How I became a Muslim Extremist
On Panorama, BBC1, this Monday at 8.30 p.m.:How I became a Muslim extremist
What is it like to actually be an extremist and serve the political goals of radical Islam?
What is it like to think like an extremist and adopt an ideology that demands you abandon all aspects of your former life - including your friends and family?
On Monday’s Panorama Shiraz Maher exclusively tells his story.
He is a former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), a radical organisation campaigning for the creation of caliphate - an Islamic state. It operates in many countries.Shiraz makes the case for a re-think of how the government should de-radicalise people like himself.
He tells how after 9/11, he had a chance conversation with a HT member at a mosque and within weeks became a member of the cell.
The cell thought that democracy was incompatible with Islam, that the state of Israel should be destroyed, and that Shariah law should be imposed over the entire world with violence being used to achieve this.
Shiraz rose through the ranks to become a regional leader of HT.
It soon dominated his whole life - from refusing to go to family weddings because the women were not segregated, to recruiting as many people as possible to the cause.
While at Cambridge University he even tried to recruit Kafeel Ahmed into HT, who was later alleged to be part of the attack on Glasgow airport.
Shiraz has now ‘come-out’ and now wants to expose HT for the organisation it is.
HT Britain is trying to market itself as a conciliatory and moderate organisation that condemns violence as a means to achieve political ends.
With access to other former HT insiders, and HT literature the group wanted to keep hidden, Shiraz will reveal that HT Britain’s conciliatory approach is merely a crude facade that conceals the same radical and extreme views.
Update (1 October):
The BBC Panorama documentary on Hizbut Tahrir on Shiraz Maher (former Hizbut Tahrir senior) aired today and can be seen here. The documentary is essential viewing and will disabuse anyone of the illusion that the Hizbut Tahrir is a “benign, progressive Muslim organisation”.
October 1st, 2007 at 8:19 am
Hizbut Tahrir in Bangladesh is also adopting non-violent protest for the dead cartoon issue. They demand the progressive newspapers like Prothom Alo to be banned. This is a ploy to make a show off to the progressives in the society that they are very much there and they can play their tricks. The govt. is sadly being played.
At the same time I saw Hizbut Tahrir protesting the cartoon issue in London. Why make this international? How dare the HT leaders say that the mere cartoon did hurt 140 million Muslims in Bangladesh (sense of figure noted) and the whole Muslim Ummah. I mean how do they know? Was there a survey in the whole Muslim world? How can a mere cartoon effect so many people?
I can see where it is all going. If HT is not stopped soon they will create havoc I can tell you.
October 1st, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Well I think HT in Bangladesh are working to the strategy that if they say something loud enough and say it repeatedly then it will be accepted as a truth, no matter how unrelated it is to content and tone of the original offence. This is classic HT tactics. Their claims about the Arifur cartoon is clearly a bunch of lies and misrepresentation.
HuT rejected the forgiving of Prothom Alo editor Matiur Rahman by the khatib of Baitul Mukarram mosque, Obaidul Huq, saying when Allah and his prophet did not forgive defamation of him or his prophet, who is the khatib to forgive them.
Notice the shameless conflating, the twisting of the Quran and Sunnah out of any context. He’s peddling lies to keep an innocent man in prison.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Ht are pathetic. I agree with sid. They just repeat slogans about khalifa and umma. They never talk about issues that ordinary people care for like schools, jobs, finance etc. They always looking to cause division and the controversy.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Saw the Panorama programme, the comically shady arab voice overs of press statements were particularly fun. Who cares about insight and understanding if you have the microphone. What a strange chap, joining HT after 2001.
Majids the more interesting case though.
HT have been inflitrated at the higher levels with pakistani people who were extremely on the othereside before they saw the HT light, who think they are clever but are being used. Meanwhile naive sincere members of the Bengali qaum of east london do the leafleting…
Tony’s Battle of ideas will take advantage and use them again and again in future. no wonder they werent banned!
Meanwhile sarfraz manzoor writes a book with some skill.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Seeing Shiraz Maher on the film, he comes across as someone who is intellectually rigorous (while he was in HT from 2001, he was very much an intellectual member of the group and was responsible for generating a lot of the written output and intellectual theorising while he was in it).
But he seemed a little out of touch with his own feelings. This might be to do with still being in a period of de-programming from the HT.
Muslim radicaslism is arrested development of both the mind and emotional aspects. He also seems racked by self-doubt, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I think this sense of self-doubt rescued him from the religious chauvinism which is at the heart of Hizbut Tahrir ideology.
October 6th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I disagree. he comes accross as really thick. Oh and his white establishment freind was soooooo ugly and torylooking.
The group falsly prides itself on its argumentative abilities and intellectualism. They dont have much emphasis on character development. The more impressive member have a lot of charm, wit and cool though. I think HTs have the most fun out of all the groups.
HT bredren tend to come from pretty secular backgrounds with little religious pedigree going on, so i see them a little differently. For some, the HT thing is a first step, a gateway to the deen, strange but true.
I love the ‘look i gave up women for HT…. and i was in there you know. thats how committed i am’ vibe of the defectors though. gotta laugh.
Look we dont know if anybody ‘got’ to him, majid and ‘ed’. I like to make excuses for ma brudders, because other wise i’ll start invoking Mir Jafars, Musalyamas…. I never got the impression that he has actually deepened his knowledge and care for the Ummah.
Pamphlet writing is like blogging, it is intellectual self pleasurement. Which is why the whole bangladeshi secularist stormtrooper engagement with ‘HuT’, ‘hijbut’ very chucklevision.
Misleading people is foolish, but unfortunately not criminal. HTites are never violent, so feeding deshis with information suggesting that they are is misleading.
October 6th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
I disagree. he comes accross as really thick. Oh and his white establishment freind was soooooo ugly and torylooking.
People in glass houses… :-)
I’ve read his previous work and he writes like a demon. You might want to learn a few things from him fugstar before you diss his writing abilities.
It must be so hard for an HT afficianado such as yourself, to see these people peel away from the cult and then proceed to pile on the de-programming angst on their former cult.
You call them Mir Jafars (traitors). That says everything. I call them people who have matured enough to take control of the psychic disorder that made them want to fill a hole in their personality with a cult. I expect to see many more people like Majid and Maher.
The problem is that as HT becomes fossilised in the UK it will start to take on the role of arena rock band in the East. That Indonesian stadium HT rock conference was very worrying indeed.
October 6th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Yes thats a very telling christian ethic you just allowed to ooze out of your manufactured common sense, would you turn the other cheek now! Maybe he writes better than he talks and televisually presents.
I’m hardly ht-phillic, just wary of insidiously confessional informants. People who go partisan are prone to extremism wherever they are and whatever they do.
the indonesia conference looks interesting, especially that play he narrated. however they are lucky to have interesting balanced grass roots and blossoming movements there in muhammadiyah and nahdatul alama, look them up look at how the later was able to purge its ‘killing the communists’ demons by instigating and internal truth commission initiative. HT is n’t a worry. its a very small thing.
Maher knows that the brit public knows didly piddle about indonesia, thats why he used it. Its probably an old HT trick that a mature muslim would have grown beyond.
October 7th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Don’t knock Christain ethics. Muhammed (SAW) had a high regard for their author and you wouldn’t have benefitted from an education without them. You should count yourself lucky that you can now comunicate in incomplete, hyperbolic sentences.
But HT is growing in Bangladesh, where stabilising social and political moderate Modernist Islamic movements like the Muhamadiyyah and the NU do not exist. I
nstead we have the old school Wahhabi funded JI which hold little appeal to the young. But HT and their mix of slick presentation and simplistic utopianism compounded with the presence of large numbers of disaffected young men could be a lethal combo.
October 7th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Theres a different between whats Paulian and what Isa alayhi assalam taught no? I try to reinforce my house and dipatch carrier pigeons. Islamic akhlaq has its own character.
Though JI do unfairly hog ears and wallets more to their tuning i wouldnt call it wahabi funded. There are lots of different jamati types. they are sustainable now, and do attract young people and inswinging ex lefties.
HT are slick by deshi standards and utopian. but then so are the commies and the militant religion haters. I was kinda hoping that they all cancel eachother out, and i think thats whats happening.
A small group like HT doesnt hit the public mind through votes, but the symbol of khilafa, i feel is a surrogate for hope, dignity and empowerment. Its a test for the secular side to get beyond the jamat specific 71 stuff and talk about their vision of a just society where the sacred element is not sneered upon, and for the established islamist block to accept that they actually dont have a monopoly on sociospiritual stuff.
Where HT and say CPB have common ground… on the whole screw the ADB IMF WB thing, Isn’t their scope for interaction a la STW?… unless people are just plain vain.
A really decent islamic party in bangladesh, sauf baggage, could do wonders for the nation. One step towards it is the diversification, the experimentation with different ideas. In the absence of any origional political thought/activity/vision in the country these imported(from time and space) caravans are bound to find traction.
Disaffected young men are used as cannon fodder by the BNP, the AL already, and its lethal. Centrist parties cause more death and mayhem than the fringe elements.
October 7th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Not knocking just remarking on the character of your common sense. I had education before the english arrived and civilised you thankyou very much. The Akhlaqi sciences from the Muslim cultures are markedly different. Its not about throwing stones, its about Maher bhai being a useful idiot.
We do have modernist strands of Islamic movement in Bangladesh. It does lack a little oomph i admit but the returnees from secularised parents who are HTs clients aren’t interested in history of islamic thought, they are after something a lot more spunky. It’s for religious forces to up their game, not cheat and ban/takfir them.
Dissafected, malcontented, even envious young men in bangladesh have always been used as cannon fodder for criminally utopian movements, promising them switzerlands and raising their expectations of the state ridiculously. Once in a while they are glorified. It is the centrist parties inflicting violence on the people, not the fringe elements, so the concern about lethal combinations is slightly unbalanced.
If HT are slick, perhaps the other actors who you think are qualitatively any better should raise their game. Theres an absence of ‘production’ in BD, in such conditions imported goods like HT, which chime in a big way with muslims looking for hope, dignity and power (and programmed to hate or stay away from the established islamists) will have appeal.
HTs biggest virtue is not being JI!
At the end of the day, i prefer private uni students being muslim, beleiving and practicing and annoying people and hopefully learning and improving themselves, than a profusion of atheism and haraminess and nimukharamnity. 3rd rate islamism is a little naff but a lot better than some of the other paths uni people take.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:34 am
HT’s biggest vice and failure is that they are brown fascists, pure and simple. Their interpretation of Islam’s political relationship with Jews, Hindus, the Ahmaddiyya is pure textbook Maududi/Qutbist religious supremacism. Their views of the role of women in society is the same old offensive obscurantism that exposes it’s Middle Eastern roots.
The symbol of Khilafa is actually a surrogate for all the hot issues faced by various pockets of Muslims around the world (be it Palestinians, Chechnyans, Kashmiris and what have you), irrespective of circumstance or context, and collapsing it into one bite-sized super-issue, stoked up with ahistorical, utopianist piffle about Ummah (as if there was any such consistent entity), packaged in dubious, takfiri commentaries of the Kuran and Sunnah, and served up cold to angry, young, dissaffected Muslim kids. In the UK these kids happended to be 2nd and 3rd generation Southasian immigrants hungry for an identity. In Southasia it’s to unemployed, disenfranchised youngsters. They like to propel their ideology on second-hand rage. However impotent the rage, it can still generate a lot of hatred and poison for all concerned.
Luckily Bangladeshis are moderate Muslims and secular by nature. This is what you get from being the historical breeding ground of 3 of India’s 5 major religions. The Bengali charcter is not drawn towards supremacism, they’ve played the role of the underdog for too long. Bengalis are surprisingly sophisticated when it comes to distinguishing spurious interpretations of religious doctrine from the real article. The same reason why Jamaat, which is simply a rehabilitation centre for retired genocidalists, will always be held with suspicion by the majority of Bangladeshis.
Which is why I’m firmly opposed to banning HT just as I’m opposed to banning the BNP (UK not BD). I don’t want them to become a bunch of ideological martyrs - they’re not worth it. The battle front is on the war of ideas.
Hizbut Tahrir’s present upsurge in Bangladesh is purely coincidental to the CTG playing the Prothom Alo newspaper against the Islamists. For HT in BD, Eid has come early, so to speak. It’s hilarious seeing the clownish leader of Hizbut Tahrir in Bangladesh try and use the democratic Constitution of Bangladesh to justify a Khilafist ideology! Foolish bwoy!
November 1st, 2007 at 4:48 am
Sid H Arthur said … “For HT in BD, Eid has come early, so to speak. It’s hilarious seeing the clownish leader of Hizbut Tahrir in Bangladesh try and use the democratic Constitution of Bangladesh to justify a Khilafist ideology! Foolish bwoy!”
I just read the last portion of this forum………….i realized that………
you guys are so desperate, you guys have no choice other that telling lies……..
just like thieves when he is caught to justice……
desperate liars………..its so sad to see………..
this what this society has turned you to…………. A DESPERATE LIAR…..
we didnt followed the official Eid of BD
we had our Eid two days before the official one, after when we got the information that the moon was seen on saudis………….
when you ve no idea about our party, just stop lying atleast, because its so cheap in nature……..
let me finish with some verses of Qur’an just to show a glimpse how Qur’an is sssssoooooo true……
from chapter 1, Sura Baqarah………
(6) As for those who are bent upon denying (the truth), they would not believe, because it is all the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them.
(7) (With the result that) Allâh has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and on their eyes is a covering. And a mighty punishment awaits them.
(8) THERE are some people who say, `We believe in Allâh and the Last Day,’ while they are no believers at all.
(9) They abandon Allâh and those who believe, but they (as a matter of fact) only deprive themselves (of the blessings of God), and they do not perceive (it).
(10) In their hearts was a disease (of hypocrisy), and Allâh has increased their disease (by making Islam triumphant). A woeful punishment awaits them because of their persistent lies.
(11) When it is said to them, `Do not disturb the peace of the land (by hypocritical tactics),’ they say, `We are simply setting things right (and so helping the cause of peace).’
(12) Beware! they alone are the peace breakers, but they do not perceive (its evil consequences). (13) And when it is said to them, `Believe as (other) people (- Companions of the Prophet) believed,’ they say, `Shall we believe as the weak-minded have believed?’ Beware! it is they only who are weak-minded, but they do not know (this fact).
November 4th, 2007 at 2:10 am
Actually, Surah Bakarah, ayat 12 is quite apt when describing the Hizbut Tahrir, who are the the new set of clerical fascists that have popped up in Bangladesh. The clerical facists have been nothing but murderous trouble makers in the history of Bangladesh.
The Yusuf Ali translation is:
Of a surety, they are the ones that make mischief, though they realise (it) not
Profoundly true.
November 4th, 2007 at 3:41 am
the they used here are meant for the jews and the christians and disbelievers………………
fascists!!!! hmmmmmmmmmm …………
you guys are really the beat movie maker ….. now i understood …….
i guess you read the previous verses……
but you cant stop Islam anyway………no matter how much you lie abt muslims ………….
(12) Beware! they alone are the peace breakers, but they do not perceive (its evil consequences).
(13) And when it is said to them, `Believe as (other) people (- Companions of the Prophet) believed,’ they say, `Shall we believe as the weak-minded have believed?’ Beware! it is they only who are weak-minded, but they do not know (this fact).
do you not see (although its useless talking like this) george bush zionists (i think youre part of them) are making mischief over lands but still they perceive not ………………
damn you guys are so afriad of Islam ………
November 4th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
It’s very simple. Hizbut Tahrir are clerical fascists and are *not* equatable with Islam. You are *not* representative of muslims or Islam. Your group is an ultra-right wing, religioun-supremacist organisation. You are not representative of muslims. That’s why sensible muslims will always fight your organisation and your stupid, supremacist ideology.
November 4th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
meet me i will show you if im a muslim or not or a representative of Islam or not…………
its very simple………….
as the verse says……….
chapter 1 Baqarah………..
(10) In their hearts was a disease (of hypocrisy), and Allâh has increased their disease (by making Islam triumphant). A woeful punishment awaits them because of their persistent lies.
but you’ll keep on hypocrating like what Shiraz Maher did……….
as the verse says…….
same chapter……
6) As for those who are bent upon denying (the truth), they would not believe, because it is all the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them.
all I want to warn you is Khilafah is coming……….
keep on hypocrating as much as you like……..
after khilafa my answers will not be by words…………..
you’ll get my answers by actions………..
its not a threat its the truth……….
November 4th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
To you Shiraz Maher is a hypocrite. To everyone else, he has rejected a form of religious supremacism, bigotry and violence. Islam is not about Khilafah; there is no mention of Khilafah in the Quran and Sunnah. You Hizbut Tahiris are following the silly modernist brainwaves of a mediocre Arab demagogue of the 1950s.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:48 am
the way ure talking as if im a non muslim but you aint!!!!!!……heh…….and youre warning me that im doing the wromg thing!!!!
youre so despetrate……!!!
you said
“To you Shiraz Maher is a hypocrite.”
there are more than one Hizb ut-Tahrir members all around the world…………..all of them knows he wsa a hypocrite………
he was paid to say so…….like all traitors do….
there is not a single violence for the last 55years where Hizb ut Tahrir got involved……
so youre beaten here already, as you say that we do extremism violence fundamentalism bla bla……….
if i had doubts about HT before joining……
i said i will work for Khilafa but not for HT…….
later on i took a research on them ……
i found out theyre doing the same thing, like i wanted to do…………
working according to the method of our Prophet to establish Islamic state…….
what we do is nuthin but telling the truth about islam to the people, creating opinions through discussion…………telling them how Islam solve popverty from this country and this world…….then security……and conparision between ideologies…….debate……..and so on…….if you think these are wrong……then there is something wrong within yourself………may be youre suffering from a disease…………ie hypocracy………
you aint a muslim howll you know about khilafa and defination……….
KHILAFA means an Spiritual Islamic Ideological State based on QURAN and SUNNAH……….
to fullfill our ideology (deen) that is khilafa we need to follow the method of our Prophet of how he established Khilafa (the first Islamic State Medina)
to work for khilafa is ummul-fard (mother of all Islamic obligation) as long as our Ideology is established
if the ziomists can cabn have their own state as israel by illegal occupation of Palestine and Jeruslam…….
why the muslims can have an Islamic State ?????
use your common sense…….
it is you who demagogue all the way……..in this forum………..
Hizb ut Tahrir originated from Palestine not from Arab…………..another lie
you lie as an escuse becauseo of lack of knowledge……….for defending yourself……….this is demagogue
November 8th, 2007 at 7:58 am
ONE MILLION HT members ****** sorry for the missing word
November 8th, 2007 at 8:30 am
if the ziomists can have their own state as israel by illegal occupation of Palestine and Jeruslam…….
why the muslims cant* have an Islamic State ?????
use your common sense…….
November 8th, 2007 at 8:44 am
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204941836
join this group and start lying shit around………..
November 8th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
I hate to shatter your preconceptions but I am a muslim, but unlike you, one who rejects the adolescent posturing of cults like Hizbut Tahrir. There a few billion of us. ;-)
Hizbut Tahrir, like many Modernist authoritarian utopian ideas cooked up in the 20th century, is a force for anarchy and discord. It will never affect a positive change for the lot of Muslims by remaining in the far right agitating for religious supremacism. They will only continue to attract nutjobs and spread poison.
But why take my word for it? The best arguments against Hizbut Tahrir are being made by it’s own ex-members. There are more and more rejecting Hizbut Tahrir and coming to the surface these days. This is especially the case in the UK where much of HT ideology was incubated during the 80s and 90s. Such a person is Maajid Nawaz who was a senior international activist of the party. Maajid was also jailed for 4 years in an Egyptian jail for being a member of HT. He has recently gone public. [link]
Asim Siddiqui has written a superb articles [link] on Maajid Nawaaz, who has left the group and is now an activist against the radical Islamist politics of Hizbut Tahrir. chooses to fight Hizbut using Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and commentaries of other Islamic scholars to argue the case against Khilafah.
Maajid essentially argues that HT’s view cannot be implemented because there are countless other (more senior) classical scholars who differ on HT’s political interpretation of Islamic texts. Some scholars say any land where the basic religious requirements of Muslims are met (like praying, fasting etc) becomes “Islamic land” and no further imposition of “Islamic governance” is required. It is a matter of principle in Islamic jurisprudence that where there are opposing views yet each opinion is derived from a recognised scholar then each opinion is valid, albeit conflicting. In such a situation, no one opinion can be imposed upon others or label the other opinions as invalid. Consequently if the land is already “Islamic” according to one scholarly opinion then any attempt to work towards forcibly removing it is invalid, Islamically.
The purpose of the state is to allow citizens to live in peace, security and free to perform their religious practices, not to impose their religious doctrines upon you. This minimum requirement renders a state Islamic in the view of some recognised scholars. So what should Muslims do when faced with corrupt or oppressive rulers? The answer is they do what anyone else does: stand up for justice for all people irrespective of faith, campaign for civil liberties, develop civil society institutions, promote democracy and engage in peaceful political and social reform. And that applies wherever a Muslim might live.
November 9th, 2007 at 6:48 am
hahahahahahhahhahaha
i think u havent read what ive written above……
…..and also havent answered some questions i posted……
actually u couldnt answer……..
it doesnt need to be a scholar to understand about Khilafa…………that scholar was such an illiterate muslim………..or such a liar, like you……..
some of my friends have also gone to jail during leafletimg near a mosque during this state of emergency……….although the issue was not political……
u havent read Qur’an yet i guess………or have no idea about Islam………..u only read some articles against Islam………thats it….this is what you got ………… and kept on demagoging……
In Qur’an Allah clearly stated that sovereignity belongs to Him and He is the only lawmaker……
how dare you talk about 4000 year old stone aged democracy where the laws are manmade and kept on changing and getting more complex and evil and can be manipulated anytime anywhere and numbers of laws keep on growing thousands and thousands……and youre supporting manmade laws !!!!! as Allah said He is the only lawmaker ………. u dont even know that youre doing ’shirk’ (associating man with Allah…….like all christian)……… Allah never forgives ’shirk’
One of the beauty of Islam is that it is so simple yet so powerful……….
the laws and system of Allah are so simple that any general people can understand it memorise very easily……it is very easy to account the Caliph because the laws are simple small in number and unchanged unlike democracy……..
yes it is possible that the Caliph may be oppressive……..
unlike democracy the Caliph can be brought down immediately……….after he does anything wrong…..
the Caliphate used to rule the world for 1300 years approx….and from spain to indonesia under one Caliph!!!!……….there were no boundaries because of language skin color race ethnics……etc………..where its army contained different kind of people……….under one identity that is MUSLIM…….from 600 to 1924…..when it was destroyed by a traitor like you guys, kemal attaturk……….
Ht is not like CIA or FBI ……………..where its improbable to join…………it is open for all………..anyone like you can enter and stayed there for 1 or two days claiming as a member of HT ………and leaving and revealing some false stories about HT and its people……….
o there are more than 1 million HT members and some billions of supporters……….
but they ve been kept quiet by these puppet of west rulers over each muslim country…….
but we start a new revolution the khilafa movement creating public opunions and publicity……..unless these puppets bound to give up………….
if you dont have respect for Allah’s laws and his prescribed ideology………you aint a muslim………….
answer this question……….
if the ziomists can have their own state as israel by illegal occupation of Palestine and Jeruslam…….
why the muslims cant* have an Islamic State ?????
use your common sense…….
November 9th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Last question first - the “Zionist state” of Israel is a democracy. The only democracy in the Middle East. A Khilafa will not be created as a democracy but as a top-down majlis of elites. Who are going to be these elites? People like your Arab demagogues? You can forget it. You’re living in a wet dream of your own creation. The closest state in the world that comes to a Khilafah is Saudi Arabia. Why don’t you go and live there? See how long you can take getting treated as a third-class Muslim ‘miskeen’ by the mutawween. I can bet that you that you will be more respected in the Zionist state of Israel.
if you dont have respect for Allah’s laws and his prescribed ideology………you aint a muslim
Yes but why are you creating laws to ascribe to an ideology? Another word for this is bidaah. And if anyone is guilty of ’shirk’ it’s Hizbut Tahiree’s. They seem happy to worship ‘Khilafah’ more than ‘Allah’ - the Khilafah concept has become a deity in it’s own right.
OK, since you claim you’ve read the Quran and I haven’t, come and give us some education. Where does it categorically state in the Quran and/or Sunnah that Khilafah is the ’umm-al-fard’ or *the* Paramount Obligation? Will you please validate the source of that and give us a reference? Funny, because I always thought that the umm-al-fard of Islam was ‘ibaadah’, worship of Allah. I’m pretty sure that that’s been the case for 1400 years of religious thought, until some Palestinian demagogue came along in 1953. But this goes back to the HT tendancy to replace ‘Allah’ with ‘Khilafah’, you see?
the Caliphate used to rule the world for 1300 years approx
Which Caliphate in particular ruled for 1300 years? There were multiple caliphates in Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and Iran. Some of them were running concurrently. There has never been a consensus on who should be the caliph since the schism of Ali vs Abu Bakr. Further down in time Mameluke caliphs and Ottoman caliphs fought each other bitterly for power, gold and slaves. You seem to have a simplistic view of Islamic history. I suggest you read more.
Hizbut Tahrir is a dead-end ideology, fossilised post-colonial reactionism. It is an authoritarian response to the failure and humiliation of pan-Arab unity and socialism of the time (1950s and 1960s). That’s why the fundamental tenet of Hizbut Tahrir is a reaction to Israel, the bugbear of Arab unity. It’s predicated on your first question - ‘If Zionists have Israel why Muslim have no Khilafah?’. It’s got nothing to do with religion and everything to do with reactionary politics - which is why the majority of Muslims who don’t regard Israel as the enemy see HT as a sideshow in a circus. However, the horrible side-effect is that South Asian kids like you are now inculcated with religious supremacism and anti-semitism even though you have probably never met a Jew in your life.
Oh and by the way, above you said that the founder of Hizbut Tahrir was Palestinian, “not Arab”. He’s probably spinning in his grave because his smartest followers like you don’t even know Palestinians are Arabs, let alone understand the finer points of fiqh. ;-)
November 9th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
you said……..
“Last question first - the “Zionist state” of Israel is a democracy. The only democracy in the Middle East. A Khilafa will not be created as a democracy but as a top-down majlis of elites. Who are going to be these elites? People like your Arab demagogues? You can forget it. You’re living in a wet dream of your own creation. The closest state in the world that comes to a Khilafah is Saudi Arabia. Why don’t you go and live there? See how long you can take getting treated as a third-class Muslim ‘miskeen’ by the mutawween. I can bet that you that you will be more respected in the Zionist state of Israel.”
i think youve your own nightmare version khilafah injected as lsd drugs inside your head, living like a schizophrenia………….hallucinations
i donno where you get these elites from………from youre hallucination
one thing you said right that ill be treated as a third class people in saudis………..
these sheikhs and badshahs are all coopertated with these zionist movements……..saudi is a kufr state…………
anyone who even utter a word of khilafah…..he gets taken away and never been found (killed may be).
about israel………….heh………the worst ever nation raised up for mankind……….
where the palestinian children were sniped by the zionist soldiers, fired over women along the streets……….destroying houses of innocent people……..no security……….illegal occupation……..killing thousands for being a muslim !!!!!
it wasthe palestinians who gave shelter to the jews during world war 2………
and they are kicking them away!!!!! killing them!!! taking their lands !!!!!
how shameless how coward how pathetic a human being can be !!!!!! unimaginable……..
this is whats happens when choose to deviate themselve because of ignorance…….
o yes these are the likings of your character
you said…….
“Yes but why are you creating laws to ascribe to an ideology? Another word for this is bidaah. And if anyone is guilty of ’shirk’ it’s Hizbut Tahiree’s. They seem happy to worship ‘Khilafah’ more than ‘Allah’ - the Khilafah concept has become a deity in it’s own right.”
baseless irrational comment…….
the topic was on khilafah not on Allah……..
we are working to establish khilafah only to satisfy Allah………
if you have problems about ‘iman’ and ‘taqwa’ (clearly shows you dont have any)
we can discuss about it ………. in another forum….
try to give rational logic behind your words…..
dont give these kind of frustrated, terrified, biased statements………
you said
“OK, since you claim you’ve read the Quran and I haven’t, come and give us some education. Where does it categorically state in the Quran and/or Sunnah that Khilafah is the ’umm-al-fard’ or Paramount Obligation? Will you please validate the source of that and give us a reference? Because I think always thought that the umm-al-fard was ‘ibaadah’, worship of Allah. I’m pretty sure that that’s been the case for 1400 years of religious thought, until some Palestinian demagogue came along in 1953. But this goes back to the HT tendancy to replace ‘Allah’ with ‘Khilafah’, you see?”
The establishment of Islam and the implementation of the Shari‘ah rules in all walks of life is compulsory on Muslims through definitely proven evidences. This duty cannot be achieved unless there is a ruler who has an authority. The divine principle states ‘what is necessary to accomplish a wajib (duty) is itself a wajib’. So the establishment of a Khaleefah is also compulsory according to this divine principle.
Moreover, Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Ala) has ordered the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) to rule between Muslims by that which He (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Ala) revealed to him, and the order of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Ala) to him was in a decisive manner. Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Ala) addressed the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam):
“And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you”. [TMQ 5:48]
And:
“And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you and do not follow their whims, and beware (be on the alert) that they may deviate you away from even some part of what Allah revealed to you”. [TMQ 5:49]
The speech of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Ala) to the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) is a speech to his Ummah unless there is evidence which limits the speech to him. In this case there is no such evidence, so the aforementioned verses order all Muslims to establish the rule. The establishment of the Khaleefah does not mean other than the establishment of the rule and the authority. On the other hand, Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Ala) made it obligatory upon Muslims to obey those in authority, i.e. the ruler, which indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory upon Muslims.
“O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority amongst you”. [TMQ 4:59]
Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Ala) does not order obedience to those who do not exist. This indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory. When Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Ala) orders obedience to those in authority it is an order to establish them. The implementation of the Shari‘ah depends upon the existence of the ruler, thus, the establishment of the ruler becomes obligatory as its absence will result in the sin of neglecting the Shari‘ah.
Therefore, it is clear from these evidences that the establishment of the rule and the authority amongst Muslims is fard, and it is also clear that the appointment of a Khaleefah who takes the charge of the rule and the authority is compulsory upon Muslims in order to implement the Shari‘ah laws; and not for the sake of rule and authority only. Reflect upon what the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) said: “The best of your Imams (leaders) are those whom you love and they love you, who pray for you and you pray for them; and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.” The Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) was asked: “Would we not declare war on them (face them with the swords)?” He said: “No, as long as they establish salah (meaning Islam) among you.” This hadith is clear in informing about the good and bad leaders, and clear in prohibiting the challenge of their authority as long as they establish the prayer, which in this context indicates upholding of Islam, and establishing its rule.
So the obligation upon Muslims to appoint the Khaleefah who establishes the laws of Islam and conveys its call is a matter which has no doubt with regard to its certainty in the sound texts of Shari‘ah. Moreover, it is an obligatory duty due to the fact that Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Ala) made it fard upon Muslims to establish the authority of Islam and to protect the honour of Muslims. However, this duty is a collective one, so if some people of the Ummah accomplished it, the fard is fulfilled and thus responsibility drops from the rest of the Ummah. And if part of the Ummah was unable to achieve the fard, though they carried out the actions which establish it, then the responsibility remains upon all the Muslims, and the fard remains upon every Muslim as long as Muslims are without a Khaleefah.
As for the Sunnah, Nafi‘a reported saying: “‘Umar said to me that he heard the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) saying: Whoso takes off his hand from allegiance to Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Ala) will meet Him (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Ala) on the Day of Resurrection without having any proof for him, and whoso dies whilst there was no bay‘ah (allegiance or a pledge) on his neck (to a Khaleefah), he dies a death of jahilliyah.” So the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) made it compulsory upon every Muslim to have a bay‘ah on his neck, and described whoever dies without a bay‘ah on his neck that he dies a death of jahilliyah. The bay‘ah cannot be for anyone except the Khaleefah, and the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) made it obligatory upon every Muslim to have on his neck a bay‘ah to a Khaleefah. Yet he did not make it an obligation upon every Muslim to give bay‘ah to a Khaleefah. The duty is the existence of a bay‘ah on the neck of every eligible Muslim, i.e. the existence of a Khaleefah who accordingly deserves a bay‘ah upon the neck of every Muslim. So it is the presence of the Khaleefah which places a bay‘ah on the neck of every Muslim, whether the Muslim gave a bay‘ah to him in person or not.
Therefore, this hadith of the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) is an evidence that the appointment of the Khaleefah is an obligation and not a proof that giving the bay‘ah is obligatory. This is so because the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) rebuked the Muslim who has not a bay‘ah on his neck until he dies, not the one who did not give bay‘ah. Hisham ibn ‘Urwa reported on the authority of Abu Saleh on the authority of Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) said: “Leaders will take charge of you after me, where the pious (one) will lead you with his piety and the impious (one) with his impiety, so listen to them and obey them in everything which conforms with the truth. If they act rightly it is for your credit, and if they acted wrongly it is counted for you and against them.” Muslim narrated on the authority of al-A’araj, on the authority of Abu Hurairah, that the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) said: “Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they protect themselves.” Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hazim, who said: “I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him talking of the Prophet’s saying: The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will be Khulafa’a and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us? He said: Fulfil the bay‘ah to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with.” Ibn ‘Abbas narrated that the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) said: “If anyone sees in his amir something that displeases him let him remain patient, for behold, he who separates himself from the sultan (authority of Islam) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, has died a death of the days of jahilliyah”.
In these ahadith, the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) informs us that leaders will run the affairs of Muslims, and the ahadith include the description of the Khaleefah as a shield, i.e. a protection. So the description of the Imam as a shield is informative of the benefits of the presence of the Imam, thus it is a command for action, because if the information conveyed by Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Ala) and the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) contained rebuke then it is a command of prohibition, and if it contained praise then it is a command for action. If the ordered action is necessary to implement a hukm shara’i (divine law), or by its negligence a hukm shara’i will be neglected, then this command is decisive.
In these ahadith there is information also that those who run the affairs of Muslims are Khulafa’a, which indicates an order to appoint them. They also include a prohibition for Muslims to separate from the authority, which indicates the obligation upon Muslims to appoint an authority for themselves, i.e. ruling.
Moreover, the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) ordered the Muslims to obey the Khaleefah and to fight those who dispute his authority as Khaleefah, which indicates an order to appoint a Khaleefah and to protect his Khilafah by fighting against whosoever disputes with him. Muslim reported that the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) said: “He who pledged allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him you have to strike the neck of that man.” So the command to obey the Imam is an order to establish him, and the command to fight those who dispute with him is an evidence that this command is decisive in maintaining the presence of one Khaleefah.
“Which Caliphate in particular ruled for 1300 years? There were multiple caliphates in Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and Iran. Some of them were running concurrently. There has never been a consensus on who should be the caliph since the schism of Ali vs Abu Bakr. Further down in time Mameluke caliphs and Ottoman caliphs fought each other bitterly for power, gold and slaves. You seem to have a simplistic view of Islamic history. I suggest you read more.”
“The Khilafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be Mulk after that.” Some people translate the word mulk as Kingship.
To deal with this understanding we need to look to the hadith, and what it is addressing, and we need to look to this honourable hadith in context with other hadith. The 30 years that are mentioned is related to the period of the Khulafah Rashidah. So if we look to their period of rule and look to the sum of the first five Khulafah it comes to exactly thirty years: two years and three months for Abu Bakr (ra), ten and a half years for Umar (ra), twelve years for Uthman (ra), four years and nine months for Ali (ra), and six months for al-Hasan (ra). The hadith then mentions that there will be mulk afterwards. The word mulk has many meanings. The famous Arabic dictionaries, like “Al- Muhit” of Fairuz Al-Abadi, clearly illustrate this. The word mulk amongst other things does mean kingship, but also it means the one having charge over all the people, and also the word “hukm” (rule), is synonymous with the word sultan (authority), and mulk (dominion/rule).
Those who refer to this hadith claim the Umayyads and later generations were monarchies because, they claim, even the hadith mentions the word Mulkan, which is derived from Malik, or ruler. Such an argument is built upon a false interpretation because the word Mulk as stated above means “dominion/rule/authority” and the word Malik can either mean “a ruler” in any context or “a ruler within a monarchical system.” Thus, rulership or ruling does not immediately mean kingship or monarchy but can mean ruling in any system. Allah (swt) mentions in the Qur’an the word Mulk, in the context of rule, amongst other ayat:
“By Allah’s will they routed them; and Dawud slew Goliath; and Allah gave him dominion [Mulk] and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And were it not for Allah’s repelling some men with others, the earth would certainly be in a state of disorder; but Allah is Gracious to the creatures” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 251].
Nobody can claim that Dawud (as) was a king because he would have to declare himself sovereign, an impossible act for a Prophet. In this context, Dawud (as) was given the authority to implement the revelation he received from Allah (swt), in the same manner that the Khaleefah has the authority to rule only by Islam.
Also if we look to other hadith, they mention that there will be 12 Imams, which is a Shari’ah term to mean Khulafah, which can indicate that there were 12 Khulafah in the first three generations. As narrated by Jabir ibn Samurah (ra) that Muhammad (saw) said “The Islamic deen will continue until the Hour has been established, or you have been ruled by twelve Khulafah, all of them being from the Quraish” [Sahih Muslim].
In another hadith the Prophet (saw) has indicated that their will be many Khulafah. It has been reported on the authority of Abu Hazim that he said: “I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years, and heard him informing about the Prophet (saw), he said: ‘The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafah and they will number many.’ They asked; ‘What then do you order us?’ He (saw) said; ‘Fulfil the Bay’ah to them, one after the other and give them their dues for Allah will verily account them about what he entrusted them with’ [Sahih Muslim].
Also the example of the Sahabah, Tabieen, and Tabi-Tabieen, and the great Mujtahideen amongst them, is clear that they recognised the Khulafah after Hasan (ra) and gave bay’ah to them freely, such as Khaleefah Muawiya, Khaleefah Abdullah ibn Zubayr (ra), and Khaleefah Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (ra), and even those much later on such as Khaleefah Abdul Hamid II amongst many others.
The argument that the Khilafah was a tyranny
To legitimise their claims that Islam was not implemented during its history or that Islam cannot be implemented again, some individuals refer to incidents described in history books that portray life under Islamic rule as a dismal existence in which oppression, misery, and persecution were the norm. In reality, these books often follow the footsteps of the Orientalists whose purpose was to attack and undermine Islam from every angle. The contents of such books point to isolated incidents that do not represent the general state of affairs within the Khilafah during its 1400-year tenure.
Moreover, such books contradict common sense. For instance, Khaleefah Haroon al-Rashid is often the target of malicious attacks by Orientalist writers that accuse him of a myriad of crimes - ranging from adultery to alcoholism to theft - as well as to portray him as a tyrannical despot who sponsored mass executions and ruled the people with an iron fist. Yet the same Khaleefah Haroon - spent alternating years performing Hajj and maintaining the armies of jihad, who built a water transport system that the Saudi regime cannot build today with their wealth and resources, and who saw the Islamic civilization rise to its zenith under his reign - was also nicknamed “Al-Rashid” and called the “Sixth Guided Khaleefah.” Many other contradictions and distortions are found in such books that aim only at undermining Islam and presenting a distorted picture.
Yet, even tyranny is not a cause for the invalidation of the Islamic ruling system (although it can never be acceptable and must be changed), as the following noble hadith mentions; “‘The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you, and pray for you and you pray for them, and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you, and you curse them and they curse you.’ We asked; ‘O Messenger of Allah! Shall we not then declare war on them?’ He said; ‘No, as long as they establish Salah amongst you’ ” [Muslim from Auf bin Malik]. So the hadith is indicating that the ruler needs to be obeyed, as long as he implements the Shari’ah.
The Islamic Ummah must take the initiative and objectively re-examine its history by scrutinising its sources. No longer can Muslims afford to focus on the episodes from our history and heritage that the Orientalists and colonialists wish for us to dwell upon. Islamic history remains a history full of glimmering achievements and a shining example of civilization that produced a society of unparalleled justice, mercy, and advancement, for thirteen centuries.
The period of the ransacking of the Khilafah in 1258-1261
There are some who claim that there was no Khaleefah for a period of three years and that the Muslims ignored the duty of the Khilafah system. To fully understand this period, we need to examine the wider situation at that time. The reality of the Khilafah was that it was very weak. The capital of the Khilafah was Baghdad but many of the Wilayat (provinces) had become very strong; virtually autonomous. So when the Mongols ransacked Baghdad in 1258, and killed the Khaleefah Mutasim, it shook the entire state as mentioned by Jalaluddin As-Suyuti in his book Tarikh al-Khulafah.
The region of Egypt was controlled by the Wali (governor), who had assumed the title of Sultan. As-Suyuti mentions that;
“In 657 AH the world was without the Khaleefah. The Tartars [Mongols] were descending upon the Ummah. The Sultan [Wali] of Egypt was a boy, Mansur Ali bil Muizz (who was unable to do anything to help the Muslims)…There upon Sultan [Wali] Qotuz, assembled the nobles and the principal men of the Ummah and there present was Shaykh Izzuddin bin Abdus Sallam who was a celebrated orator, and he said, ‘ Since, the enemy has overrun the Wilayah, it is incumbent upon the whole Ummah to oppose them, and it is lawful to take from the people what they can afford of their sustenance on the condition that the bait al mal [State Treasury] be first exhausted…”
Then Qotuz, removed al-Mansur as the Sultan, and Qotuz, was then appointed as Sultan of the Wilayah. He then sent for Sultan Bayburs and met at Ain Jalut, where the Tartars were defeated, and the Muslims were victorious. In Rajab of 659 AH (May 1261) the Khaleefah was proclaimed and given the bay’ah. His name was Al Mustansir Billah Ahmed, he had fled Baghdad in 1258, and when Bayburs became Sultan he set out to visit him, with the Qadis and other officials of the state. The first to give him Bay’ah was Sultan Bayburs, then the Qadi al Qudaa, Tajuddin Aa’zz, then the Shaykh Izzuddin Sallam, and then the rest of the influential people.
The whole narration shows that the structure of the State was intact, apart from the fact that the Khaleefah had been killed and that the Muslims did not have a Khaleefah for 3 years. This was not because of a negligence of a duty, far from it, and it would be wrong to suggest so by the fact that the Muslims concerned for selecting a Khaleefah were under an overwhelming power preventing them from doing so. The period between 1258-1261 is analogous to the case of the Muslims after the murder of Uthman (ra) where the Muslims remained for five days without a Khaleefah before pledging Ali (ra) as Khaleefah.
Even the Tartars, who ransacked Baghdad and directly occupied the Islamic State, could not escape the influence of Islam. When the Muslims finally expelled them, they accepted Islam, returned to give the Bay’ah to the Khaleefah, and carried the banner of Islam to Russia and the Far East. No other incident in history witnesses that a nation conquered a people, and the conquerors soon carried the culture and ideas of the conquered! Only through the implementation of Islam and the power of the Islamic Ideology could the Muslims have profoundly influenced their invaders inspite of the intellectual decline and fragmentation existing within the Ummah at the time.
The Case Of The Bay’ah [oath of allegiance]
Although the Khilafah remained with a single family during the time of the Umayyads and Abbasids, their ruling was not considered a monarchy for the following reasons:
The sovereignty was never given to the Head of State, and nor did the Head of State ever claim himself to be sovereign, i.e. the source of legislation, as is the case in the monarchical system. Throughout Islamic history, the Muslims always referred to the Hukm Shar’i [Islamic law] as the source of their legislation and not to any particular individual.
The office of the Khilafah was never conferred upon individuals solely on the basis of inheritance. Although the Khilafah remained within a single family for several generations at a time, such an incident does not constitute hereditary ruling because the Bay’ah was always given. In a monarchy, the son of the King or the ruler, by sole virtue of his family relationship, would immediately assume the ruling position afterwards. During the Islamic history, no Khaleefah was ever appointed or designated to his post without the Bay’ah. Those few who did try to assume the position of Khaleefah without a Bay’ah performed an illegitimate seizure of power and were quickly removed.
The controversy over the Bay’ah centres on the incident in which Muawiya (ra) took the Bay’ah for his son, and such an incident is used to justify the claims that monarchical rule followed the generation of the Sahabah. Such a conclusion results from failing to distinguish between misapplying the rules and abandoning them altogether. Muawiya’s case demonstrates a misapplication of the Shari’ah rules in which the Bay’ah was taken in the wrong manner. Furthermore, Muawiya based his understanding on Abu Bakr’s (ra) actions when he nominated Umar (ra) before the termination of his Khilafah. In the same manner, Muawiya selected his son. Although Abu Bakr (ra) asked the opinions of the Muslims as opposed to Muawiya, such an act does not indicate that Muawiya abandoned the Shari’ah because the Bay’ah was not abandoned but he misapplied the Shari’ah rule in this instance.
In spite of the misapplication, the Bay’ah was given consistently throughout the thirteen centuries of Islamic rule. The Shari’ah has laid down two points related to the Bay’ah that need to exist for the Bay’ah to be legitimate. Firstly, the consent of all the Muslims needs to be sought, and secondly it needs to be done without coercion but by free will and consent. Generally, the Bay’ah was given by the Sheikh al Islam or the Ahlul Halli wal Aqd [the influential people] who represented the Muslims as a whole throughout Islamic history. Thus, the argument that the Bay’ah was misapplied on occasion is no basis for claiming the Khaleefah was not legitimately contracted or that Islam was not implemented.
Conclusion
As sovereignty belongs to Allah (swt), the Muslims should always surrender to Allah’s (swt) rulings as found in the Islamic texts when discussing any issue, evaluating any idea or concept, or initiating any action. Regardless of how many justifications or excuses circulate amongst the Ummah, the fact remains that Islam defined a unique political system, provided a detailed and well-defined political structure, established the political system as the practical mechanism to implement and carry Islam, and obliged the Muslims to establish this system. The Orientalists and those who harbour hatred towards Islam have capitalised upon aspects of Islamic history to portray a bleak picture of life under Islamic rule. Some people, even sincere Muslims, have been seduced by the Orientalists and inadvertently justify the claim that Islam is not applicable for modern political life. Such claims are not excuses for the Muslims to claim that Islam has no political system or that it doesn’t work. On the Day of Judgment, Allah (swt) will judge the Muslims for their deeds, not their excuses.
The ruling by Islam constitutes an integral part of the belief in Islam because Allah (swt) mentions in the Qur’an:
“They (the prophets) are those whom we gave the Book, Al-Hukm (the ruling), and the Prophethood. But if they disbelieve therein, then we have entrusted it to a people who are not disbelievers” [TMQ Al-Anam: 89].
Nobody can claim that Muhammad (saw) was not given the ruling because the Ayah clearly indicates that, as a Prophet, Muhammad (saw) received the ruling along with the Book and the Prophethood. To claim that Islam does not have a ruling system would denote a denial of the Ayah in the Qur’an. Also, “they” in the Ayah is addressed to the polytheists among the Quraysh, and the, “people who are not disbelievers”, refers to the Sahabah. In this Ayah, Allah (swt) is stating that those who disbelieve in any of the three aspects, whether it is the Book, the Prophethood, or the ruling, would be similar to the disbelievers among the Quraish who fought and opposed Muhammad (saw). Furthermore, the Sahabah, in order to fulfil the criterion of, “people who are not disbelievers”, would have to believe in the ruling and work for its establishment. Based upon this Ayah, Allah (swt) likens those who oppose the ruling or those who oppose the work for Islam’s establishment to the polytheists among the Quraish. Thus, any attack against the political system of Islam or those who work to establish it is an attack against Islam itself.
Most importantly, the Muslims must understand that, in spite of what history says, Islam is correct: Allah (swt) is still the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe; the Qur’an and the Sunnah remain as guidance for humanity and the system from Allah (swt). Islam will always remain for anyone to accept or reject as he or she desires, and no excuses - whether they come in the guise of, “Islam was not implemented, so what’s the use?” or any other justification - will change Islam in any aspect. Nations, like people, experience falls and shortcomings that add to the growth of the nation in the same manner that an individual’s failures build experience and knowledge that act as stepping stones for future success.
Today, the Islamic Ummah has fourteen centuries of history as a deposit in her ideological account that can be withdrawn and utilised in the challenge to re-establish the Islamic State and attain its rightful status. Allah (swt) mentions the Muslims’ status in the Qur’an:
“We have made you a just Ummah, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 143].
“You are the best Ummah ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin the good, and forbid the evil, and you believe in Allah” [TMQ Ale-Imran: 110].
The Muslims should aspire towards nothing less because Muhammad (saw) indicated that the Khilafah will return based on the path of Prophethood.
Ibn ‘Asakir quoted Yunus Ibn Maysara Ibn Halbas as saying that Rasoolallah (saw) had stated: “This matter (namely the Khilafah) will be after me in Madinah, then in Syria, then in the Jazira, then in Iraq, then in Madina, then in Jerusalem. If it is in Jerusalem, its home country is there, and if any people expel it, it will not return there for ever” [Ibn ‘Asakir, Tahdhib Tarikh Dimashq al-Kabir, Volume 1, p42 (Dar al-Masiyrah, Beirut, 1979)].
Such Ayat and Ahadith should provide a source of confidence in Islam to motivate the Muslims to strive for the supremacy of Allah (swt) deen. The Muslims have a responsibility to mankind to establish Islam so that its light and beauty shines upon the whole world.
you said
“Hizbut Tahrir is a dead-end ideology, fossilised post-colonial reactionism. It is an authoritarian response to the failure and humiliation of pan-Arab unity and socialism of the time (1950s and 1960s). That’s why the fundamental tenet of Hizbut Tahrir is a reaction to Israel, the bugbear of Arab unity. It’s predicated on your first question - ‘If Zionists have Israel why Muslim have no Khilafah?’. It’s got nothing to do with religion and everything to do with reactionary politics - which is why the majority of Muslims who don’t regard Israel as the enemy see HT as a sideshow in a circus. However, the horrible side-effect is that South Asian kids like you are now inculcated with religious supremacism and anti-semitism even though you have probably never met a Jew in your life.”
bullshit same as before………….
“Oh and by the way, above you said that the founder of Hizbut Tahrir was Palestinian, “not Arab”. He’s probably spinning in his grave because his smartest followers like you don’t even know Palestinians are Arabs, let alone understand the finer points of fiqh. ;-)”
finer points of fiqh………the arabs and the palestinian aint the same although they write like arabic words sounds arabic as well……..but they aint the same by meanning……..
just like hindi and bengali……….
ive given all the answers……….above you need
keep it as a reference………
oh by the way i just did a rally today :D
we are raising prothom alo issue once again :D
to other folks
guys prothom (shaptahik 2000) called Kabaah as a prostitution house………… and Azan as ‘beshshar dak’ (many people dont know all these) ……..NAOZUBILLAH
alpin issue is not the issue for all these rallies we are doing……….they were the issue mentioned above………how can a muslim tolarate all those
how can we let these people go…….
mr sid arthur …….
i gotta work to do (for khilafah) rather than argueing with you and wasting valuable my time good bye…….
may be this your job hanging and scattering shits everywhere you go around forums………
may be you get millions of dollars for this little work
November 9th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
oh i just forgot……….Sovereignity belongs to Allah isnt it ???
The Islamic system of government is based on four principles:
i. Sovereignty is for Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Ala) and not for the People
What controls and runs the Muslims and the Ummah is not the Muslims themselves, nor the Ummah, rather the choice of the Muslims and the Ummah is controlled by Allah’s orders and prohibitions only.
“Surely they will not believe until they make you the judge in what they disagree.” [TMQ 4:65]
“It is not for the believer (male or female) that when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter that they should have any choice in their matter.” [TMQ 33:36]
“O you who believe! Obey Allah, obey the Messenger and the rulers from amongst you, and if you disagree on a matter then return it (for judgment) to Allah and the Messenger if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day.” [TMQ 4:59]
And the Messenger of Allah’s (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) saying, “None of you will be a (true) believer until his desire follows that which I have come with (i.e. Islam).”
These evidences are explicit in making the sovereignty for the Laws of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta’Ala) and not for the Ummah.
ii. The Authority is for the Ummah
It is clear that the authority i.e. the government, is for the Ummah because it is apparent in the method, defined by the Law-Giver in appointing the Khaleefah by the Ummah through the bay’ah, and also from the fact that the Khaleefah takes the authority by the bay’ah and he governs the Ummah on her behalf. And the fact that the Khaleefah takes the bay’ah is a clear proof that the actual authority is from the Ummah, who gives it to whom she sees fit. There are also other explicit ahadith which state that the Ummah appoints the leader and gives a bay’ah to him. It is narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr that the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) said, “It is not allowed that three be in the open (during a journey) and that they do not make one of them their leader.”
It is clear here that the appointer is the Ummah. And the ahadith of bay’ah, already mentioned, clearly make the point that the authority is from the Ummah.
iii. There is only one Khaleefah
To appoint one Khaleefah upon all Muslims to represent them in the government is a duty of the Muslims and we have gone through many ahadith about the appointment of the Khaleefah and the necessity that the Khaleefah is one, a matter which was also indicated by the Ijma’a of the Sahabah.
iv. The Khalifah alone has the right to adopt and enforce Islamic opinions in the State
The Khaleefah is the one who issues the constitution and the various canons. The Ijma’a of the Sahabah proves that only the Khaleefah can adopt divine laws and from this consensus is deduced these famous principles: “The Imam’s order settles the differences” and “The Imam’s order is implemented” and “The Imam can put forward as many solutions as the (number of) problems which arise.”
November 9th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
What a waste of time. You still haven’t provided a categoricall reference from the Quran/Sunnah that Khilafah states is “umma-al-fard”.
Oh an by the way, Palestinians are Arabs, racially and linguistically. The founder of HT was a “Palestinian” and an ”Arab”, the two are not mutually exclusive. There is no parallel with Hindi and Bengali - these are languages. Indians and Bangladeshis mostly belong to the same race.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
read above 26 in the middle…….
its written somewhere……….
u havent through it……..
clear signs of ignorance………
November 9th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
read above 26 in the middle…….
its written somewhere……….
u havent through it……..
clear signs of ignorance………
palentenians uses farasi language…….
maybe youre the ignorance………
but not everyone…….
my waste of time wasnt for you……..fool
its for people who visit…….
and they are not like you (ignorant) afcourse…..
November 9th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
don’t worry bro loth.thing…some ppl will continue slurring all they want…but they can only go as far as an internet forum with all their intellectual insecurity to prove us wrong. But not completely their fault either…its how they have been “democratically” induced by this soon-to-expire (inshAllah) system of kufr. And no need to brag about the numbers of brothers we got in HT..coz we don’t prove our point with numbers..rather on ideological ground. Always remember the hadith which mentions that Ghuraba(strangers) will be few in number. Traitors like Maher played a major role in disintegrating the caliphate; but this time around ppl like him are bringing us to spotlight. This is only blessings in disguise. Just one simple question for those who support the group “say no to Caliphate”…have u devised any solution yet for our brothers and sisters across the Muslim lands under continuous persecution and torture? If yes..then show it to us…if no…ummm..keep on trying! Fiamanillah
November 10th, 2007 at 4:56 am
Read it carefully sid arthur bhai…….
The Re-establishment of the Khilafah is an obligation upon all Muslims
Sunday, 24 June 2007
The Khilafah is a common leadership for all the Muslims in the world. Its role is to establish the laws of the Islamic Shari’ah and to carry the Da’wah of Islam to the world. The Khilafah is also known as the Imamah, both terms have the same meaning. Several Sahih Ahadith mention them with the same meaning, neither of the two terms has ever differed in meaning in any Shari’ah text i.e. the Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw), these being the only Shari’ah texts. It is not compulsory to hold to the term of Khilafah or Imamah, but rather it is compulsory to hold to the meaning of the term.
The establishment of a Khaleefah is an obligation upon all Muslims in the world. Performing this duty, like any of the duties prescribed by Allah (swt) upon the Muslims, is an urgent obligation in which there can be no choice or complacency. Negligence in performing this duty is one of the greatest sins, for which Allah (swt) punishes severely. The evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory upon all Muslims is found in the Sunnah and the Ijma’a (consensus) of the Sahabah.
As for the Sunnah, Nafi’a reported saying: “Abdullah ibn Umar said to me that he heard the Prophet (saw) saying: ‘Whosoever takes off his hand from allegiance to Allah (swt) will meet Him (swt) on the Day of Resurrection without having any proof for him, and whoso dies whilst there was no Bay’ah (allegiance) on his neck (to a Khaleefah), he dies a death of Jahiliyyah (ignorance).’” [Muslim]
So the Prophet (saw) made it compulsory upon every Muslim to have a Bay’ah on his neck, and described whoever dies without a Bay’ah on his neck that he dies a death of Jahiliyyah. The Bay’ah cannot be for anyone except the Khaleefah, and the Prophet (saw) made it obligatory upon every Muslim to have on his neck a Bay’ah to a Khaleefah. Yet he did not make it an obligation upon every Muslim to give Bay’ah to a Khaleefah. The duty is the existence of a Bay’ah on the neck of every eligible Muslim, i.e. the existence of a Khaleefah who accordingly deserves a Bay’ah upon the neck of every Muslim. So it is the presence of the Khaleefah which places a Bay’ah on the neck of every Muslim, whether the Muslim gave a Bay’ah to him in person or not.
Therefore, this Hadith of the Prophet (saw) is an evidence that the appointment of the Khaleefah is an obligation and not a proof that giving the Bay’ah is obligatory. This is because the Prophet (saw) rebuked the Muslim who has no Bay’ah on his neck until he dies, not the one who did not give Bay’ah.
Hisham ibn Urwa reported on the authority of Abu Saleh on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (saw) said: “Leaders will take charge of you after me, where the pious (one) will lead you with his piety and the impious (one) with his impiety, so listen to them and obey them in everything which conforms with the truth. If they act rightly it is for your credit, and if they acted wrongly it is counted for you and against them.”
Muslim narrated on the authority of al-A’araj, on the authority of Abu Hurayrah, that the Prophet (saw) said: “Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they protect themselves.”
Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hazim, who said: “I accompanied Abu Hurayrah for five years and heard him talking of the saying of the Prophet (saw): ‘The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will be Khulafaa’ and they will number many.’ They asked: ‘What then do you order us?’ He said: ‘Fulfil the Bay’ah to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with.’”
Ibn Abbas narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: “If anyone sees in his Amir something that displeases him let him remain patient, for behold, he who separates himself from the sultan (authority of Islam) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, has died a death of the days of Jahiliyyah.”
In these Ahadith, the Prophet (saw) informs us that leaders will run the affairs of Muslims, and the Ahadith include the description of the Khaleefah as a shield, i.e. a protection. So the description of the Imam as a shield is informative of the benefits of the presence of the Imam, thus it is a command for action, because if the information conveyed by Allah (swt) and the Prophet (saw) contained rebuke then it is a command of abstention, and if it contained praise then it is a command for action. If the ordered action is necessary to implement a Hukm Shari’i (divine law), or by its negligence a Hukm Shari’i will be neglected, then this command is decisive.
In these Ahadith there is information also that those who run the affairs of Muslims are Khulafaa’, which indicates an order to appoint them. They also include a prohibition for Muslims to separate from the authority, which indicates the obligation upon Muslims to appoint an authority for themselves, i.e. ruling. Moreover, the Prophet (saw) ordered the Muslims to obey the Khaleefah and to fight those who dispute his authority as the Khaleefah, which indicates an order to appoint a Khaleefah and to protect his Khilafah by fighting against whosoever disputes with him.
Muslim reported that the Prophet (saw) said: “He who pledged allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him you have to strike the neck of that man.”
So the command to obey the Imam is an order to establish him, and the command to fight those who dispute with him is an evidence that this command is decisive in maintaining the presence of one Khaleefah.
In regards to the Ijma’a of the Sahabah they all agreed upon the necessity to establish a successor or Khaleefah to the Prophet (saw) after his death. They all agreed as well to appoint a successor to Abu Bakr (r.a.), then to Umar (r.a.), then to Uthman (r.a.), after the death of each one of them.
The Ijma’a of the Sahabah to establish a Khaleefah manifested itself emphatically when they delayed the burial of the Prophet (saw) after his death whilst engaged in appointing a successor to him. This was despite the fact that the burial of the dead person is a Fard, and that it is Haram upon those who are supposed to prepare for his burial to engage themselves in anything else until they complete the burial. The Sahabah were obliged to engage themselves in preparing the burial of the Prophet (saw). Instead, some of them engaged themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than carrying out the burial, and some others kept silent on this engagement and participated in delaying the burial for two nights despite their ability to deny the delay and their ability to bury the Prophet (saw).
So this was an Ijma’a to engage themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than to bury the dead. This could not be legitimate unless the appointment of a Khaleefah is more obligatory than the burial of the dead. Also, all the Sahabah agreed throughout their lives upon the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah. Although they disagreed upon the person to elect as a Khaleefah, they never disagreed upon the appointment of a Khaleefah, neither when the Prophet (saw) died, nor when any of the Khulafaa. al-Rashidun died. Therefore the Ijma’a of the Sahabah is a clear and strong evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory.
Furthermore, the establishment of Islam and the implementation of the Shari’ah rules in all walks of life is compulsory on Muslims through definitely proven evidences. This duty cannot be achieved unless there is a ruler who has an authority. The Qaa’idah (divine principle) states ‘that which is necessary to accomplish a Wajib (duty) is itself a Wajib.’
So the establishment of a Khaleefah is also compulsory according to this Qaa’idah. This principle can be realised by the following examples.
The Prophet (saw) has stated in one Hadith as narrated by Imam Bayhaqi (ra) in his Sunan that, “Nobody has the right vested in him to establish anything from the Hudood without the Sultan (authority of the State).”
Imam Tahawi also narrates a Hadith from Muslim ibn Yasar that the Prophet (saw) said, “The (collection of the) Zakah, the (implementation of the) Hudood the (distribution of the) spoils and the (appointment of the) Jumu’ah are for the Sultan.” (A similar narration has been narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musanaf and also by Imam Narghiyani. They have been deemed acceptable.)
Hence the obligation of establishing the Khilafah is the obligation upon which many other obligations rest, such as the Hudood (penal codes), collection and distribution of the Zakah, the organising of the main Jumu’ah and it’s Khateeb and other obligations besides these.
The removal of Kufr depends upon the resumption of the Khilafah. Establishing Islam in actuality means the establishment of the Khilafah as that is the only method of implementing Islam. Indeed, without the Khilafah the Deen cannot exist in our societies. Hence the whole of Islam depends upon the Khilafah as that is the method that Islam defined to bring it into existence.
The current situation of the Islamic Ummah is a testament to this fact. The Islamic penal code is absent and is replaced with that of the European countries. The economic system of Islam has been replaced by that of the Capitalists and today the resources of the Muslim Ummah are the spoils that are distributed by the Kuffar. The Islamic lands are occupied despite the military capacities of the Muslim armies. The absence of the Islamic way of life in our countries is ever affecting the societal fabric with nightclubs and bars arising in the holy lands of al-Quds, as well as many other major cities and capitals in the Islamic world. These stark facts unfortunately clearly illustrate the absence of Islam and the truthfulness of the statements of the Messenger of Allah (saw).
Moreover, Allah (swt) has ordered the Prophet (saw) to rule between Muslims by that which He (swt) revealed to him, and the order of Allah (swt) to him was in a decisive manner. Allah (swt) addressed the Prophet (saw) saying:
“And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires
away from the truth which came to you.” (TMQ al-Ma’idah, verse 48)
And He (swt) said:
“And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you and do not follow their whims, and beware (be on the alert) that they may deviate you away from even some part of what Allah revealed to you.” (TMQ al-Ma’idah, verse 49)
The speech of Allah (swt) to the Prophet (saw) is a speech to his Ummah unless there is an evidence which limits the speech to him. In this case there is no such evidence, so the aforementioned verses order all Muslims to establish the rule of Allah (swt). The establishment of the Khaleefah does not mean other than the establishment of the rule and the authority of Allah (swt). On the other hand, Allah (swt) made it obligatory upon Muslims to obey those in authority, meaning the ruler, which indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory upon Muslims. Allah (swt) said:
“O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you.” (TMQ al-Nisa’a, verse 59)
Allah (swt) does not order obedience to those who do not exist. This indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory. When Allah (swt) orders obedience to those in authority it is an order to establish them.
The implementation of the Shari’ah depends upon the existence of the ruler, thus, the establishment of the ruler becomes obligatory as its absence will result in the sin of neglecting the Shari’ah.
Therefore, it is clear from these evidences that the establishment of the ruling and the authority amongst Muslims is Fard, and it is also clear that the appointment of a Khaleefah who takes charge of the rule and the authority, is compulsory upon Muslims in order to implement the Shari’ah laws; and not for the sake of ruling and authority only.
Reflect upon what the Prophet (saw) said: “The best of your Imams (leaders) are those whom you love and they love you, who pray for you and you pray for them; and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked: “Would we not declare war on them (face them with the swords)?” He said: “No, as long as they establish Salah (meaning Islam) among you.”
This Hadith is clear in informing about the good and bad leaders, and clear in prohibiting the challenge of their authority as long as they establish the prayer, which in this context indicates upholding of Islam, and establishing its rule.
So the obligation upon Muslims to appoint a Khaleefah who establishes the laws of Islam and conveys its call is a matter which has no doubt with regard to its certainty in the sound texts of Shari’ah. Moreover, it is an obligatory duty due to the fact that Allah (swt) made it a Fard upon Muslims to establish the authority of Islam and to protect the honour of Muslims. However, this duty is a collective one, so if some people of the Ummah accomplished it, the Fard is fulfilled and thus responsibility drops from the rest of the Ummah. And if part of the Ummah was unable to accomplish the Fard, though they carried out the actions of establishing it, then the responsibility remains upon all the Muslims, and the Fard remains upon every Muslim as long as Muslims are without a Khaleefah.
To refrain from establishing a Khaleefah for the Muslims is a great sin because it is abstaining from carrying out a very important Fard of Islam, upon which the implementation of the divine laws depends, even upon which the presence of Islam in the battlefield of life depends as well. So Muslims as a whole commit a great sin by refraining from establishing a Khaleefah for all Muslims. And if they agreed to remain without a Khaleefah the sin would befall all Muslims in the entire world. If some of the Muslims embarked on working to establish a Khaleefah and the others did not, the sin will drop from the shoulders of those who started to work to establish the Khaleefah, while the Fard remains on them until the Khaleefah is appointed. This is because the involvement in establishing the Fard removes the sin for the delay of its fulfillment in its time, and for its non-fulfillment, despite one’s engagement in the work for establishing it, and despite his hatred of that which prevents him from accomplishing it.
As for those who were not engaged in the work for establishing the Fard, the sin would remain on them as soon as the three days period has passed, from the departure of the Khaleefah until the appointment of a new Khaleefah. This is because Allah (swt) had entrusted them with a Fard, which they did not carry out nor did they engage themselves in the work which was required for its completion. Therefore, they would be sinful and would deserve the punishment and shame from Allah (swt) in this life and the hereafter. They would be sinful due to their slackness in establishing the Khaleefah or from the actions which (according to Shari’ah) establish the Khaleefah. It is clear and obvious that a Muslim deserves the punishment of Allah (swt) when he ignores any of the duties enjoined upon him, particularly the duty by which the other duties are implemented, the Shari’ah rules are established, the matter of Islam is brought aloft and the word of Allah (swt) is exalted in the Islamic world and elsewhere.
Accordingly, no Muslim on the face of this earth has an excuse to abandon the duty of establishing the Deen which Allah (swt) has ordered, that is, the establishment of a Khaleefah for Muslims, when there is no Khilafah on the earth, and no one to implement the limits (Hudood) of Allah (swt) to protect the sanctities of Allah (swt), and no one to implement the laws of the Deen and unify the Muslim community under the banner of Laa ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad al-Rasul Allah. There is no permission in Islam to abandon the work for this duty until it is indeed accomplished.
if you still have doubts……..wat for my own version of “working for Caliphate - mother of all obligations”……..
till then Allah hafiz……..
November 10th, 2007 at 10:30 am
So when we ask you for the reference from the Quran and Sunnah that makes Hizbut Tahrir categorical claim that Khilafa is “umm-al-fard” at the cost of ibaadah (worship of God) being the true “umm-al-Fard” (the paramount obligation), which I would consider to be the the crux of HT ideology and their raison d’etre, all you can say is:
“read above 26 in the middle…….”
And in “26 in the middle” we find a large chunk of nonsensical text amongst which are 2 Quranic ayats (verses):
“And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you and do not follow their whims, and beware (be on the alert) that they may deviate you away from even some part of what Allah revealed to you”. [TMQ 5:49]
and
“O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority amongst you”. [TMQ 4:59]
Now let us look at other more widely accepted translations from Yusuf Ali, Pickthall and Shakir of these two verses that you’ve used to illustrate the umm-al-Fard of Khilafah:
5.49
YUSUF ALI: And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah’s purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious.
PICKTHAL: So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee. And if they turn away, then know that Allah’s Will is to smite them for some sin of theirs. Lo! many of mankind are evil-livers.
SHAKIR: And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you; but if they turn back, then know that Allah desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults; and most surely many of the people are transgressors.
and 5.59
YUSUF ALI: Say: “O people of the Book!
PICKTHAL: Say: O People of the Scripture!
SHAKIR: Say: O followers of the Book!
So, in 5.49, the correct translations suggests that the word you say is “rule” is actually “judge”. Are you suggesting that simply because there is the word “rule” in (your incorrect translation) the ayat suggests that a ruler should exist and therefore it is incumbent on Muslims to establish a Khilafah to rule them? This is a gross misunderstanding!
And in any case, the word is judge. And therefore this commandment applies to all men to use the powers of discernment that they have to distinguish between good and evil. And not that we have to establish a judiciary, which is the literal way you seem to read it! ;-)
In 5.59 there is no mention of “those in authority amongst you”. And in any case, even if there were, why should the words “those in authority amongst you” mean a Khilafah? Since “those in authority amongst you” is in the plural, this could be taken microcosmically, and in fact mean a tribal leader, a qadi, a father or any other role of authority.
I think this shows that you are actually suggesting that these two ayats categorically show that establishing the Khilafah is of greater religious importance than the worship of Allah. But it also shows how you incompetent HT goons have the arrogance to want to reduce Islam to nothing more than a dull-minded theo-political manifesto. I don’t know which is worse: suggesting that Khilafah is bigger than Allah or wilfull misinterpration of ayats to create new religious doctrine (bida’). But I do know one thing, you people are clueless.
Do you actually believe that this call to Muslims to misunderstand Islam and commit shirk is how you will establish the Khilafah? Astaghfir’llah. May Allah have mercy on your soul for this gross crime of shirk and may He relieve you of your congenital stupidity.
November 10th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Just one simple question for those who support the group “say no to Caliphate”…have u devised any solution yet for our brothers and sisters across the Muslim lands under continuous persecution and torture? If yes..then show it to us…if no…ummm..keep on trying!
The solution we would suggest to our brothers and sisters across the “Muslim lands” is to establish liberal pluralist democracy in their nations. No Muslim-majority nation is currently operating as a democracy (until Bangladesh recently and Turkey presently) which is why we see only dictatorships who all deny the rights of their citizens and have stunted development. For this I would urge them to reject Islamism, and other forms of counter-authoritarianism (especially the shirk and bida’ of Hizbut Tahrir) to replace these dictatorships and keep on trying!
You seem to be fixated on Shiraz Maher. He is not the only Muslim rejecting the stupid nonsense of Hizbut Tahrir wholesale. You should also consider Maajid Nawaz. He was a senior in HT in the UK for 20 years and was also jailed in Egypt for 4 years for being a member of HT. He has now reconsidered his time in HT and realises the gross misjudgement he made. Check out his blog: Towards Political Engagement
In particular I would like to refer you to his article:Evaluating Hizbut-Tahrir’s Theo-political Stance
Please read the conclusion:
To conclude, having shown that the lands are Dār al-Islām according to other criteria, the Party must accept that it cannot enforce its conclusion of Kufr upon valid Islamic opinions. Hizbut-Tahrir is thus faced with two choices: they must either,
i) Accept the lands are Dār al-Islām and go on to insist that there is manifest Kufr (Kufr Buwāh) in the laws of these lands, in which case the Jihadist method is obligated upon them according to the Party’s own ideas. The invalidity of this conclusion (again from the Party’s own ideas) is the subject of my next article.
ii) Or accept that the lands are Dār al-Islām and that there is no manifest Kufr (Kufr Buwāh) present therein, but rather and at best, a misapplication of the Shari’ah. Hence, political reform is needed by working with the regimes to encourage change, as it was during the last days of the Ottoman Caliphate. This stance accommodates reformists and opposition camps vis-a-vis dictatorships in the Muslim world, and places a civic duty upon all to work for political, intellectual and social reform, but essentially means that the states are not theologically illegitimate and so must not be removed by force.
For the Party to continue upon its path of insisting that even the more representative of Muslim regimes, such as Turkey or Iran, must be removed by force in a military coup de etat is not sustainable by their own theological tenets. There is however, one reason why Hizbut-Tahrir may continue despite its inconsistency with Islam; because Party members may believe in a political ideology irrespective of whether it is consistent with Islam or not, and that ideology is what has come to be known as Islamism. Little wonder then, that they must close the debate on the issue of Dār al-Islām and insist that the matter is self evident regardless of such a clear theological line to the contrary,
“The reality of Muslims today is sensed by every Muslim; it does not require any explanation nor does it necessitate any elaboration. Their lands are ruled by Kufr systems, thus they are conclusively (Qat’an) Dār al-Kufr [with no debate!]”66
Consequently, as some have correctly observed, the tension that exists within Party ranks between its ideology and its politics begins from the Party’s very inception. It exists within its raison d’etre.
[my emphases]
November 10th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
palentenians uses farasi language…….
By this time it looks like your sedatives are kicking in.
“palentenians”? are they a race of space travellers from Star Trek who speak ‘farasi’?
It might be a good idea for you to learn before you teach.
Palestinians are firmly part of the Arab diaspora.
November 10th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
who cares what language they speak? the important point is that we are Muslims..its pointless to argue on an issue as this one..no one can stop those who are willing to work for Khilafah (according to Imam Hanifa and Al-Qurtubi its ummul-fard)..no one can force/persuade someone to work for khilafah either if s/he is reluctant..no fact..no rational..no reference are good enough for them. Btw..y are people cursing HT for Arif’s imprisonment? Do they not know wat happened to Daud Ibrahim for cursing our Prophet(pbuh) back in 1971? was HT present then? HT never sought Arif’s trial…rather we want to see Matiur Rahman behind bars and have Prothom Alo banned…lets see what happens.
November 10th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
HT are not being blamed for the imprisonment of Arif the cartoon artist. They are being blamed for using the issue to agitate for Islamist ideology and obfuscating the fact that Arif’s cartoon was not in the least offensive, and thereby supporting the continued detention of the man without a fair trial. If the cartoon was so offensive to you, then why are you not shouting for the Shibir to be jailed since they published the same joke in a cartoon in their own magazine?
its pointless to argue on an issue as this one..no one can stop those who are willing to work for Khilafah (according to Imam Hanifa and Al-Qurtubi its ummul-fard)
Show us the reference, if you can. Where is the link that they stated Khilafah is umm-al Fard? You won’t find one because Imam Hanifa and al-Qurtubi would be advocating shirk and bida’, which they never did.
November 10th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
regarding “shirk”………..
you don even kno the defination of “shirk”………as well as “Khilafah”
mr babyface………
“shirk” means worshiping SOMEONE or any OBJECT other than ALLAH(SWT)
Khilafah is the system (not an OBJECT)according to Qur’an and Sunnah of our Prophet (SM)
now what is Quran ????
Quran is the code of life prescribed by ALLAH(SWT)……..
Sunnah is the method our Propht(SM) showed how to implement it……..
Hadiths are the saying of our Prophet (SM)
ISLAM is DEEN-UL-HAQ which means Ideology of Truth
and we want to establish this IDEOLOGY just like our Prophet(SM) did according to his(SM) method…….whats your problem !!!!!!!!
if u think that Islam is only
Iman (the most important part, which you dont have)
Namaz
Zakat
Roja
Hajj
there are more than 6000 verses in Quran………
it should have been 1 page with 10 verses approx according to what you think…..and maher thinks
i have 9 translation of Quran in my PC
includin shakir pickthall yusuf ali mohsin khan qutubuddin so on………….
check this verse out……..
taken from US translation version of Quran……..
2:85
……………Do you believe ONLY IN A PART OF THE SCRIPT (- covenant) while a PART YOU DENY? What is the recompense of those among you (who act like that) EXCEPT DISGRACE IN THIS LIFE? AND on the Day of Resurrection THEY shall be given over to the SEVEREST CHASTISEMENT. And Allâh is not at all unmindful as to what you do.
(you can check other translations as well)
………….do you understand it ????
if believe and follow part of Quran, WE will be suffering in THIS world as well as hereafter with the severest punishment………..
…….now what are we seeing in this world now………who are the people suffering the most…………muslims………
but WHY ????????????
according to that verse WE ARE NOT FULFILLING QURAN………BECAUSE WE ARE FOLLOWING ONLY A PORTION OF IT…….NOT FOLLOWING THE WHOLE……
…………DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS ?????
WE want to follow the Quran as a whole……
as Islam is an ideology………….]
for an ideology to be established we need a state
……and that is Islamic State…………just like what the zionist did……..
because we cant suffer and go to hell at the sametime………..
regarding ummul-ul-fard……….i need to go through Quran once again pointing out the verses……..with all versions of translations
…………….ok………happy ???
i need some time for it to go through………..
if uve confusion regrading the verse 2:85……..
………post your comment
….u may see my reply…….after sometime….
keep it up……….
………by the way……..thanks for reminding me this issue………..
gotta work for Khilafa………..till then
…………Allahafiz
November 10th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
The last comment is classic Hizbut Tahrir. You are the self-appointed religious elites and all other muslims are inferior and iman-less. With all your supreme excellence, I wonder what’s taking you so long in setting up your Khilafa.
You say we’re kufr, but I wonder if you know about the dozens of ahadith in which the Prophet chastised the Sahabeen (Companions) to refrain from judging other muslims, since this can only be between man and his creator.
The only Sunnah you Hizbis have read are the ones you’re desperately trying to twist the meaning of by suggesting that Khilafah is greater than the worship of God. I knew you guys were hopeless, but bida’ and shirk-merchants too? tsk tsk tsk
…………Allahafiz -
A point of advice. This phrase is linguistically incorrect. Arabs don’t use it and it’s simply an incorrect Arabisation, or bastardisation ;-), of the Farsi phrase Khoda-hafez, for farewell. Be consistent.
For all muslims, the following apply:
Iman
Salat
Zakat
Sawm
Hajj
For you Hizbut Tahrir nutjobs, Islam is
Khilafah blah blah
Khilafah blah blah
Khilafah blah blah
Khilafah blah blah
blah blah Khilafa
ta ta :)
November 11th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
o yes ‘FARSI’……….Jazakallah (may Allah reward you the best)
2:85 is just one verse from Quran……….
there are more than 6000 of them……..
ull find all the answer the reason behind the muslim failures and sufferings for the last 90years….
IF i were you i would have said that you were doing “SHIRK” on HIZB UT TAHRIR………errmmmm
………..but im not gonna say that…….:P khiggs ;)
i didnt call you kufr anywhere……..
……..showing the tendency of lying…….demagogue
i said ure not a MUSLIM…….
………..which means u dont fall under the criteria of a muslim (UMMAH)……..use your hikma dude……
youre a matured man……..should have some conscience……….
anyways Jazakallah i have a great reward for you………after talking so long………
………….it has been a very good experience……….
we can post and debate further if u wish at other places…….it will be great……..i can bet……….
this your reward……… 3 2 1 …..
Khilafah ‘Ala Minhaj-in-Nubuwah* will be global
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Surah 61: As-Saff — Ayaat 8-9] In the name of Allah, the Graciuos, the Merciful
“They (non-muslims, especially jews) desire to extinguish Allah’s Light (by blowing) with their mouths
but Allah will perfect His light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).” [061.008]
“It is He (Allah) Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth,
that he (MuhammadSAW) may proclaim it (Islam) over all religion,
even though the idolaters may detest (it).” [061.009]
Al-Mahdi, Muhammad ibn-e-Abdullah will be an ordinary man from the family of the last Prophet Hadrat Muhammad sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam, born to an ordinary woman raised by ordinary man and living an ordinary life with the people of his time.
Al-Mahdi will be an Imam (mujaddid) and a Caliph, among other Caliphs who ruled Muslims with justice. However, what differentiates Al-Mahdi from other Caliphs is that he will meet Isaa Ibn-e-Maryam (Jesus son of Mary) Alaiyehis salaam (PBUH).
Also, Issa (Jesus), the Prophet of Allah, will pray behind Al-Mahdi. Allah will give Al-Mahdi the ability to righteously rule the Muslim nation in the span of a night. He will fill the earth with justice, as it was filled with injustice. He will lead the Muslim nation to the second conquering of Constantinople and possibly Rome.
A Caliphate That Follows the Guidance of the Prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam:
The Prophet Muhammad sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam mentioned that just before the end of this world, the Muslim nation will be ruled by a Caliphate that will follow the guidance sent with the Messenger of Allah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam.
Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman reported that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam said:
“Prophethood (meaning Muhammad (SAW) himself) will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain, then Allah will raise it up whenever he wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood remaining with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, He will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a reign of violently oppressive [The reign of Muslim kings who are partially unjust] rule and it will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, there will be a reign of tyrannical rule and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, Allah will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Then, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood.”
Then Hudhaifah said, “The Prophet stopped speaking.”
[As-Silsilah As-Sahihah, vol. 1, no. 5]
The same hadith without any change of a word is also narrated by Hadrat Nauman Ibn-e-Basheer Radiyallaho Anhu in Musnad-e-Ahmad Ibn-e-Hanbal.
The reason behind mentioning this Hadith here is to state that Al-Mahdi will live in the last period of rightly guided Caliphs that the Messenger of Allah sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam mentioned himself sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam.
In this Hadith, the Messenger of Allah divided the history of the Muslim nation until the Day of Judgement into the following Five (5) stages:
The reign of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW):
remained during the time of The Prophet Hadrat Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam
A Caliphate that rules according to the guidance revealed to the Messenger of Allah sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam:
This period is called the reign of the rightly guided Caliphs, starting with 1.Hazrat Abu Bakr Radi Allaho anhu , then 2.Hazrat Umar ibn-ul-Khattab Radi Allaho anhu, then 3.Hazrat Uthman ibn-e-Affan Radi Allaho anhu and ending with the martyr of 4.Hazrat Ali bin Abi Talib Radi Allaho anhu, may Allah be pleased with them all.
Some scholars included the short reign of Hazrat Hasan bin Ali Radi Allaho anhu, the grandson of the Messenger of Allah sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam.
These are the thirty (30) years which the Messenger of Allah sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam stated comprised the reign of the rightly guided Caliphs:
The Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam said:
“The Caliphate will remain in my nation after me for thirty years. Then, it will be a monarchy after that.”
[Ahmad, Tirmidhi and others, Sahih Al-Jami` ‘ As-Saghir no. 3341].
The reign of unjust rule:
This reign contains some injustice to a varying degree between one king and another. This period started after Hadrat Hasan bin Ali radi Allaho Anhu and includes the Umayyad, Abbasid, Mamluks and until the fall of the Great Ottoman Empire in the twentieth century.
This period includes all states that ruled in the Muslim World during those centuries. However, we exclude the reign of those rulers whose rule was similar to the rule of the rightly guided Caliphs, such as the reign of Hadrat Abdullah bin Zubayr Radi Allaho Anhu and Hadrat Umar bin Abdul-Aziz Rahmatulla Aleyh. These two(2) are considered among the just Caliphs from among the tribe of Quresh who ruled or will rule the Muslim nation.
The reign of the tyrannical rule:
This period started in the end of the Great Ottoman empire and continues. We ask Allah that He saves us from the evils of this period and that we witness its end soon. (Aameen)
This reign includes all the regimes that ruled the Muslim World, whether imperial, party oriented, governments controlled by the disbelievers, like those after World War I, populist or republic, which all sought to deprive Allah from His right as the Only Legislator and the only Soverign in all matters of life and religion.
When the Messenger of Allah sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam mentioned the periods that this nation will experience, he categorized them according to the type of government, whether unjust, or that which follows the guidance of the Prophet, or autocratic and tyrannical, as we experience today.
The return of a Caliphate that rules following the guidance and on the pattern of the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam:( Khilafah ‘Ala Minhaj-in-Nubuwah)
This period requires the Muslims to be prepared and strive for its imminent coming, by spreading the knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah. This is because nothing can resurrect this nation except that which resurrected its ancestors. Until this final period comes, the religion will become a stranger, the same way it started in Makkah, a stranger to its masters and slaves, the powerful and the weak, its women, and its children.
The fifth and last period that will witness the revival of politico-socio-economic system of Islam in its very true sense as it was implemented during the Caliphate of Khulafa-e-Rashideen will be GLOBAL!
In this regard, the major and minor premises are revealed in Quran, and the result actually does suggest the global reign of Khilafah ‘Ala Minhaj-in-Nubuwah.
There are three places in Quran where the purpose of the Prophethood of Hadrat Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam is mentioned as follows without any change of a single word:
“It is He (Allah) Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth,
that he (MuhammadSAW) may proclaim (dominate) it (Islam) over all religion.” [Al-Tauba:33, Al-Fatah:28, As-Saff:9]
There are five places in Quran where it is stated that the Prohphethood of Hadrat Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam is for the whole mankind.
The most clearly stated place in the Quran is in Surah As-Sabah:
“And We have not sent thee (O MuhammadSAW) save as a br