Is this Capitalistic ideology really the solution for us? It is based on separation of Church from state, such that religion is only confined to personal belief. While the western intellectuals themselves are pointing out the obvious flaws, what excuse do we have as Muslims to abandon Islamic ruling system over this man made ideology.
How are we to justify the following verses:
"Indeed, we have revealed to you the book with the truth so that yo may rule between mankind by that which Allah has show you" (Quran 4:105)
"So rule between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you" (Quran 4:49)
"Whosoever does not rule by that which Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers (Kafiroon)....the thaalimoon(Oppressors) .... the fasiqoon (evil doers)" (Quran 4.5:44-47)
Is It Good For The Rest Of Us?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25483.htm
The Financial Crisis As A Game Of 3 Card Monte http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25485.htm
"Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20946.htm
Showing posts with label Issues Explained. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Issues Explained. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Evidence for Khilfah
Though the evidences for Khilafah are many, we start with a daleel that perhaps better than any other describes our reality today, a time when no Khaleefah exists. The hadith was reported by Imam Muslim on the authority of Nafi’ (via ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar) that the Messenger of Allah (saw)
من نزع يداً من طاعة لقي الله يوم القيامة لا حجة له، ومن مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية
"The one who removes his hand from obedience he will meet Allah without a proof for himself' and whosoever dies without a bay'ah (oath of allegiance) on his neck dies the death of Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic times, ignorance)."
From this hadith can be deduced the Hukm Shar'i for a situation when Muslims die without the presence of a Khaleefah to rule over them. Perhaps, it is the unusual nature of such a situation that explains why so few Fuqaha (jurists) addressed this hadith while the numerous other evidences which establish the obligation of Khilafah have received greater attention and scrutiny. They could not have imagined a situation when a Muslim would die without the presence of a Khaleefah. Hence, most of their discussions tended to centre on the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah after the death of the previous Khaleefah; or that it was obligatory to obey the existing Khaleefah and so having a Khaleefah must be obligatory. Yet, the unthinkable happened, the Khilafah was destroyed in 1924, and consequently generations of Muslims have died while having no Khaleefah over them. This noble hadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw) assumes a relevance that those scholars did not envisage.
The process of extraction
What is the Manaat (reality) of the text?
The hadith is describing not one but two types of people since it came in two parts as indicated by the waw al-isti`naaf or ibtidaa` (in English the word ‘and' is used) (i.e. the disjunctive syntax where the waw ( و ) begins a new sentence).
In the first part it says: ‘The one who removes his hand from obedience he will meet Allah without a proof for himself' This is when the Khaleefah exists and someone withholds his obedience to the Khaleefah.
In the second part it is not describing the same person since the waw al- isti`naaf indicates it is beginning a new sentence to make a different point. This time he (saw) says: And (waw al- isti`naaf) the one who dies without a bay'ah on his neck he dies the death of Jahiliyyah. This is further confirmed by the fact that he repeats the personal pronoun ‘man' (the one who or whosoever). This also indicates the hadith discusses two types of people in two different situations.
To appreciate this point better it helps to look at another hadith where exactly the same thing happens. He (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:
من مات في سبيل الله فهو شهيد، ومن مات بالطّاعون فهو شهيد
"The one who dies in the Path of Allah he is shaheed and (waw al- isti`naaf) the one who dies in a plague he is a shaheed" [Sahih Muslim].
The death here occurs in two states separated by the waw al-isti`naaf. So the first death is feesabilillah (in the path of Allah (swt) whilst the second death occurs in a plague. It would be absurd if someone claimed here that the hadith is talking about the same situation.
Thus, the hadith in question is talking about two different situations. The first situation as we said is when someone withholds his obedience to the existing Khaleefah. The second part is about ‘the one who dies without a bay'ah on his neck.' The waw al-Haal (waw of condition) in wa laysa fi 'unuqihi bay'ah clarifies the state in which the person dies, and in this case it is when he dies ‘without a bay'ah on his neck'.
So, what is that state when someone dies without a bay'ah on his neck? It cannot mean giving the bay'ah because the hadith did not say ‘wa lam yu'til bay'ah' (and he did not give the bay'ah). Giving the bay'ah (pledge) is a kifayah duty (sufficiency) and not an individual obligation as indicated by the Ijma' as-Sahabah (consensus of the Sahabah). The contractual bay'ah does not require every single person to physically give it, rather it is enough for the Ahlul Halli wal 'Aqd (those who represent the Muslims) to give the bay'ah on behalf of the people. The result of this contracting by the representatives of the Muslims ‘Aqd is that every Muslim, even those living outside the Islamic authority, would have a bay'ah on his neck.
Thus, the hadith is very precise in its description. It is not talking about giving bay'ah to a Khaleefah but rather having a ‘Bay'ah on the neck for a Khaleefah' which describes a situation when someone dies without the presence of a Khaleefah having been contracted. Also there is nothing in this hadith that specifies this situation to a selected few so it cannot be said that the hadith is addressing the only representatives of Muslims e.g. Scholars or others in positions of authority. Rather it addresses all Muslims.
Finally, the use of the expression 'man maata' deserves a further comment. The reference to the point of death indicates that the hukm (rule) must exist throughout his life. There cannot be a point in his life when he is in a state without a bay'ah on his neck i.e. without the presence of a Khaleefah. So the hukm is continuous unlike the ahkam of obeying parents where the hukm ends upon their death or the hukm of giving to the poor which ends when poverty ceases. But the obligation of having a Khaleefah over you never ceases because text says ‘the one who dies' indicating the continuity of the hukm throughout the life of a person for he is not allowed to die in situation where the Khaleefah is not present.
What is the Hukm Shari'i on this issue?
The above discussion allows us to extract two ahkaam: That it is Fard ‘Ayni (individual obligation) to have a Khaleefah present and that it is Fard Kifayah (obligation of sufficiency) to appoint a Khaleefah.
The first hukm is deduced from the request (talab) in the hadith that a Muslim should not die without a Khaleefah present. As we said before ‘bay'ah on the neck' is not possible to have without the presence of the Khaleefah. So, if it is not allowed to die without a bay'ah on the neck, this means it is not allowed to die without the presence of a Khaleefah. This type of indication (dalaalah) in Usul al-Fiqh is known as Dalaalat al-Iqtidaa (the required meaning of the text). i.e. this is when the truthfulness or correctness of a statement (sidq al-mutakallim wa sihhatul malfooz bihi) cannot be established unless one understands the lafz (expression) in a certain way.
The mafhoom (implied meaning) of 'bay'ah on the neck' is the presence of the Khaleefah by the required meaning (Dalalaat al-Iqtidaa). Thus, for the expression ‘bay'ah on the neck' to be truthful we must understand it to mean presence of the Khaleefah.
Thus, the one who dies without the presence of the Khaleefah would be sinful due to the Qaraa'in which makes the request decisive. The preposition ‘fee unuqihi' actually means 'ala unuqihi i.e. obligation to have on one's neck much like when we say in English someone has ‘a debt on his neck' i.e. he has a debt he has to pay.
In addition to this is the explicit Qareenah (indication) ‘dies the death of Jahiliyyah'. The attribution of a death occurring in the Days of Ignorance establishes beyond any doubt the decisiveness of the request. This means the command is a Fard which if neglected would entail sin and punishment. Also, since the personal pronoun ‘man' is general this means it includes every single Muslim i.e. every individual faces death and therefore the indefinite term ‘maata' i.e. dies, coupled with the negation is clear that every single individual is addressed and hence it is a Fard ‘Ayni (individual obligation) to have a Khaleefah present.
Further proof can be found in other supporting daleel. It is narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar by al-Hakim who records in his al-Mustadrak the following version:
من خرج من الجماعة قيد شبر فقد خلع ربقة الإسلام من عنقه حتى يراجعه قال ومن مات وليس عليه إمام جماعة فإن موتته موتة جاهلية
"He who abandons the Jamaa'ah by even so much as a hand span is as if he has taken the knot of Islam off his neck, until he returns.' And he (saw) said: "whoever dies while there was no Imam of a Jamaa'ah ruling over him, his death would be that of the days of Jahiliyyah." Al-Hakim stated this hadith is Sahih according to the criteria of the two Shayukh, i.e. al-Bukhari and Muslim.
It well known the scholars of hadith permitted the narration of hadith by meaning (Riwayah Bilma'na). So, in the above hadith the raawi (transmitter) narrated the meaning of the saying of the Prophet (saw). So whilst the extraction of the hukm from the man maata hadith in Sahih Muslim is from the implicit meaning (Mafhoom), the above two ahadith however are even more explicit as they make the same point in the uttered meaning (Mantooq). Incidentally, the hadith in Sahih Muslim and the one above from al-Hakim are both narrated by Abdullah b. 'Umar. The first says ‘bay'ah on the neck' while the second says ‘while there was no Imam of a Jamaa'ah ruling over him'. The meaning is same but the difference is that the former is understood from the implicit meaning (Mafhoom) while the latter is taken from the uttered or pronounced meaning (Mantooq).
As for the second hukm which is that it is Fard to appoint a Khaleefah, this is deduced from the Dalalaat ul-Ishaarah (the alluded meaning of the text). The ishaarahis a hukm derived from the text which was not intended directly from the speech. The ‘man maata' hadith establishes the obligation of having a Khaleefah present; this means by ishaarah that it is an obligation to appoint a Khaleefah. Therefore, when the text says it is Fard to have a Khaleefah present it also alludes to the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah such that he is present over us.
CONCLUSION
Thus, this hadith clearly establishes the obligation of having a Khaleefah over us and the obligation of working to appoint a Khaleefah.
On WHOM does the Hukm Shar'i apply? Is it an individual (Fard ‘Ayni) or collective obligation (Fard kifa'i) and what does that mean for the Muslim?
The obligation of having a Khaleefah present is an individual duty. This is because the personal pronoun ‘man' (which means whoever) is from the general expression (seeghatul 'umoom) and it encompasses all people. Its nature is such that if the Khaleefah is present then he is present for all and if he is absent then he is absent for all thus the obligation covers all people. It is well known in Usul that the general remains general until there is another evidence to specify it. The insane, non-baligh are excluded from this generality because there is a text to say they are not legally responsible (ghayr mukallaf) and hence they cannot be held responsible for duties they did not have capacity for.
He (saw) said: "Three types of people are exempted from accountability, the one who sleeps until he wakes up, a child until he reaches the age of puberty and the insane until he is cured." [Reported by Abu Dawood]
Thus, the general remains in its generality unless another text comes to specify it. And in this case the obligation of having a Khaleefah present is on every legally responsible (mukallaf) Muslim whether man, woman, layman or scholar.
As for the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah this is Fard Kifaayah (obligation of sufficiency). However this should not be taken as an excuse for inaction. This is because in terms of obligation (wujoob) and removal of the sin (isqaat) the Fard 'Ayn and Kifayah are the same. This is because Fard means the Legislator has demanded in a decisive form the performance of an action which if neglected will result in sin. Thus the obligation to fulfill the command is on all. Only if the command has been fulfilled by some then the sin is removed from the rest. This is because the consideration is for the accomplishment of the Fard and not the undertaking of the Fard. Until and unless the Fard is accomplished it continues to be an obligation on all no matter how many people undertook it. That is why the definition of Fard kifayah is: ‘What some have accomplished then the rest is absolved from sin' (maa aqaamuhul ba'd saqata 'anil baaqeen) not ‘what some have undertaken ...' (maa qaama bihil ba'd). There is a big difference between undertaking an action and accomplishing it. So until the Fard is accomplished the obligation remains on all. That is why if the kifayah obligation is neglected everyone are sinful and not just a few people.
For example it is Fard Kifayah for a group to respond when salaam is given to them. The obligation remains on all of them until the obligation is fulfilled. If one responds with the salaam and the Fard is accomplished then all are saved from sin because the consideration is the accomplishment of the Fard but if no one respond then all are sinful. Thus Fard kifayah and 'Ayn are the same in obligation and removal of the sin.
So, in our view, it would be incorrect for someone to say the duty to re-establish the Khilafah is Fard kifayah - so let some people do it and we will be saved - because the Fard has not been accomplished and hence the obligation remains on every single neck. The Ummah has only three days and two nights to choose a Khaleefah, if they fail to do this after this time the obligation continues on all and those who undertake the Fard are saved from the sin. But those who neglect will be sinful for not fulfilling their Lord's command and they will have to explain themselves to Him on the Day when His Account (Hisab) is swift.
من نزع يداً من طاعة لقي الله يوم القيامة لا حجة له، ومن مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية
"The one who removes his hand from obedience he will meet Allah without a proof for himself' and whosoever dies without a bay'ah (oath of allegiance) on his neck dies the death of Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic times, ignorance)."
From this hadith can be deduced the Hukm Shar'i for a situation when Muslims die without the presence of a Khaleefah to rule over them. Perhaps, it is the unusual nature of such a situation that explains why so few Fuqaha (jurists) addressed this hadith while the numerous other evidences which establish the obligation of Khilafah have received greater attention and scrutiny. They could not have imagined a situation when a Muslim would die without the presence of a Khaleefah. Hence, most of their discussions tended to centre on the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah after the death of the previous Khaleefah; or that it was obligatory to obey the existing Khaleefah and so having a Khaleefah must be obligatory. Yet, the unthinkable happened, the Khilafah was destroyed in 1924, and consequently generations of Muslims have died while having no Khaleefah over them. This noble hadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw) assumes a relevance that those scholars did not envisage.
The process of extraction
What is the Manaat (reality) of the text?
The hadith is describing not one but two types of people since it came in two parts as indicated by the waw al-isti`naaf or ibtidaa` (in English the word ‘and' is used) (i.e. the disjunctive syntax where the waw ( و ) begins a new sentence).
In the first part it says: ‘The one who removes his hand from obedience he will meet Allah without a proof for himself' This is when the Khaleefah exists and someone withholds his obedience to the Khaleefah.
In the second part it is not describing the same person since the waw al- isti`naaf indicates it is beginning a new sentence to make a different point. This time he (saw) says: And (waw al- isti`naaf) the one who dies without a bay'ah on his neck he dies the death of Jahiliyyah. This is further confirmed by the fact that he repeats the personal pronoun ‘man' (the one who or whosoever). This also indicates the hadith discusses two types of people in two different situations.
To appreciate this point better it helps to look at another hadith where exactly the same thing happens. He (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:
من مات في سبيل الله فهو شهيد، ومن مات بالطّاعون فهو شهيد
"The one who dies in the Path of Allah he is shaheed and (waw al- isti`naaf) the one who dies in a plague he is a shaheed" [Sahih Muslim].
The death here occurs in two states separated by the waw al-isti`naaf. So the first death is feesabilillah (in the path of Allah (swt) whilst the second death occurs in a plague. It would be absurd if someone claimed here that the hadith is talking about the same situation.
Thus, the hadith in question is talking about two different situations. The first situation as we said is when someone withholds his obedience to the existing Khaleefah. The second part is about ‘the one who dies without a bay'ah on his neck.' The waw al-Haal (waw of condition) in wa laysa fi 'unuqihi bay'ah clarifies the state in which the person dies, and in this case it is when he dies ‘without a bay'ah on his neck'.
So, what is that state when someone dies without a bay'ah on his neck? It cannot mean giving the bay'ah because the hadith did not say ‘wa lam yu'til bay'ah' (and he did not give the bay'ah). Giving the bay'ah (pledge) is a kifayah duty (sufficiency) and not an individual obligation as indicated by the Ijma' as-Sahabah (consensus of the Sahabah). The contractual bay'ah does not require every single person to physically give it, rather it is enough for the Ahlul Halli wal 'Aqd (those who represent the Muslims) to give the bay'ah on behalf of the people. The result of this contracting by the representatives of the Muslims ‘Aqd is that every Muslim, even those living outside the Islamic authority, would have a bay'ah on his neck.
Thus, the hadith is very precise in its description. It is not talking about giving bay'ah to a Khaleefah but rather having a ‘Bay'ah on the neck for a Khaleefah' which describes a situation when someone dies without the presence of a Khaleefah having been contracted. Also there is nothing in this hadith that specifies this situation to a selected few so it cannot be said that the hadith is addressing the only representatives of Muslims e.g. Scholars or others in positions of authority. Rather it addresses all Muslims.
Finally, the use of the expression 'man maata' deserves a further comment. The reference to the point of death indicates that the hukm (rule) must exist throughout his life. There cannot be a point in his life when he is in a state without a bay'ah on his neck i.e. without the presence of a Khaleefah. So the hukm is continuous unlike the ahkam of obeying parents where the hukm ends upon their death or the hukm of giving to the poor which ends when poverty ceases. But the obligation of having a Khaleefah over you never ceases because text says ‘the one who dies' indicating the continuity of the hukm throughout the life of a person for he is not allowed to die in situation where the Khaleefah is not present.
What is the Hukm Shari'i on this issue?
The above discussion allows us to extract two ahkaam: That it is Fard ‘Ayni (individual obligation) to have a Khaleefah present and that it is Fard Kifayah (obligation of sufficiency) to appoint a Khaleefah.
The first hukm is deduced from the request (talab) in the hadith that a Muslim should not die without a Khaleefah present. As we said before ‘bay'ah on the neck' is not possible to have without the presence of the Khaleefah. So, if it is not allowed to die without a bay'ah on the neck, this means it is not allowed to die without the presence of a Khaleefah. This type of indication (dalaalah) in Usul al-Fiqh is known as Dalaalat al-Iqtidaa (the required meaning of the text). i.e. this is when the truthfulness or correctness of a statement (sidq al-mutakallim wa sihhatul malfooz bihi) cannot be established unless one understands the lafz (expression) in a certain way.
The mafhoom (implied meaning) of 'bay'ah on the neck' is the presence of the Khaleefah by the required meaning (Dalalaat al-Iqtidaa). Thus, for the expression ‘bay'ah on the neck' to be truthful we must understand it to mean presence of the Khaleefah.
Thus, the one who dies without the presence of the Khaleefah would be sinful due to the Qaraa'in which makes the request decisive. The preposition ‘fee unuqihi' actually means 'ala unuqihi i.e. obligation to have on one's neck much like when we say in English someone has ‘a debt on his neck' i.e. he has a debt he has to pay.
In addition to this is the explicit Qareenah (indication) ‘dies the death of Jahiliyyah'. The attribution of a death occurring in the Days of Ignorance establishes beyond any doubt the decisiveness of the request. This means the command is a Fard which if neglected would entail sin and punishment. Also, since the personal pronoun ‘man' is general this means it includes every single Muslim i.e. every individual faces death and therefore the indefinite term ‘maata' i.e. dies, coupled with the negation is clear that every single individual is addressed and hence it is a Fard ‘Ayni (individual obligation) to have a Khaleefah present.
Further proof can be found in other supporting daleel. It is narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar by al-Hakim who records in his al-Mustadrak the following version:
من خرج من الجماعة قيد شبر فقد خلع ربقة الإسلام من عنقه حتى يراجعه قال ومن مات وليس عليه إمام جماعة فإن موتته موتة جاهلية
"He who abandons the Jamaa'ah by even so much as a hand span is as if he has taken the knot of Islam off his neck, until he returns.' And he (saw) said: "whoever dies while there was no Imam of a Jamaa'ah ruling over him, his death would be that of the days of Jahiliyyah." Al-Hakim stated this hadith is Sahih according to the criteria of the two Shayukh, i.e. al-Bukhari and Muslim.
It well known the scholars of hadith permitted the narration of hadith by meaning (Riwayah Bilma'na). So, in the above hadith the raawi (transmitter) narrated the meaning of the saying of the Prophet (saw). So whilst the extraction of the hukm from the man maata hadith in Sahih Muslim is from the implicit meaning (Mafhoom), the above two ahadith however are even more explicit as they make the same point in the uttered meaning (Mantooq). Incidentally, the hadith in Sahih Muslim and the one above from al-Hakim are both narrated by Abdullah b. 'Umar. The first says ‘bay'ah on the neck' while the second says ‘while there was no Imam of a Jamaa'ah ruling over him'. The meaning is same but the difference is that the former is understood from the implicit meaning (Mafhoom) while the latter is taken from the uttered or pronounced meaning (Mantooq).
As for the second hukm which is that it is Fard to appoint a Khaleefah, this is deduced from the Dalalaat ul-Ishaarah (the alluded meaning of the text). The ishaarahis a hukm derived from the text which was not intended directly from the speech. The ‘man maata' hadith establishes the obligation of having a Khaleefah present; this means by ishaarah that it is an obligation to appoint a Khaleefah. Therefore, when the text says it is Fard to have a Khaleefah present it also alludes to the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah such that he is present over us.
CONCLUSION
Thus, this hadith clearly establishes the obligation of having a Khaleefah over us and the obligation of working to appoint a Khaleefah.
On WHOM does the Hukm Shar'i apply? Is it an individual (Fard ‘Ayni) or collective obligation (Fard kifa'i) and what does that mean for the Muslim?
The obligation of having a Khaleefah present is an individual duty. This is because the personal pronoun ‘man' (which means whoever) is from the general expression (seeghatul 'umoom) and it encompasses all people. Its nature is such that if the Khaleefah is present then he is present for all and if he is absent then he is absent for all thus the obligation covers all people. It is well known in Usul that the general remains general until there is another evidence to specify it. The insane, non-baligh are excluded from this generality because there is a text to say they are not legally responsible (ghayr mukallaf) and hence they cannot be held responsible for duties they did not have capacity for.
He (saw) said: "Three types of people are exempted from accountability, the one who sleeps until he wakes up, a child until he reaches the age of puberty and the insane until he is cured." [Reported by Abu Dawood]
Thus, the general remains in its generality unless another text comes to specify it. And in this case the obligation of having a Khaleefah present is on every legally responsible (mukallaf) Muslim whether man, woman, layman or scholar.
As for the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah this is Fard Kifaayah (obligation of sufficiency). However this should not be taken as an excuse for inaction. This is because in terms of obligation (wujoob) and removal of the sin (isqaat) the Fard 'Ayn and Kifayah are the same. This is because Fard means the Legislator has demanded in a decisive form the performance of an action which if neglected will result in sin. Thus the obligation to fulfill the command is on all. Only if the command has been fulfilled by some then the sin is removed from the rest. This is because the consideration is for the accomplishment of the Fard and not the undertaking of the Fard. Until and unless the Fard is accomplished it continues to be an obligation on all no matter how many people undertook it. That is why the definition of Fard kifayah is: ‘What some have accomplished then the rest is absolved from sin' (maa aqaamuhul ba'd saqata 'anil baaqeen) not ‘what some have undertaken ...' (maa qaama bihil ba'd). There is a big difference between undertaking an action and accomplishing it. So until the Fard is accomplished the obligation remains on all. That is why if the kifayah obligation is neglected everyone are sinful and not just a few people.
For example it is Fard Kifayah for a group to respond when salaam is given to them. The obligation remains on all of them until the obligation is fulfilled. If one responds with the salaam and the Fard is accomplished then all are saved from sin because the consideration is the accomplishment of the Fard but if no one respond then all are sinful. Thus Fard kifayah and 'Ayn are the same in obligation and removal of the sin.
So, in our view, it would be incorrect for someone to say the duty to re-establish the Khilafah is Fard kifayah - so let some people do it and we will be saved - because the Fard has not been accomplished and hence the obligation remains on every single neck. The Ummah has only three days and two nights to choose a Khaleefah, if they fail to do this after this time the obligation continues on all and those who undertake the Fard are saved from the sin. But those who neglect will be sinful for not fulfilling their Lord's command and they will have to explain themselves to Him on the Day when His Account (Hisab) is swift.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Eyewitness Account: Saudi’s mistreatment of pilgrims during the Volcanic Ash crisis
Sunday, 25 April 2010
When the volcanic ash cloud hit Europe last week I along with thousands of other Muslims was caught stranded in Saudi Arabia after performing the umra (minor pilgrimage).
As we set off for Jeddah Airport we were obviously concerned since our flight had been cancelled and we were unsure what assistance would be provided to us by the Saudi government's Hajj ministry and Saudi Airlines.
In the days prior to our departure from Makkah we watched the news reports showing passengers stranded at airports across the world. On the whole these airports were providing those stranded with food, blankets and makeshift beds in an attempt to ease their plight. Thousands of others were being accommodated in hotels by their airlines because any airline based in the EU must by law provide food, drinks, and hotel accommodation.
On reaching the Saudi Airlines terminal at Jeddah Airport it very quickly became apparent that unlike the hundreds of other airlines and airports across the world the Saudi government would be providing absolutely no assistance to those stranded. The Hajj ministry and Saudi Airlines refused to provide any financial assistance to those affected saying they couldn't afford to accommodate so many people. This is despite the fact that King Abdullah is the richest leader in the world with an estimated wealth of $21 billion!
The majority of those stranded and flying back to Europe were returning from performing umra and were not only guests in the country but were guests of Allah (Most High).
The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "The one who fights for the sake of Allah and the pilgrim who goes for Hajj or Umrah are all guests of Allah. He called them and they responded; they ask of Him and He will give them." [Ibn Majah: 2893]
In Pre-Islamic Arabia a period commonly referred to as jahiliyyah (days of ignorance) the Arab tribes had a strong tradition of hospitality towards the guests. Much of their poetry was dedicated to the merits and honour of entertaining the guests and this practice remained strong even though they were mushrikeen (idol worshippers).
The Arab tribe ruling Makkah was known as Qureysh. They had an added responsibility towards the guests since they were in charge of the Holy Ka'bah and those performing the pilgrimages were not ordinary guests but the guests of Allah (Most High). Providing food and water to the guests of Allah (Most High) was considered a great honour and this honour fell to one of the families of Qureysh called Banu Hashim from which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is descended. The word Hashim in Arabic means the crushing of bread and it was the nickname of the Prophet's (Allah bless him and give him peace) great-grandfather ‘Amr bin ‘Abd Munaf who upgraded the meals of the pilgrims by crushing bread in to the soup of meat that used to be cooked and given to them.
When Islam was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) this tradition of honouring the guests The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "Let whosoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day honour his guest." [Bukhari & Muslim]
The majority of the Arabian Peninsula today is ruled by King Abdullah and the Saudi royal family. They are now the ruling authority in Makkah as Qureysh were before Islam. Yet despite claiming to implement shari'a in their constitution (even though a Kingdom contradicts the Islamic ruling system of a Caliphate) those in power are even worse than pre-Islamic Makkah in terms of honouring the guests and providing for the guests of Allah (Most High).
Abu Maryam al-Azdi narrated that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "Whoever is put in charge of any of the affairs of the Muslims and remains aloof from them and pays no attention to their needs and poverty, Allah will remain aloof from him on the Day of Resurrection, and will pay no attention to his needs and poverty." [Abu Dawood, Ibn Maajah, Al-Haakim]
Although I was in the fortunate position Alhamdulillah of only spending one day at Jeddah airport before finding alternative hotel accommodation many were not so fortunate. There were women, children, sick, disabled and old people at the airport who were not even offered water by the airport officials!
"It's been absolutely awful. It's the worst experience I've ever had in my life," 35-year-old Rayhanah Runnell told AFP by phone on Thursday, hours before boarding a flight back to Britain. "I have a daughter of three and a son of seven years old, and they'd been sleeping on the benches and in the masjid (mosque) downstairs. They treat you like a piece of filth. There's been no sense of humanity whatsoever in this place since we have arrived."
However not all guests in the Kingdom are treated this badly. When Barak Obama came to Saudi Arabia in June 2009 he was housed at King Abdullah's lavish desert horse farm and awarded the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit, the country's highest honour. This is the same award George Bush received the year before, despite both US Presidents occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and being responsible for the daily deaths of Muslims.
This is the reality of living under a monarchy ruled by an oppressive King. There is no rule of law since the King is sovereign and the constitution is not worth the paper it's written on. In Islam there is one ruling system which is the Caliphate ruling system where the rule of law exists based on shari'a.
‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph said, "By Allah, I do not know whether I am a Caliph or a king, for if I am a king then this is a tremendous matter." Someone said,"Amir al-Mu'minin there is a distinction between the two of them." He said, "What is it?" He said, "A Caliph does not take except what is due and he does not use it except in the right way, and you, praise be to Allah, are like that. The king treats people unjustly, and takes from this one and gives to that one." ‘Umar was silent. [Suyuti, History of the Caliphs]
Throughout the history of the Caliphate facilities were provided for the travellers and guests, and in a future Caliphate such infrastructure will exist again inshAllah.
In the Caliphate of Umar bin al-Khattab, he set aside a large number of camels - which were a means of transportation available at that time - to make it easy for those who had no mounts to move between the Arabian Peninsula, Syria and Iraq. He also set up something known as dar ad-daqeeq (lit. House of flour) which was a place where saweeq, dates and raisins, and other requirements of life were stored, which could be used by stranded wayfarers and guests who were strangers. On the road between Makkah and Madeenah he provided whatever travellers would need and mounts to take them from oasis to oasis. Umar was following the guidance of the Qur'an which suggests that cultural development requires effective communications, which leads to security, so the traveller did not need to carry water or provisions with him. And Umar issued instructions to the tribes, generals and governors telling them to do the same.
[Dr Ali Muhammed as-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab his life and times,' volume 1 p. 388]
It was narrated from Katheer bin Abdullah, from his father, that his grandfather said: "We came with Umar ibn al-Khattab for Umrah in 17AH, and the people of the oases on the way asked him to let them build their houses between Makkah and Madeenah, where there had been nothing before, and he gave them permission, but he stipulated that the wayfarers had more right to the water and shade." [Ahkam as-Sultaniyah by Al-Mawardi]
Although we were treated badly by the Saudi authorities a distinction must be made between the regime and the ordinary people who live under this regime as is the case in all Muslim countries today. The average person and low level government officials try to make good of a bad situation as best they can, and it's with them that the future revival of this ummah lies.
Omar Farouk, who was also a stranded passenger in Jeddah complained of the treatment by the Saudi Authorities but said he was touched by the "kindness shown by some of the local people" who brought them food every day. "They're buying toys for the children and making sure the children are getting enough vitamins," he said.
I also witnessed this in Masjid al-Haram (Holy Mosque) where ordinary Muslims would go to the zam zam taps and bring cups of water to those performing tawwaf.
The descendants of the Muhajireen and Ansar living in Saudi Arabia today need to follow in the footsteps of their noble ancestors and re-establish the Caliphate in the blessed land of the Arabian Peninsula once again. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) gave good news that this period of oppressive kingship we are living under today would come to an end and the Caliphate (Khilafah) would be established once again.
The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "There will be Prophethood for as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be Khilafah on the Prophetic method and it will be for as long as Allah wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be biting Kingship for as long as Allah Wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be oppressive kingship for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method" and then he remained silent. [Ahmed]
When the volcanic ash cloud hit Europe last week I along with thousands of other Muslims was caught stranded in Saudi Arabia after performing the umra (minor pilgrimage).
As we set off for Jeddah Airport we were obviously concerned since our flight had been cancelled and we were unsure what assistance would be provided to us by the Saudi government's Hajj ministry and Saudi Airlines.
In the days prior to our departure from Makkah we watched the news reports showing passengers stranded at airports across the world. On the whole these airports were providing those stranded with food, blankets and makeshift beds in an attempt to ease their plight. Thousands of others were being accommodated in hotels by their airlines because any airline based in the EU must by law provide food, drinks, and hotel accommodation.
On reaching the Saudi Airlines terminal at Jeddah Airport it very quickly became apparent that unlike the hundreds of other airlines and airports across the world the Saudi government would be providing absolutely no assistance to those stranded. The Hajj ministry and Saudi Airlines refused to provide any financial assistance to those affected saying they couldn't afford to accommodate so many people. This is despite the fact that King Abdullah is the richest leader in the world with an estimated wealth of $21 billion!
The majority of those stranded and flying back to Europe were returning from performing umra and were not only guests in the country but were guests of Allah (Most High).
The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "The one who fights for the sake of Allah and the pilgrim who goes for Hajj or Umrah are all guests of Allah. He called them and they responded; they ask of Him and He will give them." [Ibn Majah: 2893]
In Pre-Islamic Arabia a period commonly referred to as jahiliyyah (days of ignorance) the Arab tribes had a strong tradition of hospitality towards the guests. Much of their poetry was dedicated to the merits and honour of entertaining the guests and this practice remained strong even though they were mushrikeen (idol worshippers).
The Arab tribe ruling Makkah was known as Qureysh. They had an added responsibility towards the guests since they were in charge of the Holy Ka'bah and those performing the pilgrimages were not ordinary guests but the guests of Allah (Most High). Providing food and water to the guests of Allah (Most High) was considered a great honour and this honour fell to one of the families of Qureysh called Banu Hashim from which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is descended. The word Hashim in Arabic means the crushing of bread and it was the nickname of the Prophet's (Allah bless him and give him peace) great-grandfather ‘Amr bin ‘Abd Munaf who upgraded the meals of the pilgrims by crushing bread in to the soup of meat that used to be cooked and given to them.
When Islam was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) this tradition of honouring the guests The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "Let whosoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day honour his guest." [Bukhari & Muslim]
The majority of the Arabian Peninsula today is ruled by King Abdullah and the Saudi royal family. They are now the ruling authority in Makkah as Qureysh were before Islam. Yet despite claiming to implement shari'a in their constitution (even though a Kingdom contradicts the Islamic ruling system of a Caliphate) those in power are even worse than pre-Islamic Makkah in terms of honouring the guests and providing for the guests of Allah (Most High).
Abu Maryam al-Azdi narrated that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "Whoever is put in charge of any of the affairs of the Muslims and remains aloof from them and pays no attention to their needs and poverty, Allah will remain aloof from him on the Day of Resurrection, and will pay no attention to his needs and poverty." [Abu Dawood, Ibn Maajah, Al-Haakim]
Although I was in the fortunate position Alhamdulillah of only spending one day at Jeddah airport before finding alternative hotel accommodation many were not so fortunate. There were women, children, sick, disabled and old people at the airport who were not even offered water by the airport officials!
"It's been absolutely awful. It's the worst experience I've ever had in my life," 35-year-old Rayhanah Runnell told AFP by phone on Thursday, hours before boarding a flight back to Britain. "I have a daughter of three and a son of seven years old, and they'd been sleeping on the benches and in the masjid (mosque) downstairs. They treat you like a piece of filth. There's been no sense of humanity whatsoever in this place since we have arrived."
However not all guests in the Kingdom are treated this badly. When Barak Obama came to Saudi Arabia in June 2009 he was housed at King Abdullah's lavish desert horse farm and awarded the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit, the country's highest honour. This is the same award George Bush received the year before, despite both US Presidents occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and being responsible for the daily deaths of Muslims.
This is the reality of living under a monarchy ruled by an oppressive King. There is no rule of law since the King is sovereign and the constitution is not worth the paper it's written on. In Islam there is one ruling system which is the Caliphate ruling system where the rule of law exists based on shari'a.
‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph said, "By Allah, I do not know whether I am a Caliph or a king, for if I am a king then this is a tremendous matter." Someone said,"Amir al-Mu'minin there is a distinction between the two of them." He said, "What is it?" He said, "A Caliph does not take except what is due and he does not use it except in the right way, and you, praise be to Allah, are like that. The king treats people unjustly, and takes from this one and gives to that one." ‘Umar was silent. [Suyuti, History of the Caliphs]
Throughout the history of the Caliphate facilities were provided for the travellers and guests, and in a future Caliphate such infrastructure will exist again inshAllah.
In the Caliphate of Umar bin al-Khattab, he set aside a large number of camels - which were a means of transportation available at that time - to make it easy for those who had no mounts to move between the Arabian Peninsula, Syria and Iraq. He also set up something known as dar ad-daqeeq (lit. House of flour) which was a place where saweeq, dates and raisins, and other requirements of life were stored, which could be used by stranded wayfarers and guests who were strangers. On the road between Makkah and Madeenah he provided whatever travellers would need and mounts to take them from oasis to oasis. Umar was following the guidance of the Qur'an which suggests that cultural development requires effective communications, which leads to security, so the traveller did not need to carry water or provisions with him. And Umar issued instructions to the tribes, generals and governors telling them to do the same.
[Dr Ali Muhammed as-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab his life and times,' volume 1 p. 388]
It was narrated from Katheer bin Abdullah, from his father, that his grandfather said: "We came with Umar ibn al-Khattab for Umrah in 17AH, and the people of the oases on the way asked him to let them build their houses between Makkah and Madeenah, where there had been nothing before, and he gave them permission, but he stipulated that the wayfarers had more right to the water and shade." [Ahkam as-Sultaniyah by Al-Mawardi]
Although we were treated badly by the Saudi authorities a distinction must be made between the regime and the ordinary people who live under this regime as is the case in all Muslim countries today. The average person and low level government officials try to make good of a bad situation as best they can, and it's with them that the future revival of this ummah lies.
Omar Farouk, who was also a stranded passenger in Jeddah complained of the treatment by the Saudi Authorities but said he was touched by the "kindness shown by some of the local people" who brought them food every day. "They're buying toys for the children and making sure the children are getting enough vitamins," he said.
I also witnessed this in Masjid al-Haram (Holy Mosque) where ordinary Muslims would go to the zam zam taps and bring cups of water to those performing tawwaf.
The descendants of the Muhajireen and Ansar living in Saudi Arabia today need to follow in the footsteps of their noble ancestors and re-establish the Caliphate in the blessed land of the Arabian Peninsula once again. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) gave good news that this period of oppressive kingship we are living under today would come to an end and the Caliphate (Khilafah) would be established once again.
The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "There will be Prophethood for as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be Khilafah on the Prophetic method and it will be for as long as Allah wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be biting Kingship for as long as Allah Wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be oppressive kingship for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method" and then he remained silent. [Ahmed]
Criminalising the burqa exposes the failure of democracy to secure minority rights
Friday, 09 April 2010
Belgium’s parliament is drafting legislation to criminalise the niqab after the country’s Justice and Home Affairs Committee unanimously endorsed a ban on the partial or total covering of the face in public places. Anyone defying the new law may face imprisonment of up to 7 days though a fine of between $20 to $30 is more likely. Once drafted the new law will be voted on 22 April 2010.
When enacted Belgium would be the first country in Europe to apply a comprehensive ban on the face veil. France and other countries such as the Netherlands, and Canada have also been courting a ban on the Niqab. Belgium’s move would give a green light for further bans and fines to be put into law in order to specifically stop Muslim women who adorn the niqab as a religious rite.
Belgium’s Muslims number about 500,000 in a total population of just over 10 million. The move would be a strong symbolic warning to Muslims against ostentatious displays of their faith as only a very tiny number women are reported to wear the face veil.
Europe’s political class are deliberately fanning the flames of xenophobic Islamophobia resulting in prejudice and discrimination whilst cowardly hiding behind the hollow notion of protecting liberal values. Europe would do well to worry that such laws are giving oxygen to supremacist fascist voices such as Geert Wilders who publicly describes Islam as barbaric and advocate the banning of the Quran. Indeed, Geert Wilders’s hateful views have been positively normalised due to the attitudes displayed by European governments on an array of anti-Muslim issues.
The cowardly attack on the Muslim woman’s dress which is now focussed on the niqab yet certainly will move onto the hijab, as has already happened in France, clearly demonstrate that western cries to liberate Muslim women are in fact lies which mask a wave of liberal intolerance that does not have the capacity to accept cultural and religious diversity. When it comes to Islam liberal notions of inclusion and pluralism are in fact pipedreams and reveals Europe’s ugly history of racism, minority baiting and xenophobia remains alive and well in the democratic corridors of power.
Belgium’s vote on a ban on an individual’s choice of religious dress paradoxically exposes the failure of the freedom and democracy agenda to look after the rights let alone interests of minority populations without attempting to erase diverse identities. These calculated attempts to coerce Muslims to abandon Islam have not only been futile rather they have further strengthened Muslim resolve to seek to understand their religion as a way of life and to continue to return to the sublime values of Islam in droves.
How can ye reject the faith in Allah.- seeing that ye were without life, and He gave you life; then will He cause you to die, and will again bring you to life; and again to Him will ye return.[2:28]
Belgium’s parliament is drafting legislation to criminalise the niqab after the country’s Justice and Home Affairs Committee unanimously endorsed a ban on the partial or total covering of the face in public places. Anyone defying the new law may face imprisonment of up to 7 days though a fine of between $20 to $30 is more likely. Once drafted the new law will be voted on 22 April 2010.
When enacted Belgium would be the first country in Europe to apply a comprehensive ban on the face veil. France and other countries such as the Netherlands, and Canada have also been courting a ban on the Niqab. Belgium’s move would give a green light for further bans and fines to be put into law in order to specifically stop Muslim women who adorn the niqab as a religious rite.
Belgium’s Muslims number about 500,000 in a total population of just over 10 million. The move would be a strong symbolic warning to Muslims against ostentatious displays of their faith as only a very tiny number women are reported to wear the face veil.
Europe’s political class are deliberately fanning the flames of xenophobic Islamophobia resulting in prejudice and discrimination whilst cowardly hiding behind the hollow notion of protecting liberal values. Europe would do well to worry that such laws are giving oxygen to supremacist fascist voices such as Geert Wilders who publicly describes Islam as barbaric and advocate the banning of the Quran. Indeed, Geert Wilders’s hateful views have been positively normalised due to the attitudes displayed by European governments on an array of anti-Muslim issues.
The cowardly attack on the Muslim woman’s dress which is now focussed on the niqab yet certainly will move onto the hijab, as has already happened in France, clearly demonstrate that western cries to liberate Muslim women are in fact lies which mask a wave of liberal intolerance that does not have the capacity to accept cultural and religious diversity. When it comes to Islam liberal notions of inclusion and pluralism are in fact pipedreams and reveals Europe’s ugly history of racism, minority baiting and xenophobia remains alive and well in the democratic corridors of power.
Belgium’s vote on a ban on an individual’s choice of religious dress paradoxically exposes the failure of the freedom and democracy agenda to look after the rights let alone interests of minority populations without attempting to erase diverse identities. These calculated attempts to coerce Muslims to abandon Islam have not only been futile rather they have further strengthened Muslim resolve to seek to understand their religion as a way of life and to continue to return to the sublime values of Islam in droves.
How can ye reject the faith in Allah.- seeing that ye were without life, and He gave you life; then will He cause you to die, and will again bring you to life; and again to Him will ye return.[2:28]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
