Monday, 25 June 2012

Egypt - if it’s not Khilafah- it’s not Islamic

The recent victory in the presidential race in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi has led to emotional tidal wave of optimism that many Muslims are pinning their hopes upon. This is hardly surprising as the decades long brutal oppression meted out by the previous regime was truly a horrific ordeal. Muslims were denied even some of the most basic rights demanded by Islam.
Today one witnesses speeches against the state of Israel and other rhetoric that appeals to the hearts of the Muslims by speakers from the brotherhood. These speeches of course inspire the Muslims in Egypt and beyond giving them hope that the Muslims will rise once again.

Whilst some may genuinely believe that the life of the Muslims of Egypt will take a turn for the better – they need to get their thoughts together and look at the situation in a dispassionate way. In this brief article we seek to examine some of the facts so that we can evaluate if the change being brought to Egyptian society is a genuine change based upon Islam or nothing more than slogans that will cover the implementation of other than Islam.

Who Controls the government?

The facts on the ground as they stand today are that whilst Mohammed Morsi is president elect of Egypt - the real power in the land lies in the hands of the military,  SCAF (the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces). The constitution of the country is still to be fully defined and there are many remnants of the previous regime that enjoy power and influence. They will also undoubtedly be involved in ruling. The military is well funded by America and will serve to accommodate the US in order to keep their patronage.
Will Mohammed Morsi be in position to implement what the Shariah demands or will he have to make compromise upon compromise? Is it possible to implement Islam when government positions are occupied by a patchwork of individuals of differing ways of thinking – ranging from sincere but ill informed Muslims, secularists and downright self interested criminals?

What Islam Demands?

Are Muslims permitted to indulge in actions that are not permitted by Islam, clearly they are not. Islam demands that we restrict all our actions to the shariah rule and the evidences are clear. Equally to rule by other than Islam is not permitted and the arguments that are often cited like necessity (dhroora) etc have been shown both from text and reality to be invalid.

Indeed Allah (SWT) tells us in the Quran
إِنْ الْحُكْمُ إِلاَّ لِلَّهِ
"The ruling rests only with Allah." [Yusuf, 12:75]
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمْ الظَّالِمُونَ
"And whosoever does not judge by that Which Allah has revealed, such are the oppressors (Zalimun)." [Al-Maida, 5:45]

Islam demands that the ruling should be based upon Islam. This means that there is no room in government for other than Islam - secularism, nationalism, selfish interests or American designs for the nation. The government must be based upon Islam and Islam alone.

What Should Muslims expect from the Egyptian Elections?

When one considers the points that we have discussed – it becomes clear that these elections are not a path to implement Islam in its entirety. Rather the results of this election will allow further confusion to be sown into the minds of the Muslims of Egypt. As the euphoria of the electoral win of Mohammed Morsi dies down, it will dawn on the people that the success of the Muslim Ummah can only come from the adherence to the Islamic aqeeda in statecraft and politics. Compromise leads to more compromise until the original desire to implement Islam if forgotten.

In truth if the Khilafah system is not implemented completely, comprehensively and radically then very little has been accomplished for Islam. The possibility of this electoral win by an Islamic party serving as a distraction for Muslims to recognise the real path to revive is high. The true revival can only come by establishing the Khilafah ruling system built upon and driven purely by the Islamic aqeeda and nothing else.

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Sunday, 25 September 2011

The Radical Method of the Islamic Dawah

The methodology of the Islamic dawah is described in the book Concepts of Hizb ut Tahrir as radical. The book goes further to say that without using the radical method, change from the existing situation of the Muslims can not occur. The concept of radical change therefore has great significance and it is vital to understand what it means.

Commonly it is understood that a person that takes this radical approach is someone who opposes the way things are currently done and wants to change everything completely, fundamentally and from the root. There are some that see this approach as impractical and view those that adopt the radical method as unreasonable people that disagree with everything and are detached from the way things work and get done. They view actions undertaken on the basis of the radical method are self defeating and will simply cause alienation from those they wish to change.

In order for the work for transforming the existing situation to one in which Islam is implemented – those working to bring change need crystal clarity about the concept of radical change so that the work they engage in is effective.

The purpose of this article is to explore the subject of “radical change” with a view to attaining crystallisation about what it means and how the radical approach should be applied in everyday dawah.

The Need For Change

The existing conditions in the Muslim world, the rampant poverty, injustice, military, economic , political and cultural occupation by the kafir west – is enough to convince any Muslim that change needs to occur. Even though some may be happy with their circumstances most would agree that collectively change needs to occur.

The question in the minds of most Muslims is how is it that this change needs to occur? We see that there are a plethora of views about the nature of the problem of the Muslims and its solution. These range from defeatist apathy to those who think that they are making valuable contribution to change by helping Muslims around the globe by engaging in charity work , educational projects or the like.

Many Muslims jump to action to try to change the situation out of sincerity – however due to their thinking  not being strong inevitably these attempts fail or they achieve some limited results. This leads to a perpetual cycle of misery afflicting the Ummah as every glimmer of a new dawn turns out to be a false one.

For this reason discussion about the problem and the solution, is the first intellectual battlefront for the dawah carrier where the current declined thinking of the Muslims must be challenged, changed and elevated so that they can see the true solution to the problem. The Ummah needs to view change in the correct way. The Ummah has a choice - it can take the reality as the source or it could take the Islamic ideology as a source. The Ummah has to be convinced to make Islam the source of its thought and the reality the subject for change.

Approach to Change

The approach to change is determined by the mode of thinking. The mode of thinking being described here can either take reality as its source i.e. pragmatism or make the reality subject of thinking i.e. the radical approach.

The book concepts of Hizb ut Tahrir states that it is not correct to sense a problem and jump to action without applying adequate thought and trying to achieve a specific objective. The example of those brothers and sisters that believe in doing charity works by perhaps organising convoys of aid for Gaza – jump from sensation to some superficial thinking to action to achieve an ill thought out aim. They feel for the plight of the Muslims – but because they have no deep thought about the reality of the situation and the nature of Islam they select a course of action that will not lead to change. Or a solution that addresses the problem properly. This approach can be seen in the actions of countless Muslims and Islamic movements. The actions of demonstrators in the so called Arab Spring also show how Muslims have been jumping from sensation of a problem to action without any deep thinking. Will removing a ruler and replacing him with another bring change to their lives? Do they know what the aim for the calls for change are? Where is the deep ideological thought that would elevate the masses thinking? Or does it emanate from emotion and a feeling of despair and helplessness?

It is for this reason that it is mentioned about jumping from sensation to action in the book concepts of Hizb ut Tahrir

Such behaviour will never change the reality, Instead it will make the person succumb to
reality and become reactionary proceeding in life with declined thinking and making
reality the source of thinking rather than the subject of the thinking.”

The Radical Method - The Correct Approach to Change

Contrary to the approach adopted by those that jump from sensation to action. The correct approach that has to be adopted is mentioned in the book concepts of Hizb ut Tahrir.

While the one who senses the reality then thinks of the methodology of changing it and then acts according to this thought is the one who changes the reality according to his ideology, and changes it completely. This is the type of person who complies with the radical method, which
is the only method to resume the Islamic way of life.

This is because this method mandates that thought should result from sensation (of the situation) and this thought be crystallised in a way that the blueprint of the Fikrah and the tareeqah are well understood. The individual will then understand the ideology correctly leading him to
undertake the action. In such a way a complete radical change occurs in the thought,
so man proceeds then to prepare the people, societies and environment with this thought, producing a radical change in public opinion after generating general awareness of the ideology (as a Fikrah and Tareeqah)

The dictionary definition of the term radical or mutaraf in Arabic is given as follows

1. Of or going to the root or origin; fundamental.
2. Thorough going or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: e.g. a radical change in the policy of a company.
3.Favouring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.

The radical method is to do with change, it is not about being controversial, although it may be considered to be so by others. The purpose of the radical way is not to upset others even though it may. It is not to be a Che Guevara, Lenin or Trotsky type demagogic figure. The radical method is about transforming the situation of the Muslims from a declined one to an elevated one. Without the radical approach being applied the Muslims will continue to live in this declined situation.

The radical method is to do with sensing the problems faced and applying deep thought (based upon an ideological perspective) upon the reality and performing actions that will change the reality. It differs from the pragmatic approach where one studies the reality and finds actions to undertake from the reality in order to address his problem.

One may sense a problem with the lack education in particular place. The one who adopts and understands the Islamic ideology will correctly identify that this is a failing of the state – the correct course of action is to address the root cause that this state will not solve the problem because it is corrupt - the only way to change this is to remove the existing system and replace it with the Islamic one. This approach is the effective one as it deals with the root of the issue. The state will then discharge its duty to provide education. The same could be said about the building of roads, hospitals and other infrastructure.

The pragmatist on the other hand, will see that the state is not functional and depending on his motivation or how strongly he feels about this would move in order to address this. He may set up school, hospital etc. himself or try some other means to address problem or simply give up. The difference in the course of action chosen is due to the thought. This would be an example a weak approach based on shallow thought

The Requirement of Deep Thought

Radical change can not occur in the absence of deep thought. One can witness in the so called Arab spring - people called for change but because there was an absence of deep thought built collectively amongst the people they could not move to change the situation radically. Rather they satisfied themselves in changing the faces – so Mubarak went , Ben Ali went but the ruling structures remained almost the same. No real change was achieved and the colonialists played the situation to suit their interests.

It is mentioned in the book concepts of Hizb ut Tahrir
Such a radical method necessitates that the thought should arise from sensation, be linked to the action and aim at a specific objective. Nothing could lead to this except the deep thought

What is meant by deep thought in this context – is the understanding of Islam as ideology complete with details of the systems. This deep thought would include a detailed understanding of the Islamic aqaid, fikra, tariqa and indeed political concepts like understanding the motivation of nations on the international arena. If this is was comprehended well amongst the masses then real change would be possible – if not the Ummah's calls for change would mould themselves to fit the reality and they would be exploited by the colonialists.

This means that the dawah carriers should at every opportunity build this deep thought amongst the ummah. For example it would not be sufficient to call for slogans without building the details of the deep thought in the minds of the Ummah. It would not be sufficient to tell the Ummah that we need to implement the Quran for example and leave the interaction at that. Rather the details of what the Quran Kareem points to like aqaid, or solutions for life's affairs need to elaborated and built amongst the ummah.

Every opportunity should be taken to build the deep thinking amongst the ummah the ideal is that a comprehensive understanding of the Islamic ideology be built – but at least the major elements of the Islamic ideology like fikra, tariqa and solutions for society would require addressing. These would vary upon the reality and the current thinking of the people that are being addressed. It would be insufficient to rely on slogans like we need Khilafah, the rulers are corrupt we need to implement Quran or other slogans without elaborating and detailing thought behind such statements.

Some may feel that the “Ummah is ready” and all that is required is political direction. So such individuals may consider that the dawah should be conducted on the basis of slogans. This would be a mistake. This is because the public opinion and awareness ebbs and flows – like the tide of the sea. Thus it would be a mistake and a long term blunder that would threaten the future viability of the state once is established as the deep thought amongst the ummah may not be sufficiently strong to sustain the state.

Others may feel that we need only address people on the basis of political interests and give direction in this alone. This would be a departure from the method of change as it is not sufficient to talk only about politics whilst not culturing the ummah. The danger of this would be the grievances could be exploited by others-NATO exploting the grievances of the Muslims in Libya can be taken as an example.  

This is why the dawah carriers must address as many issues and events as possible with the Ummah on the basis of the Islamic culture. They must do this relentlessly and continually. Examples of such topics could include a massive variety of issues from addressing the future of Libya, the role of the mind , spirituality, moon-sighting, the Islamic view about internet spouse finding, the governments plan for the Muslims etc. As many realities as possible must be used to build the deep thought in the ummah.

Application of the Radical Method by the State

Once the state is established it would not be enough for those in ruling to perform an assessment of the reality and enact some “policies”. This would not be acceptable as the state would without a doubt decline once again and head towards extinction. Rather the radical approach would need to be adopted. Whereby the state would would assess the reality and address it on the basis of its ideology and then engage in actions in order to change the reality to make the reality conform with the ideology. It may be the case that the when the state is established that it faces no major threats as the powers around it may be in disarray. The assessment may be that there is no need to build up a military on the basis that there is no major threat and that there is time. This would be a purely pragmatic stance. This stance may be justified collectively and everyone may buy into it – but this would be built upon declined thinking. It would be a pragmatic move that would build weakness in the states thinking process.

In this scenario if the state were to jump from sensation to action without reference to the ideology this would lead to decline. Rather it would need to understand that building its military capability on the basis of the Islamic thought i.e. the numerous adillah referring to Jihad and its priority and its obligation on state then it would take the correct course of action.

The example of Abu Bakr (RA) in his capacity as the Khalifah is one where we can see an example of a radical approach. The non payment of zakat by some of the Arab tribes led Abu Bakr to take a radical stance. Even though some of the companions like Umar bin al Khataab (RA) were initially of a different viewpoint as they viewed that it is not allowed to fight against those that profess the shahaada- Abu Bakr took a radical stance to preserve the authority of the state.

Ibn Kathir in his Tarikh stated that some Arabs of those tribes said “we obeyed rasool Allah as long as he was amongst us. Yet what is the hakimiyah (ruling) of Abu Bakr. We are bewildered.”

The approach of Abu Bakr was to sense the reality before responding with action . We can see the presence of deep thought i.e. understanding what the implications of negotiating with those that refused to pay the zakat. The action that was undertaken was well thought out with an aim that sought to preserve the the authority of the state . The radical words of Abu Bakr ( RA) after the Arab tribes came to negotiate that they were prepared to accept salah but zakat and Abu Bakr responded
Until you give me ropes that you tie up animals with as your payment of zakat I will fight you” Tabari III, 244.

We can see in this example that Abu Bakr was determined to mould the reality to suit his thought, even at the expense war and the spilling of blood rather than to be pragmatic and try to negotiating with those that refused to pay the zakat. We see the consequence that he moulded the reality according to his deep thought based upon his understanding standing of Islam and its objective.

Application of the Radical Method by an Islamic Political Party

In the scenario where the Khilafah state does not exist the work of such a group would be to re-establish it. The change could only occur if there was the presence of a deep understanding of the Islamic ideology in relation to the reality the Ummah finds herself in.

It is mentioned in the book concepts of Hizb ut Tahrir
Such a radical method necessitates that the thought should arise from sensation, be linked to the action and aim at a specific objective. Nothing could lead to this except the deep thought

Generating this deep thought and the preparing of people by the ideology requires from those who work for the change to undertake a detailed study of Islam and society. This cannot be achieved except through culturing he mind with information. Study is the easiest and shortest way to communicate information to the mind in order to help generate the thought.

It is also mentioned in the same book

In such a way a complete radical change occurs in the thought, so man proceeds then to prepare the people, societies and environment with this thought, producing a radical change in public opinion after generating general awareness of the ideology (as a Fikrah and Tareeqah) Based upon this and through the ruling authority the ideology will be implemented radically, without accepting any gradual or patchwork implementation.

Prior to establishment of the Islamic state and indeed after the work of such a movement would be to prepare the individuals with the deep thought through culturing and then they would work as bloc
to radically change public opinion after creating a general awareness about the ideology, This would be the work of such a movement. It would not be pragmatic and jump upon every new event that occurs without first passing it through an ideological thought process before deciding to act – if it suited a particular objective. Neither would it address events to gain popularity rather it would always pass the correct view on the basis of the ideology. It would not engage in actions that would distract it from its objective, or try to address the problems within the current scenario.

If such a party were to become be influenced by the non radical approach its work would be on the back foot. Instead of leading the ummah with the thought it would become led by the ummah and begin responding to events rather than being the vanguard (leading band of people) movement of the ummah in her quest for revival.

Application of the Radical Method by Individuals

The ideal for the individual is that he would comply with the radical method in all his affairs. Thus he would proceed in all his affairs by shaping the reality in which he lives in according to his thought- rather finding himself to be helpless and a victim of external factors. Many of those that we see living successful lives have not compromised their thinking and accepted the reality around them. Rather they have moulded the reality around them to suit their thinking These type of individuals have few financial, family or other issues in their lives as they have made hard choices and changed the reality around them. Whilst those that have used the reality as the base continue with problems and leave it to what circumstances that they were raised in to progress.

However in his capacity as an individual the reality is that there will be many issues that he can not address from the root . For example it may occur to him that his car has too many mechanical issues and the root cause is that it is old and requires replacing – yet he would still keep it and keep paying for the repairs as he could not afford another one. Here he would not be aiming to address the issue from its root – would that be a departure from the radical method ? Or if he were to find that someone usurped his ownership of land in a particular place he could recourse to the authorities that exist in order to correct this. Or if there were no jummah in a certain place but there were sufficient Muslims he could organise it – this would not be a departure from the radical method. As long as the the actions that he engaged in were permitted by Islam there would not be a problem.

This however would be in his capacity as an individual. If his political views and concepts towards dawah became tainted with this approach i.e. to take solutions from the reality. Without striving and being concerned with fundamental change, he would be on the path of compromise and selling out his ideology. When for example there was a crisis like a natural calamity, or lack of basic amenities like a clean water supply or electricity and he looked to solve the problem within the current framework with no consideration of addressing the root of the problem by correcting the system then his ideological death would be assured. If he neglected reference back to the ideology in that case he would way departed from radical approach.

The non radical approaches of the individual must never be allowed to enter the state or party apparatus- this would be a calamity for the dawah as it will destroy the dawah delivery mechanism to society and or in the case of the state the means of implementing and conveying Islam. It is mentioned in the book Takataul hizb

Furthermore, knowing the Hizbi bloc itself is essential to ensure that it maintains sharp perception, deep thinking, and absolute sincerity. The Hizbi bloc must ensure that the events taking place in society must not weaken its belief in Islam and its laws, and that all temptations, intimidation, threats, favors and trials have no effect upon it whatsoever. It must also ensure that it upholds its inherent values to a high standard, and its belief must be safe, and the bloc’s inculcation with deep Islamic thoughts, its adoption of the public interests and its sense of responsibility, must be complete. It must also make sure that the ideology is preserved without any compromise or violation, no matter how much oppression, tyranny, hardship and threat befalls the bloc, and the bloc must ensure that it is determined to shoulder its responsibility, while being fully aware of all the consequences and be ready to bear them.

The Radical Method and Interaction with the Ummah

The path of the Islamic dawah has never been one of ease and it will never be. It is a path of struggle, challenge and sacrifice for the sake of the idea. The message of Islam came to challenge and indeed destroy all other ways life. If this is the case then would the adherents of other ways allow this to happen without a struggle? This can never be the case . The enemies of Islam spend huge amounts of money, time and deploy strategies to fight the dawah. Therefore the posture of those that carry the dawah has to be correct. If the enemies of Islam were to succeed removing the radical approach of dawah from the minds of those carrying it they would have scored yet another stunning goal against Islam. The dawah can not be carried in a tame, lame way if it is to have any effect in the ummah and achieve the desired result.

Whilst the dawah carrier does not seek to upset or alienate people and strives to carry the dawah in the most productive manner -he must deliver his message in an uncompromising manner. He can not accept truce or compromise with those that carry the incorrect views that stop the ummah from reviving. He must smash the eggs to make the omelette, it is inevitable that there will be those that oppose the call as well as those that support it. He should never think that he is gaining friends and aiding the dawah by toning down his message or remaining silent. The objective is not to to make friends or build alliances rather it is to pass the the correct ideas to ummah to revive. Even if this means that he encounters hostility from others.

The underlying nature of the Islamic dawah is hard, tough and uncompromising. It cares not for position and standing in society or indeed the consequences. It is in a life and death struggle with all other doctrines.

Sometimes there is a reluctance in engaging the ummah by giving solutions based upon radical thinking. The reasons behind this can be many. The harsh climate against the dawah in which there is need to build bridges rather than burn them. The fear of being rejected and alienated as a lone voice that is calling towards a particular solution whilst the others are not. Or it could be cowardice and fear of the repercussions of following such an approach – as in the English saying discretion is the better part of valour meaning that it is often better to think carefully and not act than to do something that may cause problems.

Whatever the cause of hesitation the dawah carrier, whether in his capacity as a leader that can direct the efforts of the dawah or an individual - he must understand that he cannot hold back. This is regardless if the people would accept his message or reject it. As long as the message and the angle are well thought out and true then in the long run he will be successful.

Similarly, the da’wah carrier has to challenge everything. This includes challenging the
customs, traditions, erroneous thoughts and concepts, the public opinion when it is
wrong even if he has to struggle against it. He has to challenge the doctrines and
religions despite the fact that he might be exposed to the fanaticism of their followers
and the hostility of those who stick to their distortions.

The effect of the this interaction with the radical thought is nicely put in this quote from the book the warm call of Hizb ut Tahrir

It is an ideological struggle in which minds and hearts clash intellectually and emotionally, emitting sparks and thus the light of truth shines and its glory radiates and the corruption of the current thoughts and emotions becomes clear by demonstrating the corruption of the viewpoint from which they emanated.

Not holding back does not mean that the dawah carrier is not concerned about the consequence of his actions. The dawah carrier needs to estimate what the ripples caused by his actions will result in. He must still carry the dawah in the radical way but fine tune the styles and means that he employs according to his analysis of the situation.

For instance, as part of the radical approach is he obliged to hold talks attacking the state of Israel at university? Even though it may rally the Muslims around the dawah carriers and engage them in the dawah. The ripple created by this needs to be considered before the action is engaged in. The consequences could be a detriment to the dawah for many years to come depending on how these actions were perceived and manipulated by others.

In extreme circumstances depending on how those in authority react it could mean that the authorities wipe out the dawah carriers entirely – by rounding up and imprisonment or worse. This shows the need for actions in the dawah to be well thought out and the consequences need to estimated and a decision needs to be taken to see if a style is effective or worth engaging. This however should not give a green light to compromise the dawah and to change it to suit the reality.

This requires the dawah carriers to be skilled in weighing situations and performing the calculus that would allow them to undertake the best actions. This skill set needs to be developed and the default position should not be to hesitate for fear of negative consequences. A fruit of the culturing process should be that the dawah carrier has the ability to think in order to weigh up circumstances – or at least there is a supportive atmosphere amongst those that carry the dawah to allow views about the repercussions of actions to be formed. If this skill set were developed and interaction were carried in a correct way then the all the other viewpoints carried in the ummah would soon be demolished leaving only the Islamic ideology standing – thus unifying the ummah on the basis of thought.

The radical approach is not a style – it can not be compromised if we are to say that we are carry the dawah in the way of the Muhammad (saw). The styles and means of the delivery of the dawah can be dropped or adopted according the the circumstances. This requires thought, sound judgement and experience. The ability to sense analyse and deliver the dawah correctly should be developed by every individual engaging in the dawah. If this is not done then ill thought out actions with undesired consequences will occur - or in alternative complete hesitation, inactivity and lack of progress. The building of the correct process of thinking in the minds of the dawah carriers is essential – so that they can judge situations and develop the correct styles to deliver their call without postponement and delay.

The Radical methodology and Dawah in the West

Those that live in the west may think that there is no requirement for the radical approach. Under the pretext that they live in a different reality to that of the Muslim world. They may argue that for this reason the dawah can be conducted in a lax fashion and no real challenge is required for winning the minds of the people. Pragmatism may seep into the minds as the radical approach is no longer followed.

In truth, fundamentally the dawah in the West is no different to the dawah in the Muslim world. The conceptual framework is the same. The difference being that society as a whole is not addressed but only the Muslim segment of society.

The ummah is considered as one ummah, there should be no line drawn for considering the Muslims of Britain to be different to any others. The thoughts to be addressed would be the same, the work therefore would be to radically change the thought of the Muslims in the same way as in the Muslim world.

Should those that carry the dawah in the west adopt pragmatic forms of thinking, they would eventually relinquish the ideology. It has been noted that one time sound individuals that carried the Islamic dawah – due to adopting pragmatic thinking have begun to engage in western politics. 

The intellectual battle lines are clear and the radical thought must be used to challenge and indeed replace the views adopted by those that knowingly or unknowingly are supporting views that are built on other than the Islamic ideology. This is regardless of people being happy or upset with this approach.

Summary of Key Points

  • The Islamic ideology moulds the reality to fit with it, rather than being changed by the reality.
  • The Ummah wants change yet is confused and requires guidance – the deep thought of the Islamic ideology has not taken firm a hold.
  • The Ummah must not jump from sensation to action without thought. Rather she needs to think deeply. The dawah must enage the ummah on this intelectual battlefront
  • This deep thought is based upon the correct Islamic ideological culture that must be delivered by the carriers of the Islamic dawah.
  • The radical method requires that the reality be changed according to the Islamic thought, so that reality is shaped by Islam.
  • The pragmatic approach means that no real change can occur rather those adopting this stance will be changed by the reality they find themselves in. If such an approach is deployed there can be no real change.
  • The khilafah state must use the radical approach in its affairs or face decline and eventual collapse.
  • The Islamic political party must use the radical approach or it will become irrelevant and another group amongst failed groups.
  • The non radical approach of individuals must never be allowed to effect the structure of the state or the ideological political party
  • Whilst following the radical approach, dawah carriers need to understand the consequences of their actions and have the ability to assess situations and deploy the most effective styles and means
  • Holding back and hesitation in interaction with the ummah must be eliminated.
  • Those carrying the dawah should possess the excellent adaab and ikhlaq based on the Islam and they have to marry these with the radical approach.
  • If the radical approach is lost, forgotten about or relinquished – then this is a victory for the enemies of Islam – as the chances of establishing a state built upon Islam are slim if not non existent.
  • No regard should be given to those that are offended by the thoughts of the Islamic ideology, if they are upset by it, so be it – this is the nature of the Islamic dawah they can take it or leave it.
  • The the radical methodology is not a style it is part of the method to carry the dawah and as such it can not be dropped like styles or means,
  • Some may argue that we are being political and dealing with people in a politically shrewd manner. This is fine as long as the radical thought is not hidden from the people and call is not masked to appease those that find it offensive.
  • Relinquishing the radical approach is more probable in the Western world due the object of change not being the entire society. This would have disastrous consequences in making people that carry dawah pragmatists. This could in extreme circumstances making them leave the dawah and may be even the ideology.
  • The dawah in the West must still be carried using the radical approach there is no excuse for not doing so.

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

Hillary Clinton fears Islamic Political Sentiment in Pakistan

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has embarked on a three day tour of Pakistan that includes a town hall meeting which is claimed to be a “no holds” barred question and answer session at a university in Lahore. The aim of the trip is reported to be amongst other issues to address popular concerns and suspicions about America. Hillary Clinton’s attempt to win over the Pakistani public sentiment- should not be seen as just another way to add American insult to Pakistani injury. It has more meaning than this.

In truth the visit is a desperate attempt at reversing the growing Islamic political sentiment of the people that leads them to understand what the US policy towards them really is – a savagely cruel projection of rapacious colonial power designed to enslave them to serve the American agenda in the region.

Islam expects Muslims to understand events and be aware of the nature other nations. Indeed Prophet Muhammad salAllahu alaihi wasallam said in a hadith, “A Mu’min (believer) cannot be bitten from the same hole twice.” (Agreed upon)

The great scholar and theologian of the 13th century, Yahya bin Sharaf an-Nawawî relates the context of the Hadîth saying:
“…and the context of this narration is well known that the Prophet had captured the poet Abu Ghurrah at the Day of (the Battle of) Badr. So the Prophet gave him amnesty and freed him based on the condition that he would not continue on his hostility and derision. He then caught up with his people and returned to belligerence towards the Muslims and derision against them. Then he was captured on the Day of (the Battle of) Uhud and was asked about the amnesty that was given to him. Upon this the Prophet said, ‘The believer is not stung from the same hole twice.’ From this it is understood that if one were to suffer injury from a particular element, then they should abstain from it lest they should suffer such again.”

Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî, who is the leading authority on the interpretation of Bukhârî’s Sahîh, says the following:
“This is presented in the form of a statement. Al-Khatâbî has said: This is a statement in its wording, but a command in its meaning. It means that the believer is resolutely aware, he/she is not taken to apathy (in learning his/her lesson), nor is he/she deceived time and time again. Thus, this is an order in religious matters as well as worldly matters…”

Hillary Clinton is not the first US representative attempting to deceive the people in portraying the US as a friend of the Muslims of Pakistan. It is becoming blatantly clear that it’s the US and its agents in the Pakistani government that are behind the turmoil inflicting Pakistan. No evidence is required to prove that the explosions and insecurity that are now occurring in Pakistan are due to the US presence in the region.

It is also becoming blatantly obvious to the people of Pakistan that they are Muslims and their politics must be Islamic implemented through the Khilafah state. This is now the only viable option- all other options are proven failures. The existing political order has been failing for decades and its incompetence has reached a stage where it has become intolerable. Regardless of attempts by the likes of Hillary Clinton to try to win the hearts and minds of the Muslims of Pakistan – the malicious American agenda is now clearly understood.

Muslims of Pakistan realise that they have no other choice but to establish the Khilafah state that will eject America, its agents and their satanic colonial designs from the region. In their place the Khilafah will establish security and tranquillity for the people.

Allah (swt) says “And whoever seeks a deen other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers.” (aali I’mraan 3:85)

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Saturday, 4 July 2009

Can Nationalism Save Pakistan?

Political ineptitude, greedy politicians selling the interests of people for personal gain, economic instability, daily suicide bombings and foreign inspired militancy have brought Pakistan to the brink of destruction.

Muslims in Pakistan are rightly concerned about the situation. This has led some to call for more assertive Pakistani nationalism to save the country. The question that must be asked is can nationalism save Pakistan? If not what’s the alternative? To address this we need to understand what nationalism is and the implications of following it.

What is Nationalism?

Nationalism is an extension of the family or tribal bond – where the relationship between people is based upon the fact that they are members of a particular tribe or people. This concept has been expanded to entire races and nation states. Arab nationalism which today is largely a spent force dominated the political scene in the countries like Egypt, Syria and Iraq for decades. Today nationalism and patriotism in Pakistan are being aroused because the very existence of Pakistan is under threat.

Some in Pakistan believe by re-asserting Pakistani nationalism and making it the basis of society they can keep Pakistan intact and bring progress in economy, education, societal relationships and even international relations. This belief has to be to be examined.

Can Nationalism Solve the Challenges Facing Pakistan?

What does being a Pakistani, an Arab, a Turk or an American have to say about the issues facing governments and the people? Does nationalism have an answer about how the state should raise funds and how it is allowed to spend them, does it define the rights of the ruler and the rights of ruled, does it provide a framework of how to deal with other nations. When the matter is considered carefully nationalism does not answer any of these questions. Nationalism provides no laws or rules, criteria for right or wrong or a direction for issues facing life.

Muslims are increasingly aware that nationalism has kept Pakistan and the other nations in the Muslim world firmly under the influence of the West. The lack of solutions that deal with the business of state has led politicians to imitate western solutions. The attempts to implement democracy, looking to the UN to solve disputes and enslavement to the IMF are direct results of the vacuum of solutions caused by those that based their politics on nationalism. This is why the well-established political parties in Pakistan have no answers as they take nationalism as one of their root ideas. They are easily manipulated by the outside powers as they are forced to imitate their ideas without any thought.

Nationalism cannot deal with the current crisis facing Pakistan. Empty slogans based within a nationalistic framework like “roti, kapra, makan” ring hollow to the millions displaced in tribal areas. What is required now is for Muslims of Pakistan to get to the root of the problem.

Understanding The Core Problem Facing Pakistan

The root of the problem lies in the politics of Pakistan. Which can be seen to be a complicated cocktail of agendas to serve the ruling elite, the military and foreign powers. The politics in Pakistan is not based upon the Islamic ideology that serves as a compass for politicians to direct their actions by. Indeed Pakistani politics has never been intended to serve the Muslims of Pakistan, to better their lives or to bring progress- rather it is a colonial legacy that serves the foreign powers, the ruling elites and their cronies.

The solution to the problem is to abandon the politics of nationalism, foreign agendas and self-interest, replacing them with the politics of Islam. Until the politics of Pakistan is established on a firm basis as witnessed over the last 62 years there will be little progress and situation will continue to go from bad to worse.

Islam - a Political Ideology.

Islam unlike nationalism answered the questions about dealing with life’s affairs. Not only did it address what the purpose of this life is. It told mankind how to deal with everyday of life. It defined the rights of the woman and the man; it defined the relationship between people in detailed rules of mu’amalat. It defined what the due procedure should be for those accused of crime and the type of sentence if they are found guilty. It defined that the wealth of the natural resources belongs to the Muslims and not the rulers who are there to administer it on behalf of the Muslims.

Above all it defined a political framework in which the Muslims conduct their politics- a framework that would implement the rules revealed by Allah (swt). This framework is the Khilafah ruling system.

In Pakistan the Khilafah state would work to eject the colonialists from the region let alone allow the operation of enemy spy networks and drones that spill the blood of the innocent within its borders. The rulers and the politicians in the Khilafah state will be accountable servants of the people because Islam obliged them to be. The Khilafah state would build infrastructure, schools, hospitals and power stations to allow the people to live a good standard of life.

Above all the rulers and the politicians in the Khilafah would be aware of their identity as Muslims and not behave like today’s empty minded stooges that base their politics around nationalistic slogans and the securing of colonialist and self-interests. Pakistani nationalism will result only in further conflict and misery for the people - only the Islamic Khilafah system can solve the problems for the Muslims in Pakistan. The damage that the concept of nationalism at the hands of Pakistani politicians has inflicted upon Muslims of Pakistan can be witnessed today. Nationalism is a destructive concept and is prohibited by Islam.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “He is not one of us who calls for ‘asabiyyah, (nationalism) or who fights for ‘asabiyyah or who dies for ‘asabiyyah.” Abu Dawood

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Friday, 22 May 2009

Shameless Rulers of Pakistan Beg from Other Nations for Swat

As a result of the military operation in Swat, innocent civilians living in the area have been forced to flee their homes. To help the so-called “displaced” Yusuf Raza Gilani has set up a “ Prime Minister’s Fund” to collect money to deal with the crisis. He has also shamefully resorted to begging other nations to contribute to help the people forced out. Whilst addressing a conference of donors in Islamabad Mr Gilani said, “Given the magnitude of the task that lies ahead, the government of Pakistan would like to seek the support from the donor community, both for the ongoing relief efforts and for the rebuilding process,"

The Pakistani governments decision to launch military operations in Swat and the neighbouring areas has led to an unparalleled refugee crisis in Pakistan. Reports say that about 1.5 million people have been displaced since the army's latest offensive began on May 2nd.

This disaster in which children have been separated from their parents, where the weak, elderly and ill have been forced out of their villages - has been entirely instigated by those charged with the duty to look after the affairs of such people. It has been caused by the rulers that make the pretence that they are there to serve the people.

Their excuse being that military action was necessary to deal with people trying to destroy Pakistan – people that exploited the vacuum that the government left due to its indifference to the needs of the people of the area.

The displacement crisis is nothing more than a heinous political crime committed by the rulers in Pakistan. Without a doubt a full-scale military onslaught would involve a huge loss of life, property and an exodus of people from the area targeted. No respectable nation in the world would entertain these repercussions before exhausting all other means to address the problem.

The rulers in Pakistan made no allowance for the effect of a military onslaught on the people of the area and are now taking a begging bowl to other nations- many that are belligerent to Islam and Muslims. The rulers’ actions prove the contempt that they hold for the Muslims of Pakistan – treating them like cattle that are to be moved from one pasture to another.

The fate of Muslims in Pakistan does not have to be like this. The current problems facing the people are because the rulers of Pakistan continue to preserve their seats and bow to foreign powers at the expense of the well being of their own people. Even in dealing with a catastrophe of their own making the rulers have no shame in asking for money from the enemies of their people in order to dress the wounds that they have inflicted.

Pakistan is not a country in the need of handouts. It has ample resources - it has plentiful manpower, enough coal to cater for the countries electricity needs for centuries and fertile lands. What Pakistan lacks is leadership. The ruling elite are corrupt to the highest degree and do not work sincerely for the interests of the people. This is not surprising when one examines the credentials and the thoughts held by such individuals - the current ruler of Pakistan is renowned for his corruption.

The only leadership that is suitable for Pakistan is the sincere Islamic leadership of the Khilafah state. A true Islamic leadership that is not primitive and crude in its thinking rather it is sophisticated and understands matters on the basis of Islam.

Many examples of this type leadership can be seen from the history of the Muslims. It is said that during a famine in Madinah in the time of the Khilafah of Umar (ra) that Umar (ra) went pale because he refused to eat fat, butter, and milk, until all the Muslims were able to afford such food. The rulers of Pakistan continue in their lavish lifestyles whilst the Muslims of Swat fester in refugee camps as a consequence of the decisions taken so lightly in Islamabad.

The leadership of the Khilafah state will think carefully about its actions and their consequences on the people. It will not act to please foreign powers rather it will be independent and implement the Islamic Shariah that obliges the rulers to protect the blood, honour and wealth of the people that they are responsible for and prohibits the rulers from harming them. If they have an iota of Iman those responsible for the calamity in Swat should reflect on the words of Rasool Allah (saw).

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said "On the Day of Judgment there will be a flag for every person guilty of treachery. It will be raised in proportion to the extent of his guilt; and there is no guilt of treachery more serious than the one committed by the ruler of men" [Muslim]

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Friday, 20 March 2009

Understanding & Resolving Differences of Opinion

Ikhtilaf or difference of opinion between Muslims has existed as long as Islam itself. Whilst it is healthy to have a diversity of views it can also be problematic if differences are not resolved. It is argued that difference of opinion causes sectarianism, partisanship and conflict within societies.

Indeed the enemies of Islam use such differences to “divide and conquer” the Muslim lands. The US invaders in Iraq for example have stoked up sectarian strife in Iraq between Sunnis and Shia’s- so that they could take control of the country.

On the other hand it is argued that difference of opinion that allows nations to have more than a single view held by those in authority and power – this allows accountability, different angles about problems, policies and actions – this is a strength a nation possesses, if managed correctly.

Many view that uniting the Muslims on a single view is an impossible task. They see different opinions held by various schools of thinking, ulema and their followers and groups to be too deep-rooted to be overcome. They feel that followers of different opinions will never accept each another’s differences over fiqh or other matters.

It is such understandings that often leave some confused, despondent and apathetic about bringing unity for the Muslims by re-establishing the Khilafah. In this article we seek to examine the issues surrounding difference of opinion and how they will be resolved under the leadership of the Khilafah state.

What is a legitimate Difference of Opinion?

If an individual holds an opinion that a woman can wear western clothing and dress as she pleases in public, or that democracy is a valid form of government, or that acceptance of the state of Israel is permissible- then all these opinions are rejected as valid opinions because there is no basis for them from Islam- rather they are built on other than an Islamic basis.

Muslims are increasingly aware that the opinions held about such matters have to be based upon Islam and they therefore have to have Shari evidences to be acceptable. If these opinions are not based upon Quran, Sunnah, Ijma of the Sahaba, Qiyas or principles deduced on the basis of these – then the opinions cannot be accepted by Muslims.

Indeed Allah (swt) mentioned in the Quran “But no, by your lord they can have no Iman, until they make you the judge in all disputes between them” TMQ An-Nisa: 65

“And if you differ in anything amongst your selves refer it to Allah and His Messenger” TMQ An-Nisa: 59

If an opinion is based upon Islamic text then Muslims can accept it. If the opinion is based upon an individuals mind, whim or desire then it is not allowed to accept it.

Some may question about differences in opinion in technical or political matters. For example what is the best location for a highway, school or hospital? These matters are left to those that possess specialist technical knowledge to provide informed recommendations and judgements. This is because on the basis of textual evidences the building of highways, schools and hospitals is permitted. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of those in ruling or in those in charge of a project to decide where the highway, school or hospital is to be built. The location is to be decided to serve the purpose and this is permitted in shariah.

As long as an opinion is based upon daleel (evidence) from Islam then Muslims should accept this is as an Islamic opinion, even if they do not follow it themselves. This is where the differences between the scholars of Islam occurred. Their view regarding the opinion that they deduced to the best of their ability, was that they were correct with the possibility they could be wrong as differences of opinion can only arise where the Islamic rule is not clear cut – therefore a possibility of error exists.

Indeed the Prophet (saw) said, “Whosoever does Ijtihad and errs therein shall have one reward. And whosoever performs Ijtihad and is correct shall have a double reward.” (Bukhari & Muslim)

Resolving the Differences of Opinion

It is well known that individual sahaba had differences of opinion. An example of such a difference is between Abu Bakr Sadiq (RA) and Umar (RA). When Abu Bakr (ra) was the Khalifah, he paid equal grants to all the Sahabah (raa). He (ra) did not distinguish between the early Muslims and the new Muslims. When the Islamic State started receiving larger funds through the liberation of various lands, Abu Bakr (ra) continued to distribute the wealth equally. Umar (ra) and some of the Sahabah (raa) insisted that the earliest Muslims should be given preference over the later converts. Abu Bakr (ra) told him that he was aware of the differences that Umar (ra) had mentioned; however, his opinion was that distributing the funds equally was better in the sight of Allah (swt) than the principle of preference.

When Umar (ra) became Khalifah, he replaced Abu Bakr’s (ra) adoption of equality with his principle of preference. Umar (ra) did not like to pay the same amount to those who fought against the Prophet (saaw) and those who fought with him. Accordingly, he gave a larger amount to the early Sahabah (raa) who fought in Badr and Uhud and the relatives of the Prophet (saaw).

When Abu Bakr (ra) was the Khalifah, Umar (ra) left his understanding and enacted the decree of Abu Bakr (ra), as did the judges, governors, and all Muslims. However, when Umar (ra) became the Khalifah, he obliged the enactment of his opinion and the others implemented it. On the basis of this the following shari principles have been deduced.

“The Imam’s decree settles the disagreement”

“The Imam’s decree is executed openly and privately

All Muslims including the scholars, have to follow the opinion adopted by the Khalifah. They do not have accept it as the correct opinion and can maintain their opinion and teach it, whilst their obedience should be to the opinion that the Khalifah adopts.

Due to the level of understanding and the presence of many foreign forms of thinking leading to non Islamic opinions in Muslim societies – when the Khilafah state is established it will need to immediately present a constitution based upon daleel (evidence) on the basis of the Islamic sources. This will allow the Islamic opinions adopted by the state to be made clear to the citizens in a rapid manner. Citizens would be obliged to follow the constitution because this would be what the Khalifah adopts and the Muslims would be obliged to follow it. Even if some differed with the rules; as long as the rules were Islamic they would be obliged to follow.

In conclusion, Muslims can only accept opinions that are based upon Islamic evidences. All other opinions cannot be taken, Differences of opinion amongst Muslims have occurred in the past and will occur in the future. The correct framework to handle them is through the Khilafah state - as any other route will merely lead to confusion, conflict, anarchy and chaos. The Khalifah has the right to adopt rules and opinions on the basis of Islam; initially this will be by adopting a constitution to cover all aspects of life’s affairs - Muslims would be obliged to follow even if it differed with their understanding.

Thursday, 5 February 2009

Bush Used Bombs Against the Muslim Ummah – Obama will use “Smart Power”

As George W Bush leaves office - Barack Obama and his team have been busily preparing to take power in America. Not satisfied with the effectiveness of Bush’s murderous blood letting of Muslims, that included the industrialised slaughter of more than a million Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama and his team have been devising more effective ways to tackle Islam and Muslims. The approach taken by Bush in his “war against terror” is considered a failure by the new US administration.

In an address to the US Senate Hilary Clinton the new US Secretary of State said, “We must use what has been called smart power – the full range of tools at our disposal. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy.”
In the New York Times it was reported that Hilary Clinton described smart power as “It means using all the levers of influence — diplomatic, economic, military, legal, political and cultural — to get what you want.”

The US will try to repair the damage done to its reputation and its foreign policy effectiveness by employing new tactics. Muslims today are aware that the US is a colonialist power and its foreign policy objectives will never change. The British and other colonialist nations before them employed the same change in tactics when military power and killing failed. British foreign Secretary David Milliband said whilst on trip to India that the West “could not kill [their] way out of the problems of insurgency and civil strife” and suggested that the West needs to use more than military means.

This shift in tactics from military colonialism to political, cultural and economic colonialism is nothing new to the US and her colonialist cronies. They still aim to exploit weaker nations for the benefit of their corporations and the capitalists behind them. They have a long history of using agent rulers and corrupting the politics of the Muslim world. Culturally, the West has used the media to carry its viewpoint about life and has exported its ideas to the Muslim world. Economically, even the rich Gulf States are tied to the dollar and the international financial institutions that allow the West to exert its influence over them. The US knows that she can never subdue the Muslim World by military means alone and therefore seeks to use all the means at disposal.

The reason why the West can try to continue to exploit the Muslim Ummah is because the rulers of the Muslim countries allow them to do so. They could quite easily expose the plans of the Kuffar against the Muslims and thwart them. This is regardless of the US using military power or “Smart Power”. The rulers in the Muslim lands fail to do their duty.

It is only the leadership of the Khilafah state that will allow the liberation of the lands of the Muslims from military, political, cultural and economic chains imposed upon her by the West and its agents. Indeed Muhammad (saw) told us that the Khalifah is the shield of the Ummah- a shield that has been removed resulting in the blows being dealt to the Ummah. Whilst these rulers are in place, the West will continue to exploit the Muslims – the terms may change from “shock and awe” to “smart power”. One thing that remains constant is the treachery of the rulers of the Muslims.

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said "On the Day of Judgment there will be a flag for every person guilty of treachery. It will be raised in proportion to the extent of his guilt; and there is no guilt of treachery more serious than the one committed by the ruler of men" [Muslim]