-
Q&A: Women traveling without a Mahram
Answer to Question
Women traveling without a Mahram
To Anas M Hirbawi
(Translated)Question:
Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatahu,
I have a question about women traveling without a mahram…
The question is: What are the boundaries for which a woman’s travel is considered travel, and it is not permissible for her to travel except with a mahram? So that if we wanted to measure it within Palestine, for example, we would say, for example: If a woman wanted to travel from Jerusalem to Umm al-Rashrash (Eilat), then her travel would be in one country, but if she wanted to travel from Jerusalem to Jordan, it would be closer to her than Umm al-Rashrash, so how are things measured? Is it measured on the borders that were set, so we measure it at the checkpoints, or is it measured at a certain distance, for example, 80 kilometers? Also, there are contemporary Al-Azhar people who are not trustworthy that say: In this time, women do not need a mahram to travel because things have become easier, and they linked this to the means of transportation, so is there anything from their words that can be taken or not…?
May you always be in Allah’s safety and care
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatahu,
We previously answered a detailed answer about women’s travel in its various cases on 5/11/2018, and I will quote from it what is related to your question:
[…First: If a woman’s travel takes a day and a night, she must have a Mahram with her, and the legal evidence is extensive in this sense, and we mention among them:
– Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said: The Prophet (saw) said:
«لاَ يَحِلُّ لِامْرَأَةٍ تُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَاليَوْمِ الآخِرِ أَنْ تُسَافِرَ مَسِيرَةَ يَوْمٍ وَلَيْلَةٍ لَيْسَ مَعَهَا حُرْمَةٌ»
“It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to travel for one day and night except with a Mahram.” That’s mahram. And in a narration on the authority of Abu Saeed al-Khudri, “two days,” and in a narration on the authority of Ibn Omar, “three days.”
– And Muslim narrated on the authority of Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah (saw), said:
«لَا يَحِلُّ لِامْرَأَةٍ تُؤْمِنُ بِاللهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ، تُسَافِرُ مَسِيرَةَ يَوْمٍ وَلَيْلَةٍ إِلَّا مَعَ ذِي مَحْرَمٍ عَلَيْهَا»
“It is not halal for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to travel the distance of a day and night without a man who is her mahram.” And in a narration on the authority of Abu Saeed al-Khudri, “a two-day march,” and in another narration on his authority, “three days onwards.”
– Al-Tirmidhi brought it out, and he said this is a good and authentic hadith, on the authority of Saeed bin Abi Saeed, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Abu Huraira, who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
«لَا تُسَافِرُ امْرَأَةٌ مَسِيرَةَ يَوْمٍ وَلَيْلَةٍ إِلَّا وَمَعَهَا ذُو مَحْرَمٍ»
“A woman must not make a journey of a day and a night unless she is accompanied by a man who is within the prohibited degrees.”…
From it the following is clear:
1- The restriction for travel is by time, as in the authentic texts. It is forbidden for a woman to travel alone without a Mahram for the mentioned period, i.e. a full day (24 hours), night and day. This means that the texts refer to time as “day and night” and not to the distance. If she travels by plane without a Mahram, a thousand kilometer, so she went and came back without staying for that period, so it is permissible for her to do so. But if she travels twenty kilometers on foot and it takes more than one day and one night, then she is forbidden without a mahram.
– The lesson in traveling without a mahram for a woman is the time, day and night, regardless of the distance. If the woman did not stay this time, but traveled and returned before that, then it is permissible for her to go without a mahram.
2- As for what was mentioned in the narration of Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Tirmidhi, and Ahmad… (three days or three nights, two days…), by combining the evidences, the legal ruling is that she should not travel the lesser march without a Mahram…
Therefore, it is forbidden for a woman to travel a day and a night’s journey except with a husband or a Mahram, and this is what we took and adopted in the social system.
Secondly: …
3- This is what we say, noting the following:
– We say the most correct and we do not say our opinion is definitive, this is one…
– The second is that we say that it is permissible for her to travel for less than a day and a night without a Mahram, and we do not say that it is obligatory. Therefore, if a woman wants not to travel a half-day journey except with a Mahram, then she has the right to that. The important thing is that she does not travel a day and night’s journey except with a Mahram…
– And the third is that the hadeeth stipulates that the woman should be accompanied by a mahram during her travels, which indicates the necessity of protecting the woman and for her to be safe. Therefore, it is not permissible for a woman to travel if she does not feel safe except with a Mahram, so she should not travel without a Mahram even if the time is an hour, because being safe is another condition…
– And the fourth is that it is not permissible for her to travel unless her husband or guardian gives her permission, whatever the period is, even if she was accompanied by a mahram for the Shariah evidence in that.
Fourth: Arriving at the destination:
…
**- If the intended place in the Islamic countries is other than Dar al-Islam, then this is divided into two parts:The first: If the travel is in regions in her state, but it is a vast country to which the hadiths of travel apply to the woman for a day and a night or more, and when she reaches the destination, the Mahram provides her with safe accommodation with her Mahrams if they exist, and if they do not exist, and she has acquaintances from righteous and trustworthy women, the Mahram is reassured of their righteousness, then he provides her with safe housing with one or two of these women. That is, she is not in a house alone, so she stays in it until she finishes her purpose, provided that he contacts her by phone or by means of (social) communication on a weekly basis at least… If she has a need for him, he must travel to her… And when she wants to return, the Mahram must return to her and travel back with her to his country as long as her travel lasts a day and a night or more…
If she does not have Mahrams or acquaintances who are righteous and trustworthy women, then either the mahram stays with her until she finishes her purpose, or they return together.
The second: If the travel is from an Islamic country to another Islamic country and each of them is in a state, and her travel between the two countries is a day and a night or more… In this case, if the woman reaches the region she is traveling to, the Mahram returns to his region and does not remain with her, provided that:
– The Mahram should provide her with housing in which she may stay in safety and security, such as if she is with her Mahrams or with her acquaintances who are good and safe women, i.e. not in a house alone… And the Mahram should stay for a week after securing her accommodation in order for him to be reassured of the safety of her movement from the house to her purpose during working days and on official holidays, and since this holiday is repeated during the week, then I do not see that he stays with her for less than a week to be reassured… And he should communicate with her by telephone or by (social) means of communication daily, and if it becomes clear to him that she needs him, he must travel to her immediately to be reassured… And when she wants to return, the Mahram must return to her and travel with her back to his country as long as her travel lasts a day and a night or more…
If she has no Mahrams or acquaintances of righteous women, then the Mahram either stays with her until she becomes acquainted with righteous and trustworthy women, and then he provides her with safe housing with those acquaintances and stays for a week after that…or they return together…
– If the intended place is in a non-Muslim country, then he looks at:
– If she has male Mahrams there in which she can live with or near them (close to them) so that the mahram traveling with her is assured that she will be safe there in her private and public life, or if she has female Mahrams there such as her mother, sister or aunt and she lives with her, it is not enough to live close to her. In these two cases, it is permissible for the Mahram traveling with her to return after reassurance of her safety and security, provided that the guardian or the husband agrees and provided that personal communication or correspondence is available with her whenever necessary…Then when she wants to return, the Mahram returns to her to accompany her on the return journey as long as it lasts one day and one night and more.
– If the above is not available, the Mahram must stay with her until she returns to her country of origin, because the security and safety requirements required by the woman’s life as an honor must be preserved. These requirements are not achieved in non-Muslim countries unless they are with her Mahrams, as we mentioned.
** B – If the intended place, after a short travel, does not require a mahram to travel and she wants to stay in the intended place for a day, two or three days…etc, what is her obligation in this case? Does she need Muharram?
The answer is as follows:
*- If the destination is Dar al-Islam, whether it is in her wilayah or not, then it is permissible for her to travel without a mahram because the travel time is less than one day and one night. If she does not return on that day and wants to stay for a day, two or three…etc, then it is permissible for her to stay only with her mahrams or with acquaintances of her who are faithful, trustworthy and righteous women, not in a house alone, provided that she obtains prior approval to live with those acquaintances from the guardian or husband.
– But if she does not have mahrams or acquaintances among the righteous and trustworthy women whose guardian or husband agrees to live with, then she must return from that day or a mahram should travel with her to secure her accommodation, as we mentioned in the case of traveling with a mahram.
**- If the intended place is located in the Islamic country in which she lives, but it is not Dar al-Islam, and the travel time is less than one day and one night, then it is permissible for her to travel without a mahram. If she does not return on that day and wants to stay for one, two or three days…etc, then it is permissible for her to stay only with her mahrams or with acquaintances of trustworthy, righteous and righteous women, not in a house alone, provided that she obtains prior approval to live with those acquaintances from the guardian or husband with reassurance.
But if she does not have mahrams or acquaintances who are righteous and trustworthy women whose guardian or husband agrees to live with, then she must return from that day or a mahram should travel with her to secure her accommodation, as we mentioned in the case of traveling with a mahram.
**- If the intended place is located in an Islamic country other than the one in which she lives, and it is not Dar al-Islam, and the travel time is less than one day and one night, then it is permissible for her to travel without a mahram. But because traveling from her country to another country involves procedures at the border, she must be accompanied by at least one company of trustworthy women, and her purpose of travel is the same purpose for which the woman travels, in other words the purpose of the accompanying companionship, and the purpose of the traveling woman is the same… If she wants to stay there for a day or two, she is allowed under the following conditions:
They have mahrams there, and each one lives with her mahrams. If they do not have mahrams, then they must have acquaintances from among the trustworthy, faithful, and safe women, and the guardians or spouses must agree to the accommodation of the two women with those acquaintances according to the above conditions.
If the above conditions are not met, that is, if neither of them has mahram or acquaintances, the guardians or the spouses agree to the accommodation of the two women with those acquaintances, then she must return on that day.
*- If the intended place is located in a non-Muslim country, i.e. in the land of the Kuffar (infidels), then in this case it is obligatory for the woman to travel with her husband, guardian, or mahram, and the matter is the same as in the case of a long journey that needs a mahram…
Fifth: As for the evidence that we relied on to achieve safety and security for the woman after her arrival at the destination, whether it was after a long journey that needed a mahram, or it was after a short journey that did not need a mahram, they are the evidence that we mentioned at the beginning of reaching the destination, and I will repeat it:
[Accordingly, the rulings upon arriving at the place of destination differ from the rulings during travel on the road. This issue, i.e. arriving at the intended place without taking it as an original residence, this issue depends on the availability of security in that place with regard to the woman’s residence, i.e. her security in her residence and security in her movement outside the house which is required by the situation of women and the safety of her life. In the introduction to the constitution, Article 112 states: (The origin is that the woman is a mother and a housewife, and she is an honor that must be preserved.), and as it is clear from the explanation of the article, a woman needs the permission of her guardian or her husband to go out…and she has a private life with special provisions that prevent her living with non-mahram men, rather with her husband or with her mahrams… In public life, she is prevented from being alone with other men except for a need approved by the Sharia… And she has a special dress, “the Jelbab, covering the private parts, and preventing adornment”.]
And all of this requires security and safety for the woman in order for her existence to be realized from being an honor that must be preserved through security and safety, and this needs to fulfill the criteria…And what I recommend, in this matter, is what I mentioned above, subject to the availability of all the conditions… And Allah is All-Knowing and Most Wise.
… 27 Safar al-Khair 1440 AH – corresponding to 05/11/2018] End
As for what you mentioned of the sayings of some sheikhs (and there are also from the contemporary Al-Azhar people who are not trustworthy, who say: In this time, a woman does not need a mahram to travel because things have become easier and they have linked this to the means of transportation, is there anything from their sayings that can be taken or not…?)
It is a saying that has no value or weight, as the text is clear that the forbidden is obligatory, so it is a legal ruling that is not invalidated by sayings without an evidence…
Allah Knows Best and is Most Wise.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah14 Rajab Al Haram 1444 AH
Corresponding to February 05, 2023 CE -
The Security Council is in “America’s Pocket” Driven by its Interests and the Interests of the Jews and Kafir Colonialists
On 11/6/2024, the Security Council issued a resolution supporting Biden’s project for the brutal Jewish aggression against Gaza, and indeed all of Palestine! The text of the resolution, as published by CNN, on 11 June 2024, stated the following: (The Security Council “welcomes the new ceasefire proposal that was announced on May 31, which was accepted by ‘Israel,’ and calls on Hamas to also accept it, and urges the parties agree to fully implement its terms without delay and without condition.”
As for the ceasefire proposal to which the resolution refers, it is what US President Biden had announced on 31/5/2024 in the White House, it stated, as mentioned by arabic.rt.com on 1/6/2024:
[(…Now, after intensive diplomacy, carried out by my team, my many conversations with leaders of ‘Israel’, Qatar and Egypt, and other Middle Eastern countries, ‘Israel’ has now offered a comprehensive new proposal… This new proposal has three phases:
1- The first phase would last for six weeks that would include: A full and complete ceasefire, a withdrawal of ‘Israeli’ forces from all populated areas of Gaza… During the six weeks of phase one, ‘Israel’ and Hamas would negotiate the necessary arrangements to get to phase two, which is a permanent end of hostilities. But… if the negotiations take longer than six weeks from phase one, the ceasefire will still continue as long as negotiations continue… The United States, Egypt and Qatar would work to ensure negotiations keep going, until all the agreements are reached.
2- The second phase, which will include: The release of all remaining living hostages, including male soldiers… And as long as Hamas lives up to its commitments, the temporary ceasefire would become, in the words of the ‘Israeli’ proposal, “the cessation of hostilities permanently,” if Hamas fails to fulfill its commitments under the deal, ‘Israel’ can resume military operations.
3- The third stage in which a major reconstruction plan for Gaza would commence.)
Biden concludes by saying: (- “Well, I’ve urged leadership in ‘Israel’ to stand behind this deal, despite whatever pressure comes.
– And to the people of ‘Israel’, let me say this. As someone who’s had a lifelong commitment to ‘Israel,’ as the only American president who has ever gone to ‘Israel’ at a time of war, as someone who just sent the U.S. Forces to directly defend ‘Israel’ when it was attacked by Iran, I ask you to take a step back and think of what will happen if this moment is lost”.
– And with this deal, ‘Israel’ could become more deeply integrated in the region, including — it’s no surprise to all, including who know for a potential historic normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia…)]
What is clear from this announcement is that it is full of time mines to prolong the aggression. He does not call for a complete withdrawal, but rather for “the withdrawal of ‘Israeli’ forces from all populated areas of Gaza…”, and he plays with words to deceive and evade, saying, “A complete and comprehensive ceasefire…a permanent cessation of hostilities…”, then he says, ‘If Hamas fails to fulfill its commitments under the deal, ‘Israel’ can resume military operations” and concludes by declaring that he and the Jews occupying Palestine are two in a century inseparable. He says, “As a person with a lifelong commitment to ‘Israel’,” and he heralds them of historic normalization! “‘Israel’ will be able to achieve greater integration in the region with this deal, including through a possible historic normalization agreement with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” Then he contradicts himself in the decision and says: “‘Israel’ has presented a new proposal,” i.e., as if it is an ‘Israeli’ proposal, then he comes back and says, “I urged the ‘Israeli’ leadership to support this deal…” as if it is not an ‘Israel’ proposal! Finally, despite the bad nature of Biden’s announcement, he stipulates that Egypt and Qatar will guarantee its implementation with America! “The United States, Egypt, and Qatar will work to ensure the continuation of negotiations until all agreements are reached.”
This decision comes creeping up behind a horrific massacre committed by the criminal Jewish entity on 9th of June 2024 in the Nuseirat camp, during which 274 Palestinians were martyred and 698 others were injured, which represents one of the bloodiest days in months for the people in Gaza.
O Muslims: It is not strange that America, the colonialist kuffar and their creation, the Jewish state, attack us. They are enemies of Islam and Muslims, not from today but from years ago. Nor is it strange that the colonialist kuffar, relying on international law, can attack Muslim countries because this law first initiated against the Muslims and their state (the Ottoman State) at the Westphalia Conference in 1648, which it later developed into the League of Nations and then the United Nations. All of this is not strange, but what is strange is that the rulers in the Muslim countries neighboring Palestine are watching the crimes and massacres that are taking place there while they are silent and prevent the armies from rescuing (nusrah) Gaza, and indeed all of Palestine. Rather, the best of them is one who counts the martyrs and calls them “the dead” and counts the wounded as if he were a neutral party, but rather closer to the Jews, as if what is happening is in a faraway country and not in the Blessed Land that Allah has blessed it and its surroundings! The brutal aggression by the Jews against Gaza did not take place one or two days ago, but about nine months ago, and the Muslim rulers remained motionless, rather, they ensured the implementation of international resolutions that were fatal to the Muslims, may Allah fight them, how they are deluded!
O Armies in the Muslim Lands: Is it not time for your blood to boil in your veins as you see and hear the crimes and massacres happening against your brothers and sisters in Gaza, and indeed all of Palestine, affecting people, trees and stones?! Do the cries of the children, the calls of women, and the pleas of the elders not move you to support them?
[وَإِنِ اسْتَنْصَرُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ فَعَلَيْكُمُ النَّصْرُ]
“And if they seek help of you for the religion, then you must help” [Al-Anfal: 72] Do the verses of Allah Al-Qawi Al-Jabbar (the Strong and Mighty), not move you to stand like men before the Jewish entity?
[قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ وَيُخْزِهِمْ وَيَنْصُرْكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَشْفِ صُدُورَ قَوْمٍ مُؤْمِنِينَ]
“Fight them; Allāh will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts [i.e., desires] of a believing people” [At-Tawbah: 14] Is obedience to Allah best or is obedience to your rulers, who make their national security independent of Gaza and its people, while it is a stone’s throw away from them, or even less than that? These are the rulers who support the kaffir colonialists, and their only concern is to remain on their crooked thrones. If you follow them, they will not benefit you in this world or in the Hereafter, and your argument for obeying them will be invalid on the Day of Resurrection.
[إِذْ تَبَرَّأَ الَّذِينَ اتُّبِعُوا مِنَ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوا وَرَأَوُا الْعَذَابَ وَتَقَطَّعَتْ بِهِمُ الْأَسْبَابُ * وَقَالَ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوا لَوْ أَنَّ لَنَا كَرَّةً فَنَتَبَرَّأَ مِنْهُمْ كَمَا تَبَرَّءُوا مِنَّا كَذَلِكَ يُرِيهِمُ اللهُ أَعْمَالَهُمْ حَسَرَاتٍ عَلَيْهِمْ وَمَا هُمْ بِخَارِجِينَ مِنَ النَّارِ]
“[And they should consider that] when those who have been followed disassociate themselves from those who followed [them], and they [all] see the punishment, and cut off from them are the ties [of relationship] * Those who followed will say, “If only we had another turn [at worldly life] so we could disassociate ourselves from them as they have disassociated themselves from us.” Thus will Allāh show them their deeds as regrets upon them. And they are never to emerge from the Fire” [Al-Baqara: 166-7]
O Soldiers in the Muslim Armies: The people of the Jewish entity are not a people of war or fighting. They are cowards and have been subjected to humiliation and poverty. You witness believing men from your brothers with weapons that are incomparable to the weapons of the Jews, yet they strike them with power, and those who flee in front of them resort to airplanes to protect them.
[لَنْ يَضُرُّوكُمْ إِلَّا أَذًى وَإِنْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ يُوَلُّوكُمُ الْأَدْبَارَ ثُمَّ لَا يُنْصَرُونَ]
“They will not harm you except for [some] annoyance. And if they fight you, they will show you their backs [i.e., retreat]; then they will not be aided” [Aal-i-Imran: 111] You undoubtedly know that Palestine is a blessed land… an Islamic land that the Jews have no right to have any authority over. There is no place for the two-state solution in it. Rather, it will return just as Al-Farouq conquered it, the Rightly Guided Caliphs protected it, Salah ud-Din liberated it, and Abdul Hamid preserved it from the Jews. It will return through the efforts of Allah’s truthful soldiers, those who will accomplish the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw), «لَتُقَاتِلُنَّ الْيَهُودَ فَلَتَقْتُلُنَّهُمْ…»“You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them”[Narrated by Muslim on the authority of Ibn Umar].
[وَلَتَعْلَمُنَّ نَبَأَهُ بَعْدَ حِينٍ]
“And you will surely know [the truth of] its information after a time” [Sad: 88]
H. 6 Dhu al-Hijjah 1445
M. : Wednesday, 12 June 2024 -
Nafsiya Reflections: The Virtues of Seeking Knowledge
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Assalaam u alaykum and welcome to today’s episode- The virtues of seeking knowledge.
Muslim’s usually grow up knowing that knowledge is to be sought and seeking knowledge carries great reward. Those who grew up without Islamic knowledge will never feel it is too late to learn. Those new to Islam often rush to learn Arabic, Fiqh, Quran, Hadith and so on.
For Muslims, seeking knowledge is a life-long quest. The Hadith of RasulAllah (saw) to seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave is well known and acted upon. The knowledgeable one is always considered better than the one who is not knowledgeable.
Allah (swt) tells us,
[وَمِنَ النَّاسِ وَالدَّوَابِّ وَالْأَنْعَامِ مُخْتَلِفٌ أَلْوَانُهُ كَذَلِكَ إِنَّمَا يَخْشَى اللَّهَ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ الْعُلَمَاء إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ غَفُورٌ]
“It is only those who have knowledge amongst His slaves that fear Allah.” [Surah Al-Fatir (35): 28].
Knowledge heightens the sense of accountability in a person, when it is correctly understood and acted upon… Knowledge that produces taqwa IS the knowledge we should strive to gain from whatever sources we have access to…
For a Muslim, knowledge of our obligations and how to worship Allah (swt) is paramount and the knowledge of other sciences and life is important for the world we live in.
In the past we read of scholars, male and female, excelling in fields of medicine, math’s, astronomy as well as fiqh, Arabic grammar, usul -ud-deen and so on. Many times the same person would be an expert in ALL these fields over the span of their life-time.
Today, we have access to a lot of information. However, there is some knowledge that goes beyond what we really NEED to know.
Today people REALLY want to know what is happening with famous people, what the latest fashion trend is, or even just be in the know of what their friends and family are up to.
Whilst in some cases this may be allowed, however this phenomenon can take over one’s life.
We should always ask, what use is this information for my life and also, for me in the hereafter?
As well as focusing oneself on obtaining the correct knowledge it is key for us to think of how this knowledge is an Amaanah – a trust or a responsibility for us and we cannot keep it for ourselves. Sharing beneficial knowledge is an important aspect of our role as Muslims in the community as Allah (swt) obliged us to command the good and forbid the evil.
Islamic scholarship in the past was based on the preservation of the identity of the Ummah and the desire to spread islam to others. Muslims were motivated by the many Hadiths pushing the desire to learn and using what was learnt for the Ummah’s intellectual and cultural prestige.
Just as the Muslims in the past gave us the knowledge we have today, we too have a great responsibility to carry what we know to others.
RasulAllah (saw) said:
“Allah, the angels, the inhabitants of heaven and earth, even the ant in its hole and even the fish in the sea, send blessings upon the one who teaches the people good.” [Narrated in at-Tirmidhi]
A knowledgeable person is not one who just has a wealth of information but the one who acts upon what is learnt; as the more we know, the more accountable we should feel.
Imam Nawawi (may Allah (swt) be pleased with him) is one example of a person who truly devoted his life to learning and was said to never waste his time, so much so that when he had a visitor he would use that time to sit and sharpen his pencils! His knowledge led him to realise the significance of time and a heightened level of accountability for it – and it began to show in his actions.
Looking at a simple aspect of any ritual we do, when we know details of this, our consciousness towards it improves and that action becomes much more connected to Allah (swt).
Also, when we seek knowledge we are bound to realise the role towards those around us. We are responsible for our family, our community and the ummah as a whole.
The revival and betterment of the ummah actually rests upon the collective thinking we have and this should ultimately be the focus of our seeking knowledge – and then passing it on.
May Allah (swt) make us of those who seek beneficial knowledge, that we act upon and that we pass this onto others. Ameen
Ummah Voice Podcast
-
Why Don’t the Shameless Rulers and International Bodies Represent Us?
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
The Gaza issue has been going on for months now, with no end in sight. The public across the world is furious, actively showing their anger and calling for a stop to the open brutality. But the rulers, the state bodies and the international organizations are aiding ‘Israel’ in their slaughter of the Palestinians and in their aim to take control of Gaza. The people have made a number of attempts to help the people of Palestine, through the use of domestic and international law. None have worked so far – and the question is will they ever work, with an entire system that’s so clearly in favor of the Jewish entity and its occupation of the land of Al-Aqsa.
Just this last week, the International Criminal Court of Justice, a body of the UN, released its initial verdict on South Africa’s case against ‘Israel’. They didn’t rule on whether or not ‘Israel’ had in fact committed genocide- according to analysts it could be years before they do that- but they did accept South Africa’s case and ordered ‘Israel’ to take some provisional measures – including orders to avoid civilian casualties and allow aid to enter into the Gaza strip. They did not order ‘Israel’ to withdraw their military from Gaza.
Across social media there was a feeling of anger, even amongst those who expected the lack of ruling on the genocide in the verdict. The saddest thing was the sadness and hopelessness with which some Palestinians reacted to the news– they had understandably held onto hope that the international court, which allegedly works to provide justice, would recognize their plight and give them some semblance of relief. They saw that once again; the entire system has failed them.
Those who understand the evil that exists within the system were not surprised by the result – they expected it. The ICJ is a UN body after all, and they lack any power to enforce complicity. This is combined with the fact that both the USA, and the Jewish entity had blatantly stated time and time again that they would reject a verdict that was against them, and continued with their sick acts of brutality in the name of ‘defense’.
What’s surprising is the people who hailed the verdict as a victory. They focused on points such as the fact that the ICJ decision was almost unanimous; that the ICJ recognized that South Africa’s case held merit; and the fact that they ordered ‘Israel’ take “all measures within its power” to stop the killing and the harming of the people of Gaza (amongst other things) and “to report back to the Court within a month”.
All of this was termed “extraordinary” by Craig Mokhibar, the former director of the New York office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). And he thought that there was an implicit call for ceasefire not an explicit one.
But an understanding of the system shows us two things:
1)‘Israel’ is not obliged to follow the rulings, as the ICJ doesn’t have the power to enforce it. It relies solely on the acceptance of the state’s willingness to abide by their rulings, due to the ‘peer pressure’ from other states. In the case of ‘Israel’, peer pressure doesn’t exist. There is a clear support for their actions from western and non-western states. And the protection that the USA has offered them (with the support of other states) since their founding in 1948, has made ‘Israel’ arrogant and brazen in expressing their hatred towards the Palestinians and their desire to take control of the entire area.
2)Even if the ICJ did, or does, rule that ‘Israel’ has committed genocide, it won’t make a difference. Bodies like the ICJ are used when western states want to put pressure on another to follow their rules and values, or when they want to show their citizens that the rule of law can remained intact – even if specific governments choose not to abide by it. This is done in an attempt to ensure that the people continue to refer back to the system for a solution, even though the system is the reason for the problem.
A look at the events that followed the ICJ verdict, showed how little their orders impacted the political situation.
1)In the Jewish entity, the Zionists continued to blatantly call for ‘Israeli’ settlement in Gaza, even going as far as to hold a ‘Return to Gaza Conference’.
“We yelled and we warned,” Ben-Gvir said. “If [we] don’t want another October 7, we need to return home and control the land.”
“There is no way to win that war without the rebuild[ing] of Gush Katif and the Gaza Strip. It should be flourished with Jewish villages and Jewish cities… That’s the only way to win this bloody war. And ‘Israel’ cannot afford not to win that war,” Moshe Feiglin, a former member of Knesset, said at the conference.
The bombardment and attacks on Gaza contained, as did their blockade on Humanitarian aid – with the UN reporting that had only allowed a limited amount of aid to enter Gaza, subjecting the rest (the majority) to unnecessary delays at the border, despite the dire need of the aid within Gaza. There are now reports that they have stopped it all together.
2)Then, after the verdict the USA, Canada, Australia, Britain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Finland all withdrew funding from UNWRA (The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees). This decision came after ‘Israel’ accused their personnel of involvement in the October the 7th attacks.
“UNRWA plays a critical role in supporting Palestinians fleeing the war in Gaza. The agency estimates that up to 1.9 million people are sheltering in or near its facilities, which include schools and aid warehouses. UNRWA also has been coordinating convoys of food and medical supplies into Gaza.”
3) Then there are the statements coming out from countries, condemning the offenses, but not taking any action to stop the genocide- even actions that are within their power in the international system. Including but not limited to economic sanctions, cutting off diplomatic ties, and military intervention. All of which they have used in the past, when it has suited their interests.
In the case of the ICJ, if you think about it, it’s seems ridiculous that while people are being killed on a daily basis by a state that is blatant in their hatred towards the people of Gaza, the ‘solution’ is to go to an international body that has no power to stop it.
People find it striking that South Africa, with their history of apartheid and lack of clear ties with Gaza, took the case before the ICJ and were clearly prepared in their stance on ‘Israel’s genocide. But we should also take note of the fact that they have yet to cut off ties with the Jewish entity – and in a statement following the ICJ verdict, the South African foreign minister didn’t say they had any intention of doing so.
Is our bar for change so low that we are see the ICJ verdict as a victory for the Palestinians? When in fact, it did nothing to help them. Telling ‘Israel’ to report back to them in a month – giving the Jewish entity plenty of time to ignore the orders and continue with their plan to create settlements in Gaza.
The people are angry and ready to take action
Since the start of the war on Gaza and the West Bank, it has been the public – the people in countries across the world- who have been shouting out at the genocide that’s taking place before our eyes. There are so many incidents of political actions being taken to call for change, from across the world by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
“From October 7 to November 24, there were at least 7,283 pro-Palestine protests that took place in more than 118 countries and territories.” Source: Armed Conflict Location & Events Data Project
– People gathered at rallies in Malaysia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Indonesia on Saturday, as well as at other protests in Thailand, Japan, Italy, Greece and Pakistan. The demonstrations were part of a “global day of action for Palestine” and called for an end to the bloodshed.
– Palestinians and supporters across the world plan took part in a global strike involving “all aspects of public life” to express solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza and call for an end to ‘Israeli bombardment. They chose to skip school and work, stay at home and refrain from going out to restaurants, banks and stores. They also chose not to make any online transactions or shopping online.
– Thousands of Jews have been protesting against ‘Israel’s genocide. Denouncing their actions and calling for an end to the oppression and bombardment of Gaza.
– More than 100 people blockaded both entrances to the Instro Precision factory in Sandwich, Kent (UK), which is owned by ‘Israel’s largest arms company Elbit Systems. Elbit has also been targeted by activists in the U.S. since ‘Israel’ began its latest assault on Gaza following an October 7 attack by Hamas.
– Demonstrators in London on Monday protested a local stadium hosting an arms fair with firms that make weapons ‘Israel’ uses against Gaza. Gathered in front of Twickenham Rugby Stadium, the protesters decried the UK’s Rugby Football Union letting the stadium in southwest London host the International Armoured Vehicle Fair. Protesters said that the fair and a similar event next month will be attended by companies that make weapons used by ‘Israel’.
– Protesters demanding a cease-fire in the ‘Israel’i war in Gaza blocked a U.S. military supply ship leaving the Port of Oakland for hours Friday by locking themselves to the vessel. The protesters also blocked the entrance to Berth 20 where the container carrier Cape Orlando is moored. Protest groups say the ship is bound for ‘Israel’ after being loaded with weapons and military equipment in Tacoma, Washington.
– El Helbawi has been spearheading a Twitter campaign, #ConnectingGaza, to give Palestinians embedded SIMs (eSIMs), a software version of the insertable chip used to connect a phone to cellular networks and the internet. To date, El Helbawi and her group, the Cairo-based Connecting Humanity, say they have connected more than 50,000 Palestinians via donated eSIMs.
– In Jordan, hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters trying to reach a border zone with the ‘Israeli-occupied West Bank as thousands held anti-’Israel’ demonstrations across the country, witnesses said. Jordanian riot police dispersed the people, firing tear gas to halt the ones that reached a security checkpoint outside the capital Amman on a highway leading to a main border crossing.
These are only a few examples – there are so many more.
The rulers are not
The ruler’s response to the war on Gaza has been nothing short of sickening. Some made ridiculously empty statements of condemnation, while joining the rest of the world in their support of the Jewish entity’s efforts to murder and oppress the people in Gaza.
There are numerous examples that showcase this in other articles, including “What exactly have the rulers done other than allow us to bleed.” Including the fact that none of them have cut off ties with the Jewish entity. And what that means is that they are still trading with the genocidal country, giving them the weapons and resources that they need to thrive and kill the people in Gaza.
– Many flights carrying US weapons and equipment have gone through the British base of Akrotiri in Cyprus, according to UK investigative site Declassified, following a Haaretz report that more than 40 US and 20 British transport aircraft, along with seven heavy-lift helicopters, have flown into RAF Akrotiri, a 40-minute flight from Tel Aviv.
– Germany is reportedly considering the delivery of 10,000 rounds of 120mm precision ammunition to ‘Israel’, a request to which it has already agreed in principle.
– In Jordan, one of the countries bordering ‘Israel’ and Palestine, the army increased its presence along its borders with ‘Israel’ and warned that any ‘Israeli’ attempt to forcibly push Palestinians across the Jordan River would represent a breach of its peace accord with its neighbour.
– And most recently, the evil President of Egypt (another country that border’s ‘Israel’ and Palestine) made a statement saying;
“I am very hurt by the words that Egypt is the reason why aid is not reaching Gaza. The Rafah crossing is open 24/7 but ‘Israel’ is blocking the aid. If it was in my hands and I prevented aid from reaching Gaza where would I go before God?”
It’s ridiculous that of all the things for him to be ‘hurt’ by, it’s this. He’s allowing ‘Israel’ to continue its bombardment, has made clear efforts to stop the people of Gaza from crossing the border. And he’s upset because ‘Israel’ accused them of halting aid?
This is while people, even the ones on the list of ‘approved people’, are struggling to leave Gaza through the Egyptian-Gaza border crossing. The term border should be taken lightly, as there is a wall there to physically keep the people of Gaza trapped within the walls surrounding the Gaza Strip.
“Those trying to get their names on the list of people permitted to exit daily say that they are being asked to pay large coordination fees (reports say around $5000- 10000 each) by a network of brokers and couriers with alleged links to the Egyptian intelligence services. Back in 2019, it was $600-$1,200 per person, arrived at the crossing each day that it was open… though there are reports of it being higher in some cases.” (Source: The Guardian)
Should we not have a ruler that reflects our sentiments and thoughts?
This is something that the people have started to realize. They are becoming aware to the fact that despite being told that we have ‘democratic’ rulers, the rulers are unwilling to do their duty to the people – protecting our interests and ensuring that our voice is heard and reflected in policy.
This isn’t a surprise- a study of democracy- even of the so-called ‘Islamic democracy’ that they pushed us to accept in the Muslim World – shows us that democracy will never be a viable system. It’s a lie that is fed to us so that we continue to work within this system and support the rulers who benefit from our death and misery.
There is a feeling of disillusionment amongst the people – who are seeing how every avenue that their rulers encourage them to use for change has failed time and time again.
There is a clear love for Gaza, the Palestinians Muslims, and land that is home to both Masjid Ul Aqsa and so much of Islamic History in the Muslims across the world. We can see the disgust at the blatant cruelty of the ‘Israeli’ people against the men, women and children of Gaza in the people across the world.
But those feelings, of love, of anger, of horror and of disgust, aren’t reflected in our rulers. And it’s definitely not being reflected in the system. So isn’t it about time that we demand a change? Not just in the faces, but in the system. If changing the faces worked, wouldn’t the Palestinian problem have been solved long ago? Wouldn’t we see waves of justice and care across the world?
It’s not enough to say that the ruler’s hands are bound.
it’s not enough to say that we condemn what is happening to the people of Gaza.
It’s not enough to force the states and the international bodies to admit that what’s happening in Gaza is a genocide.
This won’t change anything – a ceasefire, might bring a brief (much needed relief) to the people of Gaza. But it will still leave them at the mercy of the ‘Israeli’ occupation forces who harass and kill them as they please. Those who leave will be refugees, without a home, living in countries with rulers who have made it clear that they don’t care about their lives or their rights.
Until we accept that the system is the problem, until we move to change it, we will not be fulfilling our duty to the people of Palestine. Nor we will be fulfilling the obligations that Allah has given us – to live according to Islam.
He (swt) has told us time and time again the Quran, that we have an obligation to live under the rule of Islam. That living under Islam will ensure that our Muslim brothers, sisters, and children will be protected. That living under the rule of the Non- Muslims will only bring us injustice and misery.
وَأَنِ احْكُم بَيْنَهُم بِمَآ أَنزَلَ اللّهُ وَلاَ تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءهُمْ وَاحْذَرْهُمْ أَن يَفْتِنُوكَ عَن بَعْضِ مَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ إِلَيْكَ
“And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you and do not follow their whims, and beware (be on the alert) that they may deviate you away from even some part of what Allah revealed to you”.[TMQ 5:49]
Any ruler who tells you that we can live in this system and fulfill our obligations to Allah is lying to you. They are using our love of Allah and His religion to manipulate us.
We have seen it time and time again. Isn’t it about time that we learnt our lesson?
Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a world where justice was a reality, not a dream?
Our rulers have led us to believe that justice is something that we must beg for, it’s not given to us freely or willingly. For the people of Gaza, it’s a dream that they wish for but are not sure if they will receive it.
We are led to believe that that’s the way that the world works – that justice isn’t a right, it’s a ‘maybe’, ‘sometimes’, depending on whether the political and legal reality is in favor of the victims.
In Islam, justice isn’t just a reality – it’s an obligation, and one that the Khaleefah and his government will be accountable for. They must ensure that Muslims are protected, that the non-Muslim citizens are protected.
The justice is ensured by the Laws of Allah – they guide us on how to act in different situations, reminding us of Allah’s wrath if we do not ensure that the people receive the protection and justice that is owed to them. Under the Khilafah, there wouldn’t be a debate on whether or not, the situation in Gaza is a genocide. The matter is simple, Muslim blood is being split. The armies have a Fard to defend them, and the Khaleefah has a Fard to send them to the Muslim Land in defense of the Ummah.
Today, the rulers have led us to believe that this reality isn’t possible – that it’s only a dream, and one that can never be realized. But if we trust in Allah, and His Messenger, we know that that is not true. He (swt) has promised us justice; He (swt) has told us that Islam will come back to rule over us once again. So, isn’t the achievement of that promise something that we should all strive for?
The Prophet (saw) said: «كَانَتْ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ تَسُوسُهُمْ الْأَنْبِيَاءُ، كُلَّمَا هَلَكَ نَبِيٌّ خَلَفَهُ نَبِيٌّ، وَإِنَّهُ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدِي، وَسَيَكُونُ خُلَفَاءُ فَيَكْثُرُونَ»، قَالُوا: فَمَا تَأْمُرُنَا؟ قَالَ: «فُوا بِبَيْعَةِ الْأَوَّلِ فَالْأَوَّلِ أَعْطُوهُمْ حَقَّهُمْ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ سَائِلُهُمْ عَمَّا اسْتَرْعَاهُمْ»‘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 Khulafah’’ and they will number many’, they asked: ‘What then do you order us?’ He said: ‘Fulfil allegiance to them one after the other, and give them their dues; for verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with.’
Fatima Musab
-
America’s challenger is the Khilafah and not the ICC
On Monday, 11th September 2018; the world for the first time witnessed the address of the top US National Security Adviser – John Bolton announcing that, “Today, on the eve of September 11th, I want to deliver a clear and unambiguous message on behalf of the president. The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC … We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us. Trump administration will consider banning judges and prosecutors from entering the country, put, sanctions on any funds they have in the US financial system, and prosecute them in US Courts. Likewise with any company or nation that will cooperate with the ICC in investigating the US. In secular terms, we don’t recognise any higher authority than the US constitution. This president will not allow American citizens to be prosecuted by foreign bureaucrats, and he will not allow other nations to dictate our means of self-defense.”
The harsh utterances were as a result of the following events:
First: The ICC Prosecutor issued a request last year 2017 for an investigation into the claims of war crimes in Afghanistan, which would have included everything perpetrated by the US army and their intelligence officers. This is according to the ICC 2016 report which said that there is a basis of probability that the US army committed brutality in secret detention camps within Afghanistan operated by the CIA, and that the Afghan regime and Taliban committed war crimes. [bbc.com, 11/09/2018]
Pili: In May 2018, Palestine (PLO) through the Foreign Minister Riad Malki met with the ICC Prosecutor and officially asked the Court to open a full investigation into the claims of crime perpetrated by the Jewish entity of Israel in East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza since June 2014. [bbc.co.uk, 22/05/2018]. This led to the closure of the PLO embassy in the US.
The statement has revealed the following points:
a) The ICC is a Western tool especially the European Union (EU) who are members and the main sponsors of the Court led by Germany, Britain, France and Canada. Therefore, severity and leniency of its claws will always depend on the interests of its sponsors. For instance, those who participated in the war against IRAQ were America and Britain but we never heard from the ICC opening investigations and charging the British solders! Likewise, in Germany, Britain, Canada, France, Kenya etc. have enacted barbaric legislation to fight against Islam (Extremism and Terrorism) which has resulted to many extra judicial killings and abductions, which up to date their whereabouts are still unknown. The court is silent on this. Currently Muslims are being murdered by the Jewish entity in Palestine whereas in Syria, Russia, who is also the member of the court, bombards them with bombs, yet it is also quiet on it and does not open charges against it!
b) America is not ready to be dictated and accounted by the EU. It is full of pride and has manifested open animosity against Islam and Muslims. This is clear from its actions including its war against Extremism and Terrorism that is directed to Islam and Muslims globally. And America whatsoever does not want to be accounted by any institution (ICC, Companies or Regimes) in relation to the global crimes they commit. Especially considering this time that America is in economic warfare against the EU and wants to take every advantage to preoccupy EU and push it to submit to its international agreements and policies anchored on the slogan of “America First.”
The Challenger of America and her allies is the Islamic Khilafah (Caliphate) State established upon the methodology of the Prophethood. Its leader is the Khalifah (Caliph) who is confined to the Islamic Shari’ah emanating from the Quran and Sunnah in managing the affairs of his citizenry and Islam worldwide. Khilafah will view America and her allies including the Jewish entity as enemy states due to their oppression against Muslims and Islam. Hence, acting upon America similar to the way it acted upon it in 1783 when America entered the international arena through sailing its warships on international seas and were captured by the Khilafah navy near Algeria. In 1793, 12 more, American warships were captured again. And which led to the US Congress in 1794 to authorize President Washington to use 700,000 gold coins to construct a stronger warship that will be able to resist attacks from the Khilafah warships. One year later, America gave up and signed the Barbary Agreement between her and the Khilafah. The term Barbary means the North African province consisting of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, which was under the Ottoman Khilafah (Caliphate).
The terms of the Barbary Agreement were as follows:
- The agreement will cost America to pay at once $ 992,463.
- The captured American ships will be returned and the American warship will be allowed to sail on the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea.
- In order for the no. 2 to be effected, America shall pay $ 642,000 in gold standard.
- America shall pay an annual tribute of $12,000 in gold standard using the Islamic Hijri calendar.
- America shall pay US$585,000 as a ransom to the captured American soldiers.
- America shall construct a modern steel ship at her own cost and on completion submit it to the Khilafah in return for privileges. (The cost of the ship after completion was discovered to cost America 30 times more contrary to their initial estimation)
The Treaty was written in official language of the Khilafah at that time being the Turkish language and was signed by President Washington. This is the only American legal document to ever have been concluded in a foreign language and the only treaty the Americans have ever signed that agrees to pay annual tax to another nation. This treaty continued until the Khilafah was abolished
That was how America was dealt with during that time and that is how it will be treated soon after the impending Khilafah is re-established by the permission and will of Allah. That is when America will know that Muslims and Islam and all the weak across the world have found a true defender and genuine accountant of all oppressors and not the ICC and its likes including the United Nations etc.
Ali Nassoro
-
The Reality of Jinn Controlling Human-Being
Question
There are some illnesses which inflict people and which they ascribe to the Jinn. There are also people who claim to see and hear the Jinn, and to command them and carry out many actions through controlling them, or through their controlling people. What is the reality of this? Is there any material, sensorially-perceivable relationship between man and Jinn?
Answer
1. The Jinn are from the matters of the unseen; we cannot see them. Allah (swt) says,
«يَرَاكُمْ هُوَ وَقَبِيلُهُ مِنْ حَيْثُ لَا تَرَوْنَهُمْ»
“He sees you, he and his tribe, from where you see them not” (al-A’rāf: 27), that is, Iblīs and his people, or in other words, the Jinn, given that Iblīs is from the Jinn:
«إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ كَانَ مِنَ الْجِنِّ»
“Except Iblīs – he was from the Jinn” (al-Kahf: 50).
2. The foundation or origin of our relationship with them is that they are able to whisper to us and entice us [waswasa]. Allah (swt) says,
«فَوَسْوَسَ لَهُمَا الشَّيْطَانُ»
“So Shaytān whispered to them both” (al-A’rāf: 20); and He (swt) says,
«فَوَسْوَسَ إِلَيْهِ الشَّيْطَانُ»
“So Shaytān whispered to him” (Tāhā: 120), and Shaytān here is Iblīs and he is from the Jinn.
3. The Shayātīn do not have a compelling authority over man, except if man chooses to follow the Shaytān of his own free will. The Exalted says,
«وَقَالَ الشَّيْطَانُ لَمَّا قُضِيَ الْأَمْرُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَعَدَكُمْ وَعْدَ الْحَقِّ وَوَعَدْتُكُمْ فَأَخْلَفْتُكُمْ وَمَا كَانَ لِيَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْ سُلْطَانٍ إِلَّا أَنْ دَعَوْتُكُمْ فَاسْتَجَبْتُمْ لِي»
“And Shaytān shall say after the affair is decided: Surely Allah promised you the promise of truth, and I gave you promises, then failed to keep them to you, and I had no authority over you, except that I called you and you answered me.” (Ibrāhīm: 22)) And He (swt) says,
«إِنَّ عِبَادِي لَيْسَ لَكَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانٌ إِلَّا مَنِ اتَّبَعَكَ مِنَ الْغَاوِينَ»
“You have no authority over my slaves, except he who follows you of the deviant.” (al-Hijr: 42))
And He (swt) says,
«فَإِذَا قَرَأْتَ الْقُرْآنَ فَاسْتَعِذْ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ • إِنَّهُ لَيْسَ لَهُ سُلْطَانٌ عَلَى الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَلَى رَبِّهِمْ يَتَوَكَّلُونَ • إِنَّمَا سُلْطَانُهُ عَلَى الَّذِينَ يَتَوَلَّوْنَهُ وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ بِهِ مُشْرِكُونَ»
“When you recite the Qur’ān seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Shaytān. Indeed he has no authority of those who believe and place their trust in their Lord. His authority extends only to those who befriend him and those who associate partners with Allah.” (al-Nahl: 100)
4. Any material relationship other than this fundamental relationship which Allah has clarified requires a particular text establishing it. If a text exists explaining any such relationship then we affirm it in accordance with that text. For example the authority of Sulaymān (as) over the Jinn and his ability to command and prohibit them is a matter about which a text has come, thus we affirm it. Allah (swt) says in surah al-Naml about Sulaymān (as),
«قَالَ يَا أَيُّهَا الْمَلَأُ أَيُّكُمْ يَأْتِينِي بِعَرْشِهَا قَبْلَ أَنْ يَأْتُونِي مُسْلِمِينَ • قَالَ عِفْرِيتٌ مِنَ الْجِنِّ أَنَا آتِيكَ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ تَقُومَ مِنْ مَقَامِكَ وَإِنِّي عَلَيْهِ لَقَوِيٌّ أَمِينٌ»
“He said, ‘O Chiefs! Which of you shall bring her throne to him before they come to him in submission? An audacious one among the jinn said: I will bring it to you before you rise up from your place; and most surely I am strong (and) trusty for it.” (al-Naml: 38) And He, the Exalted, says,
«وَلِسُلَيْمَانَ الرِّيحَ غُدُوُّهَا شَهْرٌ وَرَوَاحُهَا شَهْرٌ وَأَسَلْنَا لَهُ عَيْنَ الْقِطْرِ وَمِنَ الْجِنِّ مَنْ يَعْمَلُ بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِ وَمَنْ يَزِغْ مِنْهُمْ عَنْ أَمْرِنَا نُذِقْهُ مِنْ عَذَابِ السَّعِيرِ • يَعْمَلُونَ لَهُ مَا يَشَاءُ مِنْ مَحَارِيبَ وَتَمَاثِيلَ وَجِفَانٍ كَالْجَوَابِ وَقُدُورٍ رَاسِيَاتٍ اعْمَلُوا آلَ دَاوُودَ شُكْرًا وَقَلِيلٌ مِنْ عِبَادِيَ الشَّكُورُ»
“And (We made) the wind (subservient) to Sulaymān, which made a month’s journey in the morning and a month’s journey in the evening, and We made a fountain of molten copper to flow out for him, and of the jinn there were those who worked before him by the command of his Lord; and whoever turned aside from Our command from among them, We made him taste of the punishment of burning. They made for him what he pleased of fortresses and images, and bowls (large) as watering-troughs and cooking-pots that will not move from their place; give thanks, O family of Dawūd! and very few of My servants are grateful.” (Saba’: 12)
5. The Messenger of Allah (saw) would treat any material occurrence as a human matter, so long as no revelation came establishing that the Jinn had a relation to the matter. All matters were in origin taken as human affairs. If a dead man were found for instance it would not be thought that the Jinn killed him unless a text about such were found. Such was the case in the incident of the dead man found in Khaybar where the search was directed at who from amongst the people killed him, and did not extend to even the possibility of the Jinn having done so.
Muslim relates in His Sahīh that Abdullah ibn Sahl and Muhayyisah set out for Khaybar out of severe fatigue. When Muhayyisah found out that Abdullah ibn Sahl have been killed and thrown into a well he went to the Jews and said, “By Allah, you have killed him!” They replied, “By Allah, we did not kill him.” When the matter reached the Messenger of Allah (saw) he said, “Either they pay the blood-money of your companion or they declare war (by refusing to comply with the Shari’ah rules).” So he (saw) wrote to them and they wrote back, “By Allah, we did not kill him.”…The incident is well-known. Important to our current discussion, at no point did the question of the Jinn having played any role enter the discussion in any way.
6. Hence so long as a text mentioning a material relationship regarding any given incident is not found, the relationship between Jinn and man remains limited to whispering and incitement. Further, because the message of the Messenger (saw) is the seal of the messages, whereafter the revelation ceased and no new text will come, therefore no material relationship between Jinn and man can be established. There remains only the possibility of whispering and incitement, and as we have mentioned there is no authority in the whispering of the Jinn over man except if man responds to that whispering by his own choice.
This is how material matters were treated in the time of the Khulafa’ al-Rāshideen, such that at the occurrence of no material event, be it murder, theft, deception, or fraud, did the mind turn to the Jinn. It always turned to men, because the relation of Jinn is one of whispering and incitement, except if a text exists to say otherwise. Since no specific texts can come after the Messenger of Allah (saw), all material occurrences are from men, not from the Jinn, for their world is different to ours, and their relationship with us is a relationship of whispering alone.
Therefore if someone falls ill there is no connection of this with the Jinn. The illness is to be treated according to the Islamic injunctions, that is, through therapy. This treatment can be material (medicine) or through du’a and ruqya.
As for the former it is like what came in the hadith from Usāmah ibn Sharīk that he said, “I came to the Prophet (saw) and his Companions who were as if they had birds on their heads. I greeted them and sat down. Then came bedouins from various areas and asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, should we take medicine’? He replied, ‘Take medicine for indeed Allah has not made an illness except that he has created its cure, except only one illness, death.’ (Abu Dāwūd)
As for the latter, it is like what came in the hadith related by Muslim from Aa’isha, the mother of the believers (ra), that, “The Messenger of Allah used to recite this incantation (ruqyah), ‘Lord of the people, remove the trouble for in your Hand is the cure; none is there to relieve him but you.’ This and the like supplications from the Qur’an and Sunnah or that which accords with them can be used.
As for resorting to those who claim to have a material connection with the Jinn in order to cure an illness, then this is fraud and deception from those fraudsters who fool the common people and unjustly consume their wealth.
11/06/2009
-
The Defection of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and the Saud Clan from the Ottoman Caliphate
Dear Administration of the site: Islamqa.info
Assalamu Alaykum wa Rahmat Allahu wa Barakatu,You published on your site an answer to the question titled, “Did the Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab defect from the Ottoman Caliphate, and was he a cause of its downfall?” and the answer quoted from the book: How the Khilafah was Destroyed by the Scholar Sheikh Abdul-Qadeem Zalloum. We found a number of important points that need to be clarified, and we hope you will kindly publish our comments regarding the answer on your site…
May Allah award you a great reward on our behalf.
Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem
The Defection of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and the Saud Clan from the Ottoman Caliphate
Alhamdulillah, the Lord of the Worlds, a very good, blessed thanks, that fills the Heavens and the Earth and beyond, and may Allah’s peace and blessings be on the one who was sent as a Mercy to the Worlds, Muhammad bin Abdullah, and on his family and companions, and those who supported him and followed him beneficently until the day of Judgment, having said that…
It is reported on the website Islam Question and Answer, under the supervision of Sheikh Muhammad Saleh al-Munjid an answer to the question:
Question: Did the Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab defect from the Ottoman Caliphate and was he a cause of its downfall?
Some people slander Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, may Allah have mercy on his soul, and accuse him of warring against the Ottoman Islamic Caliphate and against the Khaleefah of the Muslims; therefore, he is an enemy against Muslims. And controversy revolves around this issue, so is this true? How can anyone fight the Amir of the Muslims, even though the Khaleefah prays, implements Zakat and such? They also claim that he colluded with the British army, and fought with them against the Muslims. Please give me a detailed answer about this historical issue, and that you clarify the truth for me. Who can we believe? End of Question.
We will present the answer paragraph by paragraph, and then examine it and comment with what Allah commended us, asking that Allah Almighty present the truth by our words and make us see the truth as truth and false as false and let us steer clear of the false, O Allah, Ameen.
The first paragraph of the answer:
Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Abed al-Lateef said, “Some of the opponents of the Salafi claim Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab had defected the Ottoman Caliphate and in this had split the Muslims and violated the obligation of obedience.” [Claims of the Opponents of the Call of Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, p. 233]
And he said, Abdul Qadeem Zalloum claims that “the Wahhabis, by the emergence of their message, was a cause of the downfall of the Caliphate,” saying, “the Wahhabis created an entity in the Islamic State headed by Muhammad bin Saud and then by Abdul Aziz, thus the British provided them with weapons and funding and they were motivated on a doctrinal (Math’hab) basis to seize the Islamic lands under the control of the Khilafah; that is, they took up arms against the Khaleefah and fought the Islamic army; the army of the Amir of the Muslims, instigated and supported by the British.” [How the Caliphate was Destroyed, p. 10]
Before we deliver the answer about Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab’s suspected defection from the Caliphate state, it is appropriate that we remember how the Imam Sheikh believed in the obligatory nature of hearing and obeying the Muslim’s leaders, be they righteous or immoral, as long as they did not order a sin because obedience is only for what is good.
The Imam Sheikh said in a letter to the people of al-Qassim: “I see that it is obligatory to hear and obey the leaders of the Muslims, the righteous and the immoral, as long as they do not order a sin, and whoever has been designated the Khilafah, after the people agreed on him and were satisfied with him and were defeated by his sword until he became the Khaleefah, then it becomes obligatory to obey him and it becomes forbidden to oppose him.” [Compiled Publications of the Sheikh, 5/11]
He also says, “The third origin: It is of good compilation is to hear and obey who rules us even if he were a black Abyssinian.” [The Compiled Publications of the Sheikh (394/1) via The Opponents’ Claims, p. 233-4].
End of the first paragraph
We shall address the following issues of the fatwa analytically, namely:
First: The obligatory nature of hearing and obeying the Khaleefah.
Second: The forbidden nature of opposing the Khaleefah and the examination of the Sheikh’s opinion in the case the Khaleefah commands a sinful act, compared to the text of the hadith not to oppose the Khaleefah except in the case of blatant disbelief (Kufr).
Third: The failure of the fatwa to address the issue of the unity of the Islamic State and the forbidden nature of bayah to more than one Khaleefah at the same time.
This paragraph contains an opinion about the obligatory nature of hearing and obeying the leaders of the Muslims, the righteous and the immoral, as long as they do not order a sin, and it is without a doubt that this is an argument against Sheikh ibn Abdul Wahhab not an argument for him; from your own mouth, I condemn you. He had issued a fatwa stating the forbidden nature of defecting from the Khaleefah, and then he defected against him. Details will demonstrate that he defected from him until he reached Homs and Aleppo, and he rebelled against him in Iraq, Kuwait and other places that were under direct control of the Khaleefah via his governors, just as every Amir had entrusted governors.
The second issue of that we read in the fatwa is what deals with the lack of obedience when ordered to carry out a sin, and the absence of explanation about the forbidden nature of opposing when ordered to carry out a sin, but only if he shows blatant disbelief.
What obligates the opposition of the Khaleefah is not simply him ordering a sin, for if he orders a sin then there is no obedience to him because of the Prophet’s ﷺ saying,
“لا طاعةَ لمخلوقٍ في معصيةِ الخالقِ”
“There is no obedience to the created in disobedience to the Creator.” [al-Albani]
However, opposing him is forbidden except if he shows blatant Kufr, with clear proof from Allah, narrated by Muslim on the authority of ‘Auf bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,
«خيار أئمتكم الذين تحبونهم ويحبونكم، ويصلّون عليكم وتُصلّون عليهم، وشرار أئمتكم الذين تبغضونهم ويبغضونكم، وتلعنونهم ويلعنونكم، قيل: يا رسول الله أفلا ننابذهم بالسيف؟ فقال: لا، ما أقاموا فيكم الصلاة، وإذا رأيتم من ولاتكم شيئاً تكرهونه فاكرهوا عمله ولا تنـزعوا يداً من طاعة».
“The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke God’s blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and who curse you. It was asked (by those present): Shouldn’t we overthrow them with the help of the sword? He said: No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you find anything detestable in them, you should hate their administration, but do not withdraw ourselves from their obedience.”
This is explicit in describing the good Imams and the evil Imams, and also explicit in forbidding fighting them as long as they implement the Deen, because implementing Salah is a reference for implementing the Deen and ruling by it; narrated by Bukhari on the authority of Junada bin Abi Umaiya,
دخلنا على عبادة بن الصامت وهو مريض قلنا أصلحك الله حدث بحديث ينفعك الله به سمعته من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: دعانا النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فبايعناه. فقال فيما أخذ علينا أن بايعنا على السمع والطاعة في منشطنا ومكرهنا وعسرنا ويسرنا وأَثَرَةً علينا وأن لا ننازع الأمر أهله قال إلاّ أن تروا كفراً بواحاً عندكم من الله فيه برهان
“We entered upon ‘Ubada bin As-Samit while he was sick. We said, “May Allah make you healthy. Will you tell us a Hadith you heard from the Prophet by which Allah may make you benefit?” He said, “The Prophet called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam, and among the conditions on which we took the Pledge from us, was that we were to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah.”
It is necessary to say that the aforementioned fatwas mention another greatly important related issue; the obligation for the unification of the Muslims under the entity of an Islamic State, and the forbiddance that there be two Khaleefahs in the Ummah, and not defect from it, and every chief of a tribe not separate from the Islamic State and war against it.
There is the opinion of Sheikh bin Abdul Wahhab about hearing and obeying whoever the people have agreed upon and are satisfied with and have been defeated with the sword, and the problem deals with the sentiment of dominated by the sword with the people’s satisfaction of him, as if it was a requirement for the obligation of obedience and the forbiddance of defection. This issue is not a requirement for the conditions of bayah of the Khilafah, and it is not mentioned in the Hadeeths of the Mustafa ﷺ. Therefore, the relationship between the ruler and the ruled is not a relationship of domination by the sword or of dominating them until they are subjugated; to the contrary, the allegiance is a contract of goodwill between the Ummah and the ruler based on consent and choice. It is reported on Omar bin Khattab (ra) saying, as it is reported in The Book of the Major Classes by ibn Sa’ad,
ألا إن الإسلام حائط منيع وباب وثيق فحائط الإسلام العدل وبابه الحق، ولا يزال الإسلام منيعاً ما اشتد السلطان، وليس شدة السلطان قتلاً بالسيف ولا ضرباً بالسوط ولكن قضاء بالحق وأخذاً بالعدل
“Abdullah bin Omar said when they went to discuss the matter: Othman called me {once may be twice} to make me part of their discussion, and by Allah I wouldn’t like to be part in it as I knew it was going to be what my father told me, and by Allah he always told the truth, and when Othman insisted, I said: Oh people don’t you realize that you are electing an Amir while Amir al- Mu’mineen is still alive among you, and after saying that, it felt like I had woken Omar up from the grave, then he [Omar] said: Be patient ,and if some thing happens to me, let Suhaib lead you in your salah for three nights, then agree on this matter among you, and whoever puts him self a leader on you without your consultation then cut off his head.”
‘Classes’ by bin Sa’ad also reports that Umayr bin Sa’ad (ra) who Omar bin Khattab (ra) had entrusted Homs to, used to say,
“ألا إن الإسلام حائط منيع وباب وثيق فحائط الإسلام العدل وبابه الحق، ولا يزال الإسلام منيعاً ما اشتد السلطان، وليس شدة السلطان قتلاً بالسيف ولا ضرباً بالسوط ولكن قضاء بالحق وأخذاً بالعدل”
“Islam is indeed an impervious wall and a closed door, for the wall of Islam is justice and its door is truth, and Islam will continue to be an impervious wall as long as authority is intensified, and the intensification of authority is not in fighting with the sword or beating with the whip, but in judging by truth and implementing in justice.”
With regards to the unity of the Muslims under one Khaleefah, Muslim reported in The Book of Principality and the narration is by him, Nisa’ai, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, and Ahmad, on the authority of Abdul Rahman bin Abdul Rab al-Ka’aba,
عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَبْدِ رَبِّ الْكَعْبَةِ قَالَ دَخَلْتُ الْمَسْجِدَ فَإِذَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ جَالِسٌ فِي ظِلِّ الْكَعْبَةِ وَالنَّاسُ مُجْتَمِعُونَ عَلَيْهِ فَأَتَيْتُهُمْ فَجَلَسْتُ إِلَيْهِ فَقَالَ: كُنَّا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي سَفَرٍ… إلى أن قال: مَنْ أَحَبَّ أَنْ يُزَحْزَحَ عَنْ النَّارِ وَيُدْخَلَ الْجَنَّةَ فَلْتَأْتِهِ مَنِيَّتُهُ وَهُوَ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلْيَأْتِ إِلَى النَّاسِ الَّذِي يُحِبُّ أَنْ يُؤْتَى إِلَيْهِ وَمَنْ بَايَعَ إِمَامًا فَأَعْطَاهُ صَفْقَةَ يَدِهِ وَثَمَرَةَ قَلْبِهِ فَلْيُطِعْهُ إِنْ اسْتَطَاعَ فَإِنْ جَاءَ آخَرُ يُنَازِعُهُ فَاضْرِبُوا عُنُقَ الْآخَر”ِ
“I entered the masjid and Abdullah bin Amru bin al-As was sitting in the shade of the Ka’aba and the people were gathered around him, so I approached and sat with him and he said: ‘We were with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, traveling … and he said: ‘Whoever would like to slide past the fire and enter the Jannah then let him die while he is a believer in Allah and the Last Day, and he should bring to the people what he would like to be brought to him, and whoever pledges allegiance to an Imam and obeyed him with the deal of his hand and the fruit of his heart, then he should obey him if he can and if someone else comes to challenge him then strike the neck of the latter.’”
And Muslim narrated on the authority of Arfajeh who said,
“من أتاكم وأمركم جميع على رجل واحد يريد أن يشق عصاكم، أو يفرق جماعتكم فاقتلوه “
“I heard the Prophet ﷺ say: “Whoever comes to you and your command is under one man who wants to split your stick, or separate your group, then kill him.”
And Muslim narrated in The Book of Principality on the authority of Abi Saidin al-Khudriji who said,
إِذَا بُويِعَ لِخَلِيفَتَيْنِ فَاقْتُلُوا الْآخَرَ مِنْهُمَا
The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘If allegiance is pledged to two Khaleefahs, then kill the latter.’” and here the statement is directed to all Muslims there can not be more than one Khaleefah over them, and this is textual evidence for the forbidden nature of there being more than one Khaleefah, and the obligation for there to be one Khaleefah.
And the reality of someone who disputes the Khaleefah on an area of land announcing that he will not subject to the authority of the Khaleefah, and that he will establish rule on that area; his situation is that he has placed himself an Imam over the Muslims, and is in the place of the Khaleefah even if he does not name himself a Khaleefah. The appointment of governors and workers over regions is the work of the Khaleefah, and his responsibility entrusted upon by the Shara’, and the Prophet ﷺ used to appoint the workers and governors, and that continued throughout the years of the rightly guided Khulafah ar-Rashideen after him. Therefore, it is not acceptable for a tribe to separate from the Islamic State and appoint itself its guardian, and then this guardian secedes the land from the Khaleefah, taking land under his authority; tearing it out from the authority of the Khaleefah, for this is without a doubt the actions of someone who sees himself as the Khaleefah of the Muslims.
Refer to the confirmation found in Saudi records:
The relationship of the Saudi state with ash-Sham:
The sources of the Najd suggest that the Iman Abdul Aziz bin Muhammad ordered some of his forces in the year 1208 AH/1793 CE to go to Dumat al- Jandal, at the outskirts of ash-Sham, and to fight its inhabitants, and that may have been to test the power of Ottomans in ash-Sham. In the year 1212 AH/1797 CE, Hajilan bin Hamd, the Amir of Qassim, headed an army from the Qassim family attacking the Valley of Shararat. Several men were killed and their property and monies were looted.
These campaigns were able to spread the principles of the calls for reform in the area and collect Zakah from the inhabitants. Six camels loaded with riyals arrived in the year 1218 AH from the people of ash-Sham. It is understood from that that the people of valleys in ash-Sham were under the political and religious authority of Dari’a (a city near Riyad), and not to the governors of ash-Sham.
End quote from Desert Warrior EncyclopediaSo as we see, the Zakat that used to be paid to the governors of ash-Sham on behalf of the Khaleefah, had been given to Dari’a, so is that anything other than the actions of someone who sees himself as the Khaleefah of the Muslims? And is there any clearer evidence that he had defied the Khaleefah for his work and responsibility, and defied him over the lands that were torn from him and subjected to his authority instead of the Khaleefah’s authority?
On the authority of Arfajah on the Prophet ﷺ said,
“إنه ستكون هَناتٌ وهنات، فمن أراد أن يفرق أمر هذه الأمة وهي جميع، فاضربوه بالسيف كائنا من كان ” رواه مسلم
“I have heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘Different evils will make their appearance in the near future. Anyone who tries to disrupt the affairs of this Ummah while they are united you should strike him with the sword whoever he be,’” [narrated by Muslim]
Imam Nawawi in the Sahih Muslim commentary said,
إذا بويع لخليفة بعد خليفة، فبيعة الأول صحيحة ويجب الوفاء بها، وبيعة الثاني باطلة، ويحرم الوفاء بها، ويحرم عليه طلبها وسواء عقدوا للثاني عالمين بعقد الأول، أم جاهلين، وسواء كانا في بلدين أو بلد، أو أحدهما في بلد الإمام المنفصل والآخر في غيره…. واتفق العلماء على أنه لا يجوز أن يعقد لخليفتين في عصر واحد سواء اتسعت دار الإسلام أم لا
“If allegiance has been pledged to two Khaleefahs, then the allegiance to the first is correct and has to be kept, and the allegiance to second is null and it is forbidden to keep it, and it is forbidden to request it even if the persons who made the contract with the first were two scholars or two ignorant people, or in one land or the same land, or if the first was in the land of the separated Imam and the second was in a different land… and the scholars have agreed that it is not permissible to make a pact for two Khaleefahs at the same time whether the Dar al-Islam was expanded or not.”
Contemplate his statement: “If they were in two lands or one land,” meaning that even if we accept for the sake of debate that those lands were not under the direct control of the Caliphate state, then it is still forbidden to pledge allegiance to a Khaleefah in that land. Also contemplate the consensus of the scholars about this, but despite that we still find those who try to justify the Wahhabi’s defection from the Khilafah.
With regard to the obligation that the Muslims gather under the authority of one Amir al Mu’mineen,
فقد روى الإمام مسلم في كتاب الجهاد والسير واللفظ له والترمذي وأبو داود وابن ماجه وأحمد والدارمي: «عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ بُرَيْدَةَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ قَالَ: كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا أَمَّرَ أَمِيرًا عَلَى جَيْشٍ أَوْ سَرِيَّةٍ أَوْصَاهُ فِي خَاصَّتِهِ بِتَقْوَى اللَّهِ وَمَنْ مَعَهُ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ خَيْرًا ثُمَّ قَالَ اغْزُوا بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ قَاتِلُوا مَنْ كَفَرَ بِاللَّهِ اغْزُوا وَلَا تَغُلُّوا وَلَا تَغْدِرُوا وَلَا تَمْثُلُوا وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا وَلِيدًا وَإِذَا لَقِيتَ عَدُوَّكَ مِنْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ فَادْعُهُمْ إِلَى ثَلَاثِ خِصَالٍ أَوْ خِلَالٍ فَأَيَّتُهُنَّ مَا أَجَابُوكَ فَاقْبَلْ مِنْهُمْ وَكُفَّ عَنْهُمْ ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى الْإِسْلَامِ فَإِنْ أَجَابُوكَ فَاقْبَلْ مِنْهُمْ وَكُفَّ عَنْهُمْ ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَى دَارِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ إِنْ فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَلَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ فَإِنْ أَبَوْا أَنْ يَتَحَوَّلُوا مِنْهَا فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ يَكُونُونَ كَأَعْرَابِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يَجْرِي عَلَيْهِمْ حُكْمُ اللَّهِ الَّذِي يَجْرِي عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَلَا يَكُونُ لَهُمْ فِي الْغَنِيمَةِ وَالْفَيْءِ شَيْءٌ إِلَّا أَنْ يُجَاهِدُوا مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فَإِنْ هُمْ أَبَوْا فَسَلْهُمْ الْجِزْيَةَ فَإِنْ هُمْ أَجَابُوكَ فَاقْبَلْ مِنْهُمْ وَكُفَّ عَنْهُمْ فَإِنْ هُمْ أَبَوْا فَاسْتَعِنْ بِاللَّهِ وَقَاتِلْهُمْ وَإِذَا حَاصَرْتَ أَهْلَ حِصْنٍ فَأَرَادُوكَ أَنْ تَجْعَلَ لَهُمْ ذِمَّةَ اللَّهِ وَذِمَّةَ نَبِيِّهِ فَلَا تَجْعَلْ لَهُمْ ذِمَّةَ اللَّهِ وَلَا ذِمَّةَ نَبِيِّهِ وَلَكِنْ اجْعَلْ لَهُمْ ذِمَّتَكَ وَذِمَّةَ أَصْحَابِكَ فَإِنَّكُمْ أَنْ تُخْفِرُوا ذِمَمَكُمْ وَذِمَمَ أَصْحَابِكُمْ أَهْوَنُ مِنْ أَنْ تُخْفِرُوا ذِمَّةَ اللَّهِ وَذِمَّةَ رَسُولِهِ وَإِذَا حَاصَرْتَ أَهْلَ حِصْنٍ فَأَرَادُوكَ أَنْ تُنْزِلَهُمْ عَلَى حُكْمِ اللَّهِ فَلَا تُنْزِلْهُمْ عَلَى حُكْمِ اللَّهِ وَلَكِنْ أَنْزِلْهُمْ عَلَى حُكْمِكَ فَإِنَّكَ لَا تَدْرِي أَتُصِيبُ حُكْمَ اللَّهِ فِيهِمْ أَمْ لَا”
Muslim has narrated in the book Jihad was-Sayr and the narration is his and for Turmidhi, Abu Dawud, Ibn Sajah, Ahmad and al-Darmi, “It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and tell them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai’ except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah’s Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah’s behest with regard to them.”
And in the narration Abu Dawud and Ahmad, “Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of the Muhajireen and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims.”
Because the Prophet ﷺ ordered the attack of every land that refused to submit to authority of the Muslims, and he warred them, whether the inhabitants were Muslims or non- Muslims, with the evidence that he prohibited the killing of the inhabitants if they were Muslims,
روى الإمام البخاري في كتاب الأذان: «عَنْ حُمَيْدٍ عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ إِذَا غَزَا بِنَا قَوْمًا لَمْ يَكُنْ يَغْزُو بِنَا حَتَّى يُصْبِحَ وَيَنْظُرَ فَإِنْ سَمِعَ أَذَانًا كَفَّ عَنْهُمْ وَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْمَعْ أَذَانًا أَغَارَ عَلَيْهِمْ»… وروى الإمام أحمد في مسند المكيين: «عَنْ رَجُلٍ مِنْ مُزَيْنَةَ يُقَالُ لَهُ ابْنُ عِصَامٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ وَكَانَ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا بَعَثَ السَّرِيَّةَ يَقُولُ إِذَا رَأَيْتُمْ مَسْجِدًا أَوْ سَمِعْتُمْ مُنَادِيًا فَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَحَدًا»
Narrated by Imam Bukhari in his book The Adhan, narrated Humaid, Anas bin Malik said, “Whenever the Prophet went out with us to fight (in Allah’s cause) against any nation, he never allowed us to attack till morning and he would wait and see: if he heard Adhan he would postpone the attack and if he did not hear Adhan he would attack them”
…and Imam Ahmad narrated in his Musnad al Makkiyeen, “On the authority of a man from Muzayna that is called Ibn Esam on the authority of his father, and he was a companion of the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: The Prophet ﷺ if he sent a detachment would say, ‘if you see a Masjid or hear the Adhan calling then do not kill anyone.’”
The Adhan and Masjid are signs of Islam, and indicate that the land being inhabited by Muslims does not prohibit the land being attacked and warred. This means that the lands were considered Dar al-Harb, or Dar al-Kufr, because even if it showed some Islamic rituals, it was still not under the control of the Prophet; in other words not under the authority and security of Islam, so it was considered Dar al-Harb, and was attacked like any other Dar Harb, until it was under the control of Islam and secured by the security of Islam, and was incorporated to the body of the Islamic State.
In conclusion: Therefore, the issue is deeper than the defecting of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab from the State, because he was not eager to be a part of the body of the Islamic State, and disputed the Khaleefah for his authority on Allah’s earth that obligates the submission under the authority of one Khaleefah, and he was determined to fragment the word of the Muslims and their lands, and to install another president who was Abdul Aziz bin Muhammad bin Saud and then his son Saud, who did not submit to the authority of the Khaleefah, and instead disputed his ruling on a section from the Islamic lands, and revolted against him to the point that his revolt reached Homs and Aleppo. They were not content with giving bayah to another Khaleefah that ruled over an area of the Islamic lands, but they also dejected from the Khaleefah in the midst of his land! We will come to the details shortly, Allah Almighty willing.
According to the Shariah, Abdul Aziz’s position before the Ottoman Khilafah that he placed a Wilayah (province) that did not submit to the authority of the Khilafah; it was the Ottoman Khilafah’s right, based on the Shariah, to oppose him and seize authority over him. In accordance with what Suleiman bin Bareedah (ra) said above, if Abdul Aziz and his son, Saud, do not abide by the Khilafah, and instead institute a new regime in the Muslim lands, then they apply to Rasulallah’s ﷺ Hadith narrated by Muslim in the Imarah book:
عَنْ عَرْفَجَةَ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ مَنْ أَتَاكُمْ وَأَمْرُكُمْ جَمِيعٌ عَلَى رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَشُقَّ عَصَاكُمْ أَوْ يُفَرِّقَ جَمَاعَتَكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُ
It has also been narrated by Muslim that Arfajah said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ 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.’”
And Rasulallah’s ﷺ Hadith, as previously mentioned:“إذا بويع لخليفتين فاقتلوا الآخر منهما”
“If the bayah is given to two Khaleefahs, then kill the latter.”
Based on what has been told by Sunan Bayhaqi, Abu-Baker al-Sideeq (ra) said,
لا يحل أن يكون للمسلمين أميران، فإنه مهما يكن ذلك، يختلف أمرهم وأحكامهم وتتفرق جماعتهم ويتنازعوا فيما بينهم هنالك تترك السنة وتظهر البدعة وتعظم الفتنة، وليس لأحد على ذلك صلاح
“There can never be two governors over the Muslims; for however they may be, they will always have differences in their rule and insights, leading to separations and disputes between their parties, and ending with leaving the ways of the Sunnah and allowing Bida’ah and Fitnah to appear.”
This brings attention to the texts prohibiting the presence of two rulers is absolute, including all situations, including representing distant lands in the Islamic world that are hard for the authority to reach and others. The texts are complete in containing the prohibition and the prevention of accepting any second baya’ah in Islam, and demands the perpetrator be killed wherever he may be!
Section 2 of the answer from the website: Islam Question and Answer
Sheikh Abdel Aziz Alabd Al-Latif says, After this short review that revealed the truth about the Sheikh about the duty of obedience to the Muslim leaders, the gracious ones, as well as the ungracious ones as long as they don’t rule in sin: for we point to an important question here in response to that claim: Was Najd not the original land of this call and the place of its foundation under the control of the Ottoman Khilafah State?
Dr. Saleh Al-Abood responds, overall Najd did not experience any type of authority under the Ottoman Khilafah, nor did it have any Ottoman laws applied on it, nor have the presence of an Ottoman governor (wali). It also did have the protection of the Ottoman Khilafah preceding the call of Sheikh Mohammad bin Abed Al-Wahaab, may Allah rest his soul, which shows the historical fact of the administrative divisions of the Ottoman Khilafah which includes a Turkish letter titled, “Laws of the Ottomans in the content of the Dewan Journal,” meaning: “The laws of the Ottomans which is included in the Dewan Journal,” written by Yameen Ali Afandi, Secretary of the Khaqani counsel in 1018 Hijri [1609 CE], it was revealed that the State of the Ottomans was divided into thirty-two wilayahs since the beginning of the eleventh century, including fourteen Arab wilayahs in which Najd was not included except for census if we considered it from Najd.” [Ideology of Sheikh Mohammad Bin Abdel Wahaab and Its Effects in the Islamic World, unpublished, (27/1)]
Dr. Abdullah Al-A’thmeen says, “Whatever the case Najd was never regarded as being under the direct influence of the Ottomans prior to the call of Sheikh Mohammad bin Abdel Wahaab. It also has never experienced any strong influence on its internal affairs from the Ottomans, not even under control of Bani Jabr or Bani Khaled either, nor control from any other superior tribe trying to make some kind of political stability. For wars between Najd lands have remained constant and ongoing between its different tribes in a brutal manner.” [Mohammad Bin Abed Al-Wahaab His Life and Philosophy p. 11 via “Protestor Claims” (pg. 234-5)]
In continuation of this subject, we mention the response of the honorable Sheikh Abed Al-Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz where he rejects this matter, “The Sheikh Mohammad bin Abed Al-Wahaab did not defect against the Khilafah State as many thought and believed. There was no presidency or Imarah (authority) for the Turks in Najd but had miniature Imarahs and scattered villages with an autonomous Amir (ruler) for each village or city, however small it was…And these were small Imarat with battles and wars among them. Sheikh Mohammad Bin Abed Al-Wahaab did not defect against the Khilafah state, but defected against the corrupt conditions in his land; and striving in the name of Allah with patience and goodness will until he finally reached prosperity in his calling to the other lands.” [from a recorded assembly via Opponent Claims p. 237]
Also, Dr. Ajeel Al-Nashmy said: “…… The Khilafah State did not move silently, nor did it put forth any initiative or supposed rejections, even with its four consecutive Ottoman sultans during the lifetime of the Sheikh.” [Periodical No. 510]
The second section from the Islam website Answers in Question and Answer is complete, and we respond to it as follows:
Once again, we find the answer ignoring the Shariah evidence that any Islamic scholar or Mujtahid must understand in regards to the conduct before the Islamic Khilafah State. We also notice complete ignorance of the Wahhabis and the Sauds’ dissension against the Khilafah state in its center, and even their campaigns reached Homs, as will be discussed shortly, Inshallah.
When the Arab tribes defected against the Khilafah State in the time of the first Khalifah Rashidah, Abu Bakr Al-Siddeq (radiya Allahu anhu) where they refused to submit to his authority and refused to pay Zakat in his position as the Khaleefah of Rasulallah, Abu-Bakr battled them and sent out an army to them until they surrendered to his rule, it was not recognized that they defected against the authority of the Islamic State, and forming a state with the State.
Should we say then the respondents are above this issue, represented by Saleh Al-Abood, Sheikh Al-A’themeen, and others, believe that the Shariah law if it is far from the administrative divisions of the Khilafah State that this justifies them to secede themselves and establish another authority that this is self-justified as the expansion of authority spreads to subjected wilayahs like Ash-Sham, Iraq, Makkah, and Madinah to establish a state within a State? Or do we not call this clash an exchange to attain the power?
Then let us presume the controversy arose that the people of Najd did not receive the protection of the Khilafah State, does this indicate that the submission to authority is defined by State protection and the receiving of welfare allowances, in the major or minor incidents, even though the Islamic state was suffering from weakness, yet this is not a Sharii’ justification to defect. Rather the correct duty is to strengthen its pillars, and educating people in the outskirts and small villages of their submission to the existing State, or do we justify the dissidents null, like their defection from the Umayyad State in Morocco due to poor communication with tribes near Ash-Sham, and justify the defection of each statelet secession from their ruler thereby dissolving the Ummah’s unity and weakening its power?
It is not necessarily relevant to encompass the Khaleefah’s authority and his Ummah in remote areas in a direct manner for it to be considered under his authority. Rather it is considered under its rule even if it simply communicates with it indirectly, that is through its Walis and mayors whom were appointed by the Khaleefah and sent by him to the designated areas by the Khalifah himself, where the governors are given the authority to rule their provinces in looking after the people’s affairs in accordance with the State’s system. Omar bin al-Khattab (ra) even refused the idea that his governors and mayors come to review every major and minor issue with him; he mentioned to them that the All-Seeing witnesses what the absent one may not see.
Actually, the authority of the State prevailed throughout all regions surrounding Najd, even though it may have not directly reached all of the tribes in its remote provinces, the State reached their surrounding villages. Even though it is supposed be that the scattered tribes refer to the nearest province with a governor or prince that has been instated by the Khalifah to care for their well-being. It is incumbent upon them to join the Dar Al-Muhajireen as Rasulallah ﷺ said in the Hadith mentioned above.The matter is fixed that the Saud clan and the people behind the Wahhabis have defected despite being the nearest to those who submitted to authority of the Islamic State. It is mentioned in the book, How the Khilafah was Destroyed, by the honorable Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zallum (May Allah Shower him with Mercy), “The Wahhabis by then had managed to establish an entity within the Islamic State, led by Muhammad ibn Saud and later by his son Abdul-Aziz. Britain supplied them with weapons and money and they moved on a sectarian basis to seize the Islamic lands which were under the authority of the Khilafah. They took up arms against the Khaleefah and fought the Islamic armed forces (the army of the Amir ul-Mumineen), all the time goaded and supplied by the British. The Wahhabis wanted to seize the lands ruled by the Khaleefah in order to rule these lands according to their Mathhab (school of thought), and suppress all the other Islamic Mathahib that differed from theirs by force. Hence, they raided Kuwait and occupied it in 1788, then marched northwards until they besieged Baghdad. They wanted to seize Karbalaa and the tomb of Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him) to destroy it and ban the visiting of it. Then in 1803, they launched an attack on Makkah and occupied it. In the spring of 1804, Madinah fell under their control. They destroyed the huge domes which used to shade the grave of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and stripped them of all the gems and precious ornaments. Having completed their seizure of the whole of Al-Hijaz, they marched on towards Al-Sham. Nearing Hims in 1810, they attacked Damascus for a second time and they also attacked Al-Najaf. Damascus defended itself bravely and gloriously. However while besieging Damascus, the Wahhabis moved at the same time to the north and spread their authority over most of the Syrian lands as far as Aleppo.” [End]
Can it be said that Damascus, Baghdad, Aleppo, and other territories were not submissive to the Islamic State, and this is not dissidence from the Khilafah State and destruction, undermining its basis and fragmentation of its structure?
The main question here is what is the Shariah ruling for those who commit actions of this sort?
Rasulallah ﷺ says, narrated by Muslim in the Ruling book:“عَنْ عَرْفَجَةَ قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ مَنْ أَتَاكُمْ وَأَمْرُكُمْ جَمِيعٌ عَلَى رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَشُقَّ عَصَاكُمْ أَوْ يُفَرِّقَ جَمَاعَتَكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُ”
It has also been narrated by Muslim that Arfajah said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ 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.’”
Allah does not have mercy on campaigns that have defected from the Sultan, fragmented the groups, those who removed their hand from obedience.
Therefore, the portrayal that the Wahhabis and Saudis established a State that did not defect from the Khilafah, and established a state in a territory not subject to the Khilafah’s authority, this depiction distorts the reality and reverses the truth. This idea has sabotaged the truth, turning it into hostility. They have covered their real truth about their military actions that have torn the State into pieces, dismembering it, and separating groups of Muslims.
Section three on the Islam website answers in Question and Answer:
If what was previously mentioned reflects the Sheikh’s description on the Khilafah State, how was the description of the Sheikh Mohammad bin Abed Al-Wahaab regarding the Khilafah State?Dr. Al-Nashmi said in response to this question, The image of Sheikh Mohammad bin Abdel Wahaab’s movement for the Khilafah State has had much confusion and misperception to the extent that the Khilafah cannot be clearly seen unless seen as an opposing side of Sheikh Mohammad bin Abdel Wahaab’s movement, by either through reports sent by the governors in the Hijaz, Baghdad, or from other areas… or by messengers who carry news across the provinces.
[The Society, Periodical No. 504 via Protest Claims p. 238-9]
End of Section Three.This also is a sabotage of the truth. Was the Khilafah State unaware of the campaigns happening in Baghdad, Damascus, and Aleppo, and was anticipating for the messengers to deliver faulty news?
The fourth and final section from the Islam website answers in Question and Answer:
As for Zallum’s claim that the Sheikh’s call is one of the reasons that lead to the fall of the Khilafah State, and England aided the Wahhabis in its collapse: Mahmoud Mahdi Al-Istanbuli says in response to this general claim: It was the book’s purpose to support its opinions with evidence and proof. An ancient poet said,
And if claims are not based evidence from [Quran and Sunnah], then it is foolish evidence.It is worth mentioning that history mentions that the English stood against this for fear of an Islamic World revival. [Sheikh Mohammad Abdel Wahab’s The Mirror of the East and the West p. 240]
He stated, how strange and ironical they accuse Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdel Wahab of being a factor in destroying the Ottoman Caliphate with the knowledge that this movement started in 1811 CE, but in reality the Khilafah was destroyed around 1922 CE; [see previous reference, p.64]
It proves the British were against the Wahhabi movement in which they sent Captain Forester Sadler to praise Ibrahim on the triumph attained against the Wahhabis during the War of Ibrahim of Diraah. He also assured that he would cooperate with the British movement to reduce what they called piracy of Wahhabi in the Arabian Gulf.
This letter declared its desire to establish an agreement with the British government and Ibrahim in order to terminate the influence of the Wahhabis.
Sheikh Muhammad bin Munthur al-Nameh stated, the British have benefitted from the opposite situation in India for Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdel Wahhab and they tossed all those who opposed or stood in their way; who was perceived as a threat in which they allege he is a Wahhabi. The British also claimed Deoband scholars in India as Wahhabis because they openly opposed the British and restrained them. [Intensive Claims against Sheikh Muhammad Abdel Wahhab p. 105-6]
These various reports have exposed the falsehood of this doubt before the clear scholarly evidence, which was clear from the Sheikh’s message and writings showing the falsehood before the historical facts written by the just people. [Protest Claims p. 239-240]
Finally we recommend for each individual who used his tongue against the Sheikh to regret and to fear Allah سبحانه وتعالى in all matters that angers Allah سبحانه وتعالى and to repent to Him to be guided upon the right path.
End of paragraph and end of answer on the site.The scholar, Imam Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalum, rahamahu Allah with his sophisticated book, How the Khilafah was Destroyed, it was known the Wahhabi campaign was the work of the British because the Saud clan are British agents who took advantage of the Wahhabi Math’hab which is an Islamic Math’hab (school of thought) whose founder is Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdel Wahhab, a Mujtahid amongst Mujtahideen. They took advantage of this doctrine in political actions to strike the Islamic State and to clash with other Math’habs to incite Mathahib wars within the Ottoman State without the followers of these doctrines realizing this, whereas the Saudi Prince and other Saudis were well aware of this. Because the relationship was not between the British and the founder of the Math’hab Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, rather between the British and Abdel Aziz bin Muhammad bin Saud, and afterwards between them and his son Saud.
He says, in the year of 1788, Abdel Aziz was preparing a large military to invade, conquer and seize Kuwait. The British were trying to seize control over Kuwait from the Ottoman State, but were unable. Other countries such as Germany, Russia, and France stood in their way; which the Khilafah State would fight them. Since the separation of Kuwait from the Ottoman State and the procession to the north for protection which would have been obvious to the major countries like Russia, Germany, and France, and to the Ottoman State.
The Saudi clan’s agency and loyalty to the British was known to the Khilafah State and to other countries like Germany, France, and Russia. It was known that they were in agreement with the British. The British did not conceal their siding with the Saudi State including supplying them with many weapons and large equipment that arrived through India. And also money that was needed for war and preparation of an army was solely with British weapons and funding. For this reason, European countries especially France opposed the Wahhabi campaign, as it was considered a British campaign. The Khilafah State attempted to strike the Wahhabis but was unable to repel them. The Walis struggled in Medina, Baghdad, and Damascus to oppose them. They requested the Wali of Egypt Muhammad Ali to mobilize the army against them but was initially delayed. However he was an agent for France because it was the one who aided him in his coup and seizing power in Egypt; then coerced the Khilafah in officially recognizing him. Based on France’s approval and its incitement, the Sultan accepted the command in the year 1811. He sent his son, Tusun to fight them where many battles took place between them and the army of Egypt. Egypt’s army was established in 1812 when it conquered the city. In August 1816, his son Ibrahim was sent from Cairo to destroy the Wahhabis who were completely stunned eventually retreating back to the capital Diriyah where they were protected. Ibrahim surrounded them April 1818 throughout the entire summer. September 9, 1818 the Wahhabis surrendered in which Ibrahim’s armies annihilated them. It was said that it was destroyed beyond recognition, and with this ended Britain’s efforts.
It was cited in the Encyclopedia of Desert Warrior, “Saudi State Relations with ash-Sham.”
Najdi sources indicated that Imam Abdul Aziz bin Muhammad ordered some of his forces in 1793 CE/1208 AH towards Jandal in the outskirts of Damascus where they fought its people. It might have been a type of surveillance of the Ottoman State’s forces in Syria. The year of 1797 CE/1212 AH, the Prince of Qassim, Hajilan bin Hamad, led an army from the people of Qassim, and attacked the Valley of Al-Shararat where many of their men were killed and many were robbed of their money and belongings.These operations managed to increase the call for reforms in the region, and to collect Zakat from its people. People arrived from Syria through the valleys in the year 1218 AH with six caravans carrying Riyals. It can be understood that the Bedouins of Syria political and religious allegiance was to Dirayah, not to the Wilayah Sham.
When the Saudi influence enveloped Hijaz, became in a position to instigate direct friction with the Ottoman State. It was when they prevented the Imam Saud bin Abdel Aziz, beginning the Saudi State challenge to the Wali in Sham in the year 1806 CE/ 1221 AH. Prince Alhajj Al-Shami, Abduallah Basha Alathm, upon arrival to the Holy Pilgrimage for Hajj with his load, drums and pipes were sounded. The battle encountered between the Saudi army and Abdallah’s army. Clashes almost broke out between the Saudi army and Abduallah Basha Athim army, who was not in a military position, but allowed him to meet with the Saudis. As a result, Sultan Saleem III removed Abdallah Basha Alathm from his post due to his negligent confrontation of the Saudi force and his return of the Hajj pilgrims based on the commands of Imam Saud. Yousef Basha Keng was appointed as his replacement and the Sultan gave strict orders to Yousef Basha Keng of the necessity to fight the Saudis since they do not do any positive actions. He left to raise funds for himself and to stall the State. He settled for replying to the Sultan sending him war plans, which were seen as capable of achieving the Sultan’s wishes. It was proposed to Yousef Keng that he join the states of Egypt and Baghdad to collaborate in the number of campaigns that was entrusted to him.
Meanwhile, Imam Saud conducted a military operation against Ash-Sham. They were able to reach them from behind Mount Hermon (Jabal ash-Sheikh). The Saudi forces moved to the Hauran Plains and attacked Fort Al-Mazirab and Bosra.
Imam Saud wrote to Wali Sham calling the people to submit to his obedience and adopt the principles of the Salafi. [Refer to appendix from Letters from Imam Saud bin Abdul Aziz bin Mohammad bin Saud and his reply]. He withdrew his forces from Sham loaded with booty (Ghanaim). Sultan Mahmoud II issued orders to terminate Yousef Keng due to incompetence. Suleiman Basha was appointed to be Wali of Syria. He was asked to contact the Wali of Egypt, Mohammad Ali Basha, to coordinate their efforts against Diriya.
However, Suleiman Basha and Mohammad Ali Basha were not on good terms; the State turned to the Wali of Egypt to achieve its goal. [End]
The question we want to direct to the viewers of the site: where did these desert tribes receive their money and equipment whose campaigns are able to reach remote parts of their location in Najd where the Bedouins occupy Najd where powerful countries fought over; in which it was difficult for the Walis of the Ottoman State where it was forced to seek the help of the Wali of Egypt for its forces to attack and destroy its front, which they violated the allegiance of the Sultan, divided the Muslims and their message. Oil not discovered yet to fund their campaigns and factories did not exist to create swords and shields in Najd to supply their armies, so how were they able to wage strong campaigns in the east, west, north, and south? No doubt the British had hand in this!
Ameen Alrihani wrote in his book, Muluk Al Arab on page 56, about Abdul Aziz Al Saud, “People think we took large sums of money from the British, but truth is the British only paid us minimally for our deserving work done during and after the war. We have an agreement that must be abided even though it may bring harm upon ourselves and our interests. The British are in debt to us and we do not ask but what was for our grandfathers and fathers before us. So our British friends are aware of this.” Ameer Talal bin Abdel Aziz acknowledged the assistances in an AlJazeera interview in a program called “Shahid ala alAsr.” (Witness of the Century).
Our last duaa is Hamdulillahi Rab Alalameen.
Othman Bakhash
Director of the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir
17 Rabi’ II 1434
2013/02/27
No: 1434 AH /23
-
Conversation with an Atheist, Regarding the “Problem of Evil”
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمSome atheists raise an argument that those who believe in God, must believe that He causes evil, on the basis of causality.
Perhaps the best way to address this question is to first identify its origins. No question in philosophy or religion comes about ex nihilo (i.e. out of nothing). Rather, every question that has ever been posed by a philosopher is a product of a certain system of thought and a certain outlook on life. The word we may use here for both of these things is “concepts” (mafaheem). When a person carries certain concepts in their mind, they naturally try to apply those concepts to the reality they live in. The process of doing so is what generates the question.
Understanding this is what helps us to contextualize questions in philosophy, which in turn helps us to answer them in a proper manner. If you do not understand exactly what is meant by this, insha’Allah, it will become clearer as we proceed with our discussion.
To the best of our knowledge, the first thinker to ever articulate the “problem of evil” – that is, why does evil exist and why would God allow for it – was Epicurus, the ancient Greek philosopher who lived from 341 to 270 BC. The “problem” he posed regarding evil was phrased by the Scottish philosopher David Hume as follows, in his “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion”, when he stated, “Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?”
Now, let’s try to answer this question using the method that was described previously. That is, let’s try and understand what concepts Epicurus had in his mind.
Epicurus believed in (and is also regarded as the father of) a certain philosophy known as “atomism”. According to this philosophy, the world that we live in came about when certain material particles called “atoms” (and these are not the same as the atoms we know today in science) combined together, by mere chance. Humans and living things are too the product of these atoms coming together.
The world we occupy, according to Epicurus, as well as ourselves, are only material and when we die, the atoms we are made of disperse. Nothing remains of ourselves. We have no souls and hence, there is no afterlife.
Epicurus, believing that there was no afterlife, formulated his own theory on what he believed to be the best way to live life. Because we cease to exist upon death, the best way to live is in fulfilling our own pleasures. This was what was “good”. And because pleasure was good, pain was evil.
This is what Epicurus meant when he formulated the “problem of evil”. He differed from the other Greek schools of thought, such as the Stoics and the Aristotelians, in their views on pain, seeing it only as an unqualified evil.
Epicurus believed in the existence of many gods. That was his understanding of reality. And when he applied his concept of evil to the reality in which many gods exist, that was when he produced “the problem of evil.” And in response to his own question, Epicurus came to the conclusion that the gods allowed for evil in the world, simply because they did not care for humans and their affairs.
In order to correct Epicurus’s views, however, we must first start by asking a question: is pain really evil?
As Muslims, we have conviction in the existence of the Creator (swt), the miracle of the Quran and the Message of Muhammad (saw). We understand that everything that befalls us (whether it’s pain or pleasure, fortune or misfortune), is from Allah (swt). This is confirmed in Surah al-Nisa, verse 78, when He (swt) says,
[قُلْ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ] “…Say (O Prophet): “All things are from Allah”..”.
To say, however, that the pain we feel in this life (as per the decree of Allah (swt) is evil is to misunderstand the reason for pain. In Epicurus’s worldview, pain was evil because for him, the purpose of life was to pursue pleasure.
Understanding the relationship between purpose and what we consider to be good and evil is important. Purpose is what gives us our criteria for good and evil.
A simple example would be the following: if I were to go to a car dealer and ask him for “a good car,” he will first ask me what exactly I am looking for i.e. for what purpose am I buying a car? Is it to go driving off-road? In that case, a land rover would be good for me. Am I looking for something that will help me commute to work? For that, a sedan would be good for me. Or maybe my purpose for buying a car is just to own something that is aesthetic and can be shown off (and I include this example because for some philosophers, the purpose of life is the pursuit of aesthetics).
In that case, something flashier like a sportscar would be good for me.
In each case, the goodness of the car is determined in reference to the purpose it will be fulfilling.
Unlike Epicurus, we know from our Deen that there are not several gods, but only one God and that is Allah (swt). Furthermore, we understand that Allah (swt) created us for a singular purpose: to worship Him and attain His pleasure. In Surah Ad-Dhariyat, verse 56, Allah (swt) affirms,
[وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالإِنسَ إِلاَّ لِيَعْبُدُونِ] “I did not create jinn and humans except to worship Me.”
Whether or not pain is good or bad must therefore be determined not according to Epicurus’s view of what human purpose is, but what Allah (swt) has chosen for us as our purpose.
Numerous ahadith and verses from the Qur’an speak of the trials and pains Allah (swt) decrees for His servants and how they serve us in fulfilling our purpose (that is, to worship Allah (swt) and attain His pleasure).
For one, pain is good for us is that it expiates us of our sins. The Prophet (saw) said,
«ما يُصِيبُ المُسْلِمَ، مِن نَصَبٍ ولَا وصَبٍ، ولَا هَمٍّ ولَا حُزْنٍ ولَا أذًى ولَا غَمٍّ، حتَّى الشَّوْكَةِ يُشَاكُهَا، إلَّا كَفَّرَ اللَّهُ بهَا مِن خَطَايَاهُ»
“No fatigue, nor disease, nor sorrow, nor sadness, nor hurt, nor distress befalls a Muslim, even if it were the prick he receives from a thorn, but that Allah expiates some of his sins for that.” (al-Bukhari).
Second, pain teaches us sabr (patience). In Surah al-Baqarah, verse 155 and verse 156, Allah (swt) says,
[وَلَنَبْلُوَنَّكُمْ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ الْخَوْفِ وَالْجُوعِ وَنَقْصٍ مِنْ الأَمْوالِ وَالأَنفُسِ وَالثَّمَرَاتِ وَبَشِّرْ الصَّابِرِينَ * الَّذِينَ إِذَا أَصَابَتْهُمْ مُصِيبَةٌ قَالُوا إِنَّا لِلَّهِ وَإِنَّا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعُونَ]
“We will certainly test you with a touch of fear and famine and loss of property, life, and crops. Give good news to those who patiently endure. (155) They say, when struck by a disaster, “Surely, to Allah we belong and to Him we will (all) return.””
Such is Allah (swt)’s mercy that on the Day of Judgement, those who patiently endured through their suffering and pain will find their rank in Paradise elevated. The Prophet (saw) said,
«إِنَّ الرَّجُلَ لِتَكُونُ لَهُ عِنْدَ اللهِ الْمَنْزِلَةُ فَمَا يَبْلُغُهَا بِعَمَلٍ فَلَا يَزَالُ اللهُ يَبْتَلِيهِ بِمَا يَكْرَهُ حَتَّى يُبَلِّغَهُ إِيَّاهَا»
“Verily, a man may have a rank with Allah that he does not achieve by his good deeds. Thus, Allah continues to put him to trial with what he hates until he reaches the rank destined for him.” [Ibn Hibban]
These are but only a few ways in which we find pain to be good for us and not the “evil” that Epicurus saw it as.
It is not a coincidence that “the problem of evil” has once again surfaced in contemporary discussions of religion and philosophy. The revival of the Epicurean school of thought took place in Europe in the 17th-century and became the basis for much of the philosophy, sciences, and institutions that developed under the banner of modernity (for more on this, there is Catherine Wilson’s book Epicureanism at the Origins of Modernity).
This is why today we live in a world where many people, like Epicurus, see pain as evil.
The only way to dispel this belief is to change the worldview and concepts of the people. That is, reminding them of their true purpose in this life. Only then can people recognize the hikmah (wisdom) of Allah (swt) in ordaining for us pain and hardship. Allah (swt) said,
[كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمْ الْقِتَالُ وَهُوَ كُرْهٌ لَكُمْ وَعَسى أَنْ تَكْرَهُوا شَيْئًا وَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ وَعَسَى أَنْ تُحِبُّوا شَيْئًا وَهُوَ شَرٌّ لَكُمْ وَاللَّهُ ييَعْلَمُ وَأَنْتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ]
“But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.” [Al Baqarah 2:216].
It is the Khilafah (Caliphate) on the Method of Prophethood that will carry Dawah to the entire world, generating a great change in the worldview of humanity, by using all the means that are available to it. May that be soon, inshaaAllah.
-
Q&A: Zakat on Joint Money
Question:
Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatuhu,
Topic: Is Zakat an individual ‘Ibadah?
Our honorable Ameer, noble sheikh…
May Allah help you, grant you success, and aid you with Ansar (supporters) like the Aws and Khazraj…
With reference to the above topic I would like to ask:
Is Zakat an individual ‘Ibadah that is obliged upon individuals only or is it obliged for companies as well?
To clarify my question, I will give an example:
Khalil and Zaid have a company at a rate of 50% each, and the company’s capital was 3000 Jordanian dinars, Khalil did not have anything else Zakat worthy, and he had a personal debt of 1000 dinars, and Zaid had 4000 dinars in his house and a year had passed…
How do both Khalil and Zaid calculate their zakat? Does each person calculate his percentage in the company separately from the other person, or is zakat paid on the company’s total capital as a company?
From Ahmad Saleh Ajoli
Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatuhu,
May Allah reward you for this kind Du’a, and I ask Allah (swt) to answer this Du’a and reward you…
Joint money zakat:
With regard to zakat on money in gold and silver, and the current cash that takes place in their place, zakat on it is obligatory for the individual on his money if he reaches the nisaab (amount) and one year has passed…
As for the example that you mentioned in the question, its answer is as follows:
- As for Khalil, his share of the company’s capital is “1500 dinars”, and he owes a debt of “1000 dinars,” meaning that what he has left to calculate zakat is “500 dinars” because the debt he owes is reduced from his money and zakat is on the money that remains after paying the debt, and we have explained the evidence for that in the adopted book – Al Amwal fee Dawlatil Khilafah – Funds in the Khilafah State under the topic of Zakat on debt, page 165, in which it says:
(If someone has money that has reached the nisaab, and a year has passed, and he owes a debt that reaches the nisaab, or the remaining money after the debt is paid, is less than the nisaab, then he does not pay zakat, and that is like he who owns a thousand dinars, and he owes one thousand dinars in debt, or if he owns forty gold dinars, and he owes thirty gold dinars, then in these two cases no zakat is due on him, because he does not own the nisaab. It was narrated by Nafi’, by ibn ‘Umar who said: the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: «إذا كان لرجل ألف درهم، وعليه ألف درهم، فلا زكاة عليه» “If a man owned one thousand dirhams, and he owed one thousand dirhams, then zakat is not obliged for him” mentioned by ibn Qudamah in Al-Mughni.
But if the money left over from the debt reaches the nisaab, then he must pay zakat on it…) Ends.
The calculation that we have mentioned before the quotation are based on the assumption that there are no capital profits for the company, but if there are profits for the company, they are considered capital growth and thus take its hukm, i.e. it is added to the capital of each partner by the amount of his share in the profit and is taken into account when calculating zakat…
Accordingly, if the amount remaining with Khalil according to the accounts above is “500 dinars”, if this amount exceeds the nisaab and one year has passed, then zakat is calculated at the amount of 2.5%, which Khalil shall pay from his money… and if the aforementioned amount is not very high or a year has not yet passed, then he does not have to pay zakat until it reaches the nisaab and the year has passed… As mentioned above, if there are profits, then they are added to the capital.
- With regards to Zaid, his share of the company’s capital is “1500 dinars”, and he has “4000 dinars” in his house and there is no debt on him, meaning he owns a total of “5500 dinars”, and this account is of course at the assumption that the company has no capital profits, if there are profits for the company, they are considered capital growth and thus take its hukm, i.e. it is added to the capital of each partner by the amount of his share in the profit and is taken into account when calculating zakat…
And it is clear to Zaid that the money he has reached the nisaab because it is a large amount of “5500 dinars.” If a year has passed, then zakat is due on it at the amount of 2.5% on the whole amount, that is, on “5500 dinars”, and the year begins as of reaching the nisaab.
I hope this answer is sufficient, and Allah Knows Best and is the Most Wise.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
19 Dhul Hijjah 1441 AH
Corresponding to 09/08/2020 CE
