. Every year, he (pbuh) would send ‘Abdullah ibn Ruwahah to the Jews of Khayber to assess their fruits. Al-Muwatta mentioned,

“The Messenger (pbuh) used to send ‘Abdullah ibn Ruwahah to assess their fruits between him and them. Then he would say: if you would like, this is for you, or if you like it is for me. They used to take it”.

Salman ibn Yassar said, “They gathered some of their women’s jewelry. Then they said, ‘This is for you and reduce from us and tolerate in the division’. ‘Abdullah ibn Ruwahah said ‘O people of the Jews! By Allah, from amongst the creatures of Allah (swt) I hate you most, but this will not drive me to oppress you. As for the bribe you offered me it is illegal property and we do not eat (take) it’. They said, ‘By this (justice) the heavens and the earth stand’.” He (pbuh) used to inquire about the situation of the governors and mayors and he used to listen to what is reported to him of their news. He removed ‘Ala ibn al-Hadhrami who was his ‘amil over Bahrain because a delegate from ‘Abdu Qais complained about him. Ibn Sa’id said that Muhammad ibn ‘Umar said, “I was told from ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf, the ally of Bani ‘Aamer ibn Luai that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) sent ‘Ala ibn al-Hadhrami to Bahrain, then he removed him from it, and sent Iban ibn Sa’id as an ‘amil over it.” Muhammad ibn ‘Umar said, “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) had written to ‘Ala ibn al-Hadhrami to come to him together with twenty men of ‘Abdu Qais, so he came to him with them. Their leader was ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Awf al-Ashajj and ‘Ala appointed al-Munzir ibn Sawa over Bahrain after him. The delegation complained of ‘Ala ibn al-Hadhrami. So the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) removed him and appointed Iban ibn Sa’id al-’Aas and said to him;

“Take care of ‘Abdu Qais and respect their leaders”. He (pbuh) used to receive the full (financial) accounts of the mayors and would enquire about their revenues and expenses.

Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Abu Hammeed al-Saidi that,

The Prophet (pbuh) appointed Ibn al-Lutbiyyah over the sadaqah of Bani Saleem, “When he returned back to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and he revised accounts with him, he said, ‘This is what is yours, and this is a gift to me.’ The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said, ‘Won’t you stay in your parents home and see if you get your present, if you say the truth?’ Then the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) stood preaching to the people. So he praised Allah and glorified Him and said, ‘after all, I appoint some men of you over some affairs in which Allah (swt) gave me authority. Then someone amongst you comes and says: This is for you and this is a gift given to me. Had he not sat in his fathers’s and mother’s home so as his gift comes to him if he says the truth. By Allah, no one of you would take of them (the sadaqah) anything unduly but comes to Allah (pbuh) carrying it on the Day of Judgement. Beware, I will know any man who comes to Allah with a camel that brays and a cow that is mooing and a sheep that bleats.’ Then he raised his hands till I could see the whiteness of his armpits. ‘Didn’t I convey’.” Abu Dawood narrated from Bareeda that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said, “Whomever we appointed in his job and we provided him (some funds), so whatever he took unduly would be ghalool (misappropriation).” The people of Yemen complained of the length of Mu’az’s prayer, so the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) restrained him. Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Abu Mas’ud al- Ansari, who said, “

A man said, ‘O Messenger of Allah (pbuh) I hardly attend the (jama’a) prayer, because so and so person makes it long.’ As a response I have never seen the Prophet (pbuh) in any preaching angrier than he was then. He said, ‘O people! You drive the people away. So whoever becomes Imam to the people let him lighten (the prayer), for there are amongst them the sick, the weak and the one who has a pressing need’.” In another narration by Muslim from Jabir, he (pbuh) said, “… O Mu’az! Are you a seducer (fattan).”

He (pbuh) used to appoint judges to judge between the people. He appointed ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib as a judge over Yemen. He also dispatched Mu’az ibn Jabal and Abu Musa al-Ash’ari as judges to Yemen. He asked the two of them:

By what would they judge? They replied that if they did not find the rule in the Book or the Sunnah then they would measure the matter with another, and they would act with that which is closer to the truth. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) consented with that, which indicates that he (pbuh) chose the judges and checked their method of judging.

He (pbuh) used to look after the affairs of the people and he appointed secretaries as heads of the departments. ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib was the secretary of agreements and peace treaties. Mu’ayqeeb ibn Abu Fatimah was in charge of the Prophet’s official seal and he was the secretary for booty. Huzayfah ibn al-Yaman used to assess the fruits of the Hijaz and Zubair ibn al-’Awaam used to record the funds of the sadaqah, and al- Mughira ibn Shu’abah used to record the debts and transactions, and Shurahbeel ibn Hasanah used to write the letters to the leaders of other states. He (pbuh) appointed a secretary for each of the interests, however numerous these were. He (pbuh) used to make many consultations with his companions and he (pbuh) did not prevent himself from consulting the people of opinion and vision and those whom he (pbuh) witnessed of their intellect and honour, and showed their strong Iman and sacrifice in calling for Islam. He (pbuh) assigned fourteen men for Shura to whom he used to refer to for seeking an opinion. He (pbuh) chose them because they were the chiefs of their people, i.e. their representatives. They were seven from the muhajiroon and seven from the Ansar. Amongst them were Abu Bakr, Hamza, ‘Umar, ‘Ali, Ja’far, Bilal, Ibn Mas’ud, Salman, ‘Ammar and Abu Dharr. He (pbuh) also used to seek advice from other than these people, but these people mentioned are the ones he sought opinion from extensively. In reality these people constituted the Majlis al-Shura. He (pbuh) collected funds that were due on the Muslims and non-Muslims, and on lands, fruits and livestock. These were: zakat, ‘ushr, fai, kharaj and jizyahh. The funds of spoils and booties were due to Bait al-Maal. Zakat was distributed on the eight types of people mentioned in the Qur’an and it was not given to other than them nor was it used to manage the affairs of the State. Funds for looking after the affairs of the people used to be from the revenues of fai, kharaj, jizyah and booty, which were sufficient for running the State and preparing the army, thus the State did not feel that it had a shortage of funds.

In this way the Prophet (pbuh) established the structure of the Islamic State and he completed it in his life. He (pbuh) was the leader of the State and had assistants, governors, judges, army, directors of departments, and a majlis he used to refer to for Shura. This framework in its structure and functions has been mentioned in the Shari’ah texts. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) performed the actions of the leader of the State from the moment he (pbuh) arrived in Madinah until his (pbuh) death, and Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were his assistants. The Sahabah consented after him on establishing a leader for the State who would succeed the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) in the leadership of the State only, and not in Messengership or Prophethood because he (pbuh) was the seal of the Prophets. Thus the Messenger (pbuh) established the whole structure of the State in his life, and he left behind the shape of ruling, and structure of the State completely known and clear.

Published in Islamic Ruling System

Be the first to comment!

17 The guarantee of the implementation of Islam

The natural guarantee for implementing Islam, carrying of its Da’wah, continuity of its implementation and the perfection of this implementation is the Taqwa of the ruler and the concentration of this Taqwa within himself. This is because the Taqwa of Allah by the ruler makes Him more concerned about Islam than his concern for his own life and his own needs. It also generates in Him the sensitive feeling that makes Him remember Allah within himself every time He undertakes an action, and fear Allah regarding every one of his conducts.

If the ruler lost the Taqwa, then He would have lost the natural guarantee for the implementation of Islam, improving its application and the continuity of this application, and He would have lost the guarantee to carry the Islamic Da’wah. Since it is possible for the Taqwa to elude the ruler, then there must be a physical means that compels Him to implement (Islam) upon the land and has the authority to establish in his place the ruler who implement Islam and carries its Da’wah. This practical means is the Ummah. Therefore it is obligatory upon the Islamic Ummah, if she saw an unjust ruler, violating the sanctity of Allah, breaking the covenant of Allah, opposing the Sunnah of Rasool Allah, treating the servants of Allah with sin and transgression, she must challenge Him by word and by action, or change him. In order that the Ummah undertakes this duty, she must be characterised with the Taqwa of Allah, because the fear of the Ummah from Allah generates the concern about Islam and its implementation. This obliges her to account the ruler about his actions, so she argues/discusses with Him and accounts Him whenever she sees from Him any shortcomings in the implementation or an attempt to deviate from the Ahkam (rules) of Islam, or misapplies the systems of Islam. By such means, the application of Islam continues as well as the improvement of its application can follow.

However the Ummah-which is the practical means in the Dunya to implement Islam through her watching over and accounting the rulerneeds a correct structure to be established within her. This correct structure should be based on Islam, distinct in its deep understanding and its great fear of Allah. This is because it is established on one basis, which is the Islamic ‘aqeedah, and works to culture the people with the concentrated Islamic culture (Thaqaafah). It is a culture that broadens the scope of mind, and strengthens the comprehension, and purified the soul; for it links the emotions with the thought, and it generates harmony between the thoughts and the emotions. This makes of the Muslim the required Islamic personality. Once this structure was established in accordance with this personality, it would be the means to mould the Ummah. This is because Islam purifies her thoughts, and moulds her in one thought and thus drives her to one objective, where she lives for its sake and carries the Da’wah to it. Then she would be continually vigilant about the ideology that she carries and would be well aware of it. What awakens her is this structure that lives for the sake of the ideology, for the sake of the Da’wah to it and for the sake of the implementation of this ideology and the continuity of its implementation.

This structure is the ideological party that emerges from the Ummah. In other words, it is the party that is established on the basis of Islam, and makes Islam its intellectual leadership, which the party carries in the Ummah so that she understands Islam, and it carries the da’wah to Islam everywhere so that people embrace it. Therefore it is a hizb of da’wah that undertakes no action other than the da’wah. This is because action in the other areas is the function of the state, and not the function of the hizb.

Once the hizb was established and led the Ummah it becomes the watchful eye over the state, because it is the Ummah or the representative of the Ummah. It leads the Ummah and makes her carry out her duty, which is to argue/discuss with the state and account it, challenging the state with words, or actions, or even to change it if a danger to Islam is feared from it.

It would be difficult for the Ummah to to debate with or account the state without having a hizb that holds the post of her leadership before the state. This is because there are many difficulties before her that she can’t overcome except by the presence of a unified leadership represented in a structure and not in an individual or individuals. Therefore, it is necessary for an ideological and political hizb to be established in the Ummah. Its only work is to carry the Islamic Da’wah and its only method for carrying the Da’wah is the political way. Thus the emergence of this hizb is inevitable, for it is the practical means which leads the Ummah and guarantees–through it’s leadership for the Ummah-the performance by the state of its duty in the best manner, which is the carrying of the Islamic Da’wah, the application of Islam and the continuity of this application. It is also the practical means to prevent its misapplication.

The structuring of the Rasool (pbuh) of the Muslims around Islam was evident in the house of Al-Arqam, and then the structure included all the Sahabah. Thus they were the block that emerged among the Muslims and took the responsibility of carrying Islam practically, although all the Muslims used to carry the responsibilities of Islam in general manner. It was reported that Rasool Allah (pbuh) passed away leaving behind sixty thousand of the Sahabah. These were the Islamic bloc, or the Islamic Hizb that carried the responsibility of Islam practically. Otherwise the Rasool (pbuh) passed away while the Muslims were many times more than that number (of the Sahabah). Then the time of the Sahabah, the Tab’ieen and the Tab’iee at-Tab’ieen ended, the Hizb disappeared. So weakness started to creap into the souls of the rulers, for there was no hizb that leads the Ummah to watch over them, and argue/discuss with them and account them (the rulers). This continued until misapplication of Islam took place. Therefore the true guarantee for the application of Islam, the carrying of its Da’wah and the betterment of its application is the Islamic and political Hizb.

Published in Islamic Ruling System

Be the first to comment!

9.3 The Khaleefah is the leader of the army

The Khaleefah is the leader of the army and He is the one who appoints the Chief of Staff and an Ameer to every brigade, and a commander to every division. With regards to the other posts in the army the commanders of the brigades appoint them. Appointing a person to the staff has to be according to his military culture and the Chief of Staff appoints him.

This is because the Khilafah is the general leadership for all the Muslims in the world. It is responsible for establishing the Shar’a rules and for conveying the Message to the world. The way of conveying the Message to the world is Jihad. Therefore the Khaleefah should take charge of the Jihad because the Khilafah contract has been convened upon Him alone, so it is not allowed for any other person to carry it out other than him. Thus the Khaleefah takes responsibility for Jihad himself. It is not allowed for anyone other than Him to undertake it, although every Muslim carries out Jihad. Hence carrying out Jihad is one matter and holding of its responsibility is another. Jihad is a duty upon every Muslim, but holding of its responsibility is only for the Khaleefah. Regarding the fact that the Khaleefah may appoint another person on his behalf to carry out his duty, this is allowed under his own observation and supervision and it is not allowed for this person to be independent, rather under the Khaleefah’s observation and supervision. This type of delegation is not the same as the work of an assistant to the Khaleefah. Reporting to the Khaleefah in this context means that the one who carries out Jihad on his behalf should be under his supervision. Leadership of the army with this restriction i.e. under the Khaleefah’s observation and supervision, is allowed to be given to whomever He wishes. However, to take charge of the army without his observation and supervision, leaving the Khaleefah only as a figurehead, is not allowed. This is because the Khilafah contract has been convened upon him, so He has to take the responsibility for the matters of Jihad. Therefore, what is usually said in the non-Islamic systems that the Head of State is the supreme leader of the army, meaning He is a formal leader only, while another leader runs the army independently, this is considered invalid in the view of Islam. It is a matter which does not agree with the Shar’a. However, for other types of leadership issues like the administrative and technical matters, the Khaleefah is allowed to appoint someone on his behalf to carry them out independently as He appoints the Governors who do not necessarily have to be under his supervision or observation. The Messenger (pbuh) also used to undertake the leadership of the army himself, undertake the leadership of the battles and He also appointed leaders of the divisions of the army which went out for fighting without him, namely the expeditions. For every expedition He used to appoint a commander and in some cases He used to take the precaution of naming who should succeed the commander in case He was killed as happened in the expedition of Mu’ta. Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar who said;

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) appointed Zaid bin Harith as an Ameer in the battle of Mu’ta. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said; ‘If Zaid is killed, then it will be Ja’afar (as the Ameer) and if Ja’afar is killed then it will be ‘Abdullah bin Rawaha (as the Ameer).”’ So the Khaleefah is the one who appoints the leaders of the armies, its commanders, and ties for them the flags and appoints the leaders of the divisions. The army that was sent to Syria like the Army of Mu’ta and the army of Usama was one brigade because the evidence for this is that the Prophet (pbuh) had tied the flag to Usama. The expeditions that fought in the Arabian Peninsula and returned back to Madinah, such as the expedition of Sa’d bin Waqqas that He (pbuh) sent towards Makkah, were all in the form of divisions. This indicates that the Ameers of the brigades and the commanders of the divisions are appointed by the Khaleefah. This was indicated by the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) used to remain in close contact with the sergeants and commanders in his expeditions and He used to know the conditions of the army i.e. the soldiers through their sergeants and captains. The Prophet (pbuh) was not proved to have appointed other than leaders of the armies and the commanders of the expeditions. This indicates that their appointment in the Ghazawat was left to their leaders. As regards the Chief of Staff who is responsible for the technical matters, He is like the army leader in terms of being appointed by the Khaleefah and He can be made independent and carry out his duties without being directly supervised by the Khaleefah, although He has to be under his command.

Published in Islamic Ruling System

Be the first to comment!

16 Establishing political parties is Fard Kifayah

Individuals carry the duty of holding the rulers accountable, which has been ordered by Allah (swt), in their capacity as individuals and by groups and parties in their capacity as groups and parties.

In addition to ordering the Muslims to invite to the Good (Al-Khair), enjoin the Ma’ruf and forbid the Munkar and to hold the rulers accountable, Allah (swt) has also ordered them to establish political parties from among themselves. These political parties would carry out, as groups, the call to the Good, that is, to Islam, to enjoining Ma’ruf, to forbid the Munkar and to hold the rulers accountable. Allah (swt) says;

“Let there arise from amongst you a group which calls to the good, enjoins Ma’ruf and forbids Munkar.” [TMQ Al-’Imran: 104]

This means that the Muslims should establish a group from among themselves, which would have the quality of a group and would perform two actions. These are the call to Islam and to enjoin Ma’ruf and forbid Munkar.

This command of establishing a group is decisive because the task that the verse commands the group to perform is an obligation that Muslims must perform as confirmed by the numerous Ayaat and Ahadith. This serves as a Qareenah that the command of establishing a group is decisive. The command mentioned in the verse is thus also decisive. It is a duty of sufficiency upon Muslims. If it is performed by some of them, others would be exempted, as it is not an individual duty. Allah (swt) has ordered the Muslims to establish from among themselves a group to carry out the duty of calling to the Good, to enjoin Ma’ruf and forbid Munkar. He (swt) did not command all the Muslims, in the verse, to carry out such a duty. He only ordered them to establish a group that carries out that duty. The order is thus focussed on the establishing of a group and not on the performing of the two tasks.

The two tasks just determine the duty of the group that has to be established and it is thus a description of the nature of the group.

The group, in order for it to carry out its duty as a group and to continue as a group while carrying out its duty, should fulfil certain requirements.

What makes it a group is the presence of a bond that links all its members. They thus form a single body, like a bloc. Without this bond the group that Allah (swt) has ordered to be established would not be working as a group.What maintains it, as a group that functions properly is the presence of an Ameer whose obedience is obligatory. The Shar’a ordered every group of three people or over to appoint an Ameer over it. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“It would be forbidden for three people who are in an open country, not to appoint one from among them as Ameer.” [Narrated by Ahmed from ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amru] These two qualities, the presence of a bond among the group and the presence of an Ameer who must be obeyed, indicate that a group that has a bond and an Ameer who must be obeyed must be established when Allah (swt) says;

“Let there arise from amongst you a group.” [TMQ Al-’Imran: 104] The group, or the bloc, or the party, or the association or any other name used to refer to a group, would fulfil the requirements of a group and maintain it as a group at work. This indicates that the verse orders the founding of groups, or parties, or blocs, or organisations or the like.

The order to establish a group is an order to establish political parties. This is deduced from the fact that the verse has determined the duty of this group that is the call to Islam, enjoining the Ma’ruf, and forbidding the Munkar. The duty of enjoining Ma’ruf and forbidding Munkar is general and not restricted. It therefore includes the rulers and this implies holding them accountable. The holding of the rulers accountable is a political task performed by the political parties and it is the most important task of the political parties.

Thus the verse indicates the duty of establishing political parties which would call to Islam, enjoin Ma’ruf and forbid Munkar, and would hold the rulers accountable for their actions and conduct.

The verse also indicates that the parties should be Islamic, be based on the Islamic ‘aqeedah and adopt the divine rules. It is forbidden for these parties to be communist, socialist, capitalist, nationalist, or parties calling for democracy, secularism, masonism, or to be founded on anything other than the Islamic ‘aqeedah, or adopting other than the divine rules. This is because the verse has determined the quality of these parties by way of determining their tasks. These tasks are the call to Islam, enjoining Ma’ruf and forbidding Munkar, and any party that performs such tasks must carry Islam and be founded on the basis of Islam. Any group founded on a communist, socialist, capitalist, democratic, secular, masonic, nationalist, patriotic, or regional basis would not be founded on an Islamic basis, nor carrying Islam, nor adopting the rules of Islam. Such a party would rather be founded on a basis of disbelief and structured around concepts of disbelief.

It is thus forbidden for the Muslims to gather on the basis of communism, socialism, capitalism, democracy, secularism, masonism, patriotism, nationalism or any basis other than Islam.

These parties must be overt and not secret. The call for the Good and enjoining Ma’ruf and forbidding Munkar, as well as holding the rulers accountable and the work towards the seizing of power via the Ummah should be carried out openly and explicitly and not confidentially and secretly, in order to achieve the purpose demanded of it.

These parties should not carry out physical activities. They should call to Islam verbally and enjoin Ma’ruf and forbid Munkar verbally. Their styles must be peaceful; they should not take up arms, nor use violence. This is because the use of force towards the ruler is forbidden, and the Ahadith have stressed this. Enjoining Ma’ruf and forbidding Munkar as well as holding the rulers accountable can thus be carried out without the use of force. The styles and means must be peaceful. It is forbidden to use force and confront the ruler with weapons except in case He showed the flagrant disbelief of which we have proof from Allah (swt), as mentioned in the Hadith of ‘Ubadah Ibnus-Samit;

“And not to dispute with the people their authority unless you witness an act of flagrant disbelief about which you have proof from Allah.”

Published in Islamic Ruling System

Be the first to comment!

15.5 The ruler who displays flagrant Kufr must be fought against

There is one situation excluded from the general rule concerning the obligation of obedience to the ruler. This is the case of commanding people to perform a sin. Similarly there is one situation excluded from the general rule concerning the prohibition of rebellion against the ruler and taking up arms against him, which is when He commits an act of flagrant disbelief. In this case He should be fought against, for there are texts related to this situation. ‘Awf Ibnu Malik Al-Ashja’i said; “I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say;

‘The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you and whom you pray for and they pray for you, and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.’We asked: ‘O Messenger of Allah, shall we not then declare war on them?’ He said; ‘No, as long as they establish the prayer among you.’” [Narrated by Muslim] Establishing the prayer means to rule by Islam, that is to implement the rules of Shari’ah. This is because naming part of it denotes the whole of Islam here. This is common in Arabic, for instance Allah (swt) says;

“To free a neck” [TMQ An-Nisa’: 92] which means to free the slave i.e. all of Him and not just his neck. In this Hadith He (pbuh) said;

“As long as they establish the prayer among you.” This means the establishment of all the rules not just the prayer and is a figurative form where basically the part is mentioned to refer to the whole. Muslim reported on the authority of Umm Salama that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“Ameers will be appointed over you, you recognise some of what they do and you disown some. Whoever recognised He is absolved from blame. Whoever disapproved (of their bad deeds) He is safe, but whoever consented and followed them (he is doomed.)’ They said; ‘Should we not fight against them?’ He (pbuh) replied: ‘No, as long as they prayed.’”

This means the establishment of all the rules not just the prayer and is a figurative form where basically the part is mentioned to refer to the whole. ‘Ubadah Ibnus-Samit reported:

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) called us and we gave Him the Bay’ah (oath of allegiance). Among the injunctions He made binding upon us was to listen and obey to the Ameer in our pleasure and displeasure, in our adversity and prosperity, and giving (others) preference over ourselves, and not to dispute the authority with its people, He said; ‘Unless you see a flagrant disbelief on which you have clear proof from Allah.’” [Narrated by Muslim]

The subject of these three Ahadith, the Hadith of ‘Awf Ibnu Malik, that of Umm Salama, and that of ‘Ubadah Ibnus-Samit is the rebellion against the ruler. They categorically forbid the rebellion against him:

“‘Should we not then declare war on them?’ He (pbuh) said; ‘No.’

‘Should not we fight against them?’ He (pbuh) said; ‘No.’

‘And we should not dispute with the people of authority.’” They all forbid the rebellion against the ruler categorically, thus indicating a prohibition. This is combined with the disgrace attributed to the rebellion and is indicated in the Hadith where Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) said;

“He who rebels against the ruler and deserts the Jama’ah, his death would be that of the days of Jahiliyyah.” [Narrated by An-Nasa’i from Abu Hurairah] It is therefore, a decisive prohibition, for it considers the death of He who disobeys and rebels against the Imam as a death of Jahiliyyah, indicating that it is a decisive prohibition. The Ahadith thus serve as evidence for the prohibition of rebellion.

However, one case is excluded which is expressed in the first and second Hadith, not establishing the prayer, and not praying. It is also expressed in the third Hadith by the flagrant disbelief. The nonestablishment of prayer and the non-performing of prayer, that is, ruling by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed, in other words to rule by the rules of Kufr, a matter which would undoubtedly mean the appearance of flagrant disbelief. The

“flagrant disbelief “, that came in the Hadith is a description that applies on everything that is considered as flagrant Kufr. So, if flagrant Kufr of which we have proof from Allah (swt) has appeared, we should rebel against it. Whether this was ruling by the laws of disbelief, that is by other than what Allah has revealed, or He was not ruling by the laws of disbelief, but remained silent about apostasy against Islam and allowed the apostates to display openly their disbelief or anything similar. All this would be flagrant disbelief. This is general and includes any type of flagrant disbelief. This is the exception (mentioned in the Ahadith): appearance of the clear disbelief, so if this occurs then rebellion becomes obligatory.

The indication in these Ahadith regarding the obligation of rebellion against the rulers in this case is reflected in the fact that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has forbidden us from declaring war on them, fighting against them and disputing with them over their authority, and He excluded this case, which means it is excluded from the rule of prohibition. This means that it becomes an order that we need to fulfil. The indicative meaning (Mafhoom) of the Ahadith means the order to declare war on the ruler, fighting against Him and disputing with Him over his authority, if such case occured. The indicative meaning (Mafhoom) is equal to the literal meaning in terms of its proof on the rule. It therefore serves as evidence indicating that the legislator has ordered the Muslims to declare war on the rulers, to fight against them and dispute with them over their authority if the open Kufr emerged in their ruling. As for the Qareenah (indication) that this order is decisive, this is because the subject matter of this order was emphasised by Shari’ah. The Legislator has made ruling by Islam Wajib (obligatory) and not Mandub (recommended). The emergence of flagrant disbelief has been forbidden by Shar’a, and is not merely Makruh (undesirable). The subject matter of the order thus serves as a Qareenah that the order is decisive. The rebellion against the ruler in this exceptional case is thus not only permitted but actually an obligation upon the Muslims.

However, it has to be stressed that what is intended by the emergence of the flagrant disbelief, is the disbelief on which we have decisive evidence proving that it is an act of disbelief. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not stop at saying

“flagrant disbelief “, but He went on to say “

on which you have a Burhan (proof) from Allah.” The word Burhan is only referred to the decisive evidence. The presence of clear-cut evidence proving flagrant disbelief is one of the conditions of rebellion. If there were doubts about it not being an act of disbelief, or if there was a Zanni (probable) evidence about it being an act of disbelief even if the evidence was correct, then the rebellion would be unlawful, as the rebellion is only allowed if there were a clear cut evidence that it is an act of disbelief.

What is thus meant by flagrant disbelief is the type of disbelief over which there is no doubt and over which conclusive evidence has proved that it is disbelief. If the rulers ordered an action or conduct that carried a doubt, this is not an act of disbelief and it would be unlawful to rebel against Him under the pretext that there was flagrant disbelief. This is due to the presence of doubt. For instance, if the ruler ordered the teaching of the theory of dialectical materialism at universities, or the teaching of other doctrines of disbelief, and one thought that the teaching of doctrines of disbelief would lead to disbelief He must in this case obey the ruler and study such doctrines. It would be forbidden to rebel against the ruler under the pretext that flagrant disbelief has been perpetrated. The ruler would have evidence that it is permitted to acquire information about the doctrines of disbelief, for the Qur'an has mentioned them, where Allah (swt) has addressed them and refuted them.

It can be seen that everything that has evidence or a probable evidence that it is not disbelief and there is an evidence or a probable evidence that it is from Islam and the ruler ordered it or performed it, then it would not be considered as the rules of disbelief, nor emergence of flagrant disbelief. It would not be included in the exception and it would be unlawful to rebel against the ruler in such a case, rather to obey Him would be obligatory.

Published in Islamic Ruling System

Be the first to comment!

15.4 Accounting the rulers is Fard upon the Muslims

Holding the rulers accountable is a duty upon the Muslims. The obligation of obeying them even if they did wrong and withheld people’s rights does not mean that the Muslims should keep silent, but it means that obeying them is obligatory and holding them accountable for their actions is obligatory as well.

Allah (swt) ordered the Muslims to hold their rulers accountable and strongly commanded them to challenge them if they withheld the citizens’ rights, neglected their duties towards them, ignored any of the citizens affairs, violated the rules of Islam or ruled by other than that which Allah (swt) has revealed. Muslim reported on the authority of Umm Salama that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“‘Ameers will be appointed over you, you recognise some of what they do and you disown some. Whoever recognised He is absolved from blame. Whoever disapproved (of their bad deeds) He is safe, but whoever consented and followed them (he is doomed.)’ They said; ‘Should we not fight against them?’ He (pbuh) replied; ‘No, as long as they prayed.’” In another narration by Muslim,

“Whoever hated He would be absolved (of sin) and whoever disapproved He would be safe, but whoever consented and followed (he would be not).” This narration explains the first narration. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has ordered showing the disapproval toward the ruler and has made this obligatory by any possible means on condition that it is without fighting, i.e.without the use of the sword unless He showed open kufr by the tongue by saying something, or by the heart if one were not able to use the hand or tongue. He (pbuh) considered the one who does not disown the wrong deed as being an accomplice to the ruler in the sin, for He said if anyone approved of their bad deeds and imitated them He would be doomed and would not escape the blame and the sin. The evidences concerning the enjoining of Ma’ruf and the forbidding of Munkar are also evidences for holding the ruler accountable, for they are general evidences that include the ruler as well as others. Allah (swt) has commanded decisively the enjoining of Ma’ruf and the forbidding of Munkar. He (pbuh) says;

“And let there arise from amongst you a band of people inviting to all that is good (Khayr), enjoying what is right (Ma’ruf) and forbidding what is wrong (Munkar).” [TMQ Al-Imran: 104] He (swt) also says;

“You are the best of peoples, brought out for mankind enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong.” [TMQ Al-’Imran: 110] Allah (swt) says;

“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet who they find mentioned in their own scriptures, in the Taurat and Gospel, where He commands them with the right and forbid them of the wrong.” [TMQ Al-Araf: 157] And He (swt) says;

“Those who turn themselves to Allah in repentance, worship Him, praise Him, wander in devotion to the cause of Allah, they bow and prostrate, they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong and observe the limits put by Allah, so proclaim the glad tidings to the believers.” [TMQ At-Tauba: 112] And He (swt) says;

“There are those who if we establish them in the land, establish regular prayers (the Salah) and give the Zakat, enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.” [TMQ Al-Hajj: 41] In all these verses, Allah (swt) commands the enjoining of Ma’ruf (the right) and the forbidding of Munkar (the wrong). The command is combined with further indicators that confirm that the command is decisive, namely the praise, for He (swt) says;

“And those are the succesful ones.” [TMQ Al-’Imran: 104] He (swt) says;

“You were the best nation.” [TMQ Al-’Imran: 110] In another verse He (swt) says;

“And give glad tidings to the believers.” [TMQ At-Tauba: 112]

These all serve, as evidences that the command is decisive, which means that it are an obligation. Holding the ruler accountable is in fact enjoining Ma’ruf and forbidding Munkar, thus it is an obligation.

In addition, there are many Ahadith that indicate the obligation of enjoining Ma’ruf and forbidding Munkar. Huzayfah Ibnul Yaman reported that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“By Whom in Whose hand is my soul, you shall enjoin Ma’ruf and you shall forbid Munkar, or Allah may send His punishment upon you, then you will supplicate to Him and He will not answer your prayers.” [Narrated by Ahmed and al-Tirmithi] Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri reported: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“Whoever of you sees a Munkar should change it with his hand, and if He was unable then with his tongue, and if He was unable then He should abhor it by his heart and that is the weakest of Iman (belief).” [Narrated by Muslim] Ahmed narrated from Uday ibn Uday ibn Umairah Al-Kindi, who said; “I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say:

‘Verily Allah would not punish the common people because of the deeds of some specific people unless they witness the Munkar among them while they are able to deny it but do not do so. If they did this Allah would then punish both the common people and the specific people.’”

All of these Ahadith indicate the obligation of enjoining Ma’ruf and forbidding Munkar. They indicate the obligation of enjoining Ma’ruf towards the ruler and forbidding his Munkar. Without doubt, this means holding Him accountable for his actions. Furthermore, there are Ahadith which specifically relate to the ruler, confirming the obligation of holding Him accountable, thus stressing the importance of enjoining Ma’ruf towards the ruler and forbidding his Munkar. Ahmed narrated from Abi Sa’id, who said;

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said; ‘The best of Jihad is a word of truth before the tyrant ruler.’” Abu ‘Amama reported: “‘A man came to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) when He was about to throw the first Jamra (pebble), so He said; ‘O Messenger of Allah, which is the best Jihad?’ He  kept silent. When He (pbuh) threw the second Jamra, the man asked Him again. And again He (pbuh) did not answer. When He (pbuh) threw the Jamrat-ul-Aqaba - known also as Al Jamra Al Kubra - (the great Jamra), and put his foot in the stirrup to ride He said; ‘Where is the person who asked?’ The man said; ‘It is me O Messenger of Allah.’ He (pbuh) said; ‘A word of truth said before a tyrant ruler.’” [Narrated by Ibnu Majah and Ahmed] This is an explicit text about the ruler and about the obligation of saying the truth to his face. This includes holding the rulers accountable, struggling against those who withhold the citizens’ rights, neglect their duties towards their subjects, or ignore some of their affairs. It is a duty, for it is Allah’s command and is considered to be like the best of Jihad. It is as if He (pbuh) says; The best Jihad in the sight of Allah is to struggle against the tyrant rulers. This evidence alone is sufficient to prove the obligation of holding the rulers accountable. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has exhorted the struggle against the tyrant rulers, no matter how great the trials, even if it leads to the loss of life. It has been reported by Al-Hakim from Jabir from the Prophet (pbuh):

“The master of martyrs is Hamza, and a man who stood up to a tyrant ruler to advice Him and got killed.” This is of the most eloquent phrases in voicing the truth and exhorting the endurance of trials and harm which could even mean death, in the bid to hold the tyrant rulers accountable and struggle against them.

Published in Islamic Ruling System

Be the first to comment!

15.3 No obedience in sin

One matter that has been excluded from the obligation of obeying the ruler is when He orders a sin. This exclusion has been confirmed by text. Nafi’ reported on the authority of Ibnu ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“It is obligatory upon a Muslim that He should listen and obey whether He likes it or not, except when He is ordered to commit a sinful act. If He is ordered to do a sinful act, a Muslim should neither listen nor obey.” [Narrated by Muslim] The subject being addressed here is the case of a ruler ordering a Muslim to commit sin. It does not address the issue of a ruler being sinful. If the ruler committed the sin before you, without ordering you to commit it, you still have to obey him. Muslim reported on the authority of ‘Awf Ibnu Malik Al- Ashjai’, He said; “I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say:

‘The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you, and whom you pray for and they pray for you, and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.’We asked; ‘O Messenger of Allah, shall we not then declare war on them?’ He (pbuh) said; ‘No, as long as they establish prayer among you. Beware! Whoever has a Waali (ruler) appointed over Him and He saw Him commit an act of disobedience to Allah, He should hate the Waali’s act of disobedience to Allah, but should not withdraw his hand from obedience.’”

This serves as an evidence that what is intended by ordering a sinful act is ordering of the act itself by the ruler rather than the ruler himself committing it. If the ruler is seen committing a sin, it would not be lawful to disobey him, but if He ordered somebody to disobey Allah, then He should not be obeyed for there is no obedience to any created person in an act of disobedience to the Creator.

This is the only case when disobedience to the ruler is lawful and obligatory, namely when He orders a sinful act. It must be known without doubt that what has been ordered is truly a sin, such as if He orders one to take usury. If however, his order is to perform something that in his opinion is lawful but may be considered unlawful by others, He should be obeyed and it is not allowed to disobey him. This would not be considered an order to commit a sin, but an order to commit a lawful act. For instance, if one is ordered, against one’s own opinion, to have a photograph taken for an official transaction by the ruler, He should be obeyed. For the ruler deems that the Hadith of Ibnu ‘Abbas that prohibits photographing refers to the manual drawing and sketching, but does not apply to the photographic picture. Accordingly, this is evidence or probable evidence in his view. Therefore, his order to use a photographic picture in the official transactions or documents is not an order to commit a sin. He should therefore be obeyed and it would be unlawful to disobey him.

Published in Islamic Ruling System

Be the first to comment!

15.2 Obedience to the Muslim ruler who governs with Islam is compulsory

Obedience is compulsory upon Muslims for the Muslim ruler who implements the laws of Islam in his ruling, even if He did wrong or withheld the rights, as long as He does not order an act of disobedience (to Allah) and as long as He does not show an act of flagrant disbelief (Kufr Bawah)

Evidence about the obligation of obedience to the ruler is manifested in the Holy verses and the related Ahadith. Allah (swt) says;

“O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you.” [TMQ An-Nisa’: 59]

Al- Bukhari reported on the authority of Abu Salama Ibnu ‘Abdul Rahman that He heard Abu Hurayra say;

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said; ‘whoever obeyed me is as if He had obeyed Allah, and whoever disobeyed me is as if He had disobeyed Allah. And whoever obeyed my Ameer is as if He had obeyed me and whoever disobeyed my Ameer is as if He had disobeyed me.’” In another narration He was reported to have said;

“Whoever obeyed the Ameer is as if He had obeyed me.” Al- Bukhari narrated from Anas Ibnu Malik, who said;

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said; ‘You must hear and obey, even if it were appointed upon you an Abyssinian slave whose hair is like a raisin.’” Muslim narrated from ‘Amru bin Al-’Ass, that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“Whosoever gave his Bay’ah to an Imam giving Him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart let Him obey Him as long as He can, and if another comes to dispute with Him you must strike the neck of the latter.”

These are clear evidences that obedience is obligatory, for Allah (swt) has ordered the obedience to the people in authority, to the Ameer and to the Imam. This order has been associated with a Qareenah (indication), that it is decisive by the fact that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) considered the disobedience of the Ameer as disobedience to the Messenger (pbuh) and to Allah (pbuh). He (pbuh) emphasised obedience even if the ruler was an Abyssinian slave. All these serve as Qaraa’in (indications) that the order is decisive, thus the obedience of the ruler is obligatory.

The obedience has come unrestricted, not confined to a certain ruler nor to certain issues. It is therefore obligatory to obey any Muslim ruler, even if He were a wrongdoer, a rebel, or unjustly squandering people’s wealth. His obedience is obligatory, for the evidences have come unrestricted, and should remain so.

Some Ahadith have however been reported indicating that obedience to the ruler is obligatory even if the ruler did wrong, and even if He were a tyrant. Al- Bukhari narrated from ‘Abdullah, who said; “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said to us:

‘You shall witness after me selfishness and matters which you will disown.’ They said; ‘What do you order us, O Messenger of Allah?’ He said; ‘Give them their due right and ask Allah for your due right’.” Al-Bukhari also reported on the authority of Abu Raja’a from Ibnu ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“If anyone sees in his Ameer something that displeases Him let Him remain patient, for behold! He who separates himself from the Jama’a (community) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, He would have died the death of Jahiliyyah.”

These Ahadith are explicit regarding the obligation of obeying the ruler whatever He does. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) stressed this very strongly, for Muslim narrated from Nafi’ on the authority of ‘Abdullah Ibnu ‘Umar, who said; “I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say:

‘Whoever withdraws his hand from obedience to the Ameer will find no proof for himself when He meets Allah on the Day of Judgement, and whoever dies without having an oath of allegiance (Bay’ah) on his neck He would die the death of Jahiliyyah.’”

The Hadith of Ibnu ‘Umar as reported by Al-Hakim states that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“He who abandons the Jama’a by even so much as a hand span is as if He has taken the knot of Islam off his neck, until He returns. And whoever dies while there was no Imam of Jama’a ruling over him, his death would be that of the days of Jahiliyyah.”

It is thus forbidden to disobey the ruler whatever He does.

It is not allowed to disobey the ruler whatever He did, nor to rebel against Him or fight him, whatever happened from him. Al-Bukhari narrated from ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said; “He who takes up arms against us is not one of us.”

The ruler should not be disputed with over the authority whatever is the reason, except for what has been stated by a text, which is the appearance of the flagrant disbelief.

The prohibition of fighting against the rulers is also explicit, even if they committed Munkar. For Muslim reported on the authority of Umm Salama that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“‘Ameers will be appointed over you, you will recognise some of what they do and you will disown some. Whoever recognised He is absolved from blame.Whoever disapproved (of their bad deeds) He is safe, but whoever consented and followed them (he is doomed.)’ They said; ‘Should we not fight against them?’ He (pbuh) replied: ‘No, as long as they prayed.’” In a Hadith reported by Muslim from ‘Awf bin Malik “... It was said;

“‘O Messenger of Allah? Should we not fight against them?’ He said; ‘No, as long as they established prayer amongst you.’” Additionally in the narration of ‘Ubadah Ibnus-Samit regarding the Bay’ah as reported by Muslim:

“And you should not dispute with the people in authority unless you witness a flagrant act of disbelief upon which you have a proof from Allah.”

All these are explicit texts that prohibit the rebellion against the ruler, fighting against Him and disputing with Him over the authority. In addition, there are Ahadith that indicate the obligation of obeying the ruler no matter how much of a tyrant He is, and no matter how many evils He commits. All these Ahadith exhort and demand total obedience to the ruler. The unrestricted Ayaat and Ahadith that command the enjoining of Ma’ruf and the forbidding of Munkar even by hand do not apply to the ruler, because the Ahadith has specified this and excluded the ruler as mentioned earlier. The obedience of the ruler therefore, is general and unrestricted except where it is mentioned.

Published in Islamic Ruling System

Be the first to comment!

15.1 Islam forbids harming the Muslims and spying on them

Islam has forbidden the torturing and harming of people. Muslim narrated from Hisham bin Hakeem, who said; “I bear witness that I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say; ‘Allah will punish those who punish the people in the Dunya.’” He (pbuh) also said;

“There are two types of the people of Hellfire I have not seen yet; some people who have whips like the tails of oxes by which they flog the people.” [Narrated by Muslim from Abu Hurairah]

Islam has also forbidden the violation of people’s sanctities, dignity, funds and honour, and the dishonouring of the sanctity of their homes. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“All things of a Muslim are inviolable for his brother in belief: his blood, his wealth and his honour”, from a Hadith narrated by Muslim on the authority of Abu Hurairah. He (pbuh) also said while making Tawaf around the Ka’aba:

“How splendid you look, and how sweet is your scent. How grand you are and how grand is your sanctity. By Whom in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammed, the sanctity of the believer is greater to Allah than yours, (that is) his wealth and his blood, and not to think of Him except good.” [Narrated by Ibnu Majah on the authority of Ubaid Allah bin Amru] He (pbuh) also said;

“Abusing the Muslim is an aggression and fighting Him is disbelief.” [Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ood] He said regarding the sanctity of the houses;

“If a person were to cast a glance in your house without permission and you hit Him with a stone and thus gouged out his eyes, there would be no blame on you.” [Narrated by Muslim from Abu Hurairah] It has been reported on the authority of Sahl Ibnu Sa’d Al-Sa’idi that a man once peeped through the hole of the door of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was at the time scratching his head with a fork. He (pbuh) said;

“If I were to know that you had been peeping through the door, I would have thrust this into your eyes. Indeed , seeking permission was made to protect against the glance.” [Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim] He (pbuh) also said;

“He who peeps into some people’s house without their permission, it is allowed for them to gouge out his eye.” [Narrated by Ahmed from Abu Hurairah]

Islam has also forbidden spying on the Muslims, watching them, chasing them and looking into their confidential and personal news. It has also forbidden the Muslim from being a spy on other Muslims. Allah (swt) says;

“O you who believe, avoid suspicion as much as possible, for suspicion in some cases is a sin, and do not spy on each other.” [TMQ Al-Hujurat: 12]

The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“Avoid suspicion, for suspicion is the gravest lie in talk, and do not be inquisitive about one another and do not spy on one another, and do not turn one’s back to each other, do not hate each other, and be servants to Allah and be brothers.” [Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim from Abu Hurairah] And He (pbuh) also said;

“O you people who believed with your tongue, and Iman has not yet entered your hearts, do not backbite the Muslims, and do not search for their weaknesses. For He who sought the Awraat (the defects) of the Muslims Allah would follow his, and He whom Allah follows his Awra (defect), He would also expose Him even in his own home.” [Narrated by Ahmad from Abu Barza Al-Aslami]

The Ayah and the Ahadith forbid the Muslims from spying against the Muslims and from following their ‘Awraat’ (defects). They warn that He who follows the ‘Awraat’ (defects) of the Muslims, Allah will follow his Awraat (defects) and will expose him. Other Ahadith have been reported forbidding the Muslims from working for the intelligence agencies to spy on the Muslims. Al-Miswar reported that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“Whoever ate something by harming a Muslim, Allah will indeed feed Him the like of it from Jahannam. And whoever clothed himself with a dress by harming a Muslim, indeed Allah will clothe Him a dress similar to it in Jahannam.” [Narrated by Abu Dawood and Ahmad]

It is similarly forbidden to spy on the citizens from the people of the Dhimmah, for they are equal to the Muslims in terms of dealing and being dealt with fairly. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) ordered that the Dhimmah should be treated nicely and He forbade harming them, He (pbuh) said;

“He who harms a person under covenant, or charged Him more than He can, I will argue against Him on the Day of Judgement.” [Narrated by Yahya bin Adam in the book of Al-Kharaaj] ‘Umar said;

“I recommend to the Khaleefah after me to be good to those who are under the protection of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), He has to fulfil to them their covenant (oath), to fight for protecting them and to not be charged more than they can afford.” [Narrated by Yahya bin Adam] The Ayah and the Ahadith - although they are general about the unlawfulness of spying-exclude the spying against the belligerent disbelievers, whether they were actually or potentially belligerent. There are other Ahadith that specify the prohibition of spying to other than the belligerent disbelievers. Spying against the belligerent disbelievers is not forbidden, rather it is an obligation, and so the Islamic State must do that. This is because the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) sent ‘Abdullah bin Jahsh with eight bands of people from the Muhajireen, to Nakhla between Al-Taif and Makkah to monitor the movements of Qur’aysh and gather news about them. Spying against the disbelieving enemy is a matter that the Islamic armed forces and the Islamic State cannot do without.

Spying against the disbelieving enemies is a duty that the Islamic State must perform. It is also its duty to have a counter intelligence service to combat any spying it is subjected to by the disbelievers. This is because Al- Bukhari reported on the authority of Salama Ibnu Akwa’, who said;

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) encountered a spy while on a journey; the spy sat among some of the Prophet’s companions talking and then He snuck away. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said; ‘Go after Him and kill him.’ So I beat everyone to Him and I killed him, so the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) gave me the booty of that spy.’” Ahmed narrated an incident from Furat Ibnu Hayyan, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) ordered his killing. He was a spy, and an ally of Abu Sufyan and He passed by a circle of the Ansar and said; ‘I am a Muslim.’ A man from the Ansar said; ‘O Messenger of Allah (pbuh) He says that He is a Muslim.’ The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) replied; ‘There are men among you whom we entrust to their belief, and Furat Ibnu Hayyan is one of them.’”

Al- Bukhari reported on the authority of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (rta), who said;

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) sent me together with Az-Zubair and Al-Miqdad bin Al-Aswad, and said; ‘Go forth until you reach the garden of Khakh, you will find a tha’ina (a woman riding a camel) who is carrying a letter, so take it from her.’ We set off riding at high speed until we reached the garden, and we found the tha’ina. We said to her; ‘Get out the letter.’ She said; ‘I have no letter.’ We said; ‘Get it out or else we take off the dress. So she got it out of her braid and we brought it back to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh).” These incidents’ indicate that ruling in Islam is not an oppressive rule, and it is forbidden for it to be such, for oppressive ruling brings grave harm to the Muslims, contradicts the Shari’ah rules, and also disagrees with the Shari’ah principle that states

“no harming and no self-inflicted harm”, “La Dharara Wala Dhirar”.

It also indicates that it is forbidden for the Islamic State to set up an intelligence organisation to spy against the citizens, Muslims and non- Muslims alike, and that it is forbidden to harm them.

It is the duty of the State to set up an intelligence service in order to spy against the Kuffar and gather information about them and to combat the espionage they carry out against the State.

Published in Islamic Ruling System

Be the first to comment!

15 Islam forbids ruling by a police state

Ruling and authority in Islam mean running the affairs of the people by applying the Shari’ah rules. This is not the same as doing this by force, for force within the State is not designed to look after people, or to manage their affairs. Force is not the authority, although its existence, formation, administration and preparation do not come about without authority. Force is a physical entity that manifests itself in the shape of the armed forces-including the police force-with which the authority executes the rules, defeats the criminals and the rebels, oppresses the outlaws, curbs the aggressors and uses it as a tool to protect the authority and the concepts and thoughts on which it is founded and to convey them to the world.

This clearly demonstrates that the authority is not the same as force, although the authority could not survive without it. It also demonstrates that the force is other than the authority, although it cannot exist without it.

It is therefore unlawful for the authority to become a force, for if authority turned into force, its management of people’s affairs would be badly affected. This is because its concepts and criteria would become the concepts and criteria of coercion, oppression and dominance, and not the concepts and criteria of looking after the people’s affairs. Ruling would then turn into an oppressive rule that knows nothing but terror, dominance, oppression, coercion and blood shedding.

Similarly force should not turn into authority, because it would rule people by the concept of force, and it would run people’s affairs by the concepts of military rule and the criteria of suppression and coercion. In both cases, this would bring disaster and ruin and cause fear, terror and horror. It would lead the Ummah to the abyss, causing it great harm.

The military rule in the Arab and Islamic countries offer a clear example of this.

Published in Islamic Ruling System

Be the first to comment!

More...

14 Islam must be implemented as a whole. Gradual implementation is Haram

The Holy Qur’an was revealed to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) in parts according to the events and incidents, and each time a verse was revealed, He (pbuh) would convey it at once. If the verse contained a command, He (pbuh) and the Muslims would execute it at once and if the verse contained a prohibition, He (pbuh) and the Muslims would at once refrain and abstain from doing it. The implementation of the rules used to take immediate effect after their revelation, without any delay. The rule that was revealed would become due for implementation and execution the moment it is revealed, whatever the rule was, until Allah (swt) completed this Deen and revealed His (swt) saying;

“Today I have completed your Deen for you completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as your Deen.” [TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 3]

After the revelation of this verse, the Muslims became under the total obligation to implement and execute all the rules of Islam. Whether these were related to the Aqa’id (doctrines), the Ibadat (worships), the Akhlaq (morals), or the Mu’amalat (transactions). Whether these transactions were between the Muslims themselves, or between the Muslims and the ruler who rules over them, or between the Muslims and other peoples, nations and States. Whether these rules were related to the ruling, the economy, the social matters, or the foreign policy in peace and at war. Allah (swt) says;

“Whatever the Messenger brought you take it; and whatever He forbids you abstain from it. And fear Allah, for Allah’s punishment is very severe.” [TMQ Al-Hashr: 7]

This means to take and act by whatever the Messenger of Allahr has brought to you, and abstain and keep away from whatever the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has forbidden you. This is because the relative pronoun “Ma” (whatever) in the verse is of a general form. It therefore, contains the obligation to perform all the duties, and to abstain from and avoid all the prohibitions. The command mentioned in the verse is a decisive request, thus it is obligatory. This is deduced from the following command to observe piety and the threat of severe punishment for He who does not take whatever the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) brought and does not abstain from whatever He forbade. Allah (swt) also says;

“And judge between them according to what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their whims, and beware of them lest they tempt you away from some of that which Allah has revealed to you.” [TMQ Al-’Imran: 49]

This is a decisive command from Allah to His Messenger (pbuh), and to the Muslim rulers after Him (pbuh), confirming the obligation of ruling by all the rules that Allah (swt) has revealed, whether they were orders or prohibitions. This is because the word “Ma” (whatever) is of a general form, meaning that it includes all the revealed rules.

Allah (swt) had prohibited His Messenger (pbuh) and the Muslim rulers after Him from following people’s whims and from yielding to their desires, for He (swt) said;

“And do not follow their whims.” [TMQ Al-’Imran: 49]

Allah (swt) also warned His Messenger (pbuh) and the Muslim rulers after Him against falling prey to people’s temptations and from being lured away from the implementation of some of the rules that Allah (swt) has revealed. He (pbuh) was commanded to implement all the rules which Allah (swt) has revealed to him, whether they were orders or prohibitions, without paying attention to what the people want, for He (swt) says;

“And beware lest they tempt you away from some of that which Allah has revealed to you.” [TMQ Al-Ma’idah: 49] Allah (swt) also says;

“And those who rule by other than that which Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers.” [TMQ Al-Mai’dah: 44] In another verse He (swt) says;

“...they are the wrongdoers.” [TMQ Al-Mai’dah: 45] And in a third verse He (swt) says;

“...they are the rebels.” [TMQ Al-Mai’dah: 47]

Allah (swt) has labelled in these three verses those who do not rule by all the rules He (swt) has revealed as being disbelievers, wrongdoers and rebels. This is because “Ma” in the verses is of a general form, so it includes all the Shari’ah rules that Allah (swt) has revealed, whether they were commands or prohibitions.

Everything mentioned so far indicates clearly and conclusively, without a shadow of a doubt, that all the Muslims, whether they were individuals, groups or a State, are obliged to implement the rules of Islam as a whole as Allah (swt) ordered, without any delay, postponement or graduation. It also indicates that no individual, group, or a State has any excuse for not implementing the rules of Islam.

The implementation must be complete, comprehensive and simultaneous, and not gradual. The gradual implementation contradicts the rules of Islam totally, and it renders those who implement some of the rules and abandon some of the rules, sinful before Allah, whether they were individuals, groups or a State.

The duty is always and remains a duty and it must be executed, and the prohibition is always and remains a prohibition and it must be avoided. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) rejected the proposal of Thaqeef when they sent a delegation and offered to embrace Islam on condition that they could keep their idol Al-Lat for three years, and would be exempted from Salah. He (pbuh) completely rejected this, and insisted that the idol should be destroyed at once and that they should observe Salah without any delay.

Allah (swt) has made the ruler who does not implement all the rules of Islam, or the one who implements some of them and ignores others, a disbeliever if He did not believe in the validity of Islam, or if He did not believe in the validity of some of the rules of Islam. He (swt) also made Him a Dhaalim (wrongdoer) and a Fasiq (rebel) if He did not implement all the rules of Islam, or if He did not implement some of them without denying the validity of Islam for implementation.

The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) ordered the fighting and confronting of the ruler with force if He committed an act of flagrant disbelief. In other words, if He were to rule by the laws of disbelief of which there was no doubt, no matter how numerous or little these rules were. This treatment would be as mentioned in the Hadith of ‘Ubadah Ibnus-Samit;

“...and not to dispute with the people in authority, He said; unless you witness a flagrant act of disbelief about which you have proof from Allah.” There should be no complacency in the implementation of the Shari’ah rules, nor should there be any gradual implementation of the rules of Islam, for there is no difference between a Wajib and another Wajib, or between a Haram and another Haram, or between a Hukm (rule) and another Hukm. All the rules of Allah are equal, they must be implemented and executed without any delay, postponement or graduation, and otherwise the saying of Allah (swt) would apply to us when He (swt) says;

“Then it is only a part of the Book that you believe in and do you reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who believe like this but disgrace in this life and on the day of judgement they shall be consigned to the most grievious chastisement.” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 85]

There is no excuse whatsoever therefore for any State in the Islamic world today to not implement Islam under the pretext that it could not implement it, or claiming that the situation is not favourable for its implementation, or that the world opinion would not accept its implementation, or that the superpowers would not allow it, or any other excuses and weak arguments that carry no weight at all. Whoever hides behind such excuses should know that Allah would not accept these from him.

Published in Islamic Ruling System

Be the first to comment!

13.7 The right of speech and expression of opinion

Every member of the Council of the Ummah has the right to speak and voice an opinion as He wishes without any pressure and within the limits allowed by Shari’ah. The member would be a representative of the Muslims with responsibility for voicing opinions and in holding the rulers accountable. His job would be to study closely the activities of the Khaleefah or any ruler in the State or any civil servant in any of the State’s departments and offices. He holds all of them accountable, giving them advice, voicing opinions and presenting suggestions, and entering into debates with them, together with objecting to all the wrong actions performed by the State. He would do all this on behalf of the Muslims who are obliged to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, and to hold the rulers accountable, giving them advice and suggestions, because this is the duty upon the Muslims. Allah (swt) says;

“You are the best of peoples, raised up for mankind, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong.” [TMQ Al-’Imran: 110] And He (swt) says;

“They are those who, if we establish them in the land, establish regular prayers and give Zakat, enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.” [TMQ Al-Hajj: 41] Allah (swt) also says;

“And let there arise from amongst you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong.” [TMQ Al-Imran: 104]

Many Ahadith have been reported that indicate the obligation of enjoining the Ma’ruf and forbidding the Munkar, such as Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) saying;

“By He Who owns my soul, you must enjoin the Ma’ruf and forbid the Munkar, or Allah may inflict upon you a punishment from Him, you would then supplicate to Him and your supplication would go unanswered.” [Narrated by Ahmad on the authority of Huzayfah] He (pbuh) also said;

“If anyone among you sees a Munkar, let Him change it with his hand; if He could not, let Him then change it with his tongue; and if He could not, then with his heart, and that is the least of Iman.” [Narrated by Muslim on the authority of Abu Sa’id] These Ayaat (verses) and Ahadith command the Muslims to enjoin the Ma’ruf and forbid the Munkar. Holding the rulers accountable is part of enjoining of the Ma’ruf and forbidding of the Munkar. Some Ahadith in fact specifically order the holding of the rulers accountable, this highlights the importance of such a duty. Umm ‘Atyya reported on the authority of Abu Sa’id that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“The best of Jihad is a word of truth before a tyrant ruler.” This is a text regarding the censure of the ruler and the obligation of uttering the word of truth in his face, considering it as the best form of Jihad. Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) exhorted this type of Jihad and made it very desirable even if it led to the loss of life, as mentioned in the sound (Sahih) Hadith, where He (pbuh) said;

“The master of martyrs is Hamza, and a man who stood up to a tyrant ruler to advise him, and was killed.”

The Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them, did hold the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) accountable, and they held the Khulafaa’ Ar-Rashidoon accountable too. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not censure them for holding Him accountable nor did the Khulafaa’ Ar-Rashidoon. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) took the advice of Al-Habab bin Al-Munthir in the battle of Badr. At Uhud, He (pbuh) went along with the opinion of the majority who suggested that they should confront Qur’aysh outside Madinah, despite the fact that He (pbuh) saw otherwise. On the day of Hudaybiyah, the Muslims objected strongly, especially ‘Umar, and at Hunayn, where the Ansar were angered by the fact that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) handed out the booties to the new Muslims whom He wanted to win over their hearts to Islam, without allocating a share for them.

The Sahabah held ‘Umar accountable while He was standing on the pulpit because of the way He divided the Yemeni cloaks. A woman challenged Him when He tried to fix the doweries and the Sahabah also objected to his refusal to divide the lands of ‘Iraq, Ash-Sham and Egypt after they had been conquered. Bilal and Az-Zubayr where among the main objectors and ‘Umar debated with them and consulted other Sahabah until they were convinced.

Any member of the Council of the Ummah, as a representative of the Muslims at large, has the right to speak in the Council as He pleases, and to voice his opinion as He wishes, without any hindrance or pressure. He has the right to hold the Khaleefah accountable, as well as the Mu’awin, the Waali and any civil servant. They are obliged to answer Him as long as He is abiding by the rules of Shar’a in his role of holding the rulers accountable and of voicing his opinion.

Published in Islamic Ruling System

Be the first to comment!

13.6 The mandatory powers of the Council of the Ummah

The Council of the Ummah has mandatory powers and they are:

The Khaleefah has to consult the Council and the Council has the right to advise Him in the practical matters and actions that do not require investigation and scrutiny such as the matters of ruling, education, health, economy, trading, industry, farming and the like. The opinion of the Council in these matters is binding.

In the intellectual matters that require investigation and scrutiny, the technical and the financial matters together with the affairs of the armed forces and foreign policy, the Khaleefah has the right to refer to the Council for consultation and acquainting of its opinion. However the opinion of the Council is not binding.

The Khaleefah has the right to refer to the Council the laws and rules which He wants to adopt. The Muslim members of the Council have the right to debate them and voice their opinions regarding those rules. However, their opinion is not binding.

The Council of the Ummah reserves the right to hold the rulers accountable on all matters that take place effectively within the State, whether these are related to domestic affairs, foreign affairs, financial affairs or military matters. The opinion of the Council is binding if the majority’s opinion in such matters is binding, and it is not binding if the majority’s opinion in such matters is not binding.

If the Council and the Khaleefah differed about the legitimacy of an action that had been already executed, the matter should be referred to the court of Mazaalim to settle the question. Its verdict on the matter is binding.

The Council of the Ummah reserves the right to express discontent towards the Wulah or the ‘Aamileen. Its opinion in such case would be binding and the Khaleefah should dismiss them at once.

The Muslim members of the Council have the right to restrict the nomination of candidates for the Khilafah. Their opinion in such a matter is binding, and candidates other than those put forward by the Council should accordingly not be considered.

These are the mandatory powers of the Council of the Ummah.

The first article is divided into two sections. The evidence for section (a) is derived from Allah’s (swt) saying;

“And do consult them in the matter;” [TMQ Al-Imran: 159] And His (swt) saying;

“And their matter is in consultation between them.” [TMQ Ash-Shura: 38]

So He (swt) made the Shura general in every matter, for He (swt) says;

“In the matter,” [TMQ Al-Imran: 159] Where the term Al-Amr (the matter) it is a generic noun and defined by ‘Al’ (the). He (swt) says;

“And their matter” [TMQ Ash-Shura: 38]

Where the term Amruhum (their matter) is generic noun and defined by genetive and both terms are ‘Aam (general) so they include everything. However, this ‘Aamm term has been specified in matters other than the Ahkam Shar’iah. This is because the divine rules are revelation from Allah (swt) and there is no scope for the people’s opinion regarding matters brought down by revelation. For Allah (swt) alone is the Commander and the Legislator.

As for the evidence that the opinion of the council of the Ummah in the practical actions and matters, which do not require scrutiny and investigation is binding, this is derived from the acceptance of Rasool Allah (pbuh) of the opinion of the majority to go outside Madinah to confront the army of the Mushrikeen in the battle of Uhud. This is despite that his (pbuh) opinion and that of the senior Sahabah was to remain in Madinah and not to go out. It is also taken from his (pbuh) saying to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar “You (both) agreed on a Mashura, I would not disagree with you.”

As for the evidence for section (b), this is the choice made by the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) for the location of the Battle of Badr, based on the proposal of Al-Habab bin Al-Munthir, without consulting his companions over the matter to seek their opinion, let alone committing himself with that proposal. Thus the intellectual and the technical matters together with the finance, army and foreign affairs are referred to the opinions of the experts and the professionals without giving any weight to the opinion of the people whether they were minority or majority.

The fact that the Shura is over the Mubah things is a Qareenah (indication) that it is Mandoob (recommended). Indeed the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) used to refer to the honourable Sahabah over many matters and on many occasions to consult them and seek their opinion. Ahmad has reported from Anas that; “

The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) consulted (people) when He heard the news of the advent of Abu Sufyan.” Ahmad narrated from Anas, who said;

“The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) consulted when He went to Badr. Abu Bakr expressed his opinion to him. Then He consulted ‘Umar who expressed to Him his opinion. Then He consulted them, so some of the Ansar said; ‘The Prophet of Allah wants you to speak O folk of Al-Ansar.’ Some of the Ansar said; ‘Do you consult us O Prophet of Allah? We do not say as the children of Israel said to Musa (as); ‘You and your Lord go and fight, but we will stay at home’, but, by He who sent you with the Truth, if you were to take us to Bark al- Ghimaad, we would follow you.’” Regarding the captives of Badr, Ahmad reported on the authority of ‘Umar

“...the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) consulted Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Ali...” Ibnu Ishaq reported from Az-Zuhri, who said;

“When hardship increased on the people, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) sent to Uyayna bin Husn and Al-Harith bin Awf Al-Murri, the two leaders of Ghatafan, and He (proposed to) give them the third of the Madinah produce on condition that they return together with their folk, leaving (the fight against) Him and his companions. Agreement was reached between them to the point that they wrote that in a letter, without calling the witnesses and without the decision of concluding the peace except the negotiation over that. When the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) wanted to conclude that He sent to Sa’d bin Mu’az and Sa’d bin Ubadah. He mentioned the matter to them and consulted them...” Also, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) consulted his companions in the Battle of Uhud, whether to leave Madinah or stay in it. This is in addition to other consultations. Likewise Abu Bakr used to refer to the leaders of Al-Muhajireen and Al-Ansar and to their scholars to consult them. He consulted them over the issue of fighting against the apostates, those who refused to pay the Zakat and in the matter of invading the Romans besides other matters. ‘Umar and the Khulafaa’ after him, also used to refer to the people for their consultation and opinion.

People sometimes used opinions based on their own initiative, to advise the Khaleefah over some matters. This happened with Abu Bakr after He became Khaleefah and wanted to dispatch Usama with his army, when most of the Arabs apostasised from Islam. ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, Abu ‘Ubaydah, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas and Sai’d bin Zaid called on Him to advise Him not to send Usama, but He rejected their request. These incidents practiced by the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and the guided Khulafaa’ after Him occurred in front of the Sahabah. They indicate that Shura and referring to the people to consult them and seeking their opinion is Mandoobin Thereupon, it is Mandoob for the Khaleefah to return to the Council of the Ummah to consult it and seek its opinion over the various matters and actions.

When the Khaleefah refers to the Council of the Ummah to seek its opinion over the practical matters and the actions, He must commit himself to the opinion of the majority. This is based on the compliance of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) with the opinion of the majority in the Battle of Uhud, though his opinion and that of the Sahabah was different to that of the majority. He  gave up his opinion and that of the Sahabah and complied with the opinion of the majority. This indicates that in such an incident, which is the type of action that does not need study and scrutiny, the opinion of the majority of Muslims is adopted. It is also taken from the saying of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar as narrated by Ahmad from Ibnu Ghanam al-Asha’ri

“Had you agreed together in a Mashura I would not disagree with you.” The Mashura in this Hadith is itself Shura, which covers consultation in any practical matter or an action.

This is with regard to the part (a) from the first section. As for part (b) if the Khaleefah refers to the Council to seek its opinion in the matters of this part, the opinion of the council is not binding. Originally, the Khaleefah takes the opinion of the scholars, experts and professionals in the matters of this part as it occurred with the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) when He adopted the opinion of Al-Habab bin Al-Munthir regarding the selection of the place of the Battle of Badr. It was narrated in the Seerah of Ibnu Hisham that,

“When He (pbuh) camped at the near side of the water of Badr, Al- Habab bin Al-Munthir was not happy with this place. He said to the Messenger (pbuh); ‘O Messenger of Allah! Did Allah make you camp in this place where we can’t depart from it, or is it the opinion, war and strategy?’ He (pbuh) said; ‘It is rather the opinion, war and strategy.’ Al-Habab bin Al-Munthir said; ‘O Messenger of Allah, this is not the (right) place. Move the people till we come to the side of the water near to the people (enemy), we camp there, then we seep away the water from the other part, we build a basin on top of it, we fill it with water. Then we fight against the people where we drink and they do not.’ The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said; ‘You gave the (right) opinion.’ So the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and the Muslims stood up and walked till they reached the near side of the water from the enemy and camped there. Then He (pbuh) ordered that the water be seeped away which was done. He  built a basin on top of the seeped wells, where it it was filled with water and they threw in their (water) pots.” So the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) agreed with the opinion of al-Habab and followed it.

In this incident, which has to do with the opinion, war and strategy, the views of the people have no weight in taking the decision. Rather the view of the expert is what is considered. Similar to this are the technical matters and the thoughts that require study and scrutiny, together with the definitions. In all of such matters, reference is made to the experts and professionals and not to the ordinary peoples’ opinion. There is no weight to the majority for such matters, but rather to those with knowledge, experience and specialisation.

This also applies to the financial matters, because the Shar’a has determined the types of funds which must be collected, and the areas over which they need to be spent. The Shar’a has also determined the cases in which taxes are imposed, therefore there is no point in seeking the opinion of the people in the collection and allocation of the funds. Similar to this is the army, the Shari’ah has left to the Khaleefah the right of managing the army’s affairs, and it determined the rules of Jihad. There is no validity in the opinion of the people over matters decided by the Shar’a. This also applies to the relationship of the State with other States, because this is of the thought that requires study and deep insight and is related to Jihad. Furthermore, it is a part of the opinion, war and strategy. Therefore, there is no point in the opinion of the people in this matter whether it is the majority or minority. However, the Khaleefah is allowed to present these matters to the Council of the Ummah for its consultation and opinion, because such presentation is of the Mubah, and the opinion of the Council in these matters is not binding as in the incident of Badr.

With regard to the second section, although what the Khaleefah wants to adopt of rules and Canons is of his duties, and the opinion of the council regarding these matters is not binding, the Khaleefah has the right to refer to the Council of the Ummah to ascertain their opinion over the divine rules and canons which He wants to adopt. This is similar to what ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab (rta) did when He referred to the Muslims over the divine rules, which the Sahabah did not object to, as in the incident of the conquered lands of Iraq, when the Muslims asked Him to divide the lands amongst the fighters who opened them. Hence ‘Umar asked the people, but his opinion settled on keeping the land with its landlords on condition that they pay a known Kharaj over it in addition to paying the jizyah over their persons. The reference of ‘Umar and Abu Bakr before Him to the Sahabah for their opinion over the divine rules without an objection from the Sahabah to this, indicates their Ijmaa’ (consensus). This is evidence that the Khaleefah has the right to refer to the Muslims to seek their opinion over the divine rules when He does not find texts about them in the Kitab of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, or He finds them difficult to understand or when He wants to adopt them. Their opinion in all of these matters is not binding to the Khaleefah.

The non-Muslim members of the Council do not have the right to look into what the Khaleefah wants to adopt of rules and canons because of their disbelief in Islam. Their right is in voicing their opinion of the injustice of the rulers towards them, and not in expressing of their opinion over the divine rules and canons.

With regard to the third section, its evidence is the general meaning of the texts related to bringing the rulers to task. Ahmad narrated from Ibnu ‘Umar, who said the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“There will be ‘Umara over you who order you of things they do not do. Whoever believed them in their lies and helped them in their injustice He would not belong to me nor I belong to him, and He will not join me on the Hawdh (basin).” Ahmad narrated from Abu Said al-Khudri, who said; “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“...the best of Jihad is (to say) a word of truth before an oppressor ruler.” Al-Haakim narrated from Jaber from the Prophet (pbuh) who said;

“The master of martyrs is Hamza bin ‘Abdul-Muttalib and a man who stood to an oppressor ruler where He ordered Him and forbade Him so He (the ruler) killed him.” Muslim narrated on the authority of Awf bin Malik al-Ashja’i that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“Beware! Whoever gets a Waali over Him and He saw Him (the Waali) commit some sin (disobedience to Allah), He has to hate that sin but must not withdraw his hand from obedience.” Muslim narrated from Umm Salamah that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said;

“There will be Ameers Appointed over you, you recognise some of what they do and deny some. Whoever recognised He is absolved from blame. Whoever disapproved (of their bad deeds) He is safe. But whoever consented and followed them (he is doomed).” These texts are general in their wording and indicate that accounting is over any action. When the Sahabah opposed the Messenger (pbuh) over the Hudaibiyah treaty contract, and they strongly contested with him, He (pbuh) did not rebuke them for their disagreement. He (pbuh) rather rejected their opinion and concluded the peace contract, because what He did was revelation from Allah (swt) and there is no weight for the people’s opinion in such matters. He (pbuh) rebuked them because they did not obey his order when He asked them to slaughter the sacrificed animals (Al-Hadi) and shave their heads and break their Ihram. The Messenger (pbuh) did not also rebuke al-Habab bin Al-Munthir in Badr when He objected to the place of camping chosen by the Messenger (pbuh), rather He (pbuh) followed his opinion. This accounting by the Council to the Khaleefah and other assistants, governors and ‘A’mils would be over an action which has been actually executed whether this action disagreed with the divine rule, was wrong or harmful to Muslims, or was unjust or complacent toward the citizens in looking after their affairs. The Khaleefah must respond to this accounting and the objections by showing his view and evidence regarding the words, actions and tasks He undertook so that the Council can be assured of the good performance, the sincerity and honesty of the Khaleefah. If however the Council does not accept the view of the Khaleefah and rejects his argument, this must be examined. If this matter was of the issues over which the majority opinion is binding then the opinion of the Council is binding, otherwise it would not be.

It is not correct to ask; “What is the value of accounting the Khaleefah when He is not obliged to act according to this accounting?” This is because accounting is a divine rule that has to be performed, and it is a duty of sufficiency. Furthermore the nature of accounting is that it reveals information about the opinion, and clarifies it. It also warns the public opinion and arouses it, for the public opinion is more powerful than the armies, and the rulers everywhere fear it. Therefore, accounting is of great value.

If those who account differed with the rulers over any matter from the legal point of view, the matter is referred to the court of unjust acts (Al- Mazaalim) by a request from the Council, due to what Allah (swt) says;

“O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you. If you disputed over a matter refer it to Allah and the Messenger.” [TMQ An-Nisa’a: 59]

This means that if the Muslims dispute with the people of authority over a matter, they should refer it to Allah and to the Messenger, that is to arbitrate with the Shar’a. This means to refer to Judiciary, that is to the court of unjust acts and its opinion is binding.

With regards to the fourth section, its evidence is that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) removed al-’Ala’a bin Al-Hadhrami, his ‘Aamil over Bahrain, because the delegate of ‘Abd Qais complained about Him to the Messenger (pbuh). Ibnu Sa’d narrated on the authority of Muhammad bin ‘Umar:

“That the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) wrote to al-Ala’a bin Al-Hadhrami to come to Him with twenty men from ‘Abd Qais. He reached Him with twenty men headed by ‘Abdullah bin Awf al-Ashajj, and appointed after Him Al-Munthir bin Sawa. The delegate complained of al-Ala’a Al-Hadhrami so the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) removed Him and appointed Iban bin Said bin Al-’Aass and said to him: ‘Take care of ‘Abd Qais and respect their chiefs.’” Also ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab removed Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas from the Wilayah just because of the complaint of the people against him, and He said; “I did not remove Him because of deficiency or treason”, This indicates that the people of the Wilayah have the right to express their anger and discontent of their Wulah and Ameers, and the Khaleefah thus has to remove them. Likewise, the Council of the Ummah is allowed, as a representative of all Muslims in the State, to express its anger and discontent of the Wulah and ‘Aamils and the Khaleefah has to remove them immediately.

With regards to the fifth section, the proof is that the Muslims asked ‘Umar, when He was stabbed and was close to death, to appoint somebody after him, but He rejected their request. They repeated the request, so He nominated six persons. This was an Ijma’a Sakooti (consent by silence), which is evidence that Muslim members of the Council of the Ummah have the right to shortlist the nominees for the post of Khilafah, and their opinion in this matter is binding. It was proved that ‘Umar assigned fifty men to watch the six men He nominated, and He ordered them to kill anyone of them who opposed the chosen successor. He also assigned to the six, three days, a matter which indicates obligation. As for non-Muslim members, they have no right in shortlisting the nominees, because the Bay’ah is specific to Muslims.

Published in Islamic Ruling System

Be the first to comment!

13.5 Membership of the Council of the Ummah

MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL OF THE UMMAH

Any person who holds the citizenship of the State, if He was mature and sane, has the right to be a member of the Council of the Ummah and the right to elect the members of the Council, whether the person was a man or a woman, a Muslim or non-Muslim. This is because the Council of the Ummah is the people’s representative in opinion only, and has no mandate to rule and legislate. Since the Council is the representative in voicing opinions, people in the Islamic State have the right to delegate whomever they wish from among those who lawfully qualify as representatives. This is just like the Muslim and the non-Muslim has the right to voice his opinion regarding the misapplication of the rules of Islam on him, and regarding any possible unjust act perpetrated against Him by the ruler. He therefore has the right to have any representative He wishes and to represent anyone He wishes. Accordingly, the representative and the represented do not have to be Muslims; they can be either Muslims or non-Muslims. This is why it is permitted for non-Muslims, just as it is for Muslims, to elect their representatives to the Council of the Ummah, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, as long as they hold the citizenship of the State.

Beside this, Islam looks upon the subjects under its authority from a purely human viewpoint, regardless of their sect, race, or sex. The ruling policies designed for them would be founded on this basis, so that the ruling is for the benefit of humanity, thereby taking it out of the darkness into the light. The citizens are thus equal in terms of rights and duties related to the human in his capacity as a human, as far as the implementation of the divine rules on everyone is concerned. When the judge settles the disputes and when the rulers rule, they cannot differentiate between people, they must treat them as equals in their quality as citizens and nothing else. Each citizen therefore has the right to voice his opinion and to choose his representative to express his opinion and those who elected him. This is because Allah (swt) has addressed all people with Islam in their quality as humans and nothing else. He (swt) says;

“O you people, a proof has come to you from your Lord, and we have revealed to you a shining light.” [TMQ An-Nisa’: 174] And He (swt) also says;

“O you people, I am the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) sent to all of you.” [TMQ Al- A’raf: 158]

The scholars have agreed, especially the scholars of Usul (foundations), that the divine rules are addressed to every sane person able to understand the speech, whether He is Muslim or not, male or female. This is as far as the non-Muslims are concerned. As regards the membership of Women to the Council of the Ummah, this is because the Council of the Ummah is not part of ruling and is not subject to the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) which relates to the woman’s guardianship. It has also been confirmed that when ‘Umar had a problem brought to his attention and He wanted to consult the Muslims about it, whether the problem was related to the divine rules (legislation) or related to ruling or any other matter that concerned the State, He would summon the Muslims to the Masjid, and He would summon both men and women and ask them all for their opinion. He, on one occasion, reversed his opinion when a woman pointed out to Him that it was wrong to fix the Doweries. In the thirteenth year of the Messenger of Allah’s (pbuh) Prophethood, the year He emigrated, there came to the Him (pbuh) seventyfive Muslims, among whom were two women, and they all gave Him the second Bay’ah of Al-’Aqaba, which was a Bay’ah of war and fighting and a political Bay’ah. Once they had all given their Bay’ah, He said to them;

“Bring me twelve Chiefs (Nuqaba’a) from among you who would be responsible for themselves and their folk.” This order was addressed to everyone, to select from among everyone present. He (pbuh) did not specify whether they should be men or women and He did not exclude the women, neither in regard to who was to select, nor to who should be selected. The Mutlaq (unrestricted) rule should be taken as such, unless there is evidence that restricts it, and the A’aam (general) rule should also be taken as such, unless there is evidence that specifies it. In this case the speech was unrestricted and general. No evidence of specification or restriction has been reported, which indicates that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) ordered the two women to elect the Nuqabah (Chiefs), and gave them the right to be chosen as Nuqabah from amongst the Muslims. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) sat once to take the Bay’ah from the people, with Abu Bakr and ‘Umar sitting with him, and both men and women gave Him the Bay’ah. This Bay’ah was one on ruling and not on Islam, for the women were already Muslims. After the Bay’ah of the Ridhwan in Hudaybiyah the women gave Him their Bay’ah too. Allah (swt) says;

“O Prophet! When believing women come to you to take the oath that they will not associate in worshipping any other thing whatsoever with Allah, that they will not steal, that they will not commit adultery).” [TMQ Al-Mumtahinah: 60] This Bay’ah was also over ruling, because the Qur’an pre-determined that they were believers, and the Bay’ah was over not disobeying Him in any ma’roof.

Moreover, the woman has the right to delegate somebody in voicing her opinion, and for somebody to delegate her, because she has the right to voice her opinion, so she can choose her representative over it. It is also because the Wakala (representation) does not necessitate manhood, thus she has the right to represent others.

Despite all this, non-Muslims would not be allowed to voice their opinion in matters related to legislation, because the Islamic legislation emanates from the Islamic ‘aqeedah. It is a host of practical divine rules deduced from their elaborate evidences, which treat the human’s problems according to a specific viewpoint outlined by the Islamic ‘aqeedah. The non-Muslim embraces a doctrine that is alien and contradictory to the Islamic ‘aqeedah, and his viewpoint about life contradicts the Islamic viewpoint, so his opinion is not sought in matters of legislation.

The non-Muslim does not have the right to elect the Khaleefah, nor to participate in the short listing of the candidates from whom the Khaleefah is to be elected, for He has no right in the ruling. As for other matters that form part of the Council of the Ummah’s mandatory powers, He is just like the Muslim in these matters and in voicing an opinion regarding them.

Published in Islamic Ruling System

Be the first to comment!

Start
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Next
End

Page 1 of 7

@2023 System of Islam.