There are two fundamental reasons the Ummah is being urged to vote, the week before the election many mosques across Europe urged the Ummah in Europe to vote during the Jummah Khutbah's, Imams across Europe have been arguing that its in the Muslims interest to vote. Some have argued that the Muslim community needs to elect their representatives as we have interests in Europe and these can only be achieved if Muslims elect their representatives. Fundamentally Muslim interests cannot be achieved by not entering the democratic parliamentary system.
Muslims are also being urged, incidentally by the mainstream political parties that by not voting the Ummah will be allowing far right parties into power. In a joint Statement, in the UK, some scholars endorsed and urged the Ummah to vote: "On June 4, we have an added responsibility to vote in the European elections. For the first time, openly anti-Muslim parties have a very real chance of gaining national prominence by winning a seat in the European Parliament. They will join Islamophobes from continental Europe to further perpetuate their message of hate against Muslims. In the past, their leaders have described Islam as "a vicious, wicked faith" and have falsely accused Muslims of all sorts of crimes. Their words have led to racist violence - if they get elected on 4 June, they will have public funding that will only amplify their vicious Islamophobia."
There are fundamental shari'ah violations when one votes for a kufr party whatever the perceived benefit as Allah سبحانه وتعالى told us:
وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
"Those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed, then they are the Kafiroon." [Al-Maaida, 5:47]
Such arguments do not stand up against historical facts when scrutinised. The Muslims in the UK are the most established community in Europe and are the best example to scrutinise."Those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed, then they are the Kafiroon." [Al-Maaida, 5:47]
When Muslims first arrived on British shores they experienced a British population with ingrained racism, this forced Muslim into there own enclaves and to work collectively to fulfil there needs and interests. In Many areas of the UK local community centres were booked in order to hold Jummah prayers and Eid Salah. Many elders collected funds and paid for houses which would be used as makeshift mosques. This eventually allowed many communities to expand such properties and turn them into official mosques. Another challenge the Ummah faced was of Halaal food. This was solved by many Muslim meat specialists purchasing the necessary equipment through raising funds from the Muslim community. The Muslim community came together and raised the necessary funds to achieve there interests.
The scaremongering of the far right British National Party is not a new style used by British government. Muslims are being urged if they do not vote than the BNP, a racist party, with the only policy of expelling Muslims will get into power. Whilst the BNP may have some support amongst a minority of the white population closer scrutiny shows that the government is in fact deflecting attention away from their own anti-Islamic policies.
It was not the BNP that lied to the public and launched the war in Iraq, massacring Muslims. It was not the BNP that took Britain into Afghanistan to support America's crusade. It was the government not the BNP that developed the anti-terror laws, which makes illegal criticism of Britain's foreign policy and bans Islamic groups who speak out against such acts. It was the government that enacted a policy of stop and search (harassment) against any Muslim who looks to be practicing Islam. Whilst the BNP have made many anti-Islamic remarks, the rise of the BNP which is openly racist is an indictment on the morally and politically bankrupt democratic system. Like the BNP mainstream political parties in the UK including the party in power have consistently shown their hatred for Muslims in the UK. Cabinet ministers have openly mocked Islam. It was a cabinet minister that remarked the Niqab was a mark of separation. It was Charles Clark, Home secretary that remarked there would be no negotiation about the Shari'ah and the Khilafah.
The Labour party and Conservatives have worked collectively to attack Islam and defame Muslims at every opportunity like the BNP
The Muslims Ummah should realise that since the first Muslims arrived in Europe working collectively has successfully delivered time and time again. Since the first Muslim MP's entered into Parliaments across Europe nothing beneficial for the Ummah has been achieved, the vote for the Iraq war in the UK is a vivid example. Whilst many may have entered the political process with sincere aims the parliamentary system and its protection of national interests show that very few have remained sincere to there original intentions.
The last 5 years have shown that rather than then the far right attacking Islam it was mainstream political parties that led the attack. It was the French leader Jacques Chirac that implemented the policy of banning the Hijab in France. It was the Labour government of the UK that accuses the Muslims of the UK not integrating. It was the Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen who protected Jyllands-Posten's freedom to insult the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Across Europe whether the parties are far right or mainstream all have shown their colours. The Ummah needs to collectively work to secure its needs and interests as she has currently done - this path has proven to be successful at protecting the Ummah's identity. ]]>
Barack Obama's speech in Egypt has been hailed by some as a new direction in policy towards the Muslim world. Although this appears a seemingly positive gesture towards the Muslim world, the actions of his government appear every bit as ruthless as the Bush administration. He differs only to the extent that, unlike Bush who spoke with frank hatred, he uses ‘soft power' and personal charm to cover his intentions. Instead of the rhetoric, let us look at the facts:
On Pakistan: In his first few months in office, Obama's administration has succeeded in creating 3 million refugees by pushing the corrupt Zardari regime to launch a war in Swat. Even before he took office he declared Pakistan the most dangerous place on earth, and said he would even bomb Islamabad if he had to. His whole policy in the region is driven by trying to secure America's foothold in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and fighting a popular insurgency - except he has decided to sacrifice Pakistan's soldiers instead of American ones. We have even seen evidence of dirty tricks of the sort used by the CIA in Iraq or Central America, to instil hatred and division between Muslims and Obama has continued US drone attacks in Pakistan.
On Palestine: Obama boasts he wants to see the ‘road-map' implemented towards securing a Palestinian state. People seem positive because he seeks to challenge the Israeli politicians who oppose this. However, what people forget in this propaganda about the ‘road-map' is that this so-called Palestinian state will be little more than a glorified prison camp, where the guards are Palestinian instead of Israeli - because if they did not keep Israel's security to a standard it is happy with, it will simply invade again.
On supporting Israel: Obama appointed, Rahm Emanuel, the son of an Israeli Irgun terrorist, as his Chief of Staff. Emanuel has said that Obama did not need his influence to "orientate his policy toward Israel". This is true because before he was elected, Obama said "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defence relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defence programs". Moreover, he went further than any US President saying, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided." His response to Israel's massacre in Gaza was "America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats."
On Guantanamo Bay and torture: Obama has promised to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, and most people had expected the military tribunals to end. However, many of the Guantanamo prisoners will remain imprisoned elsewhere, and he has decided to continue with the very controversial military tribunals. Although he has made a lot of rhetoric of the CIA being banned from using torture, he has decided not to prosecute anyone who carried out torture in the past, and he has not ruled out using evidence gained through torture in other parts of the world.
On imprisonment without trial: In May 2009 Obama went on record [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY&feature=topvideos"]supporting indefinite detention[/ame] without trial in the USA. He used very Bush-like language saying there are some "very dangerous people" where there is not enough evidence to convict, so they needed to be locked up.
On Supporting tyrants and criminal rulers in the Muslim world: Obama is as supportive of the tyrants and criminal rulers in the Muslim world as any of his predecessors. In his recent BBC interview he described Mubarak, the Pharaoh of Egypt, who tortures and represses his opponents saying "he's been a stalwart ally to the US... he's been a force for stability and good in the region". He also praised Mubarak's "sustained peace with Israel" which included blockading the people of Gaza from getting help and humanitarian relief.
Muslims should not be deceived by Obama's words. The United States of America is a Capitalist state. Its institutions are geared towards maintaining America's power around the world, even if they have to exploit others in the process; they are geared to crush any competitor to America in the world, even if it means people have to live under occupation and tyranny. So regardless of whether it is Bush, Obama or anyone else, fundamental US interests and policies will never change.
The real reason why Obama is making these gestures is to improve America's image as it is both economically and morally bankrupt. Its economic system has been exposed as a fragile house of cards, ready to collapse at any time. Despite their promises of creating wealth to relieve poverty, they have made poverty a reality for billions. Its superior moral tone about its political system - democracy and human rights - has been exposed as nothing more than lies, as it killed, imprisoned and tortured people without limit.
What Obama is trying to do is a desperate attempt to thwart the rise of an alternative and rival in the Muslim world. The CIA predicted that by 2020 the world would see the emergence of a new Khilafah State in the Muslim world. This would be a state that would not create the terror unleashed by the United States, but a state that would end occupation and bring stability and security in the Muslim world. It is a state that would have an economic system to help end poverty and bring tranquillity to the world. It is a state that would uphold the Shariah of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the dignity of His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, and the well being of its citizens.
What is required by Muslims all over the world is to continue working, following the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, to remove the corrupt rulers that the Western leaders court, and re-establish the leadership for the Muslim Ummah, the Khilafah State, once again.
وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُم فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّن بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا وَمَن كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ
"Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion - the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace: 'They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me. 'If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked" [An-Nur, 24:55]
]]>They have then used the profits to buy a new home to restart the whole process. They have been found to be charging gardening bills, maintenance of their swimming pools and basic food items and toiletries to the taxpayer.When exposed they offered little remorse, claiming that they had all acted ‘within the rules’.
The most startling case was that of Jacqui Smith, the British Home Secretary whose husband was found to be watching pornography paid for by the British taxpayer! She was followed by Hazel Blears, Michael Gove, David Davis and a host of others whose names were exposed in the scandal.
The attitude of British politicians towards their abuse of public funds was summed up by MP Harry Cohen, who topped the expenses chart by claiming a massive £310,000, on a second-home allowance. He said,”When MPs were given this allowance they were told “Go and spend it, boys” and that is what I have done. It is my right.” When challenged to clean up the system, the House of Common’s Speaker Michael Martin was reported to have said “I did not come into politics not to take what is owed to me.’
This ‘right’ to abuse taxpayers’ money is not confined to simply one or two MP’s.An investigation by the Sunday Telegraph found that 65 MP’s are claiming expenses for a second home while earning rental income from letting out a third.These politicians - one in ten of all MPs -claimed between them almost £6 million since records on expenses began in 2001, an average of £85,000 each.
The Mail on Sunday summed up nicely the actual problem with British politicians. “The next most startling aspect of the problem is how few MPs - supposed to be beyond reproach - seem to have any strong sense of right and wrong, or any ability to resist temptation. People whose job it is to make the law are plundering the public purse because there is nothing in the rules to say they should not do so…Men and women who went into politics with honest intentions see all this going on around them and, unless they are exceptionally strong-willed, are swiftly drawn into the swamp of tax-funded greed.”
It’s the core western values of freedom and benefit which give rise to no “strong sense of right and wrong, or ability to resist temptation” that is at the root of government corruption not just in Britain but the entire world today including the Muslim world.
When Westminster politics is riddled with corruption how can anyone believe that these Western governments can ever bring a corruption free and accountable government in the Muslim world?
In Pakistan the current President Asif Zardari, the latest ‘ally in the war on terror’, was previously imprisoned for corruption and siphoning off public funds, so much so that he was given the title “Mr 10%”. Now he is President of the country who knows what percentage he will be known by at the end of his tenure?
SO HOW DID ISLAM ENSURE A CORRUPTION FREE POLITICS?
Whilst politics according to the western way of life is about power, ego, showbiz and material benefit emulated so well by the long list of rulers in our countries, Islam established politics as one of the highest responsibilities.
Politicians in Islam, whether they hold government posts or not, have a completely different viewpoint towards politics and their role within the state. Politics in Islam concerns looking after the affairs of people.The politician is the one who is a servant of the Ummah.They do not take any government post with the aim of achieving personal benefit. Rather they see their position as a responsibility that they will be questioned about on the Day of Judgment.
It is narrated that Abu Hurayrah said:”A man gave as a gift to the Messenger of Allah (salallahu alaihi wa-salam) a slave who was called Mid’am.Whilst Mid’am was bringing down a saddle for the Messenger of Allah (salallahu alaihi wa-salam), an arrow came out of nowhere and killed him.The people said, “How fortunate he is! Paradise is his,” but the Messenger of Allah (salallahu alaihi wa-salam) said, “No, by the One in Whose hand is my soul, the cloak which he took from the war-booty on the day of Khaybar before the booty had been shared out will burn him with fire.” When the people heard that, a man came and brought one or two shoelaces to the Prophet (salallahu alaihi wa-salam) and said, “A shoelace of fire” or “Two shoelaces of fire.” [Bukhari & Muslim]
The war-booty (ghaneema) is one of the revenues of the Islamic State and part of the public funds. If someone was punished simply for stealing a piece of cloth from the public funds, what about the rulers in the Muslim world who have stolen $billions of oil and natural resources from the ummah?
So the first and foremost way to resolve the corruption in our countries is to remove the corrupt political culture that is dominant in our societies.Today the corrupt system ensures that only the most evil, corrupt and ruthless people win in the so called ‘free and fair’ democratic elections overseen by the west.The corrupt political system that breeds corrupt politicians needs to be uprooted and a new system of politics established where only those sincere, trustworthy and upright individuals who have a track record of sacrifice for the ummah and are known in society for their iman and tawqa, run for positions of responsibility within
Building on al-Mawardi’s classical work Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Hizb ut-Tahrir’s book Nidham ul-Hukm fil-Islam describes in great detail two institutions that are tasked with addressing government corruption. The first institution is an independent, powerful, judicial court called the Mahkamat al-Mazaalim (Court of Unjust Acts).The second is an elected house of peoples’ representatives called the Majlis ul-Ummah (Council of the Ummah), whose decisions on certain affairs of state (not legislation) the Khaleefah is constitutionally obliged to accept.
The Mahkamat al-Mazaalim contains judges whose sole responsibility and expertise is government oppression (Mazlema), constitutional law and legislation. Unlike a standard court the judge (Qadi al-Mazaalim) has investigatory powers and can initiate a court case without a plaintiff. This court has the power to oblige government officials including the Khaleefah to pay back any money they took from public funds. Mismanagement of the public properties such as oil wealth or the imposition of unjust taxation on the people can all be investigated by this court and practically resolved through issuing a judgement that the officials must abide by.
Ibn ‘Umar said that when ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab was in need, he used to go to the man in charge of the Bait ul-Mal and seek a loan from him. Often he might be in difficulty and the man in charge of the public treasury would come to him, seeking repayment of the debt and would oblige him to pay it, and ‘Umar would be evasive to him.Then often ‘Umar would receive his stipend and so pay his debt.[ Suyuti, Tarikh al-Khulafa]
The Majlis ul-Ummah is comprised of elected representatives of the people who are voted in every five years.These representatives can be men, women, Muslim or non-Muslim.Accountability of government officials is one of the Majlis’s central tasks. It has the power to hold any government official accountable on all matters related to the state, and some of the Majlis’s decisions will be binding on the Khaleefah to enact.
In addition to the above institutions, Islam puts a burden on every individual in society to take care about the public affairs. Islam encourages and obliges on each and every Muslim to enjoin the good and forbid the munkar in society.
Furthermore Allah (SWT) encourages groups and parties to be established within the society to enjoin the good and forbid the munkar. “And let there be from among you a group(s) who invite to goodness, and command right conduct and forbid what is evil. Such are they who are successful.” [Ayat surah Al-Imran 104]
The famous example of the man who accounted Umar al-Khattab about the length of his shirt indicates the consciouness within people to account the rulers and hold them to task.
Government corruption in Britain or the Muslim world can never be resolved whilst the politicians hold on to the Capitalist values of freedom and benefit. No matter how many anti-corruption mechanisms they put in place, politicians will always find clever ways to hide their abuses.
Only when sincere Islamic politicians take the reins of power in the Muslim world, and establish a righteous Islamic government, the Khilafah will we again see rulers like Umar bin Abdul-Aziz who was so careful not to abuse the public funds that he wouldn’t even use a candle paid for from the Bait ul-Mal for his own personal use. ]]>
To counter the growing negative opinion within the Ummah regarding the Malakand operation, American agencies have adopted lowly acts of aggression. The recent bomb blast in Lahore in front of the buildings of ISI and Rescue 15 is one such example. Hizb ut-Tahrir strongly condemns the bomb blast, perpetrated at the behest of the Americans and demands that the ISI and the Army give a befitting response. The practical way of doing this is that they give Nusrrah to Hizb ut-Tahrir for the establishment of the Khilafah, which will not only liberate the Muslims from American oppression, but the whole world.
Any observer of the political events of Pakistan knows that today’s incident only serves American interests. Especially when the heart-breaking stories of the displaced Muslims of Swat and the innocent civilians trapped in Buner and Dir have now started to make their way to the press. As time passes, the horror of the oppressive American operation has started to become more and more obvious to the Ummah. The masses have started to understand that whether it was the video of lashing a woman or images of destroyed schools, the actual purpose was to generate hatred against the militants and then directing it to start a military operation against the innocent people of Swat. People have also started to realise that the real target of America was not these few thousand militants, but rather the three million people of Swat who were driven out of their homes and forced to live under blazing sun along with their women, children and the elderly. People have started to understand that bombing a city with artillery and fighter jets, or starving the trapped civilians by enforcing curfew or providing virtually no facility for a common man to flee from the battle ground is not the way to fight the militants. Even India did not employ such tactics in Kashmir, nor Britain in Northern Ireland!! People have also started to observe that after every military operation the militants manage to escape to a new area and the government chases them to “conquer” that area. People have also started to realise that America wants to make Muslims fight Muslims in Pakistan just like what she did in Iraq and Afghanistan. In such a situation America clearly saw a strong wave of public opinion rising among the masses in opposition to the ongoing military operation which would have forced the government and the military to stop the operation. America had already seen one such example of public anger after the Red Mosque massacre. Therefore, the American agencies instantly came into motion and conducted bomb blasts in Peshawar and Lahore so that public opinion could be swayed in favour of the American war. We warn the Ummah about these American designs and call upon them to view these bomb blasts in its proper political context so that America fails to achieve her evil objectives. Islam condemns that a Muslim fights a fellow Muslim and no Muslim can perpetrate this heinous act of mass killing. Allah سبحانه وتعالى says in the glorious Qur’an:
وَمَن يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِناً مُّتَعَمِّداً فَجَزَآؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خَالِداً فِيهَا وَغَضِبَ اللّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَعَنَهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُ عَذَاباً عَِيماً
“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein, and the Wrath and the Curse of Allâh are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him.” [Surah An-Nisa'a 4:93]
RasulAllah سلم و عليه الله صلى said,
إذا التقى المسلمان بسيفيهما فالقاتل والمقتول في النار , قلنا يا رسول الله هذا القاتل فما بال المقتول قال انه كان حريصا على قتل صاحبه
“When two Muslims face each other in fighting and one kills the other, then both the killer and the killed are in the hell-fire.” The Companions asked, “O Messenger of Allah, this is the killer - what about the poor person who has been killed?” The Prophet, سلم و عليه الله صلى, said “He had the intention to kill his companion.”
The purpose of lighting fires in various parts of Pakistan is to engage the people of the region so that they are not able to turn their attention to the American occupation in Afghanistan and help their Muslim brothers. Hence, this civil war is to turn the weapons away from the real enemy, America, and onto their own Muslim brothers. Moreover, America hopes to turn the Islam loving people away from Islam through spreading chaos. Furthermore, by stretching Pak Army on the western boarders, America is also making its defence capabilities weaker in comparison to India. America wants to confuse the people about the method of implementing Islam so that the people should feel that the struggle for implementation of Islam only produces further chaos, which only adds to the woes of the people. The reality is that there is no scope for militancy in the method to establish Islam, as is clear from the method derived from the life of RasulAllah (saw). Today, Hizb ut-Tahrir is working on the same path of intellectual and political struggle and asking for Nusrah (material support) that RasulAllah (saw) adopted during his work for thirteen years in Makkah.
We ask the fringe groups that support the Swat operation, whilst “enjoying” the “action” on TV from the comfort of their air conditioned drawing rooms- would they also demand a Swat like operation on their cities if few thousand militants entered their cities? Obviously not, so, if they would not like this for themselves, then why are they allowing this tragedy to fall upon their own brothers in Swat?
The fact of the matter is that a civil war in Pakistan to further American interests is devastating for Pakistan in all aspects. The Ummah should reject the state propaganda and stand up against the American crusade. The people should come out in hundreds of thousands to participate in peaceful protests and rallies to force the government to stop such operations. And they must convey a clear message that it is not just the people of Swat who long for Shari’ah, rather all the people of Pakistan want Islam. This is the only way to stop civil war in Pakistan and subsequently liberate her from the American crusade.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is taking out nationwide rallies on Sunday 31 May 2009 at 5 pm. The rallies will take place at Regal Chawk in Karachi, Nasir Bagh in Lahore and Liaqat Bagh in Rawalpindi. The purpose of these rallies is to prevent the people and our brothers in the Pak Army from becoming fodder in the American crusade. We call upon the Ummah that they participate in these rallies to raise the word of Truth against the tyranny in Swat and fulfil their Fard (obligation) of Amr bil Maruf wa nahi unil Munkar (enjoining the good and forbidding the evil) which is an obligation on all Muslims. RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم said,
كَلَّا وَاللَّهِ لَتَأْمُرُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَلَتَنْهَوُنَّ عَنْ الْمُنْكَرِ وَلَتَأْخُذُنَّ عَلَى يَدَيْ الظَّالِمِ وَلَتَأْطُرُنَّهُ عَلَى الْحَقِّ أَطْرًا وَلَتَقْصُرُنَّهُ عَلَى الْحَقِّ قَصْرًاأَوْ لَيَضْرِبَنَّ اللَّهُ بِقُلُوبِ بَعْضِكُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ ثُمَّ لَيَلْعَنَنَّكُمْ كَمَا لَعَنَهُمْ
“By Allah in whose hand my soul is, you must order for good and forbid evil, and seize the hand of oppressor and pull him towards al-Haq and keep him on truth, otherwise Allah will strike your hearts with each other and will curse you as he cursed children of Israel” [Abu Daud]
Naveed Butt
The Official Spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Pakistan
3 Jumada al-Thanni 1430
27th May 2009 ]]>
Disgraced MPs Shahid Malik and Khalid Mahmood have made a packet for themselves – but what good have they done? The MPs expenses scandal has not stopped. Last week Dewsbury MP Shahid Malik was exposed for his lavish spending subsidised by the taxpayer – including £730 for a massage chair and £2,600 for a home cinema system. He is defending himself against claims about his rent and his mortgage but has lost his ministerial post.
Now follows Birmingham MP Khalid Mahmood who is defending himself against claims that he spent over £1300 - in a 5 star hotel at the taxpayers’ expense.
Mahmood is most famous for an article published in his name in November 2001 supportive of the war against Afghanistan headlined The Five Myths Muslims Must Deny. Later it was revealed the article had not in fact been written by Mahmood, but by Denis MacShane – a former minister and viewed by some as having anti-Islamic attitudes.
People who misguidedly think that there is some good for Muslims in joining the system should think again. It is well known that to joining secular political parties or to be a ‘legislator’ or ruler who rules by other than what Allah revealed, are all prohibited actions in Islam. But when we see people who have already done these wrongful things doing more and more wrong actions we can see how the secular capitalist political process takes people far away from their deen or principles.
There are some politicians who might start life with aspirations to serve their community, but are corrupted by the party machines and political process. They gradually allow any good intentions they had to be superseded by the priorities of the party machine, eventually supporting policies they came into politics to oppose. The ‘perks’ they receive then reward their unprincipled actions, reinforcing the bad behaviour, until bad behaviour becomes normal behaviour.
There are lessons in this disastrous crisis for everyone, but this is one the Muslim community must learn. To think that any good can come out of doing haram actions is the sure road to disaster.
أُوْلَـئِكَ الَّذِينَ اشْتَرُوُاْ الضَّلاَلَةَ بِالْهُدَى فَمَا رَبِحَت تِّجَارَتُهُمْ وَمَا كَانُواْ مُهْتَدِينَ
These are they who have sold Guidance for misguidance. But their trade is profitless, and they have lost true direction [TMQ 2:16] ]]>
Martin Peters, investigating, said: "It appears an accelerant was used and our immediate priorities include establishing who started this fire and why”
The Secretary of the Islamic Centre believes this was ‘an act of terrorism’ and the work of ‘non-muslim extremists’ as the Islamic centre has received numerous death threats over the past few weeks from far right groups. He believes that the attack may be linked to the Royal Anglian Parade back in March, where a group of muslim anti-war protestors opposed to the illegal war in Iraq and angry by the U.K’s government’s foreign policy generated headlines throughout the mainstream media for protesting as British troops, having returned from action in Iraq marched by. However, little media attention was given to the behaviour of other protestors who used threatening language and behaviour against the Muslims and led to the police having to intervene and lead the muslim protestors to safety.
Understandably, the muslim community in Luton is in shock and feeling vulnerable and alienated. Unfortunately, the Luton incident is one of many violent attacks to which the Muslim community in the UK has been exposed. Previously, a Bolton mosque was fire-bombed while there were children inside performing their prayers. Muslim cemeteries have been vandalized and desecrated. In Swindon, a 19-year-old Muslim woman wearing a headscarf was chased and beaten on the head with a baseball bat. In London, a Muslim cab driver was left paralyzed from the neck down after being hit with a bottle and then punched and kicked by three men. Since 7/7, a third of Britain's Muslims say they or their family members have suffered abuse or hostility and over two-thirds of the wider British public think that prejudice against Muslims has increased. Incidents are increasing and it is not surprising why.
Hardly a day goes by when there is not a negative news story about Muslims or Islam in the media. Following 7/7, the mainstream British media appeared to be given free rein to effectively demonise Islam and Muslims. It seemed that the Muslim community as a whole were paying the price for a terrorist crime in which they were in no way involved and for which they were not responsible. However, this did not stop Muslims being described by some in the media as a ‘fifth column’, a ‘Trojan horse’ and the ‘enemy within,’ leading to many muslims feeling unfairly vilified and criminalised. There has been a process of scaremongering, stereotyping and demonisation of Islam and Muslims, which in effect has contributed towards the British public viewing Muslims as a ‘suspect community.’
This marginalization will be further exacerbated by the Government’s latest and deeply worrying counterterrorism offering, “Contest 2,” which will potentially stigmatise any Islamic social or political views that are different from the State’s official line. A Muslim will be viewed as ‘extremist’ if he or she does not adopt specific British shared values such as a belief in democracy, the freedom to insult people’s beliefs, the freedom for individuals to have any relationship they desire with any one they desire or have a national loyalty to the British state. According to a draft of the strategy leaked to the Guradian in February, they would also be labelled ‘extreme’ if he or she believes in specific core Islamic ideas, such as the shariah law, or advocates a Caliphate (Islamic State), or believes in jihad or armed resistance anywhere in the world, such as the Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation, or considers homosexuality in being a sin, or fails to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. Will this labelling process apply to non-muslims who don’t believe in homosexuality or illegal occupation?
With such ideas held by so many Muslims across the UK, the new strategy will only serve to further demonise an already alienated community. This coupled with the fact that as the European election draws closer, public mood is one of disillusionment and anger towards their elected members of parliament for 'fiddling' their expenses. This has led some political commentators to predict that this growing frustration may lead to increased support for far right groups, such as the BNP. Consequently, the Muslim community will no doubt have to brace itself for future Luton-style attacks on its mosques, its institutions as well as upon individual Muslims. ]]>
The practice has been widespread across all parties and has only come to light after an MP has gone public with the practices and newspapers have gained access to the details of the claims historically made. Some of the worst excesses have been the practice of “flipping” or declaring a second home to be the main residence to enable specific 2nd property expense claims (which were supposed to be for MP’s which live far from London), claims for a second residence which in fact was a room in her sisters home (Home Secretary Jacqui Smith), a plethora of claims for dog food, cleaning the moat of the family castle, 100 pounds a pop for changing light bulbs and even repairs to the family tennis court. All while the man in the street is under threat of losing their job, suffers from below inflation wage increases, or salaries (such as Nurses) significantly lower than some of the MP expense claims. It is little wonder that confidence in Politicians is at an all time low ebb.
The mantra we have heard from many of those caught with their fingers in the public purse, is that they have done nothing wrong and that the “rules” – if one could call them that – allow such excess. The other argument put forward is that the politicians need to have generous expense allowances to make up for the low level of salary they draw. A salary which in some ways has not kept pace with inflation or recommended increases. It must be noted that in this respect the leaders of the respective ruling parties (Labour and Conservative) have both been happy to announce to the public that they would forgo rises to MP salaries to keep control over public spending. Claims which now ring very hollow when it is clear that the lavish expense allowances have more than made up for seeming probity over salary levels.
The current annual salary for an MP is £64,766. In addition, MPs receive allowances to cover the costs of running an office and employing staff, having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency. It is surprising that many London based MP’s have also deemed it necessary to have a second home in London! The 64,766 salary (before expenses) at more than 2.5 times the national median wage (24,900), is hardly trivial and is surely sufficient for anyone that has the true public service sentiment at heart. Sir Alistair Graham former Chairman of the committee on standards in public life, writing in the Daily Mail wrote:
“For too long, too many MPs have been abusing the taxpayer by unethically claiming parliamentary allowances to enhance what they see as an inadequate salary.”
However, the argument that MP salaries should be much higher in order to attract candidates of the highest caliber breaks down when one considers the very high numbers who run for office from all walks of life and experience.
The problem essentially stems from a core issue within secular capitalism. If you give the lawmakers – in this case parliament – the right to legislate including their own salaries/expenses they will abuse it. The pursuit of personal gain within capitalism is pervasive, and not limited to UK politicians. From company directors, to heads of public bodies, to those in positions of ruling, where those responsibilities extend to setting their own remuneration, the results have been consistently in their own favour. Western Politics is also seen as a gravy train to related directorships (those most involved in the Privatisation programmes in the Thatcher days, Lord Tebbit, Lord Walker, et al, all achieved lucrative directorships when retiring from the House of Commons). The lure of the speaker circuit and book contracts is also there for those reaching the highest levels. It is a poor politician indeed that cannot establish a key network of contacts that will ensure lucrative employment or further business opportunities post sitting in Parliament.
The whole notion of public service requires a different outlook. I am reminded of the incident during the rule of Omar bin al Khattab, the second Khaleefah when he was publicly challenged over the size of his cloak (the state was effectively rationing cloth in a very difficult time) and Omar was accused of having more than the one assigned piece! Rather than hide the fact that he was indeed wearing a garment made of more than one piece (he was after all a large man) it was left to his son, Ibn Omar to explain that he had given his own piece to his father.
Islamic history is littered with examples of selfless public service. Abdur-Rahman an Nasser was the Amir that opened Andalus (Spain) to Islam. As the Wali (governor) he appointed officers to look after the erection of new buildings (town planners) in accord to the Prophet’s (saw) command:
“The neighbor has the right over his neighbor in two things, firstly, to be free from bad cooking smells, and secondly for him not to build higher than his house.”
He also assigned officers to look after the milk, to ensure that the milk was not watered down. He appointed environmental health officers to inspect meat and other foodstuffs on sale, ensuring that the produce was well protected from flys and insects. He built hostels for the travellers and so scrupulous was he in his accounting of the public assets he would put out the candle he was using from the government store and alight a personal candle when attending to personal business. So busy was he with the affairs of state, that on his death when the people read his personal diaries they found that throughout his entire rule of 55 years, 7 months, and 3 days in office, he had only 14 days free from affairs of state. And on his death he had nothing to leave, he died poor.
In looking at such cases it is important not to assume that this is merely the results of strong principled individuals. The Islamic society is built upon key values which are built upon accountability to Allah (swt) rather than whether the individual will be caught by journalists or a court of public opinion. The values include the notion that authority in Islam is a trust and must be taken with full responsibility and concern for fulfilling that responsibility. The Muslim will seek reward in the hereafter.
There is little surprise that the public in the UK is turning off politics when their elected representatives have been so badly exposed. The democratic idea of assuming the people (or the elites dominating public opinion) will objectively and independently decide right from wrong to the benefit of all is fundamentally flawed. The Muslim world too has suffered from this corruption since the decline of the Caliphate and Islamic rule was replaced with man made rules and laws. But it is this very failure of democracy which is leading to a revival in the call for Shariah throughout the Muslim world – the West has long lost any form of leadership whether moral, economic or political. ]]>
However, unduly exaggerating any aspect of the Islamic way of life distorts the true picture. It can be dangerous, for it can play right into the hands of those who wish to harm Islam and Muslims by promoting certain aspects of Islam and censoring others. Many of those who accuse Islam know full well that their words are little more than a shallow attempt to divert attention from true debate about the merits of the Islamic way of life. Moreover, their policy is aimed at putting pressure on Muslims to leave the pure Islamic way of thinking. They wish, instead, that Muslims become preoccupied with cost-benefit analyses before undertaking any action, instead of looking to what Allah is most pleased with. By adopting a distorted Islam, we could be undermining the foundations of what it means to be a Muslim.
It is not uncommon to hear the phrase ‘Islam means peace’. It is said that Islam and salaam (Arabic for peace) have the same root, so therefore peace is the core of Islam. The inference is that Islam IS peace, meaning that wherever peace is found, then this is Islam. Islam can then become any form of peace - even by surrendering to or remaining silent about oppressive murderers; accepting a peace process with Israel (even though it is forbidden in the shari’ah); or indeed appeasing every occupation of Muslim lands. In this representation of Islam, the shari’ah ceases to be the measure to judge actions by, replaced by whatever is judged at any particular time as most peaceful.
Linguistically this is a mistake. Islamically it is a catastrophe. It may be true that both words share the letters S L M, however, there are many words sharing the same three root letters. Only silm, salm and salaam are mentioned in Arabic dictionaries as having peace (Did alharb) among their meanings. Even salm and salaam both have the meaning surrender as well. More importantly though, when understanding any word in the Qur’an or Sunnah it is necessary for it to keep the meaning as used by the Arabs at the time of revelation, unless there is text to give it a more specific meaning. For instance, Salah in the language of the Arabs means to supplicate (du’aah), yet Islamic texts gave it a specific meaning of the act of prayer performed five times a day by Muslims. No Muslim would argue that merely making du’aah five times per day fulfilled the second pillar of Islam.
In his tafsir of: “No, whosoever surrenders himself to God, while doing good, he will have his reward with his Lord. There will be no fear over them, nor will they grieve” [Qur’an 2:112] Tabari mentions “He means with ‘islam al-wajh (Islam of the face): to make oneself low, and submissiveness to His order. The origin of ‘al-islam’ is: surrendering (istislaam), because it is from ‘I surrendered to his order’ meaning submitting to his order. The Muslim is only called a muslim with the submission of his body to the obedience of his Lord.”
Qamus al-Muhit defines al-islam as “obedience, concession and surrender” Qurtabi says in his tafseer “al-islam in the language of the Arabs: surrendering, obedience and submitting”
So, the word Islam has submission at the heart of its linguistic meaning, and has been given a specific Islamic meaning of surrendering, obedience and submitting to Allah without resistance.
In fact, this is the very heart of what it means to be a Muslim. Submitting one’s very desires to Allah is the highest form of worship. Submission is what Allah asks of us and is the naturally sensible thing to do. Every thing in existence is submitting to Allah against its will as all submit to the laws of the universe set by Allah. Humans have free will to choose what actions to perform. By submitting our actions to a system of rules (the shari’ah) designed by their Creator is certainly sensible. By willingly submitting our will to the Will of Allah, such that we do not even desire for that which would displease Allah, is an even purer worship to Him.
Allah asks us to ponder “Do they then seek the judgement of Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allah for a people who have firm faith?” [Qur’an 5:50]
He informs us that the path to betterment is willingly submitting ourselves to His system, by referring all matters back to what His Messenger, Muhammad (saw), brought.
“But no, by your Lord, they will not have faith, until they make you (Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept with full submission” [Qur’an 4:65]
The submitting Muslim is grateful to His Lord for all His favours. He is ever thankful that Allah has given clear guidance and the shari’ah as a way to Him. He turns in repentance to His Lord for past ingratitude and wants only to submit to whatever pleases Allah most.
The submitting Muslim, faced with any problem, asks ‘what solution would please my Lord?’ He searches the Islamic texts for a text or an indication whether Allah is pleased or displeased with a certain course of action. He then submits fully to that rule, adopting it as the hukm shari’i (Islamic rule) for him. Were he unable to derive the rule from the text, as most many Muslims today are, then he asks those who are able.
If the submitting Muslim heard that his adopted Islamic rule was disliked by other people, he does not go back to the text to find a more pleasing rule. That would not be submitting to Allah, but to peer-pressure or public opinion. Ultimately both would entail following his or their desires.
Allah says “And so judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their desires, but beware of them lest they turn you away from even some of what was revealed to you” [Qur’an 5:49]
The submitting Muslim is not like the lawyer, who looks at what technical point of law or precedent he can use to serve his purpose. It is the truth of the matter that counts. The submitting Muslim does not search the historical jurists’ opinions looking for a ruling that suits his own agenda, adopting any shaadh (obscure) opinion. Allah has warned against this grave error many times. The submitting Muslim has taqwa (fear and consciousness of Allah) to help him decide what ruling to adopt. His only concern is what is most pleasing to Allah. Without this, he has only legal wranglings which miss the very point of Islam: submission.
Allah says “Whoever accepts other than Submission as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter, he will be with the losers” [Qur’an 3:85]
Peace has its place in Islam. It is what we wish for each other in the next life, as we pray to Allah in our standard greeting ‘As-Salaamu alaikum’. It is a rule of foreign policy after treaties have been concluded. It is the natural consequence of implementing the Islamic shariah in the Islamic state, as it is the basic way of dealing between the citizens of society, Muslim or not. It is the settled state of the heart and mind of the believing submitting Muslim. Other beliefs may give temporary or partial peace of mind, but only Islam gives permanent inner peace, as only Islam is built upon the mind and agrees with human nature.
In the end, despite whichever label people wish to place on Islam, Islam has submission to Allah’s deen at its heart.
“Have you seen those who claim to believe in what has been sent down to you, and what was sent down before you? They wish to go to the taghut for judgement, while they have been ordered to reject it. Shaytaan wishes to lead the far astray.” ]]>
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا قُوا أَنفُسَكُمْ وَأَهْلِيكُمْ نَارًا وَقُودُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ عَلَيْهَا مَلَائِكَةٌ غِلَاظٌ شِدَادٌ لَا يَعْصُونَ اللَّهَ مَا أَمَرَهُمْ وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا يُؤْمَرُونَ
The latest news that sex education is to be made compulsory for five-year olds in schools and children as young as 11 are to be taught about same-sex relationships will cause new alarm amongst Muslim parents. Details were published in April of how personal, social and health education (PSHE) will be made compulsory. It means that all secondary schools in England will for the first time have to teach a core curriculum about sex and contraception in the context of teenagers' relationships - previously schools only had to teach the fundamentals of reproduction, contraception and puberty in science lessons .
Sir Alasdair Macdonald’s review does includes a clause allowing schools to apply their "values" to the lessons. This means teachers in faith schools should be free to tell them that having sex outside of marriage or homosexuality is wrong. This has lead to an outcry amongst some liberals who argue that faith schools should not enjoy any such opt out.
While the review has recommended that the existing right to a parental opt-out should be maintained, some schools, especially in areas with significant Muslim pupils, hide the right parents have to withdraw their children from SRE classes and prevent parents that choose to exercise this right by what can only be described as underhand methods.
Accepting that children will engage in sexual relations at a younger age and the state’s promotion of ‘alternative lifestyles’ (homosexuality) has led to a whole host of measures. In July, students at four schools in Oxfordshire will be able to text the school nurse for morning after pills. This is nothing new, schools across the country are able to provide the morning after pill to young children without their parents knowledge and this facility is available over the counter at pharmacies nationwide. These are merely the latest examples of a values free approach to sex and relationship education replacing a clearly defined moral framework for acceptable behaviour. In truth, it is the promotion of liberal values to children.
Muslim parents have an Islamic duty towards our children in building a future generation that lives by Islam and adheres to the Islamic values. We believe marriage is the fulfillment of half of ones deen, the only means by which a sexual relationship between a man and woman can occur and a cornerstone from which family life springs. Despite the assault on the family, the sexualisation of our children via television, advertising, the fashion industry and the society in general, we must fight to uphold this sacred institution.
Muslim parents must be the role models in raising our children, nurturing them through following the example of our beloved Messenger Muhammad (saw). We must build a strong link to practical hayaa (modesty), so that our children appreciate something which is described as the character of Islam. We must also safeguard our community from replicating the state that has befallen other communities, in which ‘progress’ has brought compromise of fundamental values, such that pre-marital and extra-marital relations are no longer considered as negative actions. We must also shun the attempts to normalize homosexual relationships in our children’s minds and Muslim parents should oppose the teaching of sex education and homosexuality to children.
There is a big push from sexual health lobbies to push the bar for their liberal agenda, many want the parental right to an opt-out withdrawn and a final decision has yet to be made even on this fundamental point. As a public consultation was launched on the 29th April, Muslim parents, schools and community organisations must voice opposition to these proposals. Muslim parents must explain our moral standards to schools and be prepared to take steps to protect our children’s morals and values from a growing agenda to impose liberal values upon them. ]]>
This disgusting act of barbarity against the young Iraqi girl and her family, took place on the 12th March 2006 and was said to have been a pre-meditated act. There will no doubt be anger from the Muslim Ummah when such realities are revealed; but it will sadly come as no shock.
As it will be on the back of cases such as that of Baha Mousa who was found dead while in British Custody in 2003. Seven soldiers were charged over his death, but only one was convicted - of inhumane treatment of a prisoner.
It will be on the back of cases of inmates held in the infamous Abu Ghraib prison, where they were subjected to unspeakable levels of humiliation and torture. Yet again no high ranking officers in the US army ever stood trial.
It will be on the back of the Haditha massacre in Iraq in November 2005, where a group of US marines slaughtered 24 Iraqi civilians in cold blood to avenge the death of a comrade killed by a bomb. The victims included women and five children between the ages of 2 and 14 whose bodies were found still in their night clothes.
It will be on the back of the massacre by US forces on March 15th 2006 in the town of Ishaqi. Iraqi police claimed that the US soldiers had shot eleven civilians in a house, execution-style before blowing up the building. The dead, of which were four women and five children, included a six month year old baby and seventy five year old grandmother.
What lies at the heart of the argument in Steven Green’s trial presented by his defence team, is the claim that soldiers his unit - the 101st Airborne Division - ‘lacked leadership and received little help to deal with the loss of friends in combat’. The fact that Green’s division had lost many colleagues in the war in the previous few weeks was used as a reason the rape and murder of innocents occurred – the very innocents that US soldiers have allegedly gone there to protect. It would seem abundantly clear that in choosing to join the army, choosing to engage in combat and warfare, knowing that one day one might be expected to occupy foreign lands and participate in armed missions against those who vehemently oppose that occupation in their lands, that soldiers would understand that death and bloodshed are inevitable hazards of their profession.
It is clear that such heinous acts are in fact not isolated, nor an issue of a few rotten apples but rather endemic within institutions such as the British and American army. Afterall, these soldiers hail from the same freedom- loving societies, driven by the pursuit of individualistic desires, which seem to be challenged with lacking a moral compass for their youth – many of which have no respect for cultures other than their own. In this particular case, prosecutors told jurors that the plot against the family was hatched among Green and his fellow soldiers who were playing cards and drinking at a checkpoint. Talk then turned to having sex with Iraqi women when one soldier mentioned the al-Janabi family, who lived nearby.
Is it not clear for the world to now judge that these army units and their US and British leaderships to whom they answer, are in fact guilty of innumerable heinous crimes? That the continued occupation by nations which wish to force their values upon the Muslim world by the gun, has and will continue to result in the killing and dishonouring of our brothers and sisters?
We must realise that there can be no rest or ease for this Ummah while under the guise of democracy and liberty, which countries such as America and Britain use to justify the occupation of our lands. Indeed, it is the case that many, like our dear 14 year old sister Abeer Qassim al-Janabi and her family have suffered from the ugly face of such decadent values.
It is the Khilafah system that will mete out justice and security for all and our duty must be to strive and work hard so that the honour and dignity of the Ummah worldwide is shielded by the Khaleefah of the Muslims such that the continued violation of the blood of our brothers and sisters comes to a grinding halt.
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّامِينَ لِلّهِ شُهَدَاء بِالْقِسْطِ وَلاَ يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَى أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ اعْدِلُواْ هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ إِنَّ اللّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ
“O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do." [Al-Maidah 5:8] ]]>
“I think when the history is written of this campaign, they will say of the British military: 'We did a superb job'” John Hutton, UK Defence Secretary
"Today Iraq is a success story. Britain can be proud of our legacy that we leave there." Gordon Brown, who held talks with Iraqi prime minister Nouri Maliki in Downing Street today
Their statements remind you that Allah (swt) says
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لاَ تُفْسِدُواْ فِي الأَرْضِ قَالُواْ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ
أَلا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَـكِن لاَّ يَشْعُرُونَ
أَلا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَـكِن لاَّ يَشْعُرُونَ
“And when it is said to them, ‘make not mischief in the earth’, they say: ‘we are only peace-makers’. Verily, they are the ones who make mischief but they perceive not” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 11-12]
So how will others remember Britain’s invasion?
• Death of up to 1 million Iraqis – the invaders didn’t bother to keep a count
• British soldiers abuse of Iraqi civilians and the killing of Baha Mousa
• 2 million forced into exile, hundreds of thousands internally displaced
• Creation of sectarian enclaves
• Sectarian warfare where there previously was none
• Death of Britain’s ‘ethical foreign policy’
The UK and US’s real success in Iraq has been the creation of yet another client regime to serve their interests in the Muslim lands. ]]>
improvement of the quality of plants and food. The Penicillin was addressed by the evidences, which promote the finding of cures for disease. The double-helix structure of DNA again was addressed by the general evidences for seeking cures, Nuclear technology was addressed by the numerous evidences which indicate the preparing of deterrents and the general permissibility of objects, and E-commerce was addressed by the evidences which permit the use of the non-civilisational matters.
In summary, the Shari'ah texts (the Qur’an and ahadith) are detailed in thought, have the widest scope for generalisation and the most fertile ground to cultivate general principles. In themselves they are suitable as legislative texts for different peoples and nations. This is because they cover all kinds of relationships, whether between individuals, the state and its citizens, or between states, peoples and nations. However new and diverse these relationships may be, new thoughts can be deduced from the Shari'ah texts. Islam has the broadest scope for generalisation or interpretations, which can be seen from the grammar, sentences, words, style of expressions in terms of covering the wording (mantooq), meaning (mafhum), indication (dalalah) reasoning (ta'leel) and qiyas (analogy) based on the Shari'ah reason (illah) which makes deduction feasible, continuous and inclusive. This ensures the Shari'ah is able to encompass everything, issue or problem for all times and ages. As for being fertile ground for cultivating general principles, this is because of the abundance of general meanings contained within these texts. This is because the Qur'an and hadith were revealed in the form of broad guidelines even when focusing on specific details. The nature of these broad guidelines is that they give the Qur’an and hadith general meanings within which collective and detailed issues can be included and from this arise an abundance of general meanings. These general meanings contain real and perceptible issues and not hypothetical ones. At the same time they are revealed to solve the problems of all humanity, and not of specific individuals. As such, there exist over three hundred general principles (qawa’id ‘aammah). ]]>
One example to illustrate Islam’s applicability is Islam’s view with regards to economics. Islam has laid down rules for the means to acquire wealth and commodities, how they can be utilised and their manner of disposal. Islam viewed the resources to be ample enough to completely satisfy the basic needs of all. Therefore, amongst a host of other detailed rules, one will find the Shari'ah aims to secure the complete satisfaction of all basic needs (food, clothing and housing) completely for every citizen of the Khilafah.
The Islamic economic system is built upon three principles:
1. Ownership
2. Disposal of ownership
3. The distribution of wealth amongst the people
In order to facilitate the acquisition of goods and services Islam put forward rules related to the manner of possessing wealth without any complications. Islam defined the legal means of ownership, and it defined the contracts through which possession can take place. This left humanity free to develop the styles and means by which they earn, as Islam did not interfere in the production of wealth.
Islam defines the legal means of ownership and contracts in general guidelines that include legal principles and rules, under which numerous issues belong and against which numerous rules are measured by qiyas (analogical deduction).
Thus Islam allowed employment, detailed its rules and left the person to work as a manufacturer, technician, trader, investor etc. Employment was legislated in such a way that by qiyas (analogy) it also includes representation. This is because the employee represents the employer of the company and is entitled to a salary. Gifts are legislated as a legal means of ownership and by qiyas this can be extended to include donations, grants, charity and rewards as means of ownership. Therefore, in Islam the means of ownership and the contracts are detailed by the Shari'ah in general outlines and set in such a way as to include any contemporary incident. Islam confined possession to particular means and as a result of this fact ownership came to be defined by the Shari'ah as the possession of goods, services and wealth according to the means permitted by the Lawgiver.
The Shari’ah has determined the means of ownership by specific cases, which it made clear in a limited, rather than unrestricted form. The Shari’ah has laid down these means in clear general guidelines. These comprise of numerous sections, which are branches of these means and clarifications of their rules. The Shari’ah did not characterise the means by certain general criteria, so no other general means can be included through qiyas. Islam allowed the work of an individual in return for a salary as this is considered as a legal means of ownership and the core condition for this is that he would be compensated for the effort by being paid a salary for the work. Islam allows the cultivation of land, its farming as well as what is known as agriculture. It allowed the extracting of what is in or on the earth, which means mining, exploration as well as construction. Under this general guideline you also have hunting, brokerage as well as sharecropping. Each of these sections can be extrapolated further by qiyas.
By looking at divine rules from the Shari’ah that allows humans to possess property, it becomes apparent that the means of possession in Islam are limited to five, which are:
1. Work
2. Inheritance
3. Obtaining wealth for the sake of life
4. The State granting wealth to the citizens
5. Wealth and commodities that individuals take without exchange (gifts, donations and the like)
It cannot be claimed that Islam is restrictive and hinders economic activity because it has rigid rules that cannot evolve with time as economic activity increases and changes via the invention of new technologies.
This is because humans want to own things in order to survive. Islam clarified which of these means can and cannot be utilised and many of these means can be applied and extended to new realities via qiyas. The ownership of things will increase, decrease and diversify therefore it is not necessary that new transactions and contracts be required, as the issue at hand is which five means of possession are acceptable to acquire such things. The means to acquire have been laid down and as discussed earlier can be used forever, as they are not time specific.
The Islamic history is full with examples of Muslims developing technology and techniques, which were used and incorporated by many different civilisations. It was Islam that drove many Muslims to excel in various disciplines ranging from Science, to horticulture to the medical field.
The ahadith of Muhammad (SAW), which mentions “for every disease Allah created its cure,” became a motivating factor for numerous developments in the medical field in the past. It resulted in the development of ophthalmology (eye care) in the 10th to 13th centuries. Muslim ophthalmologists were performing operations, dissecting, discovering, and writing about their findings in textbooks and monographs.
This led to the development of voluminous handbooks, many of which were translated into Latin. One of these was the ‘Canon’ by Ibn Sina, which today, still remains a primary reference; he coined one million new Arabic terms in the field. Another development was the development of the first organized hospital in the world, built in Cairo in 872CE. The Ahmad ibn Tûlûn Hospital treated and gave free medicine to all patients. It provided separate bath houses for men and women, a rich library and a section for the insane. All these developments occurred because one hadith motivated thousands of people to find cures that Allah (SWT) through his Mercy has given us.
In terms of modern days issues Islam is able to provide solutions to them due to the Islamic verses being generic in their nature. Hence verses from the Qur’an can be applied upon numerous incidents. In Islam this is possible, as many of the rules have come within a general scope thus many rulings can be deduced from it. Hence Islam is accommodating enough to be able to respond to all the new events, however many of these that may arise over the course of time. An example of this is the rules in regards to inheritance:
"Concerning (the inheritance) for your children: to the male is the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if they (children) were women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance." (TMQ An-Nisa: 11)
1. We understand that the male child takes double that which the female child takes.
2. We also understand that the child of the son (grandchild) is treated as the child in cases where there are no (living) children, because the grandchild is included in the word 'children.'
3. This is contrary to the children of the daughter, who are not treated like the children of the son where there are no (living) children. This is so as the children of the daughter are not included linguistically in the Arabic word for 'children.'
4. We understand also that if the children were females, and more than two in number, then they share in two-thirds of the inheritance. The Prophet (SAW) made for the two females a portion equivalent to those who are more than two. So the rule in regard to the two females is the same rule for more than two females.
When it comes to technology Islam’s initial view is that in generality all objects are permitted however their use has been restricted, as all actions require a Shari’ah evidence. For instance Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) are allowed in Islam. However its use would require knowledge of the Shari’ah rule. ICBMs could be used for reasons ranging from legitimate deterrent measures to the illegitimate killing of innocent civilians, something Islam forbade. Islam permits the study and use of medicine, engineering, maths, astronomy, chemistry, physics, agriculture, industry, communications including the Internet, and the science of navigation and geography. This includes what results from them such as industry, tools, machinery and factories. Also included in this are industries, whether military or not, and heavy industry like tanks, aeroplanes, rockets, satellites, nuclear technology, hydrogen, electronic or chemical bombs, tractors, lorries, trains and steamships. This includes consumer industries and light weapons and the manufacture of laboratory instruments, medical instruments, agricultural tools, furniture, carpets and consumer products such as the TV, DVD, and the Sony Playstation etc. The point being illustrated here is that all objects we know of past, present and future are allowed without restriction unless Shari’ah evidence exists to definitively disallow it, and this is limited to a few limited objects.
Thus Islam permits nanotechnology as all things in origin are permitted. Islam prohibits intellectual property and its results such as patents and copyrights, as ownership in Islam is the ability to completely own and dispose of an item or service. Islam allows the cloning of plants and animals however Islam forbids the cloning of humans due to the loss in kinship and lineage. Islam most certainly is able to deal with all the modern day issues due to the nature of the Islamic texts. Hence In Vitro Fertalisation (IVF) was addressed by using the rules of kinship and the permissibility of seeking medical treatment. The general evidences for seeking treatment addressed life support machines. Advanced weaponry was addressed by the general permissibility of objects. ]]>
(Melanie Phillips, Spectator, September 2002)
The discussion of Islam vis-à-vis modernity has been propelled to the forefront of political debate in the last decade. Since the events of September 11th think-tanks, academics, commentators and policy makers have all studied Islam as it seems to be the motivation for many a people in the world today. Their conclusion is that Islam has no place in the world. They cite evidences such as the attempts by Iran and the Taliban to implement Islam proves Islam’s inapplicability in the 21st century. There underlying argument against Islam is:
“Islam completely contradicts Western values which are modern hence it has no place in the world today”.
Modernity for all those who claim to be modern carries specific connotations of the Enlightenment mission, defined as emancipation from self-imposed infancy i.e. from religion. This mission resulted in the development of secularism and the banishing of the Church, its teachings and its dogma to the private sphere. The adoption of secularism then gave rise to new ideals for society, namely human rights, equality and freedom. Soon this historical process was termed ‘modernism’. For secularists, the adoption of secular liberal values is termed modern and anything not compatible with such values is backward and no different to the medieval Church.
The crux of the argument then is on whether Islam is modern rather than if it concurs with ‘modernity’. For something to be modern it needs to be applicable for all times and places rather then just agree with secular liberal values. Essentially Islam is not part of ‘modernity’ in this sense as its own values; basis and viewpoint differ from the secular basis. The questions we need to ask is can Islam actually work in the modern age. This means is Islamic legislation (Shari’ah) suitable to solve the problems of every age and remain consistent with its own unique basis, without deviating from that basis. With this the validity of Islam as modern can be measured equitably.
If one looks at Islam it can be deduced that Islamic legislation came to solve the problems humans will encounter in the course of their lives. The Shari’ah in no way is merely a list of do’s and don’ts.
Sociologists and psychologists such as Weber, Durkheim and Freud after studying empirical evidences could never reach solid consensus on what the human problems were. During their respective times they concluded these problems were many ranging from fear, earning of wealth, procreation, survival and worship etc. Some of these problems are instincts that we know already exist whilst others are still to be found and require incorporation into the body of study when discovered. This was their attempt at looking at the reality of humans in order to define the human problem. The context of this discussion is the looking at the reality of the human being; therefore we are looking at the human being regardless of time and place, as there is no difference between humans today compared to fourteen centuries ago as well as to the human twenty centuries into the future. Human needs and instincts remain the same regardless of external factors.
These instincts are an unalterable reality that have existed since the time of the first man, Adam (AS) i.e. this has always been the case. We can see that men and women find themselves attracted to the opposite sex and that they have maternal and paternal desires. People throughout the ages have always worshipped something, be it the Creator or something else such as a philosopher, a pop star, a ruler, a superhero, fire, a volcano or a planet. Even Communists make pilgrimage to Lenin’s tomb. This again is an unalterable part of the human make-up that has never changed no matter whether the mode of transport was the camel or Concorde. No one can claim to have two brains, four livers, or three hearts. Likewise they cannot claim to possess instincts other than procreation, survival and reverence. The fundamental point remains therefore that no matter what period or region is considered, humans are fundamentally the same, with the same instincts, needs and desires, irrespective of any other considerations.
Islam views the human being as composed of instincts and the human problem as the need to continually satisfy them.
This means the human problems are the same and never actually change. This is because what changes throughout time are the manifestations of instincts and not the instinct themselves. So we will not invent new instincts or a fourth instinct but rather they will remain as these three until the end of time, although over the course of one’s life the manifestation may change. So one may change their religion, change which gender they feel attracted to or even decide there are certain commodities they will not buy due to their effect on the environment but one will still worship something, become agitated through attraction and seek some form of possession.
In summary, the issue which needs to be accepted is that the Islamic texts came to address men and women as human beings, not just as an individual living in the Arabian desert in the seventh century. It neither addressed humanity with relation to a particular time nor place but rather it addressed humanity whether we were living a century ago, today, or in a 100 years time. The simple issue remains that a human living today is the same human who lived 1400 years ago and will continue to be the same human in another 1400 years time. Some verses in the Qur’an elaborate on this reality,
“You will not find in the creation of Allah any alteration” (TMQ Al-Fatir: 43).
The human whom Allah (SWT) addressed 1400 years ago when it was said,
“Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury” (TMQ Al-Baqarah – 275)
Is no different to a human addressed by the same speech today, one can see that the human whom Allah (SWT) addressed more than 1000 years ago when it was said,
“Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you: verily the killing of them is a great sin.” (TMQ Al-Israa: 31] is no different to humanity today.
And indeed when the Messenger Muhammad (SAW) said,
“The son of Adam has no better right than that he would have a house wherein he may live and a piece of cloth whereby he may hide his nakedness and a piece of bread and some water” (Tirmidhi)
He was of course not only referring to the needs of the Bedouins of Arabia but to humankind. So if we haven’t changed and the Islamic texts that address us haven’t changed, then what is so different today? Definitely the world is radically different from the one that Islam emerged and progressed in, the lifestyles of people are different to those of a century ago. What is clear is that what has not changed is the nature of the problems that humanity faces. They are the same problems that have existed from the very creation of humanity, life and the universe. However, what has changed are the tools humans use to solve these problems; a few examples will suffice to illustrate this point. In the past people would live in very primitive houses; today we see skyscrapers and the like that dominate the urban skylines, but we still need houses and roofs above our heads. In the past Muhammad (SAW) sent messengers to other rulers on horseback; today a message could be sent via e-mail, IM, fax or SMS. Muhammad (SAW) and his companions fought many battles using horses, bows and arrows; today wars are still fought, but using ‘Smart’ technology, cruise missiles and satellite intelligence. In the past the Muslims learnt astronomy so they could locate the Qibla wherever they went; today an electronic watch will do the same. The fundamental point that these examples illustrate is that humans, with respect to there needs, are the same and the problems that they face have not changed. Any change that we perceive is merely a change in the tools or the devices that humans use when solving their problems.
The obvious point which follows on from this is that since the Islamic texts deal with humans and their problems, and not the tools that are used to solve their problems, the Islamic Shari’ah is as relevant to humanity today as it was when it elevated the people of Arabia. Islam made permissible all things (tools) and so has no aversion to the advancement of science and technology as our history shows. As a result one cannot claim Islam needs to be modernised to fit with modern life or adapt to the Western way of life, as some have suggested. ]]>