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
Wednesday 28 October 2009
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
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
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.
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]
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]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)