Home

  • Death does not occur except with the end of Ajal (life-term)

    The following is a translation from Arabic.

    Many people think that though death is the same, the causes of death are numerous. So death could be because of detrimental disease, such as the plague. It could also be due to stab by a knife, or a gunshot or burning by fire of beheading or heart attack or others. In their view, all of these are direct causes that lead to death, ie death occurs because of them. That is why it became common on their mouth the phrase, “The causes are many but the death is the same.”

    The truth is that death is the same and its cause (sabab) is also the same, which is the end of ajal (life-term), and nothing else. As regards to these matters, which take place and due to them death occurs, they are cases in which death occurs and are not causes of death.

    This is because the cause (sabab) produces the effect (musabbab) definitely; and that the effect (musabbab) can’t result save from its cause (sabab) alone. This is different to the case (halah), it is a specific circumstance within certain surrounding conditions in which death usually takes place. However, death could fail to happen. Thus, the case might exist but the death does not occur; and the death might occur while the case did not happen.

    The one who examines many of the things in which death occurs, and the one who examines the death itself, finds that these matters might take place but the death does not occur. Death might also occur while these cases did not take place. As an example, a person might be fatally stabbed by a knife, and the doctors agree unanimously that it is fatal, but the stabbed person did not die, rather he healed and recovered. Death could also occur without an apparent cause, such as when the heart of somebody stopped suddenly and he died immediately without all the doctors being able to discover a reason for this heart attack after the painstaking examination.The incidents about this are many and are known by the doctors. The hospitals have witnessed thousands of these incidents; where a cause that usually leads certainly to death occurs, then the person does not die; and death occurs suddenly without the appearance of any cause that lead to it.

    Therefore, all the doctors say that the so and so sick man has no hope (of life) according to the instructions of medicine, but he might recover, and this is beyond our knowledge. They also say that so and so person is beyond the danger (on his life), and he is healthy, and he passed the point of danger, then he suddenly suffers a relapse and dies. All of this is tangible reality sensed by the people and doctors; and it clearly indicates that these matters from which death occurs are not causes for death. For it they were causes they would not fail (in bringing death) and death would have not occurred, by other than them. The fact that they failed (to cause death) even once, and that death occurred by other than them, even once, definitely indicates that they are not causes; they are rather cases. The true cause of death that produces the effect is other than them and not them.

    This actual cause could not be discovered by the mind, for it does not fall under sensation. So it is necessary that Allah (swt) tells us about it; and that it is proved by an evidence that is definite in proof and definite in meaning. Allah (swt) has informed us, in many ayaat that it is the ajal (end of life-term); and that Allah (swt) is the One Who causes death. Thus death occurs because of the ajal and the one who causes death is Allah (swt).

    There are many verses that mentioned this. Allah (swt) says:

    “No soul can ever die except by Allah’s leave and at a term appointed.” [TMQ Al-Imran:145]

    “Allah receives (men’s) souls at the time of their death.” [TMQ Az-Zumar: 42]

    “My Lord is He Who gives life and causes death.” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 258]

    “And Allah gives life and causes death.” [TMQ Ali-’Imran:156] “Wherever you are death reaches you, even if you were in lofty towers.” [TMQ An-Nisaa’: 78]

    “Say (to them): ‘The angel of death, who has charge concerning you, will take you to death.’” [TMQ As-Sajda: 11]

    “Say (to them): ‘The death which you are fleeing from will surely meet you.” [TMQ Al-Jumu’a: 8]

    “We mete out death among you.’” [TMQ Al-Waqi’a: 60]

    “Lo! The term of Allah when it comes can’t be delayed.” [TMQ Nuh: 4]

    “When their term comes, then they can’t put it off an hour, not hasten (it).” [TMQ Yunus: 49]

    These and other verses are definite in proof that they are from Allah (swt), and definite in meaning that Allah is He Who causes death; and that cause of death is the end of life term (intihaa’ ul-’ajal), and not the case in which death occurred.Therefore, it is obligatory that the Muslim believes by mind and Shar’ that what he thinks of as causes to death are not causes, rather they are cases; and that the cause is other than them. It has been proved by Shar’ through the definite evidence that death is in the Hand of Allah, that Allah is He Who causes death and that the cause of death is intihaa’ ul-’ajal. Once the ajal came, it can’t be delayed or hastened; nor is there any person who can avert from death or to escape from it absolutely. Thus it will most certainly reach him.

    As regards what man was ordered to avert and work to distance from himself, it is the cases from which death occurs. So, he must not submit himself to any of the cases from which death occurs usually. As for death, he should not be scared of, nor to flee from, because he can never save himself from it. This is because man does not die except after the end of his ajal, whether he died naturally, or by killing or burning or any other thing. So death is in the Hand of Allah (swt) and ajal is in the Hand of Allah (swt).

    Extract from ‘Al-Fikr al-Islami (The Islamic Thought) by Sheikh Mohammad Mohammad Ismael Abduh, Egypt.

    , ,
    , , ,

  • Q&A: India, Pakistan, and the Ceasefire

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Answer to Question
    India, Pakistan, and the Ceasefire
    (Translated)

    Question:

    Trump surprisingly announced yesterday, Saturday, in a post on his Truth Social platform, that “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire, “praising both countries for using common sense and great intelligence.” (Al Jazeera, 11/5/2025). Tensions had escalated between India and Pakistan following the attack on tourists in the Baisaran Valley in the Pahalgam area of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir on 22/4/2025, which killed 25 Indians and one Nepalese. On 23/4/2025, India announced the suspension of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty as part of a series of punitive measures against Pakistan. In response, Pakistan announced the suspension of the 1972 Shimla Agreement, which governs bilateral relations. On May 7th, India announced the implementation of a military operation called “Operation Sindhur”… then Pakistan responded… and now, as Trump announced that his mediation succeeded in achieving a ceasefire… what is the truth behind this tension and conflict? What exactly is the Indus Waters Treaty that India has temporarily suspended? Did America have a hand in starting the attack as well as stopping it?

    Answer:

    To clarify the answer to these questions, it is necessary to review the following facts:

    1- The Bharatiya Janata Party, which came to power in India under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee from 1998 to 2004, and then returned to power under Narendra Modi in 2014 after 10 years of rule by the pro-British Congress Party, is a pro-American party as part of its Eurasian strategy, i.e., to confront and encircle China. It is clear that urgent American interests in the Far East were behind the Hindu supremacist Modi’s victory in 2014, and it continues to support him. Narendra Modi has always served American interests, whether in the annexation of Kashmir in 2019, or in the border clashes he engaged in with China in 2014, 2017, and 2020, or in Afghanistan, or in the failure of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.

    2- After Modi came to power in India in 2014, the US effectively used India to increase pressure on China, encircle it, prevent it from controlling the surrounding regions, and confine it within its own territory. This is especially true since the US has declared economic war on China, with Trump imposing heavy tariffs on Chinese goods. Through these additional tariffs, Trump aims to weaken the Chinese economy. News has spread that major technology companies, such as iPhone, intend to move their factories to India as a result of the significant increase in tariffs. “Apple revealed that it plans to move the assembly of all iPhones sold in the United States to India, according to the Financial Times.” (Euro News, 26/4/2025). Thus, as part of its strategy to confront China, the US seeks to strengthen India’s position as an economic and military power in the region.

    3- This required, on the one hand, supporting India through military and economic means, and, on the other hand, resolving India’s problems with Pakistan, both of whose regimes were loyal to and agents of America, so that India could focus on the Chinese side.

    As for the first aspect, America supported India and its army by all means, such as transferring American nuclear technology to India. The issue of confronting China was strongly present during Trump’s meeting with the Indian Prime Minister in Washington: “The two leaders also discussed strengthening the Quad security alliance in the Asia-Pacific region, which also includes Japan and Australia. India is scheduled to host the leaders of this group later this year, which is seen as a counterweight to China’s growing military activity.” (Reuters, 14/2/2025).

    The second aspect was the most prominent of these problems:

    a- Pakistani forces on the border restrict the movement of Indian forces towards the Chinese front. Therefore, the United States pushed Pakistan to transfer its forces from the Indian border to the tribal areas of Waziristan to fight the Pakistani Taliban, to Balochistan to fight the Balochistan Liberation Army, and to the Afghan border. This is to allow India to move freely against China and move its armies to the Chinese border instead of deploying them on the Pakistani border. The United States then began demanding that Pakistan make concessions to India in order to facilitate India’s withdrawal from the confrontation with Pakistan and place it in a confrontation with China. For this purpose, as we mentioned earlier, Pakistan transferred many of its military divisions from the border with India and employed them in internal fighting within Pakistan against jihadist groups… and began clashing with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    b- The conflict over Kashmir, which India annexed by its decision on 5/8/2019

    We said in the Answer to a Question, 18/8/2019

    (…Shortly after the events of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration focused on India. A large proportion of US actions were directed at bridging the military gap between India and China, according to US programs … from these measures is America’s nuclear agreement with India.

    America saw that tensions over Kashmir between India and Pakistan affect the weakening of the confrontation of the Indian Subcontinent against China … To overcome these tensions, the United States began the process of normalization between India and Pakistan, and the goal of normalization was to neutralize the Indian and Pakistani forces from fighting each other because of Kashmir, and to direct efforts toward cooperation with the United States eventually to restrict the rise of China. America believed that the annexation of Kashmir to India and America’s pressure on the regime in Pakistan to prevent it from acting militarily and shifting the subject to dialogue will kill the issue and prevent military conflict between them, just as Abbas’s authority in Palestine and the Arab countries around them not taking military action against the Jewish entity that is occupying and claiming what it wants of Palestine! Thus, Modi began with the plan to annex Jammu and Kashmir and change the population’s demography there, and then followed the decision taken by Modi on 5/8/2019 to repeal Article 370 of their Constitution on Kashmir…)

    America thought that the annexation would make Muslims forget about Kashmir and that India and Pakistan would be free of problems between them, given that the two regimes are currently following the American line. America forgot, or pretended to forget, along with India, that Kashmir is in the hearts of Muslims and will return, Allah willing.

    c- The problem of water sharing with Pakistan. India wanted to review the existing Indus Waters Treaty. India has long sought to review the Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960 with World Bank mediation following nine years of negotiations, citing rapid population growth as a reason. Pakistan, however, rejects any renegotiation. Citing unnamed informed sources, “India Today” reported that: “India had halted the flow of water from the Baglihar Dam on the Chenab River to Pakistan. The newspaper indicated that India also plans to cut off the flow of water from the Kishanganga Dam on the Jhelum River.” (Anadolu Agency, 5/5/2025). Given India’s unilateral suspension of the treaty and its persistent demands for a review over the years, the Modi government’s decision to suspend the treaty after the Pahalgam attack can be interpreted as an attempt to pressure Pakistan and force it to accept the review demand. (“In recent years, the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sought to renegotiate the treaty, and the two countries have attempted to settle some of their disputes at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague over the size of the water storage area at the Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower plants.” (Arabi21, 27/4/2025)).

    It is worth noting that the Indus Waters Agreement (ISA) is a water allocation treaty between India and Pakistan. It was prepared and negotiated under the sponsership of the World Bank. The signing ceremony of this important agreement took place in Karachi on 19/9/1960. Pakistan was granted the rights to use the waters of three rivers in the western part of the Indus Basin (the Jhelum, the Chenab, and the Indus River itself), while India retained full control over the waters of the three eastern rivers (the Sutlej, the Beas, and the Ravi).

    c- The jihadist movements in Kashmir were causing concern for India, so America wanted to provoke a fight there as a pretext for an Indian attack on the roots of those movements in Kashmir and to try to involve the Pakistani regime in the attack on those movements in Pakistan. This took place in two stages:

    First: Fabricating an attack in Kashmir, attributing it to those movements, using it as a justification for a major military operation against the centers of those movements in Pakistan, as it claims… and against the roots of those movements in Kashmir and against the Muslims there, to kill or displace them under the pretext of their support for those movements, just as the Jews do in Gaza with their massacres of its people under the pretext of supporting the resistance. Then, embarrass the Pakistani regime by not supporting Kashmir because the attack was initiated by those movements!

    Thus, India began, by ordering America to carry out this fabricated attack in Kashmir. The evidence for this is:

    – The attack targeting tourists in the Baisaran Valley in the Pahalgam area of Indian-administered Kashmir on 22/4/2025, which India claims was carried out by a Pakistani-backed militant group, while Pakistan denies this. This attack occurred in Kashmir on 22/4/2025, while US Vice President J.D. Vance was in New Delhi. (US Vice President J.D. Vance arrived in India today, Monday, at the beginning of a four-day visit during which he will hold talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. (Bahrain News Agency, 21/4/2025.) India took all of its initial measures against Pakistan, including suspending the Indus Treaty, while this American official was in New Delhi. This demonstrates America’s coordination with India, and it is absolutely not acceptable to assume that all of this is a mere coincidence.

    The Indian government’s haste to blame Pakistan for the attack on April 22nd just minutes after it occurred and before any investigation or research had begun. This, despite Pakistan’s demand for an international investigation, and the Indian media which was quick to point the finger at the TRF, a wing of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET), despite the group’s denial of responsibility. All point to a “staged” operation. “The TRF claimed responsibility for the attack on social media, but later disavowed it, citing hacking as a pretext.” (24.net, 30/4/2025)

    Then the second phase began, as India launched a missile attack on Pakistan on the evening of 6/5/2025. It did not limit itself to the Pakistani part of Kashmir, as usual, but also struck targets in the Punjab province. Pakistan did not respond by striking targets inside India, but rather limited itself to border clashes and the downing of Indian aircraft on the border. India tried to mitigate the impact of the attack on Pakistan, saying that it did not attack Pakistani army targets and only attacked “terrorists” (Al-Araby TV, 7/5/2025). Clashes continued to escalate between the two sides (violent clashes broke out along the Line of Control in Kashmir between Indian and Pakistani forces, and explosions were heard along the Line of Control in Kashmir amid reports of deaths, according to Indian media (Al-Arabiya, 9/5/2025). It admitted that 3 of its aircraft had been shot down, and announced the deaths of 7 civilians in Kashmir, which it controls, as a result of Pakistani attacks. While Pakistan stated that it shot down 5 Indian aircraft, including three French Rafale aircraft, as well as 25 drones manufactured by the Jewish entity, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said: (“We could have shot down 10 Indian fighter jets in response to the Indian attack on Pakistani positions, but army commanders exercised restraint and shot down 5 aircraft.” (Asharq News, 7/5/2025”). Pakistani army spokesman Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry announced that the army bombed 26 military installations and dozens of drones flew over major Indian cities, including the capital, New Delhi. (Sky News, 10/5/2025). It appears that Pakistan was capable of launching a large-scale attack, engaging in a confrontation with India, and defeating it. But it is linked to America, which does not allow it to carry out such a confrontation and inflict a crushing defeat on India, leading to the fall of its agent Modi. Although America was able to pressure its agent regime in Pakistan to be satisfied with a limited response to the Indian aggression, what appeared from this limited response indicates the heroism of the Muslim soldiers in Pakistan and the strength of their motivation to fight. Despite the collusion of the regime in Pakistan with America and the restrictions on the movement of the army,yet this Muslim army inflicted significant losses on the polytheist enemy, as we mentioned earlier. All of this prompted America to end the battle plan as it started it, and resort to stopping the aggression as it started it and change the battle plan to political and negotiation malice between the two regimes loyal to it, India and Pakistan. Thus achieving for India what it could not achieve for it through the military aggression.

    4- Therefore, four days after the start of the Indian attack, on 10/5/2025, a ceasefire was announced under US orders. US President Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on 10/5/2025, “After a long night of talks led by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a comprehensive and immediate ceasefire. I congratulate both countries for using common sense and high intelligence. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on the X platform on 10/5/2025, “The governments of India and Pakistan have agreed to an immediate ceasefire and to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site.” He added that he and Vice President J.D. Vance worked with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Pakistani Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir, and Indian and Pakistani National Security Advisors Ajit Doval and Asim Malik over the past two days to reach an agreement. In other words, America failed to appreciate the heroism of the Pakistani army, despite its leadership’s loyalty for it, and feared that Modi would continue the fighting and lose his power instead of fulfilling America’s demands in confronting China! Therefore, it ordered a halt to the war and resorted to political malice to achieve its goals through negotiations between two regimes loyal to it!

    5- In conclusion, Hizb ut Tahrir warns Muslims in general and the people of Pakistan in particular that the political malice and negotiations taking place with the enemies of Islam and Muslims, especially the Hindu polytheists in India and the Jews in Palestine, these negotiations do not produce any good, especially if the kaffir colonialist America is the one running them, as is happening now. They are fighting Allah and His Messenger in every time and place. The Messenger of Allah (saw) informed us of fighting them and achieving victory over them, and in that is the great reward. Muslim narrated in his Sahih on the authority of Ibn Umar that the Prophet (saw) said: «لَتُقَاتِلُنَّ الْيَهُودَ فَلَتَقْتُلُنَّهُمْ…» “You will fight the Jews and kill them…” Ahmad and An-Nasa’i narrated on the authority of Thawban, the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (saw), who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

    «عِصَابَتَانِ مِنْ أُمَّتِي أَحْرَزَهُمَا اللهُ مِنَ النَّارِ؛ عِصَابَةٌ تَغْزُو الْهِنْدَ، وَعِصَابَةٌ تَكُونُ مَعَ عِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلَام»

    “There are two groups of my Ummah whom Allah will free from the Fire: The group that invades India, and the group that will be with ‘Isa bin Maryam, peace be upon him.”

    So, fighting the Jews in Palestine and killing them, and invading India and the victory of Islam in them will inevitably happen, Allah willing. This is the saying of the Truthful, the Trusted One (saw). However, Allah (swt) has decreed that victory will not descend upon us from the sky, and His angels will carry it to us while we are sitting. Rather, we need to work, exert effort, and strive, and seek truthfulness and sincerity in what we do. This is how we should be. Then, Allah’s victory will come, without a doubt, by His permission, glory be to Him.

    We are optimistic about the people of Pakistan, for it is a strong Islamic country, and the roots of Islam are deep in it, and the feelings of Islam are surging in it. Its army loves jihad in the way of Allah, and the aspirations of the Muslims there to establish the Khilafah are rising. It will not be long, Allah willing, before victory is achieved for the pioneer who does not lie to his people, and His saying (saw) will be fulfilled by establishing the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly-Guided Caliphate) after this oppressive rule that we live in. Ahmad narrated in his Musnad on the authority of Hudhayfah who said: The Messenger of Allah said:

    «..ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكاً جَبْرِيَّةً فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ. ثُمَّ سَكَتَ»

    “Then there will be oppressive rule and it will be as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills to remove it, then there will be a Khilafah (Caliphate) on the method of Prophethood. Then he remained silent.” And on that day the believers will rejoice.

    [وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ]

    “And on that day the believers will rejoice * at the victory willed by Allah. He gives victory to whoever He wills. For He is the Almighty, Most Merciful” [Ar-Rum: 4-5]

    17 Dhul Qi’dah 1446 AH
    15/5/2025 CE

    , , ,

  • Q&A: The Deep State

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Answer to Question
    The Deep State
    (Translated)

    Question:

    The term “deep state” has become widely used among politicians and in the media. However, upon examining these statements, it becomes clear that they are different. Could you clarify the most likely meaning of this issue so that we can understand the political realities related to this term, and provide some examples for further clarification? I apologize if my request for these examples distracts you from the more important and valuable work you are doing. Thank you.

    Answer:

    Yes, there is a difference in what is published about the term “deep state.” Some interpret it to mean the influential classes outside of government, working secretly against the existing regime, as was the case in Turkey. Others interpret it as the controlling force within the regime; it rules the country whenever it wishes. If a problem arises, it pins it on someone else.

    It leaves the ruling and brings in another party to blame for the problem, then returns to power again, as is happening in Britain. Others interpret it as a struggle between influential parties, as is currently happening under Trump in America. Others use it as a scapegoat for their governance shortcomings and failures, thus linking this to what they call the “deep state.” Others manipulate this term whenever they want to distract people with something, mentioning it in its own words or using other terms. Others interpret colonial states as the deep state in their colonies. To clarify the correct meaning of this issue, we will review the following points:

    First: Some definitions of the deep state:

    1- Webster’s Dictionary, one of the oldest dictionaries in the world, describes the deep state as: “an alleged secret network of especially nonelected government officials and sometimes private entities operating extralegally to influence and enact government policy”. This means that, beyond the laws and constitutions, there is a deeper power that controls the nation. This power has its own agenda and can undermine the decisions of the elected government.

    2- Wikipedia states: “In Turkey, the deep state (Turkish: derin devlet) is a group of influential anti-democratic coalitions inside the Turkish political structure, composed of high-level elements within the intelligence services (domestic and foreign), the Turkish military, security agencies, the judiciary, and mafia…The political agenda of the deep state network purportedly involves an allegiance to nationalism, corporatism, and state interests. Violence and other means of pressure have historically been employed in a largely covert manner to manipulate political and economic elites, ensuring that specific interests are met within the seemingly democratic framework of the political landscape.”

    3- By examining what these people mean by the term “deep state,” we find that it means the existence of a hidden force within or outside the state apparatus that controls the political system, i.e., imposes its policies, opinions, and orientations on legally elected politicians… This hidden force is an organized network of individuals that penetrates sensitive centers such as the military, security, and political forces, and operates independently of the elected government… Sometimes different terms are used to refer to this network… such as “deep state,” “parallel state,” “shadow state,” or “state within a state”.

    4- There is another, different definition offered by a defeated politician in government or elections, using it as a pretext for his defeat in government or elections. In other words, it is a misleading concept, used to exonerate rulers when corruption, injustice, or treason are widespread in the country. It is a deception by the ruler, who places the blame on individuals in the shadows, whom he calls the “deep state,” then misleads the people about the fact that he is responsible and must be replaced.

    5- There is also the claim that colonial powers are the deep state in their colonies, controlling the systems of their colonies, keeping some rulers and removing others.

    Second: The Most Likely Definition:

    1- By carefully examining these definitions and reflecting on their contents, the most likely definition is that the deep state in a country means an influential force, whether political, economic, or influential aristocratic families from within or outside the country. This force is not officially part of the government apparatus, but rather influences the state covertly or secretly. It exerts effective and influential pressure on the official government apparatus to implement its desires or change them.

    2- As for the ruler’s misleading of the people to deflect the accusation of corruption from him and pin it on another entity he calls the “deep state,” i.e., a scapegoat for his poor governance and corruption, calling this deception the “deep state” is incorrect, as it is a deception perpetrated by the ruler, not by other entities against him.

    3- As for considering the colonial states as the deep state, this is also incorrect because the colonial states are the ones that control their colonies and are foreign to them, and they are not other forces from the people of the country that work in secret, hidden from the elected ruling forces, which are also from the people of the country.

    Third: Examples of the deep state in some countries, for further clarification:

    1- Turkey [Turkiye]

    a- The origin of the term “deep state” originated in Turkey. At the end of the Ottoman State, officers belonging to the Committee of Union and Progress, who were influenced by Western ideas, staged a coup in 1909, overthrowing Caliph Abdul Hamid II and appointing his brother, Muhammad Reshad, as Caliph with authorities less than their own.

    * This marked the beginning of the emergence of a class stronger than the Caliph, influencing his survival or downfall in a visible, rather than hidden, manner. However, they did not overthrow the Caliphate and Islamic rule. They were not, in reality, a state within a state, in the sense of a hidden, deep state. They were visible within the state, but they controlled the government.

    b- After the First World War, Mustafa Kemal, who was loyal to the British, was able to seize power and then was able to destroy the Caliphate (Khilafah), abolish Shariah, and the implementation of its laws. He declared the Republic and built it on secular foundations. He carried out coups against Islamic rule, and even against manifestations of Islam, such as what is known as the “letter coup”, which was changing the letters of the Turkish language from Arabic to Latin. Or the “religious dress coup”, replacing it with Western dress, and so on. Thus, he established the army and security forces according to specific standards to protect the republic and secularism, and to prevent the return of Islam to power and the re-establishment of the Caliphate. The army became a force controlling the government, intervening whenever it saw a deviation from Kemalism, in addition to maintaining subordination to Britain. The tyranny of the Kemalist rule and British support prevented the emergence of a deep state against this rule.

    c- When Erdogan came to power in Turkey with the momentum of the ballot box results, and with American political, financial and economic support, he was aware of the power of the army generals, the guardians of secularism, subservient to the British, and that they represented the backbone of the state and could, if they wished, stage a coup against him. Therefore, he promoted the values of democracy and freedom and besieged them with the power of popular legitimacy to prevent them from staging a coup against him. America was making the Turks salivate through its financial and economic veins. Erdogan was afraid of these soldiers and was unable to dismiss them due to their large numbers and their ability to control the backbone of the army over the years. However, he quickly created a new reality in Turkish life, the prominent title of which was “democracy” and economic success, and this constituted an obstacle to a coup.

    * During this period, the description of the existence of a “deep state” in Turkey operating in secret from within the state apparatus, especially the army, resisting, opposing, and trying to thwart the directions of the elected Prime Minister Erdogan was an accurate description. These people were a network whose features were not apparent to those with a superficial view who believed that things were proceeding perfectly and that everyone was committed to the constitution and the law. This Turkish network, in addition to its nesting within the army, judiciary, and ministries, was connected to secular parties that were outside the state and represented the opposition, and was connected to the center in London. Its members met secretly, consulted, and discussed matters of Erdogan’s regime until they decided to carry out a coup in 2016, but it was unsuccessful. Erdogan then used this as justification; therefore, he uprooted them from the army, along with their followers from the judiciary and ministries, until the purge reached university professors. Thus, Erdogan succeeded in uprooting the deep state affiliated with the British within the Turkish army and was close to ending its existence. However, they still had followers, albeit weaker than before, who are trying to revive the description of the “deep state” facing the regime.

    2- The United States

    a- Government in America is divided into two actual levels. The first level appears to represent popular legitimacy, working to implement the will of the people who elected this president and these representatives. Thus, the state’s appearance is “democratic.” However, this legitimate level can only steer the country’s policies in accordance with the wishes of the second level, which is an internal, invisible, and unelected level. This means it is illegitimate according to the “democratic” system. This is what they call the “deep state.” The individuals at this level, i.e., the representatives of the deep state, hold sensitive positions within the state apparatus. The apparatus they control cannot act in accordance with the directives of the first level except through them, because their positions are sensitive. These individuals in America are either major capitalists or their representatives. Major capitalists in America are keen to ensure that senior officials in the state apparatus protect their interests, they maintain constant contact with these officials in order to advance their interests. For example, financial companies are keen to have followers among the employees of the tax departments, while arms companies are keen to have followers in the Pentagon and the military contracting departments in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pharmaceutical companies are keen to have followers in the Ministry of Health and government insurance departments. Thus, over a long period of time, large corporations have succeeded in effectively controlling the state in America through these employees in sensitive positions and through pressuring lobbies.

    b- This is the reality of the political system in America. Accordingly, the major capitalists and large corporations are the origin and living root of the deep state in America. It is the hidden, latent force behind the state’s political orientations, and it is the force that motivates employees in sensitive positions to oppose the state’s orientations if they conflict with the interests of those corporations. In this description, it lies outside and within the state apparatus and is active in the financial, business, and industrial sectors, but its activity is evident within the state apparatus in America.

    c- When Donald Trump came to power in 2016, he faced discontent among senior government officials and various agencies, especially security agencies. He sensed their rejection and opposition to his policies, which then developed into intense resistance from within the US state, almost a mutiny. There were many leaks of embarrassing information from security and intelligence agencies… Then, many lawsuits were filed against him, the most famous of which was Russian support for him in the elections. Investigations and impeachment attempts erupted in Congress, until the US Department of Justice became one of his most vocal enemies. The attack on him was not only from within the state, as pharmaceutical companies that had discovered a coronavirus vaccine refrained from announcing these discoveries until after Biden’s victory in the elections was announced at the end of 2020, i.e., to prevent Trump from benefiting electorally from these discoveries. Then, as a result of his suffering from this hidden, organized force working against him, the president cast doubt on the results of the elections and did not recognize them, considering them fraudulent and that the victory had been stolen from him. He added the state election commission to his list of enemies. “Either the deep state destroys America, or we destroy the deep state,” Trump said to a crowd of supporters in Texas after his ouster from the presidency in 2023. Examining this American reality during the first Trump administration and this description of a hidden force within America preventing the president-elect from changing course, we find that this description describes the true reality of the American system of government.

    d- On 21/3/2023, Trump announced a 10-point plan in a video clip, saying: “I will shatter the Deep State, and restore government that is controlled by the People. (Congress; British Daily Mail, 21/3/2023)).

    This is the reality of the American political system. Accordingly, the major capitalists and large corporations are the origin and living root of the deep state in America. It is the latent, hidden force behind the state’s political orientations, and it motivates employees in sensitive positions to oppose the state’s directions if they conflict with the interests of those corporations. In this description, it lies both outside and within the state apparatus and is active in the financial, business, and industrial sectors, but its activity is evident within the state apparatus in America.

    3- Britain

    As for Britain, it has a deep state. Its ruling system is represented by the Conservatives, Britain’s aristocratic families and wealthy elites. They are the true rulers of Britain. However, their declared policies sometimes lead the country to crises, meaning they sometimes harm the country’s interests. Therefore, the Conservative Party goes into hiatus, and the Labour Party governs the country. The Labour Party’s mission is to resolve crises and prevent harm to the country’s interests. Then it steps down. What we have witnessed recently—the resounding defeat of the Conservative Party and the sweeping victory of the Labour Party—is the work of the Conservatives. After Brexit, Britain is experiencing a severe economic crisis. Indeed, its exit from the European Union was the result of its miscalculations in the British referendum on Europe. Since the Conservatives were the ones who created and caused this crisis, the Labour Party is required today to solve it.

    The deep state in Britain is the old and wealthy families. They have been always the rulers of Britain. If they step aside and bring in the Labour Party, it is to solve a crisis caused by the Conservatives. The “deep state” in Britain controls the government with ease and smoothness, meaning that Britain’s old and wealthy families are the source of the government and its guardians, whether they exercise it or have “hired” another party to exercise it. In order for that control to continue with that smoothness and ease, the “source of effective government” in Britain and its “living root” spreads values that reject change and elevate the status of antiquity and pride in the past. This is what is observed in Britain from the intense popular interest in the royal family, its news and stories, the birthdays of its princes and its way of life…!

    In Conclusion:

    * The deep state is an influential force within the existing government. It is a network of citizens of the country, both domestically and abroad, working secretly or covertly against the ruling class in that country to change or weaken it.

    * However, if this network is not from the people of the country but rather a foreign power, such as a colonial state operating against it, or a hostile state, then such forces are not considered a deep state. Rather, their discussion falls under the category of colonialism, war, and aggression.

    * Similarly, if this network is prepared by the ruling class to attribute to it the work against the state and its plans, in order to deflect blame from the ruler and shift the blame to a fictitious network of its own creation, with the aim of deceiving the people about the ruler’s corruption and incompetence, then such a network is not considered a deep state.

    * The bottom line is that it is a network of the people of the country inside or outside the country working against the existing regime in that country to change or weaken it. In this sense, it only exists in countries that are governed by man-made laws, where it is possible for networks to exist inside or outside that differ in the type of rule they want, and conflict occurs between them regarding the type of man-made rule required.

    * If the rule is based on legislation from the Lord of the Worlds, then Muslims, whether at home or abroad, cannot have a deep state working to replace the rule of Islam with different rules. This is unless the Muslims working at home or abroad are driven by an external colonial or aggressive force. In both cases, it is not a deep state, as we mentioned before.

    Therefore, the observed changes or coups in some Muslim countries, as has happened or is happening in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, etc., cannot be described as a deep state, because colonialism is the one driving events in the agent countries that serve it.

    **If there is a movement in Muslim countries that is ruled by man-made law, and this movement is working to replace the man-made rule in Muslim countries with the rule of Islam, the Khilafah Rashidah (Rightly-Guided Caliphate), then this movement is not called a deep state. Rather, it is a movement of Nusra (support) for Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw).

    We ask Allah (swt) for help and success in re-establishing the Khilafah Rashida (Rightly-Guided Caliphate), so that Islam and Muslims may be victorious and disbelief and disbelievers may be humiliated:

    [وَعَدَ اللهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ]

    “Allah has promised those of you who believe and do good that He will certainly make them successors in the land, as He did with those before them” [An-Nur: 55].

    6 Dhul Qi’dah 1446 AH
    4/5/2025 CE

    ,
    , , , , , ,

  • The US-Iran Negotiations


    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Answer to Question
    The US-Iran Negotiations
    (Translated)

    Question:

    The Sultanate of Oman, which is mediating the US-Iran negotiations, announced on Thursday (the postponement of the fourth round of talks scheduled for Saturday in the Italian capital, Rome, for “logistical reasons,” without specifying a new date. Asharq,1/5/2025.) The indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran began on 12/4/2025, in the Omani capital, Muscat, with the mediation of Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi. The second round was held on19/4/2025, at the Sultanate of Oman’s embassy in Rome, also with the mediation of Minister al-Busaidi. The third round was held on Saturday, 26/4/2025, in the Sultanate of Oman, under the same Omani mediation. The question is: Why is Trump now seeking to re-sign a nuclear agreement with Iran, despite having unilaterally withdrawn in 2018 from the agreement signed on 14/7/2015? Why was the fourth round postponed? What do the logistical reasons mean? And does this postponement mean the end of negotiations?

    Answer:

    We must first review the circumstances that prevailed in 2015 when the nuclear agreement was concluded between Iran and Western countries. Then, we must return to the context of Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement in 2018 and the circumstances at that time. We must then examine the recent developments surrounding the negotiations between the United States and Iran:

    1- The factors that prompted the United States in 2015 to conclude the nuclear agreement with Iran: In response to a question on 22/7/2015, regarding America’s signing of the agreement, we said: (The American president managed the negotiations from afar, through live contact and immense concern in respect to convening this agreement. He occupied his Secretary of State for three continuous weeks in addition to the contacts that were made before that which indicates the importance and significance of this agreement to America, its interests and the interests of Obama’s administration as it had constricted Iran for decades and prevented it from manufacturing any nuclear weapon. And if we connect this to the previous statements of the American president and other American officials in respect to the importance of the Iranian strategic role in the region and the readiness to work with it, indeed to actually work with it as is (already) apparent, in addition to the statements of the Iranian officials in which they have announced their cooperation with America in Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to their readiness to work with it in fighting terrorism and extremism, and what we see in terms of America’s implicit agreement to what Iran and its party (in Lebanon) is doing in Syria, we find that all of this indicates that America’s goal behind this agreement is to ease and facilitate matters for Iran through the lifting of sanctions and anchoring its open relationship with it so that it can continue to play the role that would make it easier for America’s work, lightens its burdens and provides a cover for its games with the states and peoples in the region. Therefore, Iran will implement the American policy in practise as the case in Iraq, Syria and Yemen but instead of this being implemented from behind a curtain that obscures sight as it had been (before the agreement), it will now take place behind a transparent curtain or no curtain at all…!)

    Therefore, Obama concluded the nuclear agreement with Iran on 14/7/2015 to revitalize its role in Syria

    2- The factors that prompted the Trump administration in 2018 to cancel the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran:

    a. Washington brought Saudi Arabia and Turkey into the regional arena, with Turkey being actively involved in the region. In 2016, Turkey launched Operation “Euphrates Shield”, and in March 2018, it launched Operation “Olive Branch”. This was in addition to Saudi Arabia’s regional role. Consequently, there was no longer a need for Iran to play a major role in Syria, and it had to be reduced. This is precisely what Trump did; he reduced Iran’s role in the region, transforming it from a major player to a secondary or complementary role.

    b. European countries were also party to the 2015 nuclear agreement and were the main beneficiaries of it. However, Trump did not want Europe to benefit from the agreement signed during the Obama administration, so he canceled it.

    Thus, Trump announced his withdrawal from the nuclear agreement with Iran, as it was in America’s interest to withdraw from the agreement in preparation for new conditions that would mitigate Iran’s role in the region.

    3- The factors that prompted Trump to return to the nuclear agreement he cancelled in 2018 in 2025:

    Considering the events that followed Trump’s inauguration on 20/1/ 2025, the motivations that prompted the United States to return to the nuclear agreement become clear:

    a- It is clear that the Trump administration was the one that initiated the resumption of the nuclear negotiations with Iran. Trump sent a letter to Tehran on March 7th, through Omani mediation, expressing his explicit desire to return to negotiations to reach a new agreement. (US President Donald Trump said in an interview with Fox Business Network that he sent a letter to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Thursday, March 6th, expressing his preference for negotiating a deal with Tehran. Trump added in his interview, which is scheduled to air the day after tomorrow, Sunday: “The other option is that action must be taken, because Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon.” Regarding the text of the letter he sent to Khamenei, Trump said: “I told him I hope you negotiate, because that would be much better for Iran.”… Iran International, 7/3/2025.).

    b- In 2018, Trump nullified the nuclear agreement because the major gains from the agreement signed in 2015 between the five permanent members and Germany went to the Europeans. Therefore, Trump excluded European countries from the nuclear negotiations with Iran, unlike what happened in 2015, and did not consult with them or inform them of the negotiations that took place in Oman, in order to block Europe’s efforts to hold nuclear talks with Iran. (European diplomats told Reuters that they are seeking to hold a new meeting with Iran, but those efforts apparently froze when Tehran began indirect talks about its nuclear program with the administration of US President Donald Trump earlier this month. The United States did not inform European countries of the nuclear talks in the Sultanate of Oman before Trump announced them… Asharq, 24/4/2025) Even the choice of Italy, headed by right-wing Prime Minister Meloni, who received support from the Trump administration, as the venue for the second round is a message directed at European countries that have entered into conflict and opposition with it, especially Britain, France and Germany, under the pretext of NATO.

    c- The United States intends to direct all its attention and resources toward global competition with China; therefore, it seeks to eliminate any elements that pose a problem to it and divert its energy. The ongoing negotiations with Russia can be explained by the same logic: they aim to lure Russia to the negotiating table through the Ukrainian crisis, thereby separating it from China, with the goal of weakening the Sino-Russian axis. Thus, Trump is making containing China a strategic priority.

    d- The Jewish entity’s desire to attack Iran under the pretext of preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons. As we know, the Jewish entity launched an attack on Iran in October 2024. Iran responded with missile attacks to demonstrate its strength, after informing the United States and the Jewish entity in advance. Now, the United States does not want to be distracted by such attacks while it is focusing on China. Therefore, it wants to conclude a nuclear agreement with Iran, which will guarantee the security of the Jewish entity and remove the pretext for attack from them. With this step, after concluding the nuclear agreement with Iran, Trump, the most supportive of the Jewish entity in the White House, will remove the pretext for conflict from the Jewish entity and will remove their argument. At the same time, he will place American economic interests and confronting China at the forefront of his priorities, enabling him to focus entirely on China, without anything disturbing his focus or being hindered by any obstacle.

    Thus, Trump began these talks with Iran to conclude an agreement that would limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities in isolation from the European countries.

    4- As for why the fourth round was postponed, it is for logistical reasons, as reported in the media. The meaning of the word logistics, as stated in Wikipedia, is: (“The art of supply and provision.” Logistics, or what is known in Arabic as the art of logistics, is the art and science of managing the flow of goods, energy, and information..), as if the intention was to arrange the atmosphere and calm the situation after America imposed sanctions in conjunction with the ongoing negotiations between America and Iran. An Iranian official told Reuters [(that the Iranian-American talks will take place at a different date based on American behaviour, noting that Washington’s sanctions on Tehran do not help the diplomatic process seeking to resolve the nuclear dispute). This came after Washington imposed new sanctions on entities it accused of involvement in the illegal trade of Iranian oil and petrochemicals. The United States (had imposed sanctions on Wednesday on entities it accused of involvement in the illegal trade of Iranian oil and petrochemicals, as part of Washington’s efforts to intensify pressure on Iran) Asharq, 1/5/2025]. These sanctions came at a time when the negotiation rounds were taking place seriously, as described. The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ismail Baghaei, said: (Tehran will continue to participate seriously and decisively in negotiations aimed at achieving results with the United States. Asharq, 1/5/2025).

    Therefore, it is unlikely that this postponement is a severance of negotiations between the two parties, but rather a time delay to calm the atmosphere due to American sanctions during the ongoing negotiations.

    5- It is strange that the rulers of the Muslim countries agree to the American interference in determining the strength, weapons, and industry of Muslims! These rulers do not realize that the preparation of power in Islam is to defeat, frighten, and terrorize the enemy. If the enemy decides for us, in detail, it is a defeat for us, even before its scheduled date! How can Iran allow America to interfere in its power, its missiles, and its nuclear weapons, at a time when America is filling its coffers with nuclear weapons and even deployed them decades ago in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?! America publicly declares that it will not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. What Iran and other Muslim rulers should say to America in a loud voice: Destroy your nuclear weapons before asking others not to possess them… and destroy your missiles before asking others to destroy their missiles… As for enemies possessing heavy weapons and asking Muslims not to possess them, that is a statement steeped in brutality, arrogance, and contempt for others, if only they were rational. Allah (swt) made this clear in His Book, in His saying:

    [وَأَعِدُّوا لَهُمْ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ مِنْ قُوَّةٍ وَمِنْ رِبَاطِ الْخَيْلِ تُرْهِبُونَ بِهِ عَدُوَّ اللهِ وَعَدُوَّكُمْ وَآخَرِينَ مِنْ دُونِهِمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَهُمُ اللهُ يَعْلَمُهُمْ وَمَا تُنْفِقُوا مِنْ شَيْءٍ فِي سَبِيلِ اللهِ يُوَفَّ إِلَيْكُمْ وَأَنْتُمْ لَا تُظْلَمُونَ]

    “Prepare against them what you ˹believers˺ can of ˹military˺ power and cavalry to deter Allah’s enemies and your enemies as well as other enemies unknown to you but known to Allah. Whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be paid to you in full and you will not be wronged” [Al-Anfal: 60]

    In the introduction to the Constitution, p. 256, [Article 69 states: (It is obligatory to provide the Army with weapons, supplies and equipment, as well as all necessities and requirements, which enable it to carry out its mission as an Islamic Army).  His (swt) saying: [تُرْهِبُونَ  ] To strike terror” is the reason (Illah) for preparation. The preparation will not be complete unless the reason for which this legislation came has been achieved, which is intimidating the enemies and the hypocrites. Therefore, it is a duty to provide all the arms and equipment for the Army in order that intimidation is produced and by greater reasoning in order to ensure that the Army is capable of carrying out its mission which is Jihad to convey the call to Islam…].

    All of this indicates that Muslims must exert every effort to ensure their power is superior to that of the enemy, instilling fear in their hearts. To achieve this, our power must be a source of concern for the enemy, preoccupying and terrifying them. All of this is incompatible with entering into negotiations with the enemy, in which our weapons are limited and we are prevented from controlling our power to intimidate and frighten them. We ask Allah (swt) to enable the pioneer Hizb ut Tahrir, who does not lie to its people, to establish the Islamic State, the Khilafah Rashida (rightly-guided Caliphate), sooner rather than later. This will then terrify the enemy as it did before, spread goodness throughout the world, and turn the plots of the disbelievers back on them:

    [وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ]

    “And on that day the believers will rejoice * at the victory willed by Allah. He gives victory to whoever He wills. For He is the Almighty, Most Merciful” [Ar-Rum: 4-5]

    4 Dhul Qi’dah 1446 AH
    2/5/2025 CE

    ,
    , , , ,

  • All Permitted (Mubah) Actions Require a Daleel (evidence)

    The text of both the Qur’an and Sunnah address many topics such as, stories of previous Ummahs, the Day of Judgment, and others. However, the text which specifically addresses our actions of what to do or what not to do is referred to as Hukm Sharii.

    The term Hukm Sharii, in Arabic, means the address of the Legislator related to our actions. Islam addresses all of our actions, whether they are permitted or not. Accordingly, all of our actions have to be guided by the Hukm Sharii.Many Muslims are too quick to conclude that something is either Haram (prohibited) or Fard (compulsory) after a quick reading of an Ayah or a Hadith. Not all commands in the legislative sources are Fard or Haram. the rules which are used to differentiate the types of Hukm Sharii are again related to Usul al Fiqh. There are 5 different categories of Hukm Shariah. They are

    1. Fard or Wajib (obligatory)

    2. Mandoub (reccommended)

    3. Makrooh (Disliked)

    4. Haraam (prohibited)

    5. Permitted Actions (Mubah)

    There are many misconceptions regarding permitted matters (Mubah). Here are some

    1- It had become implanted in people’s minds nowadays, that it is permitted to adopt any matter which did not contradict Islam and which was not prohibited by a Shari’ah text. They used as evidence the fact that the Messenger of Allah had found contracts dating back to the days of Jahiliyyah (ignorance) existing among people and he had approved them, and that which he did not approve of, he prohibited. Hence, that which he approved was permitted and that which he prohibited was unlawful. Likewise, it was permitted to adopt any thought, or rule, or law that did not contradict Islam and that had not been prohibited.

    2- The Mubah (permitted) is that which carries no rebuke. Hence the absence of the rebuke is a permission. So taking a matter whose prohibition has not been mentioned would be Mubah. Furthermore, the Shari’ah kept silent about it and did not outline its rule, and whatever Shari’ah kept silent about is Mubah. It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah said: ”Truly Allah has commanded some obligations, hence do not neglect them; and He prohibited certain matters, hence do not violate them; and He determined certain limits, hence do not transgress them and He condoned certain matters out of mercy, not forgetfulness, hence do not search for them.” In another narration, he said: ”And that which He kept silent about is a condonation(permission).” Therefore, anything that Shari’ah kept silent about is Mubah. The adoption of rules and laws which have not been mentioned by the Shari’ah and which the Shari’ah did not mention by any prohibition is part of the Mubah. This is since there is no rebuke about them, and since no prohibition was mentioned, and since it was not mentioned by the Shari’ah and because the Shari’ah kept silent about it.

    3- Some claim that democracy is from Islam, for it is based on shura’ (consultation), justice and equality. It was also based on giving the authority to the Ummah, and this is what Islam is concerned with. Islam equates between rich and poor, rights and duties and between a minister and a shepherd and makes their affairs amongst them based on shura’ and makes enjoining Ma’aruf and forbidding Munkar one of the most important principles. Shura’ in Islam has been organised in modern times by what the Europeans refer to as parliament. Enjoining Ma’aruf and forbidding Munkar has been formulated in the modern civilisation through the freedom of press to criticise and the freedom of individuals and groups to write and voice their opinions frankly. They approve what they see and they disapprove what they see and they speak as they wish. Hence no person is beyond reproach, nor is the government, or the Wali. What straightens them, deters them and forces them to keep to the straight and narrow is the awareness of public opinion and its freedom of criticism. This is what is referred to in the Qur’an as ”joining together in the mutual teaching of Truth.” In this way it was deduced that democracy is from Islam and the Qur’an mentioned it and the Messenger commanded it.

    The errors in these thoughts

    This is where the flaws and the deviation occurred, because the thoughts concerning these three matters were a fundamental error in their understanding of Islam. This is attributable to several aspects:

    1- There is a difference between the thoughts related to Aqeedah matters namely the doctrines and Shari’ah rules, and the thoughts related to sciences, techniques, industries and the like. It is permitted to adopt the thoughts related to sciences, techniques and the like, provided these do not contradict Islam. As for the thoughts related to Aqeedah matters and Shari’ah rules, it would be forbidden to adopt any of them, except those brought to us by the Messenger of Allah whether it was from the Book of Allah (swt), or the Sunnah, or from what the Book and the Sunnah have guided to. Evidence about this is reflected in what Muslim reported that the Messenger of Allah said: ”I am but human like you. Hence, if I ordered you something related to your Deen’s affairs, do take it, and if I ordered you something related to your worldly affairs, then I am only human.” Evidence is also reflected in the Hadith about the pollination of palm trees, where he was reported to have said: ”You are better acquainted with your worldly affairs.” Therefore that which is not part of the Shari’ah, namely the Aqeedah matters and the rules, can be taken as long as it does not contradict Islam. However, that which is part of the Shari’ah, namely Aqeedah matters and rules, can only be taken from what the Messenger of Allah brought and nothing else. The democratic rules and laws are rules taken to solve man’s problems, hence they form part of the legislation. Thus it would be wrong to adopt them, unless they have been brought by the Messenger of Allah . It would be wrong to adopt them unless they were Shari’ah rules and nothing else.

    2- The Messenger of Allah has explicitly forbidden us from taking anything other than what he brought. Muslim reported on the authority of Aisha (ra) that the Messenger of Allah said: ”He who introduces in our order something that is alien to it, must be rejected.” In another narration, he was reported to have said: ”He who performs an action alien to our order, must be rejected.” Bukhari also reported on the authority of Abu Hurayrah (ra) that the Messenger of Allah said: ”The Hour shall not come until my Ummah follows the ways of the nations before her, hand span to hand span and arm length to arm length.” Upon this they asked: ”Is it the Persians and the Romans?” He replied: ”Who else among people but them?” Bukhari also reported on the authority of Abu Said Al-Khudri (ra) that the Messenger of Allah said: ”You shall follow the ways of those before you hand span to hand span and arm length to arm length, and even if they entered a lizard’s hole you will follow them.” I said: ”O Messenger of Allah! You mean the Jews and the Christians?” He replied: ”Who else?” These texts clearly forbid us from taking anything from others. The first Hadith, with its two narrations, is clear about the prohibition and about the censure of taking, for it says: ”It should be rejected.” The other two Ahadith contain the meaning of prohibition. This prohibition is applicable to the taking of the rules of the constitution and the laws from other than Islam, because it is introducing something alien to our order, even taking from other than our order. It is an emulation of those who are like the Persians and the Romans, namely the British and the French, who are from the Romans, hence, it is forbidden to take these rules and laws.

    3 – The Messenger of Allah , even in his capacity as a Messenger, never used to answer when asked about a rule which had not been explained by the revelation. He used to wait until Allah (swt) had revealed such a rule. Bukhari reported on the authority of ibn Mas’ud (ra) that ”the Messenger of Allah was asked about the spirit and he remained silent until the verse was revealed.” Bukhari also reported on the authority of Jabir ibn Abdullah (ra) who said: ”I was taken ill once and the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr came to visit me. He came to me while I was unconscious, so he performed Wulu and then poured that water over me, so I regained consciousness and then said: O Messenger of Allah! How do I judge in my assets? What do I do with my assets? He said nothing to me until the verse of inheritance was revealed.” This indicates that it is forbidden to take from other than what is revelation. If the Messenger of Allah refrained from giving an opinion until the revelation came to him, this proves that nothing is to be taken apart from what the Revelation has indicated.

    4- Allah (swt) has commanded us to take what the Messenger of Allah has ordered and to abstain from taking what he has prohibited. Allah (swt) also commanded us to refer in judgement to the Messenger of Allah , namely to what the Messenger of Allah has brought. Allah (swt) says:

    ”And take whatever the Messenger has brought to you and refrain from whatever he has forbidden you.”[Al Hashr, 7]

    This means that we should not take anything that the Messenger of Allah has not brought to us. As for the opposite understanding of ”….whatever he has forbidden you..” this is inapplicable and nullified by the generality of the Shari’ah texts which prohibit the taking of anything other than from the Islamic Shari’ah, such as Allah (swt) saying:

    ”No by your God, they shall not become true believers until they make you judges in all disputes amongst them.” [Al Nisa’a, 65]

    And also in His saying (swt)

    ”They wish to refer in judgement to Taghut (evil) whilst they have been commanded to reject it.” [Al-Nisa’a, 60]

    Also such as the saying of the Messenger of Allah : ”Any action alien to our order must be rejected.” This should be the case with every opposite understanding. If a Shari’ah text were to indicate other than what we deduce from it, then this understanding should be nullified and should not be applicable, such as Allah (swt) saying:

    ”And do not force your maids to commit fornication if they wished to remain chaste.” [Al Nur, 33]

    the opposite understanding of which is that if they did not wish to remain chaste, it would be permitted to force them. However, this understanding is nullified by the generality of the text which forbids fornication, which is Allah (swt) saying:

    ”and do not approach fornication.” [Al Isra, 32]

    Therefore, the meaning of the verse would be to abide by what the Messenger of Allah has ordered and to abstain from what he has forbidden. Hence, we must not only make lawful what Allah (swt) has made lawful, and we must forbid what Allah (swt) has forbidden. That which the Messenger of Allah has not brought to us, we do not take it and that which he has not forbidden we do not forbid. However, the non prohibition does not mean the permissibility of taking, for it is forbidden to take from other than Shari’ah, it rather means the non prohibition of that which Allah has not forbidden. This is the meaning of the verse.

    If this verse were linked to Allah (swt) saying:

    ”Let those who violate his command beware of being struck by Fitna or by a severe punishment” [Al Nur, 63]

    if it were known that the phrase ”whatever” in His saying ”Whatever he has brought to you” and ”Whatever he has forbidden you” were a term of generality, the obligation of taking what he has brought would clearly be manifested, and that the prohibition of taking from other than what he had brought would be a sin that carries a severe penalty.

    Allah (swt) also says:

    ”No by your God, they shall not become true believers until they make you judge in matters that are of dispute amongst them.” [Al Nisa’a, 65]

    Hence, He (Allah swt) denied Iman from those who refer in their judgement to other than the Messenger of Allah in their actions, which indicates conclusively that reference in judgement should be restricted only to what the Messenger of Allah has brought.

    Besides, Allah (swt) has rebuked those who wished to refer in judgement to other than what the Messenger of Allah has brought. He (swt) says:

    ”Did you not see those who pretend to have believed in what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed before you; they wish to refer in judgement to Taghut(evil) whilst they have been ordered to reject it; and Shaytan wishes to lead far astray” [Al Nisa’a, 60]

    This indicates that referring the judgement to other than what the Messenger of Allah has brought would be a deviation and a reference in judgement to Taghut(falsehood).

    5- The Shari’ah rule is the address of the Legislator related to the actions of the servants, and the Muslims are commanded to refer in their actions to the address of the Legislator and to conduct their affairs in accordance with this address. So, even if they adopted something that does not contradict the address of the legislator in any of their actions or in any of their conducts, they would have in this case taken other than the Shari’ah rule, for they would not have taken the original Shari’ah rule, but rather that which does not contradict it, hence their adoption would not be an adoption of the Shari’ah rule. Besides, if one were to take that which conforms with the Shari’ah rule, but from other than the Book and the Sunnah, this adoption would be forbidden for it is not the taking of the Shari’ah rule, but rather an adoption of other than the Shari’ah rule that happens to agree with the Shari’ah rule. In this case it would not be a reference to what the Messenger of Allah has brought, but a reference to other than what he has brought, despite its agreement with it. This is so because the Muslim is commanded to adopt the Shari’ah rule and nothing else. For instance, marriage according to the Shari’ah is subject to a Shari’ah based offer and acceptance, with the wordings of Inkah (marrying off) and Tazwij (acceptance in marriage) and in the presence of two Muslim witnesses. If a Muslim man and woman went to a church, and a priest undertook the marriage contract on the basis of Christianity using the words of Inkah and Tazwij in the presence of two Muslim witnesses, would they be considered to be married according to the Shari’ah rule or according to other than that? In other words, would they have referred to what the Messenger of Allah has brought, or to what the distorted and abrogated Christianity has brought? Also, for instance, if a Christian died and his family were to divide his inheritance among themselves according to the rules of Islam, because Islam is fair, just or beneficial, and if they were to take a limitation of succession document from the Shari’ah court, would they have referred to the Shari’ah rule, or would they have merely taken the system because it was fair, just or beneficial? They would have undoubtedly taken other than the Shari’ah rule, because the taking of the Shari’ah rule should be taken because the Messenger of Allah has brought it, as it is part of the commands and the prohibitions of Allah (swt). Only then would its taking be considered a taking of the Shari’ah rule. However, the taking of the rule because the rule is just and fair, or because it is beneficial, is not considered taking the Shari’ah rule. The verse states ”Until they make you judge” and it states ”And take whatever the Messenger has brought to you”,

    Thus a rule should be taken on the basis of the fact that it has been brought by the Messenger of Allah . Accordingly anything that is taken on other than this basis, it would not be considered a Shari’ah rule regardless of whether this agreed with the Shari’ah rule or contradicted it and even if the same Shari’ah rule were taken as it is, but not taken because the Messenger of Allah has brought it, but rather because it is beneficial and just.

    6- The Messenger of Allah’s approval of the Kufr contracts is exclusive to him, in his quality as the Messenger of Allah, as his approval is legislation, just like his sayings and his actions. This quality is not conferred upon any other person but him . Therefore, whatever the Messenger of Allah performed, said, or approved is considered as legislation and it is based on the revelation. No one apart from the Messenger of Allah has the right to legislate. Hence, the contracts which the Messenger of Allah has approved have become Shari’ah rules, even if they had been contracts of the times of Jahiliyyah (ignorance). This is because their approval by the Messenger of Allah serves as evidence that they are Shari’ah rules, even if these were acts of worship. Hence, they would have been deduced from the approval of the Messenger of Allah and would have been taken on that basis, not because they had been contracts of Jahiliyyah which happened not to contradict Islam. The Sahaba (ra) used to refer to the silence of the Messenger of Allah over a rule as evidence about the rule being a Shari’ah rule. In addition, the fact that there are many incidents in which the silence of the Messenger of Allah served as evidence that they were part of the Shari’ah rules.

    7- The Mubah is not that which carries no (haraj) rebuke, for the absence of rebuke from the performing or the refraining does not indicate a Shari’ah permission, nor does the lifting of rebuke necessitate the granting of choice. The prohibition of something does not mean the commanding of its opposite. Also, the commanding of something does not mean the prohibition of its opposite. The lifting of rebuke could be coupled with the obligation, as is the case in Allah’s (swt) saying:

    ”And he who makes Hajj to the House or Umrah, there is no rebuke in making Tawaf” [Al Baqarah, 158]

    Hence, the Tawaf during Hajj and Umrah is an obligation and not Mubah. Also, the lifting of rebuke could be a Rukhsah (exception), as is the case in Allah’s (swt) saying:

    ”Hence, there is no rebuke if you were to shorten your prayers” [Al Nisa’a, 101]

    Here, the lifting of rebuke does not mean the permissibility. Therefore, the Mubah is not that which there is no rebuke in it, rather the mubah is that which the heard evidence from the address of the Legislator has indicated the granting of choice between performing or abstaining without any other alternative. Hence, the Ibaha (permissibility) is that which the Shari’ah has granted the choice between taking and abstaining, either by directly mentioning the granting of the choice in the text itself such as Allah’s (swt) saying:

    ”Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth, when or how you will” [ Al Baqarah, 223]

    or such as Allah’s (swt) saying :

    ”And eat both of you freely with pleasure and delight, of things therein as wherever you will” [ Al Baqarah, 35]

    or by deducing the understanding from the text such as Allah’s (swt) saying:

    ”But when you finish the Ihram” [ Al Maidah, 2]

    or His (swt) saying

    ”and when the Salat is over you may disperse” [ Al-Jum’ah, 10]

    or His (swt) saying

    ”Do eat from the good things We have provided for you” [ Al Baqarah, 57]

    Besides, the Ibaha is part of the Shari’ah rules, and the Shari’ah rule is the address of the Legislator related to the actions of the servants, so it requires a Shari’ah evidence from the heard evidences to indicate that the thing is Mubah in order for it to be Mubah. Hence, the absence of a Shari’ah rule about something to indicate that it is Wajib, or Mandub, or Haram or Makruh, does not indicate that it is Mubah, for it still requires a Shari’ah rule to indicate its Ibaha.

    As for the things and actions which existed before the arrival of Shari’ah, such as contracts and transactions among others, their Ibaha was not a continuation of what they had been before the arrival of the Shari’ah, it is rather derived from a Shari’ah text that indicated it. Trade was mentioned by a Shari’ah text, that is Allah (swt) saying:

    ”And Allah made trade lawful and made usury unlawful” [ Al Baqarah, 275]

    Hiring was performed by the Messenger of Allah , for it has been reported that he hired a man from Bani Al-Dayl as a guide to show him the way. Hence, the Ibaha (permissibility) of trade and that of hire has come from a Shari’ah text, and not from its continuation from the days of Jahiliyyah. As well as being a saying from the Qur’an, or a saying from the Messenger of Allah , the Shari’ah text could also be an action, that is the action of the Messenger of Allah , and it could also be a silence, that is the silence of the Messenger of Allah . Thus whatever continued in terms of actions, things, contracts and transactions from the days of Jahiliyyah to the days of Islam, and which the Muslims continued to pursue, they would have pursued it because a Shari’ah evidence had come to indicate its Ibaha, either by a saying from the Qur’an or the Messenger of Allah , or by an action of the Messenger or by his silence , but not just by a continuation of what had existed in the days of Jahiliyyah.That which has not been established as a Shari’ah evidence, such as a saying, or an action or a silence, and had existed in the days of Jahiliyyah, should not continue and should not be taken, even if no prohibition were mentioned. A Shari’ah evidence should rather be sought for it. Hence the Ibaha of that which had existed before the arrival of Shari’ah and continued after its arrival, has been established by a Shari’ah rule related to it.

    It would be wrong to say that because the Shari’ah has kept silent over it, its Ibaha has continued, and that which the Shari’ah has kept silent over and has not explained, its rule must be Mubah. This is because the Shari’ah has not kept silent over it but demonstrated its rule by an evidence related to it, and the silence of the Messenger of Allah is not considered a silence of Shari’ah, but rather a statement from Shari’ah, for the silence of the Messenger of Allah is just like his saying and his action and just like the Qur’an, i.e. a statement of a Shari’ah rule.

    No Muslim has the right to say that the Legislator (swt) has kept silent over something and has not stated its rule after reading Allah’s (swt) saying:

    ”This day I have perfected your Deen for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your Deen” [ Al Ma’ida, 3]

    Also His saying (swt):

    ”And We have revealed the Book to you explaining everything” [ Al Nahl 16: 89]

    Hence, no Muslim has the right to claim that there are situations devoid of a Shari’ah rule, meaning that the Shari’ah has completely disregarded such a situation and has not established an evidence for it. That is that the evidence did not come from either the Book or the Sunnah, or they have not given an indication through a legitimate Illah (Shari’ah reason), that which the text has mentioned either explicitly, or by way of indication, or deduction or by way of analogy, to draw the attention through this evidence or this indication to the rule related to a host of situations, whether it is Wajib (compulsory), Mandub (recommended), Haram (forbidden), Makruh (despised) or Mubah (permitted). No Muslim should hold this view, for he would be slandering the Shari’ah by claiming that it is imperfect and he would be legitimising the reference in judgements to other than the Shari’ah, thus contradicting Allah’s (swt) saying:

    ”No by your God, they shall not become true believers until they make you judge in matters that are of dispute amongst them” [Al Nisaa 4:65]

    If the Shari’ah did not come with the rule and the Muslim adopted a rule that the Shari’ah had not come with, he would have referred in judgement to other than the Shari’ah, and this is forbidden. As he would be claiming that the Shari’ah has not come with the rules for all situations. So claiming a permission to refer to other than Shari? under the pretext that Shari’ah has not come with these rules, would be a false claim. Therefore, it is inconceivable to state that whatever the Shari’ah has kept silent over is Mubah, for this would be an Ibaha to refer to other than Shari’ah, in addition to the fact that it would be a slander against the Shari’ah by claiming that it has kept silent over certain rules and has not established them. Besides, this would be in contradiction to reality, as Shari’ah has in fact not kept silent over anything at all.

    As for the Messenger of Allah’s (saw) saying: ”Truly Allah has decreed certain obligations, hence do not neglect them”, this denotes the prohibition of asking about that which has not been mentioned textually by Shari’ah. It is similar to his saying (saw) : Truly the gravest sinners amongst the Muslims would be those who ask about something that has not been forbidden upon them, then it became forbidden because of their asking.There are many ahadith to that effect. It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said : Spare me the things I have not mentioned to you, for those before you perished because of their constant asking and their arguing with their prophets; so refrain from that which I forbid you and perform to your utmost ability that which I order you”. It has also been reported that he (saw) once recited Allah’s (swt) saying: ”And Allah commanded people to perform Hajj”. Upon this a man asked :”O Messenger of Allah! Is it every year?”. He (saw) did not reply. So the man asked again :O Messenger of Allah! Is it every year?”. Again he (saw) did not reply. So the man asked him a third time :O Messenger of Allah! Is it every year? Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said :”By He Who owns my soul, if I said it, it will become obligatory, and if it did become obligatory you would not be able to perform it, and if you did not perform it you would be sinful. So spare me that which I have not ordered you”. Hence, the meaning of the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying : ”and He has permitted other things”, and in the narration of : ”and that which He kept silent over is a permission”, is that He (swt) has lightened your obligation, so do not ask lest you overburden yourselves. For instance, the duty of Hajj has been decreed in general terms, and someone asked whether it should be performed every year. Allah (swt) has reduced this obligation and made it once in a lifetime in order to lighten your load and out of mercy upon the people, so He (swt) has condoned and kept silent over this obligation being every year. Thus one does not look into these things and does not ask about them. Evidence about the fact that this was the meaning is the saying of Allah’s Messenger (saw): ”Hence, do not look into them” after he (saw) had said : ”And He has condoned certain things” So, the point at issue is prohibiting Muslims from asking about things whose prohibition has not been revealed. The point at issue is not that He (swt) has not stated some of the Shari? rules, for the context of the Hadith reveals the mercy of Allah (swt) upon them and His condoning. As for the other narration : ”And that which He kept silent over is a permission”, it also indicates that the issue is related to the prohibition of searching and asking about that which He (swt) has lightened for you and has not forbidden for you. Thus when something is not prohibited it is a permission from Allah (swt), in other words, that which He (swt) kept silent about its prohibition denotes a permission from Allah (swt), thus do not ask about it. This is reflected in Allah’s (swt) saying:

    ”O you who have believed do not ask about matters which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble”

    Then He (swt) said:

    ”Allah has permitted them.” i.e. those matters. [ Al Maida 5:101]

    Extract from the book ‘How the Khilafah was destroyed’ by Sheikh Abdul-Qadeem Zalloom (rh)

    , ,
    , , , ,

  • Q&A: Turkiye, the Jewish Entity, and the Bases in Syria


    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Answer to Question
    Turkiye, the Jewish Entity, and the Bases in Syria
    (Translated)

    Question:

    On 14/4/2025, Turk Press published on its website the reasons behind the Jewish entity’s objection to the establishment of a Turkish air base at T4 Airport inside Syrian territory. It stated that among these reasons was “the military reason that a Turkish presence would restrict the freedom of movement of the ‘Israeli’ Air Force over Syria and impose security coordination that Tel Aviv currently does not want.” The Wall Street Journal published on its website on 12/4/2025, that Trump indicated his willingness to mediate during his meeting with Netanyahu last week “stressing his confidence in his ability to solve the problem, as long as you’re reasonable, you have to be reasonable.” Does this mean that the Jewish entity can prevent Turkiye from having a military presence in Syria, despite the Turkish-Syrian agreement? Does the United States have a role in this matter that would explain Trump’s willingness to mediate?

    Answer:

    To clarify the answer, let’s take a step back and review the following points:

    First: During Netanyahu’s visit to Hungary, Trump invited him to come to the United States. It was a remarkable invitation:

    1- Netanyahu was on a four-day visit to Hungary, beginning on 2 April 2025. This was his first visit to a European country since the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant against him last year.

    2- In an unusual manner, US President Trump contacted Netanyahu and Orbán (the Hungarian Prime Minister) during their meeting in Budapest, extending an invitation to Netanyahu to visit the White House: “Trump revealed, during his conversation with reporters aboard Air Force One, that he had a phone call with Netanyahu yesterday, Thursday, and that they discussed international political issues, pointing out that the ‘Israeli’ Prime Minister may visit the United States soon. An Israeli official confirmed to Axios that Trump had extended an official invitation to Netanyahu to visit the White House, but the date of the meeting had not yet been set. Meanwhile, a US official stated that the visit could take place within the next few weeks.” (Axios; Cairo News, 4/4/2025).

    3- The Jewish entity was surprised by this urgent invitation, especially after the White House refused to make it after the Jewish holidays: (There is concern in the office of ‘Israeli’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the White House’s insistence on holding the meeting between US President Donald Trump and Netanyahu tomorrow, Monday, and not after the Jewish Passover holiday, in two weeks, as Netanyahu’s office wanted. A statement issued by Netanyahu’s office yesterday said that “he will head to Washington following an invitation he received from US President Donald Trump. They will discuss the tariff issue, the efforts to return our hostages, ‘Israel’-Turkey relations, the Iranian threat and the battle against the International Criminal Court.” Concern is growing in Netanyahu’s office due to the White House’s insistence on holding the meeting tomorrow, and the possibility that Trump will surprise Netanyahu with a topic or topics that ‘Israel’ did not expect, according to what Channel 12 reported today, Sunday.” (Arab 48, 6/4/2025).

    4- Netanyahu left Hungary and headed directly to Washington without returning to the entity, in another sign of urgency!

    Second: This immediate arrangement indicates an urgent matter. Examining the announced topics of discussion for their meeting reveals that at least one issue was the primary motivation for this urgent invitation, most likely it is the situation in Syria, for the following reasons:

    1- Examining US President Trump’s statements to a small group of journalists during his meeting with Netanyahu on 7/4/2025, after the White House canceled the press conference he was scheduled to hold after the meeting with Netanyahu, we find that his statements regarding the Syrian arena and relations with Turkey were very positive, regarding his relationship with Turkish President Erdoğan and the contact between them. He said:

    (“I congratulated Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. ‘I said: “Congratulations, you’ve done what nobody’s been able to do in 2,000 years. You’ve taken over Syria.’ With different names, but same thing,” …taken it over through surrogates.” Trump continued: “Erdogan said, ‘No, no, no.’ I didn’t take Syria. I told him, ‘It was you, but well, you don’t have to admit it.’ He said, ‘Well, maybe I did.’” Trump added: “Erdogan is a tough guy, and he’s very smart, and he did something that nobody was able to do… You have to accept his victory.” Addressing his guest, Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said: “Bibi, if you have a problem with Turkey, I really think I’m going to be able to work it out,’ “Any problem that you have with Turkey, I think I can solve. I mean, as long as you’re reasonable, you have to be reasonable. We have to be reasonable.” (Axios; Turk Press, 8/4/2025). Trump called on the Jewish entity to be reasonable in matters related to Turkey in Syria.

    2- The Jewish entity had no choice but to submit to this American demand: (‘Israeli’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stressed that Tel Aviv would not allow Syria to be used as a base for launching attacks against it, noting that relations with Turkey had been friendly but had recently “deteriorated.” He said after his meeting with US President Donald Trump: “We’ve had neighborly relations with Turkey that have deteriorated, and we don’t want to see Syria being used by anyone, including Turkey, as a base for attack in ‘Israel’,” He added: “We discussed how we can avoid this conflict in a variety of ways, and I think we can’t have a better interlocutor than the president of the United States for this purpose.” (Al-Quds Al-Arabi, 8/4/2025)

    3- The Jewish entity launched heavy airstrikes on Syrian airports. RT reported on 2/4/2025, from a statement by the Syrian Foreign Ministry: “Israeli forces launched airstrikes on five different areas across the country within 30 minutes, resulting in the near-total destruction of Hama Military Airport and the injury of dozens of civilians and military personnel.” The Syrian Foreign Ministry considered that “this unjustified escalation constitutes a deliberate attempt to destabilize Syria and prolong the suffering of its people.” These airports, located in central Syria, are where Turkey plans to establish bases as part of an agreement with the new Syrian government:

    (Israel’s foreign minister accused Turkey of playing a “negative role” in Syria, and warned Syria’s interim prime minister, Ahmed al-Sharaa, that he would “pay a very heavy price” if he allowed “hostile forces” to enter his country. Ankara is currently negotiating a joint defense agreement with al-Sharaa’s new government, and reports have emerged that Turkey is in the process of deploying aircraft and air defense systems to Syria’s T4 and Aleppo air bases. Some analysts have compared Israel’s heavy airstrikes on Hama airport this week with the less intense raids targeting the outskirts of T4, suggesting that Turkey may have already moved some of its equipment there. (BBC, 5/4/2025.) News reports spread about the killing of three Turkish engineers at Hama Airport as a result of the bombing of the Jewish entity. (Syrian military sources revealed that three Turkish engineers were killed in the ‘Israeli’ bombing of Hama Military Airport last Wednesday, indicating that the engineers were working on installing technical equipment at Hama Airport, including air defense systems that Turkey had brought to the airport. (Erem News, 4/4/2025).

    4- It appears that Turkey was deeply angered by the Jewish entity due to its recent raids, especially on Syrian airports, and urgently contacted the United States to put an end to the (attacks of the) Jewish entity in Syria, especially since Turkey is carrying out a mission agreed upon with the United States in Syria. Therefore, the urgent invitation was made to the Prime Minister of the Jewish entity to Washington, and Trump asked him to resolve the problems with Turkey rationally.

    Third: What indicates that this issue was the most urgent in that meeting are many other statements indicating this:

    1- The Turkish Foreign Minister said, “US needs to, so to speak, set boundaries for Netanyahu and establish a framework.” (Anadolu Agency, 9/4/2025).

    2- Immediate direct talks between the Jewish entity and Turkey were announced. RTV quoted the Turkish Foreign Minister on 9/4/ 2025, as saying, “Hakan Fidan stated in his statements that in order to prevent ‘misunderstandings’ in Syria, they are establishing ‘direct communication’ with ‘Israel’.” Fidan explained that ‘Israel’ has defined a strategy of ‘leaving nothing’ for the new administration in Syria. The Turkish Foreign Minister stressed the need to end ‘Israel’s’ occupation of Syrian territory and stop bombing its infrastructure. He pointed out that instability in a country neighboring Turkey will affect and harm it, warning that Ankara ‘cannot remain silent about this.’ (We have no intention of entering into any clash or confrontation with any country in the region, including ‘Israel’… We are cooperating with the new Syrian administration in the security field and in combating terrorism).

    3- Reuters reported last week that Turkish military teams had inspected at least three air bases in Syria to deploy Turkish forces there as part of a planned mutual defense agreement before ‘Israel’ targeted the sites with airstrikes. Fidan told CNN Turk on Wednesday: “While we carry out certain operations in Syria, there must be a mechanism to avoid a conflict with ‘Israel’ whose planes are flying in that area, similar to the mechanisms we have with the United States and Russia.” (Al Arabiya, 10/4/2025).

    4- An informed Syrian source told “Independent Arabia” that “there is indeed talk of an agreement. This agreement is a non-conflict agreement, not a disengagement agreement, because there is no clash between Turkey and ‘Israel’ in Syria. In other words, the agreement is to draw borders so that if there is an ‘Israeli’ aircraft in Syrian airspace, its destination is reported.” (Independent Arabia, 9/4/2025) That is, similar to the previous Turkish agreement with Russia to prevent a clash between them in Syria!

    5- All of this is evident from statements made by Turkish officials, as reported by Asharq Al-Awsat on 13/4/2025:

    [Turkey confirmed that it will continue its technical talks with ‘Israel’ to reach a mechanism for de-escalation, establish rules of engagement, and prevent the occurrence of incidents or clashes on Syrian soil. The Turkish Foreign Minister said that his country wants to achieve stability in Syria and avoid any provocations, and is working to avoid entering into any conflict with any country within Syria. Two delegations (Turkish and Israeli) held a meeting in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, last Wednesday, for talks aimed at avoiding incidents or clashes in Syria, after tensions escalated in the past two weeks.] (Asharq Al-Awsat 13/4/2025).

    6- Al Jazeera reported on its website on 14/4/2025, based on a report by writer Andrea Muratore published by the Italian website “Inside Over”: that Turkey plays a pivotal role for the new US administration as a bridge to resolve many hot issues in the Middle East and around the world, after years of tension with the previous administration. The writer said in his report that US President Donald Trump has repeatedly confirmed his admiration for the personality of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his political acumen, and since the beginning of his second term, he has sent clear signals of fondness that show his desire to seek his assistance in resolving a number of issues. (Al Jazeera 14/4/2025)

    All of this indicates that America treats the enemy Jewish entity and the Turkish regime as allies, managing affairs between them to serve its interests!

    Fourth: It is painful that the United States is the one that manages affairs in our countries as it pleases, giving priority in the region to the Jewish entity that usurped the Blessed Land – Palestine, the land of Isra’ and Mi’raj. The rulers of Muslim countries are at the beck and call of the United States. Even the land of the Khilafah (Caliphate), its last state, the Ottoman State, which the Jews wanted to establish a foothold in, in the Blessed Land in exchange for paying millions in gold coins, they were harshly rebuffed by the Caliph, who said:

    “Palestine does not belong to me, but rather it belongs to the Islamic Ummah. My people have struggled for this land and watered it with their blood. Let the Jews keep their millions, and if the Khilafah state is ever torn apart, they can then take Palestine without a price.” And that is what happened!

    Turkey, after the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate (Uthmani Khilafah), is prevented by the Jewish entity from establishing a military base in Syria, even after the Syrian regime agreed to it. This is the state of Muslims after the demise of the Khilafah. And it is a grave matter!

    The strength and glory of Muslims lies in their Khilafah, and Hizb ut Tahrir, the pioneer that does not lie to its people, calls on the people of power in Muslim lands to support it in resuming the Islamic life on earth by re-establishing the Khilafah. Then the glory of Muslims will be restored.

    [وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ * بِنَصْرِ اللهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ]

    “And on that day the believers will rejoice * at the victory willed by Allah. He gives victory to whoever He wills. For He is the Almighty, Most Merciful” [Ar-Rum: 4-5].

    ,
    , , , , , ,

  • The West Reinvents Hardline, as the Muslims of Bangladesh ‘March for Caliphate’ to Fill up Political Vacuum

    News:

    In the political vacuum that has emerged after the overthrow of Bangladesh’s authoritarian leader, religious fundamentalists in one town declared that young women could no longer play soccer. In another, they forced the police to free a man who had harassed a woman for not covering her hair in public, then draped him in garlands of flowers.

    More brazen calls followed. Demonstrators at a rally in Dhaka, the Capital, warned that if the government did not give the death penalty to anyone who disrespected Islam, they would carry out executions with their own hands. Days later, an outlawed group held a large march demanding an Islamic caliphate.

    As Bangladesh tries to rebuild its democracy and chart a new future for its 175 million people, a streak of Islamist extremism that had long lurked beneath the country’s secular facade is bubbling to the surface. (Source)

    Comment:

    By fabricating the facts, the Western Kafir Colonialists responded to the long aspiration for Islamic rulings as rise of so called extremism. They call for a hardline to suppress political Islam out of fear that the rotten secularism and democratic system have to go away. They attacked the Shariah ruling of forbidding women to play soccer and covering her hair in public as a repression against woman, whereas they are silent over upward trend of women being raped under the secular system. Because secular capitalism presents woman as a sexual commodity that leads to fornication in the name ‘freedom’ or ‘my body my choice’, whereas Islam recognized the women as a symbol of honor and dignity that must be protected. When the girls of famous schools in capital city, Dhaka, looked for ‘shariah law’ for punishing rapists the West brands them ‘fundamentalists’. Whereas, the West sheds crocodiles tear for female students who helped oust the country’s repressive Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina.

    The Western hypocrisy of freedom of speech or plurality is no longer hidden to the Muslims that they allow all forms of politics except Islam. The majority (almost ninety-percent) people of Bangladesh are Muslims, whereas marching for the Caliphate (Islamic System) is a criminal offence! They unleash the freedom to attack our beloved Prophet (saw) and Islam, but demonstration for the death penalty to anyone who disrespected Islam is seen as rise of extremism. They are worried of a slight change of the word ‘secularism’ in the secular constitution but they do not even tolerate the people’s demand for ‘Islamic Constitution’.  So it clear that the West pursues their false creed of secularism and hypocritically impose upon the Muslims. They also worry when people of Bangladesh reject their creed and demand for Islam.

    What is surprising is the loyalty of secular Muslim rulers to the West who abandon Islam and Muslims of the country. They show their commitment to fight Islamic aspiration of the Muslims in the name of fighting ‘extremism’. “Bangladesh’s efforts to combat extremism through social reforms and collaboration with the international community should not be overshadowed by the spread of misinformation” [https://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/3f7ftarsno]. Allah (swt) says,

    [قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ * لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ]

    “Say, ˹O Prophet, ˺ “O you disbelievers! I do not worship what you worship” [Al-Kafirun: 1-2].

    Therefore, it is quite evident that the Muslims of Bangladesh are in the right track to march for the Caliphate even though it irritates the Western Kafirs. Because, only the Caliphate is the true guardian of the Muslim. In fact, the Muslim Ummah have been in political vacuum since 3 March, 1924 and they have to stick to fill up this political vacuum.

    [إِنَّ اللَّهَ بَالِغُ أَمْرِهِ قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدْرًا]

    “Indeed, Allah will accomplish His purpose. Allah has already set for everything a [decreed] extent” [Surat At Talaq:3].

    , , , , , , , ,

  • History of the Political Leadership of the Ulema in al-Hind

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

     History of the Political Leadership of the Ulema in al-Hind

    The role of the Ulema (scholars) has been well defined and understood within Muslims. It has been narrated in Sunan Abu Dawud where Kathir ibn Qays said: I was sitting with Abu Darda’ in the masjid of Damascus. A man came to him and said: Abu Darda, I have come to you from the town of the Messenger of Allah (saw) for a tradition that I have heard you relate from the Messenger of Allah (saw). I have come for no other purpose. He said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say,

    «مَنْ سَلَكَ طَرِيقًا يَطْلُبُ فِيهِ عِلْمًا سَلَكَ اللَّهُ بِهِ طَرِيقًا مِنْ طُرُقِ الْجَنَّةِ وَإِنَّ الْمَلاَئِكَةَ لَتَضَعُ أَجْنِحَتَهَا رِضًا لِطَالِبِ الْعِلْمِ وَإِنَّ الْعَالِمَ لَيَسْتَغْفِرُ لَهُ مَنْ فِي السَّمَوَاتِ وَمَنْ فِي الأَرْضِ وَالْحِيتَانُ فِي جَوْفِ الْمَاءِ وَإِنَّ فَضْلَ الْعَالِمِ عَلَى الْعَابِدِ كَفَضْلِ الْقَمَرِ لَيْلَةَ الْبَدْرِ عَلَى سَائِرِ الْكَوَاكِبِ وَإِنَّ الْعُلَمَاءَ وَرَثَةُ الأَنْبِيَاءِ وَإِنَّ الأَنْبِيَاءَ لَمْ يُوَرِّثُوا دِينَارًا وَلاَ دِرْهَمًا وَرَّثُوا الْعِلْمَ فَمَنْ أَخَذَهُ أَخَذَ بِحَظٍّ وَافِرٍ»‏

    “If anyone travels on a road in search of knowledge, Allah will cause him to travel on one of the roads of Paradise. The angels will lower their wings in their great pleasure with one who seeks knowledge, the inhabitants of the heavens and the Earth and the fish in the deep waters will ask forgiveness for the learned man. The superiority of the learned man over the devout is like that of the moon, on the night when it is full, over the rest of the stars. The learned are the heirs of the Prophets, and the Prophets leave neither dinar nor dirham, leaving only knowledge, and he who takes it takes an abundant portion.” [Sunan Abu Daud]

    We see many examples in the history of the Khilafah (Caliphate) State where Ulema exhibited the role mentioned in the hadith above. This role encompasses the spread of the Deen as well as leading the Ummah against the forces of Kufr. Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) exemplifies this role when he encouraged the Mamluk rulers and the local population to resist the Mongols. He emphasized the religious duty of jihad against the invading forces and actively called upon the rulers of Egypt and Syria to defend Damascus. He issued fatwas declaring the religious duty of Muslims to fight the Mongol armies, preaching jihad against the Mongols at the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus and personally participated in military action, leading in battle with a sword. He negotiated directly with the Mongol leader Ghazan Khan and his vizier Rashid al-Din and successfully secured the release of many Muslim and dhimmi prisoners taken by the Mongols. Hence we see that Ibn Taymiyyah played an active political role in rallying not just the Muslims, but the leadership of the Muslims.

    Similarly, the Ulema of Hind played an instrumental role in the resistance to British colonialisation. The Ulema of Hind were an important part of the political leadership in Hind. Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624) and Shah Waliullah (1703-1762) were two influential Ulema who played a prominent role in shaping the religious and political landscape of Mughal India. Ahmad Sirhindi engaged with the Mughal court primarily through correspondence and personal interactions. He wrote numerous letters to Mughal nobles to influence religious policies, regularly attended court debates to counter unorthodox religious beliefs and doctrines prevalent in the court. He was imprisoned twice by Jahangir, once in 1618 and again in 1622.

    Shah Waliullah was a phenomenal thinker as well as an alim. His political leadership is indicated by the fact that he invited Ahmad Shah Abdali, the Afghan ruler, to invade India to counter the growing power of the Marathas. This led to the Third Battle of Panipat in 1761, where Abdali defeated the Marathas.

    The period when the British entered Hind, became the ruling class in Hind, became the colonial power in Hind and then led Hind to partition generated political challenges for the Ulema, which impacted the role of the Ulema. You can see that impact in the changing role the Ulema played essentially over this time period.

    The year 1802 was when Shah Abdulaziz (1746–1824), the son of Shah Waliullah (1703–1762) declared a fatwa declaring Hind to be Dar ul Harb. The fatwa stated:

    “In this city (Delhi) the Imam-ul-Muslimin wields no authority. The real power rests with the Christian officers. There is no check on them; and the promulgation of the commands of Kuffar means that in administration and justice, in matter of law and orders, in the domain of trades, finance and collection of revenue- everywhere the Kuffaar (infidels) are in power. Yes, there are certain Islamic rituals, e.g. Friday and Eid prayers, Aazan (call for pray) and cow slaughtering with which they brook no interference; but the very root of these rituals is of no value to them. They demolish mosques without the least hesitation and no Muslims or any dhimmi can enter into the city or suburbs but with their permission. It is in their own interest if they do not object to the travelers and traders to visit the city. On the other hand, distinguished persons like Shuja-ul-Mulk and Wilayati Bagam cannot dare visit the city without the permission. From here to Calcutta, the Christians are in complete control. There is no doubt that in principalities like Hyderabad, Rampur, Lucknow etc. they have left the administration in the hands of local authorities, but it is because they have accepted their lordship and have submitted to their authority.”

    The fatwa and its language indicates the mindset. They were Ulema in a ruling structure built on Islam, and they were empowered to give fatwas and account the Moghul rulers. They carried the political leadership for all, indicated by the use of the term dhimmi for Hindus and Kafir for the British. The fatwa pronounced that it was obligatory upon Muslims to either wage war for freedom or migrate from the country and it applied to the entire territory held by the British, not just Delhi. The political nature of the fatwa was such that it provided religious justification for resistance against British rule, was used as a tool to mobilize public opinion against British rule well into the 19th century and became the precursor to the Indian independence movement.

    While the British were concerned about the 1802 fatwa, their response was measured and multifaceted, focusing on countering its ideological impact rather than resorting to immediate repression. They sought to manage the situation through a combination of propaganda, diplomacy, and selective engagement with Muslim leaders and scholars who were amenable to British rule.

    So, from being Ulema connected to the ruling Islamic class, they became Ulema who were the political and military leaders of an uprising against an occupation. This political leadership was practically demonstrated when the rebellion took place in 1857. The 1857 uprising was a shock for the British. The Ulema rallied the Ummah and the Hindus into a violent resistance, with little or no dissent from the Hindus. During the 1857 Jihad against British rule, the ulema played influential roles in mobilizing resistance and issuing religious decrees to legitimize the revolt. Some of the most prominent figures were:

    Maulana Fazl-e-Haq Khairabadi – Khairabadi issued the famous fatwa declaring jihad against the British as an obligation, actively participating in the rebellion and, imprisoned by the British.

    Mufti Sadruddin Azurda – Grand Mufti of Delhi – Azurda signed the fatwa calling for jihad against the British, worked with Bahadur Shah Zafar (Moghul emperor at the time) critically organizing resistance during the uprising. His property and library were destroyed by the British.

    Maulvi Ahmadullah Shah Madrasi – Known as “Sufi soldier” and a key strategist, he travelled across India, mobilizing support for the rebellion and instrumental in organizing resistance in Awadh. Praised for his military skills including his innovative “Chapati Scheme” to spread messages of rebellion.

    Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki – A Chishti Sufi leader, declared Amir to lead resistance efforts near Delhi, in Shamli, alongside figures like Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi and Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi.

    Maulvi Sarfaraz Ali – Known as the “Imam of the Mujahedin,” he was deeply connected to Delhi’s intellectual circles playing a significant role in uniting jihadis with Delhi’s elite.

    Maulana Rahmatullah Kairanvi – he actively participated in anti-British activities during 1857. He is also remembered for his earlier debates with Christian missionaries.

    Bahadur Shah Zafar – Although a symbolic figure as the last Mughal emperor, he worked closely with ulema like Azurda to legitimize and lead the rebellion. His court became a hub for revolutionary planning during the revolt. The Ulema used him as the alternative the leadership to the British.

    The British response to the Ulema’s leadership in the 1857 Rebellion was severe and brutal, targeting these Ulema who played a significant role in leading the uprising against colonial rule. The British resorted to mass executions of Ulema, employing various methods to instil fear and suppress further resistance. Ulema were publicly hanged, with their bodies put on display to serve as a deterrent. Some were strapped to cannons and fired, dismembering their bodies to such an extent that proper burials became impossible. In extreme cases, Ulema were reportedly roasted alive on hot coals. The road from Delhi to Moradabad became a grim spectacle, with numerous Ulema executed by hanging from trees along this route. The British went further to destroy the infrastructure of the Ulema. The Jama Masjid in Delhi was confiscated. A large part of the Fatehpuri Masjid was sold. The Akbarbadi Masjid was destroyed. The British took control of all religious institutions in Delhi, built on the Ulama’s involvement in the uprising.

    The population of Delhi at that time was around 220,000, (Al Hind population was around 180 million) whilst it is reported that around 500-1000 Ulema were killed in Delhi in the initial period. This gives a ratio of around one Alim per 220 Muslims indicating the dominant leadership of the Ulema. These restrictions collectively aimed to neutralize the ulema as a source of resistance to British rule. The policies forced many ulema to relocate to rural areas leading to the establishment of new centres of Islamic learning such as Deoband in 1866 (by Muhammad Qasim Nanautawi), significantly curtailing the ulema’s overt political activities. There were reports that Makkah and Madinah were full of Ulema from Al Hind who had emigrated to escape the brutality of the British. These policies of the British post 1857 targeting Ulema, Muslims and Islam further shaped the Ulema activities. There are many articles published that describe the barbaric methods used by the British to murder the Ulema and those who supported – all with the spirit to break the will of the Ulema.

    So, from being Ulema connected to the ruling Islamic class in the period before 1802, they became Ulema who were the political and military leaders of the 1857 uprising. Post 1857, on the one hand they became Ulema who were political leaders of a population that was being marginalised by the British, and on the other hand protectors of Islam via establishment of madressas to counter the secular education imposed by the British. Shah Abdul Aziz issued the fatwa against the British, and his contemporaries like of Shah Abdul Ghani as well as Mamluk Ali Nanutawi (1789-1851) disseminated the fatwa.

    The latter’s notable students included Muhammad Qasim Nanautawi (founder of Darul Uloom Deoband 1866) Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (co-founder of Darul Uloom Deoband) and Muhammad Yaqub Nanautawi. The students of Muhammad Qasim Nanautawi and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi were Mahmud ul Hasan Deobandi (1851-1920) Known as “Shaykh al-Hind,” Anwar Shah Kashmiri (1875-1933) and Husain Ahmad Madani (1879-1957). Having been defeated in a military battle, these Ulema were in no mood to give up and now engaged in a wider political battle against the British.

    Mahmud ul-Hasan and Husain Ahmad Madani travelled to Makkah in September 1915. accompanied by several scholars. This trip was part of a broader strategy known as the Silk Letter Movement (Tehrik-e-Reshmi Rumal), which aimed to overthrow British rule in India and liberate other Islamic countries under foreign control. Mahmud ul-Hasan dispatched Obaidullah Sindhi to Afghanistan in July 1915. The plan was for Obaidullah Sindhi to go to Afghanistan to persuade the Afghan Amir Habibullah Khan to declare war against Britain.

    In the meantime, Mahmud ul Hasan and Husain Ahmed Madani travelled to Makkah with the objective of orchestrating a comprehensive anti-British movement. On 18 October 1915, he went to Makkah where he had meetings with Ghalib Pasha, the Turkish governor, and Anwar Pasha, who was the defense minister of Turkey. Ghalib Pasha assured him of assistance. Hasan also had a meeting with the Djemal Pasha the governor of Syria. But the plan of the Silk Letter Movement was leaked and its members were arrested. Mahmud ul Hasan and his companions were imprisoned for four years in Malta by the British.

    The visionary political thought is striking here. They were evaluating the political and military strengths of the Muslims internationally, and how to use it against the British colonialist power. The thought of seeking support from the Muslims in the surrounding areas is consistent with the Hukm of Jihad. If an area is under attack and it cannot defend itself, the obligation extends to the surrounding areas (al ard al aqrab) and so on. So as a true leadership, they not only gave the fatwa, but acted upon it by pursuing political relations with the leadership in the surrounding areas. The strategy of using Muslim dominated areas to push for rebellions against the British to stretch their military resources, the contacting of political figures in the Muslim world who would have access to the resources to achieve the desired results – this is all political thinking that Mahmud ul Hasan and Husain Ahmed Madani carried. And clearly this was not particular to them, but part of the political medium that they were groomed in. However, with the defeat of the Othmani Khilafah (Ottoman Caliphate) after the Second World War, these plans were rendered redundant.

    So, post 1914 – the Ulema became drivers of a transnational movement attempting to weaken the British colonial power. The Khilafah Movement was a significant pan-Islamic campaign launched by Ulema following World War I. Led by prominent figures such as Muhammad Ali and Shaukat Ali (the Ali brothers), Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, and Hakim Ajmal Khan, its primary objectives were to protect the Othmani Khilafah from dismemberment by the Allied powers and to preserve the Khalifah’s control over Muslim holy places. The Ulema of Hind even sent a delegation to Mustafa Kemal asking him not to abolish the Khilafah, but to no avail. The Khilafah Movement was short lived once Mustafa Kemal abolished the Khilafah in 1924.

    In order to understand the political power of the Ulema even during this period, we find that Ghandhi, an established British agent, who had returned from South Africa to lead the Indian National Congress, was forced to join it and support it for his own legitimacy purposes – he had to be seen to be supporting the resistance movement led by the Ulema. This indicates that Ghandhi joining it was ultimately a British plan to derail the movement because they were not able to easily counter the leadership of the Khilafah Movement and the Ulema. The British worked hard to dissolve this Khilafah Movement making sure that the Movement’s ambitions were aborted, and its tendency was transformed into a nationalist and sectarian one.

    Mahmud ul Hasan, who had been released from incarceration in Malta by the British in early 1920, was co-opted to the Khilafah Movement as soon as he returned to Hind, but he passed away later in November 1920. Husain Ahmed Madani continued the struggle against the British, but now the political medium had now changed. Since 1857, the British had realized the need to cultivate an alternative leadership to the Ulema. They made immense efforts to build a secular Muslim leadership of the elite groomed by the British, providing them with a parallel Pakistan movement to replace the Khilafah Movement, which only succeeded post destruction of Khilafah. These were extreme multi-generation British efforts. From post 1857 to the late 1920’s indicates that it took almost around 60-70 years to break the enduring political leadership and threat of the ulema.

    Husain Ahmed Madani now had to deal with leaders in the Ummah that were not necessarily from the Ulema, or who were from the Ulema but had adopted the need to reconcile Islam with concepts from the West. Secular leaders used Western concepts to interpret Islam consistent with British political plans. Husain Ahmed Madani and other Ulema saw this as secular people arrogating to themselves the role of interpreting Islam, something that was the right of Ulema only. On the other hand, secular leaders dismissed the Ulema because of their alleged lack of worldly experience and modernity. With the destruction of the Khilafah, the Ummah and the Ulema faced the rise of nation states and the subsequent material progress of the Western world.

    The Ulema reconciled themselves to protecting Islam under a secular leadership. They maintained the continuity of the Ulema tradition of madressas. Some of the key students of Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Mahmud ul Hasan and Husain Ahmed Madani including Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani – known for his deep understanding of Islamic sciences, Mufti Muhammad Shafi Usmani – founder of Darul Uloom Karachi and Mawlana Muhammad Yusuf Banuri founder of Darul Uloom Banuri Town, Karachi, Mufti Muhammad Hassan founder of Jamia Ashrafiya in Lahore, and Mawlana Abdul Haq who founded Jamia Haqqania. We are all witness to the legacy of these Ulema.

    If we were to distil the essential conflict between the British and the Ulema, it would center on the leadership of the Ulema itself. While the British could not directly control the vast population of Hind, they were able to manage and manipulate a handful of its political leaders. However, from 1802 to 1924, the British consistently failed to find a compliant or pliant Ulema leadership willing to serve their interests. As a result, the British resorted to a dual strategy: on one hand, they terrorized and suppressed the Ulema, and on the other, they worked to cultivate an alternative, secular leadership to replace them.

    This they achieved once the Ottoman Khilafah was destroyed in March 1924, and by post 1945, the Ulema in Hind found themselves displaced. The Ummah had moved away from their leadership and much like the rest of the Islamic world, a new order consisting of puppet (agent) secular regimes imposed by the colonial powers came to rule over the Muslim world. The destruction of the Khilafah brought calamity after calamity upon the Ummah, leaving it to suffer immense political and economic hardship over the past century. Despite the widespread imposition of secular systems across the Muslim world, the Ummah has shown signs of revival. The post-9/11 persecution of Muslims, the brutal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the subversion of the Arab Spring, and the ongoing genocide in Gaza have all revealed the profound Islamic sentiment that still courses through the Ummah.

    The Ulema become a displaced and side-lined political leadership not because they lacked the capacity to lead, but because they have been absent from the dominant political arena for so long. Today, the revival of the Ummah is predicated on leaderships that challenge the global order based on Islam. We see this dynamic unfolding, where the contemporary colonial power — the United States — finds itself challenged by an Ummah that is increasingly demanding Islam. Despite occupying and waging a 20-year war in Afghanistan, the US was ultimately forced to capitulate to the Taliban.

    Similarly, in Syria, the US had to confront a strong pro-Khilafah movement that demanded the removal of the Kaafir Alawite regime — a regime that had loyally served US interests for decades. In both of these regions, despite the US playing a hands on role to maintain their agents, they were forced to accept overtly pro-Islamic leaderships because the Ummah demanded it.

    The parallel between current events and those of a century ago is indeed striking, revealing a significant shift in the political landscape of the Muslim world. Britain could not secularise the Ulema and had to build an alternate secular leadership – and only succeeded because of the decline of the Ummah. With the revival of the Ummah, the US, unlike Britain a century ago, has had to accept and adapt to this Islamic resurgence. It is crucial to understand that this revival presents entirely new opportunities for the Ummah. The examples of Afghanistan and Syria quoted above indicate that the US cannot counter the adoption of Islam by sincere leaderships.

    The current secular political leaderships in the Ummah exist because the Ulema are politically absent. The Ulema need to return to the political domain and follow not only the legacy of their predecessors as described above, but the role prescribed for them in the hadith as inheritors of the Prophets (as). The manhaj (methodology) of the Prophets (as) indicates that the opposition to their call was never from the general masses, rather from the leadership of the people to whom the Prophets (as) were sent. In many descriptions of the engagements of the Prophets (as), Allah (swt) mentioned,

    [فَقَالَ ٱلْمَلَؤُا۟ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟] “The disbelieving chiefs of his people responded…” [TMQ Surah Al-Muminoon 24] to describe the opposition from the existing leaderships to the call to the Deen. Today the secular leaderships represent the chiefs, not just as obstacles to Islamic revival, but tools of colonialist powers, especially the US, to maintain hegemony. It’s not only necessary, but natural for the Ulema to challenge this status quo. As inheritors of the Prophets’ legacy, they must lead this challenge, re-engaging with the political medium to offer Islamic governance. The success is assured by the Prophet Muhammad’s (saw) hadith predicting the return of

    «ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ» “a Khilafah according to the method of Prophethood.” This prophecy provides both motivation and inevitability to the Ulema’s mission. By confronting existing power leaderships and presenting a genuine Islamic alternative, the Ulema will be fulfilling their divine role and paving the way for the promised return of Islamic governance.

    Imam Ahmad in his Musnad narrated from al-Nu’man Ibn Bashir (ra) as saying that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said,

    «تَكُونُ النُّبُوَّةُ فِيكُمْ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةٌ عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكًا عَاضًّا فَيَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَكُونَ ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكًا جَبْرِيَّةً فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ ثُمَّ سَكَتَ»

    “Prophethood will last with you for as long as Allah wants it to last. Then there will be Khilafah according to the Method of Prophethood, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then Allah will end it when He wishes. Then there will be hereditary rule, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then Allah will end it when He wishes. Then there will be an oppressive rule, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then Allah will end it when He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah according to the method of Prophethood.” Then he fell silent.” [Ahmed]

    , , , , , ,

  • Addressing Peoples and Nations


    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Addressing Peoples and Nations
    (Translated)
    Al-Waie Magazine, Issue 465
    Thirty Ninth Year
    Shawwal 1446 AH corresponding to April 2025 CE

    Peoples and nations are the primary domain of political entities, including states, parties, and others. People constitute the most important components of society, and its fundamental pillar. The other components, including thoughts, feelings, and systems, depend on them. The system is implemented on them, and they are the ones who carry the prevailing thoughts, and are emotionally influenced by them. Therefore, those in charge of politics must pay attention to addressing, and interacting with the people, to gain their leadership.

    The state essentially enacts laws to care for the people’s affairs and ensure a decent standard of living for them. When the state adopts laws that preserve its system of government and its strengths, it must also preserve its popular platform of support, which is the most important factor of strength supporting its ruling regime. The state is an executive entity, whilst the people are the subject of this system’s implementation, directly or indirectly. They also constitute the medium within which the state’s political system, and the thoughts upon which it is based, interact.

    All this is true for the state. As for political parties, their basic principle is to target the people through their cultures, political projects, and intellectual endeavors. Political parties are structures that embrace political projects based on specific thoughts. The people are the interactive arena for their projects and the thoughts they are based on. The people are the locus of the work and influence of political parties. Political parties need the people’s support for the culture, projects, and goals they embody. Even in their direct political engagement with rulers and regimes, they need the people to rally around them.

    Accordingly, people have the right to participate in political life, as they are the essential, vital aspect of political life and the center of its interaction. Examples of their rights include the right to be governed by the system of their Lord (swt), to elect rulers and hold them accountable, to accept or reject the projects of political parties, to work with these parties, and to demand to live in a society that provides them with a decent life, among other rights. It is only natural for people to bring power to the systems of government, and rulers, they desire. This is a natural result of their support, and their intellectual and political obedience.

    If this proves difficult, and power has to be taken by force, the masses must support this process of assuming power. They must rally around the new system of government, to be implemented, otherwise the foundations of this state will not be stable.

    For all of this, it is imperative that those in power must pay mandatory attention to the people in order to gain their leadership, build a popular platform among their constituents, and strengthen it where it exists. This can only be achieved by addressing and interacting with them, in order to influence them and then gain their leadership. Otherwise, neglecting or ignoring the role of the people will lead to threats that hinder the achievement of their desired goals, and consequently, threaten their existence and continuity.

    Therefore, addressing peoples and nations is done to gain their leadership, and to work with them to achieve specific goals. The basis of this approach is to appeal to their minds and thinking, along with their humanity and nature, with a culture that defines their identity and belonging, guarantees their dignity, and offers solutions that elevate them, and achieve the meanings of a dignified life in their society. If they accept all that, they will submit to it and rally around its political project.

    Addressing people depends on what politicians in charge of the affairs of the people, and their interests, determine about the nature of their relationship with people, and the method they follow in interacting with them. This is as follows:

    Firstly: If it is defined as an integrated relationship, in which people participate in political life, with specific roles, rights and obligations, then there is a need to address people using a language of interaction and convincing, to gain their leadership, motivate them to fulfill their role, and achieve their desired influence and impact on society.

    Siyasah (politics) in Islam is the most prominent example of this approach for interacting with people. Islam recognizes the natural right of people to participate in political life, in addition to being a Shariah right of the Islamic Ummah. Islam assigns authority (sultan) to the Ummah, as it is charged with implementing Allah’s law and delegating authority to it. Sovereignty (hakimiyyah) belongs to the Shariah, whilst authority (sultan) belongs to the Ummah. These are two of the foundations of governance in Islam. On the other hand, Islam works to smelt people within its crucible, so that they are intellectually submitting to Islam, its aqeedah and Shariah law. In other words, they become an integral part of the Ummah and consequently, its relationship with the state.

    Islam has a way of addressing people and smelting them within its crucible. This is imposed on the Islamic state that carries the Dawah to establish the Deen on earth, and on the political parties operating under the umbrella of the Islamic state, each to achieve specific goals defined by Islamic Shariah Law. This is evident through a set of Islamic Shariah rulings, specified by the seerah of our noble Prophet (saw) and his (saw) method of spreading the Dawah and establishing the Islamic state.

    The method of the Messenger of Allah (saw) recognized the important role of those who had embraced the Deen of Allah when he (saw) gathered the noble Companions (ra) with him (saw) in the work of Deen to spread Islam and establish his state. Thus, the history of Islam shone with their heroism, in carrying the Dawah and building the state.

    The method of the Messenger of Allah (saw) is based on working with the people, drawing them to the Dawah to Islam, and interacting with them to smelt them into its intellectual and emotional cauldron. It also creates a public opinion among them about the Dawah, thus naturally building a popular platform that supports the Dawah in its work and supports the state upon its establishment.

    Thus, the masses of the Ummah, along with those working to establish the Deen on earth, are in a single trench. Then, the Dawah carriers, the masses, and the state are in a single trench, unified by the leader of the Muslims under the umbrella of Islamic authority. Thus, the Muslim community is formed.

    The method of the Messenger of Allah (saw) emphasizes that in order to establish and sustain a strong and powerful government, one must work with and amongst the Ummah, to inspire it with the thoughts and concepts of Islam as an ideology. This interaction with the Ummah is a stage in the method of our noble Messenger (saw) in working to establish the Islamic state. The smelting process undertaken by the noble Companion Musab ibn Umair (ra) in Yathrib, to make a popular platform for the state that the Messenger of Allah (saw) established, is the best example of the method of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in working with the people to carry the Deen, and establish it on earth.

    Hizb ut Tahrir, as a political party whose foundation is Islam, and follows the method of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in its work to establish the Khilafah (Caliphate). It works with and within the Ummah, and exerts efforts to address the Ummah with a truthful voice, becoming a guide who does not lie to his people. It strives, with the help of Allah the Almighty, to build a popular platform that supports the project of the Khilafah, and demands the implementation of the Shariah Law of Allah (swt).

    Considering Islamic Shariah Law, it is filled with rulings and concepts that establish the importance of the ummah (nation) in establishing the state and in its functioning after its establishment. These include the concept of the Islamic community (jamaa’ah). These Shariah rulings also include the Bayah (pledge of allegiance) to a ruler, which is based on consent and choice, such that authority belongs to the Ummah and that usurping authority from the Ummah. They include the obligation of the Ummah to hold rulers accountable and the ruling of consultation (shura). They include that the Khaleefah is the representative of the Ummah and not a hired employee, and that there must be a Court of Unjust Acts as a ruling institution to address the grievances of the subjects against the rulers. They include the obligation to fight the ruler if he manifests blatant disbelief (kufr), and that the state must educate the people of the newly conquered lands, that have recently embraced Islam, about the rulings of the Deen and educate them about Islam until they become an integral part of the ummah. Other Shariah legal rulings affirm the complementary relationship, between the Islamic state and the ummah.

    Secondly: If the relationship between the state and the people, is built on usurping power from the people, depriving them of their political rights, and nullifying their role, rights and obligation toward their state, the state will then resort to the language of subjugation, coercion, and tyranny.

    Then, regimes will turn into dictatorships, and the relationship between the people and the regime will turn into one of hostility. This is because the ruler has, in reality, established himself as a tyrannical enemy of the people, usurping power, instead of a ruler who takes care of the affairs of his people. The ruler has severed all intellectual and emotional ties with his people.

    This is the state of the tyrannical, agent regimes in the lands of Muslims, which have addressed their people only in the language of brutality, criminality, and deprivation of the most basic necessities of life, such as a loaf of bread, and fuel for the kitchen stove. This is a policy adopted to distract the people and keep them busy with providing a livelihood, away from engaging in siyasah (Shariah politics), thinking, and demanding their rights. This has led to vast lands being transformed into open prisons and detention centres for oppressed peoples.

    This painful situation incites the uprising of people in some form of disobedience, and their explosion in the faces of the regimes. Indeed, injustice, whose nights are prolonged, will inevitably be overtaken by a dawn one day, awakening the people’s resolve to demand their rights and reject tyranny. Thus, the Muslim peoples of the Arab countries rose up against the regimes and demanded their downfall before.

    The more the state oppresses its people, the weaker the state becomes in reality. This is because the natural relationship between the people and the state is for the people to rally around the regime, support it, and act as its natural protector, alongside the army, and the country’s powerful factions. This is both a right and a Shariah obligation of the people. If the state uses the language of oppression and tyranny to suppress the people, nullify their obligations, and deny their rights, it makes a state of turmoil among the people, and animosity between the people and the state, as well as amongst the people themselves. The people are the most important factor in the state’s strength. A tyrannical policy of oppressing the people eliminates this important factor, weakens it, and transforms it into a weakening factor. This weakens the state. Even if the rulers believe that their tyranny protects their thrones, they are in fact becoming fragile thrones, due to the loss of popular support. Indeed, they invite the enmity and resentment of the people.

    These regimes in our Islamic countries were primarily installed by the enemies of the Ummah (nation), from Britain to France and then America. They were another colonialist face for their military presence in our countries, and subordinate colonialist tools through which the colonialists implemented their agendas and plans against our Ummah and country. The colonialists sought to hand over power to families and sects that did not represent the Muslim people, and lacked any popular support. They were, in fact, rejected by their people. Had the matter of authority been entrusted to those who have right within it, these families and sects would never have assumed power, let alone become prominent figures.

    This was part of the plan of the kafir colonialists to increase the gulf and discord between the ruling regime and the people, to make a state of hostility between them, and to prevent the people from unifying with the state. Therefore, the kafir colonialist states have been constantly igniting sectarian strife and conflict within our countries, supporting security and intelligence agencies, working to undermine Islam amongst the people, and introducing corruption into our countries.

    All of this and much more is done to distance the Islamic Ummah and its sincere from the domain of government, and to ensure the Islamic State does not return.

    The Alawite Ba’athist regime in Syria is a clear example of this. The regime was the primary enemy of the Syrian people. It fell despite its use of every tool of oppression and repression. It fell despite its support and backing from America and its followers. It fell despite decades of forcing people’s subservience, silence, and fear. However, the people revolted and demanded their choice, their rights, and the implementation of the Shariah Law of Allah (swt). The people were met with more tyranny, until they were forced to sacrifice everything they held dear for the sake of their choice and demands, as well as their liberation from the Ba’athist tyranny that ruled them.

    Thirdly: The language of public discourse may be one of misleading and deception

    Rulers acknowledge the importance of the people and their supportive role in their rule, but they resort to hypocrisy. This is because their system of government, or approach, contradicts the people’s identity and culture. This is an approach followed by some regimes, movements, and groups to rally the masses around them, to support them, and to cheer for them. This is done through actions that appear to promote the interests of the people and fulfil their demands, such as economic achievements, for example, or confronting the Ummah’s enemies in one way or another, imposing some defeats on their ranks, or even issuing slogans hostile to America or the Jewish entity, which highlights the public’s satisfaction and acceptance. These deceived individuals usually end up glorifying and applauding individuals, even if their distortions are clearly and blatantly apparent.

    An example of this approach of appeasing the people is the policy of Erdogan and his government in Turkey.

    Despite his failure to implement Islamic Shariah Law, his subservient orbit around America, the enemy of Muslims, his pursuit of colonialist interests, and his repeated failure to address Muslim issues, despite his control over Turkey’s vast military and economic capabilities, Erdogan has been able to create a large popular base in Turkey and the Islamic region, through the achievements and economic solutions his government has pursued, providing people with an acceptable standard of living, whilst portraying Turkey as a strong and advancing country. In addition to the military strength, people have been satisfied with Erdogan’s achievements, and his arousal of emotions by wearing a garb of Islam, so they have supported his policies. Erdogan has also carried out actions in which he deliberately disguises himself as an Islamic figure to gain the loyalty and support of the Muslim people.

    Today, after decades of major events, Muslim peoples have been awakened to thought, and have grown in their awareness. We must be thankful to Allah (swt) for this. They have been compelled to address their vital issues, such as change, the demand for the implementation of Sharia Law, the liberation of the Blessed Land of Palestine, the restoration of the method of the Prophet (saw) for change, the overthrow of tyrannical regimes, and other issues. However, with every event they experience, their compass is tested, and they are often right, only to quickly deviate from the right direction.

    This is due to the power and influence of our enemies and their agents in our lands. Our enemies plot and conspire, succeeding in numerous attempts to divert the Ummah’s scope and scatter its efforts. Therefore, the Ummah remains in need of an aware and sincere leadership that will lead the way, address them with a project that will unify them behind a Muslim ruler who will govern them according to the Shariah Law of their Lord, and address them with the solutions obligated by their Lord for their issues. Allah (swt) prepares soldiers for His Deen from amongst His sincere servants, and provides for the Ummah those who will lead it to change, victory, and empowerment by His Power and Might, glory be to Him Alone. And that is not difficult for Allah (swt).

    ,
    , ,

  • The Islamic Ummah in Postmodernism

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    The Islamic Ummah in Postmodernism

    The advent of postmodernism coincided with the cultural and political crises of the 1960s and 1970s. Disillusionment with the failures of modernity – manifest in two World Wars, the rise of fascism, colonial and imperial violence (in the form of the Algerian and Vietnam wars), and class inequality – provided the impetus for postmodern critiques. Figures such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida challenged modernity’s claims of linear progress, and the authority of reason, and instead focused on the relativity of truth and objectivity.

    Postmodernism arose as a means of challenging the Universalist claims of the West, but in recent years it has been co-opted by certain schools of thought to undermine Islamic political movements. By emphasizing the constructed and “invented” nature of identities and traditions, postmodernism has been deployed to delegitimize Islam and its practices.

    In his book, Recalling the Caliphate, Salman Sayyid notes that a common postmodern tactic has been to present Islamism (used here as a reference to the political aspect of Islam) as an inauthentic invention. rather than as a legitimate continuation of the Islamic tradition:

    “Islamism is presented as being a discourse ‘conjured’ around a fantasy of an authentic essence (al-Azmeh, 1993: 7). That is, what the Islamists claim to be their discovery of ‘real’ Islam is nothing more than the fabrication of an Islamic tradition, which denies its diversity. According to this line of argument, cultural forms such as ‘Islamic dress’ or ‘Islamic way of life’ are recent inventions and not the recovery of sacral traditions (1993: 21). The effect of arguments like this is to try and discredit Islamist claims for being legitimate expressions of a Muslim desire for autonomy and deep decolonisation of the world.”

    This weaponization of postmodern thought was a reaction to Islam’s failure to follow a secularizing trajectory. Salman Sayyid writes:

    “As late as the last quarter of the twentieth century there was a confident expectation that Islam would dissipate as the global advance of Westernisation brought secularisation and modernisation in its wake. Not only has Islam failed to follow the trajectory pursued by variants of Christianity – namely confinement to the private sphere and depoliticization – but it has, in contrast, forcefully reasserted its public presence in the world. Mobilisations in the name of Islam have presented a series of challenges to the current world order that have taken the form of geopolitical, cultural and philosophical contestations.”

    This postmodern tactic of labelling political Islam as an “invented tradition” extends further into questioning the legitimacy of the term Islam itself as well as concepts related to the Islamic faith such as Ummah. By using a “metaphysics of suspicion” (as Salman Sayyid calls it), postmodern texts claim that Islam is too diverse and fragmentary to maintain coherency. Furthermore, the geographic, cultural, and political divisions amongst Muslims mean that the word Ummah loses any grounding as a signifier of a shared Muslim community.

    It is important to understand what agenda these arguments are in service of. In his book, Islam, Liberalism, and Ontology, Professor Joseph J. Kaminski details the political implications of such postmodern texts:

    “The rendering of Islam as an incoherent category ultimately subjects its meaning to the whims of hostile hegemonic actors and brute force. If Muslims have no unifying textual/theological referent to fall back upon, someone else undoubtedly will fill that gap for them. Under characterizations of Islam such as El Zein’s, there is no reason why only Muslims have the privilege of defining what Islam is. Approaches such as El Zein’s ultimately remove agency from Muslims—they are robbed of their ability to control how their own religious discourse is defined. The control of terms and meanings constitutive of a discursive tradition by actors situated outside of it – especially when those terms and meanings are ones that those within it would object to – is imperialism par excellence.”

    By rendering Islam as ambiguous, hegemonic actors such as Western governments and secular academics can impose their own interpretations. Muslims can be labelled externally as “extremists” and “moderates” and Islamic practices that are acceptable by these actors can be dictated.

    Moreover, by casting Ummah as a mere discursive construct rather than a real, binding community, postmodern critiques undermine collective Muslim solidarity. By denying Muslims the ability to invoke Ummah as a legitimate concept, Muslims are left fragmented into isolated national or sectarian groups, weakening their ability to challenge Western hegemonic forces and articulate a unified political vision like that of the Khilafah.

    The response of Muslims, of course, should be to deny others the ability to define their religion for them by re-engaging with their own tradition. In his paper, The Idea of an Anthropology of Islam, Professor Talal Asad addresses Western academia’s skepticism to the term “Islam” by suggesting that, in order to write about Islam:

    “…one should begin, as Muslims do, from the concept of a discursive tradition that includes and relates itself to the founding texts of the Qur’an and the Hadith.”

    Islam, of course, is the Deen chosen for us by Allah (swt) and perfected with the Final Risaalah (Message) of the Prophet Muhammad (saw). Allah (swt) said,

    [ٱلْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِى وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ ٱلْإِسْلَـٰمَ دِينًۭا]

    “This day, I have perfected your Deen for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your Deen.” [TMQ Surah Al-Maidah 3]

    And it is those who believe in Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw) who are Muslim and are members of a single Ummah.

    Allah (swt) said,

    [إِنَّ هَذِهِ أُمَّتُكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَأَنَا رَبُّكُمْ فَاعْبُدُونِ]

    “Indeed, this Ummah of yours is one Ummah, and I am your Lord, so worship Me.” [TMQ Surah Al-Anbiya 92].

    The Prophet (saw) stated, «بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ هَذَا كِتَابٌ مِنْ مُحَمَّدٍ النَّبِىِّ ﷺ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ وَيَثْرِبَ وَمَنْ تَبِعَهُمْ فَلَحِقَ بِهِمْ وَجَاهَدَ مَعَهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ أُمَّةٌ وَاحِدَةٌ دُونَ النَّاسِ»“In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.  This is a document from Muhammad, the Prophet (saw), between the Muslims and the believers from Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them, joined them, and strived with them, that they are one Ummah, distinct from the rest of the people.” (Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra).

    And whilst recognizing the truth of Islam, and the existence of a single Ummah, the believers can strive towards fulfilling their collective obligations of sufficiency before Allah (swt), establishing a single Imarah, Imamah and Khilafah that rules by all that Allah (swt) has revealed.

    Tamim al-Dari (ra) reported that during the time of Umar (ra), people began to compete in building tall structures. The Second Khaleedah Rashid, Umar (ra), said, ‘يَا مَعْشَرَ الْعُرَيْبِ، الأَرْضَ الأَرْضَ، إِنَّهُ لاَ إِسْلاَمَ إِلاَّ بِجَمَاعَةٍ، وَلاَ جَمَاعَةَ إِلاَّ بِإِمَارَةٍ، وَلاَ إِمَارَةَ إِلاَّ بِطَاعَةٍ. فَمَنْ سَوَّدَهُ قَوْمُهُ عَلَى الْفِقْهِ كَانَ حَيَاةً لَهُ وَلَهُمْ، وَمَنْ سَوَّدَهُ قَوْمُهُ عَلَى غَيْرِ فِقْهٍ كَانَ هَلاَكًا لَهُ وَلَهُمْ’“O Arabs, stay grounded! There is no Islam without a single community, no single community without a single emirate, and no single emirate without obedience. If a people appoint someone with knowledge of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) as their leader, it will be a source of life for him and for them. However, if they appoint someone without knowledge of Fiqh, it will lead to his ruin and theirs.” (Narrated by al-Darimi)

    ,
    , , , ,