NeoCarvi

"AHAD!" By Waleed Gubara

2007-07-06T05:07:00.000Z

"AHAD!"

By Waleed Gubara

Why shed these tears of sorrow?
Why shed these tears of grief?
Ya nafsy how soon you forget,
After trials come sweet relief

Why turn you from Ar-Rahman?
Why yearn for a listening friend?
Ya nafsy, do you not remember,
On ALLAH, you must depend?

Read you not those stories,
of the trials in days gone by,
Of the Sahabi beloved by Allah,
Who for Allah's cause did strive?

Why loosen your hold upon him?
Why fling away, His outstretched Hand?
Ya nafsy, do you not remember,
Bilal's sabr on the blazing sand?

"Ahad! Ahad!" He cried,
While his flesh did drip and burn.
"Ahad! Ahad!" He cried,
To Allah alone he turned.

Forget you the firmness of Hamza,
As the gleaming swords did fall?
With Sabr he turned to Allah,
as the qureish did slice and maul.

Why drown in salty teardrops?
How can you dare compare your pain?
To that of Yasir and Summayah,
As the lay tortured on the scorching plain?

Forget you the charring of Khabbab,
As on burning coals he lay?
Ya nafsy how meager your suffering,
Wherefore do you lose your way?

Why befriend you not Al-Wali?
Why not in Salat to Him complain?
Like Job who only to Allah,
Turned in all his grief and pain?

Forget you those trials in this life,
Cleanse your heart and make it clean?
Ya nafsy, why all this sadness?
Do you not wish your heart to gleam?

Be patient in all your hardships,
Allah hears your cries of woe.
So trust Him and His hikma,
For He knows best and you don't know.

So tighten your hold upon him,
Lest He withdraw His outstretched Hand!
And remember the example of Bilal,
As he lay anchored on the blazing sand.

"Ahad! Ahad!" he cried,
While his flesh did drip and burn.
"Ahad! Ahad!" he cried,
To Allah alone he turned.

The definition of the sahaba

2007-04-30T16:03:00.000Z

            From Anas (raa), he was asked (is there any one among
          the companions of Muhammad left after u), he (raa)
          said (some beduins remained who saw him (saaw), but
          the ones whom accompanied him and invaded with him
          no).
          The hadith is narrated by Ibn Saad, Ibn Al Salah said
          (its isnad is good), and al sayooti said (bi'isnad
          hasan).
          On this meaning, the majority of the scholars of usuls
          went that the person will not be a sahabi unless he
          lives with the messenger (saaw) for enough period of
          time.
          On the other hand, the opinion of the majority of the
          scholars of the hadith that the one who saw him (saaw)
          and believed in him , he is a companion. Then these
          differed will a person who saw him, then became a
          muslim after his death, a sahabi? Then some of them
          said even if he saw him from a far distance, he is a
          sahabi. And comes in the definition of the muhaditheen
          for the sahabi , the jin because the they had filled
          the requirements.
          And the basis of the definition is the word (sahabi)
          in arabic language, since the shairah did not put a
          special meaning for it, then we have to go with the
          linguistic meaning for the word. And the arabic
          language dictates in the urf (use)that enough period
          of friedship needed for companionship, and there is no
          cosideration in this regard for the later scholars
          whom tried to revolve around and claim that
          companionship does not need a period of mulazama
          (close friendship).
          If u see this, then the haqq is with the scholars of
          usuls.
          and it was narrated from Saaed Ibn Al Mussaiab (the
          imam of the followers) he said (we used not to
          consider a person from the companions except if he
          lived with the messenger for one or two year OR he
          invaded with him one or two battles).
          And it was mentioned that some of the tabieen used to
          narrate from some people who saw the messenger (saaw),
          then they they were not from the sahaba.
          And the goal of the scholars of the hadith is that
          they want to add the virtue of the companionship to
          any one who saw the hnorable face of the messenger
          (saaw), so that a group of people whom the messenger
          (saaw) witnessed for them with the virtue will not go
          out from companionship like jareer Ibn Abdillah al
          bujli and others.
          On the other hand, the usuli scholar he is the one who
          establishes rules and fundemantals of the deen, sice
          the sahaba are the ones who gave us the shariah, and
          transmitted the quraan and alone their ijmaa is
          devine.
          The imam said, the messenger (saaw( said (allah had
          chosen my companions over all people except the
          prophets).
          Allah swt said (the early ones of muhajiroun and
          ansar...allah is pleased with them and they are
          plesaed with allah).
          and this exclusive purification does not apply excxept
          to the sahaba.
          The imam said (and his words are taken from abu zarah)
          (and the sahaba are better than all others, and they
          are better than all the ones will come. This is
          because the deen is haqq and allah is haqq, and those
          who gave us this deen are the sahaba. And those who
          slander the sahaba, they are slandering our
          witnesses). (may be i misused the words).

Saudi treachery: Past and Present

2007-04-15T23:32:00.000Z

King Abdullah Ibn Saud began the proceedings of the recent Arab league summit held in Riyadh on the 28th March with an opening speech where he said Arab woes lay with squabbling Arab rulers, who could only prevent "foreign powers from drawing the region's future" if they were united. He then went on to say in regards to the history of the Arab league ‘the question is: what have we done throughout these years to resolve all that? I do not want to blame the Arab League because it is an entity that reflects our conditions in details, so the real blame should fall on us: we the leaders of the Arab nations. Our permanent differences, our refusal to take the path of unity – all of that led the nations to lose their confidence in our credibility and to lose hope in our present and future.

He described some of the problems faced by the Muslim world "In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war…In wounded Palestine, the mighty people suffer from oppression and occupation. It has become vital that the oppressive blockade imposed on the Palestinians end as soon as possible so the peace process will get to move in an atmosphere without oppression."

What King Abdullah outlined in his opening speech of the current problems facing Muslims is well known amongst the Muslim world, what King Abdullah however did not outline is the role he and the Saud family have played in creating and prolonging these very issues. The Saud family have a history of treachery against the Ummah and have played a key role in preventing unity within the Muslim world.

Beginning in 2006, King Abdullah has been reviving the Arab peace initiative which will recognise the state of Israel if it gives back territories seized in the 1967 war. For this, King Abdullah brokered the Mecca agreement between the Hamas government and Fatah. King Abdullah showed his true colours when Israel invaded Lebanon in July 2006, he alongside Jordan, Egypt, several Gulf States and the Palestinian Authority, chastised Hezbollah for unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts, at an emergency Arab League summit meeting in Cairo. Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal at the time said "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them." Saudi Arabia even got its leading Ssheikh, Abdullah bin Jabreen, to issue a fatwa, declaring it unlawful to support, join or pray for Hezbollah.

The Saud family on every occasion side with the colonialist western powers in providing active support. In the first Gulf war King Fahd authorized the deployment of U.S. forces on Saudi soil, the kingdom hosted over 600,000 allied forces, and its treasury reached record deficit levels. The U.S. spent $60 billion on the first Gulf War, with the Saudis and Kuwaitis footing half the bill. Presently, 5,000 U.S. troops have remained in the kingdom since the end of the Gulf War. By 1999, their presence had served as a major grievance for Saudi citizens and resulted in a group of 107 Wahhabi religious figures sending a 46-page "Memorandum of Advice" to King Fahd, which criticized the government for corruption and other abuses and for allowing U.S. troops on Saudi soil. King Fahd’s response was to sack them all.

Historic Al Saud treachery

Treachery runs deep in the Al Saud family as the Saud family played a direct role in the destruction of the Khilafah and the creation of Israel. The British empire’s Foreign office made contacts with Ibn Saud in 1851 in order to develop relations with those suitable to be used against the Khilafah which had its capital in Istanbul. The Saud family at the time were a band of bandits involved in petty tribal differences, however with British money and arms Ibn Said was able to consolidate his position in key areas of the Arabian peninsular and eventually the whole peninsular. This was all represented in the treaty Britain signed in 1865 when Britain wanted allies in the region to give it a foothold within the territory of the decaying Uthmani Khilafah. In return, Ibn Saud needed Britain’s logistical and military aid to disrupt the Khilafah from within.

Britain provided Ibn Saud small subsidies, which were used to expand and maintain a colony of Wahabi forces that were the backbone of Ibn Saud’s all conquering army. Ibn Saud attempted to gain legitimacy by using the Wahabi movement, the followers of Muhammad ibn Wahab, who believed the Arab lands required purifying with his opinions of Islam. Ibn Wahab used the Wahabis to give his pro-British backed policies religious credibility and the Wahabis saw the opportunity to see their interpretations of Islam become the dominant school of thought in the area.

In 1910 the Al Sauds’ became ever more important to Britain as they would rebel against the Uthmani Khilafah, with British backing, by attacking there own cousin Ibn Rasheed who supported the Khilafah. Small subsidies became larger and a cabal of advisers were despatched to assist Ibn Saud’s advance.

The Arab Revolt (1916–1918) was initiated by Sherif Hussein ibn Ali with full British blessing with the aim to separate the Arab peninsula from Istanbul. This agreement was concluded in June 1916 after an exchange of letters with British High Commissioner Henry McMahon who managed to convince Sherif Hussein of his reward for such treachery of an Arab empire encompassing the area between Egypt and Persia, with the exception of imperial possessions and interests in Kuwait, Aden, and the Syrian coast. The British government in Egypt immediately sent a young officer to work with the Arabs. This man was Captain Timothy Edward Lawrence, otherwise known as Lawrence of Arabia.

After the defeat of the Uthmani Khilafah in 1918 and its subsequent dissolution in 1924, the British granted control over the newly formed states of Iraq and Transjordan to the sons Faisal and Abdullah as had been previously agreed. The house of Al Saud was able to bring the whole of Arabia under there control by 1930. Britain’s vision of Arabia’s fate following the Khilafah’s defeat was clear: in the words of Lord Crewe it wanted “a disunited Arabia split into principalities under our suzerainty”. For their part, the Saud’s, were, by and large, happy to acquiesce.

The Saud family directly collaborated with the British to destroy the Khilafah and if that wasn’t bad enough the Saud family directly collaborated with Zionists in establishing Israel. King Abdullah 1 of the then British created Transjordan studied with David Ben Gurion (Israel’s first prime minister) in Istanbul in the 1930’s. Abdullah had offered to accept the establishment of Israel in return for Jordanian control of the Arab populated parts of Palestine. In 1946 Abdullah expressed interest in ruling over the Arab parts of Palestine, and had no intention to resist or impede the partition of Palestine and creation of a Jewish state, as described by one historian.
His brother Faisal King of Iraq even eclipsed Abdullah’s treachery in January 1919. Faisal signed the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, with Dr. Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Zionist organizationin where he conditionally accepted the Balfour Declaration based on the fulfillment of British wartime promises of independence to the Arabs.
Saudi Arabia since 1995 has imported $64.5 billion in weaponry, far surpassing the second-largest importer, Taiwan, which acquired only $20.2 billion in arms. However none of this in anyway has been used for the defence of Muslims or conflict areas where Muslims are being suppressed. The only time Saudi has gone to war has been during the gulf war where it supported the coalition against Iraq and during WW1. The recent cancellation of an investigation into the al Yamamah arms deal between Saudi and Britain shows the Saud family have never had the stomach to stand up for Muslim issues but merely purchase weaponry to ensure the industries of its western masters continue whilst they betray the Ummah.

__________________

1. Sela, Avraham. "Abdallah Ibn Hussein." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, New York: Continuum, 2002. pp. 13-14.
Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, New York: Schocken Books, 1966, pp. 246-247; and also Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of 2. Zionism to Our Time, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), p. 121.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/faisal_balfour.html

Slavery didn't end 200 years ago - It evolved

2007-04-12T21:18:00.000Z

Slavery didn't end 200 years ago - It evolved

The 25th March 2007, we’ve been led to believe recently, was two hundredth anniversary of the end of the slave trade. The anniversary was celebrated with reminders of how Britain led the way in abolishing the practice through the ‘Abolition of the Slave Trade Act’ passed on 25th March 1807.

But slavery was an institution that Britain fostered and grew for over three hundred years and on the back of which it expanded and maintained its empire. It was a practice it found very difficult to leave, for it was not for another century after the Slave Trade Act that slavery, in real terms, was banned. Legislation and parliamentary acts aside, many of the practices that made slavery what is was continued, often by its original perpetrators, and are still with us today. To believe that Britain’s legal prohibition of slavery somehow ended the practice is naïve if not dangerous.

The act of 1807 outlawed the slave trade but not slavery. Slavery was made illegal in 1834. But it continued in all but name: former slaves were hired by their former owners in slave-like ‘apprenticeships’. The vacuum created by emancipated slaves eventually led to the need to identify a new labour force. The replacement came in the shape of two and half million Indians who were ‘indentured’ – contracted to work on plantations – but who were treated no better than slaves were. Indentured emigration went on until 1917, demonstrating that slavery certainly wasn’t over when we are led to believe it was.

Today, the NGO ‘Free the Slaves’ believes that we have the largest number of people that has ever been in slavery at any point in world history and are being paid the lowest price that there has ever been for a slave in raw labour terms.

But slavery was marked by a number of practices that have continued and still plague the world, often practiced by the same nations that claim to have brought slavery to an end. The slave trade was built on the belief in the inferiority of those it enslaved, through which it justified appalling treatment, abandonment of rights, strict control of behaviours and practices and the consideration of people as property. These practices still exist as do the underlying beliefs and language upon which slavery was built.

For example, the belief amongst many western politicians and commentators is that the west is a civilising force; that its engagement in the world can only be for the betterment of those under the west’s tutelage. The resurgence of cultural imperialism and liberal interventionism - that the west has the right and indeed moral obligation to interfere and dictate matters for other nations - hark back to the day of the empire and are premised on the inferiority or lesser civilisational status of those it seeks to ‘correct’.

It is upon this premise that the west has and continues to engage with the rest of the world. Economically, the world remains under the grip of aggressive capitalism and western policies that dictate domestic economic policy for a large chunk of the world which often better serve the west than they do the countries themselves. The pernicious use of interest bearing loans, IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programmes, and western manipulation of markets through the use of subsidies have turned natural resource-rich countries poor. With the burden of debt, compliance to the terms of repayment, aid packages and imposed domestic programmes and polices, poverty and unemployment are driving poor countries to measures that are even more desperate. This economic situation still drives forced labour and western multinationals continue to employ workers in third world countries for a pittance and in despicable working conditions; human trafficking and sex slavery, an increasing problem in the west, also highlights the human tragedy of pressures born out of economic slavery. The irony is that the docks in east London which sent ships to colonise huge swathes of South Asia and Africa, enlisting hundreds of thousands of slaves, have now been replaced by the shining towers of global financial institutions which unleash a similar economic stranglehold.

Political slavery is the intricate and careful control of proxies through the perpetual threat of sanctions, war or abandonment, maintains a litany of western supported tyrants in the Muslim world who are unable to act independently or break away from the foreign agendas that sacrifice the progress of their own people. These despots in turn ensure their citizenry do not challenge their master-slave relationship with the west through brutal security measures and archaic laws and political systems. Take Hosni Mubarak’s new legislation that bans parties based on religion in a country that is a huge Muslim majority. The political slavery of the Middle East continues to deny the region the ability to independently move forward, prosper and appoint representative leaderships to govern for not despite them.

The victims of slavery have called for apologies and reparations. The British, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese have blocked an EU apology for the slave trade. The litigation that would follow would certainly be colossal, if the pay-outs from Holocaust cases are anything to go by, and may explain the west’s reluctance. Even if it were to apologise for the past, the present is still plagued by a culture born out of colonialism and slavery. While some argue that modern slavery is perpetrated through private, not governmental, bodies, it is for governments to act not remain silent over these crimes. The challenge is not merely to seek apologies, but to redress a global political and economic situation which is likely only to entrench the debilitating situation in the non-west.

Governments have underplayed this crime in a shameful way. It is easy to see how the memories of the Second World War, the holocaust, terrorist bombings are remembered year after year, ‘lest we forget’. Time has not made this crime, of genocidal proportions, any less disgraceful.

An ideological divide – Islam works against slavery

Slavery is a human problem that has existed for millennia. People were enslaved in war, by piracy and as a punitive sanction for crime. Slaves had no rights; societies did not institutionalise the rights of these people to be treated justly.

When Islam came to the world, slavery was widespread yet Islam created a profound change by laying down laws defining a way of treating slaves justly as human beings as well as affording them rights that were previously unheard of. There were major encouragements to free people from slavery as well as numerous obligations in this regard. The various means through which people came to be enslaved were ended – including during the course of war. Hence, at a systemic level a series of rules came to weaken the institution of slavery, as well as rules to regulate the treatment of slaves.

For example, regarding the treatment of slaves, the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) said: “Fear Allah in regards of those whom your right hands possess. They are your brothers whom Allah placed under your hands (authority). Feed them with what you eat, clothe them with what you wear and do not impose duties upon them which will overcome them. If you so impose duties, then assist them” and moved to change the language that have previously subjugated slaves saying, “One of you should not say: My slave (abd) and my slave-girl (amati). All of you are the slaves of Allah and all of your women are the slave-girls of Allah. Rather let him say: My (ghulam) boy and my (jariyah) girl and my (fata) young boy and my (fatati) young girl.” Islam gave the slave the right to marry, divorce, study and to be a witness upon others, in a society where they had no rights.

Regarding the encouragement to free slaves, the Prophet (SAW) said: “Whichever man frees a Muslim man, Allah ta’ala will liberate for each of his organ an organ from the Fire”. Islam further obliged the freeing of slaves under certain circumstances and made the freeing of slaves an expiation for a great number of sins, such as breaking oaths, if one had killed accidentally, incorrectly breaking a fast during Ramadhan as well as many others. Furthermore, the state treasury of the Islamic state, the Bait al-Mal, dedicates a section of its funds to the freeing of slaves, from the words of Allah (SWT) in the Qur’an: “Verily the sadaqat is only for the poor, the indigent, those who work upon it, those whose hearts are to be reconciled, for (riqab), debtors, for the way of Allah and the wayfarer, an obligation from Allah and Allah is knower wise”, the statement “and for (riqab)” referring to freeing slaves.

Islam further prohibited the enslaving of free people in a decisive way including captives of war. The Prophet Mohammed (SAW) said: “Allah ‘azza wa jalla said: Three (persons) I will dispute with them on the Day of Judgement: A man who gave in My name then he betrayed, a man who sold a free man and ate his price, and a man who employed an employee who fulfilled for him but he did not give him his wage”.

By contrast, Capitalism embraced slavery and grew the institution. The value of profit was given a higher status than the value of human life and dignity. The slave trade bred a racism that permeates till today. Never before, whether in Asia, China, Africa, the Middle East or indeed Europe, had slavery been solely associated with one race. The slave traders selected black people viewing them as inferior.

Furthermore, the brutal treatment and the industrial levels of enslaving people were characteristic of the Capitalist system, which invented battery farming. Those who called for the end of the slave trade were individuals out of step with that system which had embraced it. By a similar vein those in the Muslim world who participated in the enslaving of people, and were complicit with the slave traders were individuals out of step with the Islamic system – a system which had legally closed routes to enslavement, and effectively worked against it.

Ibn Sina (Avicenna) - Doctor of Doctors

2007-04-11T21:49:00.000Z

Ibn Sina (Avicenna) - doctor of doctors

by Dr. Monzur Ahmed

Ibn Sina was born in 980 C.E. in the village of Afshana near Bukhara which today is located in the far south of Russia. His father, Abdullah, an adherent of the Ismaili sect, was from Balkh and his mother from a village near Bukhara.

In any age Ibn Sina, known in the West as Avicenna, would have been a giant among giants. He displayed exceptional intellectual prowess as a child and at the age of ten was already proficient in the Qur'an and the Arabic classics. During the next six years he devoted himself to Muslim Jurisprudence, Philosophy and Natural Science and studied Logic, Euclid, and the Almeagest.

He turned his attention to Medicine at the age of 17 years and found it, in his own words, "not difficult". However he was greatly troubled by metaphysical problems and in particular the works of Aristotle. By chance, he obtained a manual on this subject by the celebrated philosopher al-Farabi which solved his difficulties.

By the age of 18 he had built up a reputation as a physician and was summoned to attend the Samani ruler Nuh ibn Mansur (reigned 976-997 C.E.), who, in gratitude for Ibn Sina's services, allowed him to make free use of the royal library, which contained many rare and even unique books. Endowed with great powers of absorbing and retaining knowledge, this Muslim scholar devoured the contents of the library and at the age of 21 was in a position to compose his first book.

At about the same time he lost his father and soon afterwards left Bukhara and wandered westwards. He entered the services of Ali ibn Ma'mun, the ruler of Khiva, for a while, but ultimately fled to avoid being kidnapped by the Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna. After many wanderings he came to Jurjan, near the Caspian Sea, attracted by the fame of its ruler, Qabus, as a patron of learning. Unfortunately Ibn Sina's arrival almost coincided with the deposition and murder of this ruler. At Jurjan, Ibn Sina lectured on logic and astronomy and wrote the first part of the Qanun, his greatest work.

Abu Ali al-Husain ibn Abdullah ibn Sina (980-1037 C.E.)

He then moved to Ray, near modern Teheran and established a busy medical practice. When Ray was besieged, Ibn Sina fled to Hamadan where he cured Amir Shamsud-Dawala of colic and was made Prime Minister. A mutiny of soldiers against him caused his dismissal and imprisonment, but subsequently the Amir, being again attacked by the colic, summoned him back, apologised and reinstated him! His life at this time was very strenuous: during the day he was busy with the Amir's services, while a great deal of the night was passed in lecturing and dictating notes for his books. Students would gather in his home and read parts of his two great books, the Shifa and the Qanun, already composed.

Following the death of the Amir, Ibn Sina fled to Isfahan after a few brushes with the law, including a period in prison. He spent his final years in the services of the ruler of the city, Ala al-Daula whom he advised on scientific and literary matters and accompanied on military campaigns.

Friends advised him to slow down and take life in moderation, but this was not in character. "I prefer a short life with width to a narrow one with length", he would reply. Worn out by hard work and hard living, Ibn Sina died in 1036/1 at a comparatively early age of 58 years. He was buried in Hamadan where his grave is still shown.

Al-Qifti states that Ibn Sina completed 21 major and 24 minor works on philosophy, medicine, theology, geometry, astronomy and the like. Another source (Brockelmann) attributes 99 books to Ibn Sina comprising 16 on medicine, 68 on theology and metaphysics 11 on astronomy and four on verse. Most of these were in Arabic; but in his native Persian he wrote a large manual on philosophical science entitled Danish-naama-i-Alai and a small treatise on the pulse.

His most celebrated Arabic poem describes the descent of Soul into the Body from the Higher Sphere. Among his scientific works, the leading two are the Kitab al-Shifa
(Book of Healing), a philosophical encyclopaedia based
upon Aristotelian traditions and the al-Qanun al-Tibb
which represents the final categorisation of Greco-Arabian thoughts on Medicine.

Of Ibn Sina's 16 medical works, eight are versified treatises on such matter as the 25 signs indicating the fatal termination of illnesses, hygienic precepts, proved remedies, anatomical memoranda etc. Amongst his prose works, after the great Qanun, the treatise on cardiac drugs, of which the British Museum possesses several fine manuscripts, is probably the most important, but it remains unpublished.

The Qanun is, of course, by far the largest, most famous and most important of Ibn Sina's works. The work contains about one million words and like most Arabic books, is elaborately divided and subdivided. The main division is into five books, of which the first deals with general principles; the second with simple drugs arranged alphabetically; the third with diseases of particular organs and members of the body from the head to the foot; the fourth with diseases which though local in their inception spread to other parts of the body, such as fevers and the fifth with compound medicines.

The Qanun distinguishes mediastinitis from pleurisy and recognises the contagious nature of phthisis (tuberculosis of the lung) and the spread of disease by water and soil. It gives a scientific diagnosis of ankylostomiasis and attributes the condition to an intestinal worm. The Qanun points out the importance of dietetics, the influence of climate and environment on health and the surgical use of oral anaesthetics. Ibn Sina advised surgeons to treat cancer in its earliest stages, ensuring the removal of all the diseased tissue. The Qanun's materia medica considers some 760 drugs, with comments on their application and effectiveness. He recommended the testing of a new drug on animals and humans prior to general use.

Ibn Sina noted the close relationship between emotions and the physical condition and felt that music had a definite physical and psychological effect on patients. Of the many psychological disorders that he described in the Qanun, one is of unusual interest: love sickness! ibn Sina is reputed to have diagnosed this condition in a Prince in Jurjan who lay sick and whose malady had baffled local doctors. Ibn Sina noted a fluttering in the Prince's pulse when the address and name of his beloved were mentioned. The great doctor had a simple remedy: unite the sufferer with the beloved.

The Arabic text of the Qanun was published in Rome in 1593 and was therefore one of the earliest Arabic books to see print. It was translated into Latin by Gerard of Cremona in the 12th century. This 'Canon', with its encyclopaedic content, its systematic arrangement and philosophical plan, soon worked its way into a position of pre-eminence in the medical literature of the age displacing the works of Galen, al-Razi and al-Majusi, and becoming the text book for medical education in the schools of Europe. In the last 30 years of the 15th century it passed through 15 Latin editions and one Hebrew. In recent years, a partial translation into English was made. From the 12th-17th century, the Qanun served as the chief guide to Medical Science in the West and is said to have influenced Leonardo da Vinci. In the words of Dr. William Osler, the Qanun has remained "a medical bible for a longer time than any other work".

Despite such glorious tributes to his work, Ibn Sina is rarely remembered in the West today and his fundamental contributions to Medicine and the European reawakening goes largely unrecognised. However, in the museum at Bukhara, there are displays showing many of his writings, surgical instruments from the period and paintings of patients undergoing treatment. An impressive monument to the life and works of the man who became known as the 'doctor of doctors' still stands outside Bukhara museum and his portrait hangs in the Hall of the Faculty of Medicine in the University of Paris.

Pre-op, 10th century style - Ibn Sina is known to have operated on a friend's gall bladder

Selected References:

1. Edward G. Browne (1921) Arabian Medicine, London, Cambridge University Press.

2. Ynez Viole O'Neill (1973) in Mcgraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of World Biography vol I: Aalto to Bizet.

3. Philip K. Hitti (1970) History of the Arabs, 10th ed, London, Macmillan, pp 367-368

4. M.A. Martin (1983) in The Genius of Arab Civilisation, 2nd ed, Edited by J.R. Hayes, London, Eurabia Puplishing, pp 196-7

It is not obligatory for the Muslim woman to cover her face

2007-04-08T07:19:00.000Z

The view that the veil (Hijab or face cover) has been made ompulsory for women in Islam, by which their faces, excluding the eyes, should be covered, is an Islamic opinion. Some Mujtahid-Imams from the mazahib have taken this view. Another Islamic opinion is that veil has not been made compulsory for women in Islam and that their faces do not have to be covered under any circumstance. This view has also been held by some Mujtahid-Imams from amongst the Mazahib. This is one of the serious social problems as the adoption of either of these two opinions, will effect the style of the Islamic life. A comprehensive exposition of the Shari'ah evidences relating to this problem, by its study, pursuance and application to the problem is imperative so as Muslims can only adopt the strongest opinion in terms of the evidence and in order that the Islamic State adopts the strongest opinion according to the preponderance of the evidence.

Indeed, for nearly half a century discussions concerning women have taken place. These discussions were generated by the disbelieving colonialists in the minds of those infatuated by the West, and smitten by its culture and viewpoint about life. They attempted to insert un-Islamic opinions into Islam and corrupt the Muslims Aqeedah. The colonialists inserted the notion of veiling (Hijab) or unveiling of women. The intellectuals amongst the Ulama did not challenge these people. It was authors, men of letters and narrow minded educated people who confronted them and led to the strengthening of the views of those smitten by the western culture. This made their thoughts the subject of study and discussion despite the fact that they were western thoughts, which were initiated to attack Islam, corrupt the Muslims and cause doubt concerning their Deen. Indeed, these discussions did take place and their remnants and effects are still present today. However, they do not merit study or reach the status of a legislative and societal discussion. The correct discussion only concerns the Shari'ah ules derived by the Mujtahidin in which they relied on a Daleel or a semblance of a daleel (Shubhat Daleel) and not the study of the views of writers, esignations of agents, the sophistry of the deceived, and the lies of the ones enamoured by the western culture. As for what the Mujtahidin have stated by way of derivation from the Shari'ah evidences, this what should be made the subject of study and discussion from the legislative point of view.

In addition to the views of Mujtahidin, the views of certain Fuqaha, sheikhs and those partisan to Hijab will be studied in order to eliminate any doubt from their minds. The views of the Mujtahidin and their evidences will be examined until the strongest view is apparent and whoever considers this view preponderant is required to act according to it and work to apply it.

Those who advocated the veil took the opinion that the 'Awrah of the woman includes the whole body except the hands and face, a matter which only applies in prayer. Whilst not praying, they said that her whole body is 'Awrah, including the hands and face. This opinion is based on their view of the Kitab and Sunnah.

As for the Kitab, Allah _ says:

"And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen (Hijab)". [Al- Ahzab: 53]

The verse is clear in terms of its imposition of the screen (veil) on them.

Allah _ says:

"Oh Prophet ! Tell your wives and your daughters and the woman of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known so as not to be annoyed." [Al- Ahzab: 59]

They maintained that the meaning of 'to draw their cloaks all over their bodies' is that they should cast it over their persons and conceal their faces and figures with them. They thought that women in the early period of Islam followed the custom in Jahiliyya, thus indecently wearing a chemise and a Khimar (head cover), with no difference between a free woman and a slave girl. The devious amongst the youth (of Madinah) used to molest the slave girls when they used to go out through the palm trees in the fields to answer the call of nature. Sometimes they would molest free women and claim that they were slave girls, they would say we thought that so and so is a slave girl. Free women were thus ordered to differ in their attire from the clothing of slave girls i.e. by wearing a loose outer garment (Ardiya) and cover (Malahif), and by covering their heads and faces in order to look modest and walk briskly so that the wishful do not desire anything of them. This was considered more appropriate so that they are recognised and not molested. Some amongst them say (with respect to the part of the verse); that they should be known that there is an elision of the la (of negation). In other words it is more appropriate that attractive and non-attractive women should

not be recognised so that they are not antagonised.

Allah _ also says:

"And stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves as in the times of ignorance". [Al- Ahzab: 33]

They said that Allah's command to women to stay in their houses is an evidence for the veil.

As for the Sunnah, they base their opinion on the narration that the Prophet

_ said: “The woman (herself ) is ‘Awrah”, and because of the Prophets

saying: “If anyone of you (the women) has a (male) slave who wants to free himself (by buying himself) and he possessed the price, you should seclude yourself from him”. And due to what has been narrated from Umm Salama who said: Hafsa and I were sitting with the Prophet _when Ibn Umm Maktum asked permission to enter.

So the Prophet said: “seclude yourselves from him”. So I said “Oh Messenger of Allah. He is blind, he cannot see.” He _ said: “Are you both also blind. Can you not see him?”. Abu Dawood narrated that: Al-Fadhl b. Abbas was the Prophet's

riding partner when a woman from Banu Khath'am came seeking a Hukm. Al-Fadhl began looking at her and she at him, so the Messenger of Allah made al- Fadhl turn his face away from her. Jarir b. Abdullah narrates: “I asked the Messenger of Allah about the sudden glance (Nazrat al-Fuja'a), so he instructed me to look the other way.” It has been narrated from Ali (ra) that he said: “The Messenger of Allah _ told me: “Do not follow up the (first) glance with a second look. The first is permitted for you but not the second.”

These are the evidences of those who advocate Hijab and say that a woman's entire body is 'Awrah. However, they are evidences, which do not apply to the issue they are quoted for, because none of them relates to the subject at hand. As for the Ayah of Hijab and the verse "stay in your houses", there is absolutely no connection between them and the wives of the Muslims. Both are specific to the wives of the Messenger _ as the verse explicitly indicates when it is read in full. It constitutes a single verse

interlinked by words and meaning. The (full) text of the Ayah is:

"Oh you who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses, except when permission is given to you for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation. But when you are invited, enter, and when you have taken your meal, disperse, without staying for a conversation. Verily, such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet, and he is shy of (asking) you (to go), but Allah is not shy of telling you the truth. And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen (Hijab) that is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not (right) for you that you should annoy the Messenger of Allah, nor that you should ever marry his wives after him. Verily! With Allah that shall be an enormity". [Al- Ahzab: 53]

So the verse is a text concerning the wives of the Prophet _ and is specific only to them. It has no connection to the wives of the Muslims or to any woman other than the wives of the Messenger _. Supporting the fact that this verse is specific to the wives of the Messenger _ is the narration from 'Aisha(ra) who said: “I was eating food (Hais) with the Prophet _ in a dish. Umar passed by, so the Prophet _ invited him in and he ate. My finger touched his, Umar said: ‘Had my view about you (the Prophets wives) been taken, no one should have seen you. Then the seclusion (Hijab verse) was revealed’”. This is also supported by the narration that Umar said: “O Messenger of Allah, the righteous person and the Fajir one are admitted to you. Have you not secluded the mothers of the believers?” Then Allah revealed the verse of al-Hijab. Also it was narrated that Umar passed by the Prophet's wives while they were with the women in the Mosque, he said: “If you secluded yourselves you would have status over the women as your husband has the status over the men.” Zainab (may Allah be pleased with her) said “O son of al-Khattab! Indeed you're more concerned about us while the Wahy comes down in our houses.” It was not

long after that, that the Ayah of Hijab was revealed. Therefore, the text of the Ayah and these Ahadith are definite in meaning that they were revealed regarding the wives of the Prophet _ and for none other. As for the verse: “And stay in your houses”, it is also specific to the wives of the Messenger _. The following is the complete text: "Oh wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women. If you keep your duty (to Allah), be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire, but speak in a fitting manner. And stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves as in the days of ignorance (Jahiliyya), and perform As-Salat, and give Zakat and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, Oh members of the household (of the Prophet) and to purify you with a thorough purification". [Al- Ahzab: 32-33]

Thus, it is explicit that the verse was specifically revealed concerning the Prophets wives because the speech is addressed to them and is specific to them; "Oh wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women". There cannot be a text more informative and indicative than the fact that this verse was revealed concerning the Prophet's wives and that it is particular to them.

This understanding is confirmed in the last part of the speech of Allah at the end of the verse itself; "Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, Oh members of the household (of the Prophet) and to purify you with a thorough purification" [ Al- Ahzab: 33]

It is clear that this description is specific to the wives of the Prophet and that He has instructed them with the foregoing in order to remove from them the rijs and purify them because they belong to the household of the Prophet. This has also been confirmed by the verse that directly follows it. After His _ saying: "to purify you with a thorough purification", Allah _ says: "And remember (Oh you members of the Prophets household, that which is recited in your houses of the Verses of Allah and Al-Hikmah. Verily, Allah is Ever Most

Courteous, Well-Acquainted with all things" [Al- Ahzab: 34]

Thus, Allah _ reminds them that their houses are the cradle of revelation (Wahy) and He has commanded them not to forget what is recited in them from the Qur'an.

These two verses are clear in that they concern the Prophet's wives and that they are specific to them. There is no indication in any of the two verses that the command is intended for Muslim women other than the Prophet's wives.

There are yet other verses which are specific to the wives of the Messenger _ such as the saying of Allah _: "And nor that you should ever marry his wives after him". So it is not permitted for the Prophet's wives to marry after him contrary to the example of Muslim women who can get married after the death of their husbands. Both verses of Hijab are specific to the Prophet's wives just as the verse, which prohibits their marriage after the Prophet _. It is not correct to say in this context that what matters is that the expression is general and that it matters little that the cause is specific. And that the cause (Sabab) of the revelation of the verses is the Prophet’s wives but these verses are general (Aam) to the Prophet's wives and others. This is not true, because the cause (Sabab) of revelation is an event that has happened. Thus, the event is the cause (Sabab) of revelation. With regards to the situation here, the wives of the Messenger _ do not constitute an event that has happened, rather it is a case of a specific text that has been revealed concerning specific persons whose identity has been stated. Thus, Allah _ said: “Oh wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women.” He _ also said: “And when you ask them for anything you want.” The personal pronoun they (Hunna) refers to the Prophet's wives and designates them to the exclusion of others. And that is followed by Allah's saying: “And it is not (right) for you that you should annoy Allah's Messenger”, which informs us of the reason (Illa) for their veil (Hijab). All of this indicates that the two verses are texts that have come concerning the wives of the Messenger _. Therefore, the principle:What matters is the generality of expression and not the specificity of the cause (Al-'ibra bi 'umum al'lafz la bi khusus as-sabab) does not apply to these two verses.

Similarly, it should not be said that the speech (Khitab) to the wives of the Messenger is an address to Muslim women because the fact that a specific address for a specific person is a speech for the believers only pertains to the Messenger Muhammad _. It does not include his wives. Therefore, the speech (Khitab) to the Messenger _ is speech to the believers. As for the address to his wives, it is specific to them because only the Messenger _ is the object of emulation in each address, action or silence, as long as it does not include those things that are particular to him. As for the wives of the Messenger they are not the object of emulation because Allah _ says: "Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example" [Al- Ahzab: 21]

It is not right that the Prophet's wives should be emulated, in the sense that an action is done because they did it, or an attribute should be possessed because they have been characterised with it. This only pertains to the Messenger _ because he _ doesn't follow anything but the revelation. Likewise, it should not be said that since they are the wives of the Messenger and they are pure, and since the revelation has been recited in their houses and they have been required to seclude (Hijab) themselves, then other Muslim women by greater reason (Bab-awla) should be required to stay in seclusion (Hijab). This cannot be claimed for two reasons:

Firstly: this judgement is not by way of greater reason because the (principle) of greater reason (Al-awla) is that Allah forbids a small issue

which then becomes prohibition of a large issue by greater reason (Min babawla), such as the saying of Allah _:

"Say not to them a word of disrespect (uff)" [Al- Isra: 23]

Thus, by greater reason a person should not beat his parents. The principle of greater reason is understood from the context of the statement such as the saying of Allah:_ "Among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is he who, if entrusted with a qintar (of wealth), will readily pay it back; and among them there is he who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it". [Al- Imran: 75]

The payment of less than a qintar is by greater reason and the non-payment of more than a silver coin (Dinar) is by greater reason. The verse of Hijab is not of this type because the sequence of the verse does not indicate anything other than the Prophet's wives nor does it indicate any other understanding. The expression 'wives of the Prophet' is a defective noun which cannot have any other understanding (particularly an opposite understanding). The statement is thus specific to the thing for which the text has come and does not extend to anyone else or have any other meaning. There is absolutely no issue arising in the verse by way of greater reason, whether in terms of the wording of the verse or its sequence. Secondly: those two verses are an instruction to specific persons who have been identified by their particular attributes. The instruction, therefore, can be at no time for people other than them, nor for people superior or inferior to them, because it is a specific description. It is an instruction to the wives of the Messenger _, as they are not like any other women and because this action annoys the Messenger. The application of the principle: ‘What matters is the generality of expression and not the specificity of the cause' has been disproved as well as the question of emulating the wives of the Messenger _. Additionally the consideration of people other than the Prophet's wives by greater reason has also been refuted, and it has been established that the text is definite in its reference to the wives of the Messenger _.It follows therefore that those two verses are specific to the wives of the Messenger _ and they definitely do not include Muslim women in any way whatsoever. From this, it can be determined that Hijab is specific to the wives of the Messenger _ and the order to remain in the house is also specific to them. As for the second verse which is the saying of Allah _: “to draw their cloaks (Jalabeeb) all over their bodies”, it does not indicate veiling the face at all. Neither in terms of its wording (Mantuq) nor in terms of its understanding (Mafhum). Nor is there a word, which indicates this whether on its own, or as part of a sentence, assuming that the cause (Sabab) of revelation is correct. The verse says: "to draw their cloaks (Jalabeeb) all over their bodies". Its meaning is that women should cast from (Min) their cloaks over their persons and the preposition (Min) here is not used partatively but only to explain (Lil-bayan) that they should cast it over their persons. To lower the covering means to let it drape down. To lower the clothing means to let the clothing drape down, and they lowered their clothing means they let it drape down. The Jilbab is a cover (Milhafa), used to conceal a dress and other items of clothing. It can also be clothing which covers the entire body. It is stated in the al-Qamus (dictionary of) al-Muhit: that the Jilbab, is in the form of the Sirdab or the Sinmar, which is the gown or a large garment for women under the cover (Milhafa), which is that which conceals her clothing like a cover (Milhafa). Al-Jawhari has stated in al-Sihah (another dictionary) that: The Jilbab is the cover (Milhafa) and some say it is a sheet (Mulaah). Jilbab has been mentioned in the Hadith with the meaning of Mulaah (sheet) which the woman wrapped over her clothes. It has been narrated on the authority of Umm Atiyya (ra.): “We were ordered to bring out our menstruating women and veiled women in the religious gatherings and invocation of Muslims on the two 'Eid festivals. These menstruating women were to keep away from prayer, witnessing the blessing and call to the Muslims. I asked, “O Messenger of Allah! What if one of us does not have a Jilbab?” He said, ‘Let her wear the Jilbab of her sister.’” Which means that she did not have a garment to wear over her clothes to go out in. So, the Prophet ordered her to borrow one from her sister, which she could wear over her dress. The verse makes it clear that Allah _ has requested the Prophet _ to tell his wives and the wives and daughters of the Muslims to wear garments over their clothes which reach right down to the feet as evidenced by the narration of Ibn Abbas: “The Jilbab is the Rida (large sheet of cloth) which covers from top to bottom.” So the verse indicates that the Jilbab, which is a large garment should be draped down to the bottom (feet), and does not indicate anything other than this. If this is the case, how is it possible to understand that to cast their outer garments (Jalabeeb) over their persons means to cast their garments over their faces? No matter how much the word Yudnina (to drape down) or the word Jilbab is interpreted within the limits of the linguistic (Ma'na loghawi) and juristic meaning, the verse stipulates the draping down of the garment. Draping can only mean draping it down to the bottom (feet) and not raising it to the head. Therefore, there is no evidence in this verse to prove Hijab. Nor is there even a semblance of an evidence, by any stretch of the imagination. The words and sentences of the Qur'an are interpreted according to their linguistic and jurisprudence meanings, it is incorrect to

interpret them in any other way. The linguistic meaning clearly indicates that women have been ordered to caste their outer garments (Jalabeeb) over their persons, to let them lower their garment over their clothes to the floor until the feet are covered. This meaning, in terms of letting the Jilbab drape down, is found in the noble Hadith. It is narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah _ said: “On the day of judgement, Allah will not look with mercy towards the one who trails his garment behind him in haughty pride”. Umm Salama asked: “what are the women to do with the hems of their dresses?” He _ answered: “Let them increase their hems the length of a hand span”. She rejoined: “Then their feet will be uncovered! He then replied: “Let them increase a fore arm’s length and no more.” [Tirmidhi]

This is with respect to the verses that are used as evidence by those who claim that Hijab for Muslim women has been decreed by Allah. As for the Ahadith which are used to prove Hijab they do not indicate this.

The Prophet _ said: “If anyone of you (the women) has a (male) slave who wants to free himself (by buying himself) and he possessed the price, you should seclude yourself from him”. And due to what was narrated from Umm Salama who said: Hafsa and I

were sitting with the Prophet _ when Ibn Umm Maktum asked permission to enter. So the Prophet said: “seclude yourselves from him”. So I said “O Messenger of Allah. He is blind, he cannot see.” He _ said: “Are you both also blind. Can you both not see him?”. Abu Dawood narrated that: Al- Fadhl b. Abbas at the time was the Prophet's riding partner when a woman from Banu Khath'am came seeking a hukm. al-Fadhl began to look at her and she at him so the Messenger of Allah made al-Fadhl turn his face away from her. Jarir b. Abdullah narrated: I asked the Messenger of Allah about the sudden look, so he instructed me to look the other way. It has been narrated from Ali that he said: The Messenger of Allah _ told me: “Do not follow up the (first) glance with a second look. The first is permitted for you but not the second.” There is no indication in these Ahadith that the Muslim women should seclude themselves. In particular, the Hadith of Umm Salama and the Prophet's requesting of Hafsa and her to seclude themselves, is daif (weak) and cannot be advanced as an evidence. In any case, the Hadith is specific to the wives of the Prophet as it is a text concerning Umm Salama and Hafsa. As for what has been narrated that Aisha said: “The horseman used to pass by us while we were with the Prophet _ wearing ihram clothes (of Hajj). If he came near one of us, we would draw our jilbabs from our head down to our face. Once he walked past, we would uncover our (face).” This conflicts with what has been narrated by Bukhari on the authority of Ibn Umar that the Prophet _ said: “The Muhrima (a woman in the state of Ihram) should not cover her face, or wear gloves.” Ibn Hajar in the Fath al-Bari has stated: “The veil (Niqab) or Khimar is fastened from the nose or below the eyes.” So the Hadith of 'Aisha (ra) states that women in the state of Ihram had covered their faces when a group of horsemen passed them. The Hadith

of Ibn Umar indicates the prohibition of wearing a Niqab which only conceals the lower half of the face. How can this be reconciled with respect to completely covering the face by lowering the garment over the face. With respect to the two Ahadith it becomes clear that the Hadith of 'Aisha is defective in that the narration is of Mujahid from Aisha. Yahya b. Said al- Qattan has mentioned that Mujahid did not directly hear from Aisha. As for the Hadith of Ibn Umar which has been narrated by Bukhari it is Sahih. Aisha's Hadith, therefore, is turned down because it is weak and conflicts with an authentic (Sahih) Hadith. Hence it is not used as an evidence. As for the Hadith in which al-Fadhl b. al Abbas is present, there is no indication in it to make Hijab compulsory. On the contrary, it is an evidence that Hijab is not an obligation because the Khath'ami woman was asking the Prophet about a matter whilst her face was unveiled. This is evidenced by the fact that al- Fadhl was looking at her. Another variant of this Hadith states: “Thus, the Prophet took hold of al-Fadhls (beard) and turned his face away from the other side.” This story has been narrated by Ali b. Abuy Talib who adds: “al-Abbas said to the Prophet: ‘O Messenger of Allah, why did you turn your cousins neck?’ He _ replied: ‘I saw a young man and a young woman in such a situation that I feared what effect Shaytan might have upon them’”. The Hadith of the Khath'ami woman is an evidence for the absence of Hijab not an evidence for it. This is because the Prophet _ was looking at her whilst her face was uncovered. As for the Prophets turning of al-Fadhl's gaze away, this is because he noticed that he was looking at her, and she at him, with desire as evidenced by the narration of Ali: “I feared what effect Shaytan might have upon them”. Therefore, he _ diverted al-Fadhl's sight because he was looking at her with desire and not merely looking. The desirous look, even if it is at the face and hands, is Haram. As for the sudden look (Nazrat al-faja'a) the Prophet ordered Jarir to turn his gaze or lower it. This is the type of lowering of the gaze which is mentioned in the Qur'an: "Tell the believing men to lower from their gaze" [An -Nur: 30] What is intended here is the sudden look at other than the hands and face which constitutes the 'Awrah and not looking at the hands and face. This is because looking at the hands and face is permitted irrespective of whether it is sudden or not, as evidenced by the permissibility of looking at a woman in the aforementioned Hadith of al-Khath'amiyya. This is also proven by the fact that the Prophet _ used to look at the faces of women when they gave Bay’a to him and when he preached to them. All of which indicates that what one needs to be careful about is the sudden look at other than the hands and face. As for the Hadith of Ali: “Do not follow up the (first) glance with a second look.” This is a prohibition from looking repeatedly and not from the mere look.

Thus, no evidence can be found to oblige Hijab (face covering) in the Ahadith which have been quoted by those who claim Allah _ has legislated Hijab. Therefore, it becomes clear that there is no evidence to say Allah _ has made Hijab obligatory for Muslim women or that the hands and the face should be considered as 'Awrah, whether inside or outside prayer. The evidences which they quote have no strong reason for concluding that Hijab is compulsory. They are weak in narration and weak in reasoning. As for the hands and face not being part of the 'Awrah and the permission for women to go out to any marketplace and roadway with her hands and face uncovered, this is proven from the Qur'an and Hadith. As for the Qur'an Allah _ says: "And they do not show off their charm (Zeena) except only that which is apparent and let them draw their head coverings (khumur) over their necks and bosoms (juyub)" [An- Nur: 31]

Allah _forbade believing women from displaying their charms (Zeena) i.e. forbade them from showing the place of their charm (Zeena) since this is what the prohibition is from. He excluded from the place of their charms that which is apparent from it, and this is an explicit exception. This means that there is a part of the woman's charm which is shown, and does not come under the (general) prohibition of women displaying the places of their charms. Nothing more remains to be said about this. So, Allah has forbidden women from displaying their Zeena except that which is apparent from it. As for which parts are intended by: "except only that which is apparent from it" [An- Nur: 31] its interpretation must be referred to two matters. First, to the transmitted tafseer (Tafseer Manqul) and secondly to what was understood from the expression: "that which is apparent from it"; and its application to what the Muslim women used to display in the presence of the Prophet _, in his time and in the time of the revelation of this verse.

As for what has been transmitted, it is narrated that Ibn Abbas in the tafseer of this verse took (the expression) "that which is apparent from it" to mean the hands and face. This opinion became commonly held by the mufassireen. Imam Ibn Jarir at-Tabari says: “The most correct of these views is that which states that the intended meaning is the hands and face”, and Qurtubi said: “Since the face and hands are, by custom and during worship such as in Hajj and Salat, most ordinarily displayed then the exception must refer to them.” Imam al-Zamakhshri said: “A woman has no choice but to do things with her hands and by uncovering her face especially when she has to testify, is being tried, is getting married, or when she is forced to walk in the streets displaying her feet, especially those amongst them who are poor.” This is the meaning of: "except that which is apparent from it".

As for what is understood from the expression "that which is apparent from it", it is clear that what used to be apparent in the time of the revelation of this verse is the hands and face. Women used to show their face and hands in his _ presence and he did not object to their doing so. They used to uncover their face and hands in the market or on the road. Such incidents are innumerable. Here are a few examples:

1. Jabir b. Abd Allah said: “I attended prayer on Eid day with the Messenger of Allah _. He commenced with the prayer, before the Khutbah, without any Adhan or Iqamah. Then he rose, leaning on Bilal and addressing those present before him, commanded them to fear Allah and exhorted them to obey Him. He further admonished and warned them. Then he moved on until he came to the women whom he addressed saying: “Give charity, for verily most of you are fuel for the hellfire”, whereupon there arose from among the middle ladies congregation, a dark-cheeked woman who said: “Why is that, Oh Messenger of Allah”? He replied: “Because you women make too many complaints, and you refuse to acknowledge your husband’s good treatment”. Upon hearing this the women began tossing their jewellery in charity upon Bilal's (outspread) cloth.”

2. Narrated by 'Ata'a b. Rabah who said: “Ibn Abbas said to me; Shall I show you a woman who will go to Paradise (Jannah)”? I said: “Yes.” He said: “This black woman came to Prophet _ and said: 'I have epilepsy and I get uncovered, so make dua to Allah for me'. So he _ said to her: “If you will be patient the Paradise (Jannah) shall be yours. And if you want I will make dua to Allah to cure you”. So she said: 'I will be patient'. She said: 'I get uncovered so make dua to Allah that I don't uncover myself'. So he _ made dua for her.”

3. Narrated by Fatimah b. Qays that Abu Amr b. Hafs divorced her irrevocably (by three pronouncements) when he was away from home. She went to the Messenger of Allah _ and mentioned that to him. So he commanded her to spend the Iddah (waiting period) in the house of Umm Shareek, but then said: “That is a woman whom my companions visit. So you had better spend this period in the house of Ibn Umm Maktum, for he is a blind man, so you can take off your garments and he will not see you”. Thus the Prophet _ accepted the daughter of Qays to be seen by men when he ordered her to spend the Iddah in the house of Umm Shareek. But he did not accept her to take of her garments in the house of Umm Shareek while this is visited by men, otherwise what is prohibited might appear from her, so he ordered her to move and spend her iddah in the house of Ibn Umm Maktum.

4. Abu Bakr narrated on the authority of Ibn Jurayj who said that 'Aisha said: “My cousin came while she was wearing her ornaments. The Prophet _ came in and turned away from her (when he saw her). So I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! She is only my cousin, a mere maiden.” He said: “Oh Aisha, when a woman reaches puberty then it is not permitted that any part of her body should be seen (by non-mahrams) except her face and what is below this”. So he clenched his arm just above the joint of the hand leaving a space in-between for another fist to be clenched.”

5. What indicates that the hand is not part of the 'Awrah is the Prophet's handshaking of women in the Bay’a. Umm 'Atiyya said: “We gave our Bay’a to the Messenger of Allah _, so he _ recited to us they should associate none with Allah and he forbade us from wailing (for the dead). A woman amongst us withdrew her hand saying: ‘so and so woman has made me happy and I want to reward her’, he _ said nothing, the woman went, then came back”. This Hadith indicates that women used to give Bay’a by hand because this woman withdrew her hand after extending it for the Bay’a. The fact the Hadith states that the woman withdrew her hand when she heard the terms of the pledge (Bay’a), demonstrates clearly that the Bay’a used to take place by hand and that the Prophet _ used to take the pledge by his noble hand. As for what has been narrated about 'Aisha (ra) that she said: “The hand of the Messenger of Allah _ did not touch the (hand of) any woman other than his own wives.” This is an opinion of Aisha and an expression of the limit of her knowledge. If we compare 'Aisha's statement with this Hadith of Umm 'Atiyya then the latter's Hadith is preferred. This is because it specifies an action which happened in the presence of the Messenger _ and indicates an action of the Messenger _, thus it is preferable to a mere opinion of 'Aisha.

That is why transmitters preferred Umm 'Atiyyaa's Hadith. They adopted it and permitted a man to shake the hand of a woman. These five incidents are well established in the Ahadith which unambiguously indicate that what was shown of women is the hands and face. The fourth Hadith indicates that the Messenger _ diverted his view away from the adorned woman because she was displaying more than what is apparent from it. Then he explained to her that it is not permitted for her to display her Zeena except her hands and face. This shows that the hands and face are not part of the 'Awrah whether in or outside prayer because the verse is of general import (Aam): "And they do not show off their harms (Zeena) except only that which is apparent of it" [An- Nur: 31]

As for the verse which comes after, its understanding also indicates that the hands and face are not part of the 'Awrah'. Allah _ says: "And to draw their head-coverings (khumur) over their necks and v-neck (juyub)".[An- Nur: 31]

Khumur is the plural of Khimar and it is used to cover the head. Juyub is the plural of Jayb. It is the v-neck. Thus, Allah _ has ordered that the Khimar should be worn round the neck and chest. This indicates the obligation to cover both areas. But He did not order that the Khimar should be worn over the face, thereby indicating the face is not part of the 'Awrah. Jayb does not mean the chest as some would assume. Rather it is the v-neck, the opening which is around the neck and the upper portion of the chest. Wearing the Khimar over the Jayb means wearing it around the shirt collar from the neck and chest. So, by ordering the covering of the head, which includes the neck and chest, this excludes the face, indicating that it is not part of the 'Awrah. Consequently, Hijab (face covering) is non existent and Allah _ did not legislate the Hijab.

This is in terms of the evidences from the Qur'an. In addition these are evidences from the Hadith which show Allah _ has not legislated Hijab and that the hands and face are not part of the 'Awrah. Abu Dawood narrates on the authority of 'Aishah (ra), that Asmaa bint Abi Bakr entered the quarters of Allah's Messenger wearing thin clothes. The Messenger _ turned his face away and said: “O Asmaa, if the woman reaches puberty, it is not allowed to be seen from her except this and this, and he pointed to his face and hands”. Abu Dawood narrates on the authority of Qatada that the Prophet _ said: “When a young lady begins to menstruate, it is not correct that anything should be seen of her except her face and hands excluding the wrist.” Al-Bayhaqi narrates on the authority of Asma' bint 'Umays that she said: “The Messenger of Allah entered the house of 'Aisha bint Abu Bakr while her sister, Asmaa bint Abu Bakr, was with her. She was

wearing a Shammi (Syrian) dress with wide sleeves. When the Messenger of Allah _ saw her he got up and went out.” 'Aisha said: “leave the room for the Messenger of Allah has seen something he does not like.” So she withdrew. Then the Messenger of Allah _ entered and 'Aisha (ra) inquired as to why he stood to leave? He _ said: “Did you not see what she was wearing? It is not permitted for anything to be seen of a Muslim woman except this and this.” He took his sleeves and covered the upper part of his hands until nothing could be seen of his hands except his fingers. Then he lifted his hands to his temples until only the face could be seen.”

These Ahadith are clear that the hands and face are not part of the 'Awrah. They are also explicit that Allah _ has not legislated the covering of the hands and face, and He has not legislated Hijab. If anything like that was legislated then it would have contradicted the text of these Ahadith which are not open to any other explanation (Tafseer) or interpretation (Taweel.) On the contrary, they clearly and unambiguously show that the Muslim woman used to go out to the market with her face and hands uncovered, and conversed with non-mahram men whilst her face and hands were revealed. And she made all lawful transactions with people such as buying, selling, renting, leasing, right of pre-emption, representation, whilst her hands and face were uncovered. They also show that Allah _ has not legislated Hijab except for the wives of the Messenger _. Even though the view concerning Hijab is an Islamic opinion because it has a semblance of an evidence (Shubhat al-Daleel)and Mujtahid-Imams amongst the madhahib have taken this view, the semblance of a daleel which they use is untenable with hardly any credible reasoning apparent in it. What remains is an issue which some Mujtahidin have subscribed to, namely, that Hijab has been legislated for women due to the fear of temptation (Fitna.) Thus, they say that the woman has been forbidden from revealing her face not because it is 'Awrah but due to the fear of causing temptation Fitna.

This view is not valid from a number of angles: Firstly for the prohibition of unveiling the face due to the fear of Fitna, there is no Shari'ah provision whether in the Kitab, Sunnah, Ijma’a of the Sahabah and nor is there a Shar’a provision from a Shari'ah reason (Illa Shariyya) according to which an analogy is made. Consequently, this opinion has no Shari'ah value nor is it considered a Shari'ah rule (Hukm Shar'i), because a Shari'ah rule is the speech of the legislator, but the prohibition of unveiling the face is not included in the speech of the legislator. It is also known that the Shari'ah evidences have come in complete contradiction to it, and that the Ayah and Ahadith unconditionally permit the uncovering of the face and hands without being restricted by something nor being specified by a particular circumstance. Thus, the opinion that showing the face is forbidden and it is obligatory to conceal it, is an opinion which prohibits that which Allah permitted. It is an obligation that Allah _ the Lord of the Worlds has not decreed. Thus, this opinion beyond not being considered as a Shari'ah rule, it invalidates the Shari'ah rules that are established by clear text. Secondly, making the fear of Fitna a reason (Illa) for prohibiting the unveiling of the face and for the obligation to conceal it is an opinion for which there is no Shari'ah text whether explicitly (Sarahatan), by indication (Dalalatan), extraction (Istanbatan) or by analogy (Qiyas). Therefore, under no circumstances is it a Shari'ah reason (Illa shariyya). Rather it is a rational reason (Illa Aqliyya) which is of no consideration with regards to the Shari'ah rules. However, what is considered is the Shari'ah reason (Illa Shariyya) and none other. Accordingly, no weight is given to the fear of Fitna in legislating the prohibition of showing the face or obligating the concealment of it because it is not present in the Shari'ah.

Thirdly the principle of: 'the means to a Haram is (itself) prohibited' (Alwasila il al-Haram muharrama), does not apply to prohibiting the showing of the face due to fear of temptation (Fitna). This is because this principle requires that two conditions are met; first, the means (Wasila) must lead to a Haram by the least amount of doubt (Bi ghalabat al-zann), and that it must be the cause of the Haram such that it definitely produces the effect and does not deflect from it. Second, there must be a text prohibiting what the means (Wasila) leads to, and it is not to be prohibited by the mind. This is not present with regards to showing the face in fear of temptation. For they say the face should be veiled in fear of temptation and not because of the occurrence of a temptation. Consequently, showing the face due to the fear of temptation does not apply to the principle of forbidding the cause of a Haram; assuming that the temptation is prohibited by the Shari'ah for the one tempted by it, because it does not definitely lead to it. And, there is no text making the fear of temptation Haram. On the contrary, the Shar’a did not make the temptation itself Haram for the one who is the object of temptation of people. Rather, the Shar’a prohibited the one who looks from watching with temptation, and it did not prohibit it for the one who is looked at. Abu Dawood narrates that Al-Fadhl b. Abbas was the Prophet’s riding partner at the time when a woman from Banu Khath’am came seeking a hukm (opinion), and al-Fadhl began to look at her and she at him so the Messenger of Allah made him turn his face from her. i.e. he turned the face of al-Fadhl away from her, as evidenced by another variant of this Hadith: Thus, the Prophet took hold of al-Fadhl’s beard and turned his face away from the other side. This story has been narrated by Ali b. Aby Talib to which he adds: “Abbas said to the Prophet: ‘O Messenger of Allah, why did you turn your cousins neck?’ He _ replied: ‘I saw a young man and a young woman in such a situation that I feared what effect Shaytan might have upon them.’” It is clear from this that the Messenger _ turned the face of al-Fadhl away from the Khath'ami woman. He did not order her to cover her face. Her face was visible to him. If temptation was Haram for the one who was the object of temptation then the Messenger _ would have ordered the Khath'ami woman to veil her face after it had transpired that al-Fadhl had looked at her, with the look of desire. However, he did not order her to do this but he turned the neck of al-Fadhl, which indicates that the prohibition is for the one who is looking and not for the one who is looked at. Therefore, regarding the prohibition of people's desire for the woman, there is no text which prohibits it upon the woman, by whom people are tempted. Rather the text says it is not prohibited for her. Therefore, the matter which it leads to is not Haram even if it had definitely led to it. However, it is permitted for the state which is working to look after the affairs of the people to move specific individuals away from the view of those who are infatuated by them, in order to make the one who temptsothers inaccessible to people, if the infatuation for that person is widespread. As Umar b. al-Khattab did with regards to Nasr b. Hajjaj when he exiled him to Basra, because women used to be tempted by his good looks. This is general to men and women. So it should not be said that women must be forbidden from unveiling their faces due to the fear of temptation, even due to the occurrence of temptation. This cannot be said by using the principle of 'the means to a Haram is itself Haram'.

Democracy Haram, Democracy Shirk

2007-04-08T06:29:00.000Z

Democracy is the political framework of the Capitalist thought, i.e. the ruling system that the Capitalist states and their like implement.Democracy, for those who embrace it, means that people rule themselves by themselves with the systems that they choose. Oftentimes, Capitalists refer to their system as "The Democratic System", but such a connotation is incorrect for more than one reason:Democracy was not innovated by the Capitalists but had been preceded by the Greeks. Moreover, they were not the only ones who implemented it; the Marxist-Socialists claimed that they were democrats and they consistently pretended that they implemented democracy.

The most important element of democracy is that it makes the human being and not the Creator as the legislator, which is logical for those who call for the detachment of religion from life because this detachment means to transfer the right to legislate from the Creator to the human being. The Capitalists, in this issue did not discuss whether the Creator has obliged man to follow a certain law and implement it in his life, nor did they even examine this issue at all, rather they appointed man as the legislator without any discussion.

For Muslims to adopt democracy means to disbelieve in all - may Allah _ forbid - the decisive and conclusive Evidences,among which are many Qur'anic verses which oblige them to follow the law of Allah _ and to reject any other law. Moreover, these erses consider any one of them who does not follow or mplement the law of Allah _ as either a Kaafir, a Zalim, or a Fasiq,

"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are non-believers (Kaafiroon)." [TMQ AL-Ma'idah: 44]

"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are oppressors (zalimoon)." [TMQ AL-Ma'idah: 45]

"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are transgressors (fasiqoon)." [TMQ AL-Ma'idah: 47]

Thus, whoever does not rule by whatever Allah _ has revealed, denying Allah _'s right to legislate, as is the case with those who believe in democracy, is a Kaafir according to the explicit words of the Qur'an, because by doing so he is rejecting those decisive verses,and denying a conclusive text makes a person a Kaafir as the Muslim Fuqaha' agreed unanimously.

The Kaafiroon and their agents who rule the Muslim countries, as well as all those who call for democracy who are counted from among the Muslims, whether they are individuals or movements, realise that the basis for democracy is the rejection of the law of Allah _ and putting man in the place of the Creator. For this reason, they do not present democracy from this perspective, but instead claim that democracy means people ruling themselves by themselves, with equality and justice prevailing among the people, and the accountability of the ruler guaranteed.Although democracy explicitly implies the rejection of the laws of Allah and following the law of His _ creation, the advocates of democracy intentionally avoid addressing the issue of rejecting the law of Allah.

The remaining claims of democracy have no actual reality, the claim that people rule themselves by themselves is a major fallacy. In all Capitalist Democratic societies, people do not rule themselves by themselves, because this is a fanciful idea. In reality, people are ruled by a certain group of influential people, such as the prominent Capitalists in the United States and the aristocrats in England, which are two of the most deeply-rooted Capitalist Democratic countries. These influential groups in the Capitalist countries hold the necessary means to bring whoever they want into the government and legislative assemblies (parliaments) so that the laws which are passed and those charged with their implementation would be serving their interests.

Regarding what is claimed about equality, justice,and accountability of the rulers, these are all theoretical, without any compatibility with reality. It is enough for one to look to America, the leader of the democratic world, to find that equality, justice, and accountability are all selective, enjoyed and practiced by those who have a particular colour, religion, race, or financial wealth.The suffering faced by the blacks, Indians, those of Latin and Asian origins, those who are not Protestant, and those who are not from Western European backgrounds is evidence enough that what is claimed of democracy is - despite some exceptional cases - merely theory.Consequently, it is not allowed for a Muslim to accept democracy, because it is Kufr and gives man what is entitled exclusively for the Creator. It is obligatory upon every Muslim to reject it and to challenge all those who propagate it.

Ban on hijab begins in Somalia

2007-04-08T05:58:00.000Z

SomaliNews

February 21, 2007 - 14:50
Ban on hijab begins in Somalia

Posted on ANN on 21 Feb. 2007=

afrol News, 19 Feb. 2007--Two months after the Islamic Courts Union regime was flushed out in the country, the transitional federal government is now at the brink of transforming Somalia into a secular state. This action begins today as security officers have started removing the hijab or veil from women's heads on the streets of major cities in the country.

With a heightened violence and explosions against the federal government in Mogadishu, Somali authorities said the ban on hijab is their efforts to beef up security. The hijab, which does not have much tradition in Somalia, is mostly seen as a political expression of support for radical Islamism.

The government posted security officers in key strategic locations of the capital Mogadishu. These officers could be seen stopping veiled women walking on foot or on board cars, asking them to remove their veils.

Though the government is economical in defending the move, it is however believed that it has been precipitated by fears of the Islamists remnants using veiled women to hatch their plot against Somalis.

Recent violence in Mogadishu has killed 8 civilians and wounded several others.

The veiled women, who said they were not fairly treated, would not walk home without protesting against the forceful removal of hijab, which according to them, should be worn by all pious Muslim women.

They said security forces forcefully unveiled them after they initially rejected to unveil themselves. Islamic leaders are yet to react to the issue.

In a separate development, Somali officials have been accused of censoring the country's three independent radio stations - 'Shabelle', 'Horn Afrik' and 'Banadir' - warning them that they must not report on anything relating to Somali/Ethiopian military operations in Mogadishu, which they consider as "top secret." The stations have received instructions asking them to censor themselves on the fleeing of civilians, a direct consequence of the same operations.

The deputy Commander of Somalia security operations, General Nour Mohammed Mohmoud, presented the written instructions to the officials of the three stations that serve as the population's only source of public information.

Under the new order, the government is mandated to select editors from the three radio stations who must cooperate with security department agents.

The Somali government has held anger against the stations for allowing some people on air to pin down the allied troops of Somalia and Ethiopia for shelling residential areas when unknown gunmen attacked them with mortars.

In January, the Somali government shut down three radio stations but they were allowed to resume operations.

Pensioners: another illustration of how the weak are treated in a capitalist society

2007-04-08T03:43:00.000Z

Pensioners: another illustration of how the weak are treated in a capitalist society

For the past twenty five years Britain has drifted on the maxim that there is no such thing as society. The fragmentation of society has been like the breaking of a glass window. Some from amongst the individual shattered pieces are large, strong pieces with jagged edges capable of serious harm. Others are thin splinters which can further break even under the slightest pressure. Children and the elderly generally fall under the categories of the weaker sections of society. They often need support from society. But when society has become every man or woman for themselves those support mechanisms are lost.

Families have become more mobile, travelling to pursue employment opportunities. Older, retired members will remain where they are as moving for them is a net cost, and not a net gain. Increasingly, both husbands and wives have to work to meet ever increasing costs of living, as well as ever increasing aspirations, leaving less time for the children and the grandparents. Historically, the pension helped to fill this gap. It was a safety net for people in their retirement. But at the same time that the concept of society was broken by Margaret Thatcher, so was a link between a rise in national earnings and a rise in the state pension. In the aftermath, pensioners became relatively poorer, and were encouraged to save in private or occupational schemes.

In 1997, New Labour came to power, promising ‘things are gonna get better’. Within months of coming to office Chancellor Gordon Brown needed to fill a budget deficit to square his public spending plans. Several alternatives would have faced him. Firstly, he could have raised tax on the super wealthy, who hoard surplus quantities of wealth – targeting those with the most capital. Secondly, he might have raised taxes on income, which hits middle income earners hard and which is politically unpopular. In fact he chose to amend tax rules on pensions. This option targeted the elderly, retired community or those nearing retirement who had saved for years. It was something that would not become immediately obvious to people overnight in their pay packets. It was an option that had no powerful vested interest groups opposing it. The treasury minister and Brown’s former key advisor Ed Balls admitted this week that the judgment was necessary to “promote long-term business investment in the UK, which has risen by 50% over the subsequent 10 years." Meaning if big business is okay, stuff the pensioners.

Pensioner poverty in Britain is huge. Last year 24,650 people in Britain died as a result of cold related matters according to Age Concern. They also say six out of 10 older people are at risk of becoming malnourished. Furthermore up to 14% of older people aged over 65 years in the UK are malnourished. According to the Department of Work and Pensions, in the three year period 2001/2 to 2003/4, 22 per cent of pensioners in England were living in households with relative low-incomes.

These are shameful statistics, masking the tragic lives of thousands.

MUSLIM COMMUNITIES

Muslim communities living in capitalist societies need to remember some basic matters to prevent falling prey to these powerful societal forces that have harmed so many elderly people. The Qur'an says in the meaning:

“Your Lord has commanded that you worship none but Him, and be kind to parents. If either or both of them reach old age with you, do not say 'uff' to them or chide them, but speak to them in terms of honor and kindness. Treat them with humility, and say, 'My Lord! Have mercy on them, for they did care for me when I was little'. (17:23-4)

In Sahih Bukhari it is narrated by Abu Bakra that the Prophet.(saw) said "The biggest of the great sins are: To join others in worship with Allah, to be undutiful to one's parents, and to give a false witness." He repeated it thrice, or said, "....a false statement," and kept on repeating that warning until we wished he would stop saying it.

Beyond this, wider family members whose own personal needs and surplus requirements are met, may be obliged to help weaker or poorer family members, if they are blessed with surplus wealth.

Islam also teaches us that our neighbours are not to be neglected, allowed to freeze to death or go malnourished – regardless of their background.

Ibn 'Abbas told Ibn az-Zubayr, "I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'A man is not a believer who fills his stomach while his neighbour is hungry.'"

In short, even if in a capitalist state there is no such thing as society, we must be certain that there is such as thing as family and community – regardless of whether these are Muslim or non-Muslim family members or neighbours.

MUSLIM SOCIETIES

In Muslim lands there has been a drive is to implement the capitalist system encouraged by international monetary institutions like the World Bank and IMF. Indeed this was accelerated by the direct colonisation and occupation in areas like Iraq and Afghanistan.

This must be resisted unless we wish to see generations of destitute pensioners and rampant individualism. The role of a government in Islam, the Khilafah, is not to tax till the pips squeak, nor to raid pension funds. Rather it is summarised in the words of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq as he assumed the position of Khalifah.

“The weak amongst you shall be strong with me until I have secured his rights, if God will; and the strong amongst you shall be weak with me until I have wrested from him the rights of others, if God will.”

These principles characterised the sense of justice in the Khilafah (Caliphate). They unpinned specific policies that emerged from the Ahkam Shariah regarding the economy. Those Shariah texts above and others about parents, the elderly, orphans and neighbours define the type of community that an Islamic state would be made up of. However, specific economic policies do lead to effective safety nets for the weak. The state is obliged cater for the needs of people when they are unable to do so themselves, or when their close family does not have the surplus to help them.

BBC: Britishness lessons 'fuel racism'

2007-04-08T03:41:00.000Z

Identity

Saturday, 07 April 2007

BBC News
By Gary Eason

The first ethnic minority president of the National Union of Teachers has said ministers fuel racism by ordering schools to teach "British values".

London assistant head teacher Baljeet Ghale told the union's annual conference Britain did not have a monopoly on free speech and tolerance.

The move only fuelled the "shadow of racism" behind some notions of Britishness, she said.

A government spokesman dismissed her claims as "nonsense".

Ms Ghale, who came to England from Kenya at the age of eight, also criticised Labour's record on other education issues.

Identities

In January, the government published a report it had commissioned from Sir Keith Ajegbo in the wake of the London bombings, into
how "citizenship" and "diversity" were being taught in schools.

It said more could be done to ensure children "explore, discuss and debate their identities".

At the NUT conference, in Harrogate, Ms Ghale said Education Secretary Alan Johnson had described the "values we hold very dear in Britain" as "free speech, tolerance, respect for the rule of law".

"Well, in what way, I'd like to know, are these values that are not held by the peoples of other countries?" she said.

If the current government was marked with an Ofsted grading it would be given a notice to improve Baljeet Ghale

It was another example of government making policy without talking to those it would most affect.

She wanted an education system that valued diversity and accepted her right to support Tottenham Hotspur - but France in the European Cup, Brazil in the World Cup, Kenya in the Olympics and India in cricket but England in the Ashes.

She went on: "I certainly don't pass Tebbit's cricket test but none of my affiliations make me a less valuable person or less committed to being part of this society, but they do make me a global citizen."

For some people, racism lay behind notions of what it meant to be British, she said.

The government's move was not about integration, participation or national pride but failure to assimilate or who should be here in the first place.

NUT conference ovation Ms Ghale received a standing ovation for her speech

"To demand that people conform to an imposed view of Britishness only fuels that racism," Ms Ghale said.

A spokesman for the Department of Education and Skills said: "It is nonsense to suggest that learning British values in citizenship classes - based on a major independent review by respected former headteacher Sir Keith Ajegbo - has anything to do with racism.

"On the contrary, teenagers learning about shared British history is one of the essential building blocks of community cohesion.

"Sir Keith's report in January concluded that all children should be taught core British values such as tolerance, freedom of speech and justice and included a series of recommendations aimed at improving community cohesion and helping children understand both diversity and identity."

Cuba

In her wider attack on Labour's record, the NUT president gave examples of failures in the school rebuilding programme, such as a new roof on part of a school being removed because the supplier had not been paid.

She said the money being spent on academies should be spread more widely around the system and she highlighted the smaller class sizes enjoyed by pupils in Cuba.

She called for the end of national testing and league tables and accused the government of having a negative and low expectation of pupils.

"If the current government was marked with an Ofsted grading it would be given a notice to improve," she said.

Its leadership and management was inadequate and change was required.

Obligation Of The Khilafah

2007-04-01T21:04:00.000Z

THE SAYINGS OF:

THE PROPHET (SAW),

HIS SAHABAH

& CLASSICAL SCHOLARS

REGARDING THE OBLIGATION OF KHILAFAH

SAYINGS OF THE PROPHET (SAW)

The Prophet said, "The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What do you order us (to do)?" He said, "Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first (i.e. every time a Caliph is selected). Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship."

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.661 Narrated byAbu Huraira

Abdullah ibn Umar: I have come to you to tell you a tradition I heard from the Messenger of Allah (saw). I heard him say: “One who withdraws his hand from obedience (to the Khalifah) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (Bayah to a Khalifah) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyyah (i.e. grave sin).” (Refer to Tafsir explanation on page 5 middle)

Sahih Muslim-Hadith 4562 Narrated by Abdullah ibn Umar

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: In the near future there will be Amirs and you will like their good deeds and dislike their bad deeds. One who sees through their bad deeds (and tries to prevent their repetition by his hand or through his speech), is absolved from blame, but one who hates their bad deeds (in the heart of his heart, being unable to prevent their recurrence by his hand or his tongue), is (also) safe (so far as God’s wrath is concerned). But one who approves of their bad deeds and imitates them is spiritually ruined. People asked (the Prophet): Shouldn't we fight against them? He replied: No, as long as they say their prayers. (Refer to Tafsir explanation on page 7 bottom).

Sahih Muslim Hadith 4569 Narrated byUmm Salamah

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke God's blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and who curse you. It was asked (by those present): Shouldn't we overthrow them with the help of the sword? He said: No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you then find anything detestable in them, you should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience.

Sahih Muslim Hadith 4573 Narrated byAwf ibn Malik

“If a slave having some limb of his missing and having dark complexion is appointed to govern you according to the Book of Allah the Exalted, listen to him and obey him.”

Sahih Muslim Hadith 2977 Narrated byUmm al-Husayn

The Prophet (saw) said: "Religion is sincerity". We said: "To whom?" He said: "To Allah and His Book, and His messenger, and to the leaders of the Muslims and their common folk".

Sahih Muslim Hadith collection Narrated by Tamim Al-Dari

The Prophet (saw) said: “if the leaders do not govern by the book of Allah, you should realize that this has never happened without Allah making them (the People) into groups and making them fight each other.”

Ibn Majah hadith Narrated by Ibn Umar

The Messenger Muhammad (saw) said: "There will be Nabuwa with Rehma (Prophethood with Mercy). Then there will be Khilafah with Ba’yah(Pledge). Then Allah will change it when He wishes. Then there will be Mulkan ‘Adoodan (Rule by force). Then Allah will change it when He wishes. Then there will be Mulkan Jabriya (against people’s will). Then Allah will change it when He wishes. Then there will be Khilafah Rashidah Minhaj An Nabuwa (Khilafah on the method of Prophethood). The earth and the sky will bestow their treasures."

Musnad (Hadith collection ) of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal

The Prophet (saw) said,

“The knots of Islam will be untied one by one until everyone of them is undone, the first to be undone will be the knot of ruling and the last will be the knot of Salah”

Musnad (Hadith collection ) of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal

The Prophet (SAW) said, “By Allah you have to enjoin good (Maroof) and forbid evil (Munkar), and hold against the hand of the unjust ruler (Dhalim), and force him on the truth strongly, or you have to limit him to the truth.”

Musnad (Hadith collection ) of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal

The Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:

"Allah does not punish the individuals for the sins of the community until they see the evil spreading among themselves, and while they have the power to stop it, do not do so."

Musnad (Hadith collection ) of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal

The Prophet (saw) said: “Whoever sees an Unjust ruler breaking the prohibition of Allah, breaking His covenant, disagreeing with the Sunnah of the Prophet, committing sins and creating animosity against the servants of Allah, and he does not say or do anything against it, then it is the right of Allah to let him enter with him (i.e. both the Individual and the Unjust ruler enter into hell).”

Reported in the Hadith collections of Tabba’i in At-Tarikh and Ibn Al-Atheer in AI-Kamel and others

The Messenger Muhammad (saw) said: "If anyone of you sees an aggressive oppressive ruler who makes the unlawful lawful, who dishonours Allah Rights, who governs over people not by what Allah (swt) has revealed without rising against him with a word or action, Allah (swt) will punish him with the oppressor (i.e. the ruled and the ruler together)".

It is narrated in the Hadith book of Ibn Hibbaan

The Messenger Muhammad (saw) said: "Allah will never forgive those who are not ruled over in accordance to what Allah has revealed and who do not ensure the rights of the weak (oppressed) which have been taken by the oppressors."

In the Hadith collection of Tabarani Narrated upon the authority of Ibn Abbas (ra)

"We were sitting outside the Prophet's house and He (saw) emerged and said: "Listen to me" and we said "We are listening" and He (saw) said "Listen to me" and we said "We are listening" and then He (saw) said, “There will be after me rulers, they will tell lies and they will oppress, do not believe their lies nor help them in their oppression. Whoever does so I am free of him and he will never come to my Hawodh (place) of intercession.”

Hadith collection of Ibn Hibbaan Narrated upon the authority of Abdullah bin Khabbab

The Prophet (saw) said: “There will be unjust rulers who cause hardship to their people. Whoever went along with their lies and helped them with their injustice, he is not from me nor am I from him, and he will not drink from Al-Hawd (the Pond)"

Reported in Hadith collections of Imam Ahmad, An-Nisa'ii, At-Tirmidhi and Al-Bazzar

Umar bin al khattab (ra) said: “The prophet (saw) said, “Listen and obey even a cut-nose Negro slave who governs you. If he inflicts you trouble, keep patience; if he asks you to do something, you carry it out; if he deprives you of the gifts ( and booties ), keep patience; but if he attempts to disrupt your deen, you tell him frankly, ‘ I shall shed my blood for my deen’ but never keep away from your jama’ah (people).”

Transmitted by Hadith collectors Ibn-Shaibah, Ibn-Jarir, Baihaqi, Naim and Humad (Al-Kanz al Ummal VOL III, pg, 167)

SAYINGS OF SAHABAH (COMPANIONS OF THE PROPHET [SAW])

A man came to Ubayy ibn Kab and said: "Advise me," and he replied: "Take the Book of God as (your) leader (imam). Be satisfied with it as (your) judge and ruler. It is what the Prophet has bequeathed to you. (It is your) intercessor with God and should be obeyed..."

Ubayy ibn Kab

A Woman asked Abu Bakr: "How long shall we enjoy this good order (i.e. the deen of islam) which Allah has brought after the period of ignorance?" He (ra) replied, "You will enjoy it as long as your Imams keep on abiding by its rules and regulations."

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith 5.175 Narrated by Qais bin Abi Hazim

When the prayer was over he (Umayr Ibn Sad) addressed them. He began by praising and giving thanks to God and sending peace and blessings on His Prophet Muhammad. Then he said: "O people! Islam is a mighty fortress and a sturdy gate. The fortress of Islam is justice and its gate is truth. If you destroy the fortress and demolish the gate you would undermine the defences of this religion; Islam will remain strong so long as the Sultan or central authority is strong. The strength of the Sultan neither comes from flogging with the whip, nor killing with the sword but from ruling with justice and holding fast to truth."

Umayr Ibn Sad Al-Ansari

Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (ra): said, "People must have an Amir, either just, or a tyrant, where the believer works under his Imara, (Islamic rule) and under which the unbeliever would also benefit, until his rule ended by the end of his life (ajal), the booty (fay’i) would be gathered, the enemy would be fought, the routes would be made safe, the strong one will return what he took from the weak till the tyrant would be contained, and would not bother anyone.”

In the book Nahjul-Balagha (part 1 page 91)

Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ra) said, “The people will not be straightened except by an Imam (Khalifah), whether he is good or bad”

Hadith collected by Bayhaqi, No, 14286, Kanz ul-ummal

Abdullah Ibn Umar (ra) said, “The people in the Ummah will not suffer even if they were oppressors and sinful and if the rulers were guided and guiding. But the people in the Ummah will suffer and perish even if they were guided and were guiding and if the rulers were oppressors and sinful”.

Abu Nu’aim narrated in Hulayat Awliyyah

Umar b. al-Khattab (ra) said: “There is no Islam without Jamaa’ah and there is not Jamaa’ah without Imaarah (Islamic leadership). And there is no Imaarah (Islamic leadership) without obedience.”

Reported by ad-Darimi in his Sunan (Hadith collection)

Umar Bin al-Khattab (ra) said, “There is no Islam without a community, and there is no community without a leadership, and there is no authority without hearing and obeying”.

Reported by Imam Askalani, in his ‘kitab al-Hisaba’

Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) said, "With respect to their morals, people resemble their rulers more than they resemble their fathers”

al-Majlisi, Biharal-Anwar, Vol,17, p.129.

Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ra) said, concerning (choosing the Khalifah), “no one has the right to become Khalifah except the one you choose.”

Tarikh Al-Tabari, vol 6, p 3077.

Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) said: “By Allah, what Allah protects and prevents by the Imam (Islamic ruler) is greater than what he protects and prevents by the Quran”

Narrated by Imam Al-Khateeb, narration 14284, in hadith collection Kanz al ummal

Abu Bakr (ra), said, “The later part of this Ummah will not be revived or reformed except by

resorting to what molded its shape in the beginning.” Narrated by Imam Malik

SAYINGS OF THE SCHOLARS

AI-Imam AI-Joziri d 508AH AI fiqh alal Mathahib AI-Arba’a (the fiqh of the four schools of thought), (volume 5, page 416) says:

"The Imams (scholars of the four schools of thought) may Allah have mercy on them agree that the Imama is an obligation, and that the Muslims mUst appoint an Imam who would implement the deen’s rites, and give the oppressed justice against the oppressors. It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Imams in the world whether in agreement or in discord".

Imam Bakillani in his book Kitab al Tawheed said

“The knowledge of Imamat is obligatory on every individual, just like the knowledge for prayer, fasting and hajj”

Sharh al-Aqa`id al-Nasafiyah of al Imam al Taftazani(died 809AH) pg 142-143

“There is Ijma`(concensus) that appointing an Imam is wajib(obligatory). The difference of opinion is on whether the the appointment must be by Allah or by his servants, and whether this basis (for appointment) is textual evidence or rational proof.

The adoption is that it is obligatory upon the servants by textual evidence because of the saying of the messenger (saw): “Whoever dies not having known the Imam of his time (i.e. bound himself in Bayah), dies the death of Jahilliyah (ignorance).” Also, the ummah agreed that this was the most important duty following the death of the Messenger (saw), so important in fact that they considered it more important than the matter of his burial, and so also has it been after the death of each Imam. And they must appoint someone, for so many Shariah obligations depend on this duty, as he (i.e. al-Nasafi, who was a noted Hanafi scholar who died in 1142 CE) indicated by this statement:

“The muslims simply must have an Imam, who will execute the rules, establish the hudud (penal system), defend the frontiers, equip the armies, collect the zakah, punish those who rebel (against the state) and those who spy and highwaymen, establish the jum`ah and the two Eids, settle the disputes amongst the servants (of Allah), accept the testimony of witnesses in matters of legal rights, give in marriage the young and poor who have no family, and distribute the booty ‘ (Taftazani adds:) ‘ and similar matters which other individuals from the ummah are not allowed to be in charge of.”

Imam Nawawi in Sharh al Muslim (commenatry on Sahih Muslim) said in Volume 1 page 139:

“No scholar has ever said that Islam can be implemented gradually”

(Al-jami al-Ahkam al-Quran (Sura 6:190). Ahkam al-Quran by Al-Jasas (Sura 2:533)

Imam Al-Qurtubi said, that, Ibn Masud and Al Hasan said;

“ it is general for all who do not judge by what Allah has revealed, meaning believing in that and making it lawful to do so.”

Imam al-Tabari, a leading commentator and interpreter, said in his book Jami' al-Bayan, on the meaning of this verse,"Allah (swt) means by this:

"Let there rise from among you group(s) Calling to Islam, commanding what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and these are the ones who are successful." [TMQ 3:104].

“ There should be among you a jama'a (group) inviting people to Islam and its laws."

Imam Qurtabi states in his AL Ahkam al Quran, VOL IV, pg, 47.

“everyone is not capable to command the right and to forbid the wrong, it can be effectively performed by the ruler (khalifah), for he holds the authority to frame such laws that may be in accord with shariah. His is the final word in all matters of consequence such as the legislation of laws and treatment of prisoners. The head of state should entrust an honest, strict and righteous person the responsibility of enforcing the dictates of shariah in all matters. For Allah says, ‘If we establish them in the land, (they are those who) establish regular prayer.”

Imam Ibn Taymiah States in his book AL Hasba Fi Islam, pg, 57.

“commanding the right and forbidding the wrong, remains ineffective unless the law (shariah) is operative in a society. The state is the best agency to enforce the directive of the Quran. It is obligatory on the rulers to enforce the law (shariah) which would result in commanding the right and forbidding the wrong.”

Ibn Taymiah states in his book AL Hasba Fi AL Islam, pg, 37

“The purpose of an Islamic State is to command the right and to forbid the wrong.”

Sharhu Sahih Muslim VOL, 12, pg, 205, Imam an-Nawawi said,

“(The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to

select a Khalifah”

(Siyasah Shariyah) chapter ‘the obligation of adherence to the leadership, Ibn Taymiyah said,

“ It is obligatory to know that the office in charge of commanding over the people (ie: the Khilafah post) is one of the greatest obligations of the deen. In fact , there is no establishment of the deen without it (ie: the Khilafah post) this is the opinion of the salaf, such as al-Fadl Ibn Iyaad,

Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and others”

(al-haythami in Sawaa’iq ul-Haraqah:17.) Imam al-haythami d 807AH said,

“ It is known that the Sahabah (r.a.h) consented that selecting the Imaam after the end of the era of prophethood was an obligation (wajib). Indeed they made it (more) important than the (other) obligations whilst they were busy with it over the burial of the Prophet (saw)”.

(Kitab ul-Kafi) Imam Ahmed d 241AH, said,

“ The fitna ( mischief and tribulations) occurs when there is no Imam

established over the affairs of the people”.

Al-Juwaini (Imama Al-Haramn) in his book Ghayyath Al-Ummam,p 54 said

“There is a consensus among Muslims from all schools of thoughts that the Imama (Khilafah) is Fard”

Imam al Amidi- Shafi Mazhab, Fi Gayat-ul-muram, pg 364 Said

“The opinion of the people of huq, amongst the muslims say, that establishing the imamah and appointing the imam and obeying him is fard upon muslims”

Imam Ibnu-Hazm d 452AH, in Fasal Min-al-Nihal vol 4, pg 87 Said

“It is agreed upon all al alsunnah , that establishing the imamah is fard upon the muslims, and it is an obligation upon them to be under one imam to establish the ahkam of Allah and to lead them by the ahkam of shariah”

Imam al Nasafi, Fi Hashyat-Shar al-aqaid al nasafia pg 187 Said

“Appointing the imam is fard- an obligation upon all muslims”

Imam al Bagdadi, d 463AH, Fi Kitab al Farku-Bayn al Firk, pg 210 Said,

“The imamah is fard wajib upon the ummah in order to appoint the imam, to implement the shariah and obeying him”

Imam Ibn Taymiah, Fi al Nazarat syasia al Islamiah, pg 175 Said

“Appointing the Khalifah and obeying him, is an obligation upon the muslim ummah”

Imam Nauwi, Fi Shar Muslim, vol 12 pg 205 Said

“The scholars are agreed upon, that it is an obligation upon the muslims to appoint a khalifah”

Imam Ibn Taimiyah al-Siyasah at-Shar'iyah, Said,

“Sixty years of an unjust imam (oppressive khalifah) is better than one night without a sultan (Islamic authority)”

Imam ash-Shawkaani in "Tafseer al-Qur'an al-Atheem", volume 2, page 215:

"It is known from Islam by necessity (bi-dharoorah - i.e.: like prayer and fasting) that Islam has forbidden division amongst Muslims and the segregation of their land".

Abdul hamid bin Yahya bin Saied al-A’miri (132H) in his book ‘Advice to the Khalifah’

“The Khilafah is the crown of all obligations and it is the jewel”

Imam Ibn Taymiah, al-Siyasah al Shariyah, p 189 Said,

“Without the coercive power of the state,(khilafah) the deen is in danger: and without the discipline of the revealed law (shariah), the state becomes a tyrannical organization.”

Ibn Kathir Tafseer Al-Qur'an Al-Atheem: (2/67).

Says about those who leave the laws of Allah and judge according to other laws;

“whoever does this is a disbeliever and it is an obligation to fight him until he returns to the laws of Allah and

his prophet (SAW), it is irrelevant if that part of the shari'ah which he has left is large or small.”

Narrated by Muslim from hadith Umm Salamah.

“There will be upon you leaders who you will recognise and disapprove of; whoever rejects them is free, whoever hates them is safe as opposed to those who are pleased and obey them", they said,

"should we not fight them".  He (SAW) said, "No as long as they

pray.”

Explanation of Sahih Muslim by Imam An-Nawawi (12/242 - 243).

 Imam An-Nawawi states in the explanation of the hadith

“As for his words 'should we not fight them?’ he (SAW) replied, 'No as long as they pray . . .  ', this contains the aforementioned meaning that it is not permissible to revolt against the khalifa for his mere

Injustice or rebellion as long as he does not change anything from the principles of Islam.”

Note- Changing principles of Islam clearly denotes: A Ruler changing the ruling and laws from Islamic to kufr, since Islam itself cannot be changed and this is not the meaning meant in the expression.

Ibn Hisham reports that, the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not approach the tribes for the purpose of seeking Nussrah to establish the Islamic State until this ayah was revealed:

"And say, ‘My lord, lead me in with the truth and lead me out with the truth, and grant me the authority with power to support me." [EMQ - 17:80]

Ibn Khaldun (Classical Muslim Scholar of Sociology & Civilisation) said in his book ‘Muqadima’:

“Anyone who thinks he can Revive Islam by himself, is deluded”

ANSWERING THE CALL OF ALLAH (SWT) AND HIS PROPHET (SAW)

These ahadith and many others like it conclusively show the obligation on all Muslims to establish the Khilafah and the absolute necessity to strive until this ultimate Tawheed becomes established on earth “la ilaha il Allah” (I.e. No idol worship, No obedience to a President/king, No blind following of Society, No blind following of scholars- NOTHING is worthy as one’s first reference point in life EXCEPT Allah (swt)).

How can we live by Islam in a society that is based upon something other than it? It is society that changes us- why should we endure a never-ending battle with it’s Fitna, when the solution is right around the corner like a hidden treasure; waiting for us to embrace it and benefit from its guidance.

If a man refused to perform the obligatory prayer, claiming “I am not ready to pray, I have weak Iman (belief), thus I shall wait until it improves then I shall pray”, one is likely to correct his view by telling him that Iman doesn’t improve until we fulfill the obligations of Allah (swt). The same can be said about the obligation of the Khilafah. This means that in order for us as Muslims (as a society) to implement Islam in every aspect of our lives, we must reject all human rulers and rules and in all matters, take as our lord and sovereign only Allah (swt).

Therefore, just as one does not need to be perfect in order to fulfill the obligation of Salaah, the Muslims do not need to be perfect in order to undertake the Khilafah -just so that they establish it and trust in Allah (swt) for victory and success. As with Salah, the Khilafah is not the end result in perfecting oneself- but it is the MEANS to perfection- in this case, perfection and purification of society.

When the Ummah lost the Khilafah, not only did we lose the only means available to us to protect ourselves from social corruptions and dangers, we also lost the most important heritage Our Prophet Muhammed (saw) left to the Ummah (after the Quran and Hadith) - His (saw) last wishes were commands to the Muslims to hear and obey their Islamic Rulers appointed over us to rule by the Quran and Sunnah (Refer to Umar’s report, Page: 4 bottom) so that we do not become divided and fall into ruin.

Now is not the time to fight with each other while Muslims are being oppressed, killed and tortured- now is not the time to segregate ourselves into imagined “sects” by slandering each other over differences of opinion (e.g. false allegations of rejecting Punishments of the Grave or other Belief issues- which in reality, no one rejects!). Now is the time for Unity and sincere efforts towards pleasing our Creator in all our actions and in creating a better future for the Muslim Ummah in this life and the next.

The obligation of Khilafah requires Muslims to help and support those who are organised in sincerely carrying out the political work necessary for this purpose, until the flag of the Prophet (saw) once again flutters in the wind above the heads of the Ummah inshallah, as the Prophet (saw) said:

“..Then there will be Khilafah on the method of Prophethood. The earth and the sky will bestow their treasures."

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal

For more information, please email Tafkeer.Productions@gmail.com

Laughing All The Way To The Caliphate

2007-03-31T16:29:00.000Z

Laughing all the way to the caliphate

MUHAMMAD ASIM
There was a time when one spoke of the Khilafah it was said that the person speaking such of such things was a dreamer, an idealist who did not quite have a grip on reality. The idea was often dismissed as being nothing more than the result of youthful political activism, a new way for the next generation to express their independence and perhaps even a form of rebellion against the old guard who had grown up in awe of the West, in particular its economic and technological advancement.

Those of the older generation who did express some form of sympathy or understanding for the view of the caliphate often restricted their support to the principle of the cause, saying that times are too difficult for us to be thinking of such grand schemes as essentially resurrecting a dead empire to rule over the world as the premier nation once more. This isn’t a description of a time long past; rather it is a situation that existed only as little as five years ago.

What has changed since then is something that everyone in the world can see. Not only are the Muslims of the world beginning to sit up and realise their collective power, the rulers of the Muslims are now not only oppressing those who call for the Islamic Khilafah in secret but they are doing so in an open manner.

They themselves now feel the need to engage the Muslim Ummah at large with regards to the discussion about the Khilafah. When people like Musharraf lose their composure at an international setting such as he did during his trip to the UK at the end of 2004, you know that the pressure is building and the race is well and truly on to win the hearts and minds of the Muslims once and for all. When tyrants like Karimov, after butchering thousands in Andijan, can only offer the most laughable of excuses in order to justify his actions, namely that what his regime did was to prevent the rise of a Caliphate that would unite the Muslims, you know the intellectual battle has been well and truly lost by the West, especially when no one even bothers to ask the question “What’s wrong if the Muslims unite?”

But if this was not enough, what has particularly stirre
d the Muslims into realising the feasibility of the Khilafah is the weakness of the Western world itself not only to convince the Muslims of their ideas, but also its inability to exert its control over the Muslims by force, despite having a truly massive advantage over the Muslims currently in terms of economy and military force. The Ummah is managing to hold the so called superpower of the world at bay with only a few people armed with small arms in Iraq. This, despite the fact that the Muslim armies have not even been unleashed from their barracks by a sincere leadership to go and defend the honour of the Muslim Ummah; to be the source of security for the sisters of this Ummah who are raped by the disbelieving soldiers of the colonial armies.

Of all the kind of people that exist in this world, I would most certainly not like to be in the shoes of any of the Muslim rulers right now. What must people like Musharraf be thinking right now, being the leader of a country that was born out of the desire of the people to have an Islamic State? If that wasn’t enough, the cold war made sure that the Pakistani Army became an army motivated by the concept of Jihad.

Of course, being the strategist that he is he has already been taking steps to ensure that his military top brass are loyal to him by constantly switching the Corp Commanders and the like. Can he really trust these men though? Can he really be sure that they won’t betray him for a cause of their own, Islamic or otherwise?
Perhaps the new US bases that are being built, such as the one near Islamabad, will provide some level of comfort and security to him. Would they though be able to protect him against not just a rebellion of the armed forces, but the uprising of an entire nation that by each passing day is surely becoming inevitable against his incompetent rule that allows the foreign policy of the country to be dictated by foreigners and the internal services to be ridden with corruption?

Truly the hard work has been done for the establishment of the Khilafah. In fact, people are already starting to move for the Khilafah. Last year there was an attempted coup in Egypt by a section of the armed forces, who demanded that Mubarak implement the Sharia. Though this was put down in the same unsophisticated manner by the Egyptian regime as has been done so in the past, this does not bode well for the Muslim rulers. In Turkey, a nation that is held up by the West as a model state for other Muslims nations to aspire to has its population yearning for Islam.

Though none of the parties that contend in the elections are Islamic in their basis the Ummah in Turkey still went for the most ‘Islamic’ option. In Uzbekistan, people have now gone as far as to give their blood and lives in their cry for a sincere Islamic leadership, as was demonstrated in the recent massacre that took place in Andijan. Even Western intelligence agencies and think tanks are predicting the return of the Khilafah.

A report released by the CIA’s National Security Council on January 13, 2005 predicts in one of four possible scenarios that by 2020 the Khilafah would have been established already for a number of years. Donald Rumsfeld regularly mentions the threat of a Caliphate in his speeches now, as do the US Generals in the Middle East such as General Abizaid, when he said that they were fighting, “the most despicable enemy … who use 21st century-technology to spread their vision of a 7th-century paradise (and) try to re-create what they imagine was the pure and perfect Islamic government of the era of the prophet Muhammad.”

Henry Kissinger has said, as quoted in the Hindustan Times Nov 2004, “…what we call terrorism in the United States, but which is really the uprising of radical Islam against the secular world, and against the democratic world, on behalf of re-establishing a sort of Caliphate.”
An Islam that is political, an Islam that is challenging, an Islam that represents a threat to Western colonialism and imperialism, an Islam that would be an alternative to the existing way of life in the world today is labeled as radical and extreme. The West has no problem with a secular, spiritual version of Islam; for then it would be just like any other religion for them that submits to the capitalist doctrine of secularism. It is the Islam of the noble Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that the colonialists fear, the Islam of the righteous Khulafa.

The saddest thing is though that despite it being demonstrated clearly by the reality that the return of the Khilafah is on the brink, that the final push that is needed is still delayed. This is especially worth noting for the power brokers in Pakistan; those with the material means to actually bring about effective change and remove the physical obstacles that stand in the way of the re-establishment of Islam as State once more. These people who have the means to bring the change should cast their minds back to the time of the establishment of the first Islamic State in Medina by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

The establishment of this State was no accident, as is clearly demonstrated by studying the manoeuvres that Muhammad (pbuh) undertook before arriving in Medina. The second pledge of Aqaba makes clear that the Prophet (pbuh) was after a strong armed force to support him, which came in the form of the Ansar (Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj). The State was not established until the bayah (oath of allegiance) was given to the Prophet (pbuh). What should also not be forgotten is the reward that was bestowed upon the one who actually gave the nusrah (material support), Saad ibn Muad. It is reported that Gibrael (as) came to the Prophet (pbuh) and told him that a person from his Ummah had died, and as a result the Throne of Allah (swt) had shaken. The noble Prophet Muhammad replied saying that it must have been Saad ibn Muad.

There is no doubt that the Muslims are ready to accept the Khilafah en mass. All that remains is that someone in the correct position of power to think enough is enough and act. That is something that is inshallah getting closer and closer, as now since the Muslims are ready, only the political environment needs to be correct. And that is, most amusingly of all, being prepared by the Western States themselves by their continued onslaught against the Muslims which is leading not only to their alienation amongst Muslims, but also causing a sense of disenfranchisement amongst their own populations.

Email: asim1980s@hotmail.com

Article Link Found Here

Khilafah Is The Answer, No To Democracy!

2007-03-27T17:57:00.000Z

Western democracy means Occupation
Western democracy means humiliation
Western democracy means genocide
Western democracy means supporting brutal dictators Western democracy means cluster bombing
Western democracy means double standerd
Western democracy means might is right
Western democracy means WAR
Western democracy means exploitation
Western democracy means imperialism
Western democracy means killing innocent kids
Western democracy means ABU GHARIB Torture Prison
Western democracy means rape and massrape
Western democracy means stealing OIL
Western democracy means election useless in Pelestine
Western democracy means divide and rule
Western democracy means Gas pipeline to steal gas
Western democracy means Guantanamo Bay
Western democracy means secret prisons
Western democracy means no Human rights
Western democracy means supporting murder of 700 civilian in Uzbekistan
Western democracy means CIA'sRendition
Western democracy means killing news reporters
Western democracy means bombing Al-Jazeera office in Kabul
Western democracy means supporting Israeli Apartheid
Western democracy means modern slavery
Western democracy means Project American Power

wake up oppressed peoples, let the world know what 'DEMOCRACY' means.

Let the muslim world know 'KHILAFAH' is their only solution

Why do some feel Britain has become a police state?

2007-03-23T00:40:00.000Z

Why do some feel Britain has become a police state?

By Taji Mustafa

A climate of fear

A telling, yet unremarkable exchange occurred on the BBC’s 10 o'clock news after the arrests of 9 men in Birmingham in early February. The BBC reporter, Rajesh Mirchandani said that some Muslim students had told him they would no longer discuss politics in case they are branded as terrorist suspects and arrested. Their dilemma highlights the differing perceptions of “the state”; in modern day Britain.

In the 70s, 80s and 90s, long before 9/11, 7/7 or any other such event, Muslims in Britain identified with and supported the struggles of fellow Muslims in the Muslim world; in a manner not dissimilar to how many in Britain have supported struggles in South Africa and South and Central America over decades. India’s occupation of Kashmir, the Palestinian and Chechen suffering and resistance, were subject of heartfelt prayers in mosques, dinner table conversations and charitable collections for innocent victims. To many other Britons, Kashmir and Chechnya were distant issues which got the occasional mention on the news. However with Bush and Blair’s declaration of their “war on terror”;, support for the legitimate resistance movements has been criminalised and some have been arrested under new anti-terror laws, not for targeting civilians, but for supporting those fighting occupation in their lands, just as Britain did in the Falklands; resistance which the vast majority of Muslims; and many non Muslims - continue to see as legitimate. Without question, these legal changes not only fail Ken Livingstone’s famous “Mandela test”, but they do so in a way that disproportionately affects the Muslim community.

Many in this community have either been stopped and searched in the street, stopped and questioned at airports or have been arrested - or else personally know someone who has experienced something similar. Ask a black person if they have been stopped and searched and they are far more likely to say yes than a white person. Ask someone if they have been questioned about their personal beliefs on social, political and religious issues at an airport, and most people will wonder what you are talking about, except people from the Muslim community for whom it is an increasingly regular occurrence.

The shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes led many Muslims to not unreasonably conclude that a shoot to kill policy has been applied to people who look Muslim. Muslims are also acutely aware of the detention of people who are designated as “foreign suspects” and detained without charge for up to 3 years, based on secret evidence which was not disclosed to them and which they were unable to challenge, forcing some to decide to take the risk of going back to countries like Algeria which practice torture, rather than face indeterminate house arrests (control orders) in the UK.

Since the introduction of stop and search profiling, which Hazel Blears famously told the Muslim community to be prepared to accept, and the adoption of 28 day detention without charge, peoples’ lives have been ruined by these arrests. Some detained for a mere two days have lost their jobs and reputations. It appears people are no longer innocent until proven guilty - rather we now have trial by a presumption of guilt and trial by media. The term “terrorist suspect”; has all the emphasis on “terrorist”; and none of the cautions of “suspect” Against the backdrop of creeping state authoritarianism for all of society and anti-terror policies that disproportionately target one community, is there any wonder that some feel that Britain is becoming a police state for Muslims”; Adding to the sense of alienation, many Muslims feel that some in society are relentlessly demanding that they solve “the problem”;; as if the whole Muslim community is responsible for the July 7 bombings. Rarely a day goes by without someone telling the British public that some Islamic value or practice threatens the very life of the nation.

For many, the proposed introduction of ID cards, 28 day detention without charge and the proliferation of CCTV cameras has led to talk of growing authoritarianism in Britain. The arrest of John Catt, an 80-year-old peace campaigner, for wearing a t-shirt with anti-Blair and Bush slogans and the arrest of 84-year-old Walter Wolfgang at the Labour party conference under anti-terror laws, led a national newspaper to craft the headline: Blair’s Britain 2005, where peaceful protest can be costly. Keith Shilson, a Student Union leader at Middlesex University, was frog marched off campus for daring to organise a public meeting for people to question Hizb ut-Tahrir, after Tony Blair had only proposed banning the group. Such was the effect of Blair’s statement, that the “policing” of thoughts did not even require a change of law in this McCarthyite atmosphere.

New laws against “glorification” were criticised not just by the usual “liberals”; but by many eminent personalities in the House of Lords who accused the government of using them to create an atmosphere that silences legitimate voices of dissent and which would have led to Nelson Mandela being branded a “terrorist”. The war on terror has led to the erosion of basic principles which were believed to prevent society descending a slippery slope. These were the basic principles that Western nations used to preach, and more recently tried to enforce by military means, to the world. At one time, these were presumed to be principles worth fighting for, but now these principles have become casualties of war.

With some calling for 90 day detention without charge and America’s use of torture “lite”, many wonder where this will end, and no one should feel surprised that both the Archbishop of York, who escaped Idi Amin’s Uganda, and an innocent man whose life and reputation have been shaken by a wrongful arrest in Birmingham, use the words “police state”.

A benign state

When the Birmingham man Abu Bakr said Britain is a 'police state for Muslims', some strongly disagreed with his characterisation. They argued that there is due process. After all, the courts freed Abu Bakr against police wishes and he was able to speak to the media about his experience afterwards. They argued that the threat society faces is from Muslims, hence inevitably some innocent Muslims will be arrested.

It is worth repeating that they are not from a community where many (young and old) now expect to be taken aside at airports and questioned by Special Branch, at the end of which they ask you to work for them. They are not from a community where we all know someone who has been arrested under anti-terror laws, stopped and searched on the streets or repeatedly detained at airports. They are not from a community which is disproportionately targeted primarily because of its opposition to the policies of the government against their co-religionists abroad. They are not in a community where people are now afraid to voice their support for legitimate resistance struggles of their fellow Muslims because the government has branded that “terrorism”.

A police state?

In short, different sections of British society now have quite different experiences of security in Britain. In Egypt, some sections of society do not ever experience the oppressive nature of the state. Similarly, many in Idi Amin’s Uganda, or South Africa under apartheid never tasted the true nature of the state. In Britain, the fact that this increasingly affects a minority and not the majority should be of concern because what starts small inevitably grows.

In Egypt, some, including British tourists - do not feel it is a police state because they are uncritical of the government and hence don’t get touched by the state’s repressive measures. However, bloggers, guests who criticise the regime on satellite TV stations and the masses who bear the brunt of arrests and torture - are clear that Egypt is a police state.

At the height of the lurid reporting after the Birmingham arrest, with mounting public anxiety, John Reid suddenly resurrected plans for 90 day detention having said two months earlier that he did not see a case for it. What we are seeing is the deliberate politicisation of 'terror' - so that politicians can talk tough for political gain and new draconian measures can be forced through. Some of the speeches by police chiefs, the head of MI5, the questions asked about beliefs by the police and the briefings from the security services all betray the politicisation of these services.

Conclusion

Some will see the rehearsal of these arguments as more whinging. Some will see the criticisms of the security services as irresponsible and ignoring a real threat. Some see the case as an exaggeration. Whatever people think, it would be prudent to listen to this “whinging” objectively if anybody really cared about security. Ignoring the arguments because they do not match your experience does not in any way remove the validity of the sentiments of many that, in this current climate, Britain does feel more like a police state for many of its citizens.

Taji Mustafa

Media Representative, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain

Transforming Islam’s Holiest Site

2007-03-21T04:30:00.000Z

Transforming Islam’s Holiest Site,

NY Times: The Price of Progress: Transforming Islam’s Holiest Site
Western Intervention
Thursday, 15 March 2007
The New York Times
By HASSAN M. FATTAH

MECCA, Saudi Arabia - Five times a day across the globe devout Muslims face this city in prayer, focused on a site where they believe Abraham built a temple to God. The spot is also the place Muslims are expected to visit at least once in their lives.

Now as they make the pilgrimage clothed in simple white cotton wraps, they will see something other than the stark black cube known as the Kaaba, which is literally the center of the Muslim world. They will also see Starbucks. And Cartier and Tiffany. And H&M and Topshop.

The Abraj al Bait Mall - one of the largest in Saudi Arabia, outfitted with flat-panel monitors with advertisements and announcements, neon lights, an amusement park ride, fast-food restaurants and a lingerie shop - has been built directly across from Islam's holiest site.

Not everyone considers this progress.

"Mecca is becoming like Las Vegas, and that is a disaster," said Ali al-Ahmed, director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs in Washington, a Saudi opposition research organization. "It will have a disastrous effect on Muslims because going to Mecca will have no feeling. There is no charm anymore. All you see is glass and cement."

The mall, which opened a week before the annual pilgrimage, called the hajj, in December, is the first phase in a $13 billion construction boom in Mecca that promises to change how this city, forbidden to everyone but Muslims, looks and feels.

The Abraj al Bait housing and hotel complex, a 1.5-million-square-yard development that will include a towering hotel, has begun to redraw the skyline of this ancient religious city.

When the project is completed in 2009, it will include the seventh tallest building in the world, its developers say, with a hospital, hotels and prayer halls. A public-announcement system pipes in prayers from the Grand Mosque across the way, and worshipers can join the masses simply by opening their draperies.

In nearby Jabal Omar, an entire mountain is being flattened to make way for a huge hotel and high-rise complex. And elsewhere, cranes dot the skyline with up to 130 new high-rise towers planned for the area.

"This is the end of Mecca," said Dr. Irfan Ahmed in London. He has formed the Islamic Heritage Foundation to try to preserve the Islamic history of Mecca, Medina, the second holiest city, and other important religious sites in Saudi Arabia. "Before, even in the days of the Ottomans, none of the buildings in Mecca towered higher than the Grand Mosque. Now these are much higher and more disrespectful."

Money is certainly one of the motivators in the building boom. Every year, up to four million people descend on this city during the pilgrimage, while a stream continues to flow through here during the year, spending an average $2,000 to $3,000 to stay, eat and shop.

Billboards along the way to Mecca remind investors of the potential earnings from owning an apartment here; some claim a 25 percent return on investment. Advertisements on Arab satellite television channels remind viewers that "you, too, can have the opportunity to enjoy this blessed view."

Muhammad al-Abboud, a real estate agent, recounts tales of Pakistani businessmen plunking down $15 million to buy several apartments at a time. Saudi princes own entire floors.

A three-bedroom apartment here runs about $3 million, Mr. Abboud said. One directly overlooking the Grand Mosque can reach $5 million.

Critics of the development complain that the result is gated communities where worshipers can separate themselves from the crowds, thereby violating the spirit of the hajj, where all stand equal before God.

"All of Mecca is a sanctuary," Mr. Abboud said. "So how could something like this not be snapped up?" But some groups say the building boom also has religious motives. They accuse the archconservative Salafi, who hold great sway in Saudi Arabia, of seeking to eliminate historic spots, fearing that these sites would become objects of worship themselves.

Dr. Ahmed of London has cataloged the destruction of more than 300 separate antiquity sites, including cemeteries and mosques. He says the house where the Prophet Muhammad lived was razed and today a dilapidated library, with its windows and doors shuttered, stands in its place.

"It is not respecting the Kaaba, not respecting the house of God or the environment of the sanctuary," Sami Angawi, a Saudi architect who wants to preserve Mecca's heritage, said of the development. "You are not supposed to even cut a tree in this city, so how could you blow up a mountain? The Islamic laws have been broken."

Progress has exacted a heavy price in Mecca. More pilgrims than ever can come here, thanks to billions spent on tunnels and infrastructure to accommodate them. But in exchange, the city's once famed night market, where pilgrims brought their wares to sell, is gone. The Meccan homes and buildings that filled the area near the mosque were demolished in the 1970s to enlarge the mosque. The neighborhoods and families who lived near the mosque and welcomed pilgrims have long since moved away.

Mecca has long been a commercial as well as a religious center, but increasingly global brands dominate here.

Mr. Angawi, the Saudi architect, has led a lonely campaign within the kingdom to bring attention to the destruction of the historic sites. Dr. Ahmed has worked to lobby Asian and Arab governments to press the Saudis to stop such demolitions. And Mr. Ahmed, in Washington, has built a database of the historic spots now destroyed. Many Muslims inside and outside Saudi Arabia have remained silent about the issues, they say, fearing the loss of financing from Saudi Arabia for religious institutions and projects.

Saudi officials say they have been painstakingly preserving the Islamic artifacts they find, and operate two small museums in Mecca. In all, they say, more than $19 billion has been spent on preserving the country's Muslim heritage. They dismiss their critics as cranks who have no following.

Developers and real estate agents, meanwhile, say the construction makes room for even more Muslims to take part in the hajj, and therefore serves the greater good.

That suggests that the changes are far from over.

"Mecca has never been changed like it has now," Mr. Angawi said. "What you see now is only 10 percent of what's to come. What is coming is much, much worse."

Iraq: A New Way Forward

2007-03-20T19:08:00.001Z

Chapter 1 - The Real Problem is Occupation
Chapter 2 - The Myth of the Shia Sunni Divide
Chapter 3 - Why Western states have lost the moral legitimacy to stay in the region
Chapter 4 - Iran and the Nuclear Myth
Chapter 5 - Why more troops won't solve the problem in Iraq
Chapter 6 - The West's poor track record in Nation Building
Chapter 7 - An Islamic Alternative - Separating Fact From Myth

Download Report

21/7 bomb claim impossible - expert

2007-03-14T21:16:00.001Z

21/7 bomb claim impossible - expert

A July 21 suspect's claim that he diluted hydrogen peroxide used in the "bombs" with London tap water is "impossible", a court has heard.

Muktar Said Ibrahim admits making all the rucksack devices but claims none of them were capable of detonating. He did not intend to kill or seriously injure anyone and even conducted tests on the peroxide and chapatti flour mixtures to ensure they would only go "pop", Woolwich Crown Court was told earlier.

The jury heard that Ibrahim claims he strengthened the hydrogen peroxide in a north London flat - said to be the home of another alleged bomber, Yassin Omar - but then "watered it down".

Stuart Black, an isotope and geochemistry specialist with 13 years' experience, examined samples of main charge residue found at the four July 21 scenes - Oval, Shepherd's Bush, Warren Street and the Number 26 bus - and from the flat at Curtis House, new Southgate, and the bins outside.

He told the court he also looked at published data on the isotope composition of London tap water, which comes from an underground source.

When asked about Ibrahim's tap water claim, he said it was "impossible" from an isotopic ratio viewpoint.

Ibrahim, 29, of Stoke Newington, north London, is one of six men accused of taking part in an extremist Muslim plot to carry out a series of explosions on the London transport system.

The others are Omar, 26, of New Southgate, north London; Hussain Osman, 28, of no fixed address; Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, 33, of no fixed address; Ramzi Mohammed, 25, of North Kensington, west London; and Adel Yahya, 24, of High Road, Tottenham, north London.

They all deny charges of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life.

Muslim Message To The World part 2

2007-01-25T15:52:00.000Z

http://youtube.com/neocarvi

Muslim Message To The World part 2

Exclusive: A letter from Baghdad

2007-01-25T15:41:00.000Z

Exclusive: A letter from Baghdad

The message below, from Abu Abdallah (a resident of Baghdad) was read out to the demonstrators who marched to the US embassy on the 20th January to protest Bush’s re-invasion (“troop surge”) of Iraq and the bombing of Somalia.

Dear Brothers and Sisters
Assalamu alaikum.wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

I pray this letter reaches you in London. May Allah ‘Azza wa Jall reward you all for making this effort regarding the crisis in Iraq. I thank Allah Ta’ala for giving me the opportunity to address you with a short message.

Before we had the tyranny of Saddam, now we have the tyranny of the occupiers and their new agents. But it is still tyranny. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein we faced much oppression. Especially those people who carried the Islamic Dawah. We were chased, beaten and murdered. Our families lived in fear. Since the fall of Saddam, things are far worse. Still we are chased and beaten and murdered, but those who do this do it for different reasons.

We have no security. People try not to leave their houses because when you leave home, you don’t know if you will return. No one is safe; some of us have sent our families abroad. When you leave home, if you fail to stop at a British or US checkpoint, you could get shot or arrested and they can treat you as they like, though they are the invaders! And now Bush wants to send 20,000 more invaders, telling the world that these will bring us peace.

In truth, before the invasion and occupation, we did not have hatred and sectarian problems in Iraq. This is a creation of those who have occupied our land. They have placed one of us against the other, making us political rivals. Now they use this as their excuse to remain in Iraq.
Apart from the problems of our safety, we lack electricity, medicines, and jobs – whereas before we at least had all these things. They have destroyed this land, divided our people, established bases in our land and are stealing its resources.

On top of this we have seen the humiliating destruction of masajid and abuses against our people by the occupiers.

My dear brothers and sisters. I ask of you help from London. We ask for your dua, and some of you may send your sadaqah. But more than this I ask you to spread a message.

Tell people about the problems that we face. Make sure people know about these abuses – like in Haditha and Fallujah where so many were massacred, and Abu Ghraib. Let people know that Sunni and Shia did not hate each other before they have been placed against each other. When you hear that the people who are fighting the occupation are called terrorists – tell the people – NO. They are resisting the invader who occupies their land and steals their wealth. That is the same that anyone will do. You can be a voice for us. We ask Allah to help you with this.
We ask you also to work for the unity of the Islamic world in order to be able to stand against people who play with us to compete with each other over the share of the cake.

May Allah Subhanahu wa Tala protect you and us and bring His Victory soon.

Your brother,
Abu Abdallah from Baghdad

Hebron: Tens of thousands attend demonstration in Palestine

2007-01-22T01:45:00.000Z

Hebron: Tens of thousands attend demonstration in Palestine

Hebron, Palestine August 2006: To mark the abolition of the Khilafah (Caliphate) on the 28th Rajab, tens of thousands of members and supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir Palestine marched in central Hebron. Calls for Muslims around the world to unite and take on the task of re-establish the caliphate was announced on the stage. The demonstration ended with a call for the people of influence in the Muslim world to rise up against the incompetent, corrupt and western inspired puppet rulers that plague the Muslim world.

HTB Demonstration to the US Embassy

2007-01-22T01:32:00.000Z

HTB Demonstration to the US Embassy
Article from Hizb-ut-Tahrir Britain

HTB Demonstration to the US EmbassyHTB calls for solidarity with Muslims of Iraq and Somalia against the continued American hubris London, UK, January 20 2007 – Over 1200 members of the Muslim community marched to the US embassy in a protest organised by Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain against the announced increase of US troops to Iraq and the recent US air strikes and intervention in Somalia. The protestors were addressed by speakers, including representatives of the Somali Community, who articulated in unison that the Islamic World needs an end to US interventions, energy inspired wars, puppet governments and western values forced by the barrel of a gun. Taji Mustafa [Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain Media representative], Abdullahi Jama [Somali community leader] and Muhammad Amin [Somali community leader] addressed the enormous problems, the death of civilians, and the turmoil the US inspired Ethiopian invasion of Somalia has caused. Muhammad Amin explained how death and destruction reigned upon innocent civilians – including nomads and their livestock as well as a wedding party - when the US bombed the south of the country. He passionately spoke of the hope and optimism the Union of Islamic Courts brought about when they replaced instability with stability. This instability has returned with the US installing its puppet government who rely upon the hated warlords that wreaked havoc across Somalia, killing and abusing for over a decade. Taji Mustafa exposed the propaganda that uses the ‘war on terror’ as an excuse for every atrocity and explained how western corporations have benefited from the destruction in Iraq and aim to benefit from Somalia. Demonstrators heard a moving testimony from Abu Abdullah who lives in Baghdad. The letter was sent especially for the demonstration and illustrated first hand how the US has turned Iraq into a blood bath. Abu Abdullah in his letter, Massoud Shadjareh [Islamic Human Rights Commission] and Maajid Nawaz [Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain] in their speeches all outlined practical actions the demonstrators could undertake in order to help their brothers and sisters in Somalia and Iraq. Abu Abdullah urged Muslims in Britain to be a voice for the oppressed and urged them never to be silent in advocating the truth about what is happening in Iraq. Massoud Shadjareh and Maajid Nawaz called for Muslim unity and an Islamic state to protect the Ummah. In particular Massoud Shadjareh said Muslims needed to stand against all forms of oppression in society, whilst Maajid Nawaz explained that a comprehensive solution – the Caliphate - was needed to address the multitude of problems in the Muslim world. He urged Muslims everywhere to join the noble work for the Caliphate, so that the dictatorships in the Muslim world can be replaced by a sincere leadership that cares for and protects its citizens from the colonial foreign policies of Bush and Blair.

More Photos:

Abdullahi Jama [Somali community leader] and Muhammad Amin [Somali community leader] with HTB Members

Taji Mustafa [Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain Media representative]

Dr Imran Waheed, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain

Islam Heals

2006-11-07T17:33:00.000Z

Islam Heals

o0o nice website from a clever sister

Yemen.. much closer

2006-11-03T21:39:00.000Z

Yemen..yet some more

2006-11-03T21:38:00.000Z

Yemen! More of it!

2006-11-03T21:37:00.000Z

Yemen! its so beautiful do not you think?

2006-11-03T21:32:00.000Z

Muslims Message To The World

2006-10-27T01:43:00.000Z

looking like a typical Jihadi video....

Blair confirms that attack on Muslim community is about Islam, not security

2006-10-27T01:40:00.000Z

London, UK, October 17 – It is clear from Tony Blair's monthly press conference today that the attack that the Government has been spearheading against the Muslim community is about Islam and not security. He described the veil as a 'mark of separation', said that he fully supported the sacking of a Muslim classroom assistant, questioned Islam's role in the 'modern world' and once again dismissed any notion that violence and instability are being caused by British foreign policy.

Commenting on this, Dr Imran Waheed, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain , said, "Despite the fact that the veil has no impact on cohesion and security, Blair insists on joining a succession of Ministers in attacking it. In contrast, the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq has clearly adversely affected community cohesion and security, yet Blair defends it. Making the Niqab (veil) the issue of the day, rather than the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan , shows that the Government is more interested in attacking Islam than tackling insecurity."

"Recent events have again illustrated the hypocrisy of 'free speech' and tolerance. While Blair claims he wants a debate about the Niqab (veil), he will not countenance anyone questioning his disastrous intervention in Iraq and his continued support for dictators in the Muslim world."

Iraq Is Invaded

2006-05-15T01:17:00.000Z

"There was never a plan to leave Iraq because there is no intention to leave Iraq. We (the Americans) are currently building 14 bases there. Dick Cheney can't imagine giving up that oil. The military can't imagine giving up those bases. That's why they can't come up with a plan to leave." - Chalmers Johnson, author of Sorrows of Empire, in LA Weekly, July 6 2004

In the good old days we use to call that an invasion. Why do we allow Terrorist ( The Americans ) to get away with this? Aren't we meant to be fighting agaisnt those who terrorise the innocent and abuse them, why do we allow for the taking of the innocent? ha! and Mr Bush says they hate our freedom and liberty? If he means oppression and colonision a country for your own benefit and material gain and do not care who gets hurt as long as its not you as Freedom? he must mean the Freedom to Terrorise the world if anything not to liberate.

May the muslim ummah unite and rise up soon inshallah the True Freedom shall be shown

...a time where they had the cajones to say what they think.

2006-05-04T19:50:00.000Z

"Every civil building connected with Mahommedan tradition should be levelled to the ground without regard to antiquarian veneration or artistic predilection." -British Prime Minister - Palmerston's Letter No. 9 dated 9 October 1857, to Lord Canning, Viceroy of India, Canning Papers

Surah 81. The Overthrowing, Extinguished! Wrapping Things Up

2006-03-03T13:23:00.000Z

Surah 81. The Overthrowing, Extinguished! Wrapping Things Up

1. When the sun (with its spacious light) is folded up;

2. When the stars fall, losing their lustre;

3. When the mountains vanish (like a mirage);

4. When the she-camels, ten months with young, are left untended;

5. When the wild beasts are herded together (in the human habitations);

6. When the oceans boil over with a swell;

7. When the souls are sorted out, (being joined, like with like);

8. When the female (infant), buried alive, is questioned -

9. For what crime she was killed;

10. When the scrolls are laid open;

11. When the world on High is unveiled;

12. When the Blazing Fire is kindled to fierce heat;

13. And when the Garden is brought near;-

14. (Then) shall each soul know what it has put forward.

15. So verily I call to witness the planets - that recede,

16. Go straight, or hide;

17. And the Night as it dissipates;

18. And the Dawn as it breathes away the darkness;-

19. Verily this is the word of a most honourable Messenger,

20. Endued with Power, with rank before the Lord of the Throne,

21. With authority there, (and) faithful to his trust.

22. And (O people!) your companion is not one possessed;

23. And without doubt he saw him in the clear horizon.

24. Neither doth he withhold grudgingly a knowledge of the Unseen.

25. Nor is it the word of an evil spirit accursed.

26. When whither go ye?

27. Verily this is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds:

28. (With profit) to whoever among you wills to go straight:

29. But ye shall not will except as Allah wills,- the Cherisher of the Worlds.

...this my surah for the day...amazing.

...Brolly...

2006-03-02T22:30:00.000Z

...People make your decision on the one you like...

English King Sends Kids to Khilafah for Schooling..

2006-03-02T00:21:00.000Z

…after greeting your majesty we wish to inform you that we have heard of the great progress which the institutes of knowledge and industry in your country enjoy its pure abundance.…So, we wish that our sons learn of these virtues so that it serve as a good beginning in following your example for the sake of spreading the light of knowledge in our country which is surrounded by ignorance, from all sides. We have placed our niece, princess ‘Doubant’ at the head of a delegation of girls of the English nobility to have the honour of kissing the trimmed fringes of the throne and imploring the kindness, so as she and her girl companions be the object of your highness’ attention. The young princess has been provided by a modest gift to your majesty…we wish you accept it. With glorification, and sincere love….signed: your humble servant, George II.

Letter from George II, king of England to the Khaleefah Hisham III

...Let history speak....

...Hedge Of Doom...

2006-02-28T10:59:00.000Z

Hedge Of Doom
by Salvador

I’ve got this damn fool, Right!
With whom I planned to fight.
He’s from a land I like,
A standard guy that saw the light.
There’s nothing that bothers him,
Well as long as it’s not a sin
He thinks his God’s the king of kings
I wouldn’t argue with him - I think,
He’s taller than most other men
And if you think he’s confused or bent
Then guess again… No go on then….
It’s my Muslim friend, Solomon!

Surah 2:255 Ayat al-Kursi

2006-02-20T14:53:00.000Z

...as an english revert to islam , many accuse the brothers and sisters of never having a 'spirituality' or 'emotional' involvement into the being a muslim who freely chooses to submit to God, funnily while pondering over this matter i thought back to my first moments of being a muslims. The moment when i finished saying the shahada, the relief, the pleasure, the contentment from admitting publicly infront of people the Truth that i have found. This sort of situation only comes once to a revert, seeing as this is the first moments of the being a muslim but the feeling comes back often. As for now, i am listening to an audio of a sister coming to Islam and she goes on to recite the ayat al kursi and wow, it came back.

Not only does Islam satify my intelect and make rational sence, it satifies my heart beyong belief. This is why talking to people about the many faiths, i have learnt, never to base it on the emotional attachment we have to the way we are or stuck as; more to work on the intellect and explain things for our minds to say " yes that does make sence but..". this 'but' is the emotions struggling with the sence of the mind so talk to the mind ...soon the heart will change with and follow.

Enough random rambles for now, masalaam everyone.

Surah 2:255
Ayat al-Kursi (The Throne Verse)

Bismillaah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem
Allahu la illaha illa hu
Wal Hayyul Qayyum
La te huzuhu sinetun wala nawmun
Lahu ma fissemawati wa ma fil'ardi
Men thallathiy yeshfe'u indehu illa biznih
Ya'lemu ma beyne eydiyhim
wa ma halfehum
wa la yuhiytune
bishey'in min ilmihi
illa bima sha-a wasia kursiyyuhu semavati wal'ard
Wa la yeuduhu hifzuhuma wa hu wal aliy ul aziym

Saddaqallah hul Azim

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Allah! There is no God but He,
the Living, the Self-subsisting, the Eternal.
No slumber can seize Him, nor sleep.
All things in heaven and earth are His.
Who could intercede in His presence without His permission?
He knows what appears in front of and behind His creatures.
Nor can they encompass any knowledge of Him except what he wills.
His throne extends over the heavens and the earth,
and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them,
for He is the Highest and Most Exalted.

Allah, the Most High, speaks the truth.

If one recites only a portion of a surah, it is necessary to say at the end of the selection:
*Saddaqallah hul Azim (Allah, the Most High, Speaks the truth.)

Translated by Kabir Helminski

Islam's Green

2006-02-20T13:19:00.000Z

Islam's Green

A better blog to look at of ARG

...cause it hurts.

2006-02-17T00:55:00.000Z

The Jewish Muslims?

2006-02-16T04:40:00.000Z

it is said that in these pictures i look like a clockwork orange jew.....how about it?

The Muslims and Danish Cartoons

2006-02-16T04:33:00.000Z

so anyone out there have any views on this matter? what they think of the reaction, what they think should be done, solutions and what the problems are? any comments please.

Allow

2006-02-16T04:09:00.000Z

this is Allow's design of work , nice logo don't you think?

Islam

2006-02-16T04:01:00.000Z

any question on Islam that anyone one may have? muslims and non-muslims alike? about me as a muslim or anything within the religion? just post your questions i shall answer them

2006-02-07T11:15:00.000Z

look at them go!

NeoCarvi...Welcome...

2006-02-06T17:37:00.000Z

NeoCarvi...Welcome...

This is my website, take a look around