PDA

View Full Version : The Ruling of Islam on Elections in a Kufr System


Ibrahim
26-07-2001, 05:18
LAST EDITED ON 26-07-01 AT 05:38 AM (GMT)[p]The Ruling of Islam on Elections in a Kufr System

The Messenger (saw) said, “Islam started as something strange and will again return as something strange. So give glad tidings to the strangers who will revive the Sunnah after it became corrupted”. [Tabarani]

The resurgence of the Islamic Ummah and her demands to return to the Islamic way of life in all her affairs has become apparent for all the people to witness. This has manifested itself in the revival of Islam as a political deen, which seeks to assert its authority over the affairs of man. Indeed the fact that Islam is political and the need for Khilafah, in order to apply the Islamic rules and laws that have been detailed in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, are foregone conclusions. The revival of Islam started as something “strange” in the new secular world order but is now widely adopted by the Islamic Ummah as her cause.

However confusion still exists within certain elements of the Islamic Ummah who, whilst sincere in their efforts and noble in their goals, have failed to understand the error of the path they tread. They are those who cannot distinguish between the elections as a process of determining the consent of the masses in its selection of a legitimate ruler and the system of democracy.

Democracy: The rule of Man versus the rule of Allah (swt)

Democracy in principle means that man has a free hand at determining rules and laws as he pleases and he is in total control of this - he is the sovereign master of himself and his own destiny. In essence the main foundation of democracy is the rejection of the right of Allah (swt) to legislate. Hence man can decide to enact a piece of legislation that pleases him and his whims. So, for example, in some Muslim countries, including Indonesia, nightclubs are closed for Ramadhan and re-open after Ramadhan is over. In Bangladesh legislation to legalise prostitution is still under consideration and in Pakistan it has taken years to decide whether riba (usury) is forbidden. In the West, politicians agonised over whether to permit homosexual relationships at the age of sixteen or eighteen, and whether or not to have an un-elected chamber that can accept or reject legislation and so on and so forth.

In democratic societies, there is an insistence that man has the right to decide legislation, regardless of the commandments of Allah (swt), which can simply be ignored. So man is the sole arbiter of whether to accept liberal values, terminate the life of a foetus, exterminate populations in ‘humanitarian’ wars such as Iraq, or severely place a people in hunger such as in Afghanistan. The fundamental principle here is that man possesses the right to legislate and make rules and laws. Individuals are appointed in parliaments and legislative houses to debate, scrutinise and enact law. The basis of legislation is the majority decision of these selected people, who will vote according to their own personal experiences, their party line, their business interests (more often than not) and the like.

Democracy is therefore contradictory to the very foundations of Islam and its basic beliefs - that Allah (swt) is the Sovereign Master and the only one with the right of determining legislation and rules and laws as He (swt) pleases and the rest of creation including mankind, has no right except to hear and obey the orders of Allah (swt). Allah (swt) says,

“The right of Rule is solely for Allah” (Yusuf: 40).

This establishes clearly that He (swt) is the sole legislator. Islam, as a pure deen, should not be disgraced with seeking the majority decision on whether its laws are valid or not. These laws come from the Legislator, Allah (swt) and require immediate implementation. It is a principle of the Islamic Aqeedah that Allah (swt) is the source of all Ahkam (laws).

In addition, Allah (swt) says, “It is not for a believer, male or female, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any say (option) in their decision” [Al-Ahzab: 36]. So it is clear that humans have to submit to this law, and cannot dispute with it.

Allah (swt) has made this a matter of Iman; “But no, by Your Rabb, they can have no (real) faith until they make you judge in all disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest submission.” [An-Nisa: 65]

Also Allah (swt), the All Wise, states, “O you who believe, obey Allah, obey His Messenger and those in authority amongst you and if you differ over a matter then refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you believe in Allah and the Last Day.” [An-Nisa: 59]

This verse clearly enjoins upon the Muslims to only refer to Allah and His Messenger (saw) in all issues. These Ayahs have come in an ‘aam (general) form and include ‘all matters’. Hence every matter has a law from Allah (swt), no matter how small or minute.

Also Allah (swt) says in Surah al-Ma’idah, “And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then such are the kafireen (disbelievers)” [Al-Ma’idah: 44]

Ibn Abbas (ra) stated in his tafsir of this verse that anybody who denies a definitive judgement of Allah (swt) contained in the Shari’ah is a Kafir. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari says that this is agreed upon. Ibn Abbas (ra) went on to say that anyone who says that the rule of Allah (swt) does not have to be established then he is a Kafir. The one who says that the rule of man is better than the rule of Allah (swt) is therefore a Kafir. The one who states that the rules of man are just as good as the rule of Allah (swt) is a Kafir. Ibn Abbas (ra) also said that the one who does not deny Allah’s (swt) Hukm (order) but believes that it is allowed to rule by other than what Allah (swt) has revealed is a Kafir because he is denying that the right of rule is solely for Allah (swt). This is the case even if he says that the rule of Allah (swt) is better than the rule that such a person is implementing.
However, if someone rules by the rules of kufr, that is by other than Islam, and does not believe in them but rather he hates them and believes that what he is doing is a major sin - then such a person has committed kufr dun kufr (a kufr which is less than kufr) - a major sin that is definitely haram (forbidden) but he is not a Kafir.

Al-Tabari shared this opinion and this is the soundest position in our view.

Allah (swt) says, “Verily those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messengers and wish to make distinction between Allah and His Messengers (by believing in Allah and disbelieving in His Messengers) saying ‘We believe in some and reject others’, and wish to adopt a way between. They are in truth disbelievers. And we have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment.” [An-Nisa: 150-151]

Al-Hafidh Ibn Kathir (ra) in his tafsir of these verses made reference to the Tartars in his time and said, “Who put together for them a law book extracted from different laws of the Jews, the Christians and the Deen of Islam. It also contained many rules taken only from their own opinion and desires that later became a system of law followed by the people and given precedence over the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger - so the ruler who does that is a Kafir” [Tafsir al-Qur’an al Adhim].

This should make it clear that voting or taking part in elections in a democratic system for any of the kufr parties is something that is at least a major haram regardless of the benefit (maslaha) or the perceived fruits of doing so. This is something that in principle is in conflict with the very Iman of the Muslim.

It has come to our attention that there are many who today have lost the passion for Islam and its victories. Instead they run, like headless chicken, to the doors of the houses of the Kuffar, to seek some petty interests and to secure some benefits. We have also observed the usage of weak evidences by such people, misapplied and not taken from the credible Mujtahideen through a correct Ijtihad, to justify their positions. They argue that the general ‘objectives’ of the Shari’ah can be achieved by submitting their will to the Kuffar and opening their embrace to them. Hence they argue that to participate in the kufr government is acceptable.

Allah (swt) says, “Do they then seek the judgement of Jahiliyya (ignorance)? And who is better in judgement than Allah for a people who have a firm belief.” [Al-Ma’idah: 49-50].

Imam Shatibi (ra) said in his Al-Muwafaqat fi Usul al-Ahkam that, “The objective behind the Shari’ah is to liberate the individual from his desires in order to be a true slave of Allah and that is the legitimate maslaha…Violating the Shari’ah under the pretext of following the basic objectives or values (maqasid) of the Shari’ah is like the one who cares about the spirit without the body, and since the body without the spirit is useless, therefore the spirit without the body is useless too.” [Page 25]

Furthermore, they say that if the intention is pure then the action does not matter. They quote the noble words of the Messenger (saw) when he (saw) said, “Actions are but by intention”. With this they justify participation in kufr government, sharing power with them, voting for them and allying with the kufr political parties.

Imam Ghazali (ra) said, “The sins do not change their nature by intention. So the ignorant must understand that from the generality of his (saw) saying, “Actions are but by intention”, then thinks that a sin can be turned into an obedience by (a good) intention, such as the person who backbites a man to please the heart of someone else, feeds the needy person with someone else’s money or builds a school, a mosque or a military camp with unlawful money, while his intention is to do good. This is all ignorance; and the intention has no effect in ruling out its being oppression, an aggression and a sin. In fact his intending to do good by an evil means - which opposes the requirement of the Shari’ah - is another evil... As a matter of fact the things which cause this in the heart are the hidden pleasure and the inward desire...Therefore his (saw) saying that “Actions are but by intention” is confined... to obedience and Mubahaat (permissible) things but not sins. This is because obedience can be turned into a sin by the (wrong) intention. Also the Mubah (permissible) can be turned into sin by the (wrong) intention. In contrast, a sin can never be turned into an obedience by the (good) intention” .

Elections

Therefore, voting for any political party that is going to work within a democratic framework and voting for or against legislation in a parliament regardless of the apparent benefits is haram. Voting for a secular party in the Western systems, regardless of a noble goal and the correctness of the intention, is something that contradicts the foundations of what it means to be a Muslim and without a shadow of a doubt is something that is haram.

This does not mean that, in principle, elections are not permitted. Rather elections in order to gain the consent of the Ummah or the representation of the Muslims as a whole in selecting the Majlis of the Ummah (in the legitimate Khilafah) are valid. Also elections as a style to elect a Khalifah, the leader of the Muslims, are also valid.

The Bay’at ul Harb (the Pledge of War) that instituted the Prophet (saw) in authority in Madinah demonstrates this point. According to the narrations of Ibn Hisham as authenticated by Ibn Kathir the Messenger (saw) asked the tribes of the Aws and the Khazraj to “Bring forth for me twelve representatives from amongst yourselves.” They then appointed their twelve nuqabah (representatives) who gave the Prophet (saw) their support (Nusrah) and allegiance on behalf of the rest of the people. So it is a permitted style to utilise elections as a mechanism to appoint a Khalifah as the leader of the Muslims.

Indeed it would more than likely be one of the mechanisms that the Khilafah, whose return is imminent by the will of Allah (swt), would utilise as it facilitates the expression of the opinion of the masses. Imam Muslim (ra) narrates in his Sahih that Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) during his Khilafah was returning from an expedition when he overheard the Muslims saying that when Umar (ra) passes away they would appoint such and such. This concerned him. So he called a gathering of all the Muslims including the Sahabah (ra) and told them regarding the one who appoints someone in authority without consulting the Muslims “kill him and kill the one who he appointed!”

This was something that all the Muslims including the Sahabah (ra) witnessed yet although he sanctioned the spillage of Muslim blood they acknowledged the truth of the statement, which demonstrated the Ijma (consensus) of the Sahabah. This made it clear that the masses must select the ruler and not be appointed by a minority faction.

[i]O Muslims! O you to whom Allah (swt) has given might with Islam!

The call of integration is a call for the further subjugation of the will of the Muslims. The Westerners have consolidated their foothold in the Islamic World, by appointing many puppet leaders and by ordering the implementation of all that is other than Islam. Like a sly snake, the heads of the kufr West, spread their poison in our lands and in our minds. This call must be rejected, because it is a call to take away the clarity of our vision, the truthfulness of our call, the purity of our deen and the sincerity of our hearts. It is a call to colonise our minds with the erroneous Western ideas, of democracy and the like.

Today we are living without the Khilafah and the right of Muslims in appointing and selecting the legitimate leader (Khalifah) has been taken away and the tyrant rulers have been appointed by the Kuffar who promote the secular democratic and autocratic systems in our land. So we are required to work to re-establish the Khilafah and give bay’ah (allegiance) to a Khalifah so that this right of selecting the ruler can be returned to the Ummah. Indeed this is the highest fard and has been described as the ‘mother of all obligations”. It is by this return of the Khilafah that the dignity of the Ummah will once again return.

O you Imams!

You are well aware, more than most, of the duty of re-establishing the Khilafah. You are well aware of the plans of the Kuffar and their agents. You see, like we do, the enforcement of secular democratic values, corroding the thoughts, morals and actions of the people. Prove to the Ummah that you are the ‘inheritors of the Prophets’, and speak the word of Haqq. Do not let your da’wa carry the narrow agenda of the Kuffar and their agents. Rather, call the people to something that will give them the vision of Islam. For indeed, the true words earn Allah’s (swt) pleasure and the false words achieve Allah’s (swt) anger.

Today the world witnesses the callers for the Khilafah in their throngs. The prisons are full of the sincere Muslims who work and strive for Allah’s (swt) pleasure to re-establish the Khilafah. From Uzbekistan to Egypt, from Pakistan to Palestine, the call for Khilafah has taken root, and life has begun to ebb back to this noble Ummah.

Imam al-Ghazali (ra) when writing of the consequences of losing the Khilafah stated, “The judges are suspended, the wilayah (authorities) are nullified, … (and) the decrees of those in authority can not be executed and all humans are on the verge of haram”. [Al Iqtisad fil Itiqad page 240]

O Muslims! Let not despair get the better of you with regards the return of Islam to the battlefield of life, resumption of the Islamic way of life and carrying the call to the world through its state - the Khilafah state. We say to you, do seek the Islamic rule regarding voting in a kufr system, and do not follow the nafs (desires). And we ask you to persevere patiently for the return of the Khilafah that will be a guide to all of humankind, East and West. Let not the despair get the better of you and keep you silent about the kufr regimes and consent to them or try to please them, compromise and flatter them. Soon we shall witness the great victories of Islam, and our weak position will be reversed, and what we have seen of poverty, disgrace and humiliation will be turned around with the coming of the mighty State that will make the Western powers forget the whispers of Shaitan! And know that victory comes with patience. And patience here is to restrict oneself to the orders of Allah (swt).

Allah (swt) said: “And Allah has full power and control over His affairs, but most of men know not.” [Yusuf: 21]

Members of [link:www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org|Hizb ut-Tahrir] in Britain

24 Safar 1422 AH / 18 May 2001 CE

Democracy is a System of Kufr

Despite what one sees of the calamities and misfortunes inflicted on the world by the Western democratic colonialists, and what the colonised and the developing countries suffered at their hands due to the theft of their wealth, the plunder of their resources, the impoverishment of their population and the humiliation of their peoples, and making their countries into consumer markets for their industries and products.

Despite the fact that democracy in its true meaning is not applicable, and despite after the new meaning given to it as a result of interpretation, does not agree with the reality and nor does it exist in reality.

Despite the lies and deception found in the speeches of democrats: that parliaments represent the general will, that they are the political embodiment of the general will of the masses, and that they represent the majority opinion, and legislation passed by the majority vote of the representatives express the will of the majority of people. Also other deception of their speeches is that the rulers are chosen by the majority of people and that they derive their authority from the people.

Despite the blatant failings of the democratic system regarding ruling and the rulers when there are no large parties in the country which can be a majority in the Parliament.

Despite all this and much more, the Kafir West has been able to find a market for its corrupt thoughts of democracy in the Islamic Lands.

How was the Kafir West able to find a market in the Islamic Land for the Kafir democratic thoughts, which have nothing to do with the rules of Islam?

That was because of the Kafir European nations, which bear an intense animosity for Islam and the Muslims and harbour a vile hatred for Islam and Muslims. Allah Almighty spoke the truth when He (swt) said: “Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse” [TMQ Ale-Imran: 118].

After they had realised that the secret of the Muslim’s strength is Islam. This is because its ‘Aqeedah is the origin of this great strength for the Muslims. These nations drew up a hellish plan to attack the Islamic world through a missionary and cultural invasion in which they conveyed their culture, thoughts (part of which is democracy), civilisation and their viewpoint about life. They began to call Muslims to their culture, wishing that the Muslims would take it as a basis of their thinking and viewpoint about life, so as to divert them away from Islam and distance them from being restricted to it and from implementing its rules. This was to make it easy for them to destroy the Islamic State - the Khilafah State - and consequently the application of Islam and its rules in life, state and society so that the Muslims adopt their thoughts, systems and Kufr laws and implement them instead of Islam; thus they stray away from Islam and become under their control. Allah (swt) spoke the truth when He (swt) said: “Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad [saw]) till you follow their religion. Say: Verily, the guidance of Allah that is the only guidance. And if you (O Muhammad [saw]) were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of the Knowledge, then you would have against Allah neither any Wali (protector) nor any helper” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 120].

This missionary and cultural invasion intensified at a time when the Muslims increased in their intellectual and political decline towards the last days of the Uthmani Khilafah in the second half of the nineteenth century. At that time the balance of power had changed to the advantage of the European nations after the intellectual and industrial revolution in Europe, and after the inventions and scientific discoveries through which Europe came to proceed in rapid steps towards advancement and progress while the ‘Uthmani State remained stagnant and its weakness increased day by day. This opened the door to the Western culture and the western thoughts, civilisation and systems to enter the Muslim countries.

In its missionary and cultural invasion of the Muslim lands, the European countries employed the style of disparaging Islam, distorting its rules and creating doubt in the mind of Muslims. They made the Muslims resent Islam and think that it was the reason for their backwardness and decline. They made them glorify the West and its culture at the same time, and exalt the status of its thoughts and its democratic system, and speak about its systems and laws in glowing terms.

The West also relied on deception, making the Muslims think that its culture did not contradict the culture of Islam because its culture has been taken from Islam, and that its systems and laws do not contradict the rules of Islam.

The West granted the democratic thoughts and system the attribute of Islam, and that they do not disagree with or contradict Islam. Rather that they are from Islam because they are themselves the Shura, enjoining the good and forbidding the evil and accounting the rulers. The effect of all of this on the Muslims was great. It made the Western thoughts and culture dominate them.

This also led them to adopt certain systems and laws towards the end of the ‘Uthmani State, and after the destruction of the Khilafah state it led them to adopt most of the systems and laws.

This affected the educated people, politicians, and even the carriers of the Islamic culture and some da’wa carriers and the Muslim masses.

As for the educated people, many of them were affected by the Western culture, on whose basis they were educated, whether they had studied in the West or in the Islamic countries. This is because the curricula in the Islamic countries had been set down after the First World War, on the basis of the philosophy of the West and its viewpoint about life. Until many of them came to relish and pursue the Western culture and glorify the West, which brought it. They came to disapprove of the Islamic culture and the rules of Islam when they contradicted the Western culture. They came to detest Islam as the Kafir west detested Islam. They harboured intense animosity for Islam, Islamic culture, systems and rules like the Kafir West. They became the mouthpieces of propaganda for the West, its culture, thoughts and systems to attack Islam, its culture, rules and system and to disparage it.

As for the politicians they devoted themselves to the West and its system, and they tied themselves to it and made it their ideal. They sought help from the West and relied upon it and they made themselves guardians of the Western laws and systems, and obedient servants to protect their interests and implement their conspiracies. They declared their animosity to Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw). They waged a war against political Islam and the sincere people who carried its call. They exerted all their effort to prevent the re-establishment of the Khilafah and the return of ruling by the word of Allah (swt); may Allah (swt) destroy them for their lies.

As for the carriers of the Islamic culture, this was due to their lack of awareness about Islam, lack of understanding of the reality of Islamic rules and the reality of Western culture, thoughts and systems, and due to their lack of understanding about the contradiction of the Western culture, thoughts and viewpoint about life with the Islamic creed, rules, culture and viewpoint about life.

This happened because of the great weakness that befell the minds of the Muslims in understanding Islam and its rules. It was also due to the erroneous understanding of the Islamic Shari’ah for application in society. So Islam came to be explained in ways, which could not be supported by its texts, and its rules came to be interpreted to agree with the existing reality instead of changing the existing reality to comply with the rules of Islam. So they adopted rules which had no link to the Shari’ah or had weak link under the pretext of an erroneous principle laid down by them which states: ‘Changing of rules to accord with the changing of time is not rejected.’ On the tongue of many, Islam came to be interpreted so that it agrees with every school of thought, idea and ideology even if it contradicted the rules of Islam and its viewpoint about life. They said that the culture and thoughts of the West do not contradict the culture and rules of Islam, because they have been taken from the culture of Islam. They said that the democratic system of ruling and the capitalist system in economy do not contradict with the rules of Islam, even though in their reality they are a system of Kufr. They said that democracy is from Islam and that the general freedoms are from Islam even though they completely contradict with Islam.

As a result of that, what is allowed for the Muslims to adopt, such as the science of medicine, pharmacy, engineering and chemistry, as well as sciences; such as agriculture, industry, transport and communication systems, and other such sciences that are permitted as long as they do not contradict Islam. These were confused with what was not allowed to be adopted, in terms of anything that relates to the beliefs and the Shari’ah rules. This is because these matters are not allowed be to taken except from what has been brought by the Messenger (saw) in the Kitab and Sunnah and whatever they alluded to, in terms of analogy (Qiyas) or the Ijma’a of the Sahabah.

Thus the Kafir West was able to market its culture and viewpoint about life and market the thoughts of its democratic system, thoughts of its economic system and its thoughts regarding the general freedoms in the Islamic countries.

The above was an extract from the forthcoming English translation of the book “Democracy is a System of Kufr – It is forbidden to adopt it, implement it or call for it” written by Abdul Qadeem Zalloom. For more information contact Al-Khilafah Publications at the address given on Page 4.

Source: [link:www.khilafah.com/1421/category.php?TagID=24&jumpdate=June2001|Khilafah Magazine June Edition]

umm_suhayb
26-07-2001, 10:11
Assalam alaykum,
It seemed only HT has come up with this fatwa that is kufr to participate in election... As far as we r concerned, majority of ulama muttakhir allowed muslim participation in election.. I really hope HT could stop being so divisive..It's so destructive to the ummah..
O<k please give us another solution...How do we tell the kafir govt our needs as a muslim community....We need to built mosques, schools and to have riba-free bank/mortgages..how do we pressure the
govt to let our women wear hijab in schools and workplace ??
majority of us muslim are a minority living under kufr system...Do u want us to take up arms against the kufr system??

Ibrahim
28-07-2001, 14:14
as-salaamu alaykum sister umm_suhayb,

It seemed only HT has come up with this fatwa that is kufr to participate in election

Not true, in fact the majority of the ulema support this position that democracy is kufr, that legislation by man is not permitted (we only need to look at the names and attributes of Allah to know we cannot legislate, and to the hadith, like the one where the rabbis and priests legislating is mentioned).

The Salafiyyah are of the opinion that legislation by man is haram, and that Muslims engaging in or supporting this legislation is haram, as were groups like Ikhwaan, until they modified their manhaj.

But if you believe you have daleel for your opinion, then you are fine. I looked at your article and then compared it with the one above, and several others all from the June Edition oif Khilafah magazine, and I must say it's quite obvious to me who is on the stronger daleel, but this is only my opinion, and I respect that you believe yours has a stronger daleel, if in fact you believe that.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that most people who support the kufr systems don't even get to the pont of investigating daleel's, they get stuck on the concept that percieved benefit outwighs the costs, and they leave their thinking there.

I really hope HT could stop being so divisive..It's so destructive to the ummah..

Subhan'Allah, calling for the rule of Allah (swt) instead of the rule of kufr is divisive? Calling for the dismantling of kufr systems and the re-establishment of the Islamic system is divisive? If so, then I am quite glad to be divisive.

O<k please give us another solution...

The solution is to be found in the seerah of the prophet (saw), not in the sunnah of the Jewish lobby groups. We take our outlook on life from Islam, not from the kuffar.

We need to built mosques, schools and to have riba-free bank/mortgages..how do we pressure the
govt to let our women wear hijab in schools and workplace ??

Tell me, in the first 13 years of the daw'ah in Makkah, how many mosques etc. did tghe prophet (Saw) and his sahabah construct? How many schools did they build? We focus too much on shallow infastructure, and not enough on actually reviving the Muslim Ummah. We want to keep the thoughts of this ummah contented in kufr? And not awake to the fact that we must re-establish Islam? We build mosque after mosque, school after school, and they do nothing for us. These buildings are not the means to improving our situation. They can be necessities at times, and they can assist in revival, but they are not the centre of it as many people seem to think.

majority of us muslim are a minority living under kufr system...Do u want us to take up arms against the kufr system??

Where this comment came from I really am lost, sorry. HT has never suggested anyhitng like this in their methods, and neither have I. Like to clue me in?

The solution comes from ISlam, it comes from the seerah of the prophet (saw), and his method for establishing an Islamic state. What more do you need as an example beyond him? He has shown us exactly how to establish our state, which will be the protection and motivation for us to stick to our deen. If you'd like to read more about the specifics, I'd suggest two books from the Hezeb:

The methodology of Hezb ut-Tahrir for Change.

Selections from the Seerah.

both should be available online under the "Khilafah CD" section of www.khilafah.org

wasalam.

Concerned (Guest)
29-07-2001, 14:22
I'm re-posting this, since it's the same topic (I originally posted this at the 'Chickens home to roost' discussion, but it has not yet been noticed because I posted it too high on the page)

Sorry this is so long.

Please see: http://www.amconline.org/newamc/imam/fatwa.shtml
It's entitled: Fatwa Concerning The Participation of Muslims in the American Political Process
Much of the reasoning applies to Democracies in general

It is true that Muslims should not copy non-Muslims for the sake of conformity. However, this does not mean we avoid the use of phones, computers, cars, planes, trains, kitchen-ware, weapons and cloth. We do not follow their fashions, but we use the tools of society to advance our cause. To not lobby, because non-Muslims lobby, makes as much sense as not producing movies and newspapers, because non-Muslims are very engaged in that form of communication, as well. Lobbying means communicating with leaders to convince them to adopt your proposals. It's true that the Prophet (peace be upon him) warned that in time Muslims would copy everything the non-Muslims do, so much so that were they to go into the burrow of a poisonous snake, Muslims would follow, so we should be careful with our actions as we are the vice-gerrants of the Creator, but we should not be so petrified that we do nothing at all. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was very busy in the public eye, trying to use any and every form of communication, to spread the Truth.
It's important to note that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was very practical and did not oppose political activities. For 13 years the early Muslims in Mecca endured boycotts, persecution, torture, murders and other injustices. In a Hadith we are told that when we find injustice we are to correct it first by our hand, but if we are unable we should correct it by our voice and if we can not, then we must at least feel bad for it in our hearts, and that is the weakest form of faith. Unfortunately, like today, the early Muslims were too weak to oppose the injustice by their "hand". The next available option was their "voice". Recall that the Prophet (peace be upon him) met with the dictatorial-leaders of Mecca on many occasions attempting to form agreements, he asked Muslims to exert any influence they might have to prevent the on-going persecution, when those efforts failed he sent a group of Muslims to seek refuge in the Christian empire of Ethiopia where their first daunting task was to convince the king to allow them freedom of religion, he formed alliances with non-Muslim tribes, in signing a Treaty he agreed to drop the title of Prophet, once Islam was accepted in Mecca he sent envoys to every major empire asking their leaders to accept Islam. All these are examples of how Muslims used their "voice" to oppose injustice and all these are a form of lobbying. Meeting with leaders to convince them to adopt your proposed legal agreements (laws and treaties) is lobbying. Forming strategic alliances with groups that agree to help you advance your position is lobbying. Just as our "hand" can now be extended to include our weaponry and wealth, our "voices" are now extended by technology and newly centralized governmental powers to include the media, petitions, voting and lobying. The Prophet (peace be upon him) participated heavily in the politics of corrupt dictatorships, in an attempt to change them. In order to fix an injustice, you usually must interact with it. Interaction does not neccesarily, imply acceptance. If you want to clean a dirty pot, and don't have an industrial dishwasher, you may have to put your hand in the pot and scrub very hard. In the Quran we are told of Pharoh, a man that set himself up as God to be worshipped, the worst example of Men on Earth at the time. The Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) when preparing to speak with Pharoh was advised by Allah (swt) to speak softly, slowly and kindly. The Prophet (peace be upon him) met with those that persecuted Muslims, he formed alliances agreeing to support and defend non-Muslims that had previously killed Muslims (with money, weapons and a Muslim army prepared to fight and die for them), he lived under dictatorial rule and attempted dialogue with dictators (dictatorship is far from an Islamic government). If the Prophet (peace be upon him) did all these things, who are we to shun his example. What type of Muslims are we? Are we so proud now that we find the example of our Prophet (peace be upon him), to be below our dignity? Remember that no heart with an ounce of Pride will enter Jannah and that the first sin commited was Satan's refusal to follow the command of Allah (swt) to bow to Adam (peace be upon him), out of mistaken Pride. In a sense Pride has been the root of all subsequent sins.
We are in agreement about unifying the brotherhood. But too often Muslims shun and attack others who interpret the Quran differently, because they believe that they are misguided. Anyone that accepts the Quran agrees with over 90% of Islam, regardless of interpretation. It makes no sense to shun and attack these supposedly mis-guided people , while accepting people of the book without question. The Prophet (peace be upon him) didn't shun or attack anyone's belief. In fact he would kindly greet and give gifts to his neighbor, who everyday laid thorns in his path, threw garbage on him, poured camel dung on him while he prayed at the Kabba and insulted him loudly in public. When stoned nearly to death by the children Taif, he declined the offer to have the town destroyed, for the hope that perhaps these children's children may accept Islam. When a non-Muslim urinated in the corner of the his Mosque, he stopped his companions from treating him roughly and gently and privately explained to the errant urinator that he was in a holy place and that there were other more appropriate locations for urination. When his companions were mis-guided about sonmething or argued with him, he did not raise his voice, but rather he took them aside and explained calmly the reasons for their mistake. Even when the companions would continue to argue with him, he did not lose patience simply explaining again and again, for as long as it took. If a believer's prayers are not accepted, when he avoids a fellow Muslim for over 3 days, what treatment should we expect whole groups of Muslims avoiding eachother? Remember it is not for us to judge who is a believer and who is not. We should follow the example of our Prophet (peace be upon him) by being more tolerant, partient and loving towards all creation, especially our fellow vice-gerrants of the Creator. We should advise, not argue, offering counsel, not complaint, listening more and not blaming anyone (blaming is judgemental, Allah (swt) is the judge and we should not try to supercede Him, with our own judgement). At least we can take comfort that Allah (swt) is pushing us to unite, the more we allow are differences to divide us the more He provides with a common enemy to unite against. I only hope we overcome our foolish pride and unite before those common enemies slaughter all of us.

__________________
__________________

Please see: http://www.amconline.org/newamc/imam/fatwa.shtml
It's entitled: Fatwa Concerning The Participation of Muslims in the American Political Process
Much of the reasoning applies to Democracies in general

I've included it below, in case you have difficulrty viewing it
(sorry, it is long)


In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, Most Merciful


Fatwa Concerning
The Participation of Muslims in the American Political Process
By Dr. Taha Jaber al-Alwani
Chairman of the North American Fiqh Council
President of the Graduate School of Social and Islamic Sciences

We have received from the American Muslim Council the following inquiry:

INQUIRY:

“You know that the American Muslim Council is in the midst of a voting registration campaign for the forthcoming American elections. In the course of this campaign, some American Muslims have expressed severe doubts as to whether it would be religiously permissible for them to participate in the political system of this country, The United States of America. Several reasons were cited for this doubt.

Some argue that participation would ally some Muslims with others they have little in common with in matters of belief. It may also divide Muslims in the United States, and harm the interests of the Muslim community. This would be in contradiction to the Qur’anic injunction that Muslims should support each other.

Others argue that participation in our system may be viewed as rukun (acquiescence) to the unjust. The Almighty said in the Qur’an: “And do not acquiesce to the unjust…”.

Yet others argue that the participation of Muslims in our secular political system, which is increasingly denuding the public square from all symbols of faith, would desensitize Muslims into accepting the current status-quo and interacting with it, to the detriment of all people of faith in this society.

Additionally, some Muslims, who escaped dictatorial regimes in their countries of origin or left to avoid bad economic conditions, live in the hope of going back to Dar al-Islam (Land of Islam) once the situation improves. This state of affairs is not uncommon among first generation immigrants, Muslim or otherwise. In our case, however, we are concerned about the fact that it leads to voting apathy. In particular, some Muslims in this group argue that voting can be justified only for extreme necessity.

We would like your Eminence to clarify this matter for us with a lucid statement which, with proofs and arguments, may bring to an end the conflict among American Muslims over this vital issue.
May Allah reward you with His blessings.

Aly Ramadan Abuzaakouk
Executive-Director of the American Muslim Council
REPLY

In an independent research entitled “Introduction to Minorities Jurisprudence: Founding Views” (the “Introduction”), to published this fall in a special issue on Islam by the Journal of Law & Religion, we dealt with the principles and rules that should govern the vision of the contemporary jurist (and the contemporary Muslim in general) on this topic. The connection of this fatwa to the Introduction is akin to that of a derivative principle (a branch) to a fundamental principle (a root), or of an example to the general rule. The understanding, therefore, of the Introduction and the orthodoxy of prevailing principles and argumentation contained therein, is necessary for a better understanding of this fatwa and the foundation on which it rests.

Overview of Basic Principles:
Among the legal and methodological principles we reached in the Introduction are the following:

1. All of humankind is one family that belongs in its entirety to Adam, and Adam is from earth. This Humanity is divided into two nations: “A nation that responds”, and “a nation that summons” .
2. Islam is a global religion, not restricted to any one ethnic group or geographical area.
3. The Qur’anic discourse is global and should not be restricted to a limited geographical place or a narrow social group.
4. The Muslim ummah is a benevolent one that evolved to bear witness to humanity.
5. The principle of “righteousness and equity, mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, is the greatest general principle by which to measure the relationship between Muslims and others. All other matters should concede to this principle.
6. We should avoid being limited by juristic terminologies regarding the issue of international partitions. Terms, such as “Dar al-Islam” (The Land of Islam), were not mentioned in the Revelation in the geographical sense. They are but juristic and administrative terms, the use of which was imposed by the circumstances of the old science and the nature of relationships among countries, nations and peoples at that time.
7. To properly understand the particular examples found in the inherited body of jurisprudence, they should be examined in light of the general principles mentioned herein. By so doing, we can transcend the particulars and merge them into the general principles of the Qur'an, namely, its universal message and goals.
8. The existence of Islam in any country which is not part of the original Muslim World, should be viewed as a new and developing existence which falls in harmony with the universality of Islam and its message of hope.
9. The nature of contemporary international realities, which are characterized by both the interrelation and transcendence of borders, should be taken into serious consideration.
10. Current international legal instruments and domestic laws, which address human rights and civil rights, should be relied upon to protect and educate Muslim minorities. For example, Article 21 of the International Declaration of Human Rights states that each individual has the right to participate in the administration of his or her own country’s public affairs, whether directly or via representatives.
11. The principles of justice included in such documents should be followed as they are in harmony with thesermon of theMessenger ( Peace Be Upon Him) to his followers at his Farewell Pilgrimage and to “the alliance” which he attended at Ibn Jud'an’s house. In addition, all legitimate means, including political participation, should be utilized to safeguard these principles of justice.
12. The lessons derived from the early Islamic experience, in particular the emigration to Ethiopia, should be fully understood.
13. There should be a transition from negative reasoning about what is permissible to positive reasoning in carrying the Message to the people of our society.



American Particularities
America has particularities that need to be considered in order to issue the most appropriate legal ruling. Among these particularities are:

1. The United States is a country of immigrants who are of different races and various cultures. It is not wholly identified by any one people or immigrant culture. In particular, American culture does not exclude non-Europeans.
2. The United States is a young country whose civilization and culture have an open nature, unlike ancient civilizations that tend to have definitively established characteristics. This makes the American culture more open to the contributions of Islam and Muslims.
3. The United States is a country of freedom that looks primarily after the rights of all of its citizens, of all religions and races, despite the problems in application that manifest themselves from time to time.
4. The United States has peoples among whom racism is relatively less manifested due to their intellectual background and the historical experience of its Protestant majority.

Based on these principles and particularities, we can deduce the following conclusions with respect to the participation of Muslims in American political life:


Conclusions:
First, it is the duty of American Muslims to participate constructively in the political process, if only to protect their rights, and give support to views and causes they favor. Their participation may also improve the quality of information disseminated about Islam. We call this participation a “duty” because we do not consider it merely a “right” that can be abandoned or a “permission” which can be ignored. It falls into the category of safeguarding of necessities and ensuring the betterment of the Muslim community in this country.


Second, every legitimate means or tool that helps achieve these noble goals is similarly judged. This includes:
1. The nomination of any competent American Muslim for election to any post where his or her presence may ensure either bringing benefits to American Muslims and other citizens or preventing harm to them. These posts range from those of mayor, state governor, and membership in educational and municipal councils, all the way up to membership in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
2. Self-candidacy by an American Muslim, if the initiative for his/her nomination is not undertaken by the community, or if election laws require this form of candidacy. (Refer to the statement by Ibn Hajr on the question of becoming an Amir (or coming into power) in the “Introduction”.)
3. Adopting a non-Muslim candidate if he/she would be either more beneficial or less harmful to the American Muslim community and the rest of the country.
4. Providing financial support to a non-Muslim candidate. God the Almighty has permitted righteous conduct and good
relations with non-Muslims in exchange for nothing. So how much more so is such support permitted if clear and tangible benefits were to result from such behavior?
5. Obtaining American citizenship. Such citizenship emphasizes the true diversity of this country and is a necessary condition for participation in the political process.
6. Both registering to vote and participation in elections and voting are means to a goal. Hence, they are subject to the same legal ruling as their intended goal.

Limitations and Specifications:
1. Protection of Muslim civil rights in this country and the enjoyment of positive interaction with other Americans requires American Muslims to engage in acts of deliberation to reach consensus on general principles, and to tolerate disagreement on particulars and disputed matters. We find a good example to follow in our ancestors who migrated to Ethiopia. They met and deliberated together about the best way to respond to the critical situation they faced.
2. The children of the Muslim minority must have a fair opportunity to develop and deepen their faith in God and Islam. Otherwise, their interaction with others may lead them to compromise on the basic tenets of their religion merely to keep up with a prevailing custom or sweeping current. Ja'far, by refusing to bow to al Najashi -The King of Abyssinia- (his two Quraishi opponents did as necessitated by custom) provides a good example for such situations.
3. The Muslim minority needs to have a fair opportunity to express clearly in its own voice the immortal truths of Islam and its advanced system of human values. The example of Ja'far helps in this regards. In his eloquent speech to al Najashi, Ja'far summarized the main Islamic virtues and explained the difference between them and those of the pre-Islamic life (the Jahiliyah). By applying this method, Muslims not only gain the understanding of the rest of the people, but also their good will.
4. Both the art of persuasion and the science of public relations have an important role that should not be ignored. The words by which Ja'far ended his speech are appropriate here: “We came out to your country, we chose you from all others, we wished to be in your neighborhood, and hoped, O King, not to be treated unjustly in your country”.
Objections:

As for the objections mentioned in the inquiry and raised by some of our brothers and sisters, they can be summarized in five points which are discussed as follows:

The First Argument:
Participation would ally some Muslims with others they have little in common with in matters of belief. It may also divide Muslims in the United States and harm the interests of the Muslim community. This would be in contradiction to the Qur’anic injunction that Muslims should support each other.

This argument is based on an incorrect presumption resulting from two errors:

First, The argument casts pragmatic considerations as matters of belief, although there is a vast difference between the two. The fair dealing of Muslims with others and their cooperation with them produce neither blind allegiance (wala’ ) to these others nor special exceptions (bara’ ) for them. For, this is not originally a matter of belief but is instead a pragmatic decision involving the proper implementation of the principles of “righteousness,” “fairness and equity,” success and constructive behavior.

Second, the argument confuses the limited meaning of the concept of “alliance” (wala’ ) referred to in the Qur’an, with a broader all-inclusive one. The type of alliance warned against in the Qur’an is that which harms the interests of the Muslim community. This meaning is mentioned repeatedly in the Qur’an in such a way as to leave no confusion.

The Almighty, threatening the hypocrites, said: “To the hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (but) a grievous penalty. Yea, to those who take for ‘awlia’ (allies) unbelievers (those who do not believe in God) rather than believers.” (Qur'an 4:138-139). He then warned the believers: “O you who believe! Take not for awliya’ unbelievers rather than believers.” (Qur'an: 4:144). Confirming the warning in another verse, the Almighty said: “Let not the Believers take for awliya’ Unbelievers rather than Believers.”(Qur'an: 3:28).

But the meaning of specific Qur’anic verses is determined by various factors, including the context, reasons for revelation, other verses related to them, and even the sunnah of the Prophet (( Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã. For example, we know that the Prophet befriended the Christain Ethiopian king al Najashi. We also know that the Prophet executed an alliance with the Jews of Madinah giving them rights similar to those of Muslims. Most importantly, we know that the Qur’an refers to Christians and Jews as “People of the Book,” and not as “Unbelievers.” So, even if the meanings of certain words are construed broadly, the above-cited Qur’anic verses do not prohibit Muslims from building alliances with the vast majority of Americans.



But to gain insight into the proper interpretation of the Qur’anic verses, it is important to examine the explanation provided by major scholars. In interpreting these Qur’anic verses,ö Al Tabari said: “This is a prohibition from God to his servants the believers, against acting like the hypocrites who take for awliya’ unbelievers rather than the believers even where such behavior harms the interests of the community.”( Tafsir al-Tabari, vol. 9: 336). Al Tabari added, that the verse means that believers should not take the unbelievers as back-up support and partisans, against their own community, showing them the vulnerabilities of the Believers.”( Tafsir al-Tabari vol. 6: 303).

As stated in these Qur’anic verses, then, the blameworthy alliance is that which is given to support those who do not believe in God against the interest of one’s own believing community. This is a far cry from the actions of those who cooperate with non-Muslims (believers as well as unbelievers ) within the limits of “righteousness and equity” while continuing to work for the good of the Muslim community.

The Second Argument:
Political participation is a type of rukun (acquiescence) to those who do wrong. This is prohibited by the Qur’an where the Almighty warns against such acts by His words: “And do not acquiesce to the unjust …”( Qur'an: 11:113).

It is wrong to understand rukun, as used in the above verse, to include all types of cooperation. There is no evidence for that. Rukun in fact means “to acquiesce to the unjust” or “to be satisfied with their doings” or “to return to idolatry,” These three meanings were derived by Al Tabari from the salaf (the worthy ancestors). (.”( Tafsir al Tabari vol. 15: 500-501). Again, these meanings are a far cry from an act of participation intent on promoting public interest and protecting the Muslim minority from injustice.

The Third Argument:
Participation of Muslims in our political system is an acceptance of the secular (i.e., faith-less, non-believing) status quo.

This argument is based on misunderstanding of the American system, as well as faulty logic.

First, the Framers of our American system did not intended it to be “faith-less” or “non-believing,” but rather faith-neutral. Ideally, our political system is not intended to oppose religious values but to be unaligned with those of any one sect or religion.

Second, passivity and withdrawal from life are what brings about acceptance of the status quo by deed, which is far more effective than words. Positive participation, on the other hand, is what showcases Islamic values and morals to civil society. Indeed, it is what refutes any “faith-less” secular status quo by offering people an illustration of the blessings of faith.

The Fourth Argument:
Participation of Muslims in our secular political system, which is increasingly denuding the public square from all symbols of faith, would desensitize Muslims into accepting the current status-quo and interacting with it, to the detriment of all people of faith in this society.

Methodologically, this argument contains two errors:

First, it transfers a conceptual confusion that occurs in countries that have Muslim majorities to countries where Muslims are a minority. The two contexts are quite different and entail different obligations. While Muslims in Muslim countries, are obligated to uphold the Islamic law of their state, Muslim minorities in the United States are not required either by Islamic law or rationality to uphold Islamic symbols of faith in a secular state, except to the extent permissible within that state.

What is required of Muslim minorities in a secular society is the support of the Islamic existence of their community and the service of public interest through serious participation in public life. They are also required to work hard towards building a coherent, stable and flourishing Islamic community capable of properly representing Islam to the majority, and building bridges with other faith communities. Only then can the discussion of the place of faith within our secular society become possible.

Such was the methodology of the Prophets (Peace be upon them), and such was that of our Prophet ( Peace be upon him) who began by building first the Islamic community, then the Islamic society, and then the Islamic system.

Second, this argument narrows the scope of participation to the political sense. It would be more precise to consider each contribution towards enhancing the values of truth, goodness, and justice as a brick in the construction of a fair and equitable system. If the Muslim minority, through its positive participation in the making or influencing of political decisions, manages to promulgate a law against the use of drugs, for example, then it would have promoted the values of truth and goodness shared by many. This is in accord with Islamic values that require Muslims to serve their communities.

The Fifth Argument:
Participation contradicts the intent of a temporary stay in this country and an eventual return to Dar al Islam (the Land of Islam).

This argument is based on historical perspectives and outdated juristic terms, such as “Dar al Islam "The Land of Islam” and “Dar al Kufr "The Land of Disbelief ” or “Dar al Islam” and “Dar al Harb "The Land of War”. We have shown in the “Introduction” that these terms stand on a weak foundation from a legal perspective and are not applicable to contemporary international realities whether from a realistic perspective or a manaati one (one based on the underlying cause upon which the legal ruling hukm hangs. Refer to the Introduction for further explanation).

We can also add here that this argument ignores the highly significant fact that Islam established its first society in a land of immigration, namely, “Al Madinah al Munawwarah”, and not in the original land of the Message (“Makkah al Mukarramah"). The Prophet ( Peace Be Upon Him) did not agree to move to Makkah after his enemies lost their battles of aggression against him. He held on to the land of his immigration, and addressed its people who gave him support and victory, saying: “To live is to live with you and to die is to die with you”.

Om_Mohammed
30-07-2001, 22:59
Assalaamu alaikum.

Concerned: I am deeply indebted to you for so eloquently and timely producing such an article, and such a fatwa on this topic. It is something which I have been trying to express for a long time, but of course, not with the degree of eloquence of language, nor with the degree of insight into the meaning of islam, as well as it's history.

Thankyou so much for sharing this with us here.

As our beloved prophet (SAAW) interacted with the rest of society, so should we. He never cut himself off from the non-muslims, and continued to work in harmony with them until he was guided separate and finally face them, only when he and his companions were ready and prepared for such a confrontation. So we should attempt to immitate his example.

Om Mohammed.

Ibrahim
30-07-2001, 23:16
as-salaamu alaykum,

This argument is based on historical perspectives and outdated juristic terms, such as “Dar al Islam "The Land of Islam” and “Dar al Kufr "The Land of Disbelief ” or “Dar al Islam” and “Dar al Harb "The Land of War”. We have shown in the “Introduction” that these terms stand on a weak foundation from a legal perspective and are not applicable to contemporary international realities

This cancellation of an important legal concept in Islam is quite troubling. On what authority has this person who wrote this article or gave this "fatwa" cancelled this legal classification of lands? I have never heard of any reputable scholar, neither classic nor contemporary even hinting at such a cancellation.

This article, now I have read through it a second time appears to come from an even weaker standpoint, and uses nothing but rationalisation for the purpose of obtaining muslaha, it is not based on sound Islamic concepts, and anyone accepting such a weak article, should re-evaluate it in contrast to the title article, and consider which has daleel, and which does not, consider which attempts to cancel out shari'ah concepts, and which seeks to reinforce them.

Om_Mohammed,

As our beloved prophet (SAAW) interacted with the rest of society, so should we. He never cut himself off from the non-muslims

Of course we should not cut ourselves off from the rest of society (non-muslims included) and the article I have provided enver suggests anyhting of the sort. But we need to understand the dangerous line between interaction and integration. Interaction is a must, no daw'ah can take place without interaction, and this goes without saying, but integration is most definitely the wrong path

The prophet (saw) never worked "within" the kufr system, he worked against it, and when he obtained authority he replaced it, he did not slowly "islamise" it.

I think the biggest disagreement here stems from the fact that we both agree with the same goal, to obtain an Islamic society. We all agree the prophet (Saw) worked tirelessly to obtain such a society. What we disagree on is the understanding of how he obtained such a thing. And I think this article that's been posted has completely thrown aside his method, and just focused on his achievements, and then stated that voting can lead to the same achievements. This is the wrong outlook to take. We need to emulate the method of the prophet (saw) in changing society, and then will we achieve this noble goal.

wasalam,

Ibrahim.

http://bozo.ugh.net.au/~alias/images/shehsig_250.gif

Om_Mohammed
31-07-2001, 07:22
Assalaamu alaikum.

In referring tot he history of Islam, the first several years of Islam witnessed a time of secret practice and preaching of the religion, even by the prophet himself. Although he himself did not keep his own Islam, nor his prophethood a secret, he did not go about the land even of his immediate area, into a wide-spread act of dawa. Even then, during those first years, there was much persecution of the muslims by their own families and tribes, to the extent that the prophet ordered for them to migrate to Abyssinia. It was during those times that he, the prophet, sought help and protection and was most generally provided such help, by the non-muslims of his community. It was not until later that he was himself instructed by a higher force to migrate himself that he did so, alienating himself from the non-muslim community. The warfare that later came between the muslims and the non-muslims did not happen until his alienation from them. There is even a case in fact, when upon signing a peace treaty with some of those non-muslims, that they rejected the idea of putting the prophet's name as 'prophet of Allah', stating that if they truly believed that he was the prophet of Allah, that there would be no dispute between them to begin with to initiate such a treaty. Therefore, he agreed to sign his name to the treaty as 'Mohammed ibn Abdallah'...rather than 'prophet of Allah'...it is all the same in the end, but a means of passifying and pleasing the non-muslims into a treaty.

It is this same method of diplomacy that we should try to eminate even today. We have been directed in the Quran to obey those in position of authority...to the extent that that obedience does not oppose our obedience to Allah. It is under that direction that we should attempt a peaceful life among the non-muslims in the non-muslim lands. To attempt to enforce upon non-muslims strict muslim laws only goes to serve a purpose of driving them away from Islam, at a time when we need to cross the divides which have increased severe misunderstandings and misconceptions. The only way to logically do such a thing is to peacefully and lovingly interact with them, even on their own lands.

Dawa is something which should be enacted upon the muslim communities as well as the non-muslims. For, there are many muslims who are not understanding their own religion, and are weak so that they do not implicate the religion into their daily lives. In increasing such dawa activities among the muslim communities themselves within the non-muslim lands, there could arise a unification of the muslims, to the point where the muslims could be and would be united on a political front, therefore causing greater strength and courage of the non-muslims in the political arena of those lands. In doing so, there could be introductions of muslim ideals and practices and policies into the existing man-made laws of those lands. This is not to say that those man-made laws are in any way greater than the laws of Allah...far from it. However, this is a practical way to introduce the natural and true laws of Allah to protect all citizens and residents alike, non-muslims as well as muslims.

To work towards such a goal, encouraging and instructing those muslims in the public eye to remain true and fearful muslims, would be better than sitting passively by, refusing to interact in any way, under the false basis of declaring that these laws and lawmakers are non-muslims, therefore preventing muslim interaction and introduction of Islam to the very core of the existence of the country and it's people. This could be the new campaign of jihad in a new age.

Om Mohammed.