method to appoint a khaleefah

In 1925, one year after the Khilafah was formally abolished, an Egyptian scholar named Ali Abd al-Raziq waged a campaign to separate the concept of Khilafah from Islam. Although opposition to the Khilafah by some influentials in the Muslim world was nothing new, Ali Abd al-Raziq was unique in that he attempted to justify his position by recourse to the Islamic texts.¹

His book ‘Islam and the Foundations of Governance,' caused huge controversy at the time since it opposed 1300 years of scholarly consensus on the Khilafah being an integral and inseparable part of Islam.

Ali Abd al-Raziq states:

God has left the field of civil government and worldly interests for the exercise of human reason. It is not even necessary that the Ummah be politically united, this is virtually impossible and even if possible would it be good? God has willed that there be a natural differentiation between tribes and peoples - there should be competition in order that civilisation should be perfected. Islam recognises no superiority inside the Ummah of one nation, language, country or age over another except for the superiority conferred by virtue. The primitive community of Islam was only Arab by accident... The proof that it was no part of his mission to establish an Islamic State is that he made no provision for the permanent government of the community after his death... The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, was invested with what was essentially a political and royal power based on force.²

His ‘proof' as stated above claims that the Messenger of Allah (saw) provided no guidance (hiddiyah) to the Muslims on what form of ruling system they should establish upon his death.

Some Western orientalists also made this claim that the Messenger of Allah (saw) provided no detailed process for choosing a new political leader.

Thomas Arnold states:

The Prophet Muhammed nominated no successor. It would be idle to speculate why with his genius for organization he neglected to make such provision for the future of the new religious community he had founded. His health had been failing for some time before his final illness, and perhaps, like Oliver Cromwell, he was ‘so discomposed in body and mind, that he could not attend to that matter.'³

Due to the controversy surrounding his book, Ali Abd al-Raziq passed the remainder of his life in obscurity having no major influence on Muslim opinion.

However, the legacy of Ali Abd al-Raziq lives on where a minority of Muslim ‘modernists' who with the support of the West have begun to revive this argument that Islam and the State are separate, i.e. advocating ‘Islamic' secularism.

The influential American Think Tank RAND explicitly endorses this view. As part of their policy towards the Muslim world they state that Western states should:

Support the idea that religion and the state can be separate in Islam too and that this does not endanger the faith but, in fact, may strengthen it.⁴

This article will refute the claim that Islam provides no detailed guidance on a governing system by illustrating the process for appointing the head of an Islamic State - Khaleefah. It will show that the Messenger of Allah (saw) far from neglecting this important aspect of the governing system, in fact detailed a precise methodology for appointing a successor (Khaleefah) for the Muslim Ummah. 

1  AUTHORITY OF THE KHALEEFAH

One of the principles of the Islamic ruling system is that ‘authority belongs to the Ummah'.¹ It is the Muslim Ummah that Allah (swt) has made responsible for implementing the Islamic Shari'ah and spreading it to the entire world. The Muslim Ummah discharges this responsibility by appointing a representative who will implement, protect and propagate Islam. This representative is the Khaleefah.

This responsibility does not end with the appointment of the Khaleefah rather the Ummah must continue to account the Khaleefah and his government continuously to ensure there is no deviation from Islam.

Since the authority lies with the Muslims they have the choice to appoint whoever they deem best fit to undertake the responsibility of Khilafah.

Islam detailed a very specific method for transferring this authority from the Ummah to the Khaleefah. This method is known as the contract of Bay'ah (Pledge of allegiance).

2  EVIDENCE FOR THE BAY'AH

The companions (sahaba) of the Messenger of Allah (saw) were fully aware of the method to appoint a ruler as head of the Islamic State. The Messenger of Allah (saw) in many Ahadith mentioned the Bay'ah and he also explicitly stated what should happen once he dies with regards to ruling.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘The prophets ruled over the children of Israel. Whenever a prophet died, another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafaa' and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us? He (saw) said: Fulfil Bay'ah to them one after the other, and give them their dues, for verily Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with.'¹

Clearly, this hadith disproves Ali Abd al-Raziq's claim that the Messenger of Allah (saw) ‘made no provision for the permanent government of the community after his death.' The sahaba were fully aware that Khulufaa' (lit. successors) would run the affairs of the Muslims after the death of the Messenger of Allah (saw). The Khulufaa'are successors to the Messenger of Allah (saw) in ruling but not prophethood since the Messenger of Allah (saw) is the last prophet.

In addition, the Messenger of Allah (saw) practically demonstrated the Bay'ah when he took Bay'ah from the Muslims in the second Bay'ah of Al-Aqaba. This was a Bay'ah of ruling not prophethood as those pledging allegiance were already Muslim. This Bay'ah established the Messenger of Allah (saw) as head of State in Medina.

The evidence that the appointment of the Khaleefah is the right of the Ummah and that the Khaleefah can only take up his post and exercise his authority by taking a Bay'ah is taken from the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw). Many Ahadith came mentioning the Bay'ah, and in each one the wording shows that the Bay'ah was given by the Muslims to the head of state and not the other way round. The head of state in Medina was the Messenger of Allah (saw) and the Muslims gave Bay'ah to him (saw) not in his capacity as a prophet and messenger but as a ruler.

‘Ubadah Ibn us-Samit said: ‘We gave Bay'ah to the Messenger of Allah (saw) to hear and to obey in ease and hardship.'²

Jarir Ibn ‘Abdullah, said: ‘I gave Bay'ah to the Messenger of Allah (saw) to listen and obey and give advice to every Muslim.'³

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Three types of people which Allah will not speak to (on the Day of Judgement), nor will He praise them and they have severe punishment are: A man with surplus water on the road but he bans the traveller from it; a man who gives a Bay'ah to an Imam only for his own dunya, if he gave what he wanted him, he fulfilled to him otherwise he would not; and a man offered a commodity for sale after asr, (i.e. from at the end of the day) so he swore that he was given so and so price for it, so he (the buyer) trusted him and took it, but he was not given (that price) for it.'⁴

Without Bay'ah the Khaleefah has no authority to rule. He cannot assume his authority through coercion and force as a dictator does. If he did this and the Ummah refused to give him Bay'ah then he would not be the Khaleefah and the Ummah would be obliged to remove him.

As for the evidence that the Khaleefah only takes his authority by this Bay'ah, this is clear in the Ahadithconcerning obedience and the Ahadith regarding the unity of the Khilafah.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Whoever gave Bay'ah to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can. If another comes to dispute with him, you must strike the neck of that man.'⁵

Naf'i said ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar told me: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: ‘Whoever takes off his hand from an obedience, he will meet Allah on the Resurrection Day without having any proof to show for himself; and whoever dies while having no Bay'ah on his neck he dies the death of the days of ignorance (Jahiliyyah).'⁶

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘If anyone sees in his Ameer something that displeases him let him remain patient, for behold! He who separates himself from the Sultan (authority of Islam) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, he has died the death of Jahiliyyah.'⁷

3 OBLIGATION OF THE BAY'AH

The Bay'ah is an obligation upon all Muslims and it's also the right of every mature Muslim, male and female. The evidences concerning the Bay'ah being an obligation are numerous.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'Whoever dies while having no Bay'ah on his neck he dies the death of the days of ignorance (Jahiliyyah).'¹

This hadith came with a decisive connotation (Qareenah) i.e. linking to dying a death of jahiliyyah. This makes itFard Al-‘Ain (individual duty) for all Muslims to have a Bay'ah on their neck whether they are in Dar ul-Islam or outside. 

The Bay'ah can be split into two types.

1. Bay'ah of Contract (Bay'ah In'iqaad)
2. Bay'ah of Obedience (Bay'ah Taa'ah)

The Bay'ah of Contract (Bay'ah In'iqaad) is Fard Al-Kifiyya (collective obligation). It is the right of all Muslims to participate in contracting the Khaleefah. However, it is not obligatory for them to practice this right as long as some from among the Ummah are engaged in contracting the Khaleefah and hence the kifiyya is met. Usually those involved in contracting of the Bay'ah are a representative group known as the Ahlul Hall Wal Aqd (influential Muslims) who represents the opinion of the Muslims at large.

After the Messenger of Allah's (saw) death, only some of the senior sahaba met to contract the Bay'ah to a new Khaleefah. These included Abu Bakr (ra), Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) and Abu Ubaydah bin al-Jarrah (ra) from themuhajiroon. Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) were the wazirs (ruling assistants) to the Messenger of Allah (saw) whilst he was alive. The leaders of the tribes of Ansar - Al-Khazraj and Al-Aws were also present. These included Sa'd bin Ubadah (ra), and Bashir ibn Sa'd (ra), leaders of Al-Khazraj and Usaid ibn Hudhayr (ra), leader of Al-Aws.²

Once the Bay'ah is contracted to the Khaleefah then the Muslims must fulfil their side of the contract which is obedience to the Khaleefah. The Bay'ah then becomes a Bay'ah of obedience for the rest of the Muslims. This isFard Al-‘Ayn (individual obligation). After the contracting of the Bay'ah to Abu Bakr (ra) the Muslims of Medina were gathered in the Masjid the next day to give him the Bay'ah of obedience.

The evidence that this obedience is fard is taken from the hadith. 

Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘If anyone sees in his Ameer (Ameerihi) something that displeases him let him remain patient: For behold! He who separates himself from the Sultan (authority) by even so much as a hand span and dies thereupon, he has died the death of Jahiliyyah.'³

The phrase Ameerihi is general in this Hadith, so it includes the Khaleefah because he is the Ameer of the believers.⁴

It is not allowed to withdraw the Bay'ah of obedience to the Khaleefah, and the Khaleefah has the right to force the Muslims to give him Bay'ah of obedience.

A Bedouin gave his Bay'ah of Islam to the Messenger of Allah (saw). Soon after he felt a malaise, so he said to the Messenger of Allah (saw) ‘Would you relieve me of my Bay'ah!' The Messenger of Allah (saw) refused; he then came back and said, ‘Relieve me of my Bay'ah!' He (saw) refused, so the man left. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Al-Madina is like the bellows, she banishes her bad odours and manifests her sweet scent.'⁵

This proves that once the Bay'ah of obedience is given it cannot be withdrawn. It would be wrong to claim that the Bedouin wanted to leave Islam by seeking relief from his Bay'ah rather than the obedience to the Head of State. This is because if this had been the case, his act would have been considered as apostasy, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) would most certainly have killed him, since the punishment for the apostate is killing. The Bay'ahitself is not a Bay'ah for embracing Islam but for obedience. Therefore, the Bedouin wanted to rid himself from his Bay'ah of obedience, not to apostasise.⁶

4  TIME LIMIT FOR CONTRACTING THE BAY'AH

The time limit allowed for Muslims to appoint a Khaleefah is three days including their nights. It is forbidden for a Muslim to spend more than three nights without having a Bay'ah on his neck, i.e. without a Bay'ah of contract being concluded.

As for allowing a maximum of three nights, this is because appointing a Khaleefah becomes compulsory from the very moment the former Khaleefah dies or is removed. However, it is allowed to delay the appointment as long as the Muslims are involved with the task at hand for three days, including their nights.¹

If the limit exceeds three nights and a Khaleefah is not appointed due to compelling reasons beyond the Muslims control then they are not sinful as long as they were attempting to contract the Bay'ah.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Allah had forgiven my Ummah for the mistake and forgetfulness and that which they were compelled to do.'²

The Bay'ah was concluded for all the Khulafaa' Ar-Rashidoon (Rightly Guided Khaleefah's) within three nights except for Imam Ali (ra). However, due to the previous Khaleefah Uthman (ra) being assassinated and rebels in control of Medina, there were compelling reasons why Imam Ali's (ra) appointment was delayed.

Today, Muslims have been without a Bay'ah on their neck for over 83 years without a shari'ah excuse allowing this. Although the obligation of contracting a Bay'ah to a Khaleefah is Fard Al-Kifiyya (collective duty) as with anyFard Al-Kifiyya if the kifiyya (sufficiency) is not met then the sin falls on the entire Muslims. Therefore, all Muslims must work today according to the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and re-establish the Khilafah and contract a Bay'ah to a Khaleefah.

The evidence that the upper limit on contracting the Bay'ah is three days including their nights is from the consensus of the companions (ijma as-sahaba) over the second Khaleefah - Umar bin al-Khattab's (ra) actions when he developed a detailed process for appointing a Khaleefah after his death.

When Umar (ra) felt that his death was imminent he delegated the people of the Shura (consultation) to appoint a Khaleefah giving them a time limit of three days and instructing them to kill anyone who disagreed with the group once the three days had lapsed. He assigned the execution of this instruction, i.e. killing the one who might disagree to fifty people from the Muslims despite the fact that the group was formed of the Shura people and the senior sahabah. This took place in the presence of the sahabah and no one objected or condemned his instruction. This became a general consensus of the sahabah stating that it is forbidden for Muslims to remain without a Khaleefah for more than three days including their nights. The consensus of the sahabah is a Shari'ahevidence just like the Qur'an and Sunnah.³

5  WHO CONTRACTS THE BAY'AH?

From reviewing what took place in the Bay'ah of the Khulafaa' Ar-Rashidoon and the consensus of the sahabah(Ijmaa'), one can conclude that the Khilafah is contracted by the Bay'ah. However, if we look to the contracting of the Bay'ah for each of the Khulafaa' Ar-Rashidoon we find different groups of people contracted the Bay'ah.

In the Bay'ah to Abu Bakr, the Bay'ah from the influential figures amongst the Muslims, (Ahlul Hall Wal ‘Aqd) in Madina alone was enough to contract the Khilafah as discussed previously. The Muslims of Makkah were not consulted, nor were those living in other parts of the Arabian Peninsula, indeed they were not even asked about their opinion concerning the matter. This was also the case in the Bay'ah to ‘Umar.

With regards the Bay'ah to ‘Uthman (ra), ‘Abdul Rahman Ibn ‘Awf (ra) asked the Muslims of Madina regarding their opinion and he did not merely content himself by asking the influential people. When the Oath was taken for ‘Ali (ra), most of the people of Madina and Kufa gave him their Bay'ah, and he was singled out in the Bay'ah.

Imam Ali's (ra) Bay'ah was valid even for those who opposed him and fought against him because they never actually gave their Bay'ah to another man nor did they object to his Bay'ah. They rather demanded revenge for the blood of ‘Uthman (for his killing). So the verdict regarding them was that they were rebels who withdrew from the Khaleefah over one particular issue. In this instance the Khaleefah had to explain the situation to them and fight against them. These rebels did not establish another Khilafah.

All of this occurred in the past - the Bay'ah for the Khaleefah by the people of the capital to the exclusion of the other regions - in the presence of the sahabah. Nobody objected to or condemned that such an action be confined to the people of Madina. This is considered to be a general consensus of the sahabah (Ijmaa') that states that ‘those who represent the Muslims' opinion in matters relating to ruling can contract the Khilafah.'¹

This is simply because the influential people and the majority of the people of Madina, were the majority of those who represented the opinion of the Ummah regarding the ruling matters at the time.

Therefore, the Khilafah is contracted if the Bay'ah was taken from those who represent the majority of the Islamic Ummah that lives under the authority of the last Khaleefah, in whose place another Khaleefah is sought to be appointed, as was the case at the time of the Khulafaa' Ar-Rashidoon. Their Bay'ah would constitute a Bay'ah of contract, while for the others, once the Khilafah has been contracted, their Bay'ah would be classed as a Bay'ahof obedience, i.e. a Bay'ah of allegiance to the Khaleefah and not a Bay'ah of contract.

The contractual condition of the Bay'ah is that as long as the consent of the Muslim citizens of the Khilafah is achieved in contracting the Bay'ah then the Bay'ah is contracted.

Therefore, the Bay'ah is contracted if a group of people appointed a Khaleefah and in so doing the consent of the Muslims was achieved by any indication. It could also be by the Bay'ah of the majority of the Ahlul Hall Wal ‘Aqdor by themselves being the representatives of the Muslims, or by the silence of the Muslims about the Bay'ah of the Khaleefah whom they had given the Bay'ah to. It could also be by the Muslims rushing to pledge allegiance and obedience on the strength of such a Bay'ah, or by any other means or indications so long as they had been fully enabled to voice their opinion. The Shari'ah verdict does not contain any provisions maintaining that such an indication must be arrived at through the Ahlul Hall Wal'Aqd or that they should constitute five or 500 people or more or less, nor that they need be the inhabitants of the capital or the provinces. The Shari'ah rule merely states that with their Bay'ah the consent of the majority of the Muslims is achieved according to any indication that reflects such consent. This means that the right to vote has been guaranteed, and their ability to voice an opinion has not been curtailed.²

6  THE BAY'AH CONTRACT

Allah (swt) revealed a detailed system for governing relationships between people. These relationships are known as the mu'amilaat (transactions) and account for the largest section of Islamic Fiqh. The contract (‘ahd) is a fundamental concept in mu'amilaat for defining these relationships.

The relationship of marriage between men and women is governed by the contract of Nikah. The relationship of trade is governed by the contracts of Al-Bay', and the relationship of establishing companies is governed by the contracts of partnerships (sharika) and so on. 

The relationships of ruling are no different. They are governed by three specific contracts of ruling which are:

1. Bay'ah - contract between the Muslims and the Khaleefah

2. Dhimmah - contract between the non-Muslim citizens and the Khaleefah

3. Mu'aahadaat (treaties) - contract between other states and the Khaleefah

The Bay'ah contract is between two parties - the Muslims and the Khaleefah. Details of the Bay'ah contract are as follows.

A. CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS FOR THE MUSLIMS

1. Mature

The Bay'ah should only be taken from the adult, as the Bay'ah of the child is not valid.

Abu Aqeel Zahrah Ibnu Ma'abad reported on the authority of his grand-father ‘Abdullah Ibnu Hisham who lived during the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw) that his mother Zainab Ibnatu Hamid took him to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, take a Bay'ah from him'; upon this the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘He is young', he (saw) wiped over his head and prayed for him.¹

2. MuslimNon-Muslims have no right in the Bay'ah. This is because it is a Bay'ah on Islam, i.e. on the Book of Allah and on the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw). It necessitates Iman (belief) in Islam, in the Book and the Sunnah. The non-Muslims cannot be in ruling positions nor can they elect the ruler, because there is no way (power) for them over the Muslims, and they have no say in the Bay'ah. Allah (swt) says:

"And Allah will never (lan) give the unbelievers any way (of authority) against the believers." ²

The relationship between non-Muslims and the Khaleefah is governed by a separate ruling contract calledDhimmah that is discussed elsewhere.

Islam has not confined the Bay'ah to a particular group of Muslims to the exclusion of another group, nor to a particular section to the exclusion of another section. Therefore the Bay'ah is an obligation on all Muslims:

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Whoever dies while there was no allegiance (Bay'ah) on his neck he dies a death of the days of ignorance (Jahiliyyah).'³

This applies to every Muslim. It therefore, follows that the prominent figures are not the only people eligible to appoint the Khaleefah to the exclusion of other Muslims. Those eligible to appoint the Khaleefah are not a specific group of people; rather this right belongs to all Muslims without exception, even to the hypocrites (Munafiqeen) and the wrongdoers (Fujjar), so long as they are mature Muslims. This is because the relevant texts came in a general form, nothing else has been reported to specify them except the rejection of the Bay'ah of the child who is under the age of maturity, and therefore they remain general in their scope.⁴

bhoja air boeing 737 crashes,all 127 on board killed.

All 127 people on board a Bhoja Air Boeing 737 have been killed after the plane crashed several kilometers short of Islamabad airport. Pakistan’s Interior Ministry confirms there are no survivors.

“There is no chance of any survivors. It will be only a miracle. The plane is totally destroyed,” police officer Fazle Akbar said.

Fears were high the death toll might rise as the plane crashed in a residential area. But Islamabad police chief Bani Yameen says that nobody on the ground appears to be killed. The plane only hit some electricity poles, blanketing the area in darkness, reports Reuters.

The fire put out, emergency workers searched among smoldering wreckage and body parts for any sign of life at the crash site just a few kilometers from the benazir bhutto International Airport. At least 110 bodies have been recovered from the scene. The wreckage,  including smashed seats, clothes and jewelry belonging to passengers, was spread out over a one-kilometer wide area.

“I saw nothing but body parts and twisted metal on the ground when reached the scene,” said local resident Mustafa, who only gave one name to the Associated Press. “We collected up small pieces of human flesh and bundled them in cloth sheets like we collect grain.”

Bhoja Airlines flight BHO-213 was flying from Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city and a major seaport, to Islamabad when it crashed in bad weather, as the country’s Civilian Aviation Authority confirmed.

Four children are believed to be among the victims. Local media say a newly wed couple was on board with plans to spend their honeymoon in the capital.

“My brother’s wife was on board this flight,” says Naveed Khan, who is one among family members gathered at Karachi’s airport. “We pray for their departed souls, what else can we do now?“

Ball of fire in the sky

Bhoja Air said the airplane crashed during its approach in Islamabad due to bad weather. A violent rain, wind and thunder storm was lashing the capital at the time of the crash, which occurred about 6:40 pm local time.

Witnesses say the plane was already ablaze, when it was descending. pakistani media report it was struck by a lightning.

“It was really bad weather for a flight,” said Navy captain Arshad Mahmood, who lives near the crash site. “The pilot was forced to move down to avoid clouds that were generating the lightening and thunder.“

The Boeing-737 is one of the most popular passenger jets in the world and is used by more than 540 operators. The 737-200 model belongs to the original series. It was first introduced in the late 1960s and is intended for short and mid-range flights. It has a speed of over 870 km per hour and can carry up to 136 people, depending on the design.

The crew was informed of poor weather conditions, but took the risk, says Geo News.

Other reports suggest navigation devices were malfunctioning and the aircraft itself had been in use for over 25 years. The vehicle was reportedly purchased from the Shaheen Airlines after the latter scrapped it for its compromised flight-worthiness.

Bhoja Air is a privately owned domestic operator with its headquarters in Karachi. In 2000 the company had to suspend business due to financial problems. In 2011 it was re-launched and carried out its first flight in March 2012. Its fleet is reported to comprise four Boeing 737-200 and one Boeing 737-400. Friday was the airline’s first evening flight from Karachi, a Bhoja Air official said.

Inter-city travel in Pakistan is most efficient by air, but plane crashes are relatively rare. The latest major accident happened in 2010. An Airbus 321 passenger jet crashed into hills overlooking Islamabad while coming in to land after a flight from Karachi, killing 152 people on board.

non muslims & khilafah

The position of non-Muslims living under Islamic rule (dhimmi) is a widely misunderstood topic. Those wishing to attack Islam and its systems portray Islam’s treatment of the dhimmi as worse than its treatment of animals. Historical incidents where dhimmi suffered persecution at particular times are generalised and quoted out of context in order to back up their claims.

Joseph Farah, founder of the WorldNetDaily news site states:

Under Islamic Shari’ah law, non-believers – Christians and Jews anyway – are permitted to live as long as they support Islam through their Dhimmi taxes and are willing to accept what amounts to a third- or fourth-class servile existence, always subject to pogroms, false accusations and ill treatment. Dhimmis always live in fear.1


Melanie Philips, prominent UK based Zionist author and commentator states:

‘Dhimmi’ is the status of infidels under Islam who are permitted to live in Muslim jurisdictions but only with restrictions as second-class citizens.2

To answer this accusation that dhimmi are second-class citizens who will have a miserable existence living in a future Khilafah we need to look at Islam’s view on citizenship and how it applies to non-Muslims.

Citizenship in Islam

Citizenship in Islam is based on someone permanently living within the lands of the Khilafah regardless of their ethnicity or creed. It is not a requirement for someone to become Muslim and adopt the values of Islam in order to become a citizen of the state. Muslims living outside the Islamic State do not enjoy the rights of citizenship, whereas a non-Muslim living permanently within the Islamic State (dar ul-Islam) does. This is derived from the following hadith.

The Prophet (saw) said: ‘Call them to Islam, and if they agree accept from them and refrain from fighting against them, then call them to move from their land to the land of the Muhajireen (the emigrants), and tell them if they do so, then they will have the rights which the Muhajireen enjoy and they will have duties like the duties upon the Muhajireen.’3 

This hadith means if they do not move to the land of the Muhajireen they would not enjoy what the Muhajireen enjoy, i.e. the rights of those who are living in the land of Islam. So this Hadith clearly shows the difference between those who move to the land of the Muhajireen and those who do not move to the land of the Muhajireen. Dar ul-Muhajireen was the land of Islam (Dar ul-Islam) at the time of the Prophet (saw), and all other lands were Dar ul-Kufr.4

The Islamic state is forbidden from discriminating between citizens on the basis of race, creed, colour or anything else. In origin all the rules of Islam apply equally to Muslims and non-Muslims. The Islamic scholars have agreed, especially the scholars of Usul (foundations), that the divine rules are addressed to every sane person able to understand the speech, whether he is Muslim or not, male or female.5

However, there are exceptions to this. If the Shari’ah rule is dependent on belief in Islam such as praying salah or giving the zakat tax then it applies only to Muslims. These exceptions are not discriminatory rules as some have claimed, but take in to account the beliefs and values of the citizen so as not to cause oppression to them. They in no way detract from being equal citizens. 

Categories of non-Muslims in the Khilafah

There are four main categories of non-Muslims in the Khilafah. These are:

1. Mu’ahid
2. Must’amin
3. Ambassadors, diplomats, consuls and envoys
4. Dhimmi

The Mu’ahid is a citizen of a foreign state with which the Khilafah has a treaty. The citizens of this state (mu’ahideen) can enter the Khilafah without a passport or visa if this is reciprocated to the citizens of the Khilafah.6

The Must’amin is a citizen of a foreign state with which the Khilafah has no treaty. These states are the imperialistic states such as Britain, America, Russia and France. The citizens of these states can enter the Khilafah but only with a passport and valid visa. Once they have received a valid visa and enter the state they are termed Must’amin.7

If the Mu’ahid or Must’amin stays for more than one year within the Khilafah then their stay is considered permanent and they are required to pay the jizya (head tax) and will become dhimmi.8

When discussing the rights and responsibilities of the dhimmi in this article these for the most part apply equally to both the Mu’ahid and the Must’amin. The exceptions are in the specific terms of the treaties and visa applications adopted by the Khaleefah.

The Ambassadors, diplomats, consuls and envoys from the foreign states have diplomatic immunity and the rules of Islam do not apply on them.9

The Dhimmi

Dhimmi are those citizens of the Khilafah that hold different beliefs and values to the ideology of the state i.e. Islam. The word dhimmi is derived from the Arabic word dhimmah, which means pledge or covenant (‘ahd).10

The state makes a pledge to treat the dhimmi in accordance with the specific terms of the peace treaty made with them (if applicable) and not to interfere in their beliefs, worships and those actions that contradict Islam but were permitted to the dhimmi by the Messenger of Allah (saw) such as drinking alcohol. In all other areas they are viewed and treated in the same way as Muslims unless belief in Islam is a condition for the action.

There are many ahadith ordering good treatment of the dhimmi and not abusing them or treating them as second-class citizens.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who harms a person under covenant, or charged him more than he can, I will argue against him on the Day of Judgement.”11

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah.”12

The classical scholars of Islam also detailed the rights of the Muslims towards the dhimmi. The famous Maliki jurist, Shaha al-Deen al-Qarafi states:

The covenant of protection imposes upon us certain obligations toward the ahl al-dhimmah. They are our neighbours, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (saw), and the religion of Islam. Whoever violates these obligations against any one of them by so much as an abusive word, by slandering his reputation, or by doing him some injury or assisting in it, has breached the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (saw), and the religion of Islam.13

Judiciary

One of the accusations against Islam’s treatment of dhimmi is that a dhimmi is not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim and his oath is not acceptable in an Islamic court. 

Bat Ye’or states:

Every legal case involving a Muslim and a dhimmi was judged according to Koranic law. Although the very idea of justice implies equality between parties, a dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim. Since his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court his Muslim opponent could not easily be condemned. In order to defend himself, the dhimmi was obliged to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense.14

The rule of law applies to everyone within the Khilafah and there are no exceptions. It is obligatory for the Islamic State to judge in cases concerning the dhimmi with justice and no discrimination against them is allowed. 

Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an: 

And if you judge, judge with justice between them.
Verily, Allah loves those who act justly.15

The most famous example of this justice is in the legal trial of a Jew who stole the coat of armour of Imam Ali (ra) as he was travelling to a battle. The judge Shurayh made no exception for Ali (ra) even though he was the Khaleefah, a Muslim and also off to fight in a battle so was in desperate need of his armour. Shurayh ruled in favour of the Jew and accepted his testimony in court. Full details of the trial can be read here.

The dhimmi is allowed to be a witness in an Islamic court against a Muslim and their evidence is acceptable. The conditions of being a witness apply equally to Muslims and dhimmi. The conditions of a witness are: sane, mature and ‘adl (trustworthy). 

It may be claimed that the condition of ‘Adl applies only to Muslims who refrain from committing the kabeera (major) sins. This is incorrect. ‘Adl in this context means someone who abstains from that which the people consider a violation of uprightness, whether he was a Muslim or non-Muslim. This is because ‘adaala (trustworthiness) was stipulated in the testimony of the Muslim as well as in the testimony of the non-Muslim, by using the same word without distinguishing one from the other. 

Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an:

O you who believe! Let there be witnesses between you when death draws to one of you, at the time of bequest, two witnesses, ‘adl (trustworthy) from among you, or two others from other than you.16

He (swt) meant non-Muslims by saying other than you. He said ‘two ‘adl witnesses from Muslims or two ‘adl from other than Muslims.’ So how can the ‘adaala be defined as not committing a kabeera (major) sin and insistence on committing a sagheera (small) sin regarding a non-Muslim? Also how can we reject as a witness the one who disobeyed his parents once, but accept as witness the spy, just because spying is not from kabeera sins? Therefore, the valid meaning of ‘adl is the one that abstained from that which the people consider violation to the uprightness.17
Criminal Punishments

Another accusation is that Muslims are given a lesser punishment for crimes against dhimmi. In the case of murder it is alleged that a Muslim is not killed for the murder of a dhimmi whereas a dhimmi is killed for the murder of a Muslim. Bat Ye’or states:

The punishment that a guilty Muslim received for a crime would be greatly reduced if the victim were a dhimmi.18 

Again this is a false accusation. Punishments for crimes are applied equally to both Muslims and dhimmi with no distinction. The only distinction is that dhimmi will not be punished for those actions which are permitted for them such as drinking alcohol, whereas a Muslim would be. 

The Prophet (saw) said, “The diyyah (blood money) of the Jews and Christians is like the Muslim’s diyyah.”19

It is narrated in a hadith “that the Messenger of Allah (saw) killed a Muslim for a mu’ahid and said, ‘I am the most noble of those who fulfil their dhimmah’.”20 

This hadith clearly indicates that if a Muslim kills a mu’ahid he is punished with death.21 This equally applies to the killing of a dhimmi as discussed earlier. 

Economy

The dhimmi enjoy the same economic benefits as Muslims. They can be employees, establish companies, be partners with Muslims and buy and sell goods. Their wealth is protected and if they are poor and unable to find work they are entitled to state benefits from the Khilafah’s Treasury (Bait ul-Mal). 

Historically, many dhimmi prospered within the lands of the Khilafah. 

Cecil Roth mentions that the treatment of the Jews at the hands of the Ottoman State attracted Jews from all over Western Europe. The land of Islam became the land of opportunity. Jewish physicians from the school of Salanca were employed in the service of the Sultan and the Viziers (ministers). In many places glass making and metalworking were Jewish monopolies, and with their knowledge of foreign languages, they were the greatest competitors of the Venetian traders.22

The poor dhimmi will receive state benefits if they are in need.

‘Umar ibn al-Khattab once passed by an old dhimmi begging at doors, and said: “We have not done justice to you if we have taken jizya from you in the prime of your youth and neglected you in your old age.” He then ordered from the treasury what was suitable for him.23

With regards taxation the shari’ah has put the condition of belief on some of the taxes, which means they are applied differently between the Muslims and dhimmi. Muslims for example are ordered to pay the Zakat but dhimmi are exempt, whereas dhimmi are ordered to pay the jizya (head tax) but Muslims are exempt.

Jizya

The most misunderstood Islamic taxation is the jizya. Some historians paint a picture that the jizya tax was so high that dhimmi were forced to convert to Islam to avoid it. Others bring out arbitrary jizya rates such as 50%.24

The obligation of the jizya is derived from the following verse of the Qur’an.

Allah (swt) says:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued (saghiroon).25

The ‘subdued’ (sighar) mentioned in this verse means the dhimmi must submit to the rules of Islam. It does not mean physical humiliation.26

The jizya tax is applied to all mature, male dhimmi who have the means to pay it. Women and children are exempt as are the poor who have no livelihood.27 

The jizya is applied according to the prosperity of the dhimmi. In the time of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) he established three different bands of jizya depending on the prosperity of the person. The jizya rates for different provinces (wiliyat) of the Khilafah in the time of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) are shown.

AMERICA & ISRAEL ! PARTNERS IN INTERNATIONAL CRIME

US think-tank admits Iran is not a threat to either US or Israeli security, devises narrative to sell unnecessary war to public.

by Tony Cartalucci

The corporate media has recently portrayed a narrative where we see the West apparently warning Israel against a unilateral attack on Iran. It appears that Israel is intent on “going it alone” despite the wishes of its “more rational” Western sponsors. Recently, the wall street journal reported in their article, “U S., israel pull closer to iran,” that, “Israeli officials, meanwhile, said that President Barack Obama’s public and private acknowledgment of the Jewish state’s sovereign right to defend itself was a crucial gain as the two countries seek to deter Tehran,” in regards to Iran’s alleged nuclear program.

To the average reader, it would seem that both the US and Israel agree that Iran is an imminent threat against which Israel and the united states simply have differing views on how to counter. In reality, this is a premeditated, deceitful act, already clearly articulated since 2009 in a signed document, on how both nations plan on duping the world into accepting an unnecessary war.

The document, “which path to persia?” published by the corporate-funded Brookings Institute, and signed by Kenneth Pollack, Daniel Byman, Martin Indyk, Suzanne Maloney, Michael O’Hanlon, and Bruce Riedel, who often make their way onto corporate-media networks as “experts,” clearly states that Iran is neither reckless nor likely to deploy nuclear weapons in any way but as a deterrence to Western-led military intervention. The fear is not of waking up one day to a nuclear holocoust with Israel “wiped off the map,” but rather waking up one day and realizing the US and Israel no longer hold uncontested hegemony across the Middle East.

On page 24 of the Brookings Institute report, it is stated, “most of Iran’s foreign policy decisionmaking since the fall of the Shah could probably be characterized as “aggressive but not reckless,”" before adding the baseless caveat, “but Washington cannot categorically rule out the possibility that there are truly insane or ideologically possessed Iranian leaders who would attempt far worse if they were ever in a position to do so.” Such a comment could be just as easily said about US leadership, where Defense Secretary donald rumsfeld and Congressman Steve Buyer of Indiana at one point suggested the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan against cave-dwelling militants using 30 year-old Soviet weapons.

Image: Screenshot taken from Defense.gov where it is admitted that a US Senator proposed using nuclear weapons against Afghanistan with then Defense Secretary donald rumsfeld keeping such options “on the table.” While the threat of Iran using nuclear weapons has constituted exclusively of accusations by the West directed at the Islamic Republic, threats of the US using such weapons come directly from America’s leadership itself. (click image to enlarge)

Other US think-tanks, including the rand corporation , in assessing the threat of a nuclear Iran, noted that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of “terrorists.” The fact that Iran’s extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to the conclusion that Iran poses a risk only to US-Israeli hegemony, not their national security.

The Brookings report would then go on to admit it was the intention of US-Israeli policy toward Iran to provoke a war they knew Iran would neither want, nor benefit from. The goal was to create such a provocation without the world recognizing it was indeed the West triggering hostilities:

“…it would be far more preferable if the united states could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) ”

-Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, pages 84-85.

 The same report would go on to say:

“In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.”

-Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, page 52

 Clearly those in the West intent on striking Iran realize both the difficulty of obtaining a plausible justification, and the utter lack of support they have globally to carry out an attack even if they manage to find a suitable pretext. Brookings would continue throughout their report enumerating methods of provoking Iran, including conspiring to fund opposition groups to overthrow the Iranian government, crippling Iran’s economy, and funding US State Department-listed terrorist organizations to carry deadly attacks within Iran itself. Despite these overt acts of war, and even considering an option to unilaterally conduct limited airstrikes against Iranian targets, Brookings noted there was still the strong possibility Iran would not allow itself to be sufficiently provoked:

“It would not be inevitable that Iran would lash out violently in response to an American air campaign, but no American president should blithely assume that it would not.”

The report continues:“However, because many Iranian leaders would likely be looking to emerge from the fighting in as advantageous a strategic position as possible, and because they would likely calculate that playing the victim would be their best route to that goal, they might well refrain from such retaliatory missile attacks.”

-Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, page 95.

Finally, the Brookings report clearly states another option in dealing with Iran is to have Israel carry out what appears to be a “unilateral attack,” but would require sufficient preparations by both nations to make it appear as if there were some sort of political bifurcation between Tel Aviv and the West in the lead up to such an operation:

“An Israeli air campaign against Iran would have a number of very important differences from an American campaign. First, the israelli air force (IAF) has the problem of overflight transit from Israel to Iran. Israel has no aircraft carriers, so its planes must take off from Israeli air bases. It also does not possess long-range bombers like the B-1 or B-2, or huge fleets of refueling tankers, all of which means that unlike the United States, Israel cannot avoid flying through someone’s air space. The most direct route from Israel to Iran’s Natanz facility is roughly 1,750 kilometers across Jordan and Iraq. As the occupying power in Iraq, the United States is responsible for defending Iraqi airspace. ” Which Path to Persia?-page 105 (.pdf)

“From the American perspective, this negates the whole point of the option—distancing the United States from culpability—and it could jeopardize American efforts in Iraq, thus making it a possible nonstarter for Washington. Finally, Israeli violation of Jordanian airspace would likely create political problems for King Abdullah of Jordan, one of America’s (and Israel’s) closest Arab friends in the region. Thus it is exceedingly unlikely that the United States would allow Israel to overfly Iraq, and because of the problems it would create for Washington and Amman, it is unlikely that Israel would try to fly over Jordan.” Which Path to Perisa?-page 106 (.pdf)

“An israeli attack on Iran would directly affect key American strategic interests. If Israel were to overfly iraq, both the Iranians and the vast majority of people around the world would see the strike as abetted, if not authorized, by the United States. Even if Israel were to use another route, many Iranians would still see the attack as American supported or even American orchestrated. After all, the aircraft in any strike would be American produced, supplied, and funded F-15s and F-16s, and much of the ordnance would be American made. In fact, $3 billion dollars in U.S. assistance annually sustains the IDF’s conventional superiority in the region.” Which Path to Persia-page 106 (.pdf)

The US withdrawal from Iraq is being done in tandem with nato operations to destabalize syria and in turn disrupt Hezbollah’s capacity to retaliate against Israel in the event of a strike on Iran – a concern also duly noted within the Brookings report.

“…the Israelis may want to hold off until they have a peace deal with Syria in hand (assuming that Jerusalem believes that one is within reach), which would help them mitigate blowback from Hizballah and potentially Hamas. Consequently, they might want Washington to push hard in mediating between Jerusalem and Damascus.” -page 109 (.pdf)

It is quite clear that eliminating Syria entirely as an obstacle has been instead attempted, and with nato standing by and a continuous influx of foreign fighters being armed and sent across the border to mire Syrian forces in asymmetrical warfare, any coordinated retaliation against Israel by Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah has been at the very least blunted significantly.

John McCain, who chairs the US State Department-funded International Republican Institute, credited by the New York Times for fueling the “Arab Spring” unrest to begin with, is now calling for US airstrikes on Syria to speed this process up before Russia’s viladimir putin begins an expected process of rolling back Wall Street-London gains over the past year.

The recent charade played out by both Israel and the United States in regards with “what to do about Iran,” is merely premeditated playacting, carrying out the directives clearly laid out in the Brookings Institute report, which have been systematically carried out, verbatim, even as it was being published in 2009. There is no real bifurcation between the West and Israel, only an attempt to compartmentalize responsibility for an unwarranted, unjustified, and ultimately unpopular, criminal act of war that may end with millions maimed, killed, or otherwise affected.

We are witnessing an open conspiracy to commit vast crimes against humanity playing out before our eyes, and it is our daily capitulation, our daily sponsorship of the corporations and financier interests driving this abhorrent agenda that allows it to continue on in earnest. Simply “protesting” a war long since decided will not be enough. We must also strike at the very source of power behind Wall Street and London, and it can be done with an act as simple as exposing and boycotting the corporations and financier interests which constitute this murderous global menace.

treaty between the ottoman sultan & the christians of bosnia

The Ahdnama is an agreement written by Sultan Muhammed al-Fatih (ra) who is famous for conquering Constantinople and fulfilling the prophecy of the Prophet Muhammed (saw) that Muslims would one day conquer the city.

Sultan Muhammed al-Fatih's great-great grandfather was Sultan Murad I (ra) who began the conquests to open up the Balkans to Islam. He is famous for defeating the Serbs at Kosovo field in 1389 and establishing the authority of Islam over Kosovo. Allah (swt) blessed Sultan Murad I with martydom (shahadah) in this battle.

Sultan Muhammed's father Murad II fought the second battle of Kosovo and began the conquests to open Bosnia to Islam. Following in the footsteps of his father and great-great grandfather, Sultan Muhammed completed their good work and opened up the entire region to Islam.

Islam, the final message for mankind established clear and detailed rules relating to therights of christians & jews living under the Islamic State. The Ahdnama agreement is a clear and definitive historical record of the rights Islam gave to Christians living under its rule. The original Ahdnama agreement is still kept to this day in the Franciscan Monastery in the vicinity of Fojnica, Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Compare the just treatment the Islamic State gave to Christians in Bosnia in 1463 to 39 years later in Spain when the Christian inquisition gave the Muslims an ultimatum of convert or leave. In reality this became convert or die.

The translation of the Ahdnama agreement is below. Sultan Muhammed is translated as Sultan Mehmet.

AHDNAMA OF THE FATIH SULTAN MEHMET

MEHMET THE SON OF MURAT KHAN, ALWAYS VICTORIOUS!

THE COMMAND OF THE HONORABLE, SUBLIME SULTAN'S SIGN AND SHINING SEAL OF THE CONQUEROR OF THE WORLD IS AS FOLLOWS:

I, THE SULTAN MEHMET - KHAN INFORM ALL THE WORLD THAT THE ONES WHO POSSESS THIS IMPERIAL EDICT, THE BOSNIAN FRANCISCANS, HAVE GOT INTO MY GOOD GRACES, SO I COMMAND:

LET NOBODY BOTHER OR DISTURB THOSE WHO ARE MENTIONED, NOT THEIR CHURCHES. LET THEM DWELL IN PEACE IN MY EMPIRE. AND LET THOSE WHO HAVE BECOME REFUGEES BE AND SAFE. LET THEM RETURN AND LET THEM SETTLE DOWN THEIR MONASTERIES WITHOUT FEAR IN ALL THE COUNTRIES OF MY EMPIRE.

NEITHER MY ROYAL HIGHNESS, NOR MY VIZIERS OR EMPLOYEES, NOR MY SERVANTS, NOR ANY OF THE CITIZENS OF MY EMPIRE SHALL INSULT OR DISTURB THEM. LET NOBODY ATTACK INSULT OR ENDANGER NEITHER THEIR LIFE OR THEIR PROPERTY OR THE PROPERTY OF THEIR CHURCH. EVEN IF THEY BRING SOMEBODY FROM ABROAD INTO MY COUNTRY, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO SO.

AS, THUS, I HAVE GRACIOUSLY ISSUED THIS IMPERIAL EDICT, HEREBY TAKE MY GREAT OATH.

IN THE NAME OF THE CREATOR OF THE EARTH AND HEAVEN, THE ONE WHO FEEDS ALL CREATURES, AND IN THE NAME OF THE SEVEN MUSTAFAS AND OUR GREAT MESSENGER, AND IN THE NAME OF THE SWORD I PUT, NOBODY SHALL DO CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN, AS LONG AS THEY ARE OBEDIENT AND FAITHFUL TO MY COMMAND.

MAY 28th 1463

pakistani parliment unanimously declares U.S must stop violations of sovereignty

In a joint sitting of the Pakistani parliament on Thursday, the recommendations on the Parliamentary Committee on national security (PCNS) regarding new rules of engagement with the united states were unanimously adopted.However, they still left some of the issues surrounding the critical North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) supply lines into afghanistan (which, since they have been closed, have caused the price of gasoline to skyrocket up to $400 per gallon) unanswered.

The PCNS’s revised recommendations were presented to the joint session by the committee’s chairman, Senator Mian Raza Rabbani.

He emphasized that the united states should show due respect to Pakistan in honoring their national sovereignty and said that the relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. should be one based on a mutual respect for independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The recommendations included 14 points which suggest that the American presence in Pakistan be reviewed and re-examined.

This could very well mean an immediate end to any and all drone strikes in Pakistan, not to mention an end to violations of Pakistani national sovereignty.

This would include an end to all infiltrations, even if it is supposedly done in hot pursuit of insurgents.

Furthermore, it was stated that Pakistani territory and airspace shall not be used in the transportations of munitions to the NATO and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops in afghanistan.

Yet the report was lacking in explicit recommendations on NATO supplies, which according to Pakistan’sDaily Times is likely due to pressure from opposition parties.

The recommendations from the PCNS also stated that the pakistani nuclear program, including its assets, safety and security cannot be compromised – something which I believe is a response to theantagonistic approach the West has taken to Iran’s program (which mirrors the Israeli position).

They pointed to the nuclear agreement between the United States and India, which they say has altered the strategic balance in the region. They recommended that Pakistan seek out a similar deal from the U.S. and others.

They also addressed the unprovoked NATO assault on Pakistani border posts in November of last year, calling it a breach of international law and blatant violation of Pakistani sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The joint session said that Pakistan should seek out an unconditional apology from the United States for the incident, but given the fact that the U.S. has already said that they will not charge anyone for the 24 murders, I doubt that the government will go beyond expressing “regret” which means little, if anything at all.

Also quite noteworthy is the fact that the session concluded that, “no verbal agreement regarding national security shall be entered into by the government, its ministries, divisions, departments, attached departments, autonomous bodies or other organizations with any foreign government or authority, and all such agreements or understandings shall cease to have effect forthwith,” according to the Daily Times.

Any future agreements dealing with national security will have to be approved by both the cabinet and the PCNS.

In a clear jab at the United States, they also stated that no private security contractors or intelligence operatives will be allowed into Pakistan at all.

Furthermore, they explicitly stated that Pakistani territory will not be used for the establishment of any foreign bases.

They also called on the international community to recognize the unimaginable losses Pakistan has sustained, both human and economic, since the fraudulent war on terror was declared.

secrets of the zionist elite

Now for the first time in history thirty members of various secret societies have come forth to reveal the closely guarded secrets of the super wealthy. Some of these members have risen to the top levels of their respective societies which include the following:

1. The Brotherhood
2. The bilderberg group
3. The Council on Foreign Relations
4. The freemasons
5. Yale University’s Skull and Bones
6. The Illuminati
7. The trilatral commision
8. And several other elite international societies
9. If you are not familiar with these organizations that is okay. Just know that between them they own and control majority of the earth’s wealth and political systems. If you are already familiar with them, then you are ahead of the curve. However, before I go deeper into this information and how to gain access to the incredible secrets that these individuals have made known for the first time in history, some important points must be made:
   1) There is a small percentage of the human population who believe they are genetically superior to everyone.They always had and will continue to have one main objective:
   To have and keep total control over the masses
   Do you feel like you are being controlled? Most people do and it is by no accident or acts of randomness that you feel that way. Rather it is by a well thought out, well coordinated plan by a small percentage of the human population who believe they are genetically superior and more deserving than everyone else.
   I am not saying that all of these people are evil with a hidden agenda of taking over the world and making us their slaves, nor I am talking about conspiracy theories here. At one point in time there were logical strong arguments that could be made against such theories. Now that information has been revealed either by existing or past members of these secret societies, it is no longer a theory.
   It’s fact:
   Around 1% of the human populuation truly believe it is their exclusive birth right to have control of and even more importantly to stay in control of everything on the entire planet.
   They accomplish this by the use of any means necessary to control a country’s money and hence its political system.
   This is not a freak of nature or some failed presidential policy or even a glitch in some financial market as we are led to believe. This is the result of a well thought out plan created many years ago and it has been advancing ever since without a hitch.
   Consider this quote made by the founder of the rothschild Family banking dynasty, Mayer Amschel rothschild (1744-1812):
10. Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws”
11. The debate whether or not he really made that statement is irrelevant. I leave that for the conspiracy and non-conspiracy theorists. The point I want to make is regardless of whether you believe it was said or not, it should come of no suprise or coincidence knowing that is exactly what he did with the help of his five sons starting out with taking over the Central bank of england.
    Today it is estimated that the Rothschild Family controls half of the earth’s wealth. That’s a single family alone controlling more than half of the world’s economy. Their worth has been estimated to be in the trillions of dollars. That’s trillions not billions. The thought of that is just mind blowing! Isn’t it?
    There is no way to actually verify their wealth though because they are not required to disclose their finances to anyone. Interesting, it appears they care not who is making the laws. A very nice position to be in , isn’t it?
    2) The Unites States federal reserve system is not owned or controlled by the US government nor by the will of the people
    If it is not owned and controlled by the US government then who really does own it seems to be the question of the day. The answer is still being talked about and debated by conspiracy theorists, non-conspiracy theorists, academicians, non-academicians, or even the janitor at work. The debate over who actually owns it can go on forever but one fact remains and let’s not lose for the forest for the trees with it:
    Even though it was established by the US federal reserve Act on December 23, 1913:
    It is not owned nor controlled by the US Government and certainly not by the will of the people!
    So then if it is not owned or controlled by the US Government, then someone has to own and control it. Makes sense doesn’t it? Then who else is left? The only ones left that can own it is the private sector. Who else? Aliens?
    Whether it is the super wealthy or the big bankers is irrelevant on the surface. What is relevant is that the US Monetary System is under the control of private interest and with that being said, a strong argument can be made that with control over a nation’s money, I suppose then it doesn’t matter who is making her laws. Quite interesting indeed, wouldn’t you agree? Do you think that may be what’s behind the next point?
12. The Rich Are Getting Richer And The Poor Are Getting Poorer
    Over the course of the last couple of decades, one could not help but hear an economic report stating on how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. That statement seems to have become a modern day cliche. One cannot help hearing it repeated over and over again especially during election time. Don’t take my word for it.
    Here is some interesting data to consider courtesy of G. William Domoff, Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His research findings can be found at:
    who rules america
    The Wealth Distribution

    In the united states, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.

    So in summary what the above information means, that as of 2007, 20% of the people in the US controlled 85% of all the privately held wealth. That left only 15% for the remaining 80%.
    Further more, back in 1983 the top 20% owned 91.3% of financial wealth opposed to 8.7% for the remaining 80%. That number grew in 2007 for the top 20% to 93% and decreased for the remaining 80% to 7.0%.
    So there you have it. The data speaks for itself. The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. Need I say more? It basically comes down to 80% of the people controlling only 15% of the privately held wealth. Given this information, I have some questions I would like to ask you:
13. Is there any wonder why stress levels and stress related illnesses are at an all time high?
14. Is there any wonder as to why you are working longer and harder for less?
15. Why it requires more than one earner per household to maintain just a status quo standard of living?
16. Why most people cannot afford to lose their low paying JOB (Just Over Broke)?
17. Do you feel that you have no choice in the matter? (Don’t worry, that’s part of their plan and is exactly what they want you to believe)
18. Who have you been listening to regarding information on what it takes to succeed in life? Your unemployed neighbor? Your know it all relative who is 90 days from bankruptcy?
19. Would you rather listen to people who already have what you want and are willing to share their methods on how they got it?
20. So why did I feel the need to make these points and ask these questions? Because if you are anything like me, you have worked your brains out for a very long time and all it comes down to is like running the game of life on a treadmill.
    You know the feeling. It’s like running and running and never really getting anywhere. Investing plenty into education and self development material only to get marginal if any results at all.
    Don’t get me wrong. I am not complaining. I am grateful for what I do have in my life but for some strong reason I always felt deep down inside that there was something still missing. Something deep in my heart telling me that there is plenty more to it then what I am being told.