Kufr Secularization – Cause of the Obliteration of the Ottoman Empire
(Maulana A S Desai)
Fatwas on Jihaad and Hijrah
(Maulana A S Desai)
Bootlicking the Saudi Regime
(Maulana A S Desai)
FATWASQ. What is the Shariah’s view regarding democracy? Is this a viable system for Muslims?
A. Regarding all systems besides the Sunnah or Shar’i system emanating from the Qur’aan and Ahaadith, Allah Ta’ala says: ‘Those who do not govern according to to the (law) which Allah has revealed, verily, they are the kaafiroon.’ Democracy, like all other systems fabricated by the minds of men are untenable in Islam. It is an un-Islamic system. While it is the ‘best’ system for a non-Muslim country, it has absolutely no validity for a Muslim country. Muslim rulers who adopt democracy or any other system other than the Shariah’s system immediately leave the fold of Islam. Hence, we find today that all Muslims sitting in government positions of law-making in Muslim lands are among the murtaddeen (renegades). In choosing the non-Muslim system of government they have effectively renounced Islam.
Q. Some Muslims cite the Qur’aanic verse of Shuraa (consultation) as a basis for supporting a democracy and the parliamentary system. Please comment.
A. There is absolutely no basis anywhere in the Qur’aan for western democracy and its parliamentary system. A government of democracy is a government appointed by Juhhaal (ignoramuses). Ignoramuses, fussaaq and fujjaar have no share in appointing a government in Islam. The Islamic system is Khilaafat on the pattern of the first Four Khulafa-e-Raashideen—the Rightly guided Representatives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Q. Why is the western system of democracy not compatible with Islam?
A. The western system of democracy is in total conflict with the Islamic system of government. In the Islamic system of Khilaafat, the ruler is one man whose function it is to govern in accordance with the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, i.e. the Shariah. The duty of the Islamic government headed by a pious, benign autocrat, is to enforce the laws which have already been divinely promulgated.
Shuraa or consultation is a Sunnah practice which the Khalifah adopts. But he is not constrained to succumb to the advices and decisions of those with whom he consults. In the ultimate end, the decision is made by only him.
Some misguided Muslims enamoured by westernism, are at pains to find Shar’i accommodation for western democracy in the Qur’aanic aayat which orders Shuraa. They fallaciously cite the Shuraa verse in substantiation of their belief that Islam accepts the western system of democracy. In this aayat, Allah Ta’ala says:
‘And, consult with them in affairs. Then when you (the Khalifah) have resolved (to adopt a particular course), repose trust on Allah.’
The resolution and final decision are the prerogatives of the Khalifah. The Islamic system precludes any parliament or legislative body from enforcing its decisions by majority vote on the Khalifah. He is fully empowered by the Qur’aan and Sunnah to act in accordance with his own determination.
The purpose of consultation is to discuss and explore all angles of an issue. By mutual consultation with men of experience, knowledge and piety, all angles and aspects of a matter are highlighted. This allows the Khalifah to form a balanced and the correct decision.
Those with whom the Khalifah consults act in only an advisory capacity. They have absolutely no legislative power. If the Khalifa’s view is in conflict with the unanimous opinion of all his advisors, the Shariah does not bind him to accept such consensus. The Qur’aan vests him with all the authority to make decisions alone and to adopt his own view even if in opposition to what the entire nation believes is right.
For acting in accordance with the Qur’aanic order of consultation, the Khalifah is not required to establish a formal forum or a formal body of counsellors. The obligation of Shuraa is discharged by the Khalifah consulting on an informal basis with whomever he wishes, whenever he wishes, and wherever he wishes.
The concept of Shuraa does not envisage the establishment of a forum like a parliament or any other legislative body. The Khalifah discussing with one or two persons at his home, at the Musjid, outside the Musjid or anywhere else, satisfies the requirement of Shuraa.
It is also not a requirement that there be particular and permanent members whom the Khalifah has to consult. He is free to consult with anyone.
Commenting on the un-Islamic system of democracy, Hakimul Ummat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) said:
‘As evidence for their idea of the validity of democracy, they (its votaries) present the aayat, ‘Consult with them in affairs’ But, I refute their contention with this very same aayat. While this aayat orders mashwarah (consultation), it should be understood that consultation does not mean democracy. You (i.e. the votaries of democracy) regard yourselves to be wise men while in reality you are bereft of understanding.
You should first prove that even one of the four righteous Khulafa or the government of the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) was a democracy (in the western concept). The Khulafa were never bound and subservient to the advices/decisions of their advisors (with whom they would consult). According to the Shariah, the government of the individual is the rule.
When the supporters of democracy cite the aayat of Shuraa, they stop midway, without reciting the whole aayat. They conveniently omit: ‘Then, when you (the Ruler) have finally decided (a matter), repose your trust in Allah (and act accordingly).’
They either conveniently overlook this decisive portion of the aayat or they lack the ability to understand it.’
Thus, the concept of democracy or majority rule has absolutely no validity in the Shariah.
Q. Does the Islamic system of Rulership create independence of the judiciary?
A. The concept of the independence of the judiciary is as old as Islam. Many, many centuries before the west began to theorize this concept, the courts of Islam acted independently of the executive. This concept is grounded in the Qur’aanic command of justice. The Qur’aan Majeed commands:
‘O People of Imaan! Become the establishers of justice, witnesses for Allah even though it be against yourselves or your parents or your relatives. If he be a wealthy or a poor person, then (know that) Allah is closer to both of them. Therefore, do not follow (your) desire in (the matter of) enforcement of justice.’ (Surah Nisaa, Aayat 135)
The Rulers of Islam (the Khulafa and the Sultans) had practically demonstrated the independence of Islam’s judicial system. Besides the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, even worldly kings and Sultans upheld the principle of justice. Mighty rulers of Islam would immediately submit to the summons of the Qaadhi (Judge) and unhesitatingly stand trial in exactly the same way as an ordinary citizen would. The following episode illustrates the Islamic system of justice and the independence which the judiciary enjoyed from the very inception of Islam.
Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) is no stranger to even non-Muslims. The two superpowers of the age — the Roman and Persian empires — were defeated and brought to their knees by Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). His very name would send shivers down the spines of emperors and kings.
The home of Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu), the paternal uncle of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was adjacent to Musjid-e-Nabawi. Water from the gutter would splash into the Musjid causing distress to the musallis. During his Khilaafat, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) ordered the removal of the gutter. The gutter was removed during the absence of Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu).
On his return to Madinah, when he saw what had happened, Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) was furious. He hastened to the court of the Qaadhi and complained about the action of Ameerul Mu’mineen, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu).
Hadhrat Ubay Bin Ka’b (radhiyallahu anhu) was the Chief Qaadhi. He immediately summoned Hadhrat Umar to court to answer the charge. On the appointed day, Hadhrat Umar, the Ruler of the Islamic Empire, attended the Qaadhi’s court with profound humility and simplicity. On his arrival at the court, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) had to wait outside for quite some time due to the Qaadhi’s other engagements. Finally Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was called inside. Hadhrat Umar on entering attempted to say something. But the Qaadhi silenced him.
Qaadhi: ‘It is the right of the plaintiff to speak and present his case. Be silent.’
Hadhrat Abbaas: ‘My home from the very beginning was adjacent to Musjid Nabawi during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as well as during the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu). But now Ameerul Mu’mineen has demolished the gutter and threw it away. I am considerably distressed by this action. I want justice.’
Qaadhi: ‘Ameerul Mu’mineen! What have you to say?’
Hadhrat Umar: ‘Undoubtedly, I had it removed. I am responsible for it.’
Qaadhi: ‘You were supposed to refrain from such unjust interference in the home of another person without his consent. Why did you do it?’
Hadhrat Umar: ‘Your honour, Sometimes water from the gutter would splash in the Musjid causing distress and inconvenience to the musallis. I therefore ordered its removal. I am of the opinion that I had acted correctly. I did not commit any crime.’
Qaadhi: (Addressing Hadhrat Abbaas): ‘What do you say in response?’
Hadhrat Abbaas: ‘Your honour, Rasulullah (sallallahu alyhi wasallam) had himself, marked out the foundations of my home with his knife. After the house was built, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered that the gutter be fixed in the very place where it was. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) instructed me to mount on his blessed shoulders and attach the gutter. Inspite of my refusal out of respect, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) vehemently insisted. In compliance I stood on the blessed shoulders of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and did as he had commanded. I attached the gutter on the position from where Ameerul Mu’mineen had ordered its removal.’
Qaadhi: ‘Do you have any eye witnesses?’
Hadhrat Abbaas: ‘Not only one or two, but many.’
Qaadhi: ‘Present them now so that this matter could be resolved.’
Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) went outside and after sometime returned with several witnesses from among the Ansaar. They all testified that they were eye witnesses to the episode. Meanwhile the greatest Ruler on earth, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) stood humbly staring at the ground. Then he spoke.
Hadhrat Umar: ‘O Abul Fadhl (Hadhrat Abbaas)! For Allah’s sake forgive me. I was totally unaware that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself had ordered the construction of the gutter in its position. If I had been aware, I would not have ordered the removal of the gutter even by error. What right do I have to remove the gutter which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself had ordered?’
(Consider the destruction of the homes and relics of Rasulullah-sallallahu alayhi wasallam — and the Sahaabah sacrilegiously perpetrated by the Saudi regime which trample on the rights of people by usurping their lands and paying them a pittance, then selling the usurped land for exorbitant prices to the wealthy members of the family)
Hadhrat Umar: ‘Amends could be made by you mounting onto my shoulders and replacing the gutter on its original position.’
Qaadhi: ‘Yes, O Ameerul Mu’mineen! This is the demand of justice. You have to do this.’
Soon the people saw the powerful Khalifah who had defeated Qaisar and Kisra (the Roman and Persian emperors), standing by the wall with Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) mounted on his shoulders fixing the gutter to its position.
After completing the work of the gutter, Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) alighted and pleaded: ‘O Ameerul Mu’mineen! What has transpired was to reclaim my right. Now that I have acquired by right as a result of your love for justice, I seek forgiveness from you for this disrespect. I wholeheartedly give as Waqf my house in the Path of Allah Ta’ala. You have the right to demolish it and include it in the Musjid. May Allah Ta’ala accept my contribution.’
Independence of the judiciary from the executive is largely an empty slogan of the votaries of western democracy. In the annals of history there is no example to compare with the episode which appears on this page.
Islam has practically demonstrated the meaning of equality in front of the law. No monarch, governor, ruler, president, prime minister, cabinet minister, etc. could be ushered to court to stand as an ordinary citizen in front of the judge in the manner in which the Rulers of the Islamic Empire had demonstrated. Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was not an isolated case. Islamic history bears ample testimony to the fact that even not so pious Muslim monarchs answered the summons of the Qaadhi without hesitation and stood on the same level as the plaintiff.
Those who pipe the tune of western democracy in which the independence of the judiciary is supposed to be a fundamental principle cannever hope to present the glittering examples of justice by an independent judiciary flaunted by Islamic autocracy known as Khilaafat.
Despite the slogan, it is a momentous struggle for an ordinary citizen to succeed in hauling a high government official of the democratic system to court. Public outcries and media pressure may succeed in activating the principle of the independence of the judiciary and that all men are equal in front of the law. But in a democracy, this is not normal nor in any other system of government.
It is only Islamic Autocracy which can be proud of the distinction of the true independence of the judiciary — a system in which true justice and fair play reign. The Islamic autocratic system is divine. In a true Islamic system of government, fear for Allah Ta’ala permeates the administration. The Ruler is not the maker of laws. He merely dispenses the divine laws of Allah Ta’ala. He is not an unjust despot like the presidents of democracies.
Although it is claimed that the president is ‘democratically’ elected, he is far from being a ‘democrat’. A glance at the presidents of the ‘democratic’ countries will convince the keen observer that all presidents of republics and democracies are cruel, unjust despots who are at the helm for personal glory and monetary gain.
Notwithstanding the flowery language which adorns constitutions and preambles, the irrefutable fact is that while the law will prosecute an ordinary citizen for a crime, cast him into a squalid cell, and haul him to court, similar treatment cannot be meted out to Mr. President of a ‘democratic republic’ irrespective of the notoriety of the crime which the despot may commit.
The hollowness of the slogans of democracy is manifest in practical every day life. The high sounding phrases of human rights, equality, justice and the like are designed for public consumption at forums of hypocritical display.
Q. Is it permissible to take part in the political process and/or vote?
A. This is not a riddle for Muslims who understand the meaning and purpose of Islam. It is a cut and dried issue devoid of ambiguity. The Qur’aan states with clarity and emphasis:
‘Those who do not govern according to that (Shariah) revealed by Allah, verily, they are the kaafiroon.’
Every secular system of governance is un-Islamic. It is in conflict with the Qur’aan and Sunnah, hence it is not permissible for Muslims to be participants in the law-making processes of governments even in Muslim countries. All the secular institutions of government in the Muslim lands are haraam structures of kufr in which participation is haraam. The permissibility of a system is measured on the Standard of the Shariah. If it is in conflict with the Immutable Shariah, it is a kufr system. Participation in such a law-making process effaces Imaan.
When a Muslim becomes a member of parliament in a democratic or socialist system or any other secular system, it represents an implied acknowledgement that he has rejected the Shariah of the Qur’aan and has adopted laws which are in conflict with Allah’s law. He thus casts off the Mantle of Imaan and Islam. In other words he becomes a murtad. His loose association with the Muslim community – his performance of Salaat , his fasting, his performance of hajj and his other acts of ritualism do not secure his Imaan as long as he indulges in the kufr-law making process.
Besides the actual lawmaking process, a Muslim who participates actively in secular politics, even if in a Muslim country, has to ignominiously submit to many other haraam acts such as intermingling of sexes, picture-making, music, idolatry, e.g. worshipping a flag, standing for the national anthem, etc. Only men deficient in faith and virtuous deeds, and ignoramuses who lack a proper understanding of the Shariah venture into the unchartered waters of a kufr law-making system. Warning such culprits whose Imaan dangles on a flimsy thread, the Qur’aan Majeed says:
‘Then, We have established you on a Shariah with regard to affairs. Therefore follow it. And do not follow the desires of those who do not know.’
These restrictive confines of the Shariah stated in the Qur’aan do not permit Muslims to venture into a terrain where kufr, fisq and fujoor are considered respectable norms. If the present crowd of Muslim parliamentarians, ministers and others occupying prominent governmental posit ions is scrutinized, it will be seen that the whole miserable lot are hopeless drones who are incapable of opening their mouths to speak up for any concern of the Muslim community. On the contrary, their non-Muslim counterparts are more sympathetic towards Muslims then these miserable drones who have extinguished their Imaan by their adopt ion of kufr.
1) Law-making: This is taboo. It is never permissible for Muslims to be participants in the law-framing system. Since almost every law promulgated by a secular parliament or law system will necessarily be in conflict or at variance with the Shariah, it will be haraam and kufr for a Muslim parliamentarian to align himself with this process. If he does, he extinguishes his Imaan. It is therefore not permissible for a Muslim to become a member of parliament because it is the seat of the kufr law-making process.
2) Voting: Normally voting is not permissible. Muslims should totally abstain from participation in politics and lead their lives as law-abiding citizens. As citizens of a state the Shariah does not permit them to commit acts of treachery and treason. They are not permitted to indulge in acts of subversion aimed against the rulers. There are, however, circumstances which may constrain Muslims to vote in a secular state. They may have to enter into an uncomfortable alliance with a non-Muslim political party for the sake of their safety and religious well-being.
Consider the situation in India. The two main contenders are the generally secular congress party and the verkrampte Hindu BJ party whose stated objective is the elimination of Islam in India. These arch-enemies of Muslims have pledged to convert all Indian Muslims to Hinduism and all Musjids into temples of idolatry. In view of this danger it will be permissible, not incumbent , for Muslims to vote for the secular Congress party.
But it is not permissible for Muslims to become members of parliament and participate in law-making. The permissibility to vote in certain situations is the consequence of deficient Imaan and lack of spiritual fibre (Roohaaniyat). The original and actual attitude of Muslims who are morally reformed and spiritually developed is to focus the gaze on Allah Ta’ala. Sabr and Dua are the way of the Mu’mineen. It is only Allah Ta’ala Who can aid and protect us, no one else. The Qur’aan states:
‘If Allah aids you, none can defeat you, and if He abandons you, then who is there besides Allah to help you?’
In a situation where voting for a non-Muslim political party is permissible, it will not be permissible for Muslim females to emerge from their homes and proceed to polling booths to vote. If an arrangement could be made for them to vote in seclusion without violation of Hijaab in any way, only then will voting be allowed for them. Arrangements are made for even prisoners to vote in the seclusion of their prisons. If such arrangements are not made, then it will be haraam for Muslim women to leave the precincts of their homes to vote.
“Verily, the earth belongs to only Allah. He bestows its sovereignty to whomever He wishes among His servants. And, the ultimate victory is for the Muttaqeen.” (Qur’aan)
Q. What is the Shariah’s view on voting in democratic elections?
A. Democracy is a kaafir system. The laws fabricated by this system are in conflict with the Shariah. When one votes in this system, one is appointing/electing a person to fabricate/make laws which are in conflict with the Shariah. It is therefore not permissible to vote in such elections. The Qur’aan Majeed states:
‘And, those who do not decree according to that (Shariah) which Allah has revealed, verily they are the kaafiroon.’
However, if the situation in a country requires Muslims to vote for their own safety and welfare, then it will be permissible. For example, in India, the Congress Party is a secular organization which pledges freedom of religion while the extremist Hindu Party has sworn to convert Muslims to Hinduism and to transform the Musaajid into temples of idolatry. Furthermore, the Hindu extremists are behind the riots which lead to the slaughter and destruction of Muslims.
In such a scenario it is necessary for the Muslims to vote for the secular party which is not hostile to Muslims. Such voting will be with the intention of securing the safety of Muslims, and not for the purpose of being participants in the kufr law-making process. If circumstances demand, there is scope for permissibility.
But Muslims may not become part of the lawmaking process of the country. If there are Muslim members of parliament, it will be haraam for them to vote for any legislation which conflicts with the Shariah. If they do, they lose their Imaan, and this is precisely the status of most ‘Muslim’ members of parliament in all the countries, whether Muslim or non-Muslim. They all are murtads.
Q. What is the Shariah’s ruling on voting in a secular democracy, and on the establishment of Muslim political parties?
A. The very first fact to always remember is that obedience to Allah Ta’ala is compulsory. Anything which conflicts with the Shariah is rejected and haraam. All systems of government besides the Shariah are systems of kufr. It is not permissible for Muslims to participate in any system of kufr. The western system of democracy is a kufr system. Thus, the ruling is that participation in a kufr political system is not permissible.
However, if Muslims living in a non-Muslim country need to form a political party to safeguard their Deen, and if in this process they do not violate the Shariah, then it will be permissible. Such participation in the politics of the non-Muslim country will be permissible only to the degree of absolute need. It will be haraam to exceed this absolute need. It will be haraam for Muslims to engage in the lawmaking process in general. Their political efforts and endeavours must be restricted to only Deeni issues.
If Muslims living in a non-Muslim country are confronted with a hostile political party which threatens their Deen, then it will be permissible for Muslims to vote for a political party which is favourably inclined to Muslims or which does not threaten the Deen and the Muslim community. But in the process of voting, if they are constrained to violate the Shariah, e.g. women have to abandon Hijaab, then it will be haraam to vote. The determinants in this issue for permissibility are the Deeni interests of the Muslim community and the ability to abstain from Shar’i violations.
Again we emphasize, if in this process Muslims lose themselves and indulge in all the haraam activities which are associated with kuffaar politics and political parties, then it will not be permissible to engage in such politics. In that case the only alternatives are Sabr and Dua. But Sabr and Dua minus moral reformation and spiritual elevation are ineffective, and these could be accomplished only by submission to the Immutable Divine Shariah of the Camel Age – the Sunnah of Muhammadur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Q. Is it permissible to vote for a political party in a non-Muslim country?
A. Normally it is not permissible to vote for a political party in even a Muslim country. All governments in this era are agents of kufr, shirk, immorality and oppression. All governments promulgate laws which are in total conflict with the Shariah. It is not permissible for Muslims to participate in the law-making processes of these countries. It is haraam to vote for any political party, whether in a Muslim or non-Muslim country. This is the normal and straightforward ruling of the Shariah.
However, in abnormal situations, the ruling changes. If, for example, a particular political party is more amenable and sympathetic to the Muslim community and its religious requirements, and this party’s adversary is hostile towards Muslims, then it will be permissible, and even necessary to vote for the party which pledges to safeguard the rights of the Muslim community. Recently in India, it had become almost Waajib to vote for the Congress Party in view of the fact that the Hindu verkrampte party had resolved to eliminate Islam and all its vestiges from India. Voting for the secular party therefore became imperative. While voting for such reasons will be valid, Muslims are not permitted to become part of the law-making process.
Q. Is it Fardh (obligatory) to vote in Pakistan, as stated by a large group of Ulama?
A. It is reported that over 300 Ulama in Pakistan issued a fatwa that it is fardh to vote in Pakistan, and that abstention from voting is a sin. On the assumption that there are many benefits in voting for some political party in Pakistan, then too, the ‘fatwa’ issued by the conglomerate of Pakistani Ulama is plain drivel and bunkum.
It is necessary for this errant group of so-called Ulama to return to Madrasah to learn the definition of Fardh and Sin, and to gain some expertise in the ability to apply the principles of the Shariah. In effect the stupid ‘fatwa’ means that those who do not participate in the kuffaar-type fraudulent voting in the kufr democratic system invented by the mass murderers of Muslims, and those denying the permissibility of voting, are kaafir. Rejection of a Fardh injunction is kufr – kufr which expels from the fold of Islam. By what stretch of hallucination did this errant group of ‘ulama’ ever deduce the ‘fatwa’ that voting in kaafir style in a kufr system is Fardh, rejection of which is kufr, and abstention from which is fisq?
The chairman of the miscreant Pakistan Scholars Council, “said that the decree has been prepared in the light of the opinion of senior religious scholars, who also urge the people to go to the poll… The decree said that the system could be changed through vote………he said that there are thousands of religious seminaries associated with the Pakistan Ulema Council, who have endorsed the decree.” The opinion of ‘senior religious scholars’ and of ‘thousands of religious seminaries’, is never in the category of the Qur’aan or the edicts of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
The ‘edicts’ of these scholars and seminaries cannever produce an opinion which is Fardh and which can render a Muslim into a murtad by rejection, or into a faasiq by intentional abstention. While a system could be used and manipulated for the benefit of Muslims in scenarios of compelling circumstances, to proclaim the permission based on opinion to be Fardh portrays gross jahaalat which is totally unexpected of a group which dubs itself ‘Pakistan Scholars Council/Ulama Council’.
It will be comprehensible and acceptable if the ‘decree’ had encouraged Muslims to vote for an Ulama party or a party which has Islam at heart – that is, to utilize the system to bring about Islamic change. Despite the fact of the so-called ‘democratic’ system being un- Islamic and not permissible, given the situation prevailing in the lands of Islam governed by kuffaar, fussaaq and fujjaar, if it is possible to eliminate the murtad rulers by means of the voting system, it will then be permissible to vote.
Q. Is Pakistan Daarul Islam?
A. Pakistan is Daarul Kufr despite the majority being Muslim.
Q. Please explain what Daarul Aman is.
A. Daarul Aman is a non-Muslim country in which the Muslim citizens are allowed freedom of worship. Their lives and property are offered safety by the government.
Q. You have mentioned that Pakistan is a non-Muslim country. Have you ever read the Constitution of Pakistan? The first few paragraphs in the Preamble read: “Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust; And whereas it is the will of the people of Pakistan to establish an order:- Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people; Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed; Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;” Do you think this is the Constitution of a non-Muslim country?
A. Firstly, it will be appropriate to refer to the country with the appellation Napakistan (the Impure State). As far as Napakistan is concerned, the couple of Islamically sounding statements in its preamble are all canards – false and blatant lies. The country was never an Islamic state from its very inception – from day one when it came in to existence under British patronage.
It was only during the time of Ziyaul Haq that a semblance of Islamic law came into existence briefly. As far as the Shariah is concerned, the constitution of Napakistan is a scrap of paper. The statements in its preamble are all hypocritical. There is absolutely no attempt to accord practical expression to Islam – to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. In fact, those who do make such attempts are brutally apprehended by the satanic ISI and with the full approval and connivance of the government of Napakistan and its evil military.
Innumerable proclaimers of Lailah illallaahu Muhammadur Rasulullah have been handed over to the brutal kuffaar of the U.S.A. to enable those shayaateen to torture and brutalize the hijacked Mu’mineen who are subjected to horrendous sufferings in America’s black-hell detention facilities such as Guntanamo, Bagram and in many other place.
Do you perhaps know Dr. Aafiyah Siddiqui? Do you know what has happened to that unfortunate sister and her three little children? And do you know who perpetrated the horrendous crimes against them? If you pretend to be blissfully unaware of this sister’s case, the articles appearing in this issue of Al -Haq will shatter your pretence. The kuffaar rulers and the kuffaar security forces of your Napakistan will answer and suffer on the Day of Qiyaamah for the brutality they have inflicted and are inflicting on countless members of Rasulullah’s Ummah.
A few deceptive statements in a scrap of paper called ‘constitution’ neither transform a country into a Muslim/ Islamic land nor are westernized clichés which adorn the constitution evidence for Napakistan being a Muslim country. You lack understanding of the meaning of an Islamic country. An Islamic country is a land wherein the law of Allah Azza Wa Jal is implemented. Thus the Qur’aan-e-Hakeem states:
“When We establish them on earth (i.e. grant them political power), they establish Salaat, Zakaat and command righteousness and prohibit evil.”
From its very inception, Napakistan was not governed by the Shariah. ‘Democracy’ mentioned in the preamble is a kufr concept. The Islamic system of government is not democracy. Western democracy cannot be fused with the Islamic system which is the Shariah. The quotient of such satanic fusion will not be the Law of Allah Azza Wa Jal.
Whilst a parliament consisting of a couple hundred baboons and asses formulates the laws of a democracy, the Shariah was formulated by Allah Azza Wa Jal and revealed from Looh Mahfooz to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who handed it to the Sahaabah from whom it has reached us by way of reliable and authentic transmission from generation to generation.
The system of government in Napakistan is a western system – the so-called democracy. A cursory glance at the law books of the country will convince any right-minded observer that the law system of Napakistan is the very antithesis of the Shariah. The judiciary is a kufr system – the western system. The courts in Napakistan operate in exactly the same manner and style as do the courts in the western kuffaar countries. Everything from A to Z in the judiciary is the kufr system. How can the rulers and the judicial officers of Napakistan be Muslim when the Qur’aan declares:
“Those who do not decree according to that (Shariah) which Allah has revealed, verily they are the kaafiroon.”
The whole miserable lot constituting the government and judiciary in Napakistan come within the scope of this Qur’aaaic stricture. Riba, liquor, gambling, zina, prostitution, music, haraam entertainment institutions, homosexuality, lesbianism, vice and immorality in general are the order in Napakistan.
Jinnah and his clique of British servants had inserted the Islamic-sounding terms in the constitution to dupe the Ulama and sincere Muslims. Without their support, perhaps partitioning of the sub-continent would not have taken place. Since there was no precedent of this kind of deception, those Ulama who supported the un- Islamic ‘Muslim’ League to achieve its objective of a separate state, had been ensnared by Jinnah.
Whilst the concept of a separate Islamic state was 100% correct, joining ranks with the fussaaq who operated the Muslim League was 100% erroneous. The Mashaaikh have said that a faasiq will sell you – betray you – for a piece of bread. That was precisely what Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan and the conglomerate of fussaaq and fujjaar who held sway in Napakistan did.
The idea that the new country would be a truly Islamic land governed by the Shariah was a pipedream – a distant mirage which had broken the hearts of the senior Ulama who had supported the creation of Pakistan. Lamenting the reality of the pipedream, Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Shafi (rahmatullah alayh) sates in the introduction of his Ma-aariful Qur’aan:
“Fifteen years and three months have lapsed since I have arrived here. The narrative of what I have seen in this time is lengthy. The objectives for which Pakistan was beloved and pursued and for which everything had been sacrificed, the changing governments have caused these objectives to be nothing more than a pleasant dream. Effecting any Deeni change or substantial reformation via the government was incrementally being relegated into the realm of dreams.”
There is absolutely nothing to justify calling Napakistan an Islamic or Muslim country. A non-Muslim court banning pork does not transform a country into an Islamic state. The judges of Napakistan are in open conflict and rejection of the Qur’aan by administering ‘justice’ in terms of the secular laws of the country. In consequence they have eliminated their Imaan and come fully within the glare of the aforementioned Qur’aanic verse in which Allah Ta’ala describes them as being Kaafiroon.
Napakistan is at war with Allah Ta’ala since its economy is a capitalist riba system for which the Qur’aan declares war. A country at war with Allah Azza Wa Jal can never be an Islamic country. In fact, there is no difference between Napakistan and India.
In conclusion we must reiterate that when a government and its security forces who claim to be ‘Muslim’ hound, hijack and hand over reciters of the Kalimah to brutal kuffaar such as the U.S.A. for subjection to torture, then such illegitimate rubbishes can never be Muslims. They are worse than khanaazeer.
Q. You described the Pakistani judiciary as a ‘modernist judiciary’. What do you mean by that? Our justices are sincere Muslims. Are you trying to malign them?
A. We do not know what your definition of ‘malign’ is. If a spade is called a spade, it will not be said that the spade is being maligned. The term ‘modernist’ is a mild epithet for the ‘Muslim’ judges operating in a secular court. Whilst we have labelled the judges in the courts of Napakistan ‘modernist’, the Qur’aan Majeed says about them:
“Those who do not decree according to that (Shariah) which Allah has revealed, verily they are kaafiroon.”
‘Modernist’ in this context means ‘kaafiroon’ because secular judges do not decide cases in accordance with the Shariah. The issue is not related to sincerity. It is a simple issue of the judges deciding in terms of kufr law. They dispense ‘justice’ according to man-made laws, not according to the Law of Allah Ta’ala, hence the Qur’aan excommunicates them from the fold of Islam.
Q. Is a Shariah State Today Possible?
A. 99% OF THE Ummah in this era of corruption wallows in kufr, fitnah, fisq and fujoor. The Ummah’s indulgence in these evils is not restricted to evil deeds, but extends to fundamental beliefs (Aqaa-id). The Ummah today comes fully within the purview of the following Hadith narrated by Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu):
“There will dawn an age over the people when they will assemble in their Musaajid and perform Salaat whilst not a single one of them will be a Mu’min.”
By verbal profession and in some rituals they will be ‘Muslim’, but their hearts will be devoid of true Imaan. They will not be Mu’min. Not even in outward appearance will they be Muslim. They will recite Laa ilaha il lallaahu Muhammadur Rasulullah whilst they will harbour in their breasts an implacable aversion for the Law of that Kalimah. They will abhor and despise the Sunnah and denounce the sacred Shariah attributing it to the ‘fabrications’ of the Fuqaha and Ulama.
In a scenario of this kind where 99% of the Ummah is masquerading as ‘Muslim’, it is a total impossibility to establish an Islamic State – a State which will be governed strictly according to the Qur’aan and Sunnah. The masses will simply not allow the Shariah to flourish. At every turn and step, the irreligious and anti- Islam population of a country will create impediments for an Islamic government and sabotage the Islamic institutions of the State.
The entire civil service, security establishment, military, navy, air force and every department and wrung of society of any Muslim country are averse to the Shariah. In fact, the masses insanely mired in the evil of westernization, view the Shariah as a social menace. A pious Khalifah will not be able to proceed one step forward without being obstructed. Any alliance or coalition with irreligious organizations and political parties will be fragile and will most assuredly end in tumultuous upheaval to unseat and destroy the Islamic State.
The current conflict in which Egypt is burning is an excellent example testifying to the veracity of what has been said above. A variety of groups, all with their own ideas and agendas, had united to end the tyrannical regime of Hosni Mubarak, and the Ikhwaanul Muslimeen under Mohammed Mursi, the President, managed to form the government.
Now hell has erupted in Egypt. Muslims are killing Muslims. The very same coalition of variegated forces who had successfully terminated the kufr regime of Hosni Mubarak, are now determined to re-enact the Tahreer Square conflagration to oust the Ikhwaanul Muslimeen although the latter has not even proposed the establishment of an Islamic state.
Of a rotten conglomeration of kuffaar and fussaaq, the Ikhwaan are still the best. But the forces of evil have unleashed a reign of anarchy to remove this so-called Islamic movement, Ikhwaanul Muslimeen. The report, Fiery Protests in Egypt, on this page, should adequately illustrate the correctness of what has been explained in this article. It is the imperative obligation of genuine Islamic groups to create a social climate in which the Shariah will flourish.
This is achievable only by emulating the Sunnah of Hudaibiyyah which will allow the seed of Imaan to germinate and grow.
Q. The Department of education has instructed that all the pupils should daily sing the national anthem. The situation is delicate. The school is subsidized by the government. If we do not comply, they will cancel the subsidy. It is not possible for the school to operate without the subsidy. What should our response be?
A. The Constitution of South Africa enshrines the principle of freedom of religion, opinion and thought. It is unconstitutional for the state to impose any political doctrine/practice/ preference on citizens. The unconstitutionality of such an imposition is aggravated when it is in conflict with our religious tenets. There is no law which requires Muslims or pupils of any religion to compulsorily sing the national anthem. And, if there is, it should be challenged in the constitutional court.
Just as the state has no right to impose Hindu religious paraphernalia on Muslims and vice versa, so too, the states lack the authority to impose its political paraphernalia on Muslim citizens. The matter should be explained to the relevant department and an exemption should be acquired. The concise Shar’i answer to your question is that it is haraam for Muslims to sing the national anthem. Today it is the national anthem. Tomorrow they will be required to stand in respect for the idol they call flag, salute it and sing the anthem. All such acts are shirk and kufr.
The refusal to sing the anthem is not the effect of unpatriotism. It is the demand of our religion. The prohibition is not restricted to the anthem of South Africa. It applies equally to the national anthem of Pakistan and of all Muslim countries. It is not permissible to sing the national anthems of countries nor stand for a flag.
For the dalaa-il, please refer to Imdaadul Fataawa, Vol. 4, pages 645 -647. The question posed to Hadhrat Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) is almost identical to the problem you are now facing. It should be made clear to the Department of Education that our stance is not a political one. It is based on religious principles. At the same time emphasize that it is not permissible according to our religion to stand in honour of a flag. By highlighting this fact now, they will be aware of our stance should they be contemplating the ritual of standing for the national flag.
The Muslim school will be faced with the dilemma of foregoing the government subsidy and the act of shirk and kufr. The School has no alternative but to forego the subsidy even if it means that it has to close down. But there is no permission for indulgence in kufr and shirk.
Q. Is it permissible to impose the Shariah on others in a non-Muslim country?
A. In a non-Muslim country, the Shariah cannot be imposed on others. One can only offer advice and admonition. Force may not be employed to impose any aspect of the Shariah on anyone in a kaafir land. If there is a conflict between the Shariah and the laws of the kaafir land, one should endeavour one’s best to act in accordance with the Shariah if this is possible. If not possible, one should abhor the haraam act in one’s heart.
For example, taking photographs of people is haraam. However, the government enforces identity cards on the citizens. Since one has no option on this issue, one will not be sinful for taking a photo for the purposes of obtaining an identity document. Besides this, there are other aspects of conflict where the Muslim in a non-Muslim country has no choice but to submit.
Q. Please comment on the situation in the Arab Lands.
A. Allah Ta’ala says in the Qur’aan Shareef:
‘Not a leaf falls (from a tree), but He is aware of it. Nor is there a seed in the darkness of the earth, nor anything moist or dry, but it is (recorded) in a clear Book.’ (An’aam, aayat 59)
Every atom moves as a direct consequence of Allah’s intervention and command. Everything is in Allah’s Knowledge. Every occurrence, big or small, is the decree of Allah Azza Wa Jal. The anarchies ravaging the Arab countries currently are the decrees of Allah Ta’ala. There is wisdom and goodness in what is happening.
The mutual killing and internecine wars of Muslims are the consequence of their gross and flagrant disobedience and transgression. Allah Ta’ala is punishing Muslims in this manner. He says in Qur’aan Majeed:
‘Fasaad (anarchy/ corruption) has appeared on the land and the ocean because of what the hands of man have earned, so that He (Allah) gives them a taste of some of their (evil) perpetrations. Perchance they may return (to obedience and the Haqq of the Deen).’ (Room, aayat 41)
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) predicting the current type of fitnah and fasaad, said:
‘The killer and the killed will be in the Fire.’
This is the type of fighting, killing and plundering ravaging the Arab states presently. There is nothing Islamic or Deeni about the conflagration. Both camps are enemies of the Deen. Both groups are fighting to gratify their base worldly agendas of kufr. However, in everything ordained by Allah Azza Wa Jal there is goodness.
The redeeming feature in the current situation of anarchy is that power is being wrested from kuffaar tyrants and oppressors who have for decades nakedly suppressed and practically banned Islam. Islam was viewed as the greatest enemy by these kaafir tyrants such as Hosni Mubaarak, Gaddafi, Zeinul Aabideen, Assad, Musharraf, Saleh, etc.
Although those who will be substituting the displaced oppressors are not Islam’s devotees nor its sympathizers, nevertheless, under the guise of the kufr democracy they are demanding, there will be some breathing space for the true adherents of Islam – the followers of the Sunnah – to wisely and silently attend to the moral reformation and spiritual elevation of the Muslim masses who are sinking in the quagmire of kufr, bid’ah, dhalaal, shirk, fisq and fujoor. If only the followers of the Deen can understand that the situation of the Ummah is today totally degenerate and immoral. This Ummah as it stands today cannever command respect and honour. It is rotten to the core.
During the very first Gulf War when Iraq was attacked and it could not retaliate, and despite its airforce of a thousand planes, displayed humiliating impotence, the then special envoy of Gaddafi visited South Africa. In a marathon talk with us, he made a very significant comment, namely, ‘We Arabs have become baboons. Israel can take Baghdad within 24 hours, and all of us can do nothing. They can crush us underfoot like ants. It is only America who is withholding Israel.’
Muslims of intelligence should utilize the breathing space created by the displacement of the tyrants to launch massive Islamic educational and moral-training (Islaahi) programmes to improve the moral fibre of the Ummah. The rest will then unfold as it had unfolded during the age of the Sahaabah in the post-Makkah era after the Hijrah to Madinah Munawwarah.
Q. Is it permissible for Muslims in a non-Muslim country to join the armed forces to fight against Iran?
A. It is not be permissible for Muslims in a non-Muslim country to join the armed forces to fight for the non- Muslim country against Iran despite them being Shiahs.
Q. Why are even the pious, righteous people being overtaken by Allah’s punishment that is presently engulfing the Ummah? How is such punishment averted?
“And, fear such a fitnah (punishment/calamity) which will not apprehend only the transgressors among you. And, know that, verily, Allah is most stern in punishment.”
In this Qur’aanic verse Allah Ta’ala issues a severe warning to the learned and pious members of a nation. They are warned of the disaster of severe punishment which will not be restricted to the transgressors who are the initial cause of the calamity. The divine punishment which will be unleashed as a consequence of transgression gone overboard, will overtake even the Ulama and the Sulaha in the community. Explaining the rationale for the universal punishment, Hakimul Ummat, Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) states in his Bayaanul Qur’aan:
“Just as self-reformation is incumbent, so too is it Waajib within the confines of one’s means to strive for the reformation of others by way of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar (Commanding virtue and prohibiting vice), whether by hand (i.e. by force) or by tongue or by abstention from association (with the transgressors) or by abhorrence within the heart, and this is the very last and weakest stage. The consequence of acquiescence (which leads to abstention from Amr Bil Ma’roof) is that the calamity of the evil (which others commit) will not be restricted to only the actual sinners, but will overtake even those (Ulama and Sulaha) who had abandoned Amr Bil Ma’roof.”
Since abstention from Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy anil Munkar without valid reason is mudaahanat (hypocrisy) which causes the abstainers to acquiesce with the flagrant transgressors, thus displaying flagrant disregard for the prohibitions of Allah Ta’ala, they too are guilty of major sins, hence the universal punishment which befalls even the silent Ulama and Sulaha is justified despite their sincerity and acts of virtue.
Allah Ta’ala abhors mudaahanat. In Sharhus Sunnah, Imaam Baghawi (rahmatullah alayh) narrated a Hadith from Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Aishah Siddeeqah (radhiyallahu anha) in which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that Allah Ta’ala will not inflict His punishment on the entire community on account of the sins of a few.
However, when the sins become prevalent and are flagrantly committed, and people despite having the ability do not prevent the transgression, then Allah’s punishment will engulf the whole community.
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) also said that when Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar is abandoned, then Allah Ta’ala will appoint such tyrants over us who will neither respect our seniors nor show mercy to our little ones. When such calamities befall us, the pious in the community will supplicate to Allah Ta’ala, but their duas will not be answered. That is because they had all acquiesced with the flagrant transgressors in the perpetration of their sins.
For the Ulama to abstain from sin and transgression is not enough. It is their Waajib obligation to guide and admonish the Muslim community, and to the best of their ability to prevent Muslims from wanton disobedience. However, in the present era, the Ulama not only have abandoned Amr Bil Ma’roof, but are in fact flagrantly indulging in explicit haraam deeds and vice. Their transgression is worse than the sins of the masses because they (the Ulama) are justifying their evil and by distortion of the Qur’aan and Hadith, they follow in the footsteps of the Ulama of Bani Israaeel who used to legalize the prohibitions of Allah Ta’ala.
This attitude of the Ulama is the surest sign of the impending universal (aam) punishment which is looming in front of us. Allah Ta’ala revealed to His Nabi, Hadhrat Yusha’ (alayhis salaam) that He would soon be destroying with His punishment a city of 100,000 people among whom were 40,000 Sulaha whose good deeds were like the hasanaat (deeds of virtue) of the Ambiya. Hadhrat Yusha’ (alayhis salaam), greatly surprised, supplicated:
“O Allah! That the punishment befalling the transgressors is understandable. But why shall even such pious persons be punished?”
Allah Ta’ala informed His Nabi that the reason for the Sulaha being punished along with the transgressors is their mudaahanat. They had abandoned Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar. They socialized and fraternized with the fussaaq and fujjaar. They would freely mingle with them and when invited for meals, they would join the sinners. Their desensitization rendered them partners in the transgression of the flagrant sinners, hence the universal punishment.
The silent Ulama and Sulaha should have mercy on themselves and on the errant community, and this mercy they can show by means of vociferous and vigorous Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar. As long as the Ulama discharge this Waajib obligation, Insha’Allah, the universal punishment – the fitnah mentioned in the aayat – will be averted. The Ulama are supposed to be the Representatives of (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the defenders of the Shariah. It is therefore their incumbent duty to proclaim the Haqq and admonish the community.
They should not fear if the smiles of people disappear and if monetary contributions for their Deeni projects are withheld as a consequence of Amr Bil Ma’roof. Yes, those ulama-e-soo’ who misappropriate the contributions and consume fire by lining their pockets with funds contributed for Deeni Projects cannot be expected to execute the sacred task of Amr Bil Ma’roof.
But, there are many sincere Ulama who have adopted deafening silence in the face of flagrant fisq and fujoor on the basis of some misconceived idea of ‘hikmat’ which more appropriately should be termed dubious diplomacy which is a lesson whispered into their hearts by Shaitaan.
As much as we all are pained to observe and hear of the atrocities which the kuffaar are committing on entire Muslim populations, and as much as we cry and supplicate to Allah Ta’ala for succour, we know that what is transpiring is the decree of Allah’s Athaab. Only Istighfaar (seeking forgiveness) and Inaabat (to turn with total obedience to Allah Ta’ala) are the solution for the perennial calamities which are besetting Muslims the world over.
Q. Is it legitimate for the Saudi government to arrest people based on suspicion or based on intelligence provided by Saudi citizens working as informers to gather intelligence and inform on fellow Muslim citizens for money?
A. While intelligence gathering by an Islamic government is perfectly permissible, the arrest, and jailing, especially without fair trial, on suspicion is never permissible. The Nusoos of the Qur’aan and Ahaadith prohibiting baseless suspicion and punishing without Shar’i evidence, are numerous. Imprisoning people on the basis of suspicion which develops in consequence of information and even misinformation provided by mercenary informers lured by money, is most certainly Haraam. It is zulm of the first degree.
There is absolutely no justification and no grounds in the Shariah for the perpetration of this Haraam zulm by the Saudi regime. If the authorities have valid grounds for suspecting a man of subversive activities, then it devolves on them to correctly formulate charges which would be tenable in the Shariah, and produce the accused in front of the Qaadhi who should administer justice according to the Shariah.
The Saudi regime does not resort to Shar’i procedures because it is fully aware that those who are apprehended, jailed and tortured by the regime are not guilty of any crime in terms of the Shariah. Their ‘crime’ is in terms of Saudi political expediencies. They are arrested and denied a fair trial, imprisoned and tortured simply because they give practical expression to Allah’s command of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar. They abide by Rasulullah’s command,
‘The noblest Jihad is to state the truth in the presence of a tyrannical ruler.’
They are not apprehended for any subversive activity. The apprehension on suspicion is the consequence of them proclaiming Islamic truths which are extremely unpalatable to the Saudi regime.
The payment of money for spying on citizens is also Haraam. The fact that 1 in every three Saudis is a paid informer to spy on Muslims, illustrates the corruption of the Saudi spy system. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is recruited to spy on people. It is quite obvious that the monetary aspect will induce many unscrupulous informers to fabricate falsehood which they will attribute to those Ulama who proclaim the Haqq.
Q. What is the lawfulness of detention without charge and what are the acceptable remand periods in Islam?
A. The absence of a charge is proof for lack of Shar’i evidence. When there is no evidence to charge a person, detaining him is Haraam. Detention without charge is in fact proof for the innocence of the detainee. The regime lacks grounds for detention even in terms of its own Haraam draconian laws, hence there is no charge. Islam does not tolerate such zulm. The Shariah does not prescribe any limit for ‘remand periods’. However, a person may not be detained without valid Shar’i grounds.
Detention without trial and remand upon remand are all Kuffaar concepts. In fact, a man may be arrested only if there is sufficient evidence for a prima facie case to ensure that he is brought to the Islamic court the moment he is arrested or as soon as possible after his arrest. He may not be arrested and robbed of his freedom for the purpose of interrogation which is a cruel Kuffaar system of zulm which Saudi Arabia has acquired from the U.S.A.
Insaan is by nature hurr (a free man). His liberty may not be robbed and expunged on the basis of suspicion. Furthermore, Islam prohibits muthlah (torture). Confessions extracted under duress and torture are not valid in a Shar’i court of law. (Note: While the dictionaries translate ‘torture’ with the word ‘uqubah’, we prefer ‘muthlah’ because ‘uqubah’ is too mild a term for brutal cruelty and torture.)
Q. What is the Islamic ruling regarding Arbitrary detention and incommunicado detention?
A. According to Islam, the Khalifah is the supreme head of the Islamic Empire. He has the right to make arbitrary arrests on the basis of true facts and grounds which establish the guilt of the accused, and which will be sustainable evidence in an Islamic Court.
Arbitrary arrests because of the person’s proclamation of Shar’i truths which are unpalatable to the ruling regime or inconsistent with the un-Islamic political expediencies of the rulers are Haraam. History testifies to such Haraam arbitrary arrests perpetrated against innumerable Ulama-e-Haqq by oppressive Sultans and Khulafa.
Great personalities such as the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and illustrious Auliya were all subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention without trial, flogging and torture in general. Their only ‘crime’ was proclamation of the Haqq of the Deen or their association with previous rulers whom the current rulers have deposed. Such arbitrary detention and incommunicado detention are zulm and Haraam.
Q. What is the Islamic ruling regarding indefinite detention without charge?
A. This is an act of zulm of monstrous proportions. To rob a free person, especially a Muslim, moreover an Aalim of Haqq, of the freedom Allah Ta’ala has bestowed to him, and to subject him to the cruel conditions and unjust perpetration of prison life, is intolerable in Islam. The blood, life, reputation and property of a Muslim are all sacred in Islam. Detention without charge is abundant proof for the innocence of the detainee. It is Islamically unacceptable to perpetrate such horrendous zulm on innocent people.
Q. What is the Islamic rule regarding the use of torture, both mental and physical, to obtain evidence or confessions?
A. These horrendous methods are of the cruel systems of Kuffaar governments. Once Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was informed through the medium of Wahi of a person who was on his way to pass a secret document to the enemy. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) despatched Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) to apprehend the person. After questioning the spy and confiscating the document , Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) accepted the pleas and apologies of the traitor and pardoned him.
There was no imprisonment, no detention without trial and no torture whatsoever. Torture is zulm of the worst kind. The Nusoos prohibiting torture are many, emphatic and explicit. Islam never permits these brutal methods of Kuffaar political systems. Islam commands kindness to even animals. When they are slaughtered, it should be humane and the animal must be treated kindly.
Q. According to Islam, what is the legitimacy of evidence or confessions obtained through mental and physical torture?
A. Such confession is not a valid Iqraar in terms of the Shariah. The kutub of Fiqh and Ahaadith explicitly state the illegitimacy and invalidity of such confessions.
Q. What is the legitimacy of trial processes being conducted in secrecy and subsequent denial of written records of court proceedings to the accused or anyone else?
A. This system is clearly un- Islamic and in conflict with the judicial system of Islam. The Islamic systems of trial and punishment are public institutions. This is a well-established fact. There is no secrecy in these institutions. The secret system has been acquired by Saudi Arabia from the western Kuffaar. In fact, this type of illegitimate system is illegal even in terms of the western Kuffaar code of justice. The U.S.A. operates such secret detention and torture facilities in a number of countries. There is no room in Islam for such zulm.
Q. What is the legitimacy of judgment s based on ‘confessions’ that are the result of coercion?
A. The illegitimacy of such judgments is axiomatic in view of the invalidity of the confessions extracted by torture. Qaadhis/Judges who convict people on the basis of such baseless and invalid confessions are denizens of Jahannum.
Q. What is the ruling or law regarding revocation of such ‘confessions’ by the accused before the judge during trial?
A. In the first instance, the accusers (the state/police) will not be able to Islamically prove in an Islamic court that the accused had made the alleged ‘confession’. There are no independent, aadil witnesses to testify. The confession will simply not be entertained by the Qaadhi if the accused claims that it was extracted under torture. Furthermore, the qaraa-in are in favour of the accused. Torture in secret detention facilities has become a norm. It constitutes part of the Urf of life in this era. The zaalim governmental authorities are notorious for such zulm, hence no Allah-fearing Qaadhi will convict a man on the basis of a confession presented by the accusers, and which is rejected by the accused.
Q. What is the correct Islamic practice with regards to an allegation of torture by the accused?
A. It will be difficult or almost impossible for the accused to prove that he was tortured. It will be only his word which he will not be able to corroborate with witnesses. Yes, if there are eye witnesses to testify, the torture could be proved. Besides his inability to prove that he was tortured, the accusers will have to explain why they had arrested him; why they had held him incommunicado; why they had deprived his family from communicating with him; why they had robbed him of his freedom for so long, etc. Since the accusers will have no valid evidence acceptable in an Islamic court, they will become the accused and be arraigned for a variety of charges.
Q. According to Islamic laws on whom lies the onus to investigate an allegation of torture?
A. This is the Islamic responsibility of every Muslim who is aware of the torture. Proclaiming the Haqq is an integral constituent of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar. It is the right of every Muslim, and the obligation devolves on him proportionate to his authority and ability. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
‘The noblest Jihad is to proclaim the Haqq in the presence of a tyrannical ruler.’
In the current context of this era the Waajib obligation of attending to this issue devolves on Muslim Human Rights Organizations. These bodies have been formed specifically to act as watchdogs and to render assistance to the oppressed and tortured Muslims in particular, and to even non-Muslims in general. Furthermore, these organizations are better poised and have better means of access to the evil facilities, and to attend to and address these injustices.
On the contrary, individuals have no means at their disposal to fight this state -sponsored zulm. However, the Human Rights organizations are shirking their duty by doing far too little. It is a known fact that it is almost impossible for the Ulama in Saudi Arabia to publicly speak on this issue and investigate the allegations of torture. The moment they initiate any such process, they will be thrown into the dungeons of torture. Furthermore, the Ulama today lack the moral and spiritual fibre of the Ulama of bygone times.
That 40,000 Ulama languish in Saudi torture facilities speaks volumes for our contention. Ulama outside Saudi Arabia do have the ability to speak and publicize these issues. But, we have to say that you will hardly find any Ulama nowadays to proclaim the Haqq. The Ulama today come within the scope of the following Hadith:
‘Soon will there dawn an age when the worst of the people under the canopy of the sky will be the Ulama. Fitnah will emerge from them and the fitnah will rebound on them.’
You should therefore not expect assistance or even moral support from the Ulama of our age.
Q. What is the legitimacy and purpose of imprisonment in Islam?
A. In Islam imprisonment is an exceptional institution. Islamic justice is immediate, whether it is flogging or execution. In rare cases, exile and imprisonment are resorted to. Such punishment is left to the discretion of the Qaadhi. But nowadays the court judges are the employees of the state and they lack in entirety in Taqwa. There is no hope to achieve justice or Islamic justice in the courts of Saudi Arabia. The courts there are extensions of the Saudi regime.
Q. What is the legitimacy of the following conditions of imprisonment in Saudi Arabia: (a) Detention in cells with no natural light and open to harsh cold and hot temperatures (even in prisons in Madina Al Munawwarah). (b) Small solitary cells with no provision to enable prisoners to keep clean for prayers. (c) Individual isolation or solitary confinement as a means of causing severe mental repercussion on prisoners to make them confess. (d) Small group isolation and the severe mental repercussions on prisoners. (e) Denial of any type of education to prisoners. (f) Denial of written communication to the outside world. (g) Denial of pen and paper. (Prisoners are not allowed to have a pen and paper throughout their imprisonment). (h) Preventing prisoners from offering communal prayers particularly on occasions such as Salat ul Jumuah, Taraweeh and Eid. (i) Preventing detainees from attending funerals of family members or relatives. (j) Compelling ‘security detainees’ to undergo behaviour and ideology training programmes called ‘Al Munasaha’. This course is designed to change their thoughts and beliefs to accept everything that the Saudi Government is doing in the name of Islam.
A. In the list of acts mentioned in your question No. 13, (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), and (j) are Haraam. With regard to (e), namely, ‘Denial of any type of education to prisoners’, while the state may not deny prisoners education, it (the state) is not obliged to educate them beyond the essentials of the Deen, i.e. such Waajib ta’leem which is necessary for the day to day activities of the Muslim.
Regarding (f), namely, preventing prisoners from Jumuah and Eid Salaat, it should be noted that if the prisoners have been legitimately incarcerated in terms of the Shariah, then the state has the right to prevent them from leaving the prison confines to attend Jumuah and Eid Salaat. Furthermore, Jumuah and Eid Salaat are not valid in a prison. The state has no right of preventing them from performing the five daily Salaat with Jamaat inside the prison. Regarding (i), namely preventing prisoners from attending funerals, the state does have this right if the persons are legitimately incarcerated. Regarding (j), namely, the ‘Al Munasaha’ course, if it is a legitimate programme of Deeni ta’leem, the state has the right (see condition below) to compel the inmates to listen to the talks for their own Islaah (moral reformation).
The above mentioned rights of the state will apply in a just system where the prisoners have been legitimately incarcerated. Obviously, the Saudi state has no such rights because the incarceration of the detainees in the first instance is illegitimate and unjust. They are held incommunicado for no crimes. We believe that the Saudi state is extremely oppressive and treats the detainees with brutality. Zulm has no rights. Oppression and injustice have to be eliminated. Any act which is in conflict with the Shariah is zulm. We still have not received the details of the ‘Al Munasaha’ course which you have mentioned in your letter dated 14 September 2010.
Q. Please comment on the definitions of these popular ‘Islamic’ criminal charges in Saudi Arabia such as: (a) ‘Hirabah’ (Engagement in unlawful conflict with a legitimate government) (b)‘Ifsaad fil Ardh’ (Spreading vice on earth). (c) Whether peaceful political or religious dissent is a punishable crime in Islam. (d) Whether ‘Takfeer’ is a crime in Islam on which the Islamic courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate and punish.
A. (a) Hiraabah: Engaging in unlawful conflict with a legitimate government is unlawful according to the Shariah. However, executing the obligation of Amr Bil Ma’roof is not Hiraabah. Engagement in unlawful and subversive activity to unseat or destroy the legitimate government is Hiraabah.
(b) Ifsaad fil Ardh: This means to spread anarchy and mischief in the land whether it be against the government or the citizens. It is a punishable offence in terms of the Shariah. Amr Bil Ma’roof which goes against the grain of the rulers and proclaiming the Haqq are never to be categorized as Ifsaad fil Ardh.
(c) Religious or political dissent, the objective of which is changing the divine Shariah is a punishable crime. Valid difference of opinion based on the proofs of the Shariah are not crimes, e.g. the differences of the Math-habs or the differences of the Muftis in every age – differences based of Shar’i dalaa-il. Amr Bil Ma’roof and to proclaim the Haqq are not to be confused with such dissent which is criminal.
(d) Takfeer means to declare someone to be a Kaafir. This is a valid tenet of Islam. If someone commits kufr, Takfeer of that person will be valid. Islamic courts have the jurisdiction in this matter. They have the right to adjudicate and punish crimes of kufr.
Q. I work in Riyadh. I humbly request you to withdraw this article (i.e. Professor Ziyad Motala’s article regarding the newly introduced train in Saudi Arabia). The information by Ziyad Motala is incorrect. The person does not have the facts. I read the news (in Riyadh) on a daily basis. It was mentioned in one newspaper that the train system would be used although the whole system is still incomplete. With this, the government decided to only allow the locals and the GCC countries to try and test the system. During the Hajj days, I took care of my cousin’s kids, who is living in Jeddah. He and his wife along with my sister and her husband, and some South Africans in Jeddah (they totalled 16) were the first South Africans to use the train. Some of the Bangladeshi employees at my work were also fortunate to use the train. So you can see that this person is writing things and spreading false information and if the Majlis is standing for the truth then you will write an apology.
A. Professor Motala made a claim and you make a contrary claim. Whom do we believe? You or Professor Motala? What are the facts to tilt the scale in your favour? Furthermore, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Indians and Muslims from other poor countries are regarded ‘undergrade’ people in Saudi Arabia. We don’t need Professor Motala nor you to verify this fact for us. We have already verified it for ourselves.
Saudi Arabia is a U.S. surrogate, puppet state. It is America’s handmaid in the prostitution of Muslim honour and freedom. It is currently holding more than 40,000 Muslims, including numerous Ulama in its torture facilities. An apology cannot be forthcoming merely on the basis of a comment out of the blue from someone whom we do not even know. You have not confirmed your contention with any evidence. We only have your view, and you are subservient to the Saudis since you gain your earnings from them.
We did not appear on the scene in the world yesterday. Why GCC countries? Why not the ‘undergrade’ Muslims who sweat, labour and toil for the peanuts the Saudis dole out to them? What is the determinant for the selection of the GCC countries? For any test in a new field, ‘guinea pigs’ are usually employed. The best ‘guinea pigs’ in the Saudi conception would have been the ‘undergrade’ poor Muslims who are regarded as ‘scum’ by the arrogant Saudis, and whose honour and lives are easily expendable in that concept of zulm.
People who profess to be Muslims, yet hand over reciters of the Kalimah to the filthy American torturers for torturing in black torture detention facilities – people who claim to be Muslims, but assist the kuffaar of America 200% to hijack Muslims for rendition to torture facilities do not deserve an apology. We can understand your position and inclination. You have to bow to and placate the boss who feeds you.