The government announced plans on 24th October that will make the teaching of Sex & Relationship Education (SRE) compulsory in schools from the age of 5… http://sreislamic.wordpress.com/
The Ifk of the Jewel of Medina, Part Two
Sherry Jones has, in the past few weeks, conducted a number of interviews to manage the backlash her book has stirred up. She has gone to great lengths to try and paint her book as innocuous, declaring her intentions were good.
Jones will have heard of the commonly used phrase ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions’, what matters is the end product not the intended aims.
One of the outcomes of this book is the restating of slander against Rasool Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam). For a very long time a motley crew of anti-Islam/pro Christianity proponents and self-proclaimed defenders of ‘Judeo-Christian civilization from the global jihad’ have made allegations against the relationship between the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) and his wives. In particular the attack has centred on what is perceived as being the Achilles heel of the Muslims, namely the Prophet’s (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) marriage to Aisha. Although Sherry Jones does not dwell into the subject, she does choose to use the term “child bride”.
In a recent interview, Jones was asked,
You keep repeating that ‘Aisha was a child bride, reinforcing that she was a child, which is contrary to the belief back then, which is that when a woman reached puberty, she was a woman and thus eligible for marriage.
Her response to this was,
When she married Mohammad she was a child. ..She was a child when she married him, she had not reached puberty she was 9 in my book. And if you count [...] engagement which was considered as binding as marriage so if you count that then by our western term she was married at age 6.
Jones positions herself as a ‘neutral bridge builder’. Remember, she claims she was driven to write this book after September 11, as a result of the distorted outlook of Islam. What she ends up doing, is to both display her ignorance and play on stereotypes.
It is important to defend the honour of the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) against the re-hashed claims that he married a ‘child bride’, I will seek to do this through a number of arguments:
The historical evolution of the age of consent points to the clear fact that throughout history, societies have chosen arbitrary ages for marriage. The fact that countries to this day differ on the age at which sexual interaction can occur, whether through marriage or outside of marriage, indicates that there is no universal consensus on what delineates maturity and thus capacity for marriage or sexual relations.
Secondly, the Messenger of Allah’s (SalAllahu alaihi wasallam) marriage to Aisha was an exception to his other marriages. I do not argue this because I am ashamed of the Prophet’s (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) marriage to Aisha, but merely to counteract the orientalist lie that Rasool Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) was driven by base desires in his decision to marry.
Before we begin, I feel it is important that Muslims argue well to respond to the spurious lies and propaganda and realise that the ones that spread them do so, not out of a want to discover the truth, but to try and create doubt into the minds of Muslims in order to weaken our resolve. It is important that we acknowledge the lies of the ones that harbour deep animosity towards Islam and Muslims. The response to these lies must not be defensive, revisionist and apologetic. We cannot be ashamed of the Messenger’s (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) actions because they have been placed in the dock and accused of being out of the step with the age in which we live.
Some Muslims have sought to question the authenticity of the narrations that state very clearly that the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married Aisha (radiAllahu anha) at the age of 6 and consummated the marriage at the age of 9.
Narrated by Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:
Narrated by Hisham’s father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported:
Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
There is no dispute over this matter. Some Muslims have tried to argue using a mixture of logic, hearsay and questionable assertions, despite the good intentions of these Muslims, there was never any controversy over this matter, except when the orientalists started to deluge the Muslims with questions designed to shake their certainty in Islam.
It is very clear that historically there has been a wide variation on the age at which consent through marriage is deemed meaningful.
In the Talmud, the primary book of law of the Jews, it is noted,
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: A girl of the age of three years may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old. What is the practical difference between them? – The school of R Jannai replied: The practical difference between them is the day preceding the first day of the fourth year.35 R. Johanan, however, replied: The practical difference between them is the rule that thirty days of a year are counted as the full year. An objection was raised: A girl of the age of three years and even one of the age of two years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old.
The age of consent is recognised in Jewish law as being 3 years and one day
The influential founder of Canon law, Gratian, in the twelfth century, accepted the traditional age of puberty for marriage (understood as being between 12 and 14) but he also said consent was “meaningful” if the children were older than seven.
Canonical (Christian Law) interpretation judges “meaningful” consent above the age of seven.
The seventeenth-century lawyer Henry Swinburne distinguished between the marriages of those under seven and those between seven and puberty. He wrote that those under seven who had said their vows had to ratify it afterwards by giving kisses and embraces, by lying together, by exchanging gifts or tokens, or by calling each other husband or wife.
Philip Stubbes, wrote that in sixteenth-century East Anglia, infants still in swaddling clothes were married. The most influential legal text of the seventeenth century in England, that of Sir Edward Coke, made it clear that the marriage of girls under twelve was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband’s estate was nine even though her husband be only four years old.
When historian Magnus Hirschfeld surveyed the age of consent of some fifty countries (mostly in Europe and the Americas) at the beginning of the twentieth century, the age of consent was twelve in fifteen countries, thirteen in seven, fourteen in five, fifteen in four, and sixteen in five. In the remaining countries it remained unclear. In England and the United States, feminist agitation in the late nineteenth century called attention to the young age of consent and called for changes in the law. By the 1920s the age of consent, a state issue in the United States, was raised in every state and ranged from fourteen to eighteen, with most states settling on sixteen or eighteen.
During the latter part of the last century and the early part of the present one, attitudes towards sexual activity began to change in America and so did attitudes toward the age of consent. California was one of the first states to raise the age of consent. It raised it from ten to fourteen in 1889 and then from fourteen to sixteen in 1897. Then, in 1913, California again raised it from sixteen to eighteen.
In the sixteenth century, canonist Egidio Bossi argued for this interpretation on the grounds that a child could hardly be considered as being in a position to give consent. However, he recommended that the age of consent be fixed at only six or seven years of age. ["Rape and Marriage in the Medieval Canon Law," in James A. Brundage, ed., Sex, Law and Marriage in the Middle Ages (Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate, 1993), 67.]
When Victoria came to the throne, the age of consent for girls was effectively 10.
Therefore a little over one hundred years ago in the United States and under two hundred years ago in England, the age at which marriage was legal was ten years old.
To this day, there exist a wide array of ages at which consent is deemed lawful, these variations reflect, the fact that the determination of the age of consent through marriage or otherwise will always be an arbitrary judgement when human beings define the demarcation between legal and illegal. This is why Paraguay defines 12 as the age of consent, whilst neighbouring Brazil opts for 14. In Europe the Vatican, at 12, has the lowest age of consent, whilst the rest of Italy specifies 14 years of age. The USA define the age of consent state by state, which is why there is a discrepancy between the lowest age, 14 in South Carolina, to the highest, 18 in North Dakota.
Again, this illustrates the wide variance between countries in our present age and is demonstrative of the stab in the dark legislating that effectively arbitrates on such sensitive of matters. On the whole, internal pressures, affected changes in age of consent laws – the prevalence of child prostitution, the changes in public opinion towards child abuse all contributed to legislation that effectively raised the age of consent. At different points in the history of nations, a number of groups lobbied for changes to occur, most prominently in England, feminists, social purity groups and reformers. Today, some feminists argue that the age of consent laws have gone too far, they have criminalised those they were meant to protect, and balance can only be restored by bringing the age down to 12.
What makes one view better than another, or more correct? There is no objective standard which validates any one opinion.
Some may accuse me of veering down a tangent in order to obfuscate, others may have lost the plot paragraphs ago, but what I am saying is, how can people look at the marriage of Rasool Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) and objectively argue that this was wrong.
If the marriages of RasoolAllah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) were depraved and exploitative, his pagan adversaries would have used his actions in their propaganda campaign. The fact they didn’t coupled with the reality of multiple reports that record the prophet’s marriages point to the realisation that criticism in this regard is a modern phenomenon.
William Montgomery Watt contextualises the Western antagonism to Islam in general and the Rasool Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) in particular,
From the standpoint of Muhammad’s time, then, the allegations of treachery and sensuality cannot be maintained. His contemporaries did not find him morally defective in any way. On the contrary, some of the acts criticized by the modern Westerner show that Muhammad’s standards were higher than those of his time. In his day and generation he was a social reformer, even a reformer in the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before…. he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men. That is not the work of a traitor or ‘an old lecher’. [Prophet and Statesman, William Montgomery Watt, p.234)
Sherry Jones shows her ignorance when she says,
I read that Mohammad's wives were beautiful. He's a man, a flesh and blood man so what's wrong with him having desires for his wife? That's perfectly holy and perfectly legal, there's nothing wrong with that. He explains every single time to 'Aisha the political importance of these marriages. I'd also like to add that this is all from 'Aisha's point of view. She was known to be a very jealous wife. She was jealous of his wives.
There is no quality in any of his (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) wives that is shared by them all so as to infer a single reason why our Rasool salAllahu alaihi wasallam married nine wives at any one time. It is reported that some of his wives possessed beauty, whilst others were not noted for this characteristic.
What we can say is the reality of his marriages, indicate they were marriages of a Prophet, not the marriages of a man marrying for sex and satisfaction of the base instinct. By returning to the historical reality we find that he married Khadija (radiAllahu anha) while he was twenty-three years of age, he was in the prime of his youth, whilst Khadija (radiAllahu anha) was a widow, 15 years his senior. Yet Khadija (radiAllahu anha) remained his sole wife for twenty-eight years.
He did not consider, whilst married to Khadija (radiAllahu anha), marrying more than one wife, despite living in a time when marrying more than one wife was widely practiced amongst the Arabs. Before he was sent with the Message, he spent seventeen years with Khadija (radiAllahu anha) sharing a quiet and tranquil life. And he lived with her approximately eleven years after the Prophethood (Bi'tha), in a life of da'wa and struggle against the kufr thoughts; in spite of this he did not consider marrying again. It was not known of him during his life with Khadija (radiAllahu anha) or before his marriage to her that a man tempted by the alluring charms of women in an age where the Tabarruj (display of beauty) of the Jahiliyya used to tempt the people. It is strange indeed to believe after passing the age of fifty a sudden change took place in him (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) which drove him to marry until he had taken ten wives. Within five years in the sixth decade of the Prophet's life he gathered more than seven wives, and in the remaining seven years of the sixth decade and beginning of the seventh the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) gathered nine wives. At such an age can these marriages be attributable to a sexual desire for women or to motives linked to satisfying the base instincts of man? Or were there other motives, which were required by the Prophetic mission? In order to understand this issue, let us examine the incidents surrounding the Prophet's marriages.
In the eleventh year of the Prophethood, i.e. the year Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) died, the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) considered getting married. He was fifty, so he proposed to 'A'isha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, his friend and the first one who believed in his Prophethood from the men. When she was just a child of six he contracted a marriage with her but did not consummate it for a period of three years until she was nine, which was after the Hijra. However, at the time in which he contracted the marriage with 'A'isha he married Sawda bint Zam'a. Sawda was a widow of al-Sukran b. 'Amr b. 'Abd Shams, who was one of the Muslims who had migrated to Abbysinia but died on his return to Makkah. Sawda had embraced Islam with her husband and she had emigrated with him. She had suffered the same difficulties and hardships he suffered and faced the same harm he had faced.
After the death of her husband he (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married her. It has not been reported that Sawda was beautiful, or that she possessed wealth or standing, that would make any of the worldly aspects influence the Prophet's marriage to her. Since the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) had married her after the death of her husband, the only thing we can deduce from this is that he married her to support her and raise her to the position of the mother of the believers. When he migrated he positioned the house of Sawda close to the masjid.
This was the first house the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) built for any of his wives.
The Messenger of Allah was very close to his companions Abu Bakr and Umar, they were his two wazeerain (assistants/ministers).
The Messenger of Allah salAllahui alaihi wasallam said,
"My two wazirs from the people of the earth are Abu Bakr and ‘Umar." (Tirmidhi)
The Messenger hoped to strengthen his relationship with them both, the most pronounced way of achieving this would be through marriage.
Therfore, in the first year of the Hijra, after the brotherhood between the Ansar and Muhajirin had been instituted, the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) consummated his marriage with 'A'isha (radiAllahu anha) and he housed her next to the house of Sawda (radiAllahu anha), close to the masjid. He allowed his first Wazir (assistant) and friend Abu Bakr as-siddiq (radiAllahu anhu) to visit him at his daughter's home.
In the second year of the Hijra, after the battle of Badr and before Uhud, he married Hafsa (radiAllahu anha) the daughter of 'Umar b. al-Khattab.(ra) Hafsa, before being married to the Prophet, was the wife of Hanish who was one of the early converts to Islam. He died leaving her for seven months before the Messenger married her. By marrying Hafsa he (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) enabled his second Wazir, his companion 'Umar b. al-Khattab (radiAllahu anhu) to visit him at Hafsa's home. So the marriages to A'isha (radiAllahu anha) and Hafsa were marriages to the daughters of his two Wazirs (assistants), the daughters of two companions who persevered with him in Da'wah, fought alongside him, assisted him the task of ruling in Madinah. So such marriages were not only for the purpose of marriage. Although 'A'isha (radiAllahu anha) was beautiful and the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) found her attractive this was not the case with Hafsa (ra), which indicates that his marriage to both of them was for a purpose other than sexual gratification.
During the battle of Banu Mustaliq, in the fifth year of the Hijra, he (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married Juwayriyya bint al-Harith ibn Abi Dirar. The reason behind his marriage to her was for the purpose of drawing her father closer to the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) and raising her position. Juwayriyya was from the captives of Banu Mustaliq, and had fallen in the hands of one of the Ansar. She was the daughter of the leader of Banu Mustaliq, so she wanted to free herself from her master to whom she had become a slave-girl. Her master increased the ransom money knowing that she was the daughter of the leader of Banu Mustaliq. So her father approached the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) with the ransom required to free her, which he did. Then after believing in the Message of the Prophet he became a Muslim, and he took his daughter Juwayriyya to the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) and she too embraced Islam, so the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) asked her father for her hand in marriage. He married her to the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) himself so the Prophet's marriage to her was in fact a marriage to the daughter of a leader of a tribe, which he had subdued. His (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) objective was to win the friendship of its leader through marrying his daughter.
In the seventh year of the Hijra after the victory of Khaybar he (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married Safiyya daughter of Huyai ibn al-Akhtab who was one of the leaders of the Jews. The story of his marriage to her began when she was taken along with other captives which the Muslims seized from the fortress of Khaybar. Some of the Muslims advised the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam): "Safiyya is a noble lady of Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadhir. She is not suitable for anyone other than you", hence the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) freed and married her. This was therefore done for her protection and to free her from the bondage of slavery, and as well to raise her status. It has been narrated that Abu Ayyub Khalid al-Ansari feared that Safiyya harboured hatred against the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) who had killed her father, husband and people. For this reason he spent the night, girded with his sword, around the tent in which the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) consummated the marriage with Safiyya on the way back from Khaybar. When the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) woke up in the morning he noticed him outside the tent and asked him: "What is the matter?" He replied: "I feared for you from this woman. You have killed her father, husband and her people and she has just recently come out of kufr." So the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) set Abu Ayyub's mind at rest, and Safiyya remained loyal to the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) until Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) took his soul.
Later, in the eighth year of Hijra he (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married Maymuna the sister of Umm al-Fadhl, the wife of al-'Abbas b. 'Abd ul-Muttalib. He married her at the end of the pilgrimage [Umra al-qada]. The account of his marriage to her began when Maymuna was twenty-six years of age and that she had delegated her sister Umm al-Fadhl to find a suitor for her, but when she saw the predicament of the Muslims at the pilgrimage she herself yearned for Islam.
Therefore al-’Abbas proposed to his nephew, our Master Muhammad (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) on her behalf. He proposed to the Prophet at her behest and the Messenger agreed to marry her. The three days which the treaty of Hudaybiyah had stipulated had expired, but the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) wished to use his marriage to Maymuna as a means to increase the understanding between himself and the Quraish. When Suhayl b. ‘Amr and Huwayteb b. ‘Abd ul-’Uzza came to him representing Quraish they said to Muhammad (salAllahu alaihi wasallam): “Your time in Makkah has expired, so leave us.” He (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) said to them: “What is the matter with you? Why do you not leave me? I will hold a wedding feast amongst you. We will prepare food for you so why not attend it?” Their response to him was “we have no need of your food so depart from us”; the Messenger _ did not hesitate; he left along with the Muslims behind him. As for his (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) marriage to Zaynab bint Khuzayma and Umm Salama, they were marriages to the two wives of his companions who had been martyred on the battlefield. Zaynab was the wife of ‘Ubayda b. al-Harith b. al-Muttalib who was martyred on the day of Badr, she was not of marked beauty, but she was known for her good nature and kindness to the extent that she became known as the ‘mother of the needy.’ She had passed her youth, but the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married her in the second year of the Hijra, after the battle of Badr and after the martyrdom of her husband. She stayed with him for only two years until Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) took her soul. Which meant after Khadija, she was the only one who died before the Prophet.
As for Umm Salama, she was the wife of Abu Salama, who had a number of sons with her. Abu Salama was injured in Uhud then recovered from it, so the Prophet agreed to let him fight Banu Asad. He defeated them and returned to Madinah victorious with the booty that had been captured but the injury he sustained at Uhud worsened and he remained ill until his death shortly thereafter. The Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) was present while he was on his deathbed, and he remained by his side, praying for his well-being until he died. The Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) then closed Abu Salama’s eyes. Four months after his death, the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) proposed to Umm Salama herself, but she made excuses that she had a big family and that she had passed her youth. The Prophet however persisted until he married her and he himself saw to her children’s upbringing. So it is clear that the Messenger married those two wives to care for the family of two of his companions after their death.
As for his marriage to Umm Habiba bint Abu Sufyan, this was a marriage to a believing woman who had emigrated to Abbysinia fleeing with her deen intact. She had remained patient in the path of Islam after her husband had apostatised. That is because this Umm Habiba was Ramla the daughter of Abu Sufyan, the leader of Makkah and head of the Mushrikin. She was the wife of a cousin (son of a paternal aunt) of the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam), ‘Ubayd Allah b. Jahsh al-Asadi. ‘Ubayd Allah embraced Islam with his wife Ramla whilst her father was still upon kufr. She was afraid of hurting her father so she migrated, encumbered by her pregnancy, with her husband to Abbysinia. There in the place of refuge, Ramla gave birth to her daughter Habiba bint ‘Ubayd. Thereafter, she was known as Umm Habiba although her husband ‘Ubayd Allah b. Jahsh did not take long before he left the fold of Islam and professed his belief in Christianity, the religion of the Abbysinians and tried to take his wife Ramla away from Islam, but she patiently persevered in her deen. Then the messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) sent for al-Nejashi (the Negus) delegating him to perform the marriage of Umm Habiba to the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam). Al-Nejashi informed Umm Habiba of this, so she delegated Khalid b. Sa’id b. al-’As to give her in marriage, and her marriage contract with the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) took place. Khalid undertook the marriage contract on her behalf and al-Nejashi for the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam). When the Muhajirin of Abbysinia returned to Madinah after the battle of Khaybar, Umm Habiba returned with them and entered the house of the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam). Madinah celebrated the wedding of the Messenger to Umm Habiba and she lived in his house.
As for his (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh this challenged the legal/tribal norms in two ways.
Firstly, by challenging the concept of equivalence or matching in marriage. The tribal society in which the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) inhabited believed a man of a noble class or standing should marry a woman similar noble upbringing and could not marry a freed slave. Islam came to challenge this and sought to build taqwa as a key feature for difference between people.
Secondly, it established a distinction between adoption and paternity. At the time if a man adopted a son or daughter, they would take the name of the adopted father, they would inherit, to all intents and purposes they would replicate the biological relationship between birth parents and children. Islam destroyed this practice and established a new set of legal norms. A man could not adopt a son and usurp the biological ties of kinship. The adopted son could not inherit, the relationship between the adopted son’s wife and adopted father would not be the same as those enjoyed by a biological father and his daughter in-law. The Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married Zaynab, the wife of Zayd, his adopted son after Zayd divorced her.
The Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married his cousin (daughter
of his paternal aunt), who was from the leaders of the Quraish to Zayd, a former slave that had been freed and his adopted son. Zaynab bint Jahsh was a daughter of Umayma bint ‘Abd al-Muttalib, the paternal aunt of the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam). She was raised under his care and attention and because of this, she was to him like a daughter or a younger sister. He used to know her and knew whether she was attractive or not
before she had married Zayd, and he had seen her from the time she was an infant crawling, until her childhood and through to her adolescent years.
She was not a stranger to the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam), but rather she was similar in position to his daughter. He (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) proposed to her on behalf of his freed slave Zayd but her brother ‘Abd Allah b. Jahsh refused for his sister, being that she was from Quraish and a Hashimite in addition to being a daughter of the aunt of the Messenger of Allah, to be the bride of a slave bought by Khadija and later freed by Muhammad. He felt that this was a great shame for Zaynab as it used to be a great dishonour for the Arabs, as daughters of the nobility did not marry slaves even if they were given their freedom. But Muhammad (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) wanted these baseless considerations, which existed within people solely on the basis of tribalism to be erased and for them to comprehend that there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab except in Taqwa and to understand Allah’s saying:
“Verily, the most honourable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has more taqwa”.[Al- Hujurat: 13]
He did not consider it right that a woman from other than his family should set the precedent, in relation to the demolition of tribal traditions. So, Zaynab bint Jahsh, daughter of his aunt, became the one to depart from the traditions of the Arabs and to destroy their customs, paying no attention to what the people may say about her, which she was afraid to hear. He (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) let Zayd, his slave whom he had adopted and who gained the right, due to the customs and traditions of the Arabs, to inherit from him like the rest of his sons, to be the one who would marry Zaynab. This was so that he would be ready for the sacrifice that the All-Wise Legislator had prepared for those who were adopted and taken as sons. The Messenger _ insisted that Zaynab and her brother ‘Abdullah accept Zayd, his freed slave, as her husband. However Zaynab persisted in her refusal as did her brother ‘Abdullah. As a result Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam), it was revealed:
“It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error” [Al- Ahzab: 36]
Hence, nothing remained for ‘Abdullah and Zaynab other than to submit to Allah’s will, so they said: ‘We consent O Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam).’ Zayd consummated his marriage with Zaynab after the Prophet had sent her the dowry.
However, married life between Zayd and Zaynab was not good; on the contrary, from the start it was unsettled and embittered and continued to be unsettled and embittered. Zaynab, herself was not happy with this marriage after it had taken place even though it was a command from Allah and His Messenger. She did not obey her husband, and she did not soften in her approach towards him. Rather, she used to boast to Zayd that the bondage of slavery had not befallen her and she made life difficult for him. Zayd complained to the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) on numerous occasions and explained to him about her bad treatment of him. He sought permission from the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) a number of times to divorce her.
The Prophet used to reply: “Hold on to your wife”. Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) revealed to the Messenger that Zaynab will be one of his wives. This was distressing for the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) who feared that people will say that Muhammad has married his son’s wife and will censure him for that since he (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) had adopted Zayd as a son. Therefore, he did not want Zayd to divorce her, but Zayd urged the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) to allow him to divorce her. Despite the fact that the Prophet knew that she would be one of his wives as Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) had informed him by way of revelation, he still said to Zayd: “Keep your wife to yourself, and fear Allah”. As a result of this Allah mildly reproached him since Allah had already informed him Zaynab would be his wife.
This is the meaning of the verse,
“But you did hide in yourself that which Allah will make manifest, you did fear the people whereas Allah had a better right that you should fear Him.” [Al- Ahzab: 37]
Ibn Jarir narrated that `A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said, “If Muhammad were to have concealed anything that was revealed to him of the Book of Allah, he would have concealed this Ayah.
The matter that he concealed was the knowledge that Zaynab will be his wife even though she was the wife of someone he had adopted. This is what Allah would make manifest afterwards, which was his marriage to a divorcee of someone he had adopted as his son. So when Allah informed the Messenger that Zaynab, the wife of his freed slave whom he had adopted will be his wife he hid this knowledge and strictly insisted that Zayd hold on to his wife and not to divorce her, despite Zayd’s insistence, his complaints about her, and the discord in their marital life ever since they married.
However, Zayd insisted on divorcing her so the Messenger gave him permission, and he eventually divorced her without any knowledge that the Messenger would marry her and without Zaynab herself knowing that the Messenger would take her as his wife. This is illustrated by what Ahmad, Muslim and an-Nisa’i have reported via Sulayman b. al-Mughira on the authority of Thabit that Anas said: “When the ‘Iddah (divorce period) of Zaynab was over, Allah’s Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) asked Zayd to mention to this to her. So I (Zayd) went to her and said: “O Zaynab rejoice! Allah’s Messenger sent me to propose to you on his behalf.” She said: “I do not do anything until I see my Lord order me.” So she stood at her place of worship and Allah’s Messenger came to her without permission when the verses of the Qur’an (pertaining to her marriage) were revealed:
“So when Zayd had accomplished his desire from her (i.e. divorced her), We gave her to you in marriage, so that (in future) there may be no sin to the believers in respect of (the marriage of) the wives of their adopted sons.”[Al- Ahzab: 37]
Zayd did not know about the command for Rasool Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) to marry Zaynab until he was told and Zaynab was unaware of this also and responded “I do not do anything until I see my Lord order me.” i.e. she left the matter to Allah to guide her in this marriage. The ‘Illa (reason) of this marriage is so that there is no sin on the believer in marrying the wife of someone they had adopted.
This is the account of the Messenger’s marriages to his wives. It is clear from the account of the marriages that each one was for an objective other than the mere aim of marrying. The intent of the Prophet’s marriage to more than four wives and why this number is unique to him from the rest of his Ummah becomes clear. The fact that the objective was not the agitation of the procreation instinct of a man who had passed the age of fifty is quite evident, since he was a man who was busy with the Da’wa, engaged in conveying the Message of his Lord to the world so that he may revive a people and mould them into an Ummah whose only aim in life was to carry the Message of Allah to the world. His aim was to build the society anew after he had demolished the previous edifice, and establish a state pushing ahead the world before it, in order to carry the Call of Islam to the people.
The animosity of those that try and paint a distorted picture of our Master, Muhammad SalAllahu alaihi wasallam is clear. It is the same animosity that fanned the flames of the crusader venom. It is the same enmity that motivated the west to work tirelessly to infiltrate the lands of the Muslims under the guise of science and education through missionary schools. It is the same crusader hatred that shapes western policy towards Muslim lands, through NGOs, human rights organizations, financial institutions, aid agencies and their like.
The realization that our unification as an Islamic Ummah can challenge the existing order is as frightening to the west as was the revolution the Messenger and his companions brought to Makkan society, and then manifested in the first Islamic State in Medina.
We need as an ummah to stand up against the attacks and realize just as the challenges of the orientlists of old were driven by a want to protect the prevalent systems, so too are the attacks we witness today, they are rehashed and less sophisticated but just as driven by the desire to protect value systems that are crumbling. We must also realize that the only way we can defend the honour of the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) is by working to resurrect the Khilafah that will not hesitate to practically protect the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam), his family, his companions and all they strove, fought and died for.
On the Day when their tongues, their hands, and their legs will bear witness against them as to what they used to do.) On that Day Allah will pay them the recompense of their deeds in full, and they will know that Allah, He is the Manifest Truth.) [Al- Noor: 24-25]
Yusuf Patel
Sherry Jones promised a work of “extensively researched historical fiction”. Whilst capturing the “fictional” dimension perfectly, the end result wreaks of an orientalist mindset, viewing Islamic culture and values through the prism of narrow western eyes. Her treatment of the Mother of the Believers, Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) has far more in common with a Jane Austen novel than a serious historical account. The style of her novel, choice of protagonist, as well as her subsequent statements, all suffer from a mistaken belief that the ‘’real’ Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) needs to emancipated from the shackles of a male dominated recording of history.
The Muslim response has differed greatly. Some disagreed with the content of the novel but argued, in a manner Voltaire would be proud of, to allow for the freedom to offend. Others countered, freedom of expression is a ‘fanciful idea’, that it is applied selectively rather than adhered to as the ‘sacred cow’ we are often led to believe. There is confusion regarding how Muslims should respond to this insult on Rasool Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam), his family and companions. How do Muslims walk the middle path between the expectation that the controversy will blow over if we remain silent and the want in some quarters to respond to this provocation by violent action that will undoubtedly be used as a further example that Muslims have no response besides a violent one. Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain has provided a more than adequate response to this concern.
The choice of response I have opted for, reflects the mix of articles I have come across that have addressed the ‘substance’ of Jones’ novel as well as anecdotal evidence surrounding the wider subject amongst Muslims. There seems to be a shying away from what are perceived as sensitive and controversial areas of Islam that we Muslims may lack confidence in addressing. This is not necessarily a discussion that would or should figure in discussions with non-Muslims, but it plays an important part in maintaining confidence in Islam as it impacts upon such crucial creedal matters as nabuwwah (prophethood) and wahi (divine revelation) amongst other things.
I have therefore chosen to address the following areas:
Jones through ‘The Jewel of Medina’ steers a dangerous course. On the one hand the book claims to be ‘extensively researched and elegantly crafted’[i], but on the other hand the copyright section of the book points out,
The Jewel of Medina is a work of fiction. All characters, with the exception of well-known historical figures herein, and all dialogue, are products of the author’s imagination.
Despite these claims, it is necessary to separate the fictional accounts in Jones’ novel from the first hand accounts of the key incidents which seem to act as a backdrop to the story Jones wants to tell.
The author focuses on an imagined belief that Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) was struggling for her own freedom, whilst others decided her fate, in particular marriage.
In response, Jones explains,
“there’s a certain amount of projection that goes on when you’re writing fiction.” She argues, despite this, “Given Aisha’s strength of character I think it’s conceivable that she could have felt this way.”
Justifying making things up by claiming ‘she could have felt this way’ sweeps aside the narrations of Aisha (radiAllahu anha) herself, in favour of supposition.
Hadith al-Ifk
In the prologue to the book, Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) rides into Medina clutching Safwan al Mu’attal’s waist.[iii] The book is premised on the false claim that Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) and Safwan (RadiAllahu anhu) were childhood sweethearts, destined to marry.
Denise Spellberg, an associate professor of history and Middle Eastern studies at the University of Texas at Austin said about the insinuation of a relationship between Aisha (radiAllahu anha) and Safwan(RadiAllahu anhu),
Scenes throughout the book involve Safwan flirting with Aisha, hugging her, and kissing her. “The stuff of tawdry, lurid romance novels, not Islamic history,”
In the prologue, Jones, writing in the voice of Aisha (radiAllahu anha) says,
How close I’d come to betraying him with that trickster! Safwan had lured me with freedom, then tied my destiny to his desires. No different than any other man.
Jones suffers from a desire to re-write history in order to make the story more juicy. In response to the criticism of her plot claim that Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) was planning to run off with Safwan (RadiAllahu anhu), she responds,
So I used her relationship with Safwan as a metaphor. I gave her a situation where she was tempted and she overcame it. And as we all do when are able to overcome temptation, she became a wiser and more mature and more spiritually aware person.”
It would have been far better had she made up the story and not defamed individuals Muslims love more than their own parents, wives and children. But then again, that book would not have caused the controversy and the resulting book sales.
Ummul Mu’mineen, Aisha (radiAllahu anha) describes the backdrop surrounding the slanderous false accusations levelled against her by the hypocrites.
Aisha (radiAllahu anha) says,
Whenever Allah’s Messenger intended to go on a journey, he used to draw lots among his wives and would take with him the one on whom the lot had fallen. Once he drew lots when he wanted to carry out a Ghazwa (expedition), and the lot came upon me. So I proceeded with Allah’s Messenger after Allah’s order of veiling (the women) had been revealed and thus I was carried in my howdah (on a camel) and dismounted while still in it. We carried on our journey, and when Allah’s Messenger had finished his Ghazwa and returned and we approached Medina, Allah’s Apostle ordered to proceed at night. When the army was ordered to resume the homeward journey, I got up and walked on till I left the army (camp) behind. When I had answered the call of nature, I went towards my howdah, but behold ! A necklace of mine made of Jaz Azfar (a kind of black bead) was broken and I looked for it and my search for it detained me. The group of people who used to carry me, came and carried my howdah on to the back of my camel on which I was riding, considering that I was therein. At that time women were light in weight and were not fleshy for they used to eat little (food), so those people did not feel the lightness of the howdah while raising it up, and I was still a young lady. They drove away the camel and proceeded. Then I found my necklace after the army had gone. I came to their camp but found nobody therein so I went to the place where I used to stay, thinking that they would miss me and come back in my search. While I was sitting at my place, I felt sleepy and slept.
In Jones’ made up version of events, Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) used the loss of her necklace to remain behind purposefully so she could execute her plan of running away with Safwan (RadiAllahu anhu). Jones utilises this interaction to feed further plot twists into her story, by claiming Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) and Safwan (RadiAllahu anhu) grew up together and were destined to be married, she veers into a true Hollywood style tale of temptation and subsequent redemption.
Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) continues to explain what happened free of Hollywood gloss,
Safwan bin Al-Mu’attil As-Sulami Adh-Dhakw-ani was behind the army. He had started in the last part of the night and reached my stationing place in the morning and saw the figure of a sleeping person. He came to me and recognized me on seeing me for he used to see me before veiling. I got up because of his saying: “Inna Lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajiun,” which he uttered on recognizing me. I covered my face with my garment, and by Allah, he did not say to me a single word except, “Inna Lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajiun,” till he made his she-camel kneel down whereupon he trod on its forelegs and I mounted it. Then Safwan set out, leading the she-camel that was carrying me, till we met the army while they were resting during the hot midday.
In subsequent interviews, Jones is adamant Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) may have fallen prey to temptation, but that’s ok, because she fought it and it made her stronger,
And so, ok, we don’t really know what happened in the desert with Safwan. People had accused her of adultery. She claims she didn’t commit adultery. God revealed to Muhammad that there was no adultery. But we don’t know if she was tempted. I thought this could be a good way to demonstrate that perhaps this is one way that Aisha became a woman. This is her coming of age tale. By being tempted and resisting, we all become stronger individuals.
It is inconceivable that Jones believes in the minutest possibility that her version of events has a semblance of truth to it, she had a very clear objective when drafting and re-writing her book and what really happened figured low in her priorities over the story she wanted to tell.
Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) continues,
Then whoever was meant for destruction, fell in destruction, and the leader of the Ifk (forged statement) was ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul. After this we arrived at Medina and I became ill for one month while the people were spreading the forged statements of the people of the Ifk, and I was not aware of anything thereof. But what aroused my doubt while I was sick, was that I was no longer receiving from Allah’s Messenger the same kindness as I used to receive when I fell sick. Allah’s Messenger would enter upon me, say a greeting and add, “How is that (lady)?” and then depart.
That aroused my suspicion but I was not aware of the propagated evil till I recovered from my ailment. I went out with Um Mistah to answer the call of nature towards Al-Manasi, the place where we used to relieve ourselves, and used not to go out for this purpose except from night to night, and that was before we had lavatories close to our houses. And this habit of ours was similar to the habit of the old ‘Arabs (in the deserts or in the tents) concerning the evacuation of the bowels, for we considered it troublesome and harmful to take lavatories in the houses. So I went out with Um Mistah who was the daughter of Abi Ruhm bin Abd Manaf, and her mother was daughter of Sakhr bin Amir who was the aunt of Abi Bakr As-Siddiq, and her son was Mistah bin Uthatha. When we had finished our affair, Um Mistah and I came back towards my house. Um Mistah stumbled over her robe whereupon she said, “Let Mistah be ruined ! ” I said to her, “What a bad word you have said! Do you abuse a man who has taken part in the Battle of Badr?’ She said, “O you there! Didn’t you hear what he has said?” I said, “And what did he say?” She then told me the statement of the people of the Ifk (forged statement) which added to my ailment. When I returned home, Allah’s Messenger came to me, and after greeting, he said, “How is that (lady)?” I said, “Will you allow me to go to my parents?” At that time I intended to be sure of the news through them. Allah’s Messenger allowed me and I went to my parents and asked my mother, “O my mother! What are the people talking about?” My mother said, “O my daughter! Take it easy, for by Allah, there is no charming lady who is loved by her husband who has other wives as well, but that those wives would find fault with her.” I said, “Subhan Allah! Did the people really talk about that?”
The hypocrites conveyed a lie about the mother of the believers, in order to create mischief, some Muslims chose to relate the slanderous accusations as though they had a semblance of truth. Then ironically, 1400 years later, Sherry Jones insinuates to the reader, there may be some truth to the claim that Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) was tempted. And this is her treatment of someone in Islamic history she admires! She is no better than Abdullah ibn Ubay ibn Salul, the chief of the hypocrites and the originator of the slander.
Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) relates her reaction to the false claims,
That night I kept on weeping the whole night till the morning. My tears never stopped, nor did I sleep, and morning broke while I was still weeping, Allah’s Messenger called ‘Ali bin Abi Talib and Usama bin Zaid when the Divine Inspiration delayed, in order to consult them as to the idea of divorcing his wife. Usama bin Zaid told Allah’s Apostle of what he knew about the innocence of his wife and of his affection he kept for her. He said, “O Allah’s Messenger! She is your wife, and we do not know anything about her except good.” But ‘Ali bin Abi Talib said, “O Allah’s Messenger! Allah does not impose restrictions on you; and there are plenty of women other than her. If you however, ask (her) slave girl, she will tell you the truth.” ‘Aisha added: So Allah’s Apostle called for Barira and said, “O Barira! Did you ever see anything which might have aroused your suspicion? (as regards Aisha). Barira said, “By Allah Who has sent you with the truth, I have never seen anything regarding Aisha which I would blame her for except that she is a girl of immature age who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough of her family unprotected so that the domestic goats come and eat it.” So Allah’s Messenger got up (and addressed) the people and asked for somebody who would take revenge on ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul then.
On that day I kept on weeping so much that neither did my tears stop, nor could I sleep. In the morning my parents were with me, and I had wept for two nights and a day without sleeping and with incessant tears till they thought that my liver would burst with weeping. While they were with me and I was weeping, an Ansari woman asked permission to see me. I admitted her and she sat and started weeping with me. While I was in that state, Allah’s Messenger came to us, greeted, and sat down,. He had never sat with me since the day what was said, was said. He had stayed a month without receiving any Divine Inspiration concerning my case. Allah’s Messenger recited the Tashahhud after he had sat down, and then said, “Thereafter, O ‘Aisha! I have been informed such and-such a thing about you; and if you are innocent, Allah will reveal your innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then ask for Allah’s forgiveness and repent to Him, for when a slave confesses his sin and then repents to Allah, Allah accepts his repentance.” When Allah’s Apostle had finished his speech, my tears ceased completely so that I no longer felt even a drop thereof. Then I said to my father, “Reply to Allah’s Messenger on my behalf as to what he said.” He said, “By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah’s Messenger.” Then I said to my mother, “Reply to Allah’s Apostle.”
She said, “I do not know what to say to Allah’s Messenger.” Still a young girl as I was and though I had little knowledge of Quran, I said, “By Allah, I know that you heard this story (of the Ifk) so much so that it has been planted in your minds and you have believed it. So now, if I tell you that I am innocent, and Allah knows that I am innocent, you will not believe me; and if I confess something, and Allah knows that I am innocent of it, you will believe me. By Allah, I cannot find of you an example except that of Joseph’s father:
“So (for me) patience is most fitting against that which you assert and it is Allah (Alone) Whose help can be sought”.
Then I turned away and lay on my bed, and at that time I knew that I was innocent and that Allah would reveal my innocence. But by Allah, I never thought that Allah would sent down about my affair, Divine Inspiration that would be recited (forever), as I considered myself too unworthy to be talked of by Allah with something that was to be recited: but I hoped that Allah’s Messenger might have a vision in which Allah would prove my innocence.
By Allah, Allah’s Messenger had not left his seat and nobody had left the house when the Divine Inspiration came to Allah’s Messenger. So there overtook him the same hard condition, which used to overtake him (when he was Divinely Inspired) so that the drops of his sweat were running down, like pearls, though it was a (cold) winter day, and that was because of the heaviness of the statement which was revealed to him. When that state of Allah’s Messenger was over, and he was smiling when he was relieved, the first word he said was, “Aisha, Allah has declared your innocence.” My mother said to me, “Get up and go to him.” I said, “By Allah, I will not go to him and I will not thank anybody but Allah.” So Allah revealed:
“Verily! They who spread the Slander are a gang among you.” (24.11-20).
When Allah revealed this to confirm my innocence, Abu Bakr As-Siddiq who used to provide for Mistah bin Uthatha because of the latter’s kinship to him and his poverty, said, “By Allah, I will never provide for Mistah anything after what he has said about Aisha”. So Allah revealed:
“Let not those among you who are good and are wealthy swear not to give (help) to their kinsmen, those in need, and those who have left their homes for Allah’s Cause. Let them Pardon and forgive (i.e. do not punish them). Do you not love that should forgive you? Verily Allah is Oft-forgiving. Most Merciful.” (24.22)
Abu Bakr said, “Yes, by Allah, I wish that Allah should forgive me.” So he resumed giving Mistah the aid he used to give him before and said, “By Allah, I will never withold it from him at all.”
And Allah subhanahu wa ta’aala posed a question to the believers in relation to the response of the hypocrites,
And why did ye not, when ye heard it, say? – “It is not right of us to speak of this: Glory to Allah! this is a most serious slander!” [Surah an-Nur: 16)
Surely this should be our response to Jones’ attack, which is wrapped in the garbs of establishing a bridge of understanding between people. Her work is a most serious slander.
In this day and age where gossip is more exciting than news, where reality television is preferred over reality, where newspapers infer guilt or innocence, tales of sexual misdemeanour and indiscretions, Sherry Jones enters the fray and slanders and defames the mother of the believers in a manner that trivialises who she was and how dear she is to the Muslims. For Muslims, Allah has freed Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) of the inferences of both the leaders and conveyors of the Ifk and the present day purveyors of defamatory lies.
Part two will bi iznillah respond to the false claims regarding the marriage of Aisha RadiAllahu anha and the slanderous accusations regarding the Messenger’s marriages
Yusuf Patel
I recently delivered a talk at Portsmouth University, I would like to say the question and answer session was both challenging and really showed a level of thinking and scrutiny that makes me very hopeful for the future of this ummah. I talked about the latent potential existent in this ummah and I believe that was symbolic of the audience I addressed. I promised I would address both the questions time did not permit answering and the additional information you requested. I apologise for the delay in getting this up onto the blog, but other dawah responsibilities did not permit me to address this sooner, for that I ask forgiveness for my shortcomings.
THE CAUSES FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE KHILAFAH
Someone asked what the contributory factors were which led to the destruction of the khilafah. Although I gave a summary I recommended one brother the book ‘How the Khilafah was destroyed’ by Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zallum. This goes in to far greater detail. I have uploaded it for you, please feel free to download, print and read the book. Please find the location link below. Please do feel free to come back to me on its contents either on this blog or by email: abulayla[AT]btinternet[DOT]com. Obviously please replace the AT with (@) and DOT with (.), this is designed to minimise spam.
http://www.esnips.com/web/AwakeningoftheGiant
Khilafah Destroyed.PDF
IMAM MAHDI
Another brother asked a very candid question whether I was selling a dream and I replied I am selling a vision which Allah subhanahu wa ta’aala laid down and the Rasool Allah salAllahu alaihi wasallam inculcated in his companions. In a follow up discussion (at the very nice dinner) the same brother asked about whether Muslims should await the return of the Mahdi, I promised I would provide an in-depth article detailing the difference between the ahadith about the coming of the mahdi and command for the Muslims to work to bring back the khilafah. I have uploaded a PDF of the article ‘THE COMING OF IMAM MAHDI, SAYIDINA ISA AND AD-DAJAAL’. Please feel free to read at your leisure, the link is,
http://www.esnips.com/web/AwakeningoftheGiant
Imam Mahdi.pdf
As before feel free to email me after you have read the article, abulayla[AT]btinternet[DOT]com. Obviously please replace the AT with (@) and DOT with (.), this is designed to minimise spam.
TALK AUDIO
I have also uploaded the audio for the talk at the same location, It’s quite a big download, but you can also listen to it on the site.
http://www.esnips.com/web/AwakeningoftheGiant
Portsmouth Awakening of the Giant Talk YP 160408 new1.wav
And the talk transcript can be found below.
http://www.esnips.com/web/AwakeningoftheGiant
awakening of the giant FINAL TRANSCRIPT.pdf
MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS
There were a number of written questions that time did not permit answering, please find the answers below. I would encourage anyone to come back on these answers either through the facility on this blog or email me directly abulayla[AT]btinternet[DOT]com.
QUESTION 1:
Why is it important to re-instate the khilafah because apparently all Muslims are sinning unless we have a caliph.
Like I mentioned in my talk, living by Islam is obliged in all aspects of life because Allah has comprehensively laid down the ahkaam that cover a multiplicity of areas of life. The Islamic text are clear about a number of matters:
narrated by muslim that Afrajah said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say:
“Whoever comes to you while your affair has been united over one man, intending to divide your power or dissolve your unity, kill him.”
It is also reported by Muslim from Abu S’aid Al Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“If the Oath of Allegiance (bay’ah) has been taken for two Khulafaa, kill the latter of them.”
Muslim also reported that Abu Hazim said: I accompanied Abu Hurayra for five years and heard him talking about the Messenger of Allah (saw), he said:
“The children of Israel have been governed by Prophets; whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him; but there will be no prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafaa and they will number many; they asked: What then do you order us? He (saw) said: Fulfill allegiance to them one after the other, and give them their dues; for verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with”.
It was narrated from Nafi’, he said: Abdullah ibn Umar said:
“I heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) say: ‘Whoever withdraws his hand from obedience (to the Ameer) will find no proof for himself when he meets Allah on the Day of Judgment, and whoever dies without having an oath of allegiance (Bay’ah) on his neck he would die the death of Jahiliyyah.”‘ This is narrated by Muslim.
This does not mean as long as there’s a khaleefah, you are obliged to give the bay’ah (oath of allegiance), the second part of the hadith obliges the oath of allegiance on his neck and not giving the oath to a khaleefah if he is therefore.
Therefore, by working to bring back the khilafah you bring back the comprehensive living by shariah in the muslim world and the existence of the khaleefah who rules over the people’s affairs by Islam.
QUESTION 2:
Do you think that in order to unify the ummah, we should have to speak one language? If yes, should it be Arabic, especially since that is the language of the day of judgement.
It is very important to understand the root of unity, both politically and textually. Politically, unity is the opposite of division. We have over 55 nation states that are part of what is known as the Muslim world, but due to a multiplicity of rulers and conflicting interests, we find a lack of response to the many crisis the Muslims face. Unification would mean a single response that utilises our abundant natural as well as human resources, armies, iman and a single leader whose primary interest revolves around looking after the affairs of the ummah and carrying the message of Islam to the world.
As for the role of the Arabic language, it will be the language of the khilafah because it is the language of the Qur’an and of Islam.
QUESTION 3:
As we saw in the video, in the process of wiping out the khilafah state, so many people were killed, and this is happening when we are trying to re-establish it. What can we do to reach success instead of the killing of so many innocent people?
Firstly, as Muslims we understand two issues. Firstly, we do not aspire as an objective the killing of innocents, unlike the reality of western colonialist foreign policy.
Secondly, we cannot sidestep an obligation because of the possibility of negative consequences.
I do not believe you are proposing that we disregard the obligation of re-establishing the khilafah because of the possibility of conflict. There is work taking place throughout the Muslim world to resurrect the khilafah, this is primarily in line with the method employed by the Messenger of Allah salAllahu alaihi wasallam. This involves in summary, the establishment of a group that combines the Islamic-political culture in order to change the dominant opinion in the Muslim world. This group works to build grassroots support for the re-establishment of Islam and works with the powerful factions in society that have the ability to make a change. In the Muslim world, generally the most powerful faction – like the influential tribes at the time of Allah’s Messenger salAllahu alaihi wasallam – is the armies. By working with these armies in order to procure the nusra (support) we can limit the possibility of ‘the killing of innocents’. As for the reaction of the western nations, we are not in control over their dogged determination to protect both their vital interests and those that look after their affairs by proxy – the rulers. We can build an opinion now to show that the propaganda against the future khilafah is built on a tissue of lies. We do not call for a Taliban type state, we have a clear idea about the role of technology and scientific development, we have a clear programme for transforming the societies in the Muslim countries based upon a clear Islamic view of how a society should function. This is not to say the future khilafah will be pacifist. Every society has a foreign policy, whilst the west’s is based on the scramble for resources and markets, the foreign policy is the khilafah is aimed at freeing humankind from injustice and oppression.
QUESTION 4:
Is it true that we as Muslims cannot take part in electing an MP as it is sinful, but if we don’t then there is a threat of our identity being taken away so shall we just go and pretend to elect, but really not fill in the box? Because we Muslims have to appoint only a Muslim caliph.
Voting for a party that is founded upon secularism, that permits what Allah subhanahu wa ta’aala forbids, that accepts the ‘right’ of man to determine what is good and bad is not allowed, no matter how beneficial casting such a vote and taking part in the political process maybe. In the future I plan to Insha Allah write something more lengthy that deals with the claims of permissibility. In this country, it is not illegal to abstain from voting. What I would say is that voting is seen as the way to protect Muslims and Islam, stopping right wing elements from getting in and allowing Muslims to have some influence in being able to build masaajid, Islamic schools etc.
The last few years has shown that politicians stand for whatever will get them elected, the age of conviction politics and politicians ended long ago. We have politicians attacking the BNP but these same politicians have pushed through anti-terror legislation that has targeted the Muslim community to such an extent that the legal maxim of the day has been changed to ‘innocent before proven Muslim’. Look at the types of sentences meted out to ‘fantasists’, people that dream of terrorism but have not taken a single step in planning, in comparison to non-Muslims that have engaged in bombing campaigns, compare and contrast the sentences, the legislation used to convict them etc. I will put up an article I’ve written on this very subject soon Insha Allah. The point I am trying to make is sometimes you cannot distinguish the statements, actions and proposals of New Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems from the BNP, other than the racists are open about their hatred of Muslims. Muslims have to be engaged in grassroots campaigns to correct misconceptions about Islam and discuss whether the western value system provides a real alternative.
Please do feel free to come back to me on my answers either on this blog or by email: abulayla[AT]btinternet[DOT]com. Obviously please replace the AT with (@) and DOT with (.), this is designed to minimise spam.
And Allah knows best
PORTSMOUTH UNIVERSITY, 16/04/08
LIFE WITHOUT THE SHIELD – THE PRESENT REALITY
The Muslim World is littered with examples of crisis, corrupt leadership, occupation, division and insecurity.
Scarcely a day goes by without another crisis affecting the Muslim lands.
I remember when I was younger, I was moved by the plight of Muslims in Europe, Bosnia and that pushed me to think about how this could happen at the end of the 20th century, I began to understand the age old European hatred towards Islam, in this particular instance Serbian nationalist revenge for past defeats, I realised that:
The expectations of the leader had been set out 1400 years earlier in two ahadith of our beloved Messenger SalAllahu alaihi wasallam,
«إنما الإمام جُنة يُقاتَل من ورائه ويُتقى به»
“Indeed the Imam is a shield, from behind whom you fight, and defend yourselves.”
كلكم راع وكلكم مسئول عن رعيته. فالإمام راع وهو مسئول عن رعيته
“Each of you is a guardian and is responsible for those whom he is in charge of. So the ruler is a guardian and is responsible for his subjects…” (Agreed Upon)
THE FESTERING WOUNDS
PALESTINE: Last Saturday, six month old Bashir Hamo died after being prevented from leaving the prison camp known as Gaza for medical treatment for heart disease. Gaza is a victim of Israeli government brutality and the Egyptian government’s desire to punish its Muslim victims.
KASHMIR, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN ATTACKS AGAINST RASOOLALLAH
REACTIONS BY PREVIOUS KHULAFAA – Our past history showed the way things could be
MU’TASIM BILLAH
We saw the woman in the documentary at the beginning calling for help, relying on Allah alone, but no one responded to her plight, the armies in the Muslim world that have the ability, the weaponry, the manpower, but not the political will could respond.
In the past the Muslims had an expectation that the khaleefah looked after the affairs of the Muslims.
When one Muslim sister was attacked by the Romans in the Roman city, one Muslim sister was attacked. She was not killed by a fighter plane dropping bombs 40,000 feet from the skies. She was not murdered. Simply she was abused. And she shouted, “Ya Mutasim”.
And that is all she shouted. And these words reached Khalifah Mutasim Billah, and he called the emergency sixth azan in the masjid and all of the Muslims gathered in the masjid. And they said, “what is the matter?” And he replied that “a report has reached me that one Muslim sister was attacked in a Roman city.” He said “Wallahi, I will send an army that is so big that when it reaches them it is still leaving our base. And tell me the strongest city of these Romans and I will send the army to that city.” This was the decisive response of the Khalifah. When the honour of one sister was touched.
SULTAN ABDUL HAMEED
Twenty years prior to the destruction of the Khilafah, a play based on the writings of Voltaire was being staged in France and Britain titled “Mohammad or Fanaticism”, deriding the character of the Prophet salAllahu alaihi wasallam through the Zayd/Zainab issue. When the Khalifah (Sultan Abdul Hamid II) was informed of the play, his ambassador to France warned the government of the serious political repercussions which would follow if it was continued. France promptly stopped the play, so the group went to England. When the same warning was issued to England, the reply was that the tickets were sold out, and banning the play would be an infringement on the freedom of its citizens. So the following edict was issued by the Sultan, saying in no unclear terms: “I will issue an edict to the Islamic Ummah declaring that Britain is attacking and insulting our Prophet. I will declare Jihad…” Upon receiving this ultimatum, the claim for freedom of speech was forgotten, and the performance quickly stopped.
Today, the Messenger salAllahu alaihi wasallam can be attacked with impunity, cartoons insinuating the Messenger as a terrorist, politicians in mainland Europe arguing the Qur’an, the revelation from Allah sent to him SalAllahu alaihi wasallam is being proposed, a so-called documentary attacking Islam under the guise of debate. And there is no strategic response from the rulers of the Muslim countries.
I am not outlining a utopian vision, a perfect situation, but the restoration of justice, security, protection of Islamic values as outlined by Islam.
LACK OF RESPONSE TODAY FROM THE RULERS OF THE MUSLIM WORLD
The last summit of Arab rulers in Damascus on the 29th/30th March was a grand meeting, you had the people who rule our lands, enough time to make important decisions, the only thing that was missing was political will. On the subject of the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, the attack against Rasool Allah a talking shop from people that have the ability to respond.
Some people will say the framework for nations interacting with each other has changed. The current rulers cannot strong-arm other nations, diplomacy may be slow and long term in terms of what you want to achieve but it is the internationally recognised model. You cannot threaten or cajole other nations, that is barbaric.
The point is the practice belies the theory, in the real world nations have not stopped using whatever leverage they have to achieve their goals. The US did this in Iraq when it sought regime change to achieve a vital interest and even Saudi Arabia did this recently.
PRESSURE FROM STATES IMPACT THE POLICY DECISIONS OF OTHER STATES – BAE SYSTEMS – BRIBE INVESTIGATION
The UK government decided to stop an investigation into £1 billion worth of bribes to members of the Saudi Royal Family – to secure the £43 billion Al Yamamah arms deal.
The decision was taken by the government to secure this country’s national interest. Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general at the time said diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia could be affected, although the real reason was plain for all to see, it was a threat to BAE’s £20 billion deal to supply 72 Typhoons. At the time the French were pushing for an alternative to the British contract.
Saudi Arabia leaned on Britain, and Britain saw an interest in stopping the investigation. The point is if the political will exists countries will change their policy. So why couldn’t these rulers use their influence to protect the Muslims of Afghanistan and Iraq. Are these not as important?
RULING BY ISLAM
THE KITAB
Allah subhanahu wa ta’aala has obliged ruling by Islam,
فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلاَ تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ عَمَّا جَاءَكَ مِنْ الْحَقِّ
“So judge between them by that which Allah has revealed and follow not their desires away from the truth that has come to you..” [5:48]
He also says:
وَأَنْ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلاَ تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَنْ يَفْتِنُوكَ عَنْ بَعْضِ مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ
“Judge between them by that which Allah has revealed and follow not their desires and beware of them lest they seduce you from some part of that which Allah has revealed to you..” [5:49]
إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلاَّ لِلَّهِ
“Indeed, ruling belongs to Allah”. [TMQ 12:40]
فَلاَ وَرَبِّكَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لاَ يَجِدُوا فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا
“But no, by Your Lord, they can have no (real) faith until they make you judge in all disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest submission” [4:65]
THE SUNNAH
As regarding the sunnah, it was narrated from Nafi’, he said: Abdullah ibn Umar said:
«من خلع يداً من طاعة لقي الله يوم القيامة لا حجة له، ومن مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية»
“I heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) say: ‘Whoever withdraws his hand from obedience (to the Ameer) will find no proof for himself when he meets Allah on the Day of Judgment, and whoever dies without having an oath of allegiance (Bay’ah) on his neck he would die the death of Jahiliyyah.”‘ This is narrated by Muslim.
Muslim also reported on the authority of Abu Hazim that he said: I accompanied Abu Hurayra for five years, and heard him informing about the Prophet (saw), he said:
«كانت بنو إسرائيل تسوسهم الأنبياء، كلما هلك نبي خلفه نبي، وأنه لا نبي بعدي، وستكون خلفاء فتكثر، قالوا فما تأمرنا؟ قال: فُوا ببيعة الأول فالأول، وأعطوهم حقهم، فإن الله سائلهم عما استرعاهم»
“The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafa’a and they will number many.” They asked: ‘what then do you order us?’ He said: “Fulfill the Bay’ah to them, one after the other and give them their dues for Allah will verily account them about what he entrusted them with.”
«إذا بُويع لخليفتين فاقتلوا الآخر منهما»
“If the pledge of allegiance (Bay’ah) has been taken for two Khulafa’a kill the latter of them”, narrated by Muslim.
The unity of the Muslims is considered a vital issue.
IJMA’A AS-SAHABAH
When the Messenger salAllah alaihi wasallam passed away, the sahabah ridawanAllah alaihim agreed to appoint a khaleefah, a successor to the Messenger in ruling, not prophethood.
The burial of the prophet was delayed for two nights (late Monday morning to Tuesday night) because the sahabah were engaged in discussing who the khaleefah should be. This is despite the fact that the burial of the dead person is obligatory. No one disagreed with this delay despite the fact that not everyone was engaged in the decision making process.
The burial did not take place until Abu Bakr was given the bay’ah, This Ijma’a (consensus) of the Sahabah illustrates the obligation of appointing a khaleefah was more important than the burial, even that of RasoolAllah salAllahu alaihi wasallam.
When Umar was stabbed, the Muslims asked him to nominate a Khaleefah, but he refused. They insisted upon him so he confined it into six people, ie he nominated six to them. Then he appointed Suhaib to lead the prayer and to watch over those nominated by Umar so as to select the Khaleefah from amongst them within the three days fixed to them by Umar. He said to Suhaib:
«… فإن اجتمع خمسة، ورضوا رجلاً، وأبى واحد، فاشدخ رأسه بالسيف… »
“…. If five agreed and accepted one man, while one man rejected, then hit his head with the sword….”
THE CLASSICAL SCHOLARS
Unanimous agreement that the khilafah is an obligation.
Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Shawkani (d. 1250 AH)
It is known from Islam by necessity (bi-dharoorah – i.e.: like prayer and fasting) that Islam has forbidden division amongst Muslims and the segregation of their land. [Tafseer al-Quran al-Atheem, volume 2, page 215]
Imam Yahya ibn Sharaf al- Nawawi (631-676 AH)
(The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khaleefah [Sharhu Sahih Muslim page 205 vol 12]
Imam Abu Abdullah al-Qurtubi (d. 671 AH)
Imam Qurtubi said in his tafseer of the verse,
إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِى الأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً
“Indeed, man is made upon this earth a Caliph” [TMQ 2:30]
This Ayah is a source in the selection of an Imaam, and a Khaleefah, he is listened to and he is obeyed, for the word is united through him, and the Ahkam (laws) of the Khaleefah are implemented through him, and there is no difference regarding the obligation of that between the Ummah, nor between the Imams
Imam al-Qurtubi also said: The Khilafah is the pillar upon which other pillars rest
Imam Tahawi also narrates a Hadith from Muslim ibn Yasar that the Prophet (saw) said, “The (collection of the) Zakah, the (implementation of the) Hudood the (distribution of the) spoils and the (appointment of the) Jumu.ah are for the Sultan..” (A similar narration has been narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musanaf and also by Imam Narghiyani. They have been deemed acceptable.)
Hujjatul Islam Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazzali
Imam Al-Ghazzali (450-505 AH), when writing of the potential consequences of losing the Khilafah said:
The judges will be suspended, the Wilayaat (provinces) will be nullified, … the decrees of those in authority will not be executed and all the people will be on the verge of Haraam. [al Iqtisaad fil Itiqaad page 240]
Imam Taqi ad-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah (661-728 AH)
It is obligatory to know that the office in charge of commanding over the people (ie: the post of the Khaleefah) is one of the greatest obligations of the Deen. In fact, there is no establishment of the Deen except by it….this is the opinion of the salaf, such as al-Fadl ibn ‘Iyaad, Ahmed ibn Hanbal and others. [Siyaasah Shariyyah - chapter: 'The obligation of adherence to the leadership']
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (164-241 AH)
The Fitna (mischief and tribulations) occurs when there is no Imaam established over the affairs of the people.
THIS UMMAH
This ummah is the best ummah, that’s not my biased view, our creator says this,
كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ
You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma`ruf (all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (all that Islam has forbidden), and you believe in Allah.
We are the sleeping giant, with the latent potential to be great for the sake of Allah and in the service of His deen.
If we answer the call of Allah, work to establish his deen on this earth, work to make the deen of truth a guidance for the whole of mankind.
If we rush to the establishment of Khilafah.
If we do not become enamoured by the monotony of this life.
If Allah, His Messenger and the striving to establish that which they love is more important than everything else.
SURAH YA-SIN
There is a town mentioned in Surah Ya-Sin in which the people worshipped idols. Ibn Ishaq said the place was the town of Antioch.
Allah sent two messengers to this town but the people rejected them, he strengthened them with a third but the people said these people are human beings like us.
The people threatened them with a punishment and then planned to kill them.
Then a man came running, from the far reaches of the town, he was a man of no standing with leporosy, yet he testified to the truth these messengers brought.
Ibn Abbas said this man was Habib an-Najjar and he was killed by his people.
وَجَآءَ مِنْ أَقْصَى الْمَدِينَةِ رَجُلٌ يَسْعَى قَالَ يقَوْمِ اتَّبِعُواْ الْمُرْسَلِينَ
And there came a man running from the farthest part of the town. He said, “O my people! Obey the Messengers.”
اتَّبِعُواْ مَن لاَّ يَسْـَلُكُمْ أَجْراً وَهُمْ مُّهْتَدُونَ
“Obey those who ask no wages of you, and who are rightly guided.”
وَمَا لِىَ لاَ أَعْبُدُ الَّذِى فَطَرَنِى وَإِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ
“And why should I not worship Him Who has created me and to Whom you shall be returned.” Surah Ya-Sin (20.) (21.) (22.)
All of you have the potential to be great, to be part of the awakening of this ummah.
I want this to be my last word before we break for the Q&A and I want you all to look at the Islamic solutions this future khilafah will implement and ask questions until you are satisfied.
I want you also to ask how do we take part in this work, how do we establish something so great.
Muhammad Yusuf Faruqi
After the demise of the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.), the Companions decided to choose someone capable of organizing and looking after the affairs of the Ummah, establishing the commandments of the Sharī’ah and continuing the work of da’wah which was promulgated by the Messenger of Allah (P.B.H.). Addressing the audience soon after the death of the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.), Abū Bakr had stressed the second aspect of the Khilāfah: the establishment of Dīn and the advancement of the laws of Sharī’ah, He said:
“O people! Muhammad has passed away. However, it is certainly necessary that someone should come forward to keep Dīn established in society.”[1]
The Companions agreed on this point and gave priority to the preservation of the Dīn by establishing the institution of the Khilāfah. Thus, the basic purpose of preserving the Dīn by enforcing its laws and implementing its rules was considered the basic and primary objective of the Khilāfah. Abū Bakr, after being chosen as Khalīfah made it clear in his first speech that he would strictly follow the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. The words of Abū Bakr, as recorded by Ibn Hishām and al-Tabarī are: “Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger; if I disobey Allah and His Messenger you, then have no obligation of obedience to me.”[2] ‘Umar b. al-Khattāb and other Rāshidūn Khulafā’ also followed the same policy of implementing the rules of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. A hadīth recorded by al-Dārimī illustrates the approach of Abū Bakr and ‘Umar when dealing with legal, social and administrative issues. Mahrān b. Maymūn reported that whenever a dispute arose, or any issue was taken to Abū Bakr or ‘Umar for settlement, they looked into the Qur’ān first to find a solution; but in those cases where they could not find an answer they referred to the Sunnah of the Prophet (P.B.H.) and settled the matter according tot eh Sunnah. If they were not content with their knowledge of the Sunnah on any particular issue, then, they called the Companions of the Prophet (P.B.H.) and asked them whether they had heard something from the Prophet (P.B.H.) concerning that particular issue. If anyone knew something, he told the Khalīfah. The Khalīfah would then decide the matter in accordance with the Sunnah. If the Khalīfah was unable to reach a decision after having consulted the Companions, because he could not find any relevant saying from the Messenger of Allah (P.B.H.), then the Khalīfah summoned the leaders and notables of the Ansār and Muhājīrun to discuss the matter with them.[3]
The Rāshidūn Khulafā’ not only followed the teachings of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah but also gave instructions to their governors and judges to decide matters according to the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. The letters of ‘Umar Fārūq to Abu Mūsā al-Asharī and Qādī Shurayh support our argument that the primary objective of the Khilāfah was to implement the rules of the Sharī’ah.[4]
The fuqahā’, even in later periods gave due consideration to this aspect of an Islamic government while discussing the institution of the Khalīfah. Al-Baghdādī (d. 429 A.H.), for example, define Khalīfah as one who implements the rules of the Sharī’ah amongst the Muslims, establishes hūdūd, dispatches expeditions, arranges marriages of widows and distributes the fay’ among the public.[5] Al-Māwardī (d. 450 A.H.) has a clearer idea about the institution of the Khilāfah; he gives a more comprehensive definition of the institution than his predecessor. To him the Khilāfah is the succession (niyābah) to the Prophet (P.B.H.) in the protection of the Dīn and looking after the worldly affairs of the people[6]. Imām al-Hramayn al-Juwaynī (d. 478 A.H.) gives a long definition, covering many aspects of the Khilāfah:
“The Imāmah is a perfect authority and general leadership over the people, commons as well as notables, in all important religious and temporal affairs; the defence of territory of Dār al-Islām, looking after the interests of the community, establishing Islamic da’wah by providing evidence and proof (or truthfulness of Islamic faith) and even by using force (if necessary), denouncing the deviation, abstaining from inequity and oppression, providing help and support to the oppressed against transgressors and recovering the dues from those who refuse to be paid to those who were deprived of their rights.”[7]
Al-Juwaynī includes the words riyāsah tāmmah, and zi’āmah ‘āmmah which made his definition slightly different from that of al- Māwardī. Al-Juwaynī, by adding these words, differentiates between the Khilāfah and imārah (governship) of provinces. The Khilāfah, according to him, is the highest authority in Muslim society.
These definitions by the fuqahā’ give us a deep insight into their concept of the Khilāfah; it is almost unanimously agreed by all the fuqahā’ that the Khilāfah deals with both religious and temporal matters. According to al-Baghdādī and al-Māwardī, the religious aspect of the Khilāfah is predominant as we have noticed above. Al-Baghdādī refers, in the same chapter, to the views of Abū al-Hasan al-Ash’arī who is of the opinion that the Imāmah and the Sharī’ah are twins, and the implementation of the Sharī’ah depends on the establishment of the Imāmah.[8]
Most of the later fuqahā’ also adopted these definitions. Their interpretation of the Khilāfah is not very much different from that of the early scholars. Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 767 A.H.), for example, advances the definition that, “Imām is a protector (rā’ī = shepherd_ of the Ummah”, a statement which is derived from a well known hadīth.[9]
Al-Taftāzānī (d. 791 A.H.) defines the Khilāfah as:
“The Imāmah is a general leadership (riyāsah āmmah) in religious and temporal affairs, as vicegerent of the Prophet (P.B.H.).”[10]
‘Adud al-Dīn al-Ījī (d. 756 A.H.), another prominent scholar and theologian, also defines the Imāmah as follows:
“It is the vicegerency of the Prophet (P.B.H.) in establishing the Dīn and looking after the affairs of the Ummah.”[11]
Ibn Khaldūn (d. 808 A.H.) also discussed the system of Khilāfah in al-Muqaddimah. His definition is not different form that of al-Mārwadī.[12] However, Ibn Khaldūn stresses the religious aspect, because the religious commitment and fervour, according to him, strengthen the powers and solidarity of the believers. The politics based on religious values, as viewed by Ibn Khaldūn, contributes to the good in this world as well as in the Hereafter.[13]
The definitions given by al- Juwaynī and al-Taftāzānī have not been accepted by many scholars, perhaps, because they add the phrase, riyāsah āmmah which, according to some of the modern critics, confers the Khalīfah with much authority. It was the Prophet (P.B.H.) who, being the Messenger of Allah, held such an extensive authority.[14] It seems that al-Juwaynī and al-Taftāzānī are misunderstood. They do not mean absolute authority for the Khalīfah. Al-Taftāzānī makes it clear that this phrase is added in the definition of the Khalīfah in order to exclude the judges and governors of provinces. The authority of the Khalīfah is general as far as the jurisdiction is concerned, while the authority and jurisdiction of governors and judges are limited to their particular areas of duties.[15] Al-riyāsah āmmah, therefore, means nothing but only higher authority or general jurisdiction in a territorial sense. Al-Taftāzānī refers to al-Rāzī (d 606 A.H.) who also includes the same phrase.[16] Not only al-Taftāzānī but some of the very late scholars have also considered it as an essential condition of the Khilāfah. Shāh Walī Allāh, for example, explains the Khilāfah, as:
“It is general authority as vicegerent of the Prophet (P.B.H.) for the establishment of Dīn by reviving the religious sciences, establishing the pillars of Islam, carrying out the jihād and what is necessary for jihād, such as organizing the armies and paying the stipends to soldiers and allocating the fay’, establishing justice, implementing the hūdūd, eliminating oppression, enjoining the Good and forbidding the Evil.”[17]
The above discussion makes it clear that Muslim scholars both of the early and the later periods agree to the point that the main responsibility of the Khilāfah is to look after both the religious and temporal affairs of the Ummah.
Al-Rayyis argues on the basis of the definition of al-Mārwadī that the function of the Khalīfah is to preserve the Dīn; he, therefore, has no right to make any change or amendment or even to introduce any new interpretation to the fundamentals of the Dīn[18] since it is the domain of the fuqahā’ and is not one of the obligations of the Khalīfah. Lambton also reaches the same conclusion. She discusses in her article on Khilāfah:
“The title Khalīfat Rasül Allah implied the assumption by Muhammad’s successors of Muhammad’s function as judge and temporal leader of the community. Muhammad’s Prophetic function, on the other hand, was held to have ceased with him and it was believed that the spiritual guidance of the community had been inherited by the community as a whole. The Khalīfah, thus, had no authority to give new interpretations to religious matters. His function was merely a delegation of authority for the purpose of applying and defending the Sharī’ah“.[19]
However, it does not seem plausible to impose any unnecessary restriction on the Khalīfah. If he is knowledgeable and has ability for giving expert opinion, he is allowed to do so in his capacity as faqih or mujtahid. Al-Mārwadī and some other fuqahā’ suggest the ability of ijtihād as a necessary qualification for the Khalīfah. In his capacity as mujtahid, the Khalīfah has the right to exercise ijtihād, like any other mujtahid in the Muslim community. Lambton quotes Ibn al-Muqaffa’ (d. 139 A.H.), who was disappointed by the differences of the fuqahā’ on legal questions, to have suggested that the Khalīfah should enjoy superceding powers to regulate and coordinate the ra’y.[20] Ibn al-Muqaffa’ attempted to convince the Khalīfah to eliminate the right of the fuqahā’ to individual opinion. He feared that the ‘ulamā’ might create a public opinion against the government. However, according to Lambton, the opinion of Ibn al-Muqaffa’ was rejected by the mainstream of Islam.[21]
The definitions of the Khilāfah, discussed above, have been derived from the Qur’ān and the Sunnah of the Prophet (P.B.H.) and the practice of the Rashidūn Khulafā’. Abū al-Hasan al-Ash’ari, while discussing the issue of Khilāfah refers to the Qur’ānic verse (22):
“O David! We did indeed make thee a vicegerent on earth: so judge, thou between men in truth (and justice): nor follow thou – the lusts (of thy heart) for they will mislead thee from the Path of God.”23
Al-Mārwadī also quotes this verse while discussing the obligations of the Khalīfah. Allah granted David (as) powers and authority, argues al-Mārwadī, to establish justice and truth.24
It will be appropriate to discuss another verse which is very important in connection with authority and government. The verse reads:
“(They are) Those who, if We establish in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: With God rests the end (and decisions) of (all) affairs.”25
Al-Tabarī (d. 310 A.H.) argues from this verse on the authority of the Companions who succeeded the Prophet (P.B.H.) and accomplished the obligations mentioned in the verse.26 Al-Jassās (d. 370 A.H.) also establishes the legitimacy of the authority of the Rashidūn Khulafā’ on the basis of the fact that they fulfilled all these obligations.27
According to al-Dahhāk, the four functions, mentioned in the verse of al-Hajj, are the obligations incumbent upon the Khalīfah. The ‘ulamā’ who have close contact with the ruling authorities also shoulder the responsibilities imposed on the rulers.28
The fuqahā’ also consider the verse of 30 of al-Baqarah where the word Khalīfah is mentioned and a general reference is made to the divine purpose behind the creation of mankind.29 Al-Baghdādī, interpreting the verse, mentions the opinion of ‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ūd and Mujāhid that Khalīfah means that one who establishes Allah’s commandments, manifests the signs of His unity and does justice among the people.30 The verse of al-Nūr is also frequently quoted by scholars when referring to the system of Khilāfah. The verse reads:
“God has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion – the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace.”31
The term Khilāfah is not only used in the Qur’ān but is also used constantly in the hadīth literature.32 The two ahadīth which we would like to discuss here are narrated in the authentic books of hadīth. The first of these ahadīth is narrated by al-Tirmidhī, Abū Daw’ūd, Ibn Mājah and some other muhaddithūn. It states that the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.) directed the people to follow firmly the Sunnah of the Prophet (P.B.H.) and the Sunnah of the Rashidūn Khulafā’.33 According to Tirmidhī, the hadīth is authentic. The other hadīth, narrated by al-Bukhārī, al-Muslim and many others, states that the Prophet (P.B.H.) has said, “the Children of Isrā’īl were led by their Prophets; as soon as a Prophet passed away another took his place; but there would be no Prophet after me, however, there would be the Khulafā’“.34
All the above mentioned Qur’ānic verses and hadīth references are important as regards understanding the meaning of the term Khilāfah. The Companions, who chose Abū Bakr, and gave him the title of “the Khalīfah of the Messenger of Allah”, must have had in mind, when they did so, the Qur’ānic verses and the ahadīth of the Prophet (P.B.H.). The Muslims were aware of the nature of mulükiyyah (absolute mechanism) which existed in many countries around them at the demise of the Holy Prophet (P.B.H). The Companions avoided calling their ruler ‘king’. Al-Qalqashandi (d. 821 A.H.) and al-Suyūtī (d. 911 A.H.) mention a dialogue between ‘Umar, the Khalīfah, and his colleagues on the difference between Khilāfah and mulk (monarchy) which gives us an idea as to their concept of monarchy. According to that dialogue, the Khalīfah is just a trustee of public wealth and treasury, while the king is one who treats it as his own property, takes whatever he likes and gives what he wants.35
Among the later fuqahā’ especially who came after the period of the Rashidūn, this early period of governing the society is regarded as a model which is to be realized again. Thus the actions of the immediate successors of the Prophet (P.B.H.) have always been regarded as a model by the scholars. This definition of the Khilāfah, we discussed above, has, thus, been determined in the light of the Qur’ānic verses, the Sunnah of the Prophet (P.B.H.) and the practice of the Rashidūn Khulafā’.
We may conclude in the light of above discussion that a just government which establishes al-Dīn, implements the laws of the Sharī’ah and looks after the affairs of the Ummah is regarded as Khilāfah by the fuqahā’ of the early period (mutaqqaddinmūn).
The fuqahā’ also discuss the qualifications necessary for a candidate for the office of Khalīfah. Mostly the fuqahā’ stress knowledge (al-‘ilm), sound and just character (al ‘adālah), capacity of social and political organization, military expertise and descent from the Quraysh. Al-Baghdādī and al- Māwardī, al-Juwaynī and al-Ghazālī place much emphasis on knowledge, good character and capability of dealing with social and political matters. The condition of being descendent from the Quraysh is mentioned as the last one by al-Baghdādī, al-Māwardī and al-Ghazālī. Al-Ījī discusses the condition of descent from the Quraysh as being disputed; the Khawārij – and some of the Mu’tazilah do not accept this condition.36 Imām al-Haramayn al-Juwaynī, however, is not satisfied with the condition of Qurayshite descent; he criticises this condition in the historical context. The hadīth which states “the leaders come from the Quraysh”37, according to al-Juwaynī, is not of such standard that the doctrine of Qurayshite descent could be derived from it.38 He puts much emphasis on knowledge. He is of the opinion that the Khalīfah should have knowledge and ability of exercising ijtihād.39 Ibn al-Farrā’ puts the condition of the Qurayshite descent as the first one. He mentions a tradition from Ahmad b. Hanbal saying that the Khalīfah should not be non-Qurayshite. He is strict about this condition, and lenient about others.40 Ibn al-Farrā’ does not adduce any argument in favour of his attitude. It seems that it was a political issue to support either Qurayshite or Hashmites without producing any reason or argument.41
It seems, as we understand, that the hadīth is indicative of the socio-political standing of the Quraysh in the Arab society. The Quraysh, even in the Jāhiliyyah; held the leadership, and their social and political prestige was recognized by the neighbouring states. ‘Umar, the Khalīfah, once pointed out this unique status of the Quraysh. He said:
“O people of Quraysh! By Allah, even if you enter a hole the Arabs, following your traces, will also enter the same. Therefore, be mindful of Allah in their affairs.”42
This tradition also makes it clear that the Qraysh commanded the respect of the people and were regarded as the leaders of the Arabs. The Prophet (P.B.H.) has also obviously referred to the same thing in the hadīth. Now, it is a historical fact that the Quraysh at the time of the establishment of the Khalīfah held a pre-eminent position in the collective life of Arabia; they could keep the unity and integrity of the Ummah. We must, therefore, see the hadīth in this context. The hadīth does not seek to lay down any principle or rule that the rulers or leaders should always be from the Quraysh. Ibn al-Farrā’ mentions the argument of Abū Bakr and ‘Umar at the meeting of Thaqīfah of Banū Sā’idah in these words:
“Certainly the Arabs will not submit to anyone except this tribe of Quraysh.”43
This argument of Abū Bakr and ‘Umar also supports our contention that the hadīth only expresses the political dominance held by the Quraysh, and does not lay down any legal rule of permanent nature.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
[2] Ibn Hishām, al-Sirah (ed. Khalil Harras, Cairo, 1955) vol. 4, p. 457; al-Tabari, Tārīkh (ed. Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim, Cairo, 1961) vol. 3, p. 210.
[3] Al-Dārimī, Sunan, (Beirut, n.d.) vol. 1, p 58; Ibn al-Qayyim, I’lām al’Muwqqi’īn, (Beirut, 1973) vol. 1, p. 62.
[4] See ‘Umar’s letters to Abū Mūsā al-Asharī and Qādī Shurayh, Wakī, Akhbār al-Quqāt (Beirut, n.d.), vol. 1, pp. 283, 84, vol. 2, pp. 189-90.
[5] Al-Baghdādī, ‘Abd al-Qāhir, Usūl al-Dīn (Istanbul, 1928), p. 271.
[6] Al- Māwardī, al-Ahkām al-Sultāniyah (Cairo, 1966), p. 5.
[7] Al-Juwaynī, Imām al-Haramayn, Ghiyāth al-Umam (ed. Mustafa hilmi, Alexandria, 1979), p. 15.
[8] Al-Juwaynī, Usūl al-Din, op. cit., p. 272.
[9] Laoust, Henry, Nazriyyāt Ibn Taymiyyah fi al-Siyāsah (Arabic tr. By M. ‘Abd al-‘Azim ‘Ali, Cairo, 1979), p. 226; also ssee Bukhārī, Sahih, (9 parts in 3 vols., Cairo, n.d.), vol. 1, part 2, p. 6; Abū Daw’ūd, Sunan (ed. ‘Izzat ‘Ubayd. Hims, 1969), hadīth No 2928; Ibn Taymiyya, al-Siyāsah al- Shar’īyyah (ed. Ali al-Maghribi, Kuwait, 1986), pp. 23, 23.
[10] Al-Taftāzānī, Sharh al-Maqāsid (Lahore, 1981), vol. 2, p. 272.
[11] Al-Ījī, ‘Adud al-Dīn, al-Mawāqif, (Beirut 1979), p. 395.
[12] Ibn Khaldūn, al-Muqaddimah (Beirut, 1956), p. 38; al-Ramli, Nihāyat al-Muhtāj (Cairo, 1967), vol. 7, p. 409.
[13] Ibn Khaldūn, al-Muqaddimah, op. cit., pp. 277, 78, 337.
[14] Al-Rayyis, Diyāl al-Dīn, al-Nazriyyat al-Siyasiyyah (Cairo, 1970), p. 121.
[15] Al-Taftāzānī, Sharh al Maqāsid, op. cit., vol. 2. p. 272.
[16] Ibid., p. 272.
[17] Shāh Walī Allāh, Izālat al-Khifā, (Urdu tr ‘Abd al-Shakur, Karachi, n.d.), vol. 1, p. 28.
[18] Al-Rayyis, al-Nazriyyāt, op. cit., p. 121.
[19] Lambton, A.K.S., “Khilafah in Political Theory” in Encyclopedia of Islam.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
22 Al-Ash’arī, Abū al-Hasan, al-Ibanah (Cairo, 1977), p. 251.
23 Al-Qur’ān, 38:26; also see al-Tabarī, Jāmi’ al-Bayān (Beirut, 1972), vol. 23, p. 97; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf (Cairo, 1966), vol. 3, pp. 371-72.
24 Al-Mārwadī, al-Ahkām al-Sultāniyah, op, cit., p 16; Ibn Jamā’ah starts the chapter of Imāmah with this verses, see Tahrīr al-Ahkām (ed. H. Kofler, Islamica 6, 1934; and 1938), p. 355.
25 Al-Qur’ān, 22:41.
26 Al-Tabarī, Jāmi’ al-Bayān, op. cit., vol. 17, p. 126.
27 Al Jassās, Abū Bakr, Ahkām al-Qur’ān, (Constantinople, 1335 A.H.), vol. 3, p. 246.
28 Al-Qurtubī, Al-Jāmi’li Ahkām al- Qur’ān (Beirut, 1969), vol. 12, p. 73; Ibn Jama’ah, Tahrīr al-Ahkām, op. cit., p. 355.
29 Al- Qur’ān, 2:30.
30 Al-Baghdādī, ‘Abd al-Rahmān b. ‘Ali, Zād al-Ma’āthir, (Damascus, 1964), vol. 1, p. 60.
31 Q. al-Nūr 24:55.
32 Wensinck, al-Mu’jam al’Mufahras see word “Khalīfah“.
33 Tirmidhī, Sunan (Hims, 1965), vol. 7, p. 320 (H. No. 2678); Abū Daw’ūd, Sunan, op. cit., (H. No. 4607); Ibn Mājah, Sunan (Cairo, 1952) h. No. 24; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad (Beirut, n.d.), vol. 4, pp, 126; al-Dārimī, Sunan, op. cit., vol. 1. pp. 44, 45.
34 Bukhārī, Sahīh, op. cit., vol. 2, part 4, p. 206; Muslim, Sahīh (Cairo, n.d.), vol. 6, p. 17; Ibn Mājah, Sunan, op. cit., (H. No. 2871); Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 297.
35 Al-Suyūtī, Ta’rīkh al-Khulafā’ (Cairo, 1964), p. 164; al-Qalqashandi, Ma’āthir al-Ināfah (ed. A. Sattar Ahmad, Kuwait, 1964), vol. 1, pp. 13, 14.
36 Al-Baghdādī, Usūl al-Din,op. cit., p. 277, al- Māwardī, al-Ahkām al-Sultāniyah, op. cit., p. 6; al- Ghazālī, al-Iqtisād (Beirut, 1969), p. 215, al- Ījī, al- Mawāqif, op. cit., p. 398.
37 Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 129, vol. 4, p. 421.
38 Al-Juwaynī, Ghiyāth al-Umam, op. cit., pp. 62-64.
39 Al-Juwaynī, Ghiyāth, op. cit., p. 65.
40 Ibn al- Farrā’, al-Ahkām al-Sultāniyah, (ed. M. Hamid al-Fiqi, Cairo, 1966), p. 20.
41 Al-Juwaynī, Ghiyāth al-Umam, op. cit., p.64.
42 Al-Tabarī, Ta’rīkh, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 259.
43 Ibn al- Farrā’, al-Ahkām al-Sultāniyah, op. cit., p. 19; al-Qurtubī, Al-Jāmi’li Ahkām al-Qur’ān, op. cit., vol. 1. p. 264.
Verily, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder (men) from the path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend it; but in the end it will become an anguish for them. Then they will be overcome. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto Hell.) In order that Allah may distinguish the wicked from the good, and put the wicked one over another, heap them together and cast them into Hell. Those! it is they who are the losers.
There has been since the time of our father Adam (alaihis salaam) a battle between Haq (the truth) and Batil (falsehood). Where there are carriers of Haq, there are people who carry the falsehood, they spend their time, effort and money to propagate this call, but in the end their wealth will be a source of sorrow, as it will not benefit them in the akhirah (hereafter).
Our issue is not therefore with the fact that the carriers of falsehood will utilise various styles and means to attack Islam, but our thinking must be focussed on how we are best placed to utilise the styles and means the shariah permits to carry the Haq and stand for Islam.
REALITY OF ATTACK
Although our subject matter is the attack against Rasool Allah salAllahu alaihi wasallam in terms of the release of the film ‘Fitna’ in the Netherlands, it must not be viewed in isolation.
There are currently two strands of the attack against Islam:
FITNA DOCUMENTARY
On 27th March 2008, Geert Wilders, the leader of the right wing Dutch political party, the Party of Freedom launched a video on the internet calling upon Muslims to rip up the Qur’an, he has called for the Dutch constitution to be amended so that the Qur’an can be outlawed in the Netherlands claiming it is a cornerstone of fascist ideology like Hitler’s Mein Kampf. “The main issue is the fascist book of the Koran”
Amongst the features of this pseudo-documentary include:
Wilders tries to create alarm by showing that the values of western societies are being overtaken by Islam.
THE FALSE DEITY OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH – SACRIFICED AT THE ALTAR OF PRAGMATISM
His stance is definitely opportunistic, to garner electoral popularity. This episode shows that the Western conception of freedom is bankrupt.
Geert Wilders says he calls or freedom, but he calls for the banning of the niqab and the Qur’an.
Throughout Europe the once ‘sacrosanct’ western conception of freedom is being sacrificed as a result of the perceived threat western politicians see in Islam and Muslims.
In Germany, which bans political parties based upon spurious allegations of anti-semitism, still calls for Freedom.
This is why the German Interior Minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble in an interview with the Die Zeit weekly said,
“I have respect for the fact that Danish newspapers have now all printed the Muhammad caricatures, on the basis (that) we will not let ourselves be divided”
He went even further,
“In fact, all European newspapers should print these cartoons,”
All over Europe Islam bashing is being used by politicians seeking to benefit from the anti-Islamic sentiment. They believe in freedom when it aids their cause, freedom is therefore a hollow value for them.
Throughout Europe, the new breed of right-wing populists are trying to revive their political fortunes by jumping on the bandwagon of anti-Muslim prejudice.
Wilders was recently voted Holland’s most effective politician. 18 months ago he sat alone in the second chamber or lower house in The Hague, his People’s Party now has nine out of 150 seats and recent opinion polls suggest a 15 per cent approval rating.
A few months ago the Swiss People’s Party led by Christoph Blocher won a general election off the back of a campaign to change the Swiss constitution to ban the building of minarets on mosques.
Last month in Antwerp, far-right leaders from 15 European cities and from political parties in Belgium, Germany and Austria got together to launch a charter ‘against the Islamisation of western European cities’, reiterating the call for a mosque-building moratorium.
‘We already have more than 6,000 mosques in Europe, which are not only a place to worship but also a symbol of radicalisation, some financed by extreme groups in Saudi Arabia or Iran,’ argued Filip Dewinter, leader of Belgium’s Flemish separatist party, the Vlaams Belang, who organised the Antwerp get-together. ‘Its minarets are six floors high, higher than the floodlights of the Feyenoord soccer stadium,’ he said of a new mosque being built in Rotterdam. ‘These kinds of symbols have to stop.’
REACTION OF RULERS OF THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES AND MUSLIMS
The ambassadors of 26 OIC countries want the Netherlands to investigate whether the film Fitna made by Dutch right-wing populist MP Geert Wilders can be banned. They asked Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen whether it is possible to start legal proceedings against the anti-Islam film. The meeting at the ministry in The Hague was attended by ambassadors of countries including Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Whilst these representatives went to implore the foreign minister to stop the film, Verhagen turned the tables on them and got them to ensure they do everything they could to protect Dutch embassies and implore others not to harm its soldiers that aid the occupation in Afghanistan.
Some may say at least they made a representation on behalf of the Muslims, surely this is better than their usual inaction.
The problem we have is that our expectations have been lowered by years of inaction we have been accustomed to by the rulers of the Muslim countries, so when they do one small thing we say at least it is something.
We should from the beginning expect more from them more as the Rasool SalAllahu alaihi wasallam painted a picture of what to expect of our ruler.
“The imam is a shield, from behind which the Muslims fight and defend themselves”
WHAT IS FITNA?
This film is called fitnah, Geert Wilders says Islam is a fitna (trial/mischief) but what does the Rabb al-Alameen define as fitnah?
And those who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you (Muslims) do not do so (protect one another), there will be Fitnah on the earth, and great corruption. [TMQ Al-Anfal: 73]
The great mufassir ibn Jarir at-Tabari said…
“The best interpretation of the above verse is,
And those who disbelieve are allies to one another, (and) if you (Muslims of the whole world collectively) do not do so (i.e. become allies, as one united block with one Khalifah – chief Muslim ruler for the whole Muslim world to make victorious Allâh’s Religion of Islâmic Monotheism), there will be Fitnah (wars, battles, polytheism, etc.) and oppression on earth, and a great mischief and corruption (appearance of polytheism).
It has been mentioned in Sahih Muslim by ‘Arfaja who said: ‘I heard Allah’s Messenger SalAllahu alaihi wasallam saying: “When you all (Muslims) are united (as one block) under a single Khalifah (a chief Muslim ruler), and a man comes up to disintegrate you and separate you into different groups, then kill that man.”
Also there is another narration in Sahih Muslim: Narrated by Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri radiAllahu anhu: Allah’s Messenger SalAllahu alaihi wasallam said:
“If the Muslim world gave the Bai’a (pledge) to two Khalifah (chief Muslim rulers, the first one who was given the Bai’a (pledge) first will remain as the Khalifah, then kill the latter (the second) one.”
So it is a legal obligation, from the above-mentioned evident proofs (from the Qur’an and the Sunnah), that there shall not be more than one Khalifah (a chief Muslim ruler) for the whole Muslim world otherwise there will be a great fitnah (mischief and trial) amongst the Muslims, the ultimate results of which will not be worthy of praise.”
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’a (innovations) would spread and Fitna would grow, and that is in no one’s interest.”
Therefore fitna is the prevalence of kuffr, the absence of the implementation of Islam and the division of the Muslims.
The fact that we do not have a unified response, nor a means of applying pressure upon the adherents of ‘free-speech’ is symptomatic of the absence of the khilafah.
REACTION OF THE KHILAFAH
George Bernard Shaw wrote in his diaries in 1913, at the time when the Khilafah was at its weakest, that he was prevented by Lord Chamberlain from writing anything derogatory about RasulAllah (saw) because he was scared of the reaction of the Ambassador of the Uthmani Khilafah in London!
The Rasool salAllahu alaihi wasallam showed us the necessity of not being burnt at the hands of our enemies time and again, in a very practical way.
Prophet Muhammad salAllahu alaihi wasallam said in a hadith, “A Mu’min (believer) cannot be bitten from the same hole twice.” (Agreed upon)
What this means is that a Muslim can not be fooled twice. Let us examine the situation in which this Hadith was mentioned by the Prophet Muhammad salAllahu alaihi wasallam. Abu Azza Shayr was one of the poets in Makkah who use to write satire criticising the Muslims.
After the battle of Badr, which the Muslims won, the Muslims took some prisoners of war. Amongst these prisoners were some rich elite of Mecca, like Abbas and Abu Lahab, who ransomed themselves to be free. The prisoners who were poor, but were literate, the Prophet salAllahu alaihi wasallam asked them to teach ten Muslim children of Medinah how to read and write. Abu Azza was an educated person, but he pleaded to Muhammad salAllahu alaihi wasallam to let him go. He said that he, Abu Azza, was a very poor man with lots of children. Muhammad salAllahu alaihi wasallam asked Abu Azza to promise that he would not write anymore satire and that he would not fight the Muslims in the future. Abu Azza agreed to the terms.
The following year, when the battle of Uhud occurred, he was captured as a prisoner of war once again. This time around, Abu Azza made the same excuse of being poor with lots of children and he started to beg the Prophet salAllahu alaihi wasallam to let him go again.
The Prophet salAllahu alaihi wasallam replied, “I will not let you go to your tribe and boast amongst them that you fooled Muhammad salAllahu alaihi wasallam twice.” The Prophet salAllahu alaihi wasallam continued, “A believer never gets bitten from the same hole twice.” Muhammad salAllahu alaihi wasallam sentenced Abu Azza to be killed. (Reference: Nahagul Islam by Ibrahim Al-Kattan and Ali Hasan Aude, Jordan 1966)
Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî, who is the leading authority on the interpretation of Bukhârî’s Sahîh, says the following:
“This is presented in the form of a statement. Al-Khatâbî has said: This is a statement in its wording, but a command in its meaning. It means that the believer is resolutely aware, he/she is not taken to apathy (in learning his/her lesson), nor is he/she deceived time and time again. Thus, this is an order in religious matters as well as worldly matters…”
He further quotes the opinion of Abu `Ubayd:
“This is a warning against apathy, and an indication that intelligence must be implemented. Abû `Ubayd has said: It is not possible for the (true) believer to be afflicted from something only for him/her to return to it.”
The great scholar and theologian of the 13th century, Yahya bin Sharaf an-Nawawî relates the context of the Hadîth saying:
“…and the context of this narration is well known that the Prophet had captured the poet Abu Ghurrah at the Day of (the Battle of) Badr. So the Prophet gave him amnesty and freed him based on the condition that he would not continue on his hostility and derision. He then caught up with his people and returned to belligerence towards the Muslims and derision against them. Then he was captured on the Day of (the Battle of) Uhud and was asked about the amnesty that was given to him. Upon this the Prophet said, ‘The believer is not stung from the same hole twice.’ From this it is understood that if one were to suffer injury from a particular element, then they should abstain from it lest they should suffer such again.”
This ummah seems to face crisis after crisis, we are bitten again and again, attack after attack, yet we lack a strategic response. The rulers of the Muslim countries are content with providing nothing but empty rhetoric despite the fact there is a clear precedent set by our forebears in responding to attacks against Rasool Allah salAllahu alaihi wasallam.
THE LAST SHIELD
Twenty years prior to the destruction of the Khilafah, a play based on the writings of Voltaire was being staged in France and Britain titled “Mohammad or Fanaticism”, deriding the character of the Prophet salAllahu alaihi wasallam through the Zayd/Zainab issue. When the Khalifah (Sultan Abdul Hamid II) was informed of the play, his ambassador to France warned the government of the serious political repercussions which would follow if it was continued. France promptly stopped the play, so the group went to England. When the same warning was issued to England, the reply was that the tickets were sold out, and banning the play would be an infringement on the freedom of its citizens. So the following edict was issued by the Sultan, saying in no unclear terms: “I will issue an edict to the Islamic Ummah declaring that Britain is attacking and insulting our Prophet. I will declare Jihad…” Upon receiving this ultimatum, the claim for freedom of speech was forgotten, and the performance quickly stopped.
STAND FOR ISLAM
At the beginning I said we have very little control over the actions of the self-declared enemies of Islam. But we do have control over our response.
Every Muslim is accountable for his/her response.
As Muslims living in the West we have to:
O you who believe! Answer Allah and (His) Messenger when he (the Messenger) calls you to that which will give you life [TMQ Al-Anfal:24]
Yusuf Patel
There has been widespread opposition to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s remarks about the shariah. My first criticism of the speech is it was too convoluted, too complex, too academic and too nuanced to be crossed over into the domain of a sensationalist media. It is very similar to Pope Benedict’s XVI infamous University of Regensburg speech, comparable in an academically styled lecture which places in the mind of the audience critical claims about the essence of Islam. The Pope’s contentious discourse was the relationship between religion and violence, and he chose to quote the Byzantine Emperor Paleologus,
“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”.
It is quoted from a seemingly objective distance; so as to provide enough separation from the subject and avoid the claim the pope is attacking Islam. But the rest of the speech posits the Christian conception of God as moulded by rationality, therefore God’s commands should be understood through the filter of reason, and indeed reason is god’s nature’. This is set against the Islamic position built on transcendence, humankind’s inability to understand the creator or to reason his commands unless He does so himself. I believe the Pope was attempting to initiate a discussion that encourages a re-looking at Islam’s ‘lack of appreciation’ of rationality, as violence is the contextual backdrop that results from the absence of this effective filter. This ‘academic’ discussion would not have mattered unless it came from the highest ranking member of the Catholic Church.
I believe the speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury should not be understood as an academic, legal, theological or scholarly discourse, it was so open to interpretation it was bound to generate the headlines it did, it was political whatever the intended aims. The claims that the adoption of Shariah law into British law was ‘inevitable’ provided the Sun the ammunition to use the headline ‘Victory for terrorism’.
Politicians of every shade were waiting to add their two pence worth,
“You cannot run two systems of law alongside each other. Andy Burham, culture Secretary.
“But the suggestion that a British court should treat people differently according to their faith – whether that’s being Jewish, or Christian, or Muslim, is absolutely divisive, and I think, really rather dangerous.” Trevor Phillips, Equality and Human Rights Commission.
“I’m absolutely clear in my mind that what is right for Britain is that we are all subject to the same law, criminal and civil, and that we are, whatever our differences are, treated equally before that law.” Baroness Warsi, Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion.
Firstly, it gave the impression repeated in press statements that Muslims are making demands again to establish a separate parallel system. This has added to a perception that Muslims want to establish an Islamic State within a state in Britain. In their own lives Muslims refer to Islam in a wide variety of personal, economic and social areas and they use existing channels of familial structures or established voluntary Shariah courts for arbitration in divorce, inheritance etc.
Secondly, one of the points that has been raised time and again by the Archbishop, politicians, Muslim organisations, and writers both Muslim and non-Muslim is about whether women will be discriminated against by shariah courts. But a wider point being the want to frame Islam within a ‘Ramdhanian’ prism, one which accepts that the world has moved on, so should interpretations of shariah. These interpretations must be in step with and moulded by ‘universal’ norms. Therefore the western conception of women’s rights and human rights should somehow flavour at best and repair at worst the ‘excesses’ of a ‘male-dominated’ shariah. It is very difficult to have a meaningful discussion on the matter when your audience already believes Islam is outdated, needs defending or requires modernising as though it were a poorly written statute.
Thirdly, Jewish courts have existed (something the Archbishop referred to in his speech) and have been recognised by UK Statute for over 100 years. David Frei, registrar of the London Beth Din (Rabbinical Court) said,
“I do believe that under the present legal system so far as arbitration is concerned there is nothing preventing Muslims today resolving their civil disputes by consent under Sharia law.”
The Zionist author Melanie Phillips‘ argument that Jewish courts do exist as a voluntary model, but Muslims want the rulings of shariah courts to have the same legal authority is a more a ploy to safeguard the existing protection in law of a parallel structure to a minority she is in favour of.
The judgement of Beth Din Courts are usually upheld by English Courts, but occasionally a decision can be overturned if they conflict with English Civil Law and one of the claimants disagrees with the ruling.
The Guardian’s Legal Correspondent, Clare Dyer, gives one example of such a case,
In one case a son claimed his father owed him hundreds of thousands of pounds for smuggling carpets out of post-revolutionary Iran. The father denied the deal existed. If it did, it would have been illegal, which would have prevented the courts enforcing it.
In Jewish law illegality did not affect the rights and the son was awarded more than £500,000. The father refused to pay and the case eventually went to the court of appeal, which overturned the ruling.
I believe very strongly that Western Capitalism/Secularim/Liberalism/Liberal Democracy – whatever label you wish to append to the system adopted here – has a severe problem with how to deal with minorities, especially those with an alternative value system. The problem successive government are acknowledging is if you choose to provide a different solution for minorities and how this is viewed by the majority. Is this contradictory to the creation of ‘cohesive communities’ or is a pragmatic move the best way to ensure people are kept within a fixed system.
The Islamic model, which encompasses all aspects of shar’iah law allows Ahl al-Dhimmi (Non-Muslim citizens of the Khilafah) to have their own courts and judges to settle family law disputes and other matters related to their personal lives and religion. Sir Thomas Arnold in his book ‘The Call to Islam’ points out that under the Ottoman Sultans (Khilafah) the Christian Patriarch and the Grand Synod could decide all matters of faith and dogma without any interference of the State, something that was never the case under the previous Byzantine emperors.
O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as just witnesses; and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just, that is nearer to Taqwa (God consciuousness); and have Taqwa of Allah. Verily, Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do. [TMQ Sura Ma'ida:8]
Yusuf Patel
I received a phone call from the Evening Standard letters section editor this week. I have previously submitted letters to this London paper and he asked me for my views on the denial of an entry visa to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He asked me whether the government had caved in to pressure from the Tory leader, David Cameron. The use of David Cameron with political opportunism seemed an exact fit. My thinking on the subject at the time was as follows.
Cameron is compensating for a lack of real policies and the absence of clear blue water between his party and Gordon Brown. He therefore finds it necessary to adopt populist stances to win favour with the electorate. It was Cameron that has been calling for the ban on entry of Qaradawi to this country, particularly during Prime Minister’s Questions. Cameron is trying to show he is tough on ‘radical Islam’ and tough on the causes of ‘radical Islam’. He proudly points to unelected Queen Rania of Jordan, Pakistan caretaker Prime Minister Mohammedmian Soomro as backers of his anti-radicalisation strategy (whatever it may be). Actually, he has a cunning plan,
…don’t shy off tough choices like insisting new Imams speak English and backing schools over uniform policies. Most of all, back Muslim leaders in the UK who promote moderation, tolerance and integration, not a false sense of continuous grievance.
The jury is still out on whether Cameron is being disingenuous about his lack of knowledge about the issues or whether he believes simplicity is the key to public support. Whatever the case, he believes ‘radical Islam’ is the most dangerous threat to humanity since, well, at least the last great bandwagon threat.
As for Gordon Brown, his position is analogous to a greedy son’s hope in the early demise of his father only to find he spent all his inheritance on shares in a subprime mortgage lender. Tony Blair left the sinking ship at an opportune moment for his heir to pick up the pieces. Gordon cannot make any unpopular moves at a time his poll ratings are low and an election has to be called within the next two years. The Home Office’s denial of an entry visa to Sheikh Qaradawi, despite his many previous visits under both Tory and Labour governments (including in August 1993 when Cameron was special advisor to Home Secretary Michael Howard) should be seen in this light.
Yusuf Patel
