This is a guest post by Rashad Ali
****
Hizb ut-Tahrir; Jamaat-e-Islami; Ikhwan al-Muslimeen and al-Qaeda all have, as a fundamental aim; the establishment of a global dictatorship under the rule of one Caliph, an autocrat, who will impose one interpretation of the Shar’iah over the entire globe. They intend to do this through unifying countries where there already exists Muslim majorities then launch a worldwide international effort at expanding this state through diplomatic and hostile means i.e. warfare.
For them, there is a religious duty (fard) in which there is no dispute, that there must be a single caliphate encompassing the whole globe. There is no room for different interpretations, and anyone differing with them – especially the likes of the Hizb, and al-Qaeda, are upon Kufr – unbelief and apostates from Islam. In fact they would argue that all the Muslim scholars who have abandoned engaging in political activity for the sake of establishing such a super-state are upon misguidance, and Kufr, even if on the whole the Muslim jurists take the position, that there are different opinions on this issue, which are legitimate opinions – Ijtihadaat – and therefore we cannot start accusing others of being on un-Islamic positions for holding different views.
The fact is whilst mainstream religious scholarship prefers unity to disunity, and an ideal of unified peaceful relations, it recognizes the practical and political reality that has existed throughout our history, that we have always had different states and empires. Scholarship has always recognized that there differences in all such issues which warrant recognition. Barking on about the obligation of having a leader/caliph/head of state- all of which carry the same meaning according to groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir, is not the same as proving that Muslim scholars historically or presently support the forceful unification of Muslim majority countries or expansionist states in the World. This is a false representation of classical and modern scholarship.
First of all, Muslim scholars have differed over the necessity of having a single political leadership. Rather it was considered acceptable to many scholars.
Secondly, rejecting the concept of having a caliph and Imam or leadership was considered as erroneous (this should be differentiated form the notion of an expansionist state), but not Kufr. In fact, it was considered a form of extremism amongst classical scholars to exaggerate the issueof caliphate as their many differences upon such issues.
Thirdly, political rebellion in order to remove leaderships by force, coup or militant means or through political agitation was considered heresy, and fisq (transgression) and an aspect of deviant sectarian cultiures such as the Khawarij; deemed outside of the way of mainstream Islamic teaching; which is where the seperation from classical tradition and Islamist ideological activism originates.
A question arise though about the apparent clear cut evidences from prophetic tradition which are often cited to clearly oblige the necessity of one caliph and forbid multiple rulers. It is then claimed that such rules are clear cut and definitive (Qati) permitting no other interpretations.
Methodological principles
The founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir Taqi ul-Din al-Nabhani explains in volume 3 of Shakhsiya Islamiya page 186, in the chapter titled ‘Mafhoom ul-Shart’ (the concept of the condition/conditional clause):
“The mafhoom al-Shart is when the rule depends upon something which has come in any of the forms of the conditional clause such as ‘if/when’ or any meaning implying a condition. It indicates the negation of the ruling when such a condition is not realised/is absent”
Nabhani also states that absolute and general statements would be restricted by conditional clauses, or in fact more generally by the denotation (mantooq) as well as the connotation (mafhoom) of the speech.“It is permitted to restrict the the mantooq (the meaning of the denotation of the speech), by the mafhoom (the connotations of the speech), whether this is when it is the in the meaning of the statement and in harmony with it (mafhoom al-muwafaqa) or divergent from it (mukhalafa)” [such as the the conditional clause - he gives an example to substantiate this]. (Chapter: restricting the Mantooq by the Mafhoom, page 255)
Hadith about one leader and how they have been interpreted
So for example the hadith wherein the prophet is reported to have said as narrated by Sahih Muslim:
“whoever comes to you, and you are united under one man, and seeks to cause political dissention and separate your community (jama’ah), fight him”
This would apply when united under a single leadership. This would then restrict the meaning of other general texts which imply a single leadership according to nabhani’s principles of interpretation, i.e. the specific meaning would be then understood to restrict the general implications of other texts such as “if the pledge is given to two Caliphs, fight the latter” as applying under a single leadership, not when there are many different states and leaderships already.
Imam al-Nawawi comments on the above hadith in the chapter ‘the ruling of segregating the affair of the Muslims when they are united’,
“Whoever come to you and you are united…” stating that this refers to “those who rebel (kharaja) against the leader…”(!!) (page 444 of al-Minhaj bi-Shar’h Sahih Muslim bin al-Hajjaj, Dar al-Marifa, Beirut – Lebanon).
He also states regarding the second hadith that “generally scholars have agreed that you can not contract two caliphs… there is however the probability of the opinion of Imam al-Haramayn”. (page 445) He explains that there is a possibility of differet opinions in this matter. He states
“This is outside of the definitive matters (kharij min al-Qawati). And Maziri (the well known Maliki commentator on Imam Muslim’s collection of hadith) has narrated this Qawl (opinion) on some of the later scholars of Principle, including Imam al-Haramayn”. So it is the position of Imam al-Haramayn that it is permitted to have multiple political leaders. Imam al-Nawawi is not of this view and he states “though it is an irregular position and conflicts with the views of the early scholars and the apparent, absolute meaning of the text.” (page 435).
The important point is that it is not a definitive issue, it is subject to opinion and Ijtihad. Imam al-Haramayn is however one of the most widely accepted scholars agreed upon to reach the position of a Mujtahid Imam, and was the celebrated teacher of of revered Imam al-Ghazali.
What was Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni’s point of view? He explained this clearly in his text ‘al-Ghiyath al-Umam fi Tiyath al-Zulam’ where he explained:
“I do not deny the permissibility of appointing (two leaders) according to the need (haja) and enforcing both of their executive decisions as a religious duty. This however is a time without an overall Imam.”
People have misconstrued his words, as implying that this is only when it is impossible. This is absolutely false. Not just frpom the quotation itself, which is that it is according to the need (not even necessity), but Imam al-Haramayn explains in the following sentence, “if they agree to appoint an Imam over them, it is a right for the two leaders to submit to the decisions of this Imam in a manner he deems appropriate” He goes on to discuss to Imams in two separate countries, not one would have claim to the leadership of all the Muslims. [(pp 168-169 Muassas al-Rayan edition)]
al-Amir al-San’ani explains that in the statement:
“’Whoever left obedience to the Imam and separated from the community and then died, then his is a death of pagan ignorance.’…the phrase, ‘…left obedience…’, means obedience to the Caliph with whom there is agreement. And the implication here is that the Caliph referred to is that of a particular region because the people have never gathered together behind a single Caliph in all the lands of Islam since the time of the Abbasid State . Rather, the people of every region were independent with someone presiding over their affairs. If the hadith was taken to mean the overall Caliph which the people of Islam had united behind, then there would have been no benefit in the saying” [Subul al-Salaam, (volume 3, page 499)]
Imam Shawkani also held this view:
“As for when Islam spread and its territories expanded and its regions became distant [from each other], then it is known that in all of these regions loyalty was given to an Imam or Sultan… So there is no harm in the multiplicity of Imams and Sultans and it is obligatory for those people in whose land his orders and prohibitions become effective to give obedience to him after having giving bay’ah (a pledge of allegiance) to him. It is the same for the people of all the other regions.”
Shawkani goes on to say, someone not understanding this will not benefit from the presentation of the dalil (scriptural proofs) as he won’t “be able comprehend it”. [al-Sayl al-Jarrar (volume 4, page 512)]
Rejecting Imamate in principle
As for making the issue of political leadership a central aspect of faith, and declaring Kufr on ideas and people on the basisi of such ideas, or even for rejecting the whole notion of having any kind of political leadership, this is considered a characteristicof extremists. As Imam al-Ghazali stated:
“Know, however that error regarding the status of the Caliphate, whether or not establishing this office is a (communal obligation), who qualifies for it, and related matters, cannot serve as grounds for condemning people as Unbelievers. Indeed Ibn al-Kaysan denied that there was any religious obligation to have a Caliphate at all; but this does not mean thathe must be branded an Unbeliever. Nor do we pay any attention to those who exaggerate the matter of Imamate and equate recognition of the Imam with faith in God and His Messenger. Nor do we pay any attention to those people who oppose these people and brand them Unbelievers simply on the basis of their doctrine of on the Imamate. Both of these positions is extreme. For neither of the doctrines in question entails any claim that the Prophet perpetrated lies.” ‘On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam’ Abu Hamid al-Ghazali’s Faysal al-Tafriqa by Sherman A. Jackson, Oxford.
To clarify, it is considered a subsidiary branch of fatawa, not a fundamental aspect of religion. Which is why someone denying any aspect of recognising political leaderships is considered by the mainstream scholars to be mistaken, at worst upon a devaint position, but not a non-Muslim or outside the community of believers.
‘Nihayat ul-Su’al fi-Shar’h minhaj ul-Wusul lil-Qadi al-Baydawi ma al-hashiya Salam ul-Wusul li-Sharh al-Nihaya’ authored by Jamal ul-Din al-Asnawi and commentary by Shaykh Muhammad Bakhit al-Muti’ee, Alim ul-Kutub edition states:
“The obligation of appointing an Imam is from the branches of religious rulings (furoo ul-fiqh’hiya), and without a doubt they are not from the fundamentals of religion (Usul ul-Din).” (volume 3 page 92)
Political rebellion in order to forcefully remove leaderships
Imam al-Nawawi explains the orthodox position of the Sunni Muslim scholars:
“We should not challenge nor dispute the legitimacy of the political leqadership, nor come out in difference to them, unless we clearly see a evil perpetrated by them, definitively violating the principle of Islam. If this is seen then this evil should be denounced and you should speak the truth. As for khurooj (rebellion) this forbidden by consensus of all the Muslims.” (page 532).
So what about those who have decided to undertake military means to remove established rulers, despots and tyrants they may be, based upon their interpretation of such evidences? Well let us return to the writings of Imam al-Asnawi, Qadi al-Baydawi and Shaykh Muhammad Bakhit al-Muti’ee.
“Similarly the Khawarij, those who permit the slaughter of Muslims, taking their wealth and their famillies based upon an interpretation and speculative interpretation of the text; they are transgressors (fussaq) in our eyes, though not in theirs…” (volume 3 page 136)
Ironically Imam al-Nawawi (see above) applies the very same hadith stating that the meaning of the hadith which are politicised for their own ends by the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir, to mean that they should be fought for political rebellion.
90 Comments
Superb article Rashad!
The Islamist ideology needs to be dismantled and shown for what it really is;
illogical assumptions and wishful thinking.
The question now is where is Abdul Rahman?
Excellent piece. I was working on getting A Rehman some references but it seems you have nailed the issue once and for all. Further to the above, I do remember Ibn Taymiah discussing the permissibility of more then one leader. Furthermore, Sheikh Abd AL Raziq also wrote a book which promoted the idea that Islam is secular and there is no need for Caliphates.
So Mr A Rehman – after admitting defeat on all the other issues we were debating it looks like you will have to admit defeat on this one too. Your ideology has been smashed to pieces on this forum, you may have to consider rebuilding your life from scratch.
As I stated from the outset, everything HT say is merely one view and not binding. That is why the Ummah is not prepared to unite behind your pathetic leadership. HT is an insult to Muslims, an insult to Islam and an insult to humanity. You have been kicked out of every mosque in this country and no Muslim group would dare share a platform with you. You are about as popular as Ian Huntley right now.
How dare you seek to overthrow democratically elected governments and claim to be following our deen. You guys deserve to be locked up and tortured. May Allah bless those brave Muslims who have arrested your members and locked them up. It is the duty of every Muslim to fight the Khwarij.
Excellent post! Well-researched and very timely indeed!
A question:
“The obligation of appointing an Imam is from the branches of religious rulings (furoo ul-fiqh’hiya), and without a doubt they are not from the fundamentals of religion (Usul ul-Din).”
How does this impact on the election of the Caliph or Imam? Is he saying that appointing an Imam is of secondary importance and that things such as prayer and fasting must take precedence in the short term? Or is he saying that there are no source rulings (nusoos) to make such decisions within the Qur’an or Sunnah, and therefore any such procedure must be undertaken with recourse to independent reasoning (ijtihaad)? I’d appreciate your input…
Many thanks and God bless
Once again, there rises from the mist of suspicion and denial plauging the Muslim world, a champion of factual intellect backed by practical understanding.
Excellent piece Rashad…..leaves no room for rebuttle….of course that means there will be some weak attempt to do so, but none the less, the truth speaks to those whom have an appetite for it.
check out: http://www.myspace.com/alshairsaif
lovin’ your work Rashad!
Saki
Cheerleader
al-Hur al-Ayn
Admin:
Comment has been deleted. The commentator is attempting to counter the author not by addressing his argument, but by the use of a nasty personal attack.
This is ridiculous. Deleted my comment which states facts. You guys write articles which slander people with lies. Rashad is a well know liar who makes up references. He has been exposed on TI many times. The blogs are in the open to see.
Fascinating stuff Rashad, thank you so much for the guest post. Any chance you could clarify what is intended by clearly seeing evil in the tradition you cite?
(We should not challenge nor dispute the legitimacy of the political leqadership, nor come out in difference to them, unless we clearly see a evil perpetrated by them)
This is a great piece. Thanks, it will come in very useful.
Abdul Rehman – I knew you were a TI person, that site is full of bullshit, slander and general HT type nonsense. How dare you resort to slander and back-biting. No wonder you are confused. Of course based on your posts here I would also say that you are a ‘well known liar’ and deciever in that you evaded all of the discussion points and simply ran away. References have been given in this article, go and check them before you accuse anyone else of being a well know liar.
Nabhani was also a well known bullshiter.
Five minutes reading the TI blog is five minutes of your life wasted.
The Obligation of appointing a Khalifah and some related Issues. Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Al-Qurtubi, as well as other scholars, said that this Ayah (2:30) proves the obligation of appointing a Khalifah to pass judgements on matters of dispute between people, to aid the oppressed against the oppressor, to implement the Islamic penal code and to forbid evil. There are many other tasks that can only be fulfilled by appointing the Imam, and what is necessary in performing an obligation, is an obligation itself. We should state here that Imamah occurs by either naming a successor, as a group among Ahl As-Sunnah scholars said occurred – by the Prophet – in the case of Abu Bakr, or hinting to a successor. Or, the current Khalifah names a certain person as Khalifah after him, as Abu Bakr did with `Umar. Or, the Khalifah might leave the matter in the hands of the Muslim consultative council, or a group of righteous men, just as `Umar did. Or, the people of authority could gather around a certain person to whom they give the pledge of allegiance, or they could select one among them to choose the candidate, according to the majority of the scholars.
The Khalifah must be a responsible adult Muslim male, able to perform Ijtihad (independent legal judgments), bodily able, righteous, with knowledge of warfare, politics. He also must be from the tribe of Quraysh, according to the correct view, but it is not necessary that he be from the tribe of Bani Hashim, or that he be immune from error, as the Rafidah (Shiites) falsely claim.
When the Khalifah becomes an immoral person (Fasiq), should he be impeached There is disagreement over this matter, but the correct view is that he is not to be removed, because the Messenger of Allah said,
«إِلَّا أَنْ تَرَوْا كُفْرًا بَوَاحًا عِنْدَكُمْ مِنَ اللهِ فِيهِ بُرْهَان»
(Unless you witness a clear Kufr regarding which you have clear proof from Allah. )
Does the Khalifah have the right to resign from his post There is a difference on this issue. It is a fact that Al-Hasan bin `Ali removed himself from the position of Khalifah and surrendered it to Mu`awiyah. However, this occurred because of a necessity, and Al-Hasan was praised for this action.
It is not permissible to appoint two Imams for the world or more at the same time. This is not allowed because the Messenger of Allah said,
«مَنْ جَاءَكُمْ وَأَمْرُكُمْ جَمِيعٌ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يُفَرِّقَ بَيْنَكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُ كَائِنًا مَنْ كَان»
(Whoever came to you while you are united and tried to divide you, then execute him, no matter who he is.)
This is the view of the majority of scholars. Imam Al-Haramayn stated that Abu Ishaq allowed the appointment of two or more Imams when the various provinces are far away from each other. However, Imam Al-Haramayn himself was indecisive about this view.
The concept of “Khilafah is not a definite matter within the deen” is a modern concept as this thinking did not exist amongst the classical scholars as it was a definite matter amongst them.
I think Rashad should state Imam Al-Haramayn’s point clearly about having 2 Imam’s as he was indecisive about this view.
What? Abdul Rehman writing an article which resorts to lies and slander? I won’t hear of it!
Abdul Basit; great post in general, but imam al-haramayn was emphatic in his language about it’s permissibility in the Ghiyath, as were others.
The scholars accepted non-quraishi caliphs too in the end including imam al-haramayn though not ideal; and relented on the mujtahid criterion.
In fact the whole issue of having Muslim leadership over the world and accepted both pragmatic acceptence of non-Muslims ruling over “Muslim land” and also Muslims living in non Muslim majority countries.
But that is another discussion…
Hahaha, I’ve just noticed Abdul Rehman has gone back to his mushrif (Sharif Hafezi) at TI, crying like a little baby about this site. I’ve never known such whining, juvenile behaviour. And all this after he promised never to post here again because he’s too clever and pious for us!
Abdul Basit – since it is you that is claiming that Imam Haramayn was ‘unsure’ surely the onus is on you to prove that he was. Also Imam Haramayn was not the only one in the classical age to dispute this issue. Imam Mawardi, Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Khaldun all discussed this issue with a degree of uncertainty. The fact the scholars were discussing it in such a way is proof itself that it was not a clear cut issue.
But you could also argue that scholars in the classical age where discussing such issues in relation to the political realities of their day. So surely the more pertinent question is ‘how many modern day scholars believe that the entire ummah should unite under one political entity under one ruler’. From what I can see that answer to that is ‘not many’. Certainly none from the Deobandi or brelwi schools hold that view and most Wahabi’s are quite content with the Saudi islamic state. The Taliban don’t believe in expansionism. Bin Bayyah was happy to be foreign minister of Mauritania and so one can assume that he accepts modern political realities. The grand mufti’s of Syria and Egypt also recognise the status quo.
In which case calling for a return of middle age political realities is similar to calling for ditching cars and going back to camals.
As my comments are being deleted, which expose Rashad for the liar that he is. I will post links which expose the invalidity of all of Rashad’s arguments, in a crystal clear manner.
For a clear and concise rebuttle, read comment near the end of:
http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/quilliam-director-supports-the-construction-of-nuclear-weapons-in-muslim-countries/#comments
As you have started deleting my comments, you have clearly shown yourself to be no different to a media outlet of a tyrannical dicatatorship, which is pleased with self glorification and only too obliging to praise what the tyrannical regime wants praised.
You have accused sincere dawah carriers of falsehoods. Mocked them in public – all in the name of freedom of thought.
Yet when the truth about one of your contributers is posted i.e. Rashad the proven fantasist, reference inventor, you delete the post.
So much for “heresy is another word for freedom of thought”
Furthermore, do you accept that the view that Islam is completely secular on the basis that a number of scholars have promoted this view, i.e. Abd Al Raziq, Abdul Wahab Effendi, Abdullah an Naim, Hamza Yusuf, AK Murad, Tariq Ramadhan, Prof Javed Ghamdi etc etc. Do you accept that this is a legimate ijtihad which Muslims have a right to follow. If that is the case then where does that leave the entire Islamist ideology which seeks to unite Muslims through religious blackmail, i.e. claiming that the issue of Khilafah has never been disputed when indeed it has.
Also isn’t it time we admitted that it is not so much what Islam says that is guiding Islamists but what they find appealing as political ideas, i.e. Muslim unity, fighting oppression etc. Religious justification is a mere after thought and often only deployed to stifle descent when members start thinking for themselves.
Finally, isn’t the fact that Muslims have not and perhaps will not ever agree on a definition of an Islamic state itself ensure that reaching such a goal is politically impossible. Does that not explain why 90 years after Al banna’s call and almost 60 years after Nabhani’s call we are still no closer to establishing.
In any case if Somalia or Afghanistan did declare that they were ISLAMIC STATES how many Muslims would pack their bags and relocate their wih their families? Not many me thinks, and if they did I can guarentee that they will start to miss the NHS, Welfare state and Western freedoms very quickly. As was the case with Bakri’s wife who fled Lebenon forcing Bakri to shack up with a new virgin bride younger than his daughter.
Just think about it guys.
I’m so bored of you now Abdul Rehman. Go away. We’ve left all your crap on this website. The only thing we won’t tolerate is your libellous slander.
We’ve made fun of people, but its clear that the Caption Competition is humorous and not intended to be taken seriously – except, it would seem, by you.
When we accuse others of wrong doing, everything is clearly referenced with links and quotes. Here, you have just resorted to bare faced slander. So learn to be objective, stop thinking you’re the constant victim of some conspiracy and shove off if you can’t debate properly. But seriously, your constant whining is really getting old now. You’re so boring.
Abdul Rehman – if HT is so interested in open debate why do they not allow comments from non – HT members on their site? If TI is interested in debate why do they delete comments from anyone who disagrees with them. After getting slammed on here on every single point you raised you have to going running back to the well-known bullshit central site to ask for advice. And all you come back with is ‘Rashad is a liar’. Pathetic. I could throw that accusation at you, at TI knobheads and at Nabhani and the rest of your creepy leaders. Needless to say the semi-sensible aspect of the debate is over and now you have pushed us into name calling. What else can you expect when your idols are Zaf Iqbal who was investigated for financial irregularities and kicked out of HT and Shareef who falsified his pharmacy qualifications to get into the profession.
Abu Wanabe Arab, that is a really good point – I have left comments in the past on the TI website and not a single one has ever been approved. TI is the worst. I’ve never tried leaving comments on the HuT website but I’ve been told by brothers that they don’t allow dissenting comments too. It seems these are the sites that are really emulating the egotistical and despotic regimes of the Arab world. The first sign of dissent from the party line and they move to crush it. No one has censured you here Abdul Rehman, despite your constant spewing of rubbish.
Alhamdulillah, this website was designed to expose and highlight the hypocrisy of Islamists and your unprincipled (and dangerous) lust for power at all costs. And, in the short time we’ve been around all of your worst traits have been exposed, revealing you for the charlatans you are.
bengali, abu wanabe,
You are obviously students of Rashad, skilled in the propogation of invented references.
bengali, you wrote:
“..but imam al-haramayn was emphatic in his language about it’s permissibility in the Ghiyath, as were others…”
Please can you quote which “Ghiyath” you are on about?
Firstly, Imam Juwayni in his Irshad says:
““Our companions have agreed on the proscription on pledging allegiance to two Imams throughout the Muslim world. They also went on to say “If it was allowed to have two Imams then it would fall under the same category as allowing two guardians of a potential bride to be married off to two husbands!” As for my position: The pledge to two Imams in one continuous area that is connected…is not allowed and an Ijma has become established on this, but if the different areas are so vastly apart (in terms of the authority of the Imam i.e. Shuzu3 al Nawah) then the possibility can be considered. This issue then goes outside what is definitely established “(as opposed to the initial scenario) ”
Imam Juwayni then elaborates on this point in his Ghiath Al Umam in section 7 dealing with appointing 2 imams. He says:
“If the appointment of one Imam becomes feasible then the plan of Islam is established. If the Caliphate on its different levels (in strength) in both East and West of the lands has the ability to have an influence (i.e. its authority established) in these areas then it becomes obligatory to appoint him and in this case it is not allowed to have more then one Imam. This is a matter that is agreed upon and there is no difference of opinion on this”
So Imam Juwayni is now starting to clarify this “geographic” exception of lands that are “vastly apart”. He then for the whole page tells us about the calamities one can get when we have more then one Imam! Clearly Imam Juwayni does not think that the norm is plurality that can be used when the need arises! There are exceptions according to this Imam and he clarifies this further on
“It is possible that a certain people will be cut off from the authority of the Caliph (i.e. it is impossible for the orders of the Caliph to reach them) and between them and the Muslim lands is Dar Kufr. Because of this Caliph will not be able to have an authority …….With this scenario some have allowed the appointment of an authority in that area which cannot have any possible influence by the Imam . This has been attributed to our Shiekh Abu Hassan , Abu Ishaaq al Isfra’ani and others… “
CRUCIALLY Imam Juwayni goes on to agree with this view but finishes with the caption:
“The person appointed though is not the Imam..”
and if this difficulty is removed then the Amir should pledge his authority to the Caliph. He considers another situation which really can reflect our reality today. What if we have a time where the lands of Islam no longer have an Imam? In other words we have a number of rulers that have authority over different areas. In this case he goes on to say they cannot claim to be an Imam. Imam Juwayni obviously, and here the word H’aja (need) comes in, does not invalidate the authority because of this need. He still though sees the need for an Imam to be appointed in this case! In fact he goes on and later clarifies the issue. If you have two Imams then the allegiance goes to the first one to claim it. If it is not clear then this does not alleviate the obligation of the Imam but it seems to be in the hands of the Muslims or at least those in authority to decide.
Which Imam Nawawi are you quoting?
Imam Nawawi has this to say in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim on this view of Imam Juwayni
“…and if between them there are vast expanses then possibility can be considered… and this is a corrupt position that goes against the agreement of the Salaf, the Khalaf and the apparent wording of the hadith”
To summarise, Rashad, student of arch inventor of references Majid nawaz, has attributed to Imam Juwayni:
1-We can have multiple rulers when the need arises
2-This is a Dhunni issue and in fact Imam Juwayni makes it a matter of the branches of our religion
Clearly yet again we have a total distortion of the views of this illustrious Imam. In fact his views are totally the opposite of what is claimed! What did Imam Juwayni really state:
1-In principle we should have one Imam if he is able to have an influence on all the lands of Islam. This is a matter that is Qati i.e. definite even though it is an issue in the branches
2-In certain situations we can allow this rule to be qualified. These include the following scenarios
A-If the Imam cannot possibly have any influence on the area due to the vast distance between Muslim lands and the people also cannot receive his authority then it is allowed for them to appoint an Amir. He is not called the Imam though.
B-If we have a time when there is no Imam and we are faced with a situation where you have Amirs in different areas, then because of Duroora and Hajaa we should accept their authority but we should strive to have an Imam appointed to unite them. They may continue to be Amirs but it does not remove the obligation to appoint a Caliph. Again they are not called Imams!
C-In these situations if we have a claim to an Imama from different Amirs then we look at the temporal location of the claim. The first one to claim Imama should have priority but if it is not clear then this should not be an excuse to remove the obligation to have one Imam. It seems that this then rests with the people in authority or the Muslims as a whole to choose one.
Interestingly it seems that Imam Nawawi may have misunderstood the position of this Imam and was a tad bit to harsh but even with the whiff of the stench of disunity he put his pen to the Ink well and wrote
“…..and this is a corrupt position that goes against the agreement of the Salaf, the Khalaf and the apparent wording of the hadith”
Somehow I don’t think Imam Nawawi thought this was an ijtihaad (or at least his understanding of it) contrary to what Rashad has previously claimed and I quote
“..Nawawi criticised it, though recognised it as the opinion of the his “Imam” – see sharuh Sahih Muslim”
Case Closed.
As for Imam Shokani, he gave a clear reason for his view, which you fail to mention:
“This is because of the vast expanses of the Islamic lands that have spread out. For this reason people of one area would not be able to be informed about there Imam or Sultan. They would not know who came into authority or who died among them. This is apparent to all those who see the reality of the people and the nations before us. For the people of China and India would not know who is in authority in Morocco let alone knowing the obligations on them and visa versa. …..So the difference between the situation of the Wilaya in early periods of Islam and situation now is clearer then the Sun in broad daylight…”
To summarise Imam Shokani’s view:
1-In the early periods of Islam we had an obligation to have one Imam
2-With the passage of time as the empire expanded, it was necessary to have a Sultan in each area. In each area we cannot have disunity
3-He seems to know this is a rukhsa that goes against the apparent texts so he ventures to give his reason why we have a different understanding of reality to the early period of the Caliphate.
4-The reason is based on the inability of the subjects in each nation to know about the affairs of others that are far apart. For example the people of China could not possibly know about the affairs of the Sultan in Morocco.
Clearly, in todays age of near perfect communications, the reasons for bringing this fatwa in to existance are now defunct.
You quote Imam Nawawi:
“We should not challenge nor dispute the legitimacy of the political leqadership, nor come out in difference to them, unless we clearly see a evil perpetrated by them, definitively violating the principle of Islam. If this is seen then this evil should be denounced and you should speak the truth. As for khurooj (rebellion) this forbidden by consensus of all the Muslims.” (page 532).
Firstly, why don’t you explain the context here? In simple terms, Imam Nawawi was talking about the Khilafah and its political systems as that was the reality in which he existed. Clearly, the situation today, as you all on this site have mentioned over and over again is very different. Today we have Secular nation states with dictators in power, who the bidding of their masters at the expense of the Ummah. You have to have your head in the sand to not see this difference.
The Hadith relating to Unity
On the Authority of Abu Hurayirah
“The prophet (saw) said: There will Khalifs and there will be many. They asked: What do you order us? He said: Fulfill allegiance to them one after one and give them their due. Verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with” Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim
The key phrases “one after one” pointing to the fact that you give allegiance go one Caliph at a time. The Isnad need not be discussed as it is narrated both in Bukhari and Muslim
On the Authority of Ibn Abbas
“Whoever sees from his Amir something that he hates then he should be patient for whosoever breaks even an arm length from the Jama’ah (i.e. the Muslims as a whole) has died the death of Jahilyiah”
and in the meaning of Imam Muslim
“Whosoever breaks from the Sultan even an arms length has died the death of Jahiliayah”
This narration is also in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad and again there is no need to comment on the Isnad of this narration. The meaning of the hadith is that we have one Jamaah and one Sultan or Amir and if we break our allegiance then we have rebelled (unless we have valid reasons). This is general and would include those who refuse to pledge allegiance to the Sultan of the Jamaa because they view the legality of many Sultans! So bring us proof if you are truthful to qualify this!
Again this narration is also narrated by Abu Hurayriah in Sahih Muslim
On the authority of Fadallah Bin Ubayad the prophet (saw) said
“Three people do not ask about, A man who has broken away from the Jama’ah and disobeyed his Imam and died in that state……”
This is narrated by Ibn Habban, Ibn Abi Asim, Al Hakim, and al Bukhari in al Adab al Mufrad with a Sahih Isnad.
Again this Isnad has nothing to comment on. This hadith shows a man who breaks away from the Jama’ah (singular) and its Imam will be in a sinful state. So again bring proof to qualify this with the allowance for multiplie Jama3at!
On the authority of Ibn Umar “ the Prophet (saw) said
“Whosoever takes his hand away from obedience then there is no excuse for him on the day of Judgement and whosoever dies breaking away from the Jamah has died the death of Jahiliyah”
This is narrated in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, and by Ibn Abu Asim with a sahih Isnad yet again. This also supports the other narrations which are clearer in meaning.
On the authority of Abu Hurayriah The Prophet (saw) said “………..Oh Rasul Allah Shirk we know but what is the Nakth of al Safqaa and the abandonment of the Sunnah? He said “With regards to Nakth al Safqaa, it is giving a man the pledge of allegiance and then fighting him with your sword and with regards to the abandonment of the Sunnah then it is revolting against the Jamaah”
This has been narrated by Ahmad, Al Hakim, and Imam Dhahabi says it is Sahih. There is a question whether Abdullah Bin Sai’b al Shaybani al Kufi heard it directly from Abu Hurayriah or from an intermediate that is unknown
Still it is a supporting narration that goes along with the numerous hadiths mentioned.
On the authority of Abd al Rahman Bin Abd Rab al Kaaba
”………..Whosoever gives his hand in allegiance to the Imam and the fruits of his heart then he should give him if he can, for if someone else comes to dispute this then strike the laters neck….!”
This has been narrated by Muslim, Ibn Majah, Al Nisai, and Imam Ahmad. This Isnad again is Sahih except for the variations with regards to the words of Muawayiah in the end.
On the authority of Abdi Said al Khudri the Prophet (saw) said
“If the pledge of allegiance has been given to two Imams kill the later” Narrated by Imam Muslim with a sahih isnad.
On the authority of Abdullah Bin Umaru and Ibn 3ass that the prophet (saw) said
“ ……Whosoever gives his allegiance to the Imam with his hands and the fruits of his heart then he should if he is capable for if someone else comes to dispute this then strike the neck of the later” Again in Sahih Muslim with a sahih Isnad
On the authority of Arfaja that the prophet (saw) said
“ …Whosoever disputes the orders of this Ummah with its consensus then strike his neck wherever he may be”
Again in Sahih Muslim with a sahih isnad.
On the authority of Hudhaifa Bin al Yaman on the fitna the Prophet (saw) said
“….. What do you obligate from me if I see this situation. The prophet replied “ Hold on to the authority of the Jamah and its Imam!…..”
Again in Sahih Muslim with a sahih isnad
Umar Ibnu Al-Khatab and the consensus of the Sahaba. Al-Bukhari reported on the authority of Ibn Abas who said:
“… Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, “Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers (’Umar), saying, ‘O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, ‘If ‘Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person… ‘Umar became angry and then said, ‘Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership).” This happened during the Hajj season, Abdur-Rahman convinced him that he should delay his speech until he arrives to Medina. Umar in Madina said: (O people!) I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says, ‘By Allah, if ‘Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person.’ …. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed.”
It was reported by Nisa’i that Umar said: Anyone who calls the Imarah for himself or any other person without consulting the Muslims, it is not allowed for you not to kill him. A confirmation of the Isnad is needed but in meaning it is clearly sahih.
After the death of Uthman the people came to Ali to give him the bayah. Ali tried to decline but the Muslims insisted on him and he accepted under the condition he should be given the bayah in the mosque. Muhammad Ibnu Al-Hanafiah (Ali’s son) said: Ali said: Then it should be in the mosque, my bayah should not be hidden and it should be after the consent of the Muslims. (see Tareekh Al-Tabari, vol. 3, page 450, see also Al-Bayah Fi Al-fikr Al-Siasi Al-Islami, “The bayah in the Islamic political thinking”, by Mahmoud Al-Khalidi, page 107-108). Again the Isnad needs to be confirmed
In the books of Al-fasil-fil Milal by Ibnu Hazim, Tarikh of Al-tabari, Al-A’kd Al-Farid of Al-Waqidi, Al-Sira of Ibnu Kathir, Al-Sunan Al-Kubra of Bayhaqi and Siratu Ibn Hisham, that Al-Habbab Ibnu Al-Munthir said
“When the Sahaba met in the wake of the death of the Prophet (SWA) at the saqifa (hall) of Bani sa’ida: One Amir from us and one Amir from you (meaning one from the Ansar and one from the Muhajireen). Upon this Abu Bakr replied: “It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs” Then he got up and addressed the Muslims.
And it has been reported in the Sirah of Ibnu Ishaq that Abu Bakr said on the day of Saqifa:
“It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The Sunnah would then be abandoned, the bida (innovations) would spread and Fitna would grow, and that is in no one’s interest.” Therefore Abu Bakr delivered the Shariah verdict on the unity of the Khilafah, stressing that it is forbidden for the Muslim Ummah to have more than one Amir. The Sahaba heard him and approved and consented, no one disputed the verdict, but submitted to it and accepted it as a law (indication of evidence from the Sunnah). The Ansar then conceded their claim to the Khilafah, and Al-Habbab Ibnu Al-Munthir was the first to give the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr”
These narrations need a detailied analysis of the Isnad but are sahih as far as I know. I have not gone into all the variations of this incident.
Clearly the companions would not prescribe a capital punishment for an act that is mubah!
So taking into account the narrations on the unity of the Muslims we have over 10 companions narrating hadith that obligate unity to one Jama’ah and a single Imam! In other words a Tawatur by Meaning! We have also numerous narrations that have reached the level of Tawatur from the Companions on the necessity of unity under one Caliph. I have mentioned four though alot more can be said.
Abdul Rehman – No I am not a student of Rashid but you are clearly a student of fraudster and evidence inventor Zafar Iqbal. Speaking of fake references – what about your link to AH Murad which was completely off topic. Your need to desire to slander and character assassination when you lose the debate itself proves what a sad loser you are.
Even the quotes you have provided above don’t prove your point, they prove that the issue is not clear and subject to interpretations about lands and distance and ability for one ruler to cover areas that are so far apart. Again you ignore the point about modern ijtihads being far more suitable in this case then classical ones since modern scholars are in a much better position to judge these issue today.
But don;t worry I’m sure TI will keep filling you with bullshit that you can continue pasting here. Isn’t freedom a wonderful thing.
Abu Wanabe,
Please quote some of the “modern Ijtihads” you mention, with references.
I am definitely familiar with various Ijtihads from scholars of today, HT and none HT. None of them prescribe to what you say.
Ofcourse, as Rashad has taught you, you will just invent some!
Keep patting yourselves on the back for inventing references to justify your fantasist claims – yes that is what you are – “Fantasists”.
You still here old boy?
Instead of spreading falsehood, cowering behind pseudonyms, feel free to come and attend the Rajab Conferences Hizb Ut Tahrir is holding around the globe.
All you guys have is a website and some government funded crownies to run to.
Get off your lazy butts and do some dawah.
To gain some knowledge on the most crucial issue facing Muslims today, please feel free to attend any of the following conferences:
The Struggle for Islam and the Call For Khilafah (London Sunday 26th July Birmingham 2nd August)
Khilafah Rise Of Islam : America – Happening right now Alhamdolillah
Khilafah The emergin super power of the 21st century (Australia – Videos of this conference will be on display soon IA)
Khilafah for Bangladesh (21st July in Bangladesh)
The need for the Khilafah, (Today, Lebanon)
Khilafah Emerging Super power (Today, Maurtitus)
And there there will be Khilafah.. (Sudan Happend on the 17th)
Khilafah Conference, (Tanzania Today)
Khilafah Conference (Ukraine Today)
Shikwa,
Yes indeed, although I was please to see the shallow champions of “freedom of thought” you exposed yourselves to be, when you deleted my comment about publically known facts about Rashad Ali – i.e He is a convicted criminal, who got kicked out of HT for his criminality. He legitimised on face book attending raves in clubes where lewdness is rife. Even said yes to facebook requests asking him to attend a rave.
He also implicitly claims that Islam legitimises Homosexuality. He did that to gain favour with Quilliam and Civitas. Talks about selling your deen for a cheap price!
Is this the man you take your deen from?
Remember, Rashad Ali was best mates with Majid. We’ve all seen Majids infamous pirate eyed clubby photo and hug with old mate “Cat”. For Majid it was fine, because he was following the Rashad’i School of thought.
Seriously, you need to review your relationship with Rashad, not only has he been exposed by multiple none HT affiliated people for his lack of academic depth, he is a lot of trouble and will probably get you guys in trouble the next time he withdraws money from bank under a false identity and gets caught. You should hope that the domain name for this site is not registered on his name!
Abdul Rehman – you continue to lie and slander yet start to moan when anybody else attacks HT, is lying and slander exclusively reserved for HT people? Which modern day scholars have you quoted to back up your claims? Your previous references were a complete joke.
This is issue is not only disputed amongst Muslims but even amongst Islamists. Even Rashid Gounnichi doesn’t hold this view and discusses the issue as well as destroying HT ideas. Please read ‘A Democrat within Islamism’ by Azzam Tamimi.
Are you seriously suggesting that there is a consensus amongst the Ulema of the world today that we should all work towards destroying all governments in the Muslim world and uniting 1.5 billion people under one ruler?
If you want your ideology further smashed to pieces then read the following:
http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles/islam_religion_or_ideology/
Islam and Politics by Dr Sherman Jackson
Who needs and Islamic State by Dr Abdul Wahab Effendi
I didn’t realise the site was government funded, is it? Or is that another lie from our T.I. friend?
Interesting activities there A.R – i notice still no mosque prepared to host you khwarij scum.
A.R
Instead of running to and from T.I and posting the drivel he passes on to you here as references, why don’t you ask him to come here and debate himself ?
What happened to the questions I asked you about T.I and why won’t he answer them? please get answers for these two points before posting anything else;
1) Why did T.I leave HT
2) What does T.I now believe the correct method to establish khilafah is?
Just tell him to answer the above two points (something he has failed to do for the last six months)
Also it’s funny how when Rashad was in HT he was refered to (by some) as the party ‘Mujtahid’ (I heard Jalaludin Patel refer to him in this way). I also believe he had some part in writing the book on methodology which was released to co-incide with the conference on method in 2000 in Birmingham. But when he leaves he becomes the worst person on the planet! The same with Maajid, when he was in HT he was the great dai who would lead the party in the future (if you read the old Khilafah mags you will find many articles by Maajid and Rashad) but once they leave they become stooges/sellouts etc. Why the hypocrisy? everyone can see this is just a smear campaign.
HT shouldn’t have a problem with criminality. There are plenty of HT members who have been and are still involved in that kind of actvity today. I’m not going to list their names here as I don’t want to sink on your level but you know as well as I do who they are : )
Do ask T.I those questions because he has been ducking and diving from them for months!
I await his answer to them.
Traditional Islamism = Divine Macdonaldism
You are funny. But T I has told you
A) we obey the rulers today as our rulers as there is no caliph over all!
B) khurooj of the Hizb and Jihadists is haram therefore! But not the point!!
Obedience to the current rulers is haram as they are on kufr according to the hizb and jihadists!!
Sort out your household!
Really showing your Islamic credentials with your slander, but keep it up! Great advert for your own Islamic ethics!
Bangali,
You should be careful. Be aware that HT’s position is in contradiction with almost all scholars of Islam past and present who take their lead from the from ahadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws):
Umm Salamah (ra) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “there shall be leaders appointed over you whom you shall find to be performing good as well as evil. The one who knows their evil (but does not follow it) is absolved of blame, the one who rejects their evil is safe. But the one who is pleased with and follows it is is ruined”. The people said, ‘should we not fight them?’ He said, “no, as long as they establish the prayer amongst you”. (Muslim 4569, 4570; also Nawawi’s Riyadh us-Saliheen)
Almost all scholars take the position that, in Gibril Haddad’s words: “The above hadith is explained as forbidding any fighting as long as the
ruler does not prevent Salat as mentioned in another hadith, or “as long
as the ruler does not change something in the foundations of Islam”"
And also:
Narrated Ibn Abbas (ra) : The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “The one who finds something in his leader that he dislikes should be patient, for indeed the one who splits off from the group of Muslims a hands-span shall die a death of pre-Islamic ignorance (jahiliyyah)”
(Sahih Muslim 4560 and also Sahih Bukhari, vol 9 Number 176 – the chapter ‘Afflictions at the end of the world’)
Beware, beware.
I’ve just finished reading the T.I reply to this article and I was suprised to see that T.I basically comes to the same conclusion as Rashad does! see;
“Of course in the absence of the Caliph we do follow our rulers as per the hadith that are so many on this in matters that are good and disobey them in matters that are haraam”.
That’s exactly the point Rashad was making in his article. I don’t know what’s wrong with these guys, are they just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Abu yusuf – may Allah reward you!
abdul rehman and Friends,
The rest of this article bt Gibril Fouad Haddad is here:
http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/ez/in/it1/On_Hizb_ut-Tahrir.txt
How long will you persist in remaining the laughing stock of the Muslim Community?
“The one who finds something in his leader that he dislikes should be patient, for indeed the one who splits off from the group of Muslims a hands-span shall die a death of pre-Islamic ignorance (jahiliyyah)”
Based on all the quoted evidence, this refers to leaders who rule by Islam, but either implement an adopted principle which goes against ones own opinion e.g. The caliph, in accordance to Islamic sources may adopt that women should not cover their faces when in public. But one might believe that to be incorrect based on their own thinking. In this matter, they should obey the Caliph.
If the Caliph says that Usury is permitted, the Caliph will be violating an Islamic hukm. At this point he should be disobeyed and accounted. Some scholars said even fought. The Caliph may openly consume alcohol out of personal taste. Again he should be accounted for this individual sin as he is responsible for upholding Islamic values and if he can’t do that himself, he is not fit for ruling by Islamic values. Again, some scholars say he should be faught.
Time and time again this is the point all you people miss. These injunctions are in the context of an Islamic state where the sources of law are all from Islamic sources and the leader is a Caliph or Amir within an Islamic context.
This structure, according to all historians, was eventually delibirately attacked ideologically and militarily over many years, leading to its absolute demise in 1924. The Lands of Islam were then carved up and colonialised, with the installation of puppets whose legacy lives on today. Apart from present day Iran, none of these rulers assumed power through legitimate Islamic means. Khomeini used an ijtihad to bring about change on the basis of wilayatul faqih but his legacy was completely destroyed leading to present day secular rule.
Thus, today we have secular states, with rulers who subscribe to secular law. They claim to implement aspects of Islamic law in the social sphere. E.g. In cases of divorce and inheritence some of todays Muslim rulers allow reference to Shariah to solve these disputes. No Muslim is going to disobey this law as it conforms to Islam.
But the very same rulers (The list is vast but I will quote just a few):
Adopt the Nation State model – in this they will be disobeyed
Adopt a structure of government which is not in conformance to any legitimate Islamic model – in this they will be disobeyed
Adopt Usury – in this they will be disobeyed
Adopt principles from Un-Islamic Sources – in this they will be disobeyed
Allie with beligerent forces to kill their own people – in this they will be disobeyed
Create policies to line their own pockets – in this they will be disobeyed
Create policies which oppress and spread tyrranny – in this they will be disobeyed.
They refuse to unite under one Caliph who will rule in accordance to Islamic Sources – in this they will be disobeyed and in accordance to the method of Muhammad (SAW), removed and replaced with one Caliph who will rule in accordance to the injunctions of Allah (SWT), Lord of all that exists.
Furthermore, to stress the importance of judging by what Allah (SWT) has revealed at a ruling level, Allah (SWT) mentions in the Quran Al-Maida:
“And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”
On this verse, Ibn Kathir mentions that `Ali bin Abi Talhah stated that Ibn `Abbas commented on Allah’s statement,
“And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”
“Whoever rejects what Allah has revealed, will have committed Kufr, and whoever accepts what Allah has revealed, but did not rule by it, is a Zalim (unjust) and a Fasiq (rebellious) and a sinner.”
The rulers today are Zalim and Fasiq as some of they claim to accept what Allah (SWT) has revealed but do not rule by it.
Furthermore , on this ayat, Ibn Kathir mentions:
`Abdur-Razzaq said, “Ma`mar narrated to us that Tawus said that Ibn `Abbas was asked about Allah’s statement, (And whosoever does not judge…) He said, `It is an act of Kufr.’ Ibn Tawus added, `It is not like those who disbelieve in Allah, His angels, His Books and His Messengers.’ Ath-Thawri narrated that Ibn Jurayj said that `Ata’ said, `There is Kufr and Kufr less than Kufr, Zulm and Zulm less than Zulm, Fisq and Fisq less than Fisq.”’ Waki` said that Sa`id Al-Makki said that Tawus said that,
(And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers,) “This is not the Kufr that annuls one’s religion.”
This is why Takfir is not pronounced on the rulers even if they rule by kufr.
But clearly, if they rule by kufr they must be disobeyed, accounted and in todays reality where there is no Imam, as clearly implied by Imam Juwayni, work must be done to bring about an Imam. These rulers will have to renounce their ways to let “One Caliph to rule them all”, heeding the clearly the implied advice by Imam Juwayni (RA), otherwise as we can see today, there will be calamity after calamity on this ummah.
To further understand the reality of existing Muslim authority, one has to appreciate that colonialism had a major role and influence in shaping the institutional foundations and parameters of the politics of these postcolonial states. Having ruthlessly replaced centuries old institutions, traditions and structures in the Muslim world, the colonising powers disrupted a historic continuum creating fault lines and tensions that reverberate today. Independence ended the sovereignty of European powers over their territories; however it did not produce states afresh. Despite the rhetoric of planting of new seeds, the new states were nothing more than new branches based on a trunk that was planted during the colonial days. Colonial institutions, policies and attitudes towards governance determined the direction of the post-colonial nation states, developing in the European intellectual, legal and cultural legacy. The machinery of the colonial state was inherited and to varying degrees the model of the colonial state was followed with ideological continuities visible despite the rhetoric of the new leaders.
The preponderance of colonial power ensured all discourse be both hegemonic over and repressive of the Islamic world. It was not a dialogue between equals nor a conversation, but an attempt to reconstitute Islam and Muslims both at the level of consciousness and at the social level. The impact of this historical experience is not difficult to discern and has been highlighted by numerous researchers.
Nation States
The colonization of Muslim lands started with India, the scramble for Africa and the division of Ottoman lands following the First World War. The era ended after the Second World War when Britain and France withdrew from most of their territories. Islam received harsh criticism from the colonialists and their scholars instilling a sense of inferiority in the local elites and rising bureaucrats including even those who opposed colonialism.
For Muslims with a world outlook, territorial limitations had been irrelevant. Colonial territories however did little to unify their peoples to create national societies or cultures. Their focus was in defending their territories against other colonial powers or reducing the burden of ruling. The former led to promotion of the sanctity of boundaries leading to permanent borders. The latter prevented the creation of lasting identities seen in the diverseness and tensions in states including Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia and Nigeria. These sovereign states diverted the mode of loyalty of the subjects from universal to teritorial values. Moreover the new secular law contributing to the assertion of territorial sovereignty, replacing the ecumenical character of Islamic sovereignty – as well as a reformulation of the Islamic political paradigms, including those being discussed in this paper.
The deliberate manipulation of diversities to strengthen their rule created increasingly fractured societies, meaning tensions and wars were inevitable. Civil wars in Sudan, Iraq, Malaysia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania and Chad are but a few. Territorial disputes involved Morocco, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon Palestine, Malaysia and Singapore.
Education
The colonizers encouraged and invested in education and educational institutions for those who would run the machinery of state. Over time they influenced generations of Muslim leaders and intellectual developments in the Muslim lands. Famous institutions included University of Punjab, University of Malaya, and Atchison College in Lahore (Christian missionary movements also participated creating Catholic and Protestant colleges in the Levant including the American University in Beirut, St Joseph’s College in Lebanon. Roberts College in Turkey and Forman Christian College in Lahore). The elite sent their sons to schools in Eton, Harrow, Oxford and Cambridge in England or in Paris and Amsterdam. Iqbal studied at Cambridge and Heidelberg Universities as well as Lincoln’s Inn where Jinnah received his law degree. Many of the North African liberation movement leaders were students in North African French schools and Paris Universities. Amongst the militaries officers would be trained at places such as Sandhurst and Saint Cyr or officer schools modelled on their European counter parts such as Quetta Staff College in Pakistan.
The pervasive impact of education introduced the Muslim world to western literature and philosophy. Figures such as J S Mill and Rousseau and over time, Sartre and Camus, became models for dissenting intellectuals just as Lenin, Castro, Mao and Che Guevara captured the imagination of activists (Marxist Fidaiyan-i Khalf of Iran, Parcham and Khalf parties in Afghanistan, Communist activists in Yemen and Turkey and guerrilla factions in Malaysia
).
State Institutions
The colonialists generally focused on domination to ensure legitimacy and security. The colonial state was highly centralised utilising institutions with a European flavour; the police, judiciary, military and bureaucracy being key repositories of its authority. The institutions were not designed for society – for instance, the bureaucracy was designed not to maintain order but to ensure the smooth running of government and economy.
This structure allowed a European minority to rule vast territories, managing the economic flow of resources and goods between the parent state and its territories. These institutions, embedded in subsequent states determined the basis of the state, its character and its relationship with society and other states. States such as Pakistan replicated the colonial state in set up and function as well as how they envisioned their own roles, with Jinnah the first governor-general and the India Act of 1935 being law of the land until 1956. In Turkey, the law was secularized based on the Napoleonic Code, the Muslim calendar abandoned, the script Latinized, polygamy prohibited and in 1928 the constitution was even amended to remove the statement that Turkey was an Islamic state.
Military and Police Forces
The military, intelligence and police forces were trained to provide support to their colonial masters. The training ensured soldiers, and more importantly the officer corp, internalized the military ideas and political values of the colonial administration, resulting in an over-preoccupation with order and impatience with politics of the masses (The British even had the Himalayan Gurkha soldiers continue to fight for them as recently as the Falkland War in 1982). Militaries were trained not for external war but for preservation of internal order, giving them a perceived right to interfere in politics to restore order. The size of the militaries was usually based on the interests of the colonisers and Muslim states inherited omnipotent militaries, too large for their population sizes and economic strengths. The colonial policy of recruiting amongst minorities was due to their closeness with the colonial order and willingness to help suppress the dominant community as well unresponsiveness to religious calls like Jihad. The legacy of the Great Mutiny of 1857 shaped thinking resulting in Alawis dominating the Syrian army and Punjabis in the Pakistani army.
The forces having fought with their colonial officers up to independence institutionalised attitudes of mistrust and cynicism of those who fought for independence. Indonesian generals remained wary of Sukarno, removing him with the pretext of Communism and the same may be said of those who lead coups in Bangladesh, Nigeria and Sudan. Even the left-leaning junior officers who overthrew their senior officers of the old school to join the anti-imperialist struggles did not resolve the tensions between military and civilian orders, leading to military takeovers in Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Syria.
The pervasive nature of the intelligence services (mukhabaraat) is still widely felt throughout the Arab world, stifling discussion, preventing political dissidence and quashing criticism. The experiences of those who have had the ill-fate of experiencing these institutions are widely known and reported. Unprecedented in Muslim history is the restructuring and organisation of “official” scholars, compromising their historical independence, “scholars for dollars” being a phrase often heard in relation to this new breed resulting in Muslims across the world still referring to texts dating back centuries.
Bureaucracy
Like the military, the bureaucracy was moulded in the ethos of colonial culture, sharing the same political outlook. Due to their power over the state machinery, politicians would have little control over them lest they disrupt the workings of state. As such, they had major input into state formation, ensuring continuities in the ethos and mode of operation of the state before and after independence. In Pakistan the bureaucracy eclipsed the political elite in managing the country, replacing Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan after 1951 by senior bureaucrats Ghulam Muhammad and Iskandar Mirza, both having risen through the bureaucracy under the British.
The quality of the bureaucracy was generally determined by the investment the colonial power made in its administration, the Indian Civil Service being exemplary, whilst those of the Arab Near East and Libya being underdeveloped. Many lost their independence and their pre-eminence declined resulting in the diminishment of their political role.
Judiciary
The British colonies generally had a system of justice modelled after Britain, with some degree of autonomy, its independence from the executive branch becoming embedded in the postcolonial state. As such, colonial subjects usually had respect for it. In Pakistan, the judiciary regularly defied the executive branch, its opposition to Ayub Khan’s banning of Jamaati Islam in 1964, ruling against Ghulam Khan’s dismissing of the government in 1993 and most recently the stand-off against Musharraf. The Malaysian judiciary has a similar history(However new legislation in 1998 curtailed much of its powers and autonomy
) as do most post-colonial British territories.
The judiciary had the interesting effect of instituting particular patterns of political activity in the body politic of the pre and post-colonial society, allowing courts to become avenues for political activism.
Governance – Politics of Identity
Colonial rule was often only possible through the manipulation of divisions in society, ethnic, linguistic and religious (The current American occupation of Iraq reflects this
). By accentuating social differences, they institutionalised them by treating communities differently in the eyes of the law, at polling booths, in how resources were allocated and in recognition of religious rights etc. This encouraged the politics of identity at the cost of development of uniform civil societies. In India, this resulted in the All-India Muslim League in 1906 that lobbied for separate electorates for Muslims and Hindus with similar reactions in Malaysia, Nigeria and Palestine.
Elections in colonial rule provided a critical political framework that shaped the conception of communities of their relation to power at the centre as well as their own identity and self-definition. The subsequent state leaders (usually from the colonial military or bureaucracy), would continue manipulating social divisions even as they spoke of national unity – Iraq being a case in question.
The importance of certain geographic locations to colonising powers (e.g., North West India to the British for supply of troops) or where the colonisers arrived late (e.g., the French agricultural relationships with Syria) meant that they developed patronage networks, which have left indelible marks in future state-society relationships. The state emerged as paternalistic and society came to see patronage as a function of state (this contributed to Malays remaining aloof from commercial activities expecting the state to guarantee economic and social standing).
Authority
Variations of how the colonial administrators ruled their vassal populations accounted for the different experiences in state formations post-colonialism. In Algeria and Libya colonial rule was direct while in Morocco, Tunisia, Malaysia, Java and India local elites were used. The Dutch in Java, utilised the local elites to resolve labour shortages, entrenching their socio-political positions, creating dependencies between the peasantry and elite (the Dutch permitting exploitation and impoverishment for their own ends). The British carefully controlled 250 princes in India to control a third of the Indian population – they controlled the rest of the population by manipulating landowners, local chiefs and grandees(Ferguson, Niall, “Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World”, Penguin Books Ltd, 2004).
Symbiotic relationships resulted, entrenching the positions of these local elites, who favoured compartmentalisation of policy in favour of a uniform national political arena. This allowed them to control segments of the polity and negotiate with the centre. In Pakistan this trend is still visible today with the landowning class controlling politics at all levels and resisting land reforms. The power of the monarchy in the Gulf States and Brunei and tribal chiefs in East Africa and Nigeria is reflective of these British policies. The Algerian experience with direct French rule to ensure integration into France and exploitation through commercial gain for their settlers resulted in centralised rule – local elites and leaders were seen with hostility, a reflection of the post-colonial Algerian landscape
(Cleveland, W, “A History of the Modern Middle East”, Westview Press, 2004,
Esposito, J, “The Oxford History of Islam”, Oxford University Press, 1999,
Hitti, P, “History of the Arabs”, Macmillan, 1970,
Hourrani, A, “History of the Arab Peoples”, Grand Central Publishing Ltd, 1992,
Khadduri, M, “The Islamic law of Nations – Shaybani’s Siyar”, The John Hopkins Press, 1966
Lewis, B, “A history of the Middle East”, Scribner, 1997,
Roberts, J, M, “The New Penguin History of the World”, Penguin Books, 2004).
End Products
Colonialism’s structural expressions continue to reproduce themselves in a fashion that perpetuates this power relationship. Elites in most Islamic countries are largely products of superimposed constitutive educational and political structures wherein lies the essence of the polarization and bifurcation between elites and masses in the Muslim world. Muslim intellectuals, imbued with the Western discourse of rationality, entered political life as natural allies to the local elites and the colonialists. The masses had no choice but to fall back on the values of their own society to protect themselves from the new class which sought to pattern life along Western lines.
Without social cohesion, the State is unable to deal with strains, penetrate society and regulate social relationships. In the absence of an overarching consciousness that unites and merges its subjects at all levels of the social scale in a commonly accepted meaning and criteria of validity, there can be neither strong societies nor strong states.
Hizb ut-Tahrir detail the reality of the colonial division of the Ottoman state, introduction of foreign creeds, the installation of agents and groomed elites, and the removal of Islam from political and societal life leaving at best remnants intact (usually to pacify the masses/ullema), with control over succession of power to those who would perpetuate their interests and hegemony. The institutionalization of secularism and the proactive marginalization of Islamic thoughts/institutions from political life have been resisted by societies in each and every Muslim country (Including but not limited to: Sayyid Ahmad Shahid (India 1786-1831), Mirza Hasan Shirazi (Iran 1815-94), Imam Shamil (Central Asia, 1796-1871), Amir Abd al-Qadir (Algeria, 1808-83), Mohammed ibn Abdille Hasan (Somaliland 1864-1920), Mahdi (Sudan, 1885), Uthman Dan Fodo (Nigeria, 1754-1817), Mohammed Iqbal (Pakistan, 1877-1938), Abul-Kalam Azad (India, 1888-1958), Mawlana Husain Madani (India, 1879-1957) and Mawdudi (Pakistan, 1903-79)). A review of scholarly writings that address the 20th century colonialist experience across the Muslim world and the response of the Muslim intellectuals speak for themselves and need no elaboration.
Against this complex, multi-dimensional, historically evolving reality, to say that the current rulers are “Muslim, therefore ok” is little more than a parochial one-dimensional view of the situation. The view that current regimes as being simply “Muslims” does not take into consideration the institutionalized colonial values, foreign ideologies, systems, agendas and outlooks, visible today across the organs of the modern states, their constitutions, policies, administration and organizations along with the resulting tensions. As such, conclusions resulting from this view are fundamentally flawed.
This is pure drivel. Who wrote this ignorant sixth form nonsense? It reads like its been written by a hack from the Socialist Worker.
In that case it’ll probably have been written by a HT’er. Maybe Imran Waheed? Half of these bourgeoisie radicals end up working for investment banks and then railing about how capitalism is un-Islamic!
Sorry A.R but you never answered my questions;
1) Why did T.I leave HT
2) What does T.I now believe the correct method to establish khilafah is?
You ignore questions asked and instead go on about other things. Answer the questions put to you and not imaginary ones, didn’t your primary school teach you that? how to answer questions?
Just stick to the 2 points for now.
P.S: Spare us the usual HT drivel, i’ve been reading that kind of waffle for the last 15 years (I used to teach that kind of stuff to people like you), it’s gets very boring after a while.
You’ve been reading this kind of stuff for 15 years? I’ve just read it now and it’s just silly “far-left meets Islamism” postmodernist twaddle with more holes in it than swiss cheese.
lol : )
Don’t expect sensible responses guys, I’m still waiting for responses to my points. This guy is just cutting and pasting from T.I. without using all 3 of his brain cells.
As expected. When clearly corrected in debate your come back becomes emotional and kid like. That is the story of the people who run this site. It is expected especially with Rashad the reference inventor at the helm. I can imagine, like him, you guys have never held down a serious job, using Islamic gymnastics to justify attending raves, drinking beer, going to pubs, hugging and kissing women and justifying homosexuality.
If you take your direction from the workers of shaytaan, you become like them, deaf dumb and blind not realizing it until it is too late
A.R
1) Why did T.I leave HT
2) What does T.I now believe the correct method to establish khilafah is?
Still waiting boy!
abdul rehman:
do you really expect to establish a worldwide khilafah by behaving like a six-year old in a playground?
“nyah nyah nyah. you kiss girls, drink beer and justify homosexuality.”
i mean, who can take you lot seriously as a challenge to civilisation?
b’shalom
bananabrain
Hugging and kissing women is great brother, you should try it, calms you down a bit too.
^ Hahahaha.
Maybe if he’d tried it, he wouldn’t be an Islamist!
Adul Rehman:
“”"”"That is the story of the people who run this site. It is expected especially with Rashad the reference inventor at the helm. I can imagine, like him, you guys have never held down a serious job, using Islamic gymnastics to justify attending raves, drinking beer, going to pubs, hugging and kissing women and justifying homosexuality. If you take your direction from the workers of shaytaan, you become like them, deaf dumb and blind not realizing it until it is too late”"”"
It has been a long time since I encountered anyone in more dire need of serious romantic love then you. Go on, meet someone, fall crazily in love, feel the fire and the thunder and then just maybe you will enjoy the life your God has given you rather then obsessing with this HT religious fascism.
Islamism = Serfdom
And I am pretty sure if there is a God then thats not what he/she/it wants for humanity.
Alhamdolillah I am happily Married.
Mashallah the support of the Ulama for HT’s call is growing day by day.
http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/press-centre/press-release/photos-1000s-of-ulama-call-for-khilafah-at-hts-international-ulama-conference-in-indonesia.html
London UK, 21st July 2009 – Earlier today, Hizb ut-Tahrir Indonesia convened an unprecedented gathering of thousands of ulama, and ustadhs from all over the Muslim world, pledging their support for the re-establishment of the Islamic Khilafah state. Ulama from Indonesia, Malaysia, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Palestine and Algeria were amongst those who attended the gathering of over 10,000 Muslims in Jakarta, Indonesia.
In the conference declaration signed by the ulama, it was stated that the only way to realize the pride of Islam and the Muslims, address their problems correctly and spread the blessing of Islam for the whole universe is through re-establishing the Khilafah.
They also pledged that, as inheritors of the Prophets, it is their duty to be at the forefront of the work for the Khilafah, guiding and directing the people so that the ideals of the struggle for Khilafah can be realized. The conference was also addressed by Sheikh Ata Abu Rashta, amir of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Alhamdolillah, the call for one caliph to unite them all grows ever stronger!
Assalaamualyakum Warahmatullahi Wabarakaatuh
Dear brothers and sisters,
Since my last posting, I have been reading the discussions back and forth with regards to Abdul Rehman and would like to say the following:
I take back everything I said about ‘no need to re-establish a Khilaafah’
I take back all negativities posed to brother Abdul Rehman.
I still assert the points I made on HuT’s creed and beliefs and unless it is proven otherwise through authentic sources from the party, those points will not be taken back.
I still continuously re-assert that extremism is not a part of Islam and Suicide Bombings (either killing yourself, killing innocents or together) is not associated with reward and jannah as some misguided individuals tend to believe.
I am appalled by the way some of you have chosen to ridicule brother Abdul Rehman and persecute him through this and similar threads. Not once do I recall brother Abdul Rehman swearing at you or imposing his beliefs. He has just been taking part in debate and discussion which is what these threads are for, but continuously, I see him being on the receiving end of on and off persecution, insultative remarks against his sexual tendencies and his private life, Insinuations about his character and behaviour.
This site is quickly becoming viewed as ‘borderline perverse’ and far from an Islamic Site upholding the views of the majority Muslim population. I seem to remember the brother/sister on http://intellectualmuslim.blogspot.com remark about Wuslims in the UK and around the world, working to bring a new flavor of Islam to the masses. I was very dismissive about his comments but now, having been exposed to the true colors of this site, the truth in his message seems to be as clear as daylight.
I sincerely pray that you re-examine your whole approach and writings towards your Muslim breathen. May Allaah give you all the admiration of his faith and may Allaah bless you with the fruits of your actions once you begin practicing and preaching accrording to Qur’an & sunnah. It is evident from the postings that this is not being done right now. I do not claim to know what is in yoyur hearts and minds, but you make the interpreting of what you are busy doing, all too easy for those of us that observe you from the distance.
Brother Abdul Rehman, please accept my apologies for offending you in any shape or form and forgive & pray for me.
Jazakallaahukhair
So calling people Munafiqs is ok then
Assalaamualyakum Warahmatullahi Wabarakaatuh
Abu Wanabe Arab
What has one lost when being accused to render a Munafiq, except a blow to his/her ego and pride?
It is shaytaan which causes enmity and hatred and takes both the accuser and the accused through this path of hostility and disunity.
I’m sure brother Abdul Rehman has realized his mistakes and i’m sure you too can realize yours. By taking the response to the next level and then the next and then the next will only excercise extreme harshness from one post to the next.
I believe that ‘Extreme’ is a word that either party is trying to avoid.
Let this be so.
Your right Rashida, we should all forgive and forget. Thanks for your sincere Naseeha.
the intellectual one is a little weird, (IM Blog)
1st this guy preached staying away from spittoon (that made him an islamist in my eyes)
now he’s preaching against suicide bombing
what does that make him and yet he claims to be no moderate Muslim?
Whats his game?
Hardly worth taking serious Humayrah, he has obviously got very little going on upstairs.
..
Rashad,
It is interesting how you (and the Quilliam Foundation) are trying to twist the classical scholars views about Islamic political leadership and justify the post-1924 regimes as legitimate when they bring ideologies contradicting Islam (from socialism, kingship, through to secularism and nationalism). All of these ideologies are kufr and not one classical scholar legitimises implementing kufr, whether it be one leader or one hundred leaders…
It is interesting that you have also failed to respond to the theological and ideological refutations others have provided to your previous posts:
http://www.abu-ibrahim.blogspot.com
http://www.islamic-considerations.blogspot.com
http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com
Javed,
It is not Rashad who is twisting and justifying but rather the Islamists.
Most of the ulema agree that the Ottoman State wasn’t a ‘Khilfah’. One such person was a Sunni Hnafi Scholar from the Indian Sub-continent ‘Imam Ahmad Riza Khan’:
“It was clear to all that the Uthmaniyya Sultanate (Ottoman Empire), of Turkey due to her misconduct, was no more than a stain on the name of Khilafat. Then, suddenly, it was widley rumoured (by the contriving Hindu’s), that the Sulatn of Turkey is the Khilafah of Islam and to end his rule and Khilafat is equal to assaulting Islam’.
(Imam Ahmad Riza Khan – A versatile personality, Pg 14, Published by Jamaa’at e Ahle Sunnat UK Publications)
Allamah Iqbal the great Muslim thinker and poet of the Sub-continent had this to say about the Ottoman state:
“Are you not aware of history,
For khilafat, you have started to beg,
That we do not buy with our blood,
A sovereignity as such, for Muslims is shameful to accept”
(Poetry of Iqbal -Collection, Taj company, Lahore, Pakistan)
Also see Iqbal’s “Reconstruction of Religous Thought’. He did not want anything to do with Ottoman Turks but wanted to create a state for muslims: Pakistan. Many other scholars also denied the Ottoman state was a ‘Khilafah’ i.e. Imam Pir Mehr Ali Shah.
So when you try to make out it’s just Rashad or Quilliam talking about ‘post 1924′ states then you are very wrong. This has been spoken about for the last 100 years by scholars and other great personalities.
Please get your facts right instead of propogating Islamist rubbish.
Out of all the scholars over a 600 year period, it is interesting you cite two controversial modernists (one of which gave bayat to the non-Muslim Mirza Gulam Ahmadi and the other who was loyal to the British) and abuse Muslims in a perjorative way…
Maybe you can look at the links I have mentioned and provide an intellecual non-emotional response to them as Rashad and the Quilliam lot have been unable to do so to date.
Raziq
I also challenge you to prove MOST ULLEMA did not accept the Ottoman state was a Khilafah – in my view this is a blatant lie but I give you benefit of the doubt and ask you to provide the list of scholars from Morocco to Indonesia from the 16th century to the 21st century with references.
If you cannot do this I would advise you to fear Allah.
Br javed is making a valid point – why is br rashad only quoting the classical scholars allowing more than one ruler and applying them to the current rulers who are applying non-islamic ideologies and systems? This is very dangerous as none of the classical scholars were envisioning the current division of muslims and the non-islamic systems. Most of them would term these rulers as kafir from my vague recollection of shawkani and ibn taymiyya…
Javed – I think you will find that Rashad did respond to those blogs about two years ago here:
http://maajidnawaz.blogspot.com/
The discussion here is about the permissibility of more than one ruler for the Ummah. Are you saying that the Classical scholars reached a complete ijma on this issue and no classical scholar has ever said that we can have more than two?
Are you saying comtemporary Ulema have also arrived at an Ijma on this issue and all agree that the Ummah can have only one political leader?
Which of the above individuals are you accusing of having given bayat to Ghulam Mirza?
Either way, this doesn’t nor should ever interpreted as an endorsement of current rulers in Muslim Majority countries.
Abu Wannabe Arab
Can you please cite the “majority of scholars” who do not recognise the Ottoman scholars or are you retracting that point? My observation from what I have generally read leads to the opposite conclusion, namely, most were okey with the Ottomans as Caliphs post-1519 and most scholars served in the administration etc without a problem.
From what I have read, Iqbal and his family members gave bayat to Mirza Gulam Ahmed – Iqbal’s fame results mainy due to his links to the Indian Muslim League (who promoted him heavily post-Pakistan) which in turn gained recognition from the British government who loved their tolerance of her majesty’s government in India. Hardly an accolade! Either way, the examples are poor and neutral scholars would have been made more appropriate examples.
I don’t think you have actually read the blogsite you cite – please take the points raised on the 3 blogs I listed and cut and paste for me Rashad Ali’s replies – you’ll be interested to find he avoids most points and does not respond to any points from the islamic-considerations site.
Some scholars do allow more than one ruler – however their view is weak and goes against evidence as the all the evidences on the subject point to one ruler as being legitimate – maybe you can cite what evidence they use to state why more than one ruler is allowed and how they explain ALL the opposing evidences (Rashad tries explaining only one, not all of them, even though he is aware of all the other evidences given he has studies and taught HT books including Nizam al-Hukm, being a strong proponent of unitary leadership at the time).
Rashad uses the views of a small number of scholars who allow more than one ruler to justify the current regimes who themselves do not care about or use Islamic evidences for their legitimacy. However neither those nor any other classical scholars permit rulers to rule with alien ideologies.
Javed – with all the due respect you deserve I find your response very confusing.
Firstly, it is not I who stated that scholars rejected the Ottoman empire as a caliphate so I don’t know why you are asking me to supply references.
Secondly, can you provide some evidence to back up your initial claim that Iqbal gave bayat to Ghulam Mirza, I know for a fact he didn’t.
Thirdly, Rashad has responded to the point on dar al Islam, you may not like or agree with his response but you can’t say he hasn’t responded. In such a situation the discussion should move onto the issue itself rather then denying his response.
Finally, so you agree there is not an Ijma on this issue. That is all I asked not which opinion you find stronger or how you have decided to interpret ahadith or ayats, assuming you are not a scholar yourself.
You are right Wanabde – it was Raziq who stated that:
Most of the ulema agree that the Ottoman State wasn’t a ‘Khilfah’. One such person was a Sunni Hnafi Scholar from the Indian Sub-continent ‘Imam Ahmad Riza Khan’:
Your comment regarding Rashad’s response is poor in my view – he has not responded whatsoever to islamic-considerations as that covers a number of issues over and does not focus on the dar al-islam issue. Traditionalislam has a number of articles which he has not addressed, and Abu Ibrahim’s condemnation of Majid Nawaz’s misquotation and miscitation of classical scholars regarding dar al-Islam has not been addressed either. He has simply cut and pasted a lot of stuff on the subject, most of it irrelevant to the ongoing discussion and stated he has responded.
I do not accept he has responded to the subject and invite you to respond to the legitimate points all three site raise if you are able.
Ijma is irrelevant on this issue as it is not a valid source of law. What is important is what the evidence leads to which is unitary government not plural.
The opinions of scholars and their ijma is not irrelevant brother. Especially for people like us who are not theologians. Such DIY Islam by people who have bought a few books from their local Islamic bookshop and attended a few circles is part of the problem we have today.
The fact is scholars have never agreed on this issue in the past and today even less scholars agree that is is obligatory for the entire Muslim world to have one leader. Therefore, HTs attempts to unite people under one ruler are doomed to failure because there is legitimate disagreement on this issue and always will be. In my it is irrelevant to HT what the sources say since they are only concerned with power and evidences are a secondary consideration, they are working backwards on this issue, hence they will pick and chose principles to follow.
As for the point, the Dar al Islam point has been comprehensively discussed, again you mya not agree or like the response but it has been covered, again no ijma there either. I don’t take anything Ti says seriously since it is a disgusting website, I would rather read Hello magazine or the Sun. The other site I have not read to be honest. Why don’t you summarise the key points on a new discussion here sometime and we can discuss?
Still waiting for your evidence that Iqbal was a Mirzai.
Javed,
Please give evidence that Iqbal gave Bayah to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. As far as I know this is a lie. Iqbal actually wrote against Mirza’s Ahmadiyyah movement.
Also can you tell me how the Ottomans became ‘Caliphs’? when and where did this event take place? how did the Ummah elect them?
I look forward to your reply.
I think the Iqbal being a Mirzai is the old classic HT tactic of finding a way of discrediting anyone who disagrees with their worldview, play the man and not the ball. Why not focus on the issue raised rather than inventing a slur against the individual, poor tactic.
javed
Are you serious? Its the third source of Islamic law after the Quran and Sunnah
Ibn Khaldun
Couldnt agree more. I mean could you imagine Spittoon posting a marriage ad put up by a Muslim whose views they dislike and inviting comments mocking him?.
I agree Shafa – we shouldn’t attack individuals but deal with ideas. Well said!!
Critical evaluation of individuals, their motiviations and associations along with their works is and has been part of academic critique in both the Western and Eastern worlds.
If one reads the argument above, Raziq claimed majority of scholars did not recognise the Ottomans as Caliphs and cited two controversial figures in support (he still has not provided the list of scholars and instead of retracting his allegation is changing trying to change the argument and asking me when the Ottomans were made Caliphs). In this situation critique of the “scholars” is reasonable – Iqbal had close associations with the British, was knighted by them, had a western “non-traditional” Islamic education so it is unusual and inappropriate to cite him as an example in this discussion – interestingly enough, some sources state he even supported the Khilafat movement of India. Raziq has yet to provide the list of majority of scholars or retract his allegation.
A number of individuals/groups have argued/counter-argued Iqbal’s association with Mirza Ahmed – some of those who argue of his associations with Mirza Ahmed cite the following amongst their evidences:
Dr. Basharat Ahmad writes in his biography of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, entitled Mujaddid-i A‘zam:
“In 1892 Hazrat Mirza visited Sialkot and stayed at the house of Hakim Hassam-ud-Din. He made a speech in Hakim Hassam-ud-Din’s mosque after the zuhr prayers. The famous poet Dr. Sir Muhammad Iqbal was a fellow student of mine in those days, and was sitting on the roof of the porch of the mosque. Seeing me, he said: Look how the devotees are swarming around the light. He was very much favourably disposed towards Hazrat Mirza in those days. So when a poet of Sialkot, who used to have the pen-name jalwa, composed satire to ridicule Hazrat Mirza, Dr. Iqbal wrote a rejoinder in poetical form too, greatly praising Hazrat Mirza.”
Around that time, a virulent opponent of Hazrat Mirza by the name of Sa‘d-ullah of Ludhiana wrote an abusive poem against Mirza. Dr. Iqbal could not tolerate this insult, and replied to it in a long poem entitled Jaisa Moon Taisee Chapayrh (or “A slap which your face deserves”). Some lines of this poem are:
“O Sa‘d, we have seen your filthy abuse. It will make street sweepers appreciate you. Don’t be perturbed by the heat of the sun of truth, for the devil himself will be your sun-shade. You have become the brother of the Christians, you renegade! What a great favour you have done to Islam!” (By Shaikh Muhammad Iqbal, F.A. class, Scotch Mission School, Sialkot. Ai’nah Haq Numa, p. 107.)
Dr. Iqbal’s 1897 formally took the bai‘at at the hand of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. This was confirmed by Maulvi Ghulam Muhiy-ud-Din Qasoori, ex-General Secretary of the Anjuman Himayat-i Islam, Lahore, at the time when the Munir Court of Enquiry was being held in Pakistan in 1953. His statement was reported in a newspaper as follows:
“After five years, in 1897, Sir Muhammad Iqbal took the pledge of Mirza sahib.” (Daily Nawa-i Waqt, Lahore, 15 November 1953.)
“It will appear at once how strikingly the author has anticipated the chief phase of the Hegelian Dialectic and how greatly he has emphasised the doctrine of the Logos — a doctrine which has always found favour with almost all the profound thinkers of Islam, and in recent times has been readvocated by M. Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, probably the profoundest theologian among modern Indian Muslims.”
(Indian Antiquary, vol. 29, September 1900, p. 239. The words quoted above are Iqbal’s original words in English.)
“During the conversation that ensued with the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Mian Sir Fazl-i Husain asked him if he looked upon those who did not believe in him as kafirs, and the Mirza sahib without a moment’s hesitation replied that he did not. This fact which Sir Muhammad Iqbal himself related to me last year [1934] is a clear evidence that the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement is not responsible for the present Qadiani doctrine.”
(Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s Statement re. the Qadianis, p. 7.)
“In order to be a dynamic member of the Muslim community, a person must not only repose unconditional faith in the religion of Islam but also imbue himself thoroughly in the colouring of the Islamic civilisation. The object of diving into this jar of the ‘colouring of Allah’ is that Muslims should give up duality and become of one hue. … In my opinion the aspect of national life represented by Aurangzeb is a model of pure Islamic life, and it should be the purpose of our education to develop this model and to make Muslims keep it in view all the time. … In the Punjab a true model of Islamic life has arisen in the form of that community which is known as the Qadiani sect.”
(Millat Baiza Per Ayk ‘Imrani Nazar, published by Aeenah Adab, Lahore, 1970 edition, pp. 84 – 85.)
Shafa – ijma is not a valid source of law, as it has no definitive proof – if you believe it is, please provide the proof.
If you all think one should not attack the “player” why aren’t you all lining up to complain about the article “We are all Neocons now!” which goes much further by making personal attacks!
I see double standards here…
Javed,
It seems you don’t know much about Qadiani history either. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had many admirers before he declared himself to be a Prophet. He declared Prophethood in 1901. Prior to that many Muslims saw him as a knowledgeable man. If Iqbal admired him before 1901 there is nothing wrong with that, many Muslims did during those days (prior to declaration of P rophethood) Read Iqbal’s book ‘Islam and Ahmadisam’.
The reason I ask you about the Ottomans becoming caliphs is not to change the topic but to show you that even they never considered themselves as caliphs. Ottoman state was a Sultanate and not a Khilafah.
Seriously, do some research first and then discuss.
Raziq
My original comment about Iqbal did not state he gave allegiance to Mirza as a Prophet – it simply stated he gave him bay’at. However, one that point, controversially there are even quotes going upto the 1930s which contradicts what you are saying. Iqbal was and remains a bad example of someone who opposed the Ottomans given the controversies surrounding him – I also do not accept he did oppose the Ottomans as his support for the Caliphate movement indicates but that’s a separate discussion which maybe can be discussed later.
If you read my post, my concern was you had incorrectly stated that the majority of scholars rejected the Ottomans as Caliphs. Who are these scholars or did you make a mistake in saying that? For the final time, please provide a list of said scholars or accept your mistake – I provided references to support my comment why are you finding it so difficult to provide references to support your allegation?
I don’t want to enter into further discussions (whether the Ottomans regarded themselves as Caliphs or not etc) as I would like to complete a point at a time, and I’m getting the impression (maybe incorrectly) that you are not here to discuss to learn, but to argue for the sake of it – I hope I am mistaken ia.
Finally, I have studied Ottoman history in some detail – I would suggest you begin with leading Ottomanist authors such as Faroqhi, Quaetaert, Islamoglu, Pamuk, Inalcik, Issawi… Suraiya’s works are particularly good.
Raziq
You may also find the following quote from your referenced text to be interesting:
“How are the Indian Muslims and for the matter of that all Muslims outside the Turkish Empire related to the Turkish Caliphate?” (Chapter The Essence of Ahmadism)
Javed,
Before we can assess who accepted the Ottomans and who didn’t, we need to see what they themseves claimed. That’s why I asked you ‘when did the Ottomans become Caliphs’ , but you ignored my question.
Regarding Scholars who didn’t accept the Ottomans: Imam al-Ghazali and al-Mawardi had expressed the view that only a descendent of the Quraysh could be Caliph. This opinion was followed by many scholars, including:
Imam Ahmad Raza Khan
Abdul Wahab Najdi
Imam Pir Mehr Ali Shah
Muhammad Abduh
Rashid Rida
Another reason why most scholars rejected the Ottomans was because the Ottomans were loyal allies of the British.
The idea that the Ottoman Sultan was Caliph over all Muslims was a relatively recent development. The Mughals & the Safavids never submitted to the overlordship of the Ottoman Sultan. It was actually during colonial rule in India that, with full British encouragement and support, the idea of accepting the Ottoman Sultan as the Universal Caliph was propagated amongst Indian Muslims. The British realised the value of having the Ottoman Sultan proclaimed the Caliph of all Muslims, this could be used to control Indian Muslims. The British welcomed and encouraged propaganda on behalf of the Ottoman Sultan as Caliph. In return the Ottomans would serve the British interests in India well.
One example is in 1798 the Ottoman Caliph sent a letter to Tipu Sultan, telling him that the British were his friends and asking him to refrain from hostile action against them. The letter was sent to Tipu not directly but through Lord Wellesly who was leading the British forces against Tipu Sultan! Another example is when the Ottoman Caliph came out in support of the British during ‘The Indian Mutiny’. The Ottoman Sultan Abdul Majid condemned the ‘mutineers’ and called upon Indian Muslims to remain loyal to the British. The British, he said, were ‘Defenders of Islam’.
The Ottomans eventually sided with the Germans during WW1, the Britsh then turned to the Arabs, who had always been hostile to Ottoman rule, and got them to fight against them. Important point here is that most Arabs were against Ottoman rule, as soon as they got the chance they liberated themselves.
Look at the whole picture.
I agree. The Ottomans never claimed Caliphate from 16th to 20th century. When they eventually did (with British backing) most scholars rejected them!
as salaamu `alaykum
The acceptance and justification of contemporary ‘leaders’ in your attempts to expose the deviant views of the likes of HT/alqaeda exposes yourself as equally, if not more, misguided and deviant than those you try to expose.
Kaffara
Oh… And the point of the preceding statement, is that, through your false/duplicitous analysis you will drive more young people to support these deviants that you oppose because your analysis is so blatantly biased and incomplete.
Kaffara
Kaffara – what are talking about?
I think people on both sides, need to take a breather and take stock of what the other is saying. It is not religion v secularism. But it is when both retreat from democracy and humanity, and the ability to have open discourse. Ther eis such thing as secular extremism just as ther eis religious extremis. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and other s are a proof of that. Its when human kind transgresses beyond all limits.
I think people on both sides, need to take a breather and take stock of what the other is saying. It is not religion v secularism. But it is when both retreat from democracy and humanity, and the ability to have open discourse. There is such thing as secular extremism just as there is religious extremism. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and others are a proof of that. Its when human kind transgresses beyond all limits. In todays world we hear Islam under scrutiny becuase the muslim world is tring to find a place in the modern world, where 18th and 19th century colonialism caused them to lose aspects of their identity. Under occupation, anti colonial movements under the banner of political islam about in the 19th and 20th century, and wiht independence won, changes in the boundaries of nation state, the community is a bit lot, trying to re discover its roots. The post colonial wars and injustices int he world have not helped matters it has given Islamists a reason and justification to fight. I truly belive wherevee rthere is justice you will find a balanced people.