Muslims In Kenya

Ibn Kathir’s Account of the Destruction of the Homosexuals of Lut

“…And when the Sun rose, the punishment descended upon them.

Allah Said: {“So when Our Commandment came, We turned them upside down, and rained on them stones of sijjil mandud (piled up, baked clay); marked from your Lord, and it is not far from the wrong-doers.”} [Hud; 82-83] They (the People of the Book) say that Jibril uprooted their dwellings by plucking them with the edge of his wing, and they were seven cities filled with people in total. They say that they were 400 people total, and it is said that they were 400,000 along with their animals and the surrounding cities and areas and dwellings. So, he lifted all of this until it was piled up to the level of the clouds, to the point that the Angels could hear the sounds of their roosters and the howling of their dogs. He then flipped all of this over, causing what was on the bottom to be on top and vice versa.

Mujahid said: “The first thing that fell were some benches that they used to sit on.”

{“…and rained on them stones of sijjil…”} [Hud; 82] Sijjil is a Persian word later adopted by the Arabs, and it is a type of rock that is quite strong and hard; {“…mandud…”} [Hud; 82] means that they came down upon them one after the other from the sky; {“…marked from your Lord…”} [Hud; 82] means that each rock was inscribed with the name of the person it was meant to hit and smash, as Allah Said: {“Marked by your Lord for the wrong-doers…”} [adh-Dhariyat; 34] and as He Said: {“And We rained on them a rain of torment, and how evil was the rain for those who had been warned.”} [ash-Shu'ara'; 173 and an-Naml; 58]

And Allah Said: {“And He destroyed the overthrown cities. So, there covered them that which did cover.”} [an-Najm; 53-54] meaning that He overturned it, reversing its top and bottom, and He then rained down hardened rocks one after the other, and each rock was inscribed with the name of its target that it would hit - both those who were in these cities at the time and those who happened to be absent or out of town on a journey.

…And His Saying here: {“…and it is not far from the wrong-doers.”} [Hud; 83] means that this punishment is not far from those who resemble these people in their actions, and this is why there are scholars who held the opinion that the homosexual is to be stoned to death whether he is married or not. This was the explicitly stated opinion of ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad bin Hambal, and a large group of the scholars. They also used as proof the hadith reported by Ahmad and the compilers of the Sunan from ‘Amr bin Abi ‘Amr from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever you find doing the act of the people of Lut, kill him and the one it was done to.” And Abu Hanifah was of the opinion that the homosexual is to be both thrown from a high mountain and then stoned, just as was done with the people of Lut, due to the verse: {“…and it is not far from the wrong-doers.”} [Hud; 83]

And Allah caused the location of these lands to become a rotten lagoon whose water and adjacent areas cannot be benefited from due to their repugnance and filth. So, it became a warning, an example, an admonishment, and a sign of the Power, Might, and Honor of Allah in exacting revenge upon he who opposes His commands and rejects His Messengers and follows his desires and disobeys his Master, as well as a proof of His Mercy towards His believing slaves by saving them from this destruction and removing them from the darknesses into the light, as He Said: {“Verily, in this is a sign. Yet, most of them are not believers. And verily, your Lord! He is truly the Mighty, the Merciful.”} [ash-Shu'ara'; 8-9]“

['al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah'; 1/207-208]

Q&A: Guardianship of convert woman for marriage?

Homosexuality: A Frank Discussion

Question: Alot of people use the practice of female circumcision common in North African Muslim countries in order to attack Islam, what is the correct view regarding the issue?

Answer:

According to my knowledge, there is difference of opinion amongst the scholars regarding the issue of female circumcision ranging from some who believe it is obligatory, some say it is recommended, others say it is mubah (permissible) but the strongest view in my opinion is that it is mubah. After some research, there are certain points which are necessary to clarify regarding this:

1. It is important to understand the reality of female circumcision and its various types and then to understand the type that Islam permits.

Types of circumcision:

a) Removal of the hood (or prepuce) of the clitoris. This procedure is, to some degree, analgous to male circumcision since in both cases, no part of the sexual organ is cut off. In both cases also, it is only the foreskin, or outer fold of the skin, which is cut off. Properly done, it is not likely to cause any “matrimonial” problem. This is the type the scholars mentioned is permitted according to the Islamic evidences.

b) Removal of the entire clitoris (clitorectomy) along with part of the labia minora, which is satured together leaving an opening. This is a form of mutilation and is haram (forbidden).

c) Removal of the entire clitoris, labia minora and medial part of the labia majora, with both sides of the female organ stitched together leaving a small opening. This procedure requires tying together the child’s legs of nearly three weeks. It is called the Pharaonic procedure and also haram.

2. “For most of the Shafi’i school, circumcision is obligatory upon the women. While the Hanbali school and few scholars of the Shafi’i school hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but Sunnah, while the Hanafi and the Maliki consider it a mere courtesy to the husband. And according to some scholars, female circumcision is customarily done in a hot climate.” [Fiqh al-Islam wa Adillatihi 3/741]

3. Some people quote the following hadith to argue that it is recommended: “Circumcision is a commedable act for men (Sunnah) and is an honorable thing for women (Makromah).” However this hadith is considered da’if (weak) according to the hadith scholars. [Al-Shawkani, Nayl Al-awtar, Dar Al-Jeel, Beirut, 1973, vol. 1, p. 139]

Da’if (weak) hadith cannot be used as evidence in ahkam shariah.

4. There is the following hadith on the subject:

“Cut off only the foreskin (outer fold of skin over the clitoris; the prepuce) but do not cut off deeply (i.e. the clitoris itself), for this is brighter for the face (of the girl) and more favourable with the husband.” [Al-Tabarani, quoted in Al-albani, Muhammad N., Silsilat al-Ahadeeth Al-Sahihah, Al Maktab Al-Islami, Beirut, Lebanon, 1983, vol. 2, Hadeeth no. 722, pp. 353-358 espeically pp. 356-257. See also N. keller (translator/editor), The Reliance of the Traveller by Ahmad al-Masri, Modern Printing Press, Dubai, 1991, e 4.3, p. 59.]

5. There is also a Hadith narrated in Ahmad, also in Malik with similar wordings to the effect that if the two areas of circumcision (for a male and female) touch one another, than Ghusl (bathing) is required. This expression simply signified that after the intimate matrimonial relationship, both husband and wife must take a complete bath before they perform their daily prayers. The relevant part of this Hadeeth, however, is its reference to the two circumcised parts. Imam Ahmad uses this Hadeeth as an evidence that women (in Madinah) used to be circumcised. However this does not indicate that it is recommended, simply that it is permitted.

6. It is true that in some Muslim countries some of the people in Egypt and Somalia undertake the form of circumcision that Islam forbids i.e. the cutting off of the entire clitoris (clitorectomy) – however this is due to following traditions rather than Islam.

While the exact origin of female circumcision is not known, “it preceded Christianity and Islam.” [Stewart, Rosemary, "Female Circumcision: Implicaitons for North American Nurses, " in Journal of Psychosocial Nursing, vol. 35, no.4, 1997, p. 35] The most radical form of female circumcision (infibulation) is known as the Pharaonic Procedure. This may signify that it may have been practiced long before the rise of Islam, Christianity and possibly Judaism. It is not clear, however, whether this practice originated in Egypt or in some other African countries then spread to Egypt. [Haqa'iq Ilmiyya Hawla Khitan Al-Inaath (in Arabic), Jam'iyyat Tanzeem Al-Usrah, Cairo, 1983, p.7.]

Question: I recently found out that owning shares in PLC companies is haram according to the Shariah, if I have already purchased shares in such companies based upon the fatawa of some mufti’s who don’ t understand the reality of these companies then how can I dispose of them? Is it allowed to sell them?

Answer:

This matter has been explained by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani in the book’The Economic System of Islam’ page 162-163, in the english translation. The following is the text:

“The above discussion raises questions about the Muslims who buy shares of these companies, associate in establishing them, or hold shares due to their subscription in such companies. Was their action haram, even though they were ignorant of the divine law (hukm shar’i) at the time of their subscription into these companies? Or if some scholars, who did not understand the reality of the share stock company, and gave them a fatwa (of permission) with regard to them, are these stocks and shares which are owned by them halal properties, even though they were earned by a void transaction in Shar’a? Or are they haram, and accordingly not legally owned by them? And are they allowed to sell these shares to (other) people or not? The answer to these questions is that ignorance of the divine law (hukm shar’i) is not an excuse, because it is compulsory upon every Muslim to learn about that which he needs in his life of the divine laws (Ahkam Shari’ah) so that he can carry out all his actions according to the divine law. If that law is one of those laws which are usually unknown for such persons, then he is not blamed for that action and it would be a valid action for him, even though it is invalid in Shar’a. This is because “The Messenger (SAW) heard Mu’awiya ibn Al-Hakam praying for someone who sneezed while he was in prayer. After they finished the prayer, the Messenger of Allah (SAW) taught him that speaking during the prayer would nullify it, and praying for the one who sneezes nullifies the prayer, but he (Messenger of Allah (SAW) did not order him to perform the prayer again.” This is the meaning of what was narrated by Muslim and An-Nisai’ from Ata’a ibn Yasar. This is because the rule (not talking during the prayer) is usually unknown to a person and so the Messenger of Allah (SAW) excused him and considered his prayer valid. The prohibition of the share stock companies in view of the Shar’a is one of the rules whose like is unknown to many Muslims and so their ignorance can be excused. The action of those who took partnership in them is considered valid, though the companies are invalid, like the prayer of Mu’awiya ibn al-Hakam which is considered valid though he did something in it that invalidates it, as he did not know that talking during prayer invalidates it. The fatwa given by the scholars also takes the rule of ignorance with respect to the one who seeks the opinion. However, the scholar who gives the opinion is not excused because he did not exhaust his effort to understand the reality of the share stock companies before he gave an opinion about them.

With regard to the ownership of the shares by the shareholders, it is a valid ownership and these shares are halal properties so long as Shar’a judged that their action was valid. It is not invalid as they are excused for being ignorant of its invalidity. Selling these shares to Muslims, however, is not allowed, because in Shar’a they are invalid currency notes and the allowance of their ownership is incidental, based upon ignorance (of the hukm) that was excused. When the divine law about it becomes known, then it becomes a haram property that is not allowed to be sold or bought, nor can one delegate other (Muslims) to sell it for him.

The way to dispose of these shares which were owned due to the ignorance of the divine law is to dissolve the company or transform it into an Islamic company. Alternately one can find a non-Muslim who considers the shares of the share stock company allowed and delegate him to sell the shares on his behalf and then receive the subsequent proceeds.

It was reported from Suwaid ibn Ghafalat “that Bilal said to ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab: “Your administrators (’ummal) take wine and pigs as kharaj.” He said, “Don’t take (these things) from them, but delegate them to sell them and take their price” narrated by Abu ‘Ubayd in Al-Amwal. No one denied this action from ‘Umar, though it would have been denied if it disagreed with Shar’a, so it became Ijma. Wine and pigs are of the properties of the dhimmis and cannot be properties for Muslims. When they wanted to give them to Muslims in exchange for jizya, ‘Umar ordered Muslims not to accept it, but to delegate them to sell them and take the proceedings. Since shares are of the Capitalists properties are haram and cannot be of the properties of Muslims, when passed to Muslims hands, it is not valid for Muslims to take them. Instead they have to delegate to them their sale. Just like the right of Muslims in jizya and kharaj has been confirmed in wine and pigs, and ‘Umar allowed them to let the dhimmis sell them on their behalf, it is also the right of Muslims in these shares that they are allowed to delegate the dhimmis to sell (the shares) for them.”

The following is the translation of a Q&A by Sheikh Ata Abu Rashta (May Allah protect him). Please note that most of it relates to Arabic linguistics which is difficult to translate, some of the points may also be difficult to understand without knowledge of the Arabic language.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Question: While studying the tafseer of the following ayah, I fail to understand that this points to a distinct group?

} ولتكن منكم أمة يدعون إلى الخير ويأمرون بالمعروف وينهون عن المنكر وأولئك هم المفلحون {
“Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islâm), enjoining Al-Ma’rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar (polytheism and disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden). And it is they who are the successful.” [TMQ 003:104]

I considered the above ayah with this saying of Allah (swt):
} ويأمرون بالمعروف وينهون عن المنكر{

Indeed this work of enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar is required of every Muslim; it may be undertaken by individuals just as it may be undertaken by groups. Why then do we say that it necessitates forming a specific structured group or party from among the Muslims to carry out this work (enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar)?

Further, this categorisation and illustration at times overlaps over each other, haven’t the Arabs used linguistic tools to clearly distinguish between illustrative & selective forms in their language? I request to clarify this matter, may Allah reward you well.

Answer:

Indeed the word (Min) has various meanings, some of these are:

For categorisation, like in the ayah [ منهم من كلم الله],it means ‘some of them’, or
[ لن تنالوا البر حتى تنفقوا مما تحبون ], it means some of what you like most.

For illustration, like in the ayah: {فاجتنبوا الرجس من الأوثان}

{يحلون فيها من أساور من ذهب}.

Often there is ambiguity between these two aspects i.e. the illustrative and selective aspects of its meaning, but the context of the narrative and the indications thereof clarify the purported meaning.

Now, we consider the ayah:
]ولتكن منكم أمة يدعون إلى الخير ويأمرون بالمعروف وينهون عن المنكر وأولئك هم المفلحون[
“Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islâm), enjoining Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar (polytheism and disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden). And it is they who are the successful.” [TMQ 003:104]

First of all: from the context of the ayah, what precedes it and what follows the word, in the preceding and following ayaat:
Consider these ayaat:

} واعتصموا بحبل الله جميعاً … ولتكن منكم أمة … ولا تكونوا كالذين تفرقوا واختلفوا…[
The word with which the address began in the previous ayah, (and hold fast), it is addressed to every one, in the next ayah too it is addressed to everyone, but it the ayah under consideration, the address is singular or specific (ولتكن) and not inclusive as in (ولتكونوا).

Linguistically, if the contexts are thus disparate, where a word once implies plural, then singular and again plural, this would mean that the beginning of the address in its singular form is the intended meaning as against the preceding and following forms.

Now the address in the preceding ayah began in the collective form asking all Muslims to hold fast together, and in the following ayah again it is addressed to all Muslims asking them not to disintegrate, but in between these two, it begins the address to Muslims in singular form, i.e. not all Muslims.

It cannot be said, since (ولتكن) is for the ummah, why we hold the view that (ولتكن) is singular; and that ummah is plural and not individual?

The answer to this would be that we are discussing from a literal point of view which is used to begin the address, and what follows the word, does not affect it, for instance: in an ayah:
﴿ هذا فوجٌ... ﴾ (this army),

The army comprises more than one person, but it does not mean that the word ‘fauj’ is plural, it remains singular though it may imply a group. Similarly, my address to you: “Allah has blessed you to be an eminent scholar”. Here, the word ‘antum’ meaning you is plural though what follows it (eminent scholar) implies singular.

Thus the word (ولتكن) is a singular and hence the ayah:

﴿ ولتكن منكم أمة ...﴾
“Let there arise out of you a group of people [TMQ 003:104]

Also implies singular and not the whole, which would be:
(كونوا أمة)
be a group,

Even its gender will not affect it being singular, since the gender is meant to relate to the word ummah. Thus (ولتكن) it remains singular and not plural as in (ولتكونوا)
We are discussing the literal aspect which is the arrangement of the dialogue. The subject here is the difference in the context of speech with reference to the first three words with which the address begins in each of the three ayaat:

( واعتصموا , ولتكن , ولا تكونوا )

To clearly understand the context of speech, consider the saying of Allah (swt):

} ليس البر أن تولوا وجوهكم قبل المشرق والمغرب ولكن البر من آمن بالله واليوم الآخر … إلى قوله تعالى والموفون بعهدهم إذا عاهدوا والصابرين في البأساء والضراء وحين البأس…{
“It is not Al-Birr (piety, righteousness, and every act of obedience to Allâh) that you turn your faces towards the east and (or) the west (in prayers); but Al-Birr is (the quality of) the one who believes in Allâh, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, the Prophets; and gives wealth in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, and to Al-Masâkîn (the needy), and to the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; performs As-Salât (the prayers), and gives the Zakât (obligatory charity); and who fulfil their covenant when they make it, and who are patient in extreme poverty and ailment (disease) and at the time of fighting (during the battles).” [TMQ 2:177]

You will observe that the report (لكن) here is nominative, similarly in the word (والموفون); but what follows it in (والصابرين) is subjunctive, this comes to modify the nominative (ولكنَّ) as well as the subject (والموفون). This difference in the order or arrangement of speech means that the subjunctive (والصابرين) is the intended command for them and that they have been chosen for special praise than those before them. This changed arrangement of speech implies that they are the one who are intended or chosen over those before them…This is how the eloquent Arabic language treats every instance where there is a different order or arrangement of speech is found.

Thus what is stated in this ayah with regard to the varying arrangement of speech implies that the address is intended for the middle (singular) rather than what precedes or what follows it. It is mot an address to all the ummah, but rather to a part of it, i.e. the word (min-من) with reference to it’s context is selective rather than illustrative.

Secondly: With regard to the subject of the ayah itself:

It must be noted that the work of amr bil ma’rouf & nahi ‘an il munkar (enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar) can only be undertaken by those who are capable of accomplishing it and not by everyone. Furthermore, the ayah does not only commands enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar; for it were so, it could be accomplished by everyone and the address could be general for everyone also; but the ayah also commands along with enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar, the task of inviting to the khair in addition to enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar.

The word khair in this ayah implies Islam, because it is not simply khair (nakirah), but with (i.e. the ال), which is comprises Islam in its entirety, which encompasses the ‘ibadaat, the transactions (معاملات), as well as judicial processes (العقوبات والحدود) and the state that dispenses the hudood & punishments. Islam in its entirety includes the state i.e. the Khaleefah in order to implement the commands, and since it is clearly not possible to establish the Khilafah through individual actions, but it can only be established by collective effort. The ayah would therefore enjoin the establishment of a structured group among the ummah, a group that calls for comprehensive Islam by establishing a state, enjoining the ma’roof and desisting munkar.

It is pertinent to mention that the comprehensive Islamic commands cannot be implemented except through a state, because in Islam there are such commands that are undertaken by individuals like the salah and fasting, and then there are those that require the existence of an imam or Khaleefah like the hudood. Therefore the call towards the entire Islam implies establishing the Khilafah and this requires collective effort through a structured group and not individual effort.

It can not be argued that the call to establish the state is not the same as the work to establish the state, indeed the work to establish the state requires a structured group, nut the call to establish the state does not necessarily require a group, it can be undertaken by individuals.

This argument is not correct because the call to establish the state is integral to the work of establishing the state. The Da’wah in Islam is not merely an ideological aspect unconnected to the work. Indeed the da’wah to establish the state mandates the work to establish such a state and is not alien to it. This is how the Prophet (saw) worked, he (saw) called for it, he (saw) worked for it, he (saw) sought assistance (nusrah) for its establishment, and he (saw) accomplished it. In emulating the Prophet (saw), we also call for it and work for it on the same pattern until we succeed in establishing the state by the will of Allah (swt).

Thus the subject of the ayah, i.e. the call towards the entire Islam renders the address of the ayah outside the purview of individual Muslims not part of a structured group, because the work to establish the state can not be accomplished by individuals (not part of group), but it is only their call to work as part of such a group of Muslims that is capable to undertake such a task. Thus the word (من) is selective and not illustrative.

Thirdly: From a linguistic perspective:

Indeed the linguistic scholars have cited certain matters as benchmark to discern the word (من) either as illustrative or otherwise, they have pointed 3 indications for (من) to be illustrative and not selective, these are:

The first indication for (من) to be illustrative is that it should apply to the information (خبر) that follows it rather than that before it, for instance:

]واجتنبوا الرجس من الأوثان[
“So shun the abomination (worshipping) of idol,” [TMQ al-Hajj: 030]
Here the awthan (idols) applies to the rijs (filth), and the ayah says that the idols are filth.

]أساور من ذهب[
“bracelets of gold” [TMQ al-Kahf: 031]
Here the word dhahab (gold) applies to the asaawir (bracelets) and the ayah says: the bracelets are gold.

But these indications are neither found nor applicable to the ayah under discussion (ولتكن منكم أمة). Here what follows the word (مِن) is the pronoun for address (ضميــر) which is “you” (كُمْ), and what precedes it is from the derivatives of (كان) which is (ولتكن). Here the address (kum) does not apply to the previous (kana), rather it applies to it as its noun, i.e. “So that you become the ummah” (لتكن أنتم أمةً). Thus the word (مِن) is not illustrative.
These were the first indicators.

The Second indication:

The word’s (من) governed by a preposition in the present case if it is definite (معرفة مع ال) other wise, if it is indefinite (الwithout نكرة) it will be descriptive.

For instance; Take the expression (أساور من ذهب), here ‘of gold’ (من ذهب) is fit to be descriptive, which would mean that ‘these bracelets are golden’ or similar, because here the asaawir is indefinite (نكرة).

Similarly, in the ayah: (الرجس من الأوثان), the expression ‘of idols’ (من الأوثان) applies to rijs in the present case, because it is definite )ال with معرفــة). So the ayah says: “the idols are filth, and abominable matter. Thus the idols are illustrative of the state of rijs.

It can not be argued that (وثنا) is a fixed word, therefore it apt to be causative; this is not the case since it is a derivative attribute. This can not be said for two reasons:

The first: it is true that it is derivative attribute as in { فخرج منها خائفاً} , {وأرسلناك للناس رسولا}, but sometimes it figures as a fixed word [like in (بعه مداً بدرهم) (he sold the mudd for a dirham)]. Here the ( مداً) is the subject matter. Similarly in (كر زيدٌ أسداً) (Zaid attacked the lion); here (أسداً) si the subject matter…. But it is a derived form.

Similarly the causative appears as a fixed word and is dominating: like in (عشرون درهماً) (20 dirhams); or (رطلاً زيتاً),(a measure of oil)… etc.. But at times and very rarely, it also appears as a derivative; like in: (لله دره فارساً) (his achievement as horse rider, is because of Allah); or (لله دره راكباً) (his achievement as rider, is because of Allah).
This is the first thing, it is not necessarily so, that every fixed form will always be selective or descriptive of the present state/condition.

The second point which is more important is, the descriptive attribute illustrates the condition of the subject i.e. it is one of his (subject’s) conditions and does not discern him from others.

For instance: take the expression (عشرون درهماً) (20 dirhams), here the dirham is selective/discerning, because it does not describe the figure (عشرون) (20), it simply is another matter which discerns 20 from any other figure. Or take the expression (رطلاً زيتاً) (a measure of oil); here the (زيتاً) oil, is discerning the subject because zait is not a condition of the subject (ratal) but it is a different matter separate from ratal, so it discerns ratal from others.

In the ayah pertaining to the idols being filth, the word (وثناً) is to describe the state of rijs, here (وثناً) is not another command separate from& unconnected to rijs; like the dirham as distinct from the figure 20 or the zait as distinct from ratal. This was the second indication.

In the ayah, the expression preceding the word (من) & what governs it is the word (ولتكن), where the pronoun refers to the ummah, i.e. to the indefinite (نكـرة), and (منكم) does not characterise the ummah.

Again it can not be argued that since ummah is a described or attributed indefinite, it becomes definite, because the issue here is not whether ummah is definite or indefinite, what matters is the scope of (من) and its governing preposition that characterises the indefinite article (ummah) or its state if it is considered definite. Further, the word (منكــم) does not apply to ummah’s condition nor it is descriptive of it. Therefore, irrespective of whether Ummah is considered definite or indefinite, (من) & its governing preposition neither describe ummah nor do they state its condition. The issue here is the scope of (من) & its governing preposition, & that they are its state/condition if the ummah is definite or they are descriptive if ummah is indefinite, they neither define ummah nor deny it.

Along with this, since the discussion regarding the attribute which renders the indefinite as definite, is not the actual topic of discussion. But what I would say is that the attribute that renders the indefinite as definite is a specific attribute and not a general one. For instance, if I were to say: “Man who used to announce sale of his goods in the market”. Here the attribute of the man does not render the word ‘man’ to a definite article, in fact it remains indefinite because the attribute is general and applies to every one who announces sale of his goods in the market, and it is not specific to a particular person as such.

Similarly, in the above ayah, the attribute following the word ummah is general, so ummah remains an indefinite article. This is also borne out from the meaning of the ummah in the books of tafseer, where there is a great dissimilarity in its meanings… therefore what is predominantly acceptable about the word ummah is that it is indefinite as distinct from definite. Further, the illustrative indication (من) here, and it’s being definite or indefinite, rather it is its (من) scope and its governing preposition characterises it if were indefinite or describes its condition if it were definite. Further (من) and its preposition do not either characterize it or state its condition, therefore (من) is not descriptive, it is rather selective.

The Third indicator: This is the dominant indicator i.e. if all the other factors between (من) being either descriptive or selective were to be equally balanced, then this indicator if found, weighs in favour of (من) being descriptive because this indicator does not come with (من) unless it is descriptive. This indicator is: if (مــا ) or (مهـمــا) precede it, then they more dominantly render (من) as illustrative. For instance:

]ما يفتح الله للناس من رحمة فلا ممسك لها[
“Whatever of mercy (i.e. of good), Allâh may grant to mankind, none can withhold it;” [TMQ 35:002]

In this ayah, what precedes (من) is (مــا) and thus (من رحمة) is illustrative. Another example would be:

]مهما تأتنا به من آية[،
"Whatever Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) you may bring to us,” [TMQ 007:132]

In this ayah, (من) is preceded by (مهـمــا) and thus (من آيـة) is illustrative.

Here we have said ‘likely indicator’ because it is not always necessary that (من) is preceded by (مــا ) or (مهـمــا).

In the ayah under discussion, the illustrative & descriptive factors are not equally balanced, but they point to that (من) is selective as borne out by relevant evidences in the context of address, i.e. by the word with which this address began, as also by the relevant subject that calls for an action in the ayah. Further, if for argument sake, even if the two opposing factors were to be equally balanced, and (من) were to be illustrative & not selective, we would rely upon this indicator (ما , مهما), we do not find that it does not precede (منكـم) , both (ما) and (مهما), for it to become dominantly illustrative.

We repeat that this indicator is the dominant one used by the Arabs to distinguish (من) as illustrative or selective in case the other indicators are equally balanced. In case the indicators are not equally balanced, then this indicator is not relied upon as dominant.

Based on these aspects, the word (من) in the ayah:

]ولتكن منكم أمة يدعون إلى الخير ويأمرون بالمعروف وينهون عن المنكر وأولئك هم المفلحون[،
“Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islâm), enjoining Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm orders one to do) and forbidding Al-Munkar (polytheism and disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden). And it is they who are the successful.” [TMQ 003:104]

The word (من) is selective, which implies that some of the Muslims of the ummah (meaning, a structured group) stands up to accomplish the tasks mandated in the ayah.

Rabee’ ul Awwal, 1429 A.H

military Attack On Mosque Marks Intensification Of War In Somalia

The US and Ethiopia, alarmed by the growing strength of the “insurgents” backing the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), have stepped up their military operations in recent months to maintain the faltering interim government (IG) in office. Not only have they increased the number of indiscriminate air-raids and missiles, but they have also extended the targets to include crowded mosques. But they have succeeded only in provoking more Somalis to harden their hostility to the IG and its backers, and for the first time have even driven an international human-rights group (Amnesty International) to accuse Ethiopia of war crimes. Amnesty’s anger and the Somali people’s wrath were aroused by the Ethiopian troops’ raid on a mosque in Muqdisho (Mogadishu) on April 19 that left 21 people dead, including the mosque’s imam and some ulama’. .

Describing the slaughter as “extrajudicial killings”, Amnesty said that the attack on the mosque was launched when the Ethiopian troops were engaged in heavy fighting against “Islamic insurgents”. It accused Ethiopian troops of slitting the throats of seven Somali men during the raid on the al-Hidya mosque, of arresting 41 children there, and of detaining them at an Ethiopian military base in the city. Eleven of the 21 who died in the attack, including the ulama’, were killed in the mosque, Amnesty added.

Amnesty insisted that its report was accurate, because it was based on many interviews with eyewitnesses, including relatives of the dead, local journalists, and individuals who had actually seen the bodies. However, the Ethiopian government issued a statement on April 24, totally denying Amnesty’s report and claiming that in fact no such raid had taken place. “This is a completely fabricated story, designed to blackmail the Ethiopian army, one of the most disciplined forces anywhere in the world, and will damage the reputation of Amnesty,” the statement read. It also claimed that the report was based on “a story circulated by Shabab”, the group of ‘Islamist’ young fighters that constituted the UIC’s initial fighting force.

The Ethiopian government’s response to Amnesty’s report is understandable, though its explanation of what actually happened is absurd. Since human-rights groups and aid-agencies normally ignore the “extra-judicial killings” and war crimes committed by American and Ethiopian troops, and the UN envoy to Somalia openly defends their presence there as ‘peacekeepers’, Amnesty’s report will give greater publicity to the issue and put it in a totally different light. It is true that Somalis and Ethiopians have always confronted each other as enemies divided by Islam and Christianity, but the assault on the al-Hidya mosque will be seen by Somalis – and other Muslims – as a declaration of religious war and a deliberate humiliation of Muslims.

Not surprisingly, the war is taking a new turn, and is no longer be seen by many Somalis as a confrontation between secular and radical Muslims, somewhat complicated by clan-rivalries and the backing of foreign powers (the US and Ethiopia) for the secular side. Both have tried to give the impression that they are in Somalia to fight “terrorists tied to al-Qaeda, not Islamists”. Only two days after the attack on the al-Hidya mosque on April 19, Ethiopia broke off diplomatic relations with Qatar, accusing it of supporting terrorists in Somalia and Ethiopia. The reference is to the UIC and Shabab al-Muslimeen in Somalia, and to the political activists in the Ogaden, who are fighting for independence from Ethiopian rule. Ethiopia accuses Qatar of spreading instability in the Horn of Africa by its alleged support for terrorists.

But Ethiopia’s explanation of its attacks on the mosque and its attempt to put the blame on others, such as Qatar, have not impressed Somalia’s people, and the insurgency against its army and the IG have reached new heights since April 19. The fresh fighting, for instance, has led to the deaths of 81 people in Mogadishu, according to a report on April 20; 119 people were taken to hospital for treatment. More towns were taken by the UIC, including Guda, on the southern coast, and Dinsor, in the southern-central area. On April 26 the insurgents raided the town of Johar to release prisoners. Seven people, including children, died during the raid. According to analysts al-Shabab is behind the attacks, which the government and its Ethiopian backers appear to be incapable of halting. In fact they are so incapable that 40 aid-agencies are warning that catastrophe will soon engulf Somalia. Their warning, however, appears to put the blame on the “Islamist rebels” and absolve the IG and Ethiopian army.

A report in the Economist on April 19 on the insurgency was, however, more impartial. Emphasising the IG’s failure, the report said: “As an Islamist insurgency continues, the government spends much of the scarce money it has on the personal protection of president Abdullahi Yusuf, the prime minister Nur Adde Hussein, and the defence and intelligence chiefs. The parliament in the town of Baidoa, in the dusty interior, is empty; its members have drifted away.”

However, the failure of the IG and its foreign backers is no consolation to the Somali people, who are paying the price for the “insurgency”. Only if the Ethiopians and the Americans leave the country will there be a solution (though it may take time) for the continued confrontation and violence.

By: M. A. Shaikh

Modern wars are fought on various battlefronts, not least on the media front. The media has continued to insist on things that are absolutely not true, twisting facts, repeating lies and manipulating public opinion in order to support their wrong cause. Media reports and presentations of events in areas of conflict such as in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc. are biased and slanted to such an extent that we do not get a correct picture of what is happening.

Embedded journalists cannot know the war from the other side, nor can they report it objectively, even if they know the truth. The news we receive from the global fake news industry has nothing to do with news. The actual news exists, but hidden behind web sites that only the US Governmentals – and those with a “special relation” have an access. World media is controlled by the rich and powerful countries of the world, and it is only natural that their interests are safeguarded in the featuring of news stories. Hype, slant, and spin are the order of the day in the media world.

The stone throwing by the Palestinian teenagers or the “suicide” attacks they launch against the Israelis, as part of their Intifada, are terrorist attacks.

But then, the cold-blooded massacre of hundreds of Arab men, women and children in Deir Yassin, by Menachem Begin - who won the “Nobel Prize for Peace” - and the calculated genocide perpetrated in Sabra Shatila, under the direction of Ariel Sharon - “the man of peace” - are not terrorist acts… Naturally, people are perplexed!

In Iraq, people who used to be victims of Saddam Hussein are ruthlessly bombarded with depleted uranium bombs and cluster bombs to implement “democracy.” It is interesting to see how US forces in Iraq are using Saddam’s own Abu Ghraib for this “purpose.”

Any groups who want to fight against this so-called preemptive invasion are depicted as terrorists who are “motivated by what God can give them in paradise”. This means that they are not fighting the invaders and occupiers, but they simply wish to get rewards in the Islamic Paradise, eager to commit suicide in the process!

Islam is presented as “Islamic fascism” or “terrorist Islam” in order to push their imperialist agenda. And the real causes of the conflicts are blurred out.

This is the tragedy of the present day world which many ignores. How many people are aware (if not care) about the following terrible facts in Iraq for example:

1. Million plus Iraqi women have become widows: their husbands are partly among the 1.2 - 1.3 million Iraqis killed, another million missing and the 400,000 prisoners captured, held and tortured by the occupation forces.

2. Five million Iraqi children have lost their mother and father and become orphans. Having their parents either dead, “lost”, jailed or forced to flee leaving everything behind, they would count as one of the seven million refugees or end up joining some Iraqi Resistance group fighting the illegal aggressors.

3. Currently, there are 10,000 Iraqi women prisoners. 95% of them are raped systematically. Thus to kill them indirectly, because it’s highly probable they would end up killing themselves due to unbearable psychological pressure. The mercenaries whether military contractors (GI’s) or civilian ones (Mercenaries) have been all too available for “personal motives”.

Of course these were not reported in the mainstream media, what they publish are the occupation false flag operations to portray a “civilian-targeting-suicide-bombing” strike and when there were actual martyrdom operations that killed dozens of their soldiers, what they report, if any, was the injury of just a couple of soldiers. Such was their habit because they are an alleged empire based on the hireling lying media.
.
Having thus made our way through the treason of the corporate media phoney coverage, we’ll notice soon enough that the holocaust of the Iraqi (as well as Afghan and Palestine) people is executed under a huge, calculated media lie, basically identical with the one preventing the German people really understanding the scale and scope of the Nazi’s atrocities during the Second World War (WW II).
.
Isn’t it ironic that the same people who were fighting the Nazis and those who keep on telling the entire world that they were persecuted by the Nazis during the WW II are now becoming the “Nazi” of today themselves, except the present ones are more nifty that very few people seem to notice the terrible hypocrisy and double standards followed by the so-called leaders of “civilized world”.

Prophet Muhammad (may peace and blessing be upon him) warned us in his prophecy: “The time of the Dajjal will be years of confusion. People will believe a liar, and disbelieve one who tells the truth. People will distrust one who is trustworthy, and trust one who is treacherous; and the ruwaybidha will have a say.” Someone asked: “Who are they?” He said: “Those who rebel against Allah and will have a say in general affairs.”

Thus insightful muslims know that this is one of the very important signs of the End Times, when the practices of systems of unbelief and falsehood become widespread as per the aforementioned hadith. A time near the Hour, when mercy is overwhelmed by cruelty, truth by lies, transparency by camouflage, the world seems to have forgotten what justice really is. By Allah’s will, the time is very near, so much so that it has become crucial for people to reflect upon this matter seriously and take the only one road, the noble, honorable path chosen by the God’s Angels on Earth, the Lions of Islam, the Mujahideen. Without a doubt Allah will send forth the truth to destroy falsehood through the path of Jihad Fi Sabilillah on all battlefronts.

“And say: “Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.” (Qur’an 17:81)

Obviously those who commit crime upon crime refuse to be called criminals, while innocent Muslims who are hounded as terrorists, naturally refuse to take the blame of the blamers. The battle on the media front between the two opposing qualities will continue and this only makes more people rush into the comforting lap of Islam and find it as an ideological, intellectual and political alternative to the crumbling ruling systems of today. In the end empires that epitomizes lies, camouflage, cruelty and injustice will crumble under its own pressure due to its nature fixed by the Most Just. Look out; the Khilafah is around the corner… God’s willing!

When the Tatars took over Iraq, the centre of the Abbasid Khilafah instead of displacing all of Islam, they kept some aspects just as the rulers do today in the Muslim world. The adhaan could still be heard coming from the masajid and some of the laws of Islam were held in place. The Tatars, in addition to borrowing the Islamic laws, also borrowed laws from Judaism, Christianity, and even had laws invented by their king, Genghis Khan, the leader of the conquering army against Baghdad. All of these laws were then made into one codified law, in a book entitled, al-Yaasiq and sometimes-pronounced al-Yasaa.

The great scholar Ibn Kathir رحمه الله articulates the history surrounding this law that the Tatars made for themselves:

“His book, which is alYasaa, most of it differs from the Shari`a of Allah and His Books. When he (Genghis Khan) died in the year 624 AH (1227 AD), they put him in an iron tabuk (enclosed container), they chained him in between two mountains and left him there. His book alYasaa has two volumes, large in size and to be carried on a camel. In his books, there are such extracts as, ‘Whoever commits fornication, he should be killed, married or not. Whoever does a homosexual act should be killed. Whoever deliberately lied, he should be killed. The one who does magic should be killed. Whoever spies should be killed. Anyone trying to intervene between two opponents, helping one against the other, he should be killed. The one who urinates or dives into stagnant water should be killed.

‘Anyone who feeds a captive or gives him clothing, drink or food without family permission should be killed. Anyone who threw any food to anyone should be killed. He should give it by hand. Anyone who wants to give sadaqa (voluntary charity) from food should eat it first, even if he wants to give it to someone high in the society. Whoever eats and does not feed his guests or household should be killed. Whoever slaughters an animal should be killed. He should cut it in half and take the heart out first.’

He also explained: “This all differs with the Shari`a which Allah revealed to his Messengers. Whoever leaves the decisive Shari`a which has been revealed to Muhammad ibn `Abdullah, the Seal of the Prophets, and he goes for judgment to other than his (Muhammad’s) Shari`a which has been abrogated by his (Muhammad’s) Shari`a, he becomes a kaafir. What about those who are not ruled by an abrogated Shari`a, but alYaasa, and he puts it before the Shari`a of Muhammad? Certainly, whoever does that, he becomes a kaafir unanimously, by the consensus of the Muslims. Allah says,

أفحكم الجاهلية يبغون و من أحسن الله حكماً لقوم يوقنون

‘Is it the legislation/rule of the Days Jaahiliyyah (Days of Ignorance) that they seek? And who is better in judgment than Allah for a people who are certain?!’

فلا و ربك لا يؤمنون حتى يحكموك فيما شجر بينهم ثم لا يجدوا في أنفسهم حرجاً مما قضيت و يسلموا تسليماً

‘No, by your Lord [O Muhammad r], they will not believe until they make you the judge in what they differed in, then they do not find in themselves any dispute from what you judged and they submit completely.’

Allah has spoken the truth in this matter.” [Ibn Kathir’s AlBidaaya wan-Nihaaya, V. 13, p. 101]

Sheikh Ahmad Muhammad Shaakir (1892-1958), the renowned Qadi of Egypt said relating to this topic:

“Is it then lawful with this in the Shari`a of Allah that he judge the Muslims in their lands by the legislation of pagan, atheistic Europe? On the contrary, the legislation comes from false and fabricated opinions. They change it and replace it according to their whims.
No, its inventor is unconcerned or remote from the Shari`a or its violation. The Muslims have not been tested by this, as far as we know of in their time, except in that time, the time of the Tartars. And it was a wicked time, a period of great oppression and darkness.
Thus in these clearly invented laws, as clear as the sun, it is clear kufr, no doubt about it. There is no persuasion and there is no excuse for any one who is affiliated to Islam, being whoever it may, in acting on it, submission to it or establishing it.” [Hukm ul Jaahiliyyah, pg. 28-29 also in Omdah Tafaseer, Verse 50 Surah Al Ma’ida.]

Sheikh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim, a previous Mufti of the Arabian Peninsula said:

“As far as the saying, kufr duna kufr, it is when the judge makes judgement to other than Allah with firm conviction that it is disobedience. He believes that the judgement of Allah is the truth, but he left from it in one matter. As far as whoever made laws in succession and makes others submit to it, then it is kufr, even if they said, ‘We sinned and the judgement of the Revealed Law is more just.’ This is still kufr that removes from the religion.” [Fatawa of Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Aal ash-Sheikh, V. 12, pg. 280]

He said in a famous speech in 1960:

“And it (the major kufr of replacing the Shari`a) is more enormous, more universal, more distinct and more clear in its stubborn opposition to the Shari`a. And stubbornness and arrogance to his judgements, being lax to Allah and His Messenger, making resemblance to the Shari`a courts, arranging, setting up, preparing, establishing a foundation, making applications and usage, shaping, forming and organising, of a mixture of various things and themes in the process of modification (of the Shari`a), making judgement, making it compulsory, and making judgements by turning to authorities.

Then just as the Shari`a courts turn to authorities, all of them (the authorities) returning to the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His Messenger (SAW), then what the authorities turn to of it (the false Shari`a) are concocted and trumped up laws from various Shari`as, several different law systems, such as French law, American law, British law and other laws and from different schools of thought, some attributing bid`a and other things to the Shari`a.

Then these courts are now in most of the urban centres of Islam, prepared, perfect and complete, the doors have been opened and people are swarming to them one after another, their rulers judging between them by what is in direct opposition and contradiction to the judgement of the Sunna and the Book, from the judgements of that law (the false Shari`a) and coercing them to it and establishing it over the Shari`a (the true Shari`a of Allah) and imposing and making it incumbent on them. Then which kufr is over and above (more amplified and clearer) this kufr? And which opposition to the Shahada that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah is after this opposition and violation.” [Tahkim alQawanin, pg. 7]

There is legitimate difference of opinion on whether the ruler becomes Kafir by ruling by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed or whether it is kufr asghar (minor kufr) by which the ruler becomes a sinner (fasiq) and not a disbeliever. However the scholars unanimously agree that ruling by other than what Allah (swt) revealed is a Qat’i prohibition.

Ibn Abeel-’Izz Al-Hanafee said: “Judging by other than what Allah has revealed could be kufr that expels one from the religion and could be a sin either a major sin or a minor one and it could be a symbolic kufr or minor kufr based on the two sayings and this all depends on the situation of the judge: So if he believes that judging by what allah has revealed is not obligatory or that he has the option in this or if he dishonours it(The judgement of Allah) while being certain that it is the judgement of Allah then this is major kufr and if he believes in the obligation of judging by what allah has revealed in this instance but turnsaway from it while recognizing that he deserves to be punished then he is a sinner and is to be referred to as a disbeliver symbolically or upon minor disbelief”. [Sharh At-tahaaweeyyah, pg. 324]

On Thursday 28/02/2008, President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya signed a power-sharing agreement with Raila Odinga, leader of the opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), that was witnessed by both Kofi Annan, chief mediator of the African Union appointed mediation panel that was strongly supported by the international community, and President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, chairman of the rotating leadership of the African Union. Immediately the deal was signed, messages of support and congratulations poured in from the international community as represented by the same parties which had shown a keen interest in resolving the political crisis in Kenya and pressuring for a solution including the United States foreign secretary Condoleezza Rice, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, European Union (EU), African Union, East African Community (EAC), Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) etc. Behind this power-sharing deal were two key influential powers, the US and UK, that imposed this solution upon the Kenyan government in order to preserve their vital interests.

Kenya had witnessed an intense struggle for power during the election period before the 10^th general elections that took place in 27/12/2007. The leading politicians in Kenya took prominent roles in using strong words against their rivals and building tribal coalitions in an attempt to either gain or secure power. Historically all leading politicians in Kenya have strong links with Britain, the old colonial power that continued to control Kenya’s politics in order to attract prominent politicians as a means to dominate Kenya. The leading politicians in Kenya’s recent past, all of whom exploit tribal chauvinism (‘asabiyya), are three: -

Former President Moi from the Kalenjin tribe who ruled for 24 years until he gave up power in 2002.

Then his successor and the current president Mwai Kibaki of the Kikuyu tribe (Kenya’s largest tribe). Thirdly Raila Odinga, son of Kenya’s first vice-president Oginga Odinga, who comes from the Luo tribe (Kenya’s second largest tribe).

In the 2007 general elections, Moi lined up with Kibaki to seek to secure power under the umbrella of the Party of National Unity (PNU), a coalition of various mainly new political parties—apart from the old British established former ruling party of Kenya African National Union (KANU—that were established on tribal lines to secure votes from different regions i.e. a coalition of tribal parties.

On the other side Raila Odinga, the leading opposition politician, established one unified party in the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) by placing tribal leaders at the leadership of the party under his control i.e. a coalition of tribal leaders. Both sides exploited the shallow tribal partisanship bond still carried by many Kenyans, apart from Muslims, to seek for votes. By the time of the elections, PNU was a party built mainly of the Kikuyu elite surrounding Kibaki together with a few non-Kikuyu like Moi who were generally in the orbit of British politics since their early days in pre-independence Kenyan politics. Raila’s ODM was a coalition of the remaining major tribes—particularly the Luo, Luhya and Kalenjin tribes— and other smaller tribes that were uniting with the target to remove the Kikuyu from power. Both PNU and ODM spent enormous sums of money in seeking votes, portrayed their rivals as dangerous mercenaries, and both parties claimed before the elections that it definitely had the majority vote and could only lose by massive rigging thus preparing their followers for a major struggle in case they were not declared winners. Moreover, several leading politicians from both sides obviously had links with tribal militias formed of unemployed youth who were prepared to fight against other tribes to protect politicians’ interests. Moreover, Kenyan politicians showed themselves ready to unite and break coalitions, and also strengthen or weaken links with the colonial powers—the US and UK—solely for the sake of gaining power. All these politicians and parties clearly showed that they were truly secular politicians of the Machiavellian school of thought who believed “might is right” and “the ends justify the means” in their unlimited ambition for power.

Thus when the final results of the general elections were announced by the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) on 30/12/2007 in which ODM was shown to have won most of seats in Parliament (104 out of 210 elected parliamentary seats) yet at the same time Kibaki was announced to have narrowly won the presidential elections against Raila Odinga, the stage was set for an ethnic cleansing campaign and the ODM refused to accept these results as genuine. Then the ODM cleverly mobilised public sentiment to ‘prove’ that Raila won the presidency but that the ECK, a body of 21 commissioners all of whom had been appointed (or re-appointed) by Kibaki, was pushed into declaring Kibaki a winner in the presidential elections via ‘rigging’. Raila thus called for major public demonstrations and rallies in order to challenge the results and cause an ‘orange revolution’ to achieve power against a hostile regime similar to what happened in Ukraine and Georgia. Raila exploited the anti-Kikuyu sentiments he had raised during his elections campaign, together with widespread public anger with the endemic corruption and poverty, so Kenya exploded into chaos, looting, ethnic clashes and widespread violence. All these raised the realistic indications that Kenya would fall into civil war based on tribalism similar to what happened in Rwanda and Burundi, thus the international community in general, and particularly the US and UK, decided to move quickly to resolve the crisis before their interests were destroyed. It is interesting to note, however, that Muslim-dominated regions of Kenya were relatively safe and peaceful since Muslims did not participate in the barbaric tribally-based ethnic killings.

As we have stated, all the leading politicians in Kenya were nurtured under British patronage; however Odinga shifted to the American camp to seek its assistance to achieve power in Kenya so the US encouraged him to imitated the ‘Orange revolutions’ of Georgia and Ukraine. However the influence of powerful tribal politics and the explosion of tribal clashes made the US and the UK, these as the two influential powers in the struggle, to reach a compromise based upon sharing power due to fear that the fighting would erupt into civil war that would endanger their interests.

It is well known to perceptive observers that the intense struggle between the ODM and PNU was the continuation of an Anglo-American struggle for power in Kenya ever since the US adopted the call for ‘multi-party democracy’ in sub-Saharan Africa in the early 1990s as a means to remove old single party dictators who were entrusted with power, and constantly supported, by the British— both former President Moi and his successor, Kibaki. The US objective in calling for multi-party democracy was to attract politicians into its camp under the pretext of being in the ‘opposition’ in an attempt to gain power in Kenya. However the entry of tribes into the conflict and the fear of civil war convinced both the US and UK that neither could assume exclusive control of Kenya’s entire government, at least not at this time, so the two countries agreed to share power to preserve their vital interests. This is because Kenya is considered the key strategic country in East and Central Africa with many vital interests for western powers including: -

1. Geostrategic interests: Kenya is situated at a key geographical point just below the Arabian Gulf, at the mouth of the Red Sea and with a long Indian Ocean coastline plus being the entry point for many landlocked African countries like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Thus control over Kenya ensures control over vital sea lanes, as well as East & Central Africa.

2. Political interests: Nairobi has long been a key capital for western powers in Africa with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UNHSP) both having official headquarters as well other UN agencies having important regional offices. At the same time, other key international institutions used to secure western interests also have important regional offices in Kenya such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank etc thus Nairobi is the focus for many international campaigns and conspiracies. Moreover Nairobi has been used as the base to either promote rebellions in neighbouring countries or impose ‘resolutions’ that favour western interests as happened with both the Sudanese and Somali peace talks. Also Kenya itself is a prominent country in several African institutions such as the African Union (AU), East African Community (EAC), Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) etc which means that many important US and UK plans are implemented by proxy through the Kenyan government.

3. Economic interests: Kenya has the largest and most developed capitalist economy in the East African region, though primarily as a market for western goods and not as a manufacturing country, and Mombasa seaport is the entry point for most of the imports of neighbouring landlocked countries. Moreover almost all of the most profitable companies are owned by British and other western multinationals in the mobile telecommunications, banking, agriculture, horticulture, cement manufacturing and other sectors.

4. Military interests: Kenya is considered an important base for British military forces and the UK managed to renew its defence treaty with Kenya in 2007 during Kibaki’s rule. As for the US, it has a treaty allowing its forces to use Kenya as a rapid deployment post in case of need, and this post was used to launch the invasion of Somalia in 2007. The US in particular is trying to gain influence in Kenya via the training of Kenyan military personnel. Moreover, the National Defence College in Nairobi, located near the British military headquarters in Kenya, is now a regional centre under direct US supervision to train so-called peacekeeping forces both as a means for the US to use such forces to assert US military interests in the region by proxy as well as to attract prominent officers into its camp.

5. Intelligence interests: Nairobi is a major base for the US intelligence agencies including the CIA, FBI and others particularly after the 1998 bomb attack on the US embassy in Nairobi which is the largest in sub-Saharan Africa. As a result of close cooperation, the US has used Kenyan authorities to support its so-called ‘War on Terror’. Similarly the British as well as other countries including ‘Israel’ also have major intelligence bases in Kenya.

6. Ideological interests: The UK has always used Kenya as a model of the supposed ‘benefits’ of free market capitalism for other African countries to follow, something which the US has also been doing since it invested great efforts in the early 1990s to push for multi-party democracy together with liberalisation/privatisation policies to favour its own multinationals. Kenya was the first sub-Saharan African country to undertake multi-party elections even if only nominally in 1992, and the elections of 2007 was the fourth such multi-party elections that was supposed to prove the success of such a model yet it instead proved the failure of capitalist democracy to unify the people or provide solutions to the endemic corruption and poverty affecting the masses.

After the results of the elections were announced followed by chaotic fighting that threatened to result in widespread civil war threatening their long-term interests, the US and UK quickly began pushing their leading men in Kenya, namely Odinga and Kibaki respectively, to accept a power-sharing agreement. Thus we saw repeated efforts by the UK and US ambassadors in Kenya to meet personally with both Kibaki and Odinga to push for power sharing. Britain also quickly sent its African men to mediate the conflict such as former President of Sierra Leone, Ahmad Tejan Kebbah, who was the head of the Commonwealth Election Observer Group monitoring Kenya’s elections. Then on 1^s January, 2008, the US and British foreign secretaries issued a joint statement calling on Kibaki and Odinga to compromise to achieve political stability for the “sake of democracy.” The US also sent the then head of the African Union, President John Kuffuor of Ghana, to try to mediate but he was not immediately successful. The US then sent in its undersecretary of state for African affairs, Jendayi Frazer, to Nairobi where she met repeatedly with Kibaki and Odinga. Britain also sent its foreign minister in charge of African Affairs, Lord Malloch-Brown, to Nairobi for meetings with Kibaki and Odinga. At the same time, the US and UK built strong international pressure via the UN security council, African Union, European Union etc to push for a mediated solution under a panel of so-called ‘Panel of Eminent African Persons’ headed by former UN secretary general Kofi Annan and assisted by both the former Tanzanian president, Benjamin Mkapa, and the former first lady of South Africa, Graca Machel.

The mediation efforts begun in earnest at the end of January 2008 and Annan promised a political resolution with one month; this was because he knew that he was representing the key interested powers, the US and UK, which ensured him that he would not fail. And, just to show how important the issue was, US President George Bush made several public statements pushing for a political resolution to the Kenyan crisis. Similar statements were also made throughout the process by British Prime Minister George Brown. Thus it was obvious that the key powers were going to impose a resolution that protected their strategic interests in Kenya. These countries also used a threat of identifying and prosecuting prominent politicians before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Rome for committing war crimes as a means to impose the power sharing deal. In fact, were it not for fear of endangering their vital interests in Kenya, the US and UK would not have attempted to prevent civil war; rather, they would have left the conflict to continue to the end no matter how many died…!

In the end, and despite several problems along the way primarily caused by hardliners in both the PNU and ODM camps as well as repeated small scale fighting throughout the mediation efforts, Annan’s team finally pushed the main local players—Kibaki and Odinga—to agree to a power sharing agreement that would leave Mwai Kibaki as the president while creating a new executive prime ministerial position for Raila Odinga. This agreement is complicated since it requires a ‘grand coalition government’ between the PNU and its allies on one side and ODM with is minor allies on the other. In other words, all major parties will be in the same government without an official opposition, a strange situation for western countries who insist on multi-party democracy with an official opposition! This proves that western powers call for the slogans of multi-party democracy merely as a pretext to achieve their interests and no more. So such powers support dictatorships if such dictatorships protect their interests; and they call for multi-party democracy to oppose dictatorships if that is in their interests!

Despite the US and UK agreeing to share power in Kenya, however the reality of colonialism—and particularly US colonialism—does not acknowledge power sharing save as a short rest for a fighter amidst a constant struggle. This means that both powers will await a suitable opportunity to exploit to expel the other from the equation in order to take exclusive control over Kenya.

Thus the power sharing agreement is a potential mine-field that can be detonated at any time. For example, the agreement requires the creation of a position of an executive prime minister for the first time since 1964 as well as requiring major constitutional, legal and administrative reforms to work. And there are major question marks as to the extent of the prime minister’s powers especially when compared to the president’s powers. Moreover, since the deal is the result of a compromise based upon a benefit bond between the US and UK, and such deals are notoriously weak and subject to bargaining and recalculation over time depending upon the variance of each power’s interests and strength, this means that the new ‘government of national unity’ in Kenya will be exposed to the danger of collapse at any time that either power believes it has the strength to resolve the struggle exclusively in its favour.

In conclusion, the Kenyan election crisis has proven yet again that the western ideology of capitalist democracy has failed to unify people in Africa or guarantee their progress since it is a tool to ensure Africa remains under western dominance. Rather it has produced dangerous and selfish so-called politicians who are ready to sacrifice a whole country for their personal interests. Yet the same western powers that have caused the problems for Africa through their colonialist exploitation today pretend to be the saviours of Africa by imposing false solutions that recycle the same corrupt politicians who set the country on fire! It is important that Muslims in Kenya, Africa and the world realise that it is their divine duty to expose the corruption of the western ideology of capitalist democracy and offer the divinely-revealed ideology of Islam which is the sole solution for African and the world to spread security and justice worldwide.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Hitler’s Henchman Joseph Goebbels

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
G. W. Bush

Many will argue that these statements can be applied to the rhetoric on the war on terror; the so called imminent danger, the potential loss of many innocent lives.

But how real is this threat? How many of us are suffering the consequences of daily attacks? Many of us were shocked and saddened by the events of 7/7, but since then what has happened? Not many of us live in constant fear. The media constantly spews a climate of fear, fraudulently attempting to terrify the masses into believing that terrorism is the only plague to our otherwise civilised world. But even in the 21st century, a century of abundance and waste, a war on want would save far more lives than any war on terror!

What terrorist has murdered millions or destroyed nations? The answer does not come from a race, religious group or a political party, but a force that has mass support across the political spectrum. This terrorist is called “Debt,” the most efficient killer in the world.

‘Relieved of their annual debt repayments, the severely indebted countries could use the funds for investments that in Africa alone would save the lives of about 21 million children by 2000 and provide 90 million girls and women with access to basic education.’
UNDP Human Development Report 1997, p. 93

Ten years after the UNDP report, it is evident that politics have not changed and debt repayments continue, the sum of which is beyond both decency and taste. Those who benefit from these debt repayments are those who bank roll institutions like the IMF, the World Bank and the Paris Club. These are the high rollers, multi-millionaires or billionaires and Western Central Banks. It is this way that wealth flows from the very poorest people in the world to the richest.

‘God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East ‘ proclaimed Bush in 2006. Why doesn’t his God instruct him to deal with poverty and debt? Perhaps he is really listening to the rich and influential and not God at all!

Even so, economists have continued to inform the world (the eager poor to be precise) that there will be enough growth in wealth for everybody, and they are right, everyone can be fed and provided with shelter and clothing. However, the reality is so very different,

Furthermore economists have been telling the world (the eager poor to be precise) that there will be enough growth and wealth for everyone. They are right, everyone can be fed and be provided with shelter and clothing. But the reality is so very different; we live in an unequal world.

“225 people own more wealth than the poorest 2.5 billion people”
UNDP Human Development Report 1998

So who is driving this force of mass indiscriminate killing?

“There is a very broad consensus among African governments that the IMF and World Bank terms are often harsh and unsuitable generated severely adverse effects on the overall economies of these countries especially with regard to agriculture, manufacture and foreign trade”
Conference of the Institute for African Alternatives, Onimode, B. [ed.], The IMF, the World Bank Bank and African Debt, Zed Books, 1989.

Capitalism itself relies on the philosophy of self-interest, profit maximisation and greed to enhance production. This leads to a desire to control all available resources to harness their economic potential. Practically it leads to the rich and powerful seeking to control the financial affairs of as much of humanity as possible. The capitalist economic system itself that dominates the world directly leads to this situation. It does indeed produce growth and wealth. Never has the world been as wealthy as it is today, but this wealth does not find its way to the poor and this is its perpetual weakness.

So what can we do? What is the solution?

Well first off, charity pop concerts are not the solution. The good willed people of Britain attending charity concerts to end poverty have been (deliberately I may add) given false hopes. The millions raised are barely enough to pay off the interest Africa has accrued for a few hours.

Some $700 million per day now flows in debt repayment from the developing world to the developed world
UNDP Human Development Report, 1997

Evidently, even if we had a concert a day, it would not be enough. We would need at least 700 concerts a day. If you attempt to transform a system from within, the system changes you. Therefore, a new model, a new paradigm, a fresh perspective on this issue is needed. If we all want to stop this rampant killer that is responsible for the equivalent of 21,000 9/11’s and over a million 7/7’s each year, then we must provide a sincere and valid solution.

“…and give up what remains of your demand for interest… Deal not unjustly and you shall not be dealt with unjustly” 2: 278-279

“…Freeing a slave or feeding on a day of hunger an orphaned relative or a poor man in the dust; then to be one of those who have iman and urge each other to steadfastness and urge each other to compassion…” Surat al-Balad: 13-17

“…that is because they say, ‘Trade is the same as interest.’ But God has permitted trade and He has forbidden usury.” 2:275

“Give your relatives their due, and the very poor ….” Surat al-Isra’: 26

It is a lie that the current financial world order is fair to the poor or that developed nations are not directly responsible for the exploitation of the resources of the poorest people on this earth. It is a lie that these economic policies do not directly kill millions. It is true that the capitalist economic system itself is responsible for the death of tens of millions of human beings. It is time for a war on want.

On 24/3/08 King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia speaking at a seminar on ‘Culture and the Respect of Religions’ said, “The idea is to ask representatives of all monotheistic religions to sit together with their brothers in faith and sincerity to all religions as we all believe in the same God…” The remarks were enthusiastically received by the World Council of Churches and the Bush administration. Presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino said,” … it can only give us hope that there would be further recognition of everyone’s right to freedom and freedom of expression and religion. So we are encouraged by it.” Has not the King heard the all too often derogatory remarks made by the Pope and other western leaders about Islam? Is he not aware of the words of Allah regarding Jews and Christians? Allah says: “the Jews and the Christians will never be pleased with you until you follow their own Deen” [TMQ 2:120]

The following is a draft translation of part of Study No 11, Vol. 1 from the Ph.D. Thesis from the University of Damascus, Syria entitled ‘Al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi as-Siyasa ash-Shar’iyya’, published in Beirut, Lebanon by Dar al-Bayariq in 3 Volumes by Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Khair Haykal. The scanned Arabic book can be downloaded from here.

Fighting to Establish the Islamic State

Abstract:

This study includes:

1- The opinions of Muslim writers around the thought of fighting to establish the Islamic State.

2- The evidence of those who allow or do not allow “fighting to establish the Islamic state” and its discussion showing the position we put forward.

3-Fighting to establish the Islamic state (by the ones who adopt this method), is it Jihad in the way of Allah by its shariah meaning?

Firstly: The opinions of the Muslim writers regarding the thought to establish the Islamic state

The division of the opinions of the Muslim writers regarding this first issue into two directions. They are:

A- A position that refuses the thought of fighting or a physical revolution or the use of weapons to establish the Islamic state.

It is noticeably seen that the upholders of this direction will not necessarily use the clause “Islamic state” when exhibiting the evidence for there ideas. In fact, many of them seem to hide this term (for some reason or other) using the phrases “changing the Islamic society” or “changing the present situation”, and what ever closely resembles them……. Fair enough. These phrases (and what ever is similar) though when used by those who are active in the Islamic dawaa can be summarised with the term “Islamic state” i.e. The authority that stands on the basis of Islam in establishing its laws and spreading its message.

B- Then their is the other direction that calls for the use of fighting or a physical revolution in order to establish the Islamic state.

We will summarise in this first issue the opinions of a number of authors that hold either position , and we will quote form their books the parts that exposes there views that they propagate. We will leave the discussion of their opinions to the second part.

A- The first position: The refusal of physical struggle, or the use of weapons to establish the Islamic state.

This position is put forward by a number of authors including:

1- Professor Abu Ala Al Mawdudi.

This Muslim writer, who was the amir of Jamat Al Islamia in Pakistan, at the end of a lecture entitled (( The Duty of Muslim Youth today)) that was presented in Mecca Al Mukarramma in the days of Hajj, the year 1381 A.H. says:

“Brothers in Islam……I will like to put forward to you an advice (at the end of this lecture). It is that you do not establish secret organisations to achieve your goal and that you should avoid (at all costs) using a physical struggle or weapons to change the position (we are in). Because this method also is a means of hurrying (to quickly) that will result in no fruitful gain. The attempt to achieve your goal by the shortest route possible…….and the correct revolution………is that you propagate your dawa publicly , correcting the hearts and minds of the people as much as you can……But if you hurry up with this issue and work to establish the authority ( by a coup de ta) by a physical means and in fact you succeed to a certain extent, then (the position) will analogous to the wind that enters the door to leave by the window. This is my advice that I have given to all those who are active in the Islamic Dawaa.”

And (another) from the authors who uphold this opinion is:

2- Sheikh Muhammad Nasr Al-Deen Albani:

And this is with his commentary with regards to Aqueedat Al Tahawiya, clause 72: “And we (ahl ul sunnah wal Jammah) do not see that we should revolt against our rulers or governors even if they become tyrannical . Nor do we call against them or remove our hand away from their allegiance……” Sheikh Albani comments on this and says:

“I say: and with this (statement) their is an indication of the method to end the injustice of the rulers that are from our community and speak our language. That is, that the Muslims should seek forgiveness from their creator, correct their aqueedah, and bring up their families and themselves on the correct Islam confirming the words of Allah : (( …..Allah does not change the condition of the people until they change what is within themselves)) .

And with this one of the current propagators of Islam said: (( Establish the Islamic state in the heart and it will be established in reality)). Nor is the method (to remove this injustice) as some imagine a revolution with weapons against our rulers by means of a military coup de ta. It (in fact) is one of the bidaahs of this period of ours as it goes against the shariah text that orders us to change what is within ourselves. Because of this it is essential that we correct the basis before we build upon it….”

And from the Islamic writers that walk along this direction, propagating it include:

3- Dr Muhammad Said Rahmadan Al Buti:

And it is possible that we understand his position from a large number of signs that are noted in his booklet:

(( This is the way we propagate in Islam)). From this (booklet) his comments ” The establishment of the society on the principles of Islam, its laws, and its organisation is only but a reward from Allah who creates it from a (a position) that is expected or not expected as a result of (the Muslims) establishing Islam on themselves and on their families and children first, then secondly on those that are closest to them, then. on the majority who remember Allah and draw closer to him. Thirdly (the Muslims) then should seek refuge from Allah (to change the situation).”

It is this collection, (of signs) to establish the Islamic society as a result of it being a reward from Allah who creates it for the Muslims, if and only if they increase there remembrance seeking refuge from Allah, that is an evidence in the refusal of fighting to correct the situation we are in and establishing the Islamic society.

Their is also (another) confirmation of this direction that refuses to fight to establish the Islamic society - the advice of the author to the Muslim that he ( the Muslim) should concentrate his efforts on the propagation (of Islam) not concerning himself with other issues. Because the reason of change is in the hands of Allah himself(alone). He( Buti) says regarding this ” If the Muslim fulfils the obligation that is upon him with regards to the dawaaa, then he should leave the results to Allah, leaving the issue to him. Nor should he tire himself with things Allah has not given him authority for. And he should not work (with an objective in mind) regarding this issue like those who imagine that everything is in their hands. Rather he (Allah) is the one who knows the reasons, comes out with the results and changes the situation…..”

This is the direction of the first point of view with regards to fighting in order to establish the Islamic state in this period of ours or as some put it ” the establishment of the Islamic society and changing the situation (we are in)”.

B- The second direction : The call to fight to establish the Islamic state

Probably the Jihadee group in Egypt is the clearest with regards to this position from all the Islamic movements in the last few years and the writings (of this movement) have spread (information) as a result clarifying their position. They also defend themselves with the evidences before them attacking the other position that forbids using violence to establish the Islamic state, accusing them of two things either ignorance in Islam or cowardice…….as will be shown

Dr Muhammad Amarah says ” This situation is in fact a situation of the sword and the use of physical struggle and revolution in order to establish the Islamic state because this issue is from the issues of the Khilafa and the Jihadee movement has given importance to the reply of all the objections that have spread and are spreading in the use of fighting and struggle as a means to establish the Islamic state and returning of Islam to the Muslims”

Their is no objection in putting forward these objections with there replies in summary which will clarify more the position of these two camps in this issue.

The first objection: comes from those who call for Islamic work from an Islamic political party that propagates its views within the laws that are present in the society. Hence they refuse the thought of fighting to establish the authority putting Islam in the position of control.

The Jihadee group replies to this with the reasoning that any system will not allow any possible means to destroy itself , and if the goal is the destruction of the present corrupt system then it is not possible by the means of the allowed tools be it with a political party or a parliament. For those who say ” That it is upon us to establish an Islamic party among the current parties” (the reply is) that it will not lead but to an increase in the number of parties!! Plus the party will not be able to establish the goal that they set out for and that is the destruction of the Kufr state. In fact the opposite will happen. It will share in the building of the Kufr state! For it results in the association with them in opinions and taking part in the legislative system that rules without the authority of Allah !!

I say (Dr Khair Haykel): That it occurred before that Mawdudi took this position that the Jihadee movement warned against . In fact he says ” Our taking part in the parliament that is not correct nor believing in our principles results in us associating to get closer to our goal for the wrong reasons because practical experience confirms that an action like this will no have any fruitful results . In fact those that have authority in ruling are the ones who draw the domestic as well as the foreign policy establishing it when it suits their whims and desires. As for those that take part with the intention of an honourable goal in front of their eyes, they in fact need to discuss with (those in authority). This means that at the end of it they become a mouth piece for them, toys in their hand to do with as they wish using them as they want”

The second objection- This is put forward by a group that says according to the (jihadee) author that they are now in a state of weakness. They hence call for removing themselves from society making Hijra from it with the hope of getting strength to return to establish the Islamic state.

The Jihadee movement replies by saying that these people should save the effort on themselves by establishing the Islamic state and coming out as conquerors. Dr Amarah continues to say “and an example is like those who say that they should migrate to the hills, then they will return to meet Pharaoh as Moses did and Allah will destroy pharaoh and his army!! All these thoughts did not come about except by leaving the correct shariah means to establish the Islamic state. This way Allah has shown by the ayah (( And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail Allah’s deen altogether and everywhere))

The Third Objection- This is put forward by a group that stops Islam at the limits of correction, fear of Allah, matters of ritual worship and isolation in religious devotion. They say that politics grows in the heart a hardness that prevents remembrance of Allah. The Jihadee movement replies that jihad, and they mean by this, the fighting of a ruler in the Muslim lands and taking authority from them to establish Islam, is a political action and is the highest of all matters of worship in Islam, ” and whosoever wants to really work with the highest forms of worship then he should do Jihad in the path of Allah”, without ignoring the other pillars of Islam. In fact the prophet describes Jihad as the sword of Islam.

And these people that say: that taking part in politics hardens the heart and keeps someone busy away form the remembrance of Allah seem just to forget the saying of the prophet ” The best Jihad is the saying of truth in front of a tyrannical leader”

The fourth Objection put forward by those that do not put forward fighting to establish the Islamic state is the fear of failure.

The Jihadee movement replies to this group by saying that it falls into two mistakes.

Firstly: The deficiency in carrying out the act of Allah’s law by establishing the state for the Muslim is asked to carry out the order without looking for results!!

Secondly: The inability to see the attractive nature of the justice of Islam that pulls towards the nation a lot of supporters even from those that did not have knowledge of Islam before!

Then the reply to those who say ” we fear that the nation will be established then after a day or two there will be a rebuttal destroying what we have succeeded in establishing” The Jihadee movement replies:

“The establishment of the Islamic nation is the carrying out of Allah’s command and we are not required to produce results. In fact the one who holds this opinion that is of no benefit does nothing but to further establish among the Muslims the will to do their duty from the Shariah by establishing the authority of Allah. (This person) forgets that with the fall of the Kafr Regime everything will be in the hands of the Muslims making it impossible for the Islamic state to fall. Plus the Islamic laws are not deficient nor weak in removing every corruption on the earth that is not within the bounds of the authority of Allah added to the fact that the Islamic laws are all so just that they will have only the response of willing acceptance from those who even do not know Islam.”

These are the most important objections that the Jihadee group has put forward against the opinion that they put forward and that is “fighting to establish the Islamic state” with their reply to them.

We hope that by showing the different opinions of both sides in this issue we have successfully stopped at distancing the thoughts of each side.

And from here we go onto our second part of the study and it is:

Secondly: The evidences of those that legalise or forbid fighting to establish the Islamic state with their discussion and the clarification of the opinion that we have weighed up with its evidences

A- The Evidences of those who Forbid Fighting to Establish the Islamic State

The upholders deduce this direction by a number of evidences that include:

1- The First Evidence:….They point to the fact of harm that results with the use of weapons. Harm is forbidden by shariah with the saying of the prophet ” Their is no harm or harming (in Islam)”

After warning against the use of weapons or any physical means to change the situation we are in ,Mawdudi comments ” This method is the worst barrier and causes more harm then any one can picture”

Mawdudi indicates to the harm by following this pathway and from which one may understand from him a fear that the opposing force may stand in the face of change that is established by force. It seems as if he is indicating to the fitnah and bloodshed that could result from this. He also say