The slogan ”Islamic democracy” has been coined and attributed to Umar ibnul Khattab (ra), the second Khaleefah, and even to Muhammad (saw). It is said that consultation, or ”Shura,” is a fundamental aspect of Islamic governance, and that it is, in reality, democratic. However, those who describe democracy as being Shura, have dressed the proverbial ”wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Once some light has been cast onto the reality of Shura and democracy, the wolf will be unmasked. Firstly, let us look at the similarities.Similarities between Shura and DemocracyDemocracy entails ruling by the majority opinion. This is in terms of legislation through the parliament and the execution of ruling through a government, which acts (in theory at least) for the majority.

Shura is the verbal noun of the verb ‘’shawara,” or consulted. It means seeking an opinion from the one who is consulted. The Khaleefah or any lawful authority can undertake the Shura. Allah (swt) said to His Prophet (saw) in the Qur’an:

”And do consult them in the matter…” [ Ale-Imran: 159].

Abu Hurairah (ra) said, ”I have not seen anyone more willing to consult others then the Messenger of Allah (saw) in the consultation of his companions.”

Both Shura and democracy involve seeking an opinion from people. This is the only similarity.Can we now say that democracy is Shura ? Could we even say that democracy is Islamic? The answer to both these questions is no. If the wolf has four legs just like the sheep, then are they the same? If the wolf is a warm-blooded mammal like the sheep, should they be kept together? Again, the answer is no! The wolf pup goes to its own mother for milk. Now imagine a newborn lamb that also drinks milk. Would it be wise to view any source of milk as its loving mother? The wolf and the sheep are proof that a similarity between any two things does not prove that these two things are the same.

To say that democracy is Shura, or that it is not Shura, requires a comprehensive understanding of both realities. Then we can see if they are indeed the same. We will see, in fact, that they differ in some fundamental issues. The differences are of such a nature that for the Muslims to drink from the milk of democracy would entail deviation from Islam.

In democracy, the majority opinion is always binding. However, in reality, opinions are of three types. Islam’s verdict on Shura is different for each of these three types of opinion.

1) Shura is never considered in matters of legislation.

2) The expert opinion is taken, regardless of the majority or minority, in matters where an intellectual judgement is required about some subject.

3) The majority opinion is taken for matters of action only.

Let us examine the first point:

1) Shura is never considered in matters of legislation.

The opinions of people hold no value in the matters of halal and haram because it is Allah (swt) who has decided these matters for us in the Book and the Sunnah. Allah (swt) warned about deviation from His Book:”Therefore fear not men but fear me and sell not my verses for a miserable price. And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers” [ Al-Ma'idah: 44].

The ruler is specifically warned not to follow people’s opinions in matters of revelation:”Rule between them by that which Allah has revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires” [ Al-Ma'idah: 49].

Democracy is built upon following man’s vain desires, without any restriction from the Creator. Democracy gives man the right to decide that sodomy is a crime, or that it is a respectable activity that our children should be encouraged to respect and practice. Democracy, therefore, is not simply a Western name for the Islamic principle of Shura!

The Prophet (saw) clearly refused to consider the people sovereign. On one occasion, the noble Sahabah were concerned about the treaty of Hudaybiyah, before Allah’s (swt) word on the matter had been clarified to them. They expressed their opinions very strongly to the Prophet (saw), because they thought that this treaty would humiliate the Muslims. Nevertheless, he (saw) rejected the opinions of all the Sahabah in order to sign the treaty of Hudaybiyah in obedience to the command of Allah (swt).

Sometimes the Khaleefah may not be certain what Allah’s (swt) rule is on a matter, and Ijtihad may be required. In such a situation, the Khaleefah may consult people of knowledge. This type of consultation is considered next.

2) The expert opinion is taken, regardless of the majority or minority, in matters where an intellectual judgement is required about some subject.

Umar b. Al-Khattab (ra) consulted the Muslims regarding the newly conquered lands of Iraq, whether they should be divided amongst the Muslims as booty, or left in the hands of its people subject to payment of Kharaj. Bilal (ra), Abdur Rahman (ra) and Az-Zubayr (ra) thought that the land should be divided in the same way that the Prophet (saw) divided the land of Khaybar as booty. Umar, however, made Ijtihad upon some ayat in Surah al Hashr to deduce that the land should be Kharaji land. Once Umar heard the views and was convinced with his own Ijtihad in preference to that of the majority, he rejected all other opinions and followed his own expert understanding of the text. During Umar’s Khilafah, he consulted the Sahabah on many issues related to understanding the rules of Islam for new situations, and he adopted the strongest opinion and never the majority opinion. The general consensus of the Sahabah upon this makes it clear that the Khaleefah can consult until he finds the strongest opinion. It is the Khaleefah who decides which is correct and no one else.

The Prophet (saw) followed the opinion of a single expert, Habab bin Munthir (ra), over the selection of the place of the Battle of Badr. It was narrated in the Seerah of Ibnu Hisham that, ”when he (saw) camped at the near side of the water of Badr, Al-Habab b. Al-Munthir was not happy with this place. He said to the Messenger (saw), ‘O Messenger of Allah! Did Allah make you camp in this place where we can’t depart from it, or is it the opinion of war and strategy?’ He (saw) said, ‘It is rather the opinion of war and strategy.’ Al Habab b. 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..’ The Messenger (saw) said, ‘You gave the right opinion.”’ Here, the Prophet (saw) followed the opinion of a single expert without asking for the majority view.

When a correct judgement on a subject, whether technical or Shari’ah, is required it is the correct opinion and not the majority that is followed. Only one man, the Khaleefah, has the right to decide which is correct. The ayah of consultation continues:

”…When you decided (azamta), put your trust in Allah” [ Al-'Imran: 159].

This indicates that the final decision is with ruler and not with the people. This is because the verb ”to decide” used in the text is ”azamta” which means you (singular) decided. If the decision had been for the people then the verb would have been in the form ”azamtum” meaning you (plural). Again, it is seen that Shura and democracy are not the same.

3) The majority opinion is taken for matters of action only.

There are many choices the Khaleefah can make between actions that are Mubah (permissible). To invest in schools or hospitals, to appoint this man or that man, to build a motorway through cornfields on the east side of a town or to build it through pastureland to the west, are some examples. It is natural for people to differ when faced with a simple choice between two actions. A technical study would not come up with a judgement that leads to only one right course of action. In such a case, a choice needs to be made which will be subjective to each person. The Khaleefah can consult the people, and this is recommended but not obligatory according to Islam. The Prophet (saw) decided many matters like this himself, but he also consulted the people such as in the consultation before the Battle of Uhud. The Mushrikeen came to attack the Muslims that day, and the Prophet (saw) and the more prominent Sahabah wanted to fight from inside the city of Madina. However, the majority of the people wanted to go outside to fight the enemy. The Prophet (saw) led the army out from Madinah into the battle in accordance with the wishes of the majority.Conclusion

In the democratic system of ruling, man has the absolute right to do as he pleases. This is decided by the majority opinion. Democracy is Kufr because that would be to place man above his Creator! Shura ”consultation” is not an absolute right of the people. The Khaleefah can consult with the people only in permissible matters (”Mubaah”). We have seen that the majority is accepted only if the matter is one of action and not some specialist subject. If an opinion, such as a strategy of war is needed, then the experts in this field are consulted, even if only one. This is because the ”correct” opinion is sought, and the majority opinion has no worth here.The difference between democracy and Shura is like the difference between water and fire. We should remember the words of the Prophet (saw) narrated by Muslim and Bukhari about the final hour, ”When Dajjal will appear he will have water and fire with him. The thing which the people may consider as water will actually be fire; and the thing which the people may consider as fire, will be the cool and sweet water.”

May Allah (swt) protect us from the fire.

Question:

My question is of the three parts, please pardon me:

First, the latest meeting between Obama and Modi has received intensive media coverage, but it did not result in any real decision, it seems that there is still a problem between the United States and between India and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Can you point out the disputed issues between the two parties?

Second, given that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India and Nawaz's party in Pakistan, are both loyal to the United States, and that the issue of Kashmir is draining India, then why is India stalling in resolving the Kashmir problem?

Third, China will meet with the Taliban to conduct mediation talks, did the United States permit this, or is it conducted independent of it? What is China's purpose behind this mediation?

Jazak Allah Khair

---

Answer:

First, to understand the relations between America and India, led by Modi, the following points should be taken into account:

1. Modi has inherited a heavy legacy of problems in relations between America and the Congress party during their ruling period of ten years, before that during the years of the rule of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) relations between New Delhi and Washington were unprecedentedly rejuvenated, but that all changed when the BJP lost in the general election in 2004 and the Congress party - pro-Britain – took over power. In 2010, the Indian Parliament passed the Nuclear Responsibility Law, which put excessive restrictions on suppliers for nuclear power plants; this is to deter the United States and its firms from entering into the Indian market, the implementation of the law made the conclusion of the civil nuclear deal with the United States in 2005 impossible. On the other hand New Delhi strongly rejected the US attempts to start a dialogue on Kashmir, and called on Washington to take tough action against Pakistan in the wake of the Mumbai attacks in 2008, as well as its difference with Washington over its role against the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), and regarding many trade disputes. It was expected that the two countries have many common trade relations, which originated during the years of the rule of the Congress Party, but the United States objected, for example, to use the seal "Made in India" in solar panels, describing it as a violation of the laws of the WTO, India remains busy in defending itself against the complaint submitted to the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization by the United States in 2013

2. During the rule of the Congress party, the Indian public held a negative image of America, this worsened because of the contemptuous treatment of Washington to Indian diplomats. As a result, Modi's first mission was to improve America's image among Indians, especially among the political center. Modi polished the image of America in front of the Indian public, through Obama's visit to India as the chief guest of the Indian Republic, along with the signing of the nuclear deal.

3. President Obama now, before the general elections to be held in the United States in the fall of 2016, is like a lame duck, all his focus is on the Democratic Party's election victory. Whatever the case, Obama has to split his time between participation in local election campaigns, and focus on the many crises abroad, so it is unlikely that Obama could do much to overcome 10 years of rule by the Congress Party of India.

In light of these factors, it is difficult to see any tangible progress on the declarations made at the Obama and Modi Summit. At best, there will be close cooperation on issues that unite the American and Indian interests in the region, such as the fight against "terrorism" emanating from Pakistan, and reduce the influence of China. However, there are several obstacles that created a bit of a gap as a result of the ruling of the Congress party, it will take some time for Modi and Obama to overcome them and remove them. The Former US Ambassador to India, Robert Blackwell, said while he during a speech on the relations between America and India under the rule of Modi in New Delhi on January 2015, "... with respect to the United States strategy towards India during the next two years, in my view, at best our expectations should be modest, contrary to what it was at the beginning of the last decade, neither this prime minister or this president will be able to make a strategic shift in relations between the United States and India, so in my opinion there will be no real strategic partnership between the two in the next two years." ["The Atmosphere of the Relationship between the United States and India and Common Trade", January 24, 2015].

In other words, Blackwell expected the relations between the two countries to catch their breath and regain full strength during the time of Obama's successor and not before.

Second: As for the issue of Kashmir, it was surrounded by many complications during the rule of the Congress party making Modi in need of some time to be able to put the Kashmir issue on the table:

1. Since the rise of the Congress Party to power in 2004, and the issue of Kashmir has mainly been put on the shelf, despite the fact that Pakistan, under Musharraf's rule, made numerous concessions to start the stalled dialogue process between the two countries. However the Congress Party rejected any initiative by Musharraf and insisted that the Kashmir issue is an internal matter.

2. The situation remained as it is until the Mumbai attacks in November 2008 CE, after that all prospects of a resumption of dialogue on the issue of Kashmir were completely frozen, the Indian government changed its tone, and pressed Pakistan to recognize that it is guilty in the attacks, and must work to rein in all the armed groups operating inside Pakistan, especially the group "Lashkar-e-Tayba" ... The Indian government in October 2010 accused the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency) for being responsible for the planning of the attacks, and said in a statement, "The ISI was involved in planning an attack in 2008 on the Mumbai terrorist ... " ["The Indian government: Pakistan agents are behind the Mumbai Attacks", The Hindustan Times, October 19, 2010].

3. In the wake of the Mumbai attacks, there was a strain in relations between Islamabad and New Delhi, and any attempt on the part of Pakistan or America to push for the resumption of dialogue on Kashmir was rejected by India.

4. At the time, America has been pressing India to ease tensions along the border with Pakistan, especially on the Line of Control, so as to allow Pakistan to re-deploy its troops on the border with Afghanistan to help the United States in the fight against the resistance in Afghanistan. But India did not shift from its position on Kashmir, and forced both Pakistan and America to accept the new reality.

5. During the rule of the Congress Party in India, public opinion about any concessions on the issue of Kashmir to Pakistan froze. Thus, when Modi took over the Prime Minister's Office on 26 May 2014 CE, he was in front of a 10-year challenge of the Congress Party's obstinacy to abandon its non-negotiable position on Kashmir.

6. America has tried to pave the way for the rapprochement between India and Pakistan as a step for the negotiation in order to find a solution to Kashmir, and therefore Nawaz defying the feelings of Muslims visited India, congratulating Modi and attended his inauguration ceremony, despite that he is known for his animosity to Muslims ... by such a step it made them further apart rather than closer.

7. Then there is another issue: all Indian political parties are committed to Kashmir as a part of them, so even if the BJP and Nawaz are loyal to America, it is not easy to solve the Kashmir issue as a negotiated solution, but the correct and fair solution is to end its occupation by the Hindus by force, which is an easy matter by the will of Allah if there was a sincere state in Pakistan to Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw), we pray that it will be soon, by the permission of Allah.

With all this, it is not unlikely that America will gather the two parties together, but this may take time.

Third: the relationship of China and Afghanistan ... and the Taliban:

1. China has focused considerable attention in the development of trade relations with Afghanistan, and the Mineral Group's state-owned company have spent $3 billion on a copper mine in Aynak Mine "about 50 kilometers south of Kabul." China National Petroleum Corporation (the largest oil company in the country) agreed in 2011 to develop the Amu Darya Basin in Afghanistan, which is a project that will generate $7 billion in profits. China National Petroleum Corporation has helped to create the first site for the production of oil in Afghanistan, with an annual energy estimated at 1.5 million barrels ["China and its presence in Afghanistan," The National Newspaper, November 1, 2014]. Moreover, China has recently announced the New Silk Road project costing billions of dollars, the project consists of three parts, the first part starts from Xi'an in China and passes through Pakistan and ends in Turkey. The second part extends from Bangladesh to Myanmar, while the third connects the Fujian coast of China with the rest of the world. And the revival of economic Silk Road belt was one of President Jean Ping's ideas, which is being implemented, developed and expedited in its implementation since the last quarter of 2013. Thus, Afghanistan is an important piece in this great project. Also, China's large appetite for resources will increase in Afghanistan, with the presence of more than $1 trillion in potential mineral wealth.

Thus it was not surprising that as soon as Ashraf Ghani became president of Afghanistan his first foreign visit was to China, where he was rewarded with new commitments from Beijing, and China has pledged to give Afghanistan 2 billion yuan ($ 327 million) in aid during 2017, in addition to the 250 million dollars that it contributed to Afghanistan since 2001. In addition, China has promised to provide training for 3,000 Afghan professional staff, as well as assisting in the development of the Afghan agriculture, hydropower, and infrastructure.

From the above, it is clear that China has a strong commercial interest in developing strong relationships with Afghanistan in the near future.

2. China cannot exploit its trade relations with Afghanistan, unless the country is stable ... and stability requires a strong government in Afghanistan, and that is why China is keen to support the Ghani's government as much as possible. Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, said during his visit to Kabul on 22 of February 2014, "The peace and stability in this country has an impact on the security of west China, and most importantly, it affects the peace and the development throughout the region, and we hope to see political reconciliation broad-based and inclusive in Afghanistan as soon as possible, and China will play a constructive role to facilitate this ... The country that is divided has no future." [Reuters, February 22, 2014].

Hence, the interest in the stability of Afghanistan by China. There is also another matter, China is afraid of the threat that emanates from the Afghan border with China, known as the Wakhan Corridor, it is a narrow strip of land in the northeast of Afghanistan, and extends from China and Tajikistan, and it separates between Pakistan and Kashmir region in Pakistan, and is located between the Pamir to the north and the Hindu Kush to the south, and its length is about 350 km, and of a width between 13-65 km. It forms a channel to facilitate the movement of Uighur Islamic fighters, who cause an internal security issue for China, where the Taliban are harboring and training militants from "East Turkistan Islamic Movement" of Uighurs in Afghanistan and the tribal areas in Pakistan, the Uighur fighters are fighting for an independent homeland free of Chinese domination. This has been clearly shown by the Chinese Foreign Minister during his visit to Kabul last year, in a statement published by the People's Republic of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the purpose of the visit, he said: "... to promote cooperation in the field of security, and cooperation in other areas such as counter-terrorism, and combating the East Turkestan Islamic movement Islamic" ["Wang Yi will hold talks with Afghan Foreign Minister", the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the Czech Republic, February 23, 2014].

In light of the points mentioned above, China supports the continued US presence in Afghanistan after December 2014 to maintain stability. This has been highlighted clearly i.e. the public encouragement of China for Hamid Karzai to sign a bilateral security agreement. In September 2013, the spokesman for President Hamid Karzai, Aimal Faizi, said that the president of China provides support for Afghan foreign relations with regional and foreign countries, specifically with the United States, in an attempt to bring peace and stability in the region, and that China supports the conclusion of a security agreement between the Afghanistan and the United States, [China supports the security agreement between Afghanistan and the United States," Kama Newspaper, 28 September 2013]. The newspaper added that China also announced that it supports the peace process led by Afghanistan, and it is ready to play a role in the Afghan peace talks, i.e. peace talks with the Taliban ... from these statements, which are all in the same context, and other similar statements, it is clear that China supports America for the stability in Afghanistan, as well as it supports peace talks with the Taliban with the full knowledge of the Americans.

Also, China has set up in November 2014, a "forum of peace and reconciliation," as reported by Reuters, in an effort to play a greater role in Afghanistan in order to push the peace talks, [Reuters, November 11, 2014] and find ways to mediate in a peace agreement between the Government of Ghani and the Taliban. Thus, recently the Taliban has visited Beijing, and China is supporting Pakistan to put pressure on the Afghan Taliban movement to achieve reconciliation with Ghani's government. This cannot be interpreted as China wanting to take America's place in Afghanistan, but on the contrary, the interests of Beijing and Washington are in harmony with the issue of stability in Afghanistan. In this regard, a US official said, "The United States and China have agreed to work together to support the Government of Afghanistan, and national unity, and the security forces, and economic development; to ensure that Afghanistan is not used once again as a safe haven for terrorists." ["China progressing to mediate in the stalled peace talks with the Afghan Taliban," Economic Times, February 13, 2015].

All this shows that China is interested in stability in Afghanistan due to the development of its large economic interests there, which is consistent with the United States on the subject of the stability of Afghanistan ... and it is also interested in reconciliation between Afghanistan and the Taliban so that China benefits in tightening of the supply line of the fighters of East Turkistan, and this was the reason for communications by China with both parties, Afghanistan and the Taliban.

We hope that the Taliban is aware of this matter and repels the plots of China back to its land, and the brotherhood of Islam continues between them and the rebels of East Turkistan.

19 Jumada I 1436 AH

10/3/2015 CE

After reading this who has an excuse for not working for the Khilafah?

 The clear Evidences for the Obligation of the Khilafah

Islam has been reduced to merely a state "religion" and Secularism is hailed as the states Ideology. The Kuffar succeeded in divorcing our system, the Khilafah, from our lives.

"We must put an end to anything which brings about any Islamic unity between the sons of the Muslims. As we have already succeeded in finishing off the Khilafah, so we must ensure that there will never arise again unity for the Muslims, whether it be intellectual or cultural unity"
The British Foreign Minister addressing the British Prime Minister shortly before World War II.

"The situation now is that Turkey is dead and will never rise again, because we have destroyed it's moral strength, the Khilafah and Islam" Lord Curzon, British Foreign Minister, infront of the House of Commons after the Lausanne Treaty of July 24th 1924.

Is it any wonder, then, that Muslims today don't even know about their true ruling system? That they've never even heard the word Khilafah uttered in any discussion related to their revival? The British have succeeded in "educating" us to such an extent that we run towards their system and rush to abandon our Deen. So what is this Khilafah? Why is it so vital for Islam?

The mechanism through which we live Islam is the Khilafah ruling system. This is the same Khilafah ruling system that the Khulafa Rashideen implemented and the same one which existed right up until 3rd March, 1924, when it was destroyed by the British agent and traitor, Mustafah Kemal. The Prophet (saw) said:

"The knots of Islam will be broken one by one until everyone of them is undone. The first to be undone will be the knot of ruling and the last will be the knot of Salah" (Musnad of Imam Ahmed)


THE FARD (OBLIGATION) OF AL-KHILAFAH
In the Glorious Qur'an:

Allah (SWT) says in the translation of the meaning of the Qur'an ul-Kareem (TMQ):

1. "But no, by your Lord, they will not have Eeman until they make you (O Prophet) rule between them in that wich they dispute, and they find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction" (TMQ 4:65).

2. "Indeed, we have revealed to you the book with the truth so that you may rule between mankind by that which Allah has shown you" (TMQ 4:105).

3. "So rule between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you" (TMQ 4:49).

4. "Whosoever does not rule by that which Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers (Kafiroon).....the thaalimoon (oppressors)....the fasiqoon (evil doers)"
(TMQ 4. 5:44-47)

These ayaat(versus) of Qur'an, and many others, prove beyond doubt the obligation of ruling by what Allah has revealed. The first one in particular refers to the Muslims directly by stating that we have no real Imaan (belief) until we make them judge between us by Allah's revelation. This is an indication of the obligation for all Muslims to establish Allah's ruling system.


In the Ahadeeth of our beloved Prophet (saw):

1: Imam Muslim narrated from Abu Hazim who said:
I was with Abu Hurairah for five years and I heard him narrate from the Prophet (SAW) that he said: "The Prophets used to rule Bani Israel. Whenever a prophet died another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophets after me; instead there will be Khulafaa' (Khalifahs) and they will number many". They asked: what then do you order us? He said: "fulfil allegiance to them one after the other. Give them their dues. Verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with".

This Hadeeth is a clear statement of the fact that the form of government in Islam, after the Prophet (SAW) is the Khilafah, and not an Islamic Republic, Islamic Socialist Republic or Islamic Imarah. This understanding is supported by numerous other Hadeeth that indicate the only system of government in Islam is the Khilafah.

2: Imam Muslim narrated from Abdullah bin 'Umar who said that the Prophet (saw) said,

"One who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to a Khalifah) will die the death of one belonging to the days of ignorance (Jahiliyah)".

3. Ahmed and Ibn abi 'Asim narrated that the Prophet (saw) said,

"Whosoever dies and he does not have over him an Imaam, he dies the death of Jahilyyah".

Thus the Prophet (SAW) made it compulsory that every Muslim should have over him an Imaam, which is also represented by having a pledge of allegiance (bayah) on his or her neck. The pledge of allegiance is not given to anyone except the Khalifah. The Ahadeeth inform us that those who run the affairs of Muslims are Khalifahs (some times called Amir ul-Mu'mineen or the Imam). Therefore, this is a command to establish or appoint them.


In the sayings of the Sahabah:

Ali ibn abi Taalib (r.a.) said, "The people will not be straightened except by an Imaam (Khaleefah), whether he is good or bad".
(Bayhaqi, No. 14286, Kanz ul-ummal)

Abdullah ibn 'Umar (r.a.) said "The people in the Ummah will not suffer even if they were oppressors and sinful if the rulers were guided and were guiding. But the people in the Ummah will suffer and perish even if they were guided and were guiding if the rulers were oppressors and sinful".
(Abu Nu'aim narrated in 'Hulayat Awliyyah.)

'Umar ibn al-Khattab (r.a.) said,
"Laa Islam bi laa Jamaa'ati wa laa jamaa'ati bi laa Imaarah, wa laa Imaaratu bi laa sam'on wa taa'ah".
"There is no Islam without a community, and there is no community without a leadership, and there is no authoruty without hearing and obeying".

In the sayings of the Ulemaa:

Imam al-Qurtubi said in his Tafseer of the verse, "Indeed, man is made upon this earth a Khaleefah" (TMQ 2:30) that:
"Haatheeh il-Aayatu asalun fee nasabi Imaamin wa Khaleefatin, yosma'oo lahu wa yotaa'u li-tajtami'i bihi il-kalimatih, wa tonaffithu bihi ahkaam il-Khaleefah, wa laa khalaafu fee wajoobi thalik bayna al-Ummati wa laa bayn al-a'immah, illa maa rawaya 'an il-Asam al-Mu'tazzili..."
"This Ayah is a source in the selection of an Imaam, and a Khaleefah, he is listened to and he is obeyed, for the word is united through him, and the Ahkam (laws) of the Khaleefah are implemented through him, and there is no difference regarding the obligation of that between the Ummah, nor between the Imams except what is narrated about al-Asam, the Mu'tazzili (a deviant group)...".
(Tafseer ul-Qurtubi 264/1.)

Imam al-Qurturbi (rh.a.) also said,
"The Khilafah is the pillar upon which other pillars rest".

Imam an-Nawawi (rh.a.) said,
"Ijma'oo 'alaa annahu yajib 'alal-Muslimeena nasabun Khaleefah".
"(The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khaleefah".
(Sharhu Sahih Muslim page 205 vol 12)

Imaam al-Ghazali (rh.a.) when writing of the potential consequences of losing the Khilafah said,
"The judges will be suspeneded, the Wilayaat (provinces) will be nullified, ... the decrees of those in authority will not be executed and all the people will be on the verge of Haraam".
(al Iqtisaad fil Itiqaad page 240.)

Ibn Taymiyyah (rh.a.) said,
"Yajib an yo'rafa anna wilayata amr in-naasi min a'thami waajibaat id-Deen, Bal laa qiyaamu li-Deen illa bihaa".
"It is obligatory to know that the office in charge of commanding over the people (ie: the Khilafah post) is one of the greatest obligations of the Deen. In fact, their is no establishment of the Deen except by it....this is the opinion of the salaf, such as al-Fadl ibn 'Iyaad, Ahmed ibn Hanbal and others".
(Siyaasah Shariyyah - chapter: 'The obligation of adherence to the leadership'.)

Imam abu ul-Hasan al-Mawardi (rh.a.) said,
"'Aqd ul-Imamati li man yaqoomu bihaa fil-ummati wajib bil-Ijmaa' ".
"The contract of the Imamah (leadership) for whoever is standing with it, is an obligation by Ijmaa'a (consensus)".
(al-Ahkam us-Sultaniyyah [Arabic] p 56.)

Imam Ahmed (rh.a.) said:
"Al-Fitnatu Ithaa lam yakun Imaamun Yaqoomu bi amril-Muslimeen", which means,
"The Fitna (mischief and tribuulations) occurs when there is no Imaam established over the affairs of the people".

Abu Hafs Umar al-Nasafi (rh.a.) a noted scholar of the 6th century Hijri states;
"The Muslims simply must have an Imam (Khaleefah), who will execute the rules, establish the Hudud (penal system), defend the frontiers, equip the armies, collect Zakah, punish those who rebel (against the state) and those who spy and highwaymen, establish Jum'ah and the two 'Eids, settle the dispute among the servants (of Allah), accept the testimony of witnesses in matters of legal rights, give in marriage the young and the poor who have no family, and distribute the booty".

Imam Al-Juzayri, an expert on the Fiqh of the four great schools of thought said regarding the four Imams, "The Imams (scholars of the four schools of thought- Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali)- may Allah have mercy on them- agree that the Imamah (Leadership) is an obligation, and that the Muslims must appoint an Imam who would implement the deen's rites, and give the oppressed justice against the oppressors".
("Fiqh ul-Mathahib ul- Arba'a" [the Fiqh of the four schools of thought], volume 5, page 416.)

Imam al-Haythami said,
"A'lamu anna Sahabata- Ridhwaan Allahu 'alayhim -Ajma'oo 'ala anna nasab al-Imaamata ba'd inqiraadhi zaman in-Naboowa waajibon bal ja'aloohu ahamu wajibaat hayth ushtaghloo bihi 'an dafani rasool illah".
"It is known that the Sahabah (r.a.h) consented that selecting the Imaam after the end of the era of Prophethood was an obligation (Wajib). Indeed they made it (more) important than the (other) obligations whilst they were busy with it over the burial of the Prophet (saw)".
(al-Haythami in Sawaa'iq ul-haraqah:17.)



THE OBLIGATION OF THERE BEING ONLY ONE KHALIFAH FOR THE ENTIRE MUSLIM UMMAH:
In the ahadeeth of the beloved Prophet (saw)

1) The Prophet (saw) said: "When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the latter of them". (Narrated in Sahih Muslim by Sa'id al-Khudri)

2) The Prophet (saw) also said: "Whoso comes to you while your affairs has been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him." (Narrated in Sahih Muslim by 'Arfajah)

So what is with the Muslims who insist on establish regional Islamic Imarah's (Governments) based upon nationalistic divisions drawn up by the British and her fellow colonialists? Cannot we see beyond the plans of the Kuffar? What of those Muslims who wish to establish Islamic Governments in "their own" country and then to resume normal relationships with the rest of the Muslim countries, as if the rest of the Muslim countries are perfectly legal under Islam? Having more than one Khalifah for the entire Ummah is a sin, a fitnah and a division in our ranks.


In the Ijma'a (consensus) of the Sahabah (r.a.)

It is in the books of "As-Sirah" of Ibnu Kathir, "Tarikh ut-Tabari" by at-Tabari, "Siratu Ibn Hisham" by Ibn Hisham, "As-Sunan ul-Kubra" of Bayhaqi, "Al-fasil-fil Milal" by Ibnu Hazim and "Al-A'kd Al-Farid" of Al-Waqidi, that Al-Habbab Ibn ul-Munthir said when the Sahaba met in the wake of the death of the Prophet (SAW) (at the thaqifa hall) of Bani Sa'ida:

"Let there be one Amir from us and one Amir from you (meaning one from the Ansar and one from the Mohajireen)". Upon this Abu Bakr replied: "It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs (rulers)..." Then he got up and addressed the Muslims.

It has additionally been reported in "as-Sirah" of Ibnu Ishaq that Abu Bakr went on to say on the day of Thaqifa: "It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The Sunnah would then be abandoned, the bida'a (innovations) would spread and Fitna would grow, and that is in no one's interests".

The Sahabah (ra) agreed to this and selected Abu Bakr (ra) as their first Khalifah. Habbab ibn Mundhir (ra) who suggested the idea of two Ameers corrected himself and was the first to give Abu Bakr the Baya'a (pledge of allegiance). This indicates an Ijma'a of all of the Sahabah (ra) and thus is a divine source for us. Ali ibni abi Talib(ra), who was attending the body of the Prophet (saw) at the time, also consented to this.


In the quotes of famous scholars:

1. Imam ash-Shawkaani wrote in his book "Tafseer al-Qur'an al-Atheem", volume 2, page 215: "It is known from Islam by necessity (bi-dharoorah - i.e.: like prayer and fasting) that Islam has forbidden division amongst Muslims and the segregation of their land".

2. The well renowned Imam Hassan Al-Mawardi(ra) in his book "Al-ahkam Al-Sultaniyah" page 9 says: "It is forbidden for the Ummah to have two Imams (leaders) at the same time."

3. Imam An-Nawawi in his book "Mughni Al-Muhtaj", volume 4, page 132 says: "It is forbidden to give an oath to two Imams or more, even in different parts of the world and even if they are far apart".

He also stated in his book, "Sharhu Sahih Muslim" (explanation of Sahih Muslim) chapter 12 page 231, "If a baya'a were taken for two Khalifahs one after the other, the baya'a of the first one would be valid and it should be fulfilled and honoured whereas the baya'a of the second would be invalid, and it would be forbidden to honour it. This is the right opinion which the majority of scholars follow, and they agree that it would be forbidden to appoint two Khalifah's at one given time, no matter how great and extended the Islamic lands become".

4. The Imam Ibnu Hazm in his book "Al-Muhalla", volume 4, page 360 says: "It is unlawful to have more than one Imam in the whole of the world".

5. Al-Imam Al-Juzieri, an expert on the Fiqh of the four great schools of thought said regarding the four Imams, "...It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Imams in the world whether in agreement or discord."
From: "Fiqh ul-Mathahib ul- Arba'a" (the fiqh of the four schools of thought), volume 5, page 416.


CONCLUSION: 

In Conclusion it can be seen that the Khilafah ruling system implements the whole of Islam, thus Islam and the Muslims depend on it. It is not just one fard but the mechanism through which Islam is implemented. This is why the Prophetic calender of the Muslims starts with Yr 1 Hijri. What the Hijrah signifies is the leaving behind of the Makkan Shirk and the establishment of Islam in Madina as a governing system. So year 1 Hijri begins from the first day of Islamic Government, not from the date of first revelation, or the Prophets (saw) birth as it could have done, and as the Christians practice. Thus anyone who makes excuses for this issue will be neglecting the biggest duty in Islam, to establish the Deen. The death of Jahillyyah will be upon him and so it is Fard to work with those who know about the Khilafah and who are working for it according to the methodology of the Prophet (saw), and this is the biggest duty upon the Muslims today above all else. Nobody can claim that this is an impossible task as Allah (swt) promises the victory of the believers and confirms:

"Allah has promised those amongst you who believe and work righteous deeds, that he will indeed grant them inheritance of power in the earth, as he granted it to those before them; that he will establish in authority their Deen, which he has chosen for them, and that he will change their state from a state of fear into a state of security and peace. They will worship me alone and not associate
partners with me, and those who reject faith after this, they will be the rebellious and the wicked" TMQ (an-Noor :55)

Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal extracted that Huthayfah said the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:"The Prophecy will remain amongst you as long as Allah wills, then Allah will lift it when he wishes, then it will be a Khilafah Rashidah (i.e.: The first four Khalifahs) on the method of the Prophecy, it will remain for as long as Allah wills, then he will lift it when he wills, then it will be a hereditary leadership (i.e.: the Abbasid and Ummayid dynasties etc.) for as long as Allah wills then he will lift it when he so wills. Then there will be a tyrannical rule (i.e.: all the current Kufr regimes of the Muslims) for as long as Allah wills, then he will lift it when he so wills, then there will be a Khilafah Rashidah on the method of the Prophecy, then he kept silent."
(Musnad Imam Ahmed 4/273)

and concerning the liberation of Masjid al-Aqsa from the Jews, the Prophet (saw) said,

"Two Hijrah's will take place, and the latter will be to the place where your father Ibrahim may peace be upon him had immigrated (i.e.: Palestine)"
Note: Hijrah occurs when Muslims emigrate from Kufr lands to the Islamic state.

Subsequently, nobody can claim that this task is an impossible one as it has been promised success by Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw). All that remains is for the faithful to rush to carry out this noble work and to carry the da'wah to this ummah and remind her of her Deen.

Imam Ahmed reported in his Musnad (5/35) that the Messenger (saw) said:
"If the people of as-sham (Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria) went astray then there would be no goodness amongst you, but however there will continue to be a group supported from my ummah, and they will not be bothered by those who disapproved until the day of Judgement".

May Allah make us from that group, and support us in re-establishing his Deen on his earth. Ameen.

By Abu 'Ammar

Dear Sisters, what does the 3rd of March 1924 mean to you? Is it just an ordinary date buried in the books of history? To me, it is the date that brings tears to my eyes and burns the heart – for this is the day 90 years ago that the Muslim woman lost her shield, her guardian, her protector – the Khilafah.

She lost her Islamic leadership that fought wars to guard her dignity, mobilising armies without hesitation to liberate her from oppressors. She lost rulers who shouldered her economic burdens, ensuring that she and her family were always provided for – leaders of taqwa who were servants to her needs, shedding tears out of concern for her welfare and over their great responsibilities towards her. They would carry food to her with their own hands when she was hungry and would refuse food for themselves until she was fed.

She lost her Islamic system under which she enjoyed the status of being the centre of attention with respect to care and protection, where her dignity was viewed as more precious than all the treasures of the world and men feared to utter a single word against her honour. It was a system that created prosperity in her land; a system under which she could elect her ruler and account him openly without fear of repercussion; a system which generated thousands of female scholars and pioneered the world in women’s education; a system under which the slave-girl became the mother of sultans; and a system where the Khalifah, judiciary and Qadi stood as guardians of her rights, protecting her from exploitation or abuse, and exerting all efforts to ensure that justice was hers as obliged by her Deen.

She lost her Islamic state which raised her status as a wife and mother, making the woman the cherished cornerstone of the family, bestowing upon her great worth, lifting from her the heavy burden of providing for herself, and commanding unconditional respect towards her as the nurturer and educator of the future generations. She lost a society in which her children were surrounded by the pure Islamic values and laws, and educated in Islamic homes and schools, creating youth of distinguished Islamic personalities who exemplified noble behavior andakhlaq (ethics). They were the devoted servants of Allah (swt), heroes of Islam, upright citizens of their state shouldering the burdens of their community and Ummah, carriers of the dawah and fierce adversaries to corruption and oppression, embodying the characteristics of leaders of humanity.

It was a state in which her status, rights, and good treatment became the envy of the women of the world.

And what did she gain over the last 9 decades in exchange for all this from the loss of her shield? Her life became one marred by death and destruction, poverty, indignity, destitution, and desperation. She came to be ruled by oppressive dictatorships which stole her wealth, ruled through terror, and imprisoned and killed her people for speaking the truth. She was forced to beg on streets, sell her body, or abandon her children to seek work in foreign states to feed herself and her family. She rummaged through bins for scraps of food and watched her children die from starvation. She became a tool to generate wealth for corporations and governments, the victim of traffickers, and the target of capitalists and criminals who exploited her dignity for profit. And her society became one plagued with insecurity, lawlessness, and violence, ruled by systems that cared nothing for her welfare, deprived her of her rights, and denied her justice.

Her land became occupied by foreign governments who destroyed her properties and slaughtered her family with impunity. She witnessed her children being butchered in front of her eyes by those harbouring hatred towards Islam. They violated her dignity and chased her from her home, while no army came to her rescue and no state provided her with a good life in a safe sanctuary. She became vilified and attacked for her Islamic dress and persecuted, imprisoned and tortured for speaking the Haq against her ruler under leaderships that criminalized the call to Islam.

And her role as a wife and mother became disregarded, devalued and undermined. Her children became exposed to the lewdness, immorality, and corruption of poisonous Western capitalist and liberal values imported freely, implemented and promoted by secular governments. Consequently, they became affected by the same scourge of individualism and materialism that afflicts Western societies and breeds disobedience and disrespect towards parents and elders. They became drawn to the Western identity and dress, embracing the destructive self-gratifying culture and lifestyle promoted by liberal personal and sexual freedoms, enticing many to a life of alcohol, drugs and harmful elicit relationships. The sanctity of the Islamic family unit became violated with the rise of adultery and divorce, leading to heartbreak for men, women and children alike.

Dear sisters, this is the painful, devastating aftermath of the events of the 3rd of March 1924, that fateful day when we lost our shield, our guardian, our protector. It should not be an insignificant date in history but one that is firmly etched in our minds. It is a date surrounded by sadness, and regret – one that should serve as a great reminder of just how much we lost as Muslim women when the System of Allah (swt), the Khilafah was removed from our lands.

Nine long dark years of unbearable suffering, indignity, and misery for the daughters of this Ummah is surely enough! It breaks the heart to reflect on the mercy, privileges, and countless blessings that Allah (swt) bestowed upon the Muslim woman under the shade of His System that have been resigned to the pages of history books or lie dormant in Islamic texts rather than gracing our lives. But now there is great hope that our shield is again rising from the ashes of its destruction to enlighten this world with its justice and sublime values as it once did. We witness the cool breeze of change as the Raya flag is raised from land to land across the globe and men and women alike take up its call.

Dear beloved sisters, we call you to be part of this great, momentous change of re-establishing this glorious Khilafah that will resume the magnificence of our Deen within our Muslim lands and with it return dignity, justice and protection to the daughters of Islam. We call you to be part of this work to give life to a state which taught the world the high status that a woman deserves and the great respect by which she should be treated. We call you to join your sisters of Hizb ut Tahrir in exerting all your efforts to fulfil this most vital of Islamic obligations of establishing the System of Allah upon this earth which will secure for you, Insha Allah, a high station and unimaginable rewards in the Hereafter.

Let these long, dark, painful decades that the daughters of this Ummah have endured in the absence of their shield be one that is confined to the books of history and the dawn of a new life take root that is full of honour and tranquillity under the shade of the noble Khilafah.

﴿فَإِمَّا يَأۡتِيَنَّڪُم مِّنِّى هُدً۬ى فَمَنِ ٱتَّبَعَ هُدَاىَ فَلَا يَضِلُّ وَلَا يَشۡقَىٰ وَمَنۡ أَعۡرَضَ عَن ذِڪۡرِى فَإِنَّ لَهُۥ مَعِيشَةً۬ ضَنكً۬ا وَنَحۡشُرُهُۥ يَوۡمَ ٱلۡقِيَـٰمَةِ أَعۡمَىٰ﴾

“Whoever follows My Guidance shall neither go astray, nor fall into distress and misery. But whoever turns away from My Reminder (That is, neither believes in the Qur’an nor acts on its orders) verily, for him is a life of hardship, and We shall raise him up blind on the Day of Resurrection.” [TMQ Ta-Ha: 123-124]

Written By : Dr. Nazreen Nawaz

Recently, Saudi Arabia's interior minister warned the pilgrims that they should not involve politics in Hajj. The current rulers in the Muslim lands are attempting to prevent Muslims from gathering and discussing issues and ideas which are pertinent to the future of the Ummah. Politics which is the act of "taking care of the affairs of the Ummah according to Shar'a rulings" is an integral part of Islam. We must take it upon ourselves to reclaim Islam and discuss the issues affecting the Muslim Ummah in all gatherings. 

Prior to the commencement of Hajj, Saudi authorities were warning pilgrims not to stage any protests during the ritual. Saudi Arabia's interior minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz said, "It is not permitted to undertake any actions which are not part of the ritual... and we will not permit anyone to damage the hajj or the pilgrims."

Hajj is an amazing journey where Muslims have an opportunity to strengthen their relationship with Allah سبحانه وتعالى. It is also an event where Muslims from every corner of the earth gather together as one Ummah to strengthen the bonds of brotherhood. Today, the pilgrims are grouped according to the nation states they belong to. Furthermore, Muslims are not given an opportunity to bond with each other, by getting to know one another and discuss our condition as Allah سبحانه وتعالى has revealed:

إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَى وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا

"We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other." [Al-Hujraat, 49:13]

Obstructing the Ummah: Hajj and Beyond

The discouragement of Muslims gathering and discussing the affairs of the Ummah is not only seen at the time of Hajj. Rather, this is a recurring theme throughout the Muslim world. Rulers regularly prevent Muslims from gathering and discussing issues and ideas which are pertinent to the future of the Ummah. Such preventions are usually enforced with great hostility and aggression:

• Palestine - In November 2007, 36-year-old Hisham Baradi died in a hospital after Palestinian police shot him in cold blood. According to reports, riot police and other security forces moved in on members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir as soon as they left masjids in the cities of Ramallah, Nablus and Hebron aiming to march in non-violent demonstrations planned against the treacherous Annapolis Conference attended by Abbas and other Arab rulers.

• Turkey - In July of this year, KöklüDeğişim Magazine organized a Khilafah conference in Istanbul. Two weeks prior to the conference, the organizers received permission from the Governor of Istanbul and notified him of the speakers along with a summary of their speeches. On the day of the conference - in the early morning - the Turkish police arrested (without any resistance) 200 speakers and attendees which led to the cancellation of the conference.

• Bangladesh - In September of this year, Muslims in Bangladesh organized a peaceful rally outside the national masjid after Jummah prayers calling for the re-establishment of the Khilafah and a unified Muslim Army. The rally, which was attended by several thousand Muslims was prevented by the police. Furthermore, they arrested 30 Muslim activists.

• Pakistan - In October of this year, 30 members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir were arrested in Islamabad while they were having a seminar in a residential home.

Islam: A Complete Way of Life

Islam is more than a mere set of rituals; rather it is a complete way of life. Islam does not confine the relationship between man and his Creator to his personal sphere. Instead, Islam properly recognizes that man needs guidance from Allah سبحانه وتعالى in all affairs, especially in the matters of siyasah (politics), which is "taking care of the affairs of the Ummah according to Shar'a rulings". As such, it is part of our Deen to be concerned with the affairs of our brothers and sisters across the world. Allah سبحانه وتعالى revealed:

إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَ أَخَوَيْكُمْ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ

"The believers are nothing else than brothers. So make reconciliation between your brothers, and fear Allah, that you may receive mercy." [Al-Hujraat, 49:10]

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "You will see the believers in their mutual kindness, love and sympathy just like one body. When a limb complains, the whole body responds to it with wakefulness and fever." [Muslim & Bukhari]

The ayah and hadith make it clear that it is part of our Deen to be concerned about the Ummah. Just as our hearts fill with joy when we see our brothers and sisters in their success, we are also overwhelmed with sadness and pain when we see their hardship and suffering. As a result, it is only natural that when we meet our fellow Muslims - be it at Hajj or after prayer at the masjid - that we discuss our problems and the solutions on how to resolve them.

Siyasah in the Gatherings of Muslims

When we look to the example of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Sahabah (ra), we see that the Muslims gathered and engaged in siyasah (politics) be they in Hajj, or outside of Hajj.

In the Hujat-al-Wada sermon which occurred during the Prophet's صلى الله عليه وسلم Hajj, RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم discussed many issues that concern the affairs of Muslims including the property of a Muslim, riba, the obligations of men towards women and the equality of all Muslims with the exception of their Taqwa.

The masjid itself (which today is known only as a place of Juma, Jamat, Qiyamul-Layl and maybe some Islamic education) used to be the center of all activities. During the time of RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم it was a place to congregate and discuss the affairs of the Ummah. For example, the news of Zayd (ra), Jafar (ra) and Abdullah ibn Rawaha (ra) being martyred at the Battle of Mua'ta was relayed to the Muslims by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the masjid while he was on the minbar.

After the death of RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم and prior to burying his body - an action which Shar'a requires urgency - the Sahabah (ra) gathered, discussed and debated as to who should be the leader of all Muslims. It was after heated discussions that Abu Bakr (ra) was nominated as the Khaleefah. Only after the appointment of Abu Bakr (ra) was the body of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم buried.

During the Khilafat of Abu Bakr (ra) the tribes in the Arabian Peninsula apostatized and rebelled against the Islamic State. He then gathered the Sahabah (ra) in the masjid to discuss whether the Muslims should declare war on the apostates and rebels. When Umar (ra) was the Khaleefah, he used to meet the Wulaa (governors) during Hajj to discuss their activities and any issues of the Muslims in the region.

We can also see throughout the Islamic history stories of how the Ummah would not let any wrong pass by their eyes without correcting it even if it was the doing of a governor or the Khaleefah himself. Those in authority did not respond by imprisoning, suppressing or torturing these people rather they were quick to correct themselves as they understood the great responsibility and accountability they had before Allah سبحانه وتعالى.

When Umar (ra) was the Khaleefah, he received some cloth and distributed it equally amongst the Muslims by giving them one piece each. When he was on the minbar it was apparent that he was wearing 2 pieces of cloth. Immediately, Salman al-Farsi (ra) said, "By Allah, we will not hear you, because you prefer yourself to your people." At this point Abdullah ibn Umar (ra) explained that he gave his father his cloth. Salman al-Farsi (ra) responded by saying: "Now we shall hear you."

In another incident, Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan who was a governor ordered a person to sell a silver utensil received from the spoils of war for payment to the soldiers who went out in battle. The news of (this state of affairs) reached Ubada bin Samit (ra) and he stood up and said, "I heard Allah's Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم forbidding the sale of gold by gold, and silver by silver, and wheat by wheat, and barley by barley, and dates by dates, and salt by salt, except like for like and equal for equal. So he who made an addition or who accepted an addition (committed the sin of taking) interest." So the people returned what they had received. This reached Mu'awiya and he stood up to deliver an address. He said, "What is the matter with people that they narrate from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم such tradition which we did not hear though we saw him and lived in his company?" Thereupon, Ubada bin Samit (ra) stood up and repeated that narration, and then said, "We will definitely narrate what we heard from Allah's Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم though it may be unpleasant to Mu'awiya. I do not mind if I do not remain in his troop in the dark night."

Seeking Solutions

The Ummah is seeking solutions to the problems that are currently plaguing it. The Muslims are growing tired of insincere rulers who would rather host a concert with scantily clad women than permit our Muslim sisters to wear the niqab at universities, as has happened in Egypt. It is fear that drives these despotic rulers to try their utmost to clamp down on any sincere gathering of Muslims working to free the Ummah of the problems that ail it. They are aware that they are sitting on borrowed thrones which do not rightfully belong to them, but rather belong to a sincere leader who will rule only by what Allah سبحانه وتعالى has revealed and fear no one but Him. It is only then that we can see this great Ummah return to the state that it was. Insha-Allah we will again see rulers who follow the method of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and fulfil their covenant towards Allah سبحانه وتعالى and the Ummah.

With ample evidence that all of Islam was discussed and that there was no separation between the rituals and other aspects of Islam we must take it upon ourselves to reclaim Islam from the treacherous rulers. By obeying only the commands and prohibitions of Allah سبحانه وتعالى we must return Islam back to the norm by making Muslim gatherings such as Hajj, the masjid and even family gatherings an arena to discuss the current affairs of the Muslim Ummah.

May Allah سبحانه وتعالى replace the current rulers with one who will work with the Ummah to resolve our issues in a manner that is pleasing to Allah سبحانه وتعالى.

وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتُ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاء بَعْضٍ يَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَيُقِيمُونَ الصَّلاَةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَيُطِيعُونَ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ أُوْلَـئِكَ سَيَرْحَمُهُمُ اللّهُ إِنَّ اللّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

"The believers, men and women, are Auliya' of one another; they enjoin (on the people) Al-Ma‘ruf, and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar; they perform As-Salat, and give the Zakat, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah will have His Mercy on them. Surely Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise." [At-Tawba, 9:71]

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم 

Sahl b. Sa’d as-Saa’idi (ra) who said that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Islam began as something strange, and it shall return to being something strange, so give glad tidings to the strangers.” It was asked, "Who are those strangers, O Messenger of Allah?" He replied, “Those that correct the people when they become corrupt.” [At-Tabarani in al-Kabeer]

The resurgence of the Islamic Ummah and her demands to return to the Islamic way of life on all her affairs has become apparent for all the people to witness. This has manifest itself in revival of Islam as a political Deen, which seeks to implement itself. In fact the discussion that Islam is political and the need for an Islamic State in order to apply the Islamic rules and laws that have been detailed in the Quran and the Sunnah are foregone conclusions. The revival of Islam started as something “strange” in the new secular world order but is now whole-heartedly adopted by the Muslim Ummah as her cause.

However certain confusions still exist within certain elements of the Muslim Ummah who whilst sincere in their efforts and noble in there goals have failed to understand their error of the path they are upon. They are those who cannot distinguish between the Elections as a process of determining the consent of the masses in its selection of a ruler and Democracy.

Democracy: The Rule of Man versus the Rule of Allah

Democracy in principle means that man has a free hand at determining rules and laws as he pleases and he is in total control of this i.e. he is sovereign master of himself. Hence man can decided to enact a piece of legislation that pleases him, so for example in some Muslim countries (including Indonesia) they closed down the nightclubs for Ramadhan and re-open them after Ramadhan was over! Or there is legislation that is still being considered in Bangladesh as to whether to legalise prostitution. Or in the West they have been having trouble deciding whether to permit Homosexual relationships at sixteen or eighteen, whether to have an unelected chamber that can accept or reject legislation, etc.

The point is the principle that that they feel they have the right to decide whether man should interact with the opposite sex and fornicate freely or not, how to we regulate the rules and laws that Man determines etc. The fundamental principle here being that man possesses the right to legislate and make rules and laws. Practically individuals are appointed in Parliaments and legislative houses to debate, scrutinise and enact law. The basis of legislation is the majority decision of these selected people, who will vote according to their own personal experiences, their party line, their business interests (More often than not) and the like.

This is something that is contradictory to the very foundations of Islam and its basic beliefs i.e. that Allah is the sovereign master and the only one with the right of determining legislation and rules and laws as He pleases and the rest of creation including mankind had no right except to Hear and Obey the orders of Allah.

Allah (swt) says in the holy qu'ran:

إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ 

“The right of Rule is solely for Allah.”(Surah Yusuf verse 40).

Establishing clearly that He is the sole legislator. In fact it is a principle of Aqeeda that Allah is the source of all of Ahkam (laws).

Allah (swt) states Surah al Maida verse 44:

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ

“And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then such are the kafireen (disbelievers) ”

Ibn Abbas (ra) stated in his Tafseer of this verse that anybody who denies a definitive judgement of Allah contained in the Shariah then such a person is a Kafir. Ibn Jarir at Tabari says that this is agreed upon. Ibn Abbas (ra) went on to say that anyone who says that the Rule of Allah does not have to be established then he is a Kafir. The one who says that the rule of man is better than the Rule of Allah then he is a Kafir. The one who states that the rules of man are just as good as the Rule of Allah then he is a Kafir. He also said that the one who does not deny Allah’s (swt) Hukm but believes that it is allowed to rule by other than what Allah has revealed then he is a Kafir because he is denying that the right of Rule is solely for Allah. This is the case even if he says that the rule of Allah is better than the rule that such a person is implementing. However if someone rules by the rules of Kufr i.e. by other than Islam and does not believe in them but rather he hates them and believes what he is doing is a major sin. Then such a person has committed Kufr doon Kufr a Kufr which is less than Kufr i.e. a major sin which is definitely haram but is not a Kafir. This is the soundest position in my view but others have held different positions.

Ibn al-Qayyim said: "The correct view is that ruling according to something other than that which Allah has revealed includes both major and minor Kufr, depending on the position of the judge. If he believes that it is obligatory to rule according to what Allah has revealed in this case, but he turns away from that out of disobedience, whilst acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment, then this is lesser Kufr. But if he believes that it is not obligatory and that the choice is his even though he is certain that this is the ruling of Allah, then this is major Kufr." [Madaarij as-Saaliheen, 1/336-337]

Al Hafidh Ibn Katheer (ra) in his tafseer of verse 151 of Surah an Nisa made reference to the Tarters at his time, “…who put together for them a law book extracted from different laws of the Jews, the Christians and the Deen of Islam. It also contained many rules taken only from their own opinion and desires that later became a system of law followed by the people and given precedence over the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of his Messenger (saw) so the ruler who does that is a Kafir.” [Tafseerul Quran ul Atheeem, Ibn Kathir]

Ibn Taymiyyah said: "Undoubtedly, whoever does not believe that it is obligatory to rule according to that which Allah has revealed to His Messenger is a Kafir, and whoever thinks it is permissible to rule among people according to his own opinions, turning away and not following which Allah has revealed is also a Kafir...So in matters which are common to the Ummah as a whole, it is not permissible to rule or judge according to anything except the Quran and Sunnah. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE PEOPLE FOLLOW THE WORDS OF A SCHOLAR OR AMEER OR SHAYKH OR KING. Whoever believes that he can judge between people according to any such thing, and does not judge between them according to the Quran and Sunnah is a Kafir." [Minhaj as-Sunnah, 5/130-132]

Ash-Shawkani said in one of his essays:

a)That referring for judgement to Taghoot (evil i.e. non Islam) constitutes major Kufr.

b) That referring for judgement to Taghoot is just one of a number of actions of Kufr, each of which in its own is sufficient to condemn the one who does it as a Kafir.

c) He gives examples of Kufr, such as people agreeing to deny women their rights of inheritance and their persisting in co-operating in that, and he states that is major kufr. [Ar-Rasaa'il as-Salafiyah by Ash-Shawkani, pg. 33-34]

Whilst the position that we adopt is not quite as harsh as that adopted by Ibn Katheer it makes it clear that any notion of ruling or supporting a ruler or ruling authority, or voting for political party that will endorse the rules or legislation of other than Islam is something definitely haram.

This should make it clear that voting or taking part in elections in a democratic system for any of the Kufr parties is something that is Haram and Kufr regardless of the benefit (Maslaha) or the perceived fruits of doing so. This is something that in principle is in conflict with the very Aqeeda of the Muslim.

Imam Shatibi (ra) said in his al Muwaffaqaat fee Usul al Ahkam volume page 25, “The Objective behind the Shariah is to liberate the individuals from his desires in order to be a true slave of Allah and that is the legitimate Maslaha (Benefit)…Violating the Shariah under the pretext of following the basic objectives or values (maqasid) of the Shariah is like the one who cares about the spirit without the body, and since the body without the spirit is useless, therefore the spirit without the body is useless to.”

Elections

Hence voting for any political party which is going to work within a democratic framework and vote for or against legislation in a parliament regardless of the apparent credentials is haram. As for voting a secular party in the Western systems then regardless of noble goal and the correctness of the intention this is something that contradicts the foundations of what it means to being a Muslim and without shadow of a doubt is something that is Haram.

This does not mean that in principle elections are not permitted but rather election in order to gain the consent of the Ummah or the representation of the Muslims as a whole in selecting the Majlis of the Ummah (the consultative body of the Muslims, which is one element of the ruling framework of Islam) or in the election of the Khaleefah, the leader of the Muslims.

The Bayah tul Harb (the Pledge of War) that instituted the Prophet (saw) in authority in Madinah demonstrates this point.

According to the narration’s in Ibn Hisham as authenticated by Ibn Katheer the Prophet (saw) asked the twelve tribes of the Aws and the Khazraj to, “Bring forth for me twelve representatives from amongst yourselves”.

They then appointed their twelve Nuqabah (representatives) who gave the Prophet their support (Nussrah) and allegiance (saw) on behalf of the rest of the people. So it is a permitted style to utilise elections as a mechanism to appoint the Khaleefah as the leader of the Muslims.

Indeed it would more than likely be one of the mechanisms the Khilafah whose return is imminent insha-Allah, would utilise as it facilitates the expression of the opinion of the masses. Imam Muslim narrates in his Saheeh that Umar ibn al Khattab (ra) when he was the Khaleefah of the Muslims was returning from an expedition when he overheard the Muslims saying that when Umar (ra) passes away that they would appoint such and such to which concerned him. So he called for a gathering of all the Muslims including the Sahabah (ra) in which he stated that the one appoints someone in authority without consulting the Muslims then kill him and kill the one who he appointed!

This was something which all the Muslims including the Sahabah (ra) witnessed yet although he permitted the spillage of Muslim blood they acknowledged the truth of the statement, which demonstrated the Ijma of the Sahabah (Agreement of the companions that the statement was a Shariah rule which the prophet [saw] informed them of). This made it clear that the masses must select the ruler and not the opinion of a minority faction.

Today however we are living without the Khilafah and the right of Muslims in appointing and selecting the Amir of the Mumineen has been taken away and the tyrant rulers have been appointed by the Kuffar who promote the secular democratic and autocratic systems in our land.

So we are required to work to remove them and give Bayah to Khaleefah so that this right of selecting the ruler can be returned to the Ummah.

Imam al Ghazali (ra) when writing of the consequences of losing the Khilafah stated

“The Judges are suspended, the wilayaat (authorities) are nullified, marriages are void, the decrees of those in authority can not be executed and all humans are on the verge of Haram”. [al Iqtisad fil Itiqad page 240]

Allah (swt) says in the Quran:

وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ

أَنْ يَفْتِنُوكَ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ

“So rule between them by what Allah has revealed and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that has come to you”[Al Maidah 5:49]