yawn
Face it you made a wrong statement.
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?
[quote]
In Izaalat al-Khafa Shah Waliy Allah quotes another hadith which he says in CLEAR TEXTUAL evidence (An-Nass) in proving that the establishment of the Khilafah is an obligation:** "Whosoever dies without a bayah on his neck dies the death of Jahiliyyah"**
[/quote]
need I say more ?
Assalam-alaikum,
Lets just all stop this now. It is the month or Ramadhan, let not something we say or think spoil this blessed month for us.
It is well known that some members of Hizb-ut-tahrir like to talk a lot. In fact thats all the seem to do... and they seem to have the loudest voice.
Talking is good, but doing something is even better.. need i say more?
Jazakallah
Bro, I wasn't talking :
i've been typing !!!!
Ok Brother, you were typing.
You win the Argument, happy?
lets continue talking/typing about the Islamic state and do nothing else shall we?
jazakallah
Bro, you need to check the method of the Prophet(saw) in establishing the state. How did he establish it ? Then you will realise that the Hizb restricts itself to follow this method strictly and abides by the islamic hukms in following this method. So if you say that the Hizb should do something more, other than the Method then Fear Allah:
Whatever the Messenger gives you take it, whatever he forbids abstain from it.[TMQ]
Brother,
I'm glad you brought this up.
Our beloved Prophet (PBUH) had his ways to set up the state. After which he also had further ways to deal with things.
The same way, alcohol was first bad not forbidden, and then afterwards it was made haram.
We have to take the whole of Islam in context, as well as the whole of Prophet Muhammed'd (PBUH) way of doing things.
Islam has been completed. You can't just look at before the state was declared.
Wasalaam.
[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
In Izaalat al-Khafa Shah Waliy Allah quotes another hadith which he says in CLEAR TEXTUAL evidence (An-Nass) in proving that the establishment of the Khilafah is an obligation: "Whosoever dies without a bayah on his neck dies the death of Jahiliyyah"
**
[/quote]
All these Ahadith, including the one above, are related to the fact that Muslims should not live in anarchy and should always cling to some collectivity while living alone. Today Muslims who live in Islamic countries are already living under the bay'ah of their constitution and as such the purpose of these ahadith stands fulfilled.
This is why it is imperative to extrapolate the correct context of these Ahadith, with regard to the Qur'an and Sunnah.
My dear brother, it should be kept in mind that declaring something to be obligatory is not the jurisdiction of the scholars and students of Islam. It is the sole authority of the Almighty. Declaring something to be obligatory, without the authority of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, is a great transgression and a person guilty of such transgression shall be accountable for it on the Day of Judgment. It is for this reason that I would generally have no objections on what a movement plans to do, as long as its actions are morally and legally justifiable. However, when a movement declares something to be Haraam (prohibited) or Fardh (obligatory) or even a nafl (supererogatory), it is my duty to ask for the basis of such declaration in the Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh), as without such basis, all such declarations are a condemnable invention in the body of Islam.
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?
[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited December 18, 2000).]
So all the previous classical scholars, got it wrong, and Mioz can twist these ahadith to fit some reality they don’t even apply in.
These ahadith are NOT related to the present system, since the present system[s] are not allowed to exist under the shara. The Shariah demands their removal, so how can you even suggest that Islam asks us to give Bayah to these rotten systems, systems which rule by Kufr, and implement non-Islamic Hukms.
Who said the classical juristic scholars got it wrong on this issue? You have interpreted something other than what the classical scholars were trying to say. As has been shown above, it seems that the issue of saying that establishing a universal Islamic State is fard in order for your own or your group’s political ends – a concept, which has no basis in Islam. However, to make it more acceptable, it is normally disguised in the cloak of religion.
This is becoming a joke. You are acting like an emotional child. Your claims are completely unsubstantiated. Your previous claims were proved to be false. It has been shown that the argument that it is fard upon every Muslim to establish a universal Islamic State is categorically wrong. If the classical scholars books are examined on this issue then you will find that this is what they agree on.
My dear brother, if you are sincere in your search for the truth then my advice to you is to leave Hizb-ut-Tahrir. They are wasting your time. I personally am not satisfied with their beliefs because once their claims come under deep scrutiny, they have a tendency to completely fall apart. Leave them. You will still have many friends at Keele, including myself. They will welcome you back with open arms. Especially Naim and Usman. Would you like to discuss with them your concerns first?
They shoot partypoopers, don’t they?
The Shariah does not demand their removal unless under very special circumstances. Your statement contradicts the following hadeeth:
*Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Kitab Al-Imara, Chapter 13, Hadeeth No. 4554.
"It has been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said: Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living. Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes.
I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied:
You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey."*
They shoot partypoopers, don’t they?
Establishing a Khilafah is Fard, confusion should be removed between Khilafah and a universal state. And by the way not all Muslims living under different countries have fulfilled the requirements of Bayah as the constitutions of various so called Muslim countries claim peoples sovereignty rather then Allah (SWT) Sovereignty. So it is a political shirk as there can be no other Sovereign before Allah (SWT). Allah (SWT) is the only Sovereign in Heavens and Earth and whatever in between them and not any so called Muslim country or for that matter any country by claiming sovereignty through their constitution. Read constitution of different so called Muslim countries.
Allah (SWT) beautiful words, Surah Al-Jumu'ah, Verse 1:
Whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare the Praises and Glory of Allah,-the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.
[This message has been edited by Musalman (edited December 19, 2000).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Musalman:
*Establishing a Khilafah is Fard, confusion should be removed between Khilafah and a universal state.
*
[/quote]
Exactly! This was stated ages ago. Some people think that Khilafah is fard. If by the word Khilafah, they mean government, then they are correct according to the Qur'an and the Sunnah and the opinion of the classical juristic scholars. If however, they think that the word Khilafah means a universal Islamic State, then they are wrong according to the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This is not just because of any absence of proof in the Qur'an and Sunnah, but because many contradictory hadeeth arise due to this false definition.
Muslaman, the rest of your reply is a matter of opinion. What do you mean by political shirk? Since when did the issue arise of people worshipping the government? I believe that your concept of what constitutes allegiance to the government (i.e. Khilafah) is somewhat misconstrued.
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?
The literal meaning of the word Khilafah is “Vicegerency” and not Rule or Government, in plain English Establishing Khilafah amounts to "Rule by the Shari’ah”. Univarsal Islamic State or Union of Islamic States etc are only different State structures and will have to be analyzed by Islamic Political Scientists to figure out the best future structure of the coming Islamic Khilafah prophesied and foretold by the our beloved Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
Why political Shirk?
With the social and intellectual evolution of mankind, Khilafah or vicegerency had to be transformed from an individual responsibility to a collective one. Parallel with this development, the concept and form of human sovereignty has also undergone a crucial transformation. Before the advent of democracy, human sovereignty used to be an individual matter, i.e., a king or monarch would rule the masses according to his personal wishes; now, however, this too has become a collective affair. With the development of the concept of democracy, we now have popular sovereignty instead of individual sovereignty. But note that popular sovereignty is as hateful an evil as individual sovereignty, as both represent a state of rebellion against the Creator. We have ourselves given kingship the garb of people’s rule (Democracy), when we saw man becoming self-conscious and independent. The point to be noted here is that there is no essential difference between individual sovereignty or monarchy on the one hand and collective sovereignty or democracy on the other. Both are different manifestations of political shirk, both are Satanic in origin, both represent rebellion against ALLAH (SWT). It was the impact of the liberating teachings of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in the form of the Just Social Order of Islam that caused common people to realize their rights, and raised their level of self-consciousness and self-respect. Realizing that man is becoming conscious of his status and capabilities and becoming more and more free from all kinds of bondage, Satan saw that it would no longer be possible to lure human beings into submitting before monarchs and autocrats. He, therefore, turned the "king’s right to rule" into the "rule of the masses," hiding the filth of human sovereignty behind the attractive veneer of democracy. Despite their differences, therefore, both democracy and monarchy are based on the assumption that human beings have the absolute right to rule —individually in the first case, collectively in the latter — and this is clearly un-Islamic!
[This message has been edited by Musalman (edited December 19, 2000).]
.
[This message has been edited by Puther-Jibraan (edited December 19, 2000).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Musalman:
*The literal meaning of the word Khilafah is “Vicegerency” and not Rule or Government, in plain English Establishing Khilafah amounts to "Rule by the Shari’ah”.
*
[/quote]
You are confusing the meaning of the word Khilafah with Khalifa. Big mistake. There is a world of difference between the two meanings. As to the rest of your reply, I only want to ask one question. What is your basis? Is it from the Qur'an and the Sunnah? If not, then it follows, strictly speaking, that your comments hold no credibility whatsoever in this discussion.
So in that case, Musalman and jalal-ud-deen, do we agree to disagree and leave it at that?
You have presented your side of the case as have I. I think it is pretty clear to anybody that we hold different opinions on this subject.
I think it is pointless in engaging in any further "discussion" if we both feel that we cannot learn any more from each other.
I really have nothing more to say, except the following:
"These are **limits (set by) Allah, and **whosoever obeys Allah and His Messenger* will be admitted to Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise), to abide therein, and that will be the great success. And whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, and transgresses His limits, He will cast him into the Fire, to abide therein; and he shall have a disgraceful torment. (Qur’an 4:13-14)*
Please see the bold phrases. It should be quite obvious that in the cited verse God wants us to adhere to the directives of the Qur’an (Obedience to Allah and His messenger). I would like to remind you that the whole point of our discussion is ‘what are the stipulations regarding the establishment of a universal Islamic state with respect to the Qur’an and Sunnah?’. Please note that I have tried to confine myself to the verses of the Qur’an and Sunnah, while you are consistently asking me to review my opinion in the light of the opinion ascribed to the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and to Muslim jurists. I ask you and all my Muslim brethren, what, in your opinion, is the criteria of determining God’s directives? Is it the words of the Qur’an or the interpretation of these words ascribed to the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Muslim jurists? If the former is the case, then all interpretations, irrespective of who is presenting them, should be judged on this criterion. While, if the latter is the case, then my whole discussion is out of place. Not only that, then our claim of adherence to the Qur’an is also out of place, and then the fact that God has, Himself, secured the Qur’an from any and all adulterations is also of no use, for rather than the Qur’an, God should then have guaranteed keeping the opinion ascribed to the companions of the Prophet (pbuh), clear of all adulterations and mistakes.
My dear brothers and sisters, I have presented the explanation of this issue of the Qur’an and Sunnah, which I hold to be correct, not on the basis of the person(s) who ascribe to this explanation, but on the basis of the words of the Qur’an. I would sincerely appreciate, if someone would take a look at my explanation, on merit, and let me know what is wrong with this explanation. I assure you, and God be witness on this, that if I someone can adequately explain the mistake in my explanation, I would not hesitate for even a minute in accepting and amending it. However, extremely sad as it is, all the criticism that I have yet received on my explanation is only to the effect that it is different from the generally held view. My answer to this is just that if what I have understood is truly what the Qur’an says, then the overwhelming numbers on the other side hold no importance in my eyes, whatsoever. And, on the other hand, if that is not what the Qur’an says, then may Allah give someone, from these overwhelming numbers, the knowledge and the ability to help me correct my understanding.
My dear brothers and sisters, assuming that my explanation is incorrect, when I meet God, on the Day of Judgment, and He asks me why I differed from the ‘generally held’ interpretation, I would present the excuse that I only presented that, which I had honestly understood from the Qur’an. There was no one who took the pains of communicating my mistakes to me, no one who told me, where I had gone wrong. Every one just kept telling me that my explanation was ‘different’ from the ‘generally held’ view. I adhered to my understanding of Your book and ignored the ‘generally held’ view in relation to Your book. This is precisely what You had directed me to do. Therefore, please forgive me for my ignorance and for my inability to find coherence in the directives of Your book and the ‘generally held’ opinion.
Now, however unlikely it may sound, for a moment, let us assume that my explanation is correct. What excuse would you have before God, when He asks you why you did not consider my explanation on pure merit? I must remind you, my brothers, that what I am presenting is not merely an opinion, it is my understanding of the words of the Qur’an. Please give it the attention that it deserves. Reject it, if you feel that it is incorrect, but at least reject it on merit, not merely on the grounds that it is against the ‘generally held’ view.
May Allah guide me, you and all others to the path of the Truth.
My fondest regards to you and those around you.
Mr Partypooper.
[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited December 20, 2000).]
Salam Bros'
The hadith you quoted is correct. I cannot disagree with it, Islam has give that hadith a specific context, - and this context is not referring to the present rulers.
You are right in that Islam has placed obeidiance to rulers as a obligation: this is reflected by the Hadith that you quoted and other evidences:
Obedience to the Muslim ruler who implements the laws of Islam in his ruling is compulsory, even if he does wrong or withholds the rights, as long as he does not order an act of disobedience (to Allah) and as long as he does not show an act of flagrant disbelief (Kufr Bawah)
Evidence about the obligation of obedience to the ruler is manifested in the Holy verses and the related Ahadith .
Allah I says:
"O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you." [An-Nisa’a: 59]
Al- Bukhari reported on the authority of Abu Salama Ibnu 'Abdul Rahman that he heard Abu Hurayra say: "The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: 'Whoever obeyed me is as if he had obeyed Allah, and whoever disobeyed me is as if he had disobeyed Allah. And whoever obeyed my Ameer is as if he had obeyed me and whoever disobeyed my Ameer is as if he had disobeyed me."' In another narration he was reported to have said: "Whoever obeyed the Ameer is as if he had obeyed me." Al- Bukhari narrated from Anas Ibnu Malik, who said: "The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: 'You must hear and obey, even if it were appointed upon you an Abyssinian slave whose hair is like a raisin."' Muslim narrated from 'Amru b. Al-'Ass, that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: "Whosoever gave his Bai'ah to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart let him obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him you must strike the neck of the latter."
These are clear evidences that obedience is obligatory, for Allah (SWT) has ordered the obedience to the people in authority, to the Ameer and to the Imam. This order has been associated with an indication (Qareena), that it is decisive by the fact that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) considered the disobedience of the Ameer as the disobedience to the Messenger (SAW) and to Allah I. He (SAW) emphasised obedience even if the ruler were an Abyssinian slave. All these serve as indications (Qara'in) that the order is decisive, thus the obedience of the ruler is obligatory.
But brother there are also other evidences which exclude obediance....I will quote these in the next post...please wait.
[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
** ... Islam has give that hadith a specific context, - and this context is not referring to the present rulers.
**
[/quote]
That has yet to be proved otherwise.
[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
**
You are right in that Islam has placed obeidiance to rulers as a obligation: this is reflected by the Hadith that you quoted and other evidences:
**
[/quote]
Thank you.
[quote]
Originally posted by jalal_ud_deen:
** But brother there are also other evidences which exclude obediance....I will quote these in the next post...please wait.**
[/quote]
I would eagerly look forward to that. I assure you that your response shall find my heart and mind absolutely open and receptive to any and every truth, which the Almighty guides me to understand. A response to my opinions has never offended me in any way. I have always tried to take feedback to my ideas, as a potential opportunity to get closer to God's truth. I would, insha'Allah, have absolutely no reservations in accepting and proclaiming my mistakes and correcting them without delay. I pray to God -- the Merciful -- that He keeps my heart and mind open to His truth – from wherever it comes -- for as long as He allows me to breathe His air.
They shoot partypoopers, don't they?
Let us put all this information together. Let us start by referring to the major authorities of the classical arabic language. For further information please refer to http://www.understanding-islam.com/rpol/pol-006.htm
As I had stated in one of my earlier responses, the words ‘Khalifah’ and ‘Khilaafah’ have generally been used in their literal meaning and not as a term of the Shari`ah. A correct understanding of these words would actually depend on the explanation of linguists. A few explanations given in some of the dictionaries and lexicons follows:
Tehrir Alfaaz al-Tanbeeh has explained the Arabic nouns constructed on the form of ‘Al-Imaarah’, ‘Al-Imaamah’ and ‘Al-Khilaafah’ as follows:
The nouns used to designate a person who has power over something else are made as ‘Fi`aalah’ like ‘Khilaafah’ and ‘Imaarah’.
According to Al-Qamoos al-Muheet:
‘Al-Khalifah’ means the ruler of the highest rank.
Exactly the same explanation is given by Mukhtaar al-Sihaah and Al-Misbaah al-Muneer.
According to Lisaan al-Arab:
Zujaaj has said that one may call the leaders, vicegerents of God on earth, as God says in the Qur’an: O David, We have made you a vicegerant on earth. People other than him * say Al-Khalifah is the ruler of the highest rank.
According to Lisaan al-Arab:
“Khilaafah” means the governance of a state.
Aqrab al-Mawaarid has also given the same explanation for the word ‘Khilaafah’. While explaining the word ‘Khalifah’, Aqrab al-Mawaarid writes:
“Al-Khalifah” is one, who follows someone else and takes his position. It is also used for the ruler of the highest rank. In the Shari`ah, it is used for the leader, who is not under the command of another.
The same explanation for the word ‘Khalifah’ is also give by Laroos, Al-Munjed and Al-Raayed.
Laaroos has defined ‘Al-Khilaafah’ as:
“Al-Khilaafah” is the same as ‘Al-Imaarah’ and ‘Al-Imaamah’.
Describing the meaning of the words ‘Al-Imaarah’, Laroos writes:
“Al-Imaarah” means being in charge of the affairs of people.
While ‘Al-Imaamah’ has been explained by Laroos as:
“Al-Imaamah” is the government of the state, also ‘Al-Khilaafah’.
Mo`jam al-Waseet has also described the word ‘Al-Khilaafah’ in exactly the same way as Laroos. However, it has explained ‘Al-Imaarah’ as:
“Al-Imaarah” is a designation of the leader, also a piece of land ruled by one leader.
While it has described “Al-Imaamah” as:
“Al-Imaamah” is the Muslim state, also the designation of the leader.
The word ‘Al-Khalifah’ has been described by Mo`jam al-Waseet as:
“Al-Khalifah” is the person nominated as a successor; also the ruler of the highest rank.
Al-Munjed has described “Al-Khilaafah” as:
“Al-Khilaafah” is the same as ‘Al-Imaarah’; Being a vicegerent of someone else; also ‘Al-Imaamah’.
‘Al-Imaarah’ has been described by the dictionary as:
“Al-Imaarah” is the designation of the leader; also a small, independent country ruled by one leader.
While ‘Al-Imaamah’ has been given as:
“Al-Imaamah” is the government of the state.
The explanation of ‘Al-Khilaafah’ given in Al-Raayed is exactly the same as the one given in Al-Munjed. The explanation of Al-Imaarah is also the same in the two dictionaries. However, Al-Raayed has explained Al-Imaamah as:
“Al-Imaamah” is the government of the state, whether a national state or a religious state; Muslim state; also designation of the leader.
I have given the description of the words ‘Al-Khilaafah’, ‘Al-Khalifah’, ‘Al-Imaarah’ and ‘Al-Imaamah’ from all the major authorities of the Arabic language, even at the risk of boring my readers with the monotony, so that there remains no confusion regarding their meaning and implication.
It should be quite clear from the foregoing references from the dictionaries that the words in their ordinary usage do not entail the implications, which is sought to be proven through the cited excerpts from Ibn Khuldoon, Al-Maawardi, Taqiuddin Al-Nabhani and Al-Imaam al-Juzri.
However, the above statement should not be construed to imply that I hold the cited opinion of the four scholars to be incorrect. That is not the case. On the contrary, the cited opinion of the scholars is quite acceptable, as would be explained later in this reply.
The important thing to note is that all the words explained in the foregoing paragraphs entail no religious significance. They are used merely to imply ‘authority’, ‘government’, ‘state’, ‘rule’ and their synonyms. One may, however, ask that if the cited opinion of linguists is accepted to be correct, then what exactly is the basis of the opinion expressed by Ibn Khuldoon and the other authorities that jalal_ud_deen has cited earlier in this thread. In my opinion, the answer is quite simple: If we were to fully understand the context of the statements cited from the four authorities, we would realize that these statements are, in fact, not giving a definition, implication or meaning of ‘Khilaafah’ etc., but are actually explaining the characteristics of the Muslim governments (Khilaafatul Muslimeen). In other words, the cited authorities have actually defined the duties that are incumbent upon a government, when it becomes a representative government of the Muslims or that of an Islamic state. Thus, every person, even if he is aware only of the basics of Islam, would agree that a Muslim government is not only responsible for the worldly well being of its citizens, but also for carrying out the directives that the Qur’an has addressed to it. For instance, if the Qur’an has directed the Muslim rulers to decide among their subjects with justice, it would then become a duty for a Muslim ruler to decide among his subjects with justice. Nevertheless, this would not effect the respective definitions of any of the words like ‘state’, ‘rule’, ‘khilaafah’ or ‘imaarah’.
To further understand the above explanation, let us take a simple example from the Qur’an. The Qur’an in Saad 38: 26 says:
O David, We have made you a ‘Khalifah’ * in the land, so, judge among people with truth and justice and do not pursue any vain desires, for they shall deviate you from the path of God. Indeed those who deviate from the path of God shall be inflicted with a painful punishment, for ignoring the Day of Accountability.
A close consideration of this verse shall show that following the truth (which, obviously, includes carrying out the directives of the Shari`ah) is one of the duties of the ‘Khalifah’, but is clearly not included in the definition of the word ‘Khalifah’. Had it been a part of the definition of the word ‘Khalifah’, there was then no need to repeat the directive “so, judge among people with truth and justice”, as this would have then been included in the word ‘Khalifah’.
According to the narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), after the establishment of a rule, Muslims must remain obedient to the rule and not be a source of collective disturbance and anarchy. It is, in fact, in this context, that Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
Whoever dies in a state of anarchy, without being obedient to his leader, dies in a state of Jahiliyyah.
(Ahmad ibn Hanbal, No. 16271)
According to another narrative reported in Muslim, the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
Whoever refuses obedience [to his ruler] shall meet God, on the Day of Judgment, in a state that he shall have no excuse [for his behavior]. Whoever dies without allegiance [to his ruler], dies a death of Jahiliyyah. (Muslim, Kitaab al-Imaarah, No. 3441)
The narrative in which Abdullah Ibn Umar (ra) is reported to have refused to participate in dethroning Yazid ibn Mu`aawiyyah is based, precisely, on this principle:
*Narrated Nafi’:
When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, “I heard the Prophet saying, ‘A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,’ and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle, and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me.”
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227).*
The above narrative ascribed to Ali (ra) is also based on the same principle.
In view of the foregoing discussion, one may ask that if it is a duty of a Muslim ruler to decide among his subjects according to truth and justice (and according to the directives of the Shari`ah) and if a ruler, contrary to God’s directives, is not fulfilling this duty, then what is the responsibility of the Muslim subjects with respect to such rulers.
The answer to this question is provided by narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). The Prophet is reported to have said that even if such a person is appointed as a ruler over the Muslims, who is disliked by them, the Muslims should not refuse obedience to him. The Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
Listen to and obey [your rulers], even though a black slave with an extremely small head, is appointed as a ruler over you. (Bukhari, Kitaab al-Ahkaam, No. 6609)
At another instance, the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said that even if others are unjustly given preference over the them, the Muslims should still stick to their allegiance with their ruler. Muslim reports:
You must listen to and obey [your ruler], be it in ease or in stringency, be it with the willingness of the heart or with dislike, or be it under circumstances that others are [unjustly] preferred over you. (Muslim, Kitaab al-Imaarah, No. 3419)
At another instance, the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said that even if the rulers are guilty of injustice, the Muslims should not refuse obedience to them, but should, on the contrary, remain steadfast in their allegiance. The Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
*O Abu Zarr, what will you do in response to those rulers who will [unjustly] prefer others over you in the distribution of the spoils of war? Abu Zarr replied: By Him, Who has sent you with truth, I shall take my sword and fight against them, till I join you . The Prophet said: Should I not guide you to something which is better than this? You should rather bear their injustice with patience, till the time that you join me. (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, No. 20579)
According to Muslim, once Salamah ibn Yazid Al-Ju`fiy asked:
O Prophet of God, what do you direct us to do in case we are ruled by such people, who demand their rights but refuse to deliver our rights?
The Prophet (pbuh) ignored the question a couple of times. Then Salamah ibn Yazid asked the question a third time. At this the Prophet (pbuh) replied:
You should listen to and obey them. For [on the Day of Judgment,] they shall be accountable for what they do, while you shall be accountable for what you do. (Muslim, Kitaab al-Imaarah, No. 3433)
According to Abdullah ibn Umar (ra), the Prophet (pbuh) once said:
The ruler is a shadow of God on earth; it is him, with whom the oppressed servants of God take shelter. Thus, when he is just, he would deserve God’s reward [on the Day of Judgment] and the subjects should be thankful for it; While if he is unjust, he shall bear the burden [of injustice, on the Day of Judgment] and [in such a case,] the subjects should bear [his injustice] steadfastly. (Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh, Kitaab al-Imaraah wa al-Qadhaa)
It should be kept in mind that preferential treatment of the subjects or injustice or oppression or depriving people of their legal and moral rights are all against the directives of the Qur’an. As we have cited earlier that one of the basic directives at the time of bestowing ‘rule’ upon David (pbuh), God directed him to judge among people with truth and justice. The Qur’an has directed (Al-Nisaa 4: 58):
Indeed God directs you to return the trusts to who they are due and whenever you judge among people, that you judge with justice.
At another instance, the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have directed the Muslims to remain steadfast in their obedience to their rulers, even if they are disobedient toward the directives of God. The Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
Many rulers shall take your charge after me; the obedient [to God] shall rule with their obedience, while the disobedient shall rule with their disobedience. You must listen to and obey them in everything, which is not against justice and offer your prayers, with them as your leaders. For, if the rulers do good [and you obey them] both them and you shall be rewarded, while if they do wrong, you shall be rewarded [for remaining obedient] and they shall be held accountable [for their bad deeds]. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Vol. 1, Pg. 517)
According to one of the narratives reported by Bukhari, the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
After me, you would see bias at the hands of the rulers and affairs, which would be detestable (Munkar) for you. People asked: O Prophet of God, what should we do under such circumstances? The Prophet replied: Deliver to them what is their right and ask God for your own rights [when the rulers refuse your rights]. (Bukhari, Kitaab al-Fitan, No. 6529)
At another instance, the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
After me, there would come rulers who would offer their prayers at the right time and would delay praying at their prescribed times. You must pray with them. If they offer their prayers at the right time, both them and you shall get the reward; if they delay offering their prayers and you pray with them, you shall get your reward, while they shall be held accountable [on the Day of Judgment]. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, No. 15127)
Once again, it should be kept in mind that all the above negative qualities of the rulers are such, which violate the express directives of the Qur’an. For instance, regarding the prayers the Qur’an has unequivocally declared (Al-Nisaa 4: 103):
Indeed prayer, at its prescribed time, is an obligation upon the believers.
Keeping the foregoing discussion in perspective, it should be clear that according the directives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), Muslims should remain under the state discipline and refrain from spreading anarchy in the land by promoting an attitude of disobedience toward the rulers, under all circumstances. As has been cited earlier, the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have condemned those who refuse allegiance to the rulers and has declared that on the Day of Judgment, such people should have no excuse for their action.
There is only one condition mentioned in the narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) in which he has allowed refusal of obedience toward the rulers. According to a narrative reported in Bukhari, `Ubaadah ibn Saamit says:
The Prophet called us and we pledged allegiance to him. In our pledge he required us to promise that we would listen to and obey [our rulers] – whether it be with the willingness of the heart or against our liking; whether it be in ease or in stringent circumstances – and that we shall not try to snatch away power from those in charge, [and the Prophet said:] except in case you see clear and unequivocal rejection (kufr) on their part, in the case of which you have an express directive from God. (Bukhari, Kitaab al-Fitan, No. 6532)
It should be noted that even in such a situation, the Prophet (pbuh) has only ‘allowed’ the Muslims to refuse obedience to their rulers; there is not a single instance where the Prophet (pbuh) has made it compulsory upon the Muslims to refuse obedience to their rulers.
As far as the implication of ‘Kufr e Bawaah’ (clear and unequivocal rejection) is concerned, if seen in the light of the previously cited narratives regarding remaining steadfast in obedience toward the rulers, it is clear that it implies clears apostasy on the part of the rulers. ‘Kufr e Bawaah’ is not merely a deviation from the directives of the Shari`ah, or else all the previously cited narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) would clearly contradict the last cited narrative. On the contrary, ‘Kufr e Bawaah’ should now be construed as a declaration of refusal to believe in God or His prophet or to accept the Qur’an as the word of God or to submit to the directives of the Qur’an.
Thus, according to the directives of ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) even if the ruler does not fulfill his duties imposed upon him by the Shari`ah, Muslims should still remain obedient to him and refrain from living a life of anarchy.
It is, in fact, to safeguard such an attitude of disobedience and anarchy among the Muslims that the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
Whoever comes to you, while you are united under the leadership of one individual, intending to disrupt your unity and to spread anarchy in your state, kill him.
The statements of Al-Maawardi and Al-Juzariy should also be seen in the stated perspective.
Finally, I would like to clarify that the Qur’an and the narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) have indeed directed the Muslims to adopt a specific attitude (of obedience and conformity) toward their rulers and toward their collective organization, but there is not a single directive in the Shariah*, which directs the Muslims to establish a rule, in a situation where it does not exist. Thus, the correct stance would be that according to the *Shariah, it is obligatory upon the Muslims to remain faithful, obedient and in conformity with the Muslim state (Muslim collectivity). Nevertheless, in the absence of a clear directive of the Shariah*, it would indeed be a transgression to say that according to the *Shariah, it is obligatory upon every Muslim to strive for the establishment of a state (Khilaafah), if it is non-existent.
To fully comprehend the fallacy of the arguments presented by the advocates of the idea that it is obligatory upon the Muslims to establish a state (Khilaafah), let us closely examine jalal’s cited excerpt from one of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir leaflets. They have cited:
If examined closely, the argument presented may (sequentially) be summarized thus:
**1. It is obligatory for a Muslim to live a life of obedience (bay`ah) toward the Khaleefah;
-
No Muslim can fulfill this obligation unless a ‘Khilaafah’ is established;
-
Till the time that a ‘Khilaafah’ is established, every Muslim is dying the death of Jahiliyyah;
-
Thus, to save the Muslims from dying a death of Jahiliyyah, it is obligatory to strive for the establishment of the Khilaafah.**
Although the argument may seem quite logical at first sight, yet with a little scrutiny, it shall be seen that it is completely unfounded.
To understand the fallacy of the argument, let us take a look at a few directives of the Shari`ah, which are clearly conditional upon the circumstances of the individuals.
We know that it is obligatory upon the Muslims to pay Zaka’h, if their total wealth exceeds a certain limit. Regarding those who do not pay Zak’ah, the Prophet is reported to have said:
For every person who does not pay Zaka’h, God shall throw around his neck a great snake on the Day of Judgment.
Now one may derive thus:
**1. Zaka’h is obligatory if the wealth of a person exceeds a certain limit;
-
Those who do not pay Zaka’h, shall be severely punished on the Day of Judgment;
-
Thus, it is obligatory upon every poor person who is not paying Zaka’h, to strive to increase his wealth to the Zaka’table limits, to save himself from the severe punishment of those who are not paying Zaka’h.**
The whole argument is clearly absurd. The fact, contrary to the argument, is that the payment of Zaka’h is an obligation only IF the wealth of a person exceeds a certain limit. This does NOT impose an obligation of trying to improve one’s financial position to be able to pay Zaka’h. In other words, the law of Zaka’h and the punishment mentioned in the referred narrative is conditional upon the financial position of the individual.
In exactly the same manner, the warning ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) regarding living a life devoid of obedience (bay`ah) toward the ruler (Khaleefah) is actually conditional upon the existence of the ruler (Khaleefah) as well as the rule (Khilaafah). This warning does not, by itself, impose an obligation upon the Muslims to establish the rule (Khilaafah) and appoint a ruler (Khaleefah). This point is clearly substantiated by the one of the narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). Hudhaifah ibn al-Yamaan (ra) is reported to have said:
People used to ask the Prophet mostly about ‘good’, while I used to ask him mostly about ‘evil’, fearing that it may involve me. Thus, one day I said to the Prophet: ‘O Messenger of God, we were drowned in ignorance and in great evil, then God bestowed upon us this great blessing [of His guidance]. Now, will there be any evil after this great blessing?’ He said: ‘Yes’. I asked: ‘Will there be a virtuous time after that evil?’ He replied: ‘Yes, but it would have some blemishes’. I asked: ‘What sort of blemishes?’ He replied: ‘There will be people who will guide others to the path which I have not recommended; you shall find both good as well as bad in them’. I asked: ‘Will there be bad times after that?’ He replied: ‘Yes, there shall be people who will guide others to the gates of Hellfire, whoever follows them shall be thrown in fire of hell’. I requested: ‘O Messenger of God, please describe them for us.’ He said: ‘They will have our skins and they will speak our language.’ I asked: ‘What do you direct me to do, if I am present in their times?’ He replied: ‘You must remain faithful to the state of the Muslims and obedient to their leader’. I asked: ‘What if they are devoid of a collective organization and do not have a leader?’ He replied: ‘Then you must stay away from each of the groups, even if you have to take shelter under a tree for the rest of your life’. (Bukhari, Kitaab al-Manaaqib, No. 3338)
It is quite clear from the above-cited narrative that if Muslims are living in a state of anarchy, without a collective organization and without a leader, then the Prophet’s directive for the common Muslims is that they should stay clear of the various groups, even if it means that they have to spend the rest of their lives in a desert or a jungle. Obviously, had the establishment of a rule (Khilaafah) been an obligation for common Muslims, the Prophet (pbuh) would have directed Hudhaifa (ra) to the effect.
Now, does anyone think that if Hudhaifa (ra) was to follow the Prophet’s directive, he would die a death of Jahiliyyah?
Thus, it is quite clear that the warning of the Prophet in the words: “whoso dies whilst there was no bay‘ah (allegiance or a pledge) on his neck (to a Khaleefah), he dies a death of jahilliyah” are actually conditional to a situation where a state rule (Khilaafah) actually exists.
I hope the above explanation would clarify the issue. Moreover, I am sure that if you would consider all the narratives that you have cited in your message in the light of this explanation, you shall understand them in their correct context and would, insha’Allah have no difficulty in understanding their correct implication. Nevertheless, if there still exists any confusion, do let me know.
They shoot partypoopers, don’t they?
[This message has been edited by Mr Partypooper (edited December 26, 2000).]***
salam to all muslims,
my thinking goes to mr party pooper,brother or sister it seems that u have a problem that u need something concrete and clear as water from the texts which r the quran and sunnah,ijm'a of the sahabah (ra) and the qiyas.these r the four sources of hukm from islam.brother if u r looking for a saying in the quran where allah is saying "khilafah is fard and u must work for it"then u wont find that.same as allah does not clearly say in the qura'n u must fast or pray.he swt only says "establish the pray"which if u take that literal does not mean we have to pray and if we dont then we would be punished for it.what i am trying to say oh muslim is that islam and the sources r not a plain and easy as u think they r,thats why we need the sincere classical alims to lead us to what allah and messenger r tring to say to us.wasalam.