Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

Establishing Islamic state through the participation in non-Islamic government is not a Sharia method

Introduction: As Muslims we all know that Islam is a complete way of life and it is an obligation to establish the Deen comprehensively which is manifested through the Islamic Political System called "Khilafah". Though all Muslims agree on the obligation to implement the Deen, they differ about the way to work to re-establish the Deen. Since the destruction of khilafah in 1924, Muslims engaged to work to re-establish the Deen following various methods and many without having done a detail ijtihad on such an important issue. Groups/Movement emerged based on various ideas and started working according to their understanding of the situation. In this article we are going to present that the method of establishing the Islamic State through participating in kufr system is based on flimsy and incorrect evidences. In the rest of the article I have attached both the proponent's argument and their refutation: Proponent's argument no 1 Yusuf (as) took part in non-islamic system and ruled by non-Islamic laws: Their opinion to participate in non-Islamic government is based on the following two ayah: He could not take his brother by the deen (law) of the King (as a slave), except that Allah willed it. [TMQ 12:76], From this ayah proponents makes the assumption that Yusuf (AS) was following the rule of the king and it was not possible according to that law to keep his brother. And; (Yusuf) said: Set me over the store-houses of the land. [TMQ 12:55]. Refutation: a. They explained these ayats in a manner that agrees with their opinion ignoring the fact that their interpretation of these ayahs contradicts infallibility of the prophets and their immunity from sin. Yusuf (AS) advised his two companions in the Prison "......The Command is for None but Allah...." 12:40 Despite having said the above words he is being accused of following the rules other than Allah. So it implies that he didn't practice what he preached. So such an interpretation can't be accepted. There is not even a single indication in the Quran - that shows that he used to rule by the laws of the King. There is no mention of any rule with which he ruled, except the one that is; They (Yusuf s brothers) said: The penalty should be that he, in whose bag it is found, should be held for the punishment (of the crime). [TMQ 12:75].

This rule was according to the Shareeah of Yaqub (as). There is no indication to any knowledge that he ruled by something other than what Allah had revealed. b. At the time Yusuf (AS) he ruling system was monarchy Meaning King was sovereign and he used to appoint anybody he likes and the appointees used to rule accoring to their own judgment. Assisstants could do whatever they like as long as they remained loyal to the king and made him happy. Yusuf (AS) was appointed to manage the store house. His job was to store flour and manage distribution. According to the system of ruling he was independant not bound like constitution of our days. So making analogy of our system with his time doesnt stand. c. Sharia of the previous messengers are not the sharia for us. Although the Islamic aqeedah mandates for us to believe in all the prophets and messengers, and in the Books revealed to them. The meaning of the belief in them is belief in their prophethood and their messages and in the Books revealed to them but does not mean to follow them in their sharia. After the prophethood of Muhammad all peoples are ordered to give up their Deen and to embrace Islam, since no Deen other than Islam is accepted. Allah (swt) said, And whosoever seeks a Deen other than Islam it will not be accepted from him. [TMQ Al-iImran:85] Also Allah says, And unto you have We revealed the Book with the truth, confirming whatever Book was before it and controlling over it. [TMQ Al-Maida:48] i.e. The supremacy of the Quran over the previous Books means the abrogation of the previous Shareeahs. The Christians and the Jews are addressed with the Islamic Shariah and ordered to leave theirs, because Islam abrogated it. If this is the obligation on the followers of the Judaism and Christianity then how can a Muslim be ordered to take the previous Shareeahs as his Shareeah? Some scholars (mainly the Hanifi school), however, did accept that the Sharia of the previous messengers are applicable for us, but even they stipulated the following condition: the Shari'ah of our past is a Shari'ah for as long as it does not contradict the Shari'ah brought by Muhammad (saw). These are the only two views on the matter, no scholar had any other. And the Sharia of prophet Muhammad (saw) prohibits us from ruling by kufr. It is ridiculous to suggest that a ruling of a past prophet can over-ride the Shari'ah brought by Muhammad (saw). Proponent's argument no 2 Rasulluah (saw) allowed Najashi to remain as ruler after accepting Islam and to rule by kufr laws: Najashi was the ruler of Habasha (Ethiopia) when the Muslims migrated to it during the Makkan period. Proponents take the view that the Najashi had embraced Islam in the time of the Messenger (saw) and continued to rule by the system that he used to rule with, which was a non-Islamic system. To prove this, they cite six ahadith, reported by al-Bukhari, relating to Najashis death and the prayer that was performed for him. They also cite evidences of two letters which indicates that Najashi embraced Islam from the book Political documents of the Prophetic Era. by Muhammad

Hamidullah. [Nahashi is not a name of a person. It was the title of the king in Habasha] Refutation: There are two sources from which we come to know about the incident of Najashi. One is ahadith and the other is historical. Historical sources are of no value in deriving Sharia rules as they are not concerned with the transmission of the reports like the hadith books. More over we find that historical records about Najashi contradicts the Hadith reports (discussed later ). Findings regarding Najashi from the ahadith are highlighted in the following points: a. Rasulullah (saw) wrote letters to Kisra, Qaysar and Najashi at the end of the sixth year after the treaty of Hudaybia. b. There is no hadith telling us that he (najashi) accepted Islam or responded to that letter. c. Before the conquest of Makkah in the eighth year Allah revealed to Rasulullah (saw) that Najashi died and He(saw) prayed Janaza. There is no reference from Hadith that Rasulullah (saw) knew Najashi's acceptance of Islam before his death. d. The Najashi for whom Rasulullah (saw) prayed was not the same Najashi to whom Rasulullah (saw) sent the letter, that means between the time of the letter (end of sixth year) and the death news (eighth year) another Najashi took power who embraced Islam. The hadith that proves that this najashi (who was muslim) was not the Najashi who received the letter is narrated in Sahih Muslim by Anas b Malik " that the prophet (saw) wrote to Kisra, Qaysar, Najashi and every tyrant inviting them to Allah (swt). But he was not the Najashi for whom the Prophet (saw) made the (Janazah) prayer." But historical records says opposite that the najashi who received the letter and the najashi for whom Rasulullah (saw) prayed Janazah are the same person. From the time difference we can assume someone else came to power as Najashi in 7th year who neither met Rasulullah (saw) nor there is any record to show that he knew anything of the Sharia and also there is no record in hadith to show that Messenger (saw) knew about his embracing Islam. He died in the eighth year so he was in power for a very short period of time. The short period of time that he spent as a Muslim before he died did not enable him to know the rules of Islam nor he received any instructions from Rasulullah (saw). That is why this cannot be used as an evidence for those who permit participation in a kufr government, which rules by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed. Their argument is therefore invalidated. Proponent's argument no 3 The principle of Masalah Mursala (Considerations of public interest): It is a well known Sharia principle but again it is a disputed principle as scholars are not in agreement with this principle. It is based on the hadeeth (and other hadeeths) of the prophet "There is no harm (in Islam) or anything that harms (in Islam)".. As not taking part in the government can result in not enjoying good and forbidding evil or preventing any harm for the Muslims which can

be prevented when one is in authority, then it could be in fact doing some harm. As the hadeeth goes against this, then taking part in the government is allowed. Refutation: Some justify adopting interest as the sole basis in an action when there is no clear evidence from Quran and Sunnah. They argue that shariah in general came to satisfy the interests of the people. But no text came to denote that it is an Illah (cause) for Ahkam Sharia. it is true that the Shariah in general came for the interest of the Ummah, but we cannot use this argument as an illah(cause) to justify every ruling. All the rulings from Quran, Sunnah, ljma as Sahabah and Qiyas are there to satisfy our needs. In addition, a Muslim obeys and implements the rules as obedience to Allah (swt) and not because the rulings are easy, hard, or connected with Maslaha (benefit). So we cannot use the benefit as a justification to legalize any action. There has to be an evidence allowing such an action. Imam Ghazzali, Amidi, Ibn Hajib have reported an Ijma on not acting on general evidence before looking for specific evidence. It is the agreement of the scholars that when we are faced with a new situation we first look for a specific evidence then a specific Illah (cause), then a specific Ijma(consensus), then a general evidence, and then we finally ( if this Usul is taken) go onto principles like Masalih Mursala. Or else we end up in chaos!! For example, if we need to collect money to build a mosque but the only possible means is by acquiring a riba based loan, we could say that building a mosque is a good thing as it gets the youth of the street, so having a riba based loan is allowed based on the principle There is no harm or harming ( in Islam). This is a wrong way to go about things, as it is clearly forbidden in the ayah ( Allah has permitted trade and forbidden Interest..........). Hence our interests should be in line with the Islamic code of life and this is the best way to remove any form of harm in our society. From this we get the correct understanding of Masalih Mursala as put forward by Rafi Ibn Khadij (ra) regarding the issue of sharecropping "The Prophet has forbade us to do something we used to think it is beneficial, but the obedience to Allah and His messenger is more beneficial to us." (Muslim) Proponent's argument no 4 The Treaty of Hudaybia : Proponents argue that in the treaty of Hudaybia, Rasulullah (saw) compromised with the Quraysh and accepted some conditions which were not favorable for the Muslims. So by analogy we can take a compromised position for the time being and can be part of the non-islamic government for the greater interests of the Muslims. Refutation: In the treaty of Hudaybiah, the parties to the treaty were the Islamic state of Medina and the state of Quraysh and the subject matter was a cease-fire for 10 years. None of the condtions in the treaty was haram and he (saw) accepted the treaty due to the revealation by Allah. No haram was made Halal through this treaty. So how such a treaty can be analogous and can be an evidence to participate in kufr system ?? The issue of achieving greater interest for the Muslims has been discussed in the previous section. Proponent's argument no 5

The oath of Fudul : This agreement occurred before the prophethood of Mohammed (saw) by 20 years. The substance of the pact was that profits would be paid to their rightful owners and no oppressor would be allowed to oppress anyone. Rasulullah (saw) is reported to have said regarding this treaty, I participated in the treaty drawn in the home of Abdullah ibn Jud'an, Even today if I am invited to such a pact, I would accept it immediately. The proponents of sharing power in non-Islaimic government justify with this that we can be part of a non-islamic government to achieve a just goal. Refutation: How can forming a treaty, even if it is with non-Muslims, to uphold Justice as defined by Islam ( in this case giving Tradesmen their due) be considered as ruling by non-Islamic law!!!! The prophet approved this oath as it goes along with the principles of Islam and not because it was a treaty in which non-Islamic law was applied.!! Proponent's argument no 6 Showing loyalty only to the model but not to their actions: Proponent's argue that "By accepting to participate in ruling we do not mean to be loyal to them. We only show loyalty following the model (we show our submissiveness until we gain influence) but our hearts reject what they do." Refutation: The truth is that loyalty is a matter in which the organs (action) and heart share. We are obliged to reject by hand, tongue and heart what the ruler does, when he rules by kufr laws. The least one can do is to reject with the heart and there is no Imaan after this, as informed by Rasulullah (saw). Those who take the position of the weaskest of Imaan (rejecting by heart), their actions and statements should not agree or support the rule by non-Islam. Those who do that, they are disobeying Allah (swt) and committing sin, even if their hearts reject it. They are accused with kufr if their hearts approve it. The least that one can say about the one who participates in ruling by kufr,, is that he is a Faasiq (transgressor), Zaalim (oppressor) and aasi (disobedient) to Allah (swt) as mentioned in the following verses: And whosoever does not judge by what Allh has revealed, such are the Kfirn [Al- Maidah Verse 44] And whosoever does not judge by that which Allh has revealed, such are the Zlimn [Al- Maidah Verse 45] And whosoever does not judge by what Allh has revealed (then) such (people) are the Fsiqn (the rebellious i.e. disobedient (of a lesser degree) to Allh. [Al- Maidah Verse 47] Proponent's argument no 7

War is Deception : The prophet (saw) is reported to have said that " War is Deception". As the rulers are not ruling by Islam and are in fact working against all those who work to establish Islam, we being part of the government can work to destroy it from within. It's our war against the ruling government. Taking part in the non-islamic government is a deception. Refutation: How can taking part in a non-Islamic regime and ruling by un-Islamic laws be considered a state of war!!! And which scholar allowed us to do haraam because of war? In fact our Ummah is the one who is being deceived by the participation of Islamic parties in nonIslamic government. Cause the general public are not aware that the Islamic party taking part in the non-Islamic government as a deceiving means and they (public) get the view that it is allowed in Islam to be part and rule by non-islamic laws. On the other hand ruling power knows very well the intentions of the Islamic party so they keep them in their control and legitimizes their ruling before the ummah and prolongs their kufr ruling upon them. Proponent's argument no 8 Gradual revelation of Islam: Another deviated claim by those smitten by Western electioneering is that the gradual revelation of the Qur'an is a proof for their actions today. They attempt to prove that because Allah (swt) conveyed the message to the Prophet (saw) in pieces, like alcohol being forbidden in three stages, they are allowed to rule gradually today. Refutation: The truth of the matter is that even though Allah (swt) revealed the Qur'an gradually, the Prophet (saw) and the Sahabah (ra) implemented it immediately as and when it was revealed. For example, when Banu Thaqeef wanted to be exempt from salat and to keep their idol, al-Lat, for three years as conditions for their embracing Islam, the Prophet (saw) refused and insisted upon the immediate destruction of the idol, and the commencement of salat. Thus, in matters of fard and haram no gradualism is employed. He (saw) did allow for them not to destroy the idol by their own hands. This, however, is not compromising a hukm, because the fard was simply the destruction of the idol but not the person. So, he (saw) simply sent Khalid bin Waleed (ra) to destroy it instead. Rasulullah (saw) was offered to be the leader of the Quraysh in Makkah but he rejected it. He (saw) could have taken the position and take the advantage of the position to establish the Deen gradually but he didn't do so despite the persecution, torture suffered by the Muslims at the hands of the quraysh. These examples show clearly that the gradualism in not a valid sharia method. We ask the proponents of such a fallacy, would they accept activists of their dawa to undertake the dawa whilst still not having given up alcohol or drugs? Would they themselves be in such a position? Why then, do they use the issue of alcohol being forbidden in three stages? After all, if they are not prepared to drink alcohol and do dawa, how can they justify ruling by Kufr and doing dawa? Today Muslims have no choice in the matters of law, as the revelation is complete. Conclusion:

The regimes ruling in Islamic lands nowadays are all un Islamic. That is they are regimes of Kufr because their systems are not derived from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) (except for some portions of it). It is forbidden for a Muslim, who believes in Allah and his Messenger (saw), to help, participate in or be a part of these regimes. It is untrue that Muslims don't have any other option to change kufr system except through participating in parliament. The answer to the correct method to re-establish Islam lies in the seerah of Rasulullah (saw) only, which has been explained in the article The Messenger's (saw) methodology of establishing the Deen Further reading: Does democracy need reform or replacement ? Electing someone to rule by Kufr Annexe I would like to highlight some of the practical consequences of following this method: It prolongs the life of the non-Islamic regime by giving it legitimacy and through their participation in it. It gives an Islamic image of the non-Islamic regime through the formation of unity/coalition government with the Islamic Parties. Following this method, those responsible for the movement falls into hypocrisy. When they are in the presence of the rulers who accept them to participate in ruling, they say to them what will please them. When they are alone with the people, they say something else, and they try to convince them that they are drawing closer to the ruler and the rule, so as to seize the rule and take the initiative from ruler. The regime is allowed to count the numbers and supporters of the movement and expose their hidden things and find out their secrets. The regime may discover differences between the members of the group, and so it will work to strengthen and encourage these differences, so as to easily control the group, and split it up when the need arises. The dawah of such a group will be limited to the rules that do not represent a danger to the regime, and remain silent over the vital issues, thus giving an incorrect view of the dawah and Islam. When the regime grants permission to the Islamic movement that is working within it, to establish institutions through which the group can undertake their work, the group becomes a captive of the institutions, and will fear that the regime may get its hands on them and confiscate them. So they will not pass any judgement on things that will upset the regime, and consequently they do not think of breaking away from it. When the Islamic movement accepts to participate in a jaahili system, it gives justification to the regimes to clamp down on the other Islamic movements by considering those working against the regime as fundamentalists and zealots. Those cooperating with the regime, on the other hand are considered moderate and enlightened. It is a strange matter, and the advocates of these lenient approaches have written studies in which they have indicated that, due to their methodology, they are the moderates with whom the regimes can cooperate whilst the others are zealots. Confidence in Islam vanishes from the peoples minds when they see that Islam has not given them anything through these regimes, especially after the advocates of such views promised them with al-mann wa salwa (manna and quails), meaning all sorts of riches. It shows that they are unable to solve their problems in the correct manner. Hence, the movement cannot put itself forward as an example to be emulated, rather it gives a bad

example. The movement turns silent regarding the rulers clamping down and arrest of the other dawah carriers, or even attacks them, in order to please the rulers or in accordance with their request. This approach makes benefit the criterion for the actions of the group, instead of the adherence to the Sharee rule. Whatever action produces a benefit will be undertaken, even if it clearly contradicts the Shara. The benefit in the view of the Muslim becomes dearer than the Shara. Source: