FSTDT

Unknown author #fundie hizb.org.uk

Western notions of democracy have come to dominate all discourse on governance, government structure, justice and accountability. Despite this dominance, electoral numbers at elections, trust in politicians and the ruling classes is at an all-time low in the West. Some thinkers in the West, class their liberal democracies as universal and consider all opposing systems as dictatorships. With the Muslims world demanding more and more of Islam to be present in their politics the Khilafah’s ruling system is a viable alternative for many. A lot of this is due to the failure of democracy to cater for the needs of the Muslim world and its flaws can be seen from a number of areas.

Whilst all would agree that their leaders should be elected, the reality of democracy is that regular elections favour those with money and adversely impact tough long-term decision making. Politics becomes about serving the elite not the public. The problem with frequent elections is that the more elections there are the more there is a requirement for money. Money and politics is one of the major cancers in democratic politics.

In essence the more elections you have the more likely you are to poison your system with money and short term thinking. This is what we see in the West today, countries dominated by powerful interests, riddled by political corruption and with soaring deficits and other long-term problems left completely un-tackled.

An alternative to both democracy on the one hand and dictatorship or absolute monarchy on the other hand is an election of a ruler with no term expiry as exists within the Islamic political system. This allows people on the one hand to freely choose their leader but on the other allows that leader the time to take tough long-term decisions for the benefit of the people.

Legislative sovereignty is at the very heart of Western civilisation, the ability to create one’s own laws, change them, adapt them and suspend them is held in high esteem as one of the bedrocks of liberal democracies. This is why we find after the events of 9/11 Western Europe has suspended some key principles and rights. We have seen the suspension of the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and the right to be aware of the evidence that is being used to imprison you. These key rights, enshrined in Western maxims and used to extract other laws have been altered at will, even though they are supposed to be the bedrock of Western political tradition. With secularism at the heart of Western legislation, laws can be changed and even suspended at a whim.

The protection of individual freedoms is the bedrock of Western civilisation. However, the dilemma secular legislators face is what is beneficial to one person is not necessarily beneficial to another. People’s interests overlap and as a result there exists a constant renegotiation of space, entitlement and privilege. More often than not, the underlying criterion for an action is self-gratification and fulfilment – ‘What’s in it for me?’

A society where an individualistic outlook is common can only decline into a virtual free-for-all, as everyone, including the government, would attempt to take full advantage of life. Freedom therefore leads to people seeking their own benefit and more often than not, those with political and/or financial clout have the upper hand. This produces a host of problems, not least the conflict of people’s freedoms.

One of the fundamental pillars of democracy is that legislation is arrived at through majority voting. In the absence of any divine text, the need to derive legislation must be sourced from elsewhere.

(...)

Secularism, the complete separation between God and governance has become established as the Aqeedah of Capitalism, legislative sovereignty of man over god is central to democracy however one defines it. Islam is on the diametrically opposite side of democracy. Islam makes the Islamic texts sovereign – the supreme reference, mankind plays no role in legislating, only implementing.

Islamic governance does not proceed upon the same route as Western legislation, where safeguarding individual freedoms is considered the basis of legislation. Islamic governance does not make freedom the subject of discussion; it does not recognise or reject freedom. Hence, Islamic governance does not look at humans from the angle of them undertaking or not undertaking actions on the basis of freedom.

Whilst Islamic governance has many details and has been written about throughout Islamic history, the following are its key aspects.

The current situation prevalent in the Muslim world, where ruling families decide the laws that society must abide by whilst they remain above the very laws they have created, is just the other side of the democratic coin.

In Islam Allah (swt) is sovereign as explained in the Qur’an:

???? ????????? ?????? ??????

“The rule is for none but Allah” (Al-Anam:57)

This means that all laws need to be derived from the Islamic sources which are the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijma Sahabah and Qiyas. Whilst all laws, maxims and principles are contained within these texts their application is where mankind must use its own capacities to ensure the right rule is applied for the reality it came for.

To ensure this happens Islam has recommended a constitution for the Islamic lands, where the role of the ruler and positions of power are clearly defined and mandated a constitution where the relationship between the ruled and ruler are clearly delineated. All this ensures that society is aware of the laws it will be judged by, which cannot be changed at whim, this will ensure a multiple tier society does not develop, where different laws apply to different segments of society. It also ensures the elites cannot influence the laws.

Islam has enshrined both institutional and decisional independence for the judiciary which far exceeds what is seen in Western democracies. Islam institutionalised an independent high court called the Court of Unjust Acts (Mahkamat Mazalim). It is presided over by the most eminent and qualified judges (Qadi Muzalim) and granted extensive powers by the Shari’ah. It has the power to remove any official of state regardless of their role or rank, including, most importantly, the Khaleefah if he persists in pursuing a path that lies outside of the terms of his Bay’ah (contract of ruling).

Ordinary citizens who have a complaint against the state can register it with the Court. What is unique about the Court of Unjust Acts, compared to other judicial courts, is that the Government Investigations Judge (Qadi Muzalim) has investigatory powers and does not require a plaintiff to register a complaint before launching an investigation. This court will therefore constantly monitor the actions of all officials of the state and the legislation adopted to ensure it conforms to the Shari’ah and no oppression (mazlama) is committed against the people. The executive counterbalance to the power of this Court is by the Khaleefah in principle having the power to appoint and remove the Chief Justice and any judges below him.

The laws and Islamic independent judiciary work to enforce are derived from the Islamic sources, this restricts what can be enforced as law. As Islam’s fundamental source – the Qur’an is revelatory, what is right and wrong is defined and thus the ruler nor the judiciary can deviate from this. With the introduction of a constitution, which allows more detailed rules from the Islamic sources, society will clearly know where it stands with regards to those acts which entail punishments and fines if violated.

The US constitution is considered a model template, which empowers the President with many powers but then restricts them through various mechanisms as power corrupts. Accountability in Islam is guaranteed through the institutions of government, in the obligation to establish political parties and through an individual obligation on all the citizens to enjoin the good and forbid the evil. There are also a host of various mechanisms rooted in Islam which act as checks and balances and restrict and regulate the ruler.

The Khaleefah is given wide mandatory powers in Islam, this is different to what is the norm in democracies where power is shared with a cabinet or parliament. Whilst the West institutionalised this in an attempt to curtail the possibilities of a dictatorship in reality it has given rise to mob rule where the collective act in concert like any individual dictator.

Islam has mandated that authority belongs to the Ummah. The Khaleefah is not a king or dictator who imposes his authority on the people through coercion or force. The Khaleefah’s authority to rule must be given willingly by the Muslims through the Islamic ruling contract known as Bay’ah. Without this Bay’ah the Khaleefah cannot rule. After this his authority is restricted to the hukm shari i.e. he cannot change what the Islamic texts have defined as right and wrong.
Islam has institutionalised the Bay’ah contract as the method to appoint a ruler.

This was outlined in many ahadith, amongst them: Muslim narrated on the authority of Abu Hazim who said: “I accompanied Abu Hurayra five years and I heard him talk about the Prophet (saw) saying: ‘Bani Israel used to be governed by Prophets, every time a Prophet died, another came after him, and there is no Prophet after me. There will be Khulafa’a and they will number many.’ They said: ‘What would you order us to do?’ He (saw) said: ‘Fulfil the Bay’ah to them one after the other, and give them their due right, surely Allah will account them for that which He entrusted them with.” (Sahih Muslim). The Bay’ah is between two parties – the Khaleefah and the Muslims. It is the people who elect the ruler, through popular will.

(...)

The Bay’ah is a contract and as such it is allowed to add extra conditions to this contract that the Khaleefah must abide by, as long as these extra conditions do not violate the fundamentals of the contract. It would be allowed to restrict the Khaleefah to certain constitutional processes such as the empowerment of the Majlis al-Ummah (People’s Council) and the judiciary as counterbalances to the executive power of the Khaleefah.

Without the restriction on the term of office, the Khaleefah can focus on long term strategic planning for the state instead of short-term planning from one election to the next as we find in democratic systems. It also prevents corporate interests from hijacking the government agenda through campaign contributions that any Presidential candidate or party in the West must secure to achieve power.

The ruler possesses many executive powers such as appointing governors and mayors, developing the state’s foreign policy and accepting foreign ambassadors. He is however restricted to these and cannot go beyond this remit. The ruler’s role is restricted to the public sphere and so Islam would forbid him from interfering in the private lives of his citizens. So whilst the Khaleefah holds all executive powers within the Khilafah his powers are restricted by the Shari’ah.

The powers of the Khaleefah are further restricted in Islam by the establishment of the Majlis al-Ummah. This is an elected council whose members can be Muslim, non-Muslim, men or women. These members represent the interests of their constituencies within the state. The Majlis has no powers of legislation like in a democratic system but it does have many powers that act as a counterbalance to the executive powers of the Khaleefah. These include expressing dissatisfaction with the assistants, governors, and mayors and in this matter the view of the Majlis is binding and the Khaleefah must discharge them at once. It also includes selecting the list of candidates standing for the position of the Khaleefah, no candidate excluded from this list may stand and the decision of the Majlis is binding. The Majlis also decides how much the ruler is paid and the allowances he may get.

In modern times the most appropriate style of conducting the Bay’ah is through a general election, where all mature Muslims, male and female have a right to vote for the Khaleefah of their choice. The Muslim representatives of the Majlis al-Ummah will shortlist the candidates for the Khaleefah and the people then vote for one of the candidates of their choice.

Islam has ordered the establishment of political parties. Political parties in the Khilafah are established primarily to account the Khaleefah and his government. Their task is to safeguard the thoughts of Islam in society and to ensure the government does not deviate from the implementation and propagation of Islam. The right of the Khilafah’s citizens to establish political parties is established from the Holy Qur’an. No permission is required from the government to establish political parties. Although members of the government will in many cases be members of political parties. The Khilafah does not have a party system of ruling as found in Western democracies.

In addition to the institutionalised mechanisms of accountability discussed so far, accounting the Khilafah is a right of all citizens of the state whether Muslim or non-Muslim. Although their representatives in the Majlis al-Ummah will undertake this task on their behalf they still have a right to perform this task themselves. Political apathy is a growing problem in the West. General elections are seeing fewer people voting especially amongst the young. Growing individualism among society is leading people to ignore the problems facing their communities and wider society and be concerned only with themselves. Islam not only obliged political parties with the task of enjoining ma’aruf and forbidding munkar but also individuals.

A central argument of liberals is that after restricting religion to the private lives of individuals, the West has seen unparalleled progress. Secularism has been central to the period of enlightenment and the postmodern world we currently live in. However there is a consistent pattern across all democracies of corruption. The US may be the preeminent democracy in the world but it is also one of the most corrupt.

US politics is riddled with special interests, a revolving door between politics and big business, political favours and backhanders. Though on the surface elections occur every two years, the reality is that incumbents rarely lose. In 2008, 94% of incumbents won in the House of Representatives and 83% in the Senate. This isn’t by accident, due to the significant money advantage enjoyed by incumbents and the continued redistricting.

Democracies should have secularised money and politics and not religion and politics. In Islam the ruler is not an employee who gets paid a wage, since he is not hired by the Ummah. The Khaleefah is given a pledge of allegiance (Bay’ah) by the Ummah to implement the Shari’ah and convey the Islamic Da’wah to the world. Although the Khaleefah is not paid a wage an allowance is assigned to him from the Bait al-Mal to meet his needs.

This allowance is a compensation for him since he is kept busy with the obligation of the Khilafah and cannot work and pursue his own business interests. This allowance is determined by the Majlis al-Ummah who will decide through shura (consultation) how much the allowance should be. They are the elected representatives of the Ummah and giving them the ultimate decision prevents any abuse of the public funds by the Khaleefah.

The ruler, governors, delegated assistants and judges – all the positions of ruling – are not paid a wage but an allowance as compensation as they are unable to take on employment. In this way Islam ensures money is kept far away from ruling.

(...)

Individuals have the right to account any organ or employee of the state, regardless of rank or seniority, this includes the head of state. Complaints can be submitted to the Madhalim Office who will initiate a process of validating and following due process in establishing facts. This office has the subsequent power to stipulate punishments. Individuals, Muslims and non Muslims, are allowed the right to peaceful congregation and protest. They are also allowed to seek out support to make representations to the state on their behalf.

Abdul Wahid #fundie hizb.org.uk

Some weeks ago prominent Imams, scholars and activists signed their name to a letter declining to lead Janazah prayers for those responsible for the London Bridge attacks. At the time, supporters of the letter argued that there was a precedent in the Sunnah where the Messenger of Allah declined in similar circumstances, and that there was value in demonstrating to non-Muslims that Muslims abhor such killings. Others opposed the statement – though also abhorred the killings – having other concerns including the implied acceptance of collective blame. Now emotions have cooled a little, I would like to share a serious concern that many of us (including some of those who signed the statement) may share.

As more of us become aware of the external pressure to ‘reform’ Islam – i.e. to change this Deen such that it conforms to secular liberal norms and policies of the political establishment, it is interesting to consider how religious reformations have occurred in the past. Orthodoxies were not re-evaluated in a political vacuum. Rather change was encouraged in the context of political pressure. The most famous example in British history is that of Henry VIII when he put pressure on clerics to find a religious solution to his failure to produce a male heir with his first wife, allowing him to remarry. Some of the clerics, faced with political pressure, searched for a legitimate solution within the Papal Law of that time – an annulment. The Pope rejected this – also for political reasons – to avoid a rift with Spain – leading to the wholesale change of the Church in England. In subsequent years, both under Protestant and Catholic monarchs, the opposing factions were pressured to make doctrinal concessions in order to prove their political loyalty, or else face suspicion, persecution or execution.

Of course, analogies have limitations and I am not offering this one except to make the point that political pressure has often driven theological change. Today, political pressure is usually applied at a time when Muslims feel at their most vulnerable. Following the attacks of 9/11 and 7/7, Woolwich, Manchester and London Bridge, responsibility is placed on the Muslim community, deliberately and collectively, through a variety of political messages carried by the corporate media – varying from explicit statements of the type Blair and Cameron used to make, to the implied blame from politicians and commentators expecting Muslims to ‘do more’ to deal with the issues at hand.

We have become used to calls for Muslims to ‘condemn’ such attacks and ‘endorse’ a variety of policy initiatives in their aftermath. However, condemning acts of murder is not sufficient – one is expected to condemn the ‘ideology’ supposedly associated with it – including the very idea of Jihad, the institution of Khilafah, and a number of other matters. Moreover, condemnation must be reserved for individual acts by Muslims and never state-sponsored acts of politically motivated violence – more bloody and terrifying by many degrees.

Uncritical endorsement is expected, for government policies supposedly related to preventing violence – but which can be extremely oppressive, targeting activities such as browsing the Internet and writing poems. We are expected to endorse the government’s use of ill-defined words like ‘extremism’ and their explanations for the causes. We are expected to endorse the idea that Muslims can and should do more to stop such attacks; and displays of loyalty that call for us to celebrate the armed forces that have been complicit in violence in Muslim countries.

These pressures are aimed to demonise authentic Islamic opinions about Jihad; Khilafah; relations between men and women; same-sex relationships; opposition to the occupation of Palestine; opposition to western foreign policy and military ventures; and opposition to the regimes in the Muslim world. We then start to see theological justifications for a changed position – not because they were considered theologically strong, but because they conform to political and ideological pressures around us. The theological justifications often start, like Henry’s annulment, applying a legitimate principle but then extending it beyond its original context just to meet political pressures; or exceptional circumstances become generalised to being normal practice.

For me, the statement about refusing to lead the Janazah prayers of these attackers rang alarm bells – not because it was baseless, but because it was drafted at an extremely emotive time (and hence a point of maximal political pressure), and arguably took the matter beyond the original Sunnah precedent. Yes, the Messenger of Allah declined to honour certain people with the blessing of his Imamah at their funerals, instead telling one of his noble companions to lead the prayer. But to gather dozens of names, announce the matter publicly with a press release, and to call for others not to lead the prayer – exceeds his noble example by some measure. It also puts any Imam who decided to read the funeral prayer, for example to help a traumatised family, at risk of being labelled an ‘extremist’.

Aside from the social and political implications of such messaging, what is needed at this time is for Imams, scholars and Muslims who are active in their communities to actively engage in understanding and then explaining the relevant issues as they are, not as the government or extreme secularists would like them to be. In that way we would be true to our Deen, explaining it clearly to our community and not falling into the reformation traps laid for us.

Advocates of reform argue that there is no obligation of Khilafah; no Jihad like the ghazawaat of the Messenger ; no problem with joining armies that will attack Muslims; no problem with Riba-based contracts; no problem with man legislating and ruling by other than what Allah has revealed; no problems with joining or supporting secular political movements; no problem with un-Islamic sexual relationships; no problem with nation state constructs taking precedence over Islamic loyalties; and no problem with a national ‘tribal’ identity taking precedence over an Islamic identity. These are all positions that some of the same people would have shunned only a few years ago without today’s political pressures. Yet consistent pressure has forced a change in their views.

Our role is not merely to resist the pressures to reform, but to actively uphold and explain authentic precepts that are demonised – not fearing the blame of the Blamers. It is to resist the temptation to look for exceptions to general rules, without teaching the general rule first and restricting the exceptions to their appropriate context. It is to guard against using examples out of their context. It is to be aware that pressures are applied in order to force Muslims to change.

Muslims who have validated the institution of Khilafah have been denounced as ‘extreme’, not just because ISIS have soiled it but because reformists argue it isn’t an obligation any more, as modern political constructs are acceptable. Yet many remain silent on the reformist argument and allow the misinformation to go unchallenged. Muslims who uphold the idea of Jihad in all its forms are denounced as ‘extreme’, not just because some individuals exceed limits set by Allah in taking innocent life, but because reformists argue the only Jihad is jihad-al-nafs. Those of us who know both positions are flawed, rarely educate the community about what Jihad really means.

So, as to my question – can such joint statements become a vehicle for reformation? Not always. But several by the ‘usual suspects’ leading the reform agenda have – and I am concerned that this most recent statement shared some of those aspects I have highlighted in this open letter – and it is for this reason that I offer this nasiha, which I pray is clear for those who read it, and accepted by our Lord, Allah .

Yahya Nisbet #fundie hizb.org.uk

As is traditional at the end of each year in the West people review what has happened with a view to learning lessons and setting new goals for the next year. However, for organisations that have a sinister agenda this is an opportunity to vaguely summarise the past year’s events, loosely link them together to make outrageous insinuations, and thus justify even more despicable plans for the next year.

Such was the case this week with the secular extremists in the mainstream media and the Office for Standards in Education Ofsted. Chief Inspector Amanda Spielman released a statement in which she accused a number of “faith” schools of having been judged by her own organisation of failing to meet the secular standards that she herself set, as they were “spreading beliefs that clash with British values.”

The media in turn wasted no time in promoting her call for more power to impose her own liberal secular beliefs and values on all the children in the UK. The fact that millions of British people, Muslims and others, do not share her extremist secular values did not factor into her statement, as she claimed that her love of democracy and support of the anti-religious LGBT lobby’s agenda were “mainstream thinking” and the real British values, and that religious institutions were undermining them.

This should not come as a surprise, as this is the same Amanda Spielman who ludicrously claimed that the hijab was a sign of premature sexualisation of young Muslim girls, without a hint of irony in the hyper-sexualised atmosphere created by the media, fashion and popular culture industries. For someone who can shamelessly twist the facts so blatantly, it cannot have been difficult for her to ignore the contradictory logic in her recent outburst. Her pretence is that the religious schools have failed to meet academic standards, yet they are being failed by her own organisation on the grounds that their values are different to hers, regardless of their academic performance.

Her attack went beyond the schools, however, as she then accused the religious schools serving the surrounding community of “deliberately resisting” beliefs and values that she does not agree with, as they are not “British” enough for her. She said “We have found an increasing number of conservative religious schools where the legal requirements that set the expectations for shared values and tolerance clash with community expectations.”

The secular liberal elite’s ‘Muscular Liberalism’ is increasingly exposing the emptiness of their professed values. A Department for Education spokeswoman is reported to have said “we changed the law and the requirements on schools so that they have to actively promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and the mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.” They are willing to sacrifice all of their “freedom of religion” to protect their most important freedom, that of ownership and their desire to hegemonize the world’s economy.

It would be easy to assume that Ms Spielman has a personal grudge driving her agenda, which may be a factor, however, we should recognise that Ofsted and the media are driven by a far more sinister agenda of the liberal secular elite. Jewish and Christian schools and communities have long taught held views at odds with the “mainstream,” yet only now that the focus is on tackling the rise of Islam in the world are they all subject to criticism for opposing the ever-changing “British mainstream” values.

It is the imminent return of Islamic Khilafah (caliphate) on the way of Prophethood that they worry about, as it will focus the world’s attention on their unjust colonial exploitation that has gone unchecked for the past century. With this paranoia of the elite, the atmosphere in the West has become increasingly and notably hostile to all religious values, and particularly Islam.

We shouldn’t be fooled by the rhetoric of the secular establishment, that it believes in tolerance and religious freedom. It is no more likely to heed these restraints than the wolf would respond to the complaint of the sheep. However, we should not shy away from explaining the failure of the secular capitalist way of life to look after all the people, in particular its inability to deal with minorities and its favouring the benefit of a powerful elite over all others.

Muslims should realise that expecting Muslims to be treated like other religious groups is no longer appropriate in this atmosphere of intolerance of all religious values and practices. Rather the focus of our criticism should be on exposing the irrational basis of the secular creed (aqeedah) itself, along with the failure of its ideology to bring anything other than misery to mankind.

Such direct pressure on Muslims to conform to the backward “mainstream British” values of democracy and individual liberty, by imposing it upon the children who are incapable of arguing against its fallacy, should only strengthen our resolve to stand up on their behalf, calling all mankind to understand and witness the pure deen of Islam.

Unknown author #fundie hizb.org.uk

The idea of a Caliphate is constantly mocked by the West and their secular Muslim agents that rule over the Muslim World. The people who call for it’s implementation are labelled extreme and radical in the Western World and are imprisoned, tortured and even killed in the Muslim World. This is besides the fact that an Islamic Caliphate was implemented for over a 1000 years and is a part of history that cannot be ignored. In this article, we take a look at some of the contributions of the Caliphate to the World.

The first Islamic State was established by the Prophet Muhammed ? himself, in Madina Munawara in the 7th century. Based on monotheism it united people of different colours and creeds and eradicated status inequality. It eventually came to be embraced by many nations and peoples. At its height it stretched from Morocco and Spain in the west, to the Philippines in the east, from the Steppes of Khurasan to the north and to the jungles of modern day Congo to the south. The Muslim world leapt from a period of ignorance and division to a time of unparalleled unity and strength. All of this can be seen from many periods of Islamic history.

During the Abbasid rule of the Khilafah, they began a project of creating a capital city that would be revered around the world. The Abbasid Caliph, Al-Mansur assembled engineers, surveyors and art constructionists from around the world to come together and draw up plans for the city. Over 100,000 construction workers came to survey the plans and were distributed salaries to start the building of the grand city.

Baghdad was the first circular city in the world. Within fifty years the population outgrew the city walls as people thronged to the capital. Baghdad became a vast emporium of trade linking Asia and the Mediterranean. By the reign of Mansur’s grandson, Harun Ar-Rashid (786-806 CE), Baghdad was second in size only to Constantinople. European towns, cities and settlements built walls to prevent raids from outlaws and armies but were typically vulnerable at four points; the corners. If enough pressure was applied at any of these points the wall would collapse and troops could flood through the breach. The Muslims solved this problem by building circular cities.

After the defences of the city were complete, attention turned to how the Abbasids would feed the rest of the Ummah. The development of agriculture under the Abbasids was a phenomenon; the scarcity of water had converted the barren Arab lands into a vast desert, which had never yielded any substantial agricultural produce. The scattered population always imported supply of food grains to supplement the dates and the little corn grown in their own lands. Agriculture in Arabia had been very primitive and was confined to those tracts where water was available in the form of springs. Madina, with its springs and wells was the only green spot in the vast desert. The Abbasids dealt with this by first controlling the flows of the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers. The irrigation system in the land was greatly improved by digging a number of new canals, the largest flowed between the Tigris and Euphrates. This canal was called Nahr Isa (Isa canal) and was open to ships for transportation between Syria and Iraq. This led to navigation routes opening to India and the Persian Gulf. The Abbasids reconstructed the existing canals, lakes, and reservoirs, which were first built under Hajjaj Bin Yusuf in 702 CE. After this the swamps around Baghdad were drained, freeing the city of malaria.

The Abbasids in the 8th century initiated probably the greatest translation project translating the work of the Ancient Greeks into Arabic to preserve them from being lost forever. The careful and painstaking archival work took time, effort and coordination. An institute named Bayt Al-Hikmah was set up and run by the Abbasid Khilafah in Baghdad for this purpose.

At the behest of the caliph an observatory was built and numerous educational institutes which made literacy widespread were created. Other rulers such as Al-Mansur ordered plentiful resources to achieve the task. Translation became a state industry and the Muslim scholars succeeded in what is still regarded today as a truly incredible feat.

Observatories were set up in Baghdad and became an unrivalled centre for the study of humanities and for sciences, including mathematics, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, zoology and geography. The scholars, scientists and specialists drew upon the translated works of previous civilisations such as the Persian and Greek works that included those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. Such works were accumulated and Baghdad became home to a great collection of world knowledge.

Europe had been embroiled in almost constant wars of horrific brutality. Invading hordes and fleeing refugees swamped the continent. In contrast large sections of the Muslim world especially those parts not on the frontiers were serene and tranquil for hundreds of years. In this atmosphere various cities flourished and the story was the same throughout the rest of the Muslim world.

When the Muslims entered Spain in the early 8th century they found people who lived in stone hovels, dirty places with a central hole in the primitive roof to let out the smoke from the small fire they lived around. The inhabitants of these pits would be consumed by soot, tears streaming down their faces. Eye and respiratory diseases were common.

The Spanish would refuse to wash, believing in a form of spirituality that meant they had to avoid an earthly or materialistic life. The animal furs they wore were handed down from generation to generation. The stench was often overpowering particularly as they lived close together in their airless cells. The Muslims, were used to courtyards, canals and gardens. The great city of Damascus in Syria had over a hundred thousand gardens alone. Guided by Islam and a vision of the betterment of humanity the Muslims sought to change this. By the 10th century the Spanish city of Cordoba had two hundred thousand homes, over half a million places of worship, nine hundred public baths and libraries containing hundreds of thousands of volumes. Moreover the streets were paved with stone, cleaned, policed and lit at night. Conduits brought water to the people’s homes and to the city’s many squares and gardens. Students from all over Europe descended upon the city to learn from the acknowledged master scholars of the age.

Throughout almost all of Islamic history the Khilafah and the Muslims were a minority ruling over majority non-Muslims. The Qur’an and the examples of the Prophet highlighted how non-Muslims should be treated. The Treaty of Umar ibn Al-Khattab, in which he guaranteed the Christians of Jerusalem their right to practice their faith in total religious safety became the standard model in Islamic history.

The Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453 CE is considered a seminal event in history, but it was also the first time the Ottomans came to rule over a large number of non-Muslims. Constantinople had historically been the centre of the Orthodox Christian world, and had a large Christian population. As the Ottoman Khilafah expanded into Europe, more and more non-Muslims came under Ottoman authority. In the 1530s, over 80% of the population in Ottoman Europe was not Muslim. In order to deal with these new Ottoman subjects, Ottoman Sultan Mehmed instituted the Islamic rules of ruling over a diverse population, later institutionalised into the Millet System.

Under this system, each religious group was organised into a millet. Millet comes from the Arabic word for “nation”, indicating that the Ottomans considered themselves the protectors of multiple nations. Each religious group was considered its own millet, with multiple millets existing in the Ottoman Khilafah. For example, all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Khilafah were considered as constituting a millet, while all Jews constituted another millet.

Each millet was allowed to elect its own religious figure to lead them. In the case of the Orthodox Church (the biggest Church in the Ottoman Khilafah), the Orthodox Patriarch (the Archbishop of Constantinople) was the elected leader of the millet. The leaders of the millets were allowed to enforce their religious practices related to worship.

In addition to worship, millets were given the right to use their own language, develop their own institutions (churches, schools, etc), and in some cases collect taxes. The Ottoman Sultan generally exercised control over the millets through their leaders. The millet leaders ultimately reported to the Sultan, and if there was a problem with a millet, the Sultan would consult that millet leader.

The Ottoman Khilafah reigned from 1300 to 1924 CE. Throughout most of its history, the Millet System provided a system of religious harmony and belonging throughout the Khilafah. As the Khilafah expanded, more millets were organised. Separate millets existed for Armenian, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians, with each sect being divided further into more specific regional churches.

These decrees by the Ottoman sultans Mehmed II and Bayezid II granted the Greek community ownership of the church. The decrees and church remain in Istanbul today.

As the Khilafah weakened European intervention took place and they began to use each millet against each other – something that did not happen for hundreds of years. When the liberal Tanzimat were passed in the 1800s, the millet system was abolished, in favour of a European-style secularist government. The Ottomans were forced to guarantee vague “rights” to religious minorities, which limited their freedoms. Instead of being allowed to rule themselves according to their own rules, all religious groups were forced to follow the same set of secular laws. This actually ended up causing more religious tension in the Khilafah and was one of the causes of the genocide of the Armenians during World War One in the Ottoman Khilafah’s dying days.

The Millet System was a unique and creative solution to running a multi-ethnic and multi-religious, transnational state. The rights and freedoms it gave to religious minorities were far ahead of their time. While Europe struggled with religious persecution into the 1900s, the Ottomans created a harmonious and stable religious pluralistic system that guaranteed religious freedom for hundreds of years.

Whilst no doubt, the Khilafah also had many problems as any human state will have, it’s contribution to the World was unparalleled. The history of the Khilafah demonstrates that there isn’t a contradiction between Islam and Science. In fact, it was under the Caliphate through which scientists such as Ibn-Haitham were to revolutionise the approach to build conclusions upon the observable universe through testing and observation. The motivation for Muslims to excel in science and technology was underpinned by the Qur’an which encourages mankind to exploit the earth’s bounties for the benefit of all peoples.

“He put at your disposal that which is in the heavens and that which is in the earth, all from Him.”[Al-Jathiyah:13]

It also dispels the myth that the Caliphate has a barbaric view towards Non-Muslims. Whilst there maybe incidents in history of Non-Muslims not being treated fairly, this doesn’t change the fact that Islam inherently mandates Non-Muslim citizens to be treated fairly.

“He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah.” -Tabarani

These are but only some of the contributions of the Caliphate to the World. It’s clear that the backwardness and camel age attributed to the Khilafah is part of an ideological propaganda campaign to smear the concept of an Islamic polity. Today, Muslims all over the World have the desire to live under Shari’ah law despite the propaganda against the Khilafah. The only obstacle to this, are the imperial powers and their agents that govern the Muslim World by Secular rule. However, the arrival of a Khilafah based upon the method of the Prophet PBUH is inevitable as it has been promised by Allah SWT. The acceleration of the aggression against Islam and those who call for it’s implementation via a Caliphate by the World superpowers is only but a testimony to it’s nearness. Once the Khilafah arrives it will once again lead the World in science and technology without compromising on addressing and solving the problems of mankind.

There will be Prophethood for as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be Khilafah on the Prophetic method and it will be for as long as Allah wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be biting Kingship for as long as Allah Wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be oppressive kingship for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method” and then he remained silent. (Ahmed)

Unknown author #fundie hizb.org.uk

Crime is an unwanted feature in any society, and any system governing a society has policies to minimise crime and secure the rights of its citizens. In the modern world, criminal acts take on many appearances whether they be violence, abuse, fraud, theft and all of the above in a cyber environment.

Also in the modern world, the sense of insecurity felt by many, seems to be increasing as criminal acts come in so many forms as Assistant Commissioner, Martin Hewitt said in 2017, “Along with rises in traditional crimes, we are facing new challenges across London”. As with all proposed governing models, Islam offers a comprehensive solution towards achieving a society with very little crime.

Even criminal acts have a reasoning behind them. For theft, it is the wealth one can gain. For sexual offences, it is the desire that can be satisfied or with assault, it is the dominance one can feel.

Though these desires exist in human beings, not everyone chooses to satisfy them in a criminal way or by inflicting misery on others. There is no doubt that the actions of the criminal are ultimately his or her actions. The sheer volume of crime in Western society also shows that for many, the system simply does not work for them to satisfy their needs in a law abiding way.

Islam has a very world orientated view towards individuals, Muslim and non-Muslim, and their ability to break the commandments of Allah SWT or commit crime even in a society based upon Islamic laws. It does not expect people to behave like angels and recognises human capacity to do both good and bad.

At the same time, an Islamic system takes positive steps to reducing the risk of someone committing a crime.

Crime prevention starts at an aqeeda (creedal) level. Islam teaches life is a test and that good deeds and obedience to Allah’s commands gains Allah’s pleasure whilst sinning and transgressing Allah’s prohibitions earns His wrath resulting in either Jannah or Jahannam in the hereafter.

Hence, accountability is not to a judge, or the police and authorities, but to Allah SWT, the all Knowing, the all Punishing and the Just. If an individual does believe he can break the law and evade justice, it is unlikely for him to believe he will evade the inevitable accountability of Judgement Day. Thus, deterring people from committing unlawful acts, or entering lives of crime.

Making obedience to the rule of law a natural state of affairs is made easier when the state and its organs are at one with the basic philosophy of the Islamic system. There will be no glorification of violence or respect given to criminals or gangs.

Nor will there be a culture glorifying crime through movies and music as these are not the values which underpins an Islamic society. Rather, the Islamic Khilafah system would do the opposite. It would promote and pursue wholesome ideals such as described in the following ahadith,

“None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

“One who goes to sleep full whilst his neighbour is hungry is not one of us.” [Bayhaqi’s Sunan al-Kubra]

“A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, so he should not oppress him, nor should he hand him over to an oppressor. Whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfil his needs; whoever brought his (Muslim) brother out of a discomfort, Allah will bring him out of the discomforts of the Day of Resurrection, and whoever screened a Muslim, Allah will screen him on the Day of Resurrection.” [Bukhari]

Therefore, selfish desires are not stoked, rather they are tamed.

The public opinion regarding criminal acts and the norms of behaviour will be synonymous with the principles of Islam. As the society is Islamic, their value judgments on actions will run parallel to the value judgments Islam provides. Thus, anyone breaking these norms would be shunned in society thereby acting as a powerful deterrent.

A person committing a crime, will therefore, not better his quality or standard of living, but be going against the grain of society, and challenging the status quo. As social beings, humans would rather seek acceptance and interaction with their neighbours, colleagues and families, rather than being excluded from them, again removing the mindset or potential for a person to be tempted to commit criminal acts.

A criminal will pursue a crime, only if he feels he will not have to face the consequences of his actions or the potential gains are greater than the punishment that would be served if he is caught. Only having accountability to fellow humans is flawed, as humans can be deceived and criminals can escape the wrath and the full extent of the law.

For those who do indulge in criminal acts or violate the law of the land, the Islamic punishments are severe. However, the severity of the punishment, is not to satisfy a bloodlust nor for lack of wisdom or desire to seek mercy. Rather, the punishment system is a preventative measure to reduce the temptation to commit crime. Knowing that the consequence of being found guilty of a crime will result in the loss of life or limb is an extremely potent idea which one cannot rid from his mind as the consequence stays with the criminal for life.

Furthermore, punishments take place with public knowledge and in a public setting. This, combined with the public opinion described before, would have a second effect. A person’s life would be ruined if he is found guilty, as not only has he paid for the crime with loss of limb, money or pain, he will also be known to have strayed from socially acceptable actions, resulting in the public having a negative view to him.

Nowadays, criminals who have committed a crime and escaped punishment, or are let off easily are incentivised to repeat offend; the price wasn’t too high to pay, so why not? An example of this is the swimmer convicted of rape in the UK who served a meagre three months for his crime which destroyed a woman’s life. This sentence is in no way fair, and is an example to other sexual offenders that the consequences of their crime is light. The reverse of this is also true.

Criminals who have committed a crime and paid a heavy price for it, would be an example to the people of what happens when the sanctity of the law is broken. A potential thief seeing a man without a hand is a fitting example of being “put off” from committing a crime.

Upholding the law and being seen to uphold the law is a key part of an Islamic judicial system. There is no one in society who is above the law. The law, procedure and punishment are applicable to everyone within the society. This is evident in the hadith,

“By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad stole, I would cut off her hand.” [Bukhari]

The judges are not selected based on their heritage, network or status. Rather they are selected due to their ability, knowledge and piety. Since this will be evident through their conduct, confidence in the system will be strong amongst the law abiding public. This in turn will minimise any rebellious or vigilante mindset, as the due process is fair, works and ensures the protection and safety of the citizens of the state.

It is important to note that the Islamic Justice system is not to be implemented in isolation from the rest of Islam’s governance. For example, if the Islamic economic system is not being implemented, or the rules governing men and women are absent then crimes of varying natures will occur.

The track record of the Khilafah Rashidah and Islamic state is a testimony to Islam’s ability to minimise criminal activity. In fact, throughout the history of the Khilafah lasting 1300 years, there existed seldom instances of theft deemed severe enough to result in a hand being cut. Truly, the only way to satisfy the problems the world faces, is by using the system the Creator of man revealed, and only through the Khilafah system, can justice be served and harmony be established.