KHAWARIJJ of today

with the beginning of the uprisings in the Arab world some scholars now and again issued fatawa against the revolutionaries and the groups active in the uprisings and declared it haram to rebel against the rulers, some even termed them as "Khawarij". This article will discuss the "Khawarij" and its meaning and its application in detail and reality and the ruling of rebelling against the ruler and whether those who protest/rebel are be considered as "Khawarij".

Who are the Khawarij ?

As the word "Khawarij" denotes, It is a group that is involved in the disruption of the unity of the Muslims, so they rebel against the Khaleefah who has been given the Bai'ah (pledge of allegiance) by the people of power (ahlul halli wal aqd) and has been appointed as the Imam for the Muslims.

قال الشهرستاني في كتابه الملل والنحل : كلّ من خرج على الإمام الحقّ الذي اتّفقت الجماعة عليه يُسَمّى خارجيّاً سواء كان الخروج في أيّام الصحابة على الأئمة الراشدين أو ( من) كان بعدهم على التابعين لهم بإحسان والأئمة في كلّ زمان 

Shahrastani says in his book "al malal wan nahal": "Everyone who rebels against the right Imam who has been appointed by the Muslims is called "Khariji" "rebel" , be it the rebellion against the righteous Khulafaa during the era of the companions or the tabieen or those who succeeded them" [Vol 1/page 144]

وزاد عليه ابن حزم رحمه الله في كتابه الفصل في الملل والنحل : ويلحق بهم مَن شايعهم على أفكارهم أو شاركهم في آرائهم في أيّ زمان

Ibn Hazm adds on to the definition in his book "al Fasal fil malal wan nahal" : And those who adhere to their thought and hold their opinions are also part of them i.e "the Khawarij".

Origins

As for when did the "Khawarij" came into existence, their origin was during the time of the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, it is reported in a hadith in Bukhari:

Narrated by Abu Sa'id: While the Prophet was distributing something, 'Abdullah bin Dhil Khawaisira At-Tamimi came and said, "Be Just, O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet said, "Woe to you ! Who would BE JUST if I were not?" 'Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "Allow me to cut off his neck ! " The Prophet said, "Leave him, for he has companions, and if you compare your prayers with their prayers and your fasting with theirs, you will look down upon your prayers and fasting, in comparison to theirs. Yet they will go out of the religion as an arrow darts through the game's body in which case, if the Qudhadh of the arrow is examined, nothing will be found on it, and when its Nasl is examined, nothing will be found on it; and then its Nadiyi is examined, nothing will be found on it. The arrow has been too fast to be smeared by dung and blood. The sign by which these people will be recognized will be a man whose one hand (or breast) will be like the breast of a woman (or like a moving piece of flesh). These people will appear when there will be differences among the people (Muslims)." Abu Sa'id added: I testify that I heard this from the Prophet and also testify that 'Ali killed those people while I was with him. The man with the description given by the Prophet was brought to 'Ali. The following Verses were revealed in connection with that very person (i.e., 'Abdullah bin Dhil-Khawaisira At-Tarnimi): '

وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يَلْمِزُكَ فِي الصَّدَقَاتِ

"And among them are men who accuse you (O Muhammad) in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms.'"(9.58)

As for their formation as a group with specific ideas and opinions, this happened after the matter of arbitration which they had requested that occurred between Ali (Ra) and Muawiyah (Ra), they were in the army of Ali (ra) and they had requested him to accept the arbitration upon which they rebelled saying that Ali (ra) had accepted the rule of man instead that of Allah سبحانه وتعالى by accepting arbitration.

With time they divided into groups and only a few exist today who follow their views.

With regards to the opinion of the companions (ra) regarding them,

وكان إبن عمر رضي الله عنهما يَراهم شِرارخلق الله، وقال: "إنطلقوا إلى آيات نزلت في الكفار فجعلوها على المؤمنين

Ibn Umar (ra) would call the "Khawarij" as the evilest of the creatures of Allah سبحانه وتعالى and he said that "they studied the ayaat that Allah revealed regarding the disbelievers and they applied them on the believer"

عن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه، أنه قال: سمعت رسول الله صلّى الله عليه وسلّم يقول: سيخرج قوم في آخر الزمان، أحداث الأسنان سفهاء الأحلام، يقولون من خير قول البريّة لا يجاوز إيمانهم حناجرهم، يمرقون من الدّين كما يمرق السّهم من الرّمية، فأينما لقيتموهم فاقتلوهم فإن في قتلهم أجراً لمن قتلهم يوم القيامة

Imam Bukhari reports in his isnad from Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) that he said "I heard the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم say : There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of Judgment."

From this it is evident that the term Khawarij applied on those individuals and the group of people who rebelled and disobeyed the Khaleefah of the Muslims.

Obligation of obeying the ruler

The obedience of the Khaleefah or the Ameer is an important matter. The Shari'ah obliges the obedience of the legitimately appointed ruler through Bai'ah and that is the Khaleefah.

Muslim narrated from 'Abdullah Ibnu 'Amru Ibnul A'as that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Whoever gave Bai'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."

Naf'i said 'Abdullah Ibnu 'Umar told me: I heard the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم say: "Whoever takes off his hand from allegiance (Bai'ah) to Allah, he will meet Allah on the Resurrection Day without having any proof to show for himself; and whoever dies while having no allegiance (Bai'ah) on his neck he dies the death of the days of ignorance (Jahiliyyah)", narrated by Muslim.

Ibnu 'Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم 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", narrated by Muslim.

Abu Hurayra reported that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم 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 Khulafa'a'a, and they will number many." They asked: 'What then do you order us ?' He صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Fulfil (Bai'ah) allegiance to them one after the other, and give them their dues, for verily Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with", narrated by Muslim.

These 'Ahadith demonstrate two important matters, first that the Khaleefah only takes the authority by this Bai'ah, second that Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم has commanded his obedience: "Whoever pledged allegiance to an Imam ... shall obey him." So, he is appointed Khaleefah through the Bai'ah, and his obedience becomes compulsory because he is a pledged Khaleefah. Thus he took the authority from the Ummah by giving her Bai'ah and her obedience to the one whom she pledged to i.e. to the one who has a Bai'ah on her neck.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم forbade the Muslims from disobeying the Khaleefah and considered disobedience similar to rebellion.

He صلى الله عليه وسلم 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."

Therefore it is clear from the text that it is not allowed for the Muslim to rebel against the Khaleefah. This brings us to another question and that is what is the limit of obedience? Is the Muslim obliged to obey the ruler even in the case he is an oppressor or does not rule by the Qur'an and the sunnah.

Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Junada b. abi Umayyah who said: We went to 'Ubadah b. as-Samit when he was sick and we said: May Allah سبحانه وتعالى guide you. Inform us of a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم so Allah may benefit you from it. He said, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم called upon us and we gave him the Bai'ah, and he said, of that which he had taken from us, that we should give him the pledge to listen and obey, in what we like and dislike, in our hardship and ease, and that we should not dispute the authority of its people unless we saw open Kufr (kufr buwah) upon which we had a proof (burhan) from Allah.

The hadith was reported by At-Tabarani as "kufran Surahan (open kufr)", and as "unless the disobedience of Allah is bawahan". It was also reported by Ahmad as "unless they order you of ithmin bawahan (open sin)".

'Awf Ibnu Malik Al-Ashja'i said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم say: 'The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you and whom you pray for and they pray for you, and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you.' We asked: 'O Messenger of Allah, shall we not then declare war on them?' He said: 'No, as long as they establish the prayer among you', [Muslim]

Muslim reported on the authority of Umm Salama that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Ameers will be appointed over you, you recognise some of what they do and you disown some. Whoever recognised he is absolved from blame. Whoever disapproved (of their bad deeds) he is safe, but whoever consented and followed them (he is doomed.)" They said: "Should we not fight against them?" He صلى الله عليه وسلم replied: "No, as long as they prayed."

What is meant by establishing the prayer is to rule by Islam, that is to implement the rules of Shari'ah . This is because the whole of Islam is denoted here by naming part of it. This is common in Arabic, for instance Allah سبحانه وتعالى says: "To free a neck" [4:92] which means to free the slave i.e. all of him and not just his neck. In this Hadith he صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "As long as they establish the prayer among you." This means the establishment of all the rules not just the prayer and is a figurative form (kinayah) where basically the part is mentioned to refer to the whole.

Also in another hadith the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Aiesha (r.a.) that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Whoever inserted anything in this our matter (Deen) that is not part of it, it is rejected.", this text is general its address and includes every person including the amir of an area, a Khaleefah, the head of a family and so on.

Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler in things he likes and dislikes, as long as he is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience." (Sunan Tirmidhi)

So a ruler who rules by other than what Allah has revealed or a ruler who becomes an apostate is illegitimate. In that case a Muslim should not obey him rather he is obliged to work to remove him.

What is a legitimate authority in Sharī'ah?

A state becomes Islamic when its rules and policies derive from the Islamic 'Aqīdah (creed) i.e. when their basis is the Qur'ān and Sunnah; meaning the sovereignty lies with the Sharī'ah. That is why obedience to the rulers is restricted and not unqualified. Allāh سبحانه وتعالى says:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ۖ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا

"O you who believe! Obey Allāh, Obey His Messenger and those in authority from amongst you; and if you differ, then refer it to Allāh and His Messenger, if you believe in Allāh and the Last Day. That is the best thing to do and gives the best result." [Al-Nisā: 4:59]

This noble verse in Surah al-Nisā comes after verse 58, which focused on the rulers when they were enjoined to rule by justice – which is nothing other than what Allāh سبحانه وتعالى has revealed (i.e. the Qur'ān and the Sunnah). In this verse, the focus is on the Muslims under the authority of the rulers, and their responsibility. In this respect the message of this ayah is addressed to the Ummah at large and we can learn from it the following matters:

The āyah (verse) begins with the imperative (command) form verb atī'ū ('obey'): the subject of obedience (i.e. those who obey) is in plural form, meaning 'ALL those who believe in Islām'; and the object of obedience (i.e. the one who is obeyed) is Allāh سبحانه وتعالى. The verse then repeats the command atī'ū (obey) and this time the object of obedience is the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. The repetition of the word 'obey' and the order indicates the two basic reference points that Muslims have: the Qur'ān and Sunnah. Therefore anything in contravention of Qur'ān and Sunnah must be disobeyed, and anything from the Qur'ān and Sunnah must be obeyed. This is the principle upon which Muslims are told to live by and this is the principle on which Muslims are instructed to view their rulers. Here the word for rulers, or those in authority, is ūlul- amr (literal translation: 'the people of Command'). It is not restricted to the Khalīfah, but also includes the wāli's (governors), wazīrs (assistants) and all those who have authority, especially since the word has been used in the plural form (ūlul-amr and not the singular waliyul-amr).

It is significant that the āyah does not repeat the verb atī'ū when it comes to the Rulers, as it did in respect to Allāh and His Messenger; this is an additional indication alongside the clear verses and hadīth that state that rulers must obey Allāh and His Messenger in their ruling and exercise of authority. For example the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said: 'There is no obedience (when this results) in disobedience of the Creator.' [Sahīh Bukhārī]

Here the mantūq (directly apparent meaning) is an absolute prohibition of following an order that goes against the order of Allāh سبحانه وتعالى – whosoever makes that order. This hadīth came specifically in the context of authority and ruling. Its mafhūm (implied meaning) indicates that just as the person cannot obey a ruler who commanded disobedience to Allāh سبحانه وتعالى; so in the same way, a ruler or amīr cannot order, enact laws or rule by anything that is in violation of what Allāh سبحانه وتعالى has ordered.

Consider for example the following hadīth: It has been reported that 'Alī (ra) said, "The Messenger of Allāh sent a troop under the command of a man from Al-Ansār. When they left, he became angry with them for some reason, and said to them, 'Has not the Messenger of Allāh commanded you to obey me?' They said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Collect some wood,' and then he started a fire with the wood, saying, 'I command you to enter the fire.' The people almost entered the fire, but a young man among them said, 'You ran away from the Fire to Allāh's Messenger. Therefore, do not rush until you go back to Allāh's Messenger, and if he commands you to enter it, then enter it.' When they went back to Allāh's Messenger, they told him what had happened, and the Messenger said, 'Had you entered it, you would never have departed from it. Obedience is only in righteousness.'" (Reported by Bukhārī volume 9, book 91, number 363). Here the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم stated that obedience is only in the 'ma'rūf' (good) and not in the 'munkar' (evil).

So the one in authority cannot command anything but ma'rūf, and people cannot obey anything but ma'rūf. What is ma'rūf is what Islām has defined as good, and munkar is what Islām has defined as evil. It is not left to the discretion of man to decide these matters.

The verse also obliges the obedience to the command of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and links that to the rulers. As long as the rulers or those in authority obey the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم then there is the obedience to him, otherwise there is no obedience. It is ludicrous after saying that there is no obedience in the disobedience to the Creator, that there can be obedience in the disobedience to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم as the āyah obliges obedience to Allāh and His Messenger. That is why the Messenger of Allāh, may Allāh bless him and grant him peace, said in a ḥadīth reported by Abū Hurayrah, 'Whoever obeys me has obeyed Allāh and whoever disobeys me has disobeyed Allāh. Whoever obeys the amīr has obeyed me and whoever disobeys the amīr has disobeyed me' [Agreed upon].

As for the statement:

'whoever obeys the amīr has obeyed me and whoever disobeys the amīr has disobeyed me'

In the above hadīth or the following one: 'Anyone who dislikes something from his amīr should be patient. Anyone who abandons obedience to the amīr for even a short time dies the death of the Jāhiliyyah (ignorance)' [Agreed upon]:

This does not mean absolute obedience to the rulers. These ahādīth are about not rebelling against the rulers due to their misappropriation of the people's rights, but not about obeying the rulers in the matters which are a clear violation of the Sharī'ah. Rather, when the ruler commands a clear munkar, the Muslim must disobey that command and cannot say he was following orders.

The verse then concludes that if there is a dispute over a matter, between the Muslims and their rulers, then the final arbiter must be Allāh and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. It states:

فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ

"If you differ, then refer it to Allāh and His Messenger, if you believe in Allāh and the Last Day."

Just as the young man in the above hadīth disputed with his amīr when he commanded them to enter the fire, and referred the matter to the Messenger; we are also obliged to refer to the Islamic reference point i.e. the Qur'ān and Sunnah when there is a dispute. The last words of the āyah enjoin on the believers the importance of referring to Allāh and His Messenger in ruling, by drawing attention to the fact that not to do so is a negation of imān; hence it says: '...if you believe in Allāh and the Last Day."

This is how the Sahābah (ra) understood this matter and nothing shows this more clearly than the speech of Abū Bakr al-Siddīq when he assumed the post of Khalīfah: "Help me if I am in the right; set me right if I am in the wrong. The weak among you shall be strong with me until Allāh willing, his rights have been vindicated. The strong among you shall be weak with me until, if Allāh wills, I have taken what is due from him. Obey me as long as I obey Allāh and His Prophet; when I disobey Him and his Prophet, obey me not."

The conclusion therefore is that a ruler becomes legitimate only when he bases his rule on the Kitāb and Sunnah, ie sovereignty is for the Sharī'ah, and it is for this reason that obedience becomes obligatory. We are not asked by the ahādīth to give 'our backs and property' for no reason, i.e. if a ruler oppresses people, but rules by Islām, we are still obliged to obey such rulers, and not obey them in a sin; while at the same time accounting and advising them to stop their injustice. (The obligation to obey and not rebel against a ruler who commits oppression whilst accounting him will be clarified in detail in a separate article inshā Allāh.)

However, when we look to the case of the Saudi regime, we find that the basis of its rule is not the Sharī'ah, as indicated by its persistent and constant explicit contravention of the Sharī'ah; here are a few examples:

• Permission of usury (ribā) and banks trading in usury, which is category prohibited in Islām

• Submission to man-made international law as members of the UN and other international bodies, whose charters and rules are not in accordance with Islām

• The flagrant and persistent violation of Sharī'ah by the Saudi regime, even after having been accounted by the 'ulamā and the da'wah carriers means that the above constitute explicit kufr (kufr buwāh).

Consequently, their rule is not legitimate and they need to be removed by the people of power (nusrah) and a just ruler appointed in their place.

So to claim that demonstrations against the Saudi rulers is prohibited, is misplaced as the Saudi regime does not enjoy any legitimacy whatsoever from the Sharī'ah perspective. Holding on to the rope of Allāh, and unity of the Jamā'ah arises only when Muslims gather under the leadership of a ruler who rules by the book of Allāh and Sunnah of the Messenger, not under the leadership of those who betray the interests of the Ummah and are only interested in being the khādims (servants) of America. A more detailed discussion on the issue of 'Sharī'ah rules regarding legitimacy of Rulers' will occur in a separate article inshā Allāh

Again, it is important not to confuse the issue of legitimacy, with the issue of accounting the rulers, since that is an independent obligation in Islām. Suffice to say, as the following section will show; if public accounting was permitted in the time of our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Khulafā Rāshidah (the rightly-guided Caliphs), who represent the pinnacle of legitimacy and just Islamic leadership, then by greater reasoning (min bāb al-awlā) such accounting is needed in the time oppressive and corrupt rulers, whether they are legitimate or illegitimate.

Evidences for permissibility of demonstrations and protests

As for the proofs (adillah) for the permissibility of demonstration, there are both general and specific:

A demonstration or protest is a public display of opinion, and it is usually carried out by a group, though an individual can demonstrate or protest. So the manāt (reality) of protests and demonstrations is the public display of opinions. The general evidences which allow people to meet and express opinions would permit people to demonstrate their opinions, as long as the opinions expressed are permitted by Islām. As such protests and demonstrations are merely a permissible style, which takes its hukm (ruling) dependent on the reasons and aims of the demonstrations; thus these must be assessed before a hukm can be given for how can a style be labeled harām without consideration of its aims and purpose? For example, if Muslims come out on a demonstration calling for the legalisation of ribā, such a demonstration would not be halāl (permissible), as it calls for something that is harām. However, if people come out to account the rulers for their oppression, and neglecting the people's legitimate rights (given by Islām); then such a demand – whether via a letter, meeting or demonstration – is ḥalāl, because it is regarding a matter that is not only permitted, but obliged by the Sharī'ah.

Another form of general evidences are the 'umūmāt (generality) and unrestricted (mutlaq) import of the multitude of āyāt and aḥādīth that enjoin Muslims to speak the Ḥaqq (truth), enjoin the good and forbid the evil. For example:

Hudhayfah reported that the Prophet, may Allāh bless him and grant him peace, said, 'By the One in whose hand is my soul, you shall command the right and forbid the wrong, or else Allāh may send His punishment on you; then you will call on Him and He will not answer you.' [Muslim]

Or consider the following ayah:

وَلْتَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ ۚ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

"Let there arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islām), enjoining Al-Ma'rūf (good) and forbidding Al-Munkar (evil); and it is they who are the successful." (Āli 'Imrān: 104)

This ayah even includes the permissibility of collective action to forbid a munkar as it is a group that is commanded to enjoin the good and forbid the evil. This means if a group can forbid amunkar as a group and then there is no restriction on collectively accounting the rulers ie forbidding the munkar in the form of a demonstration. Thus these examples, due to the umūmāt (generality) and unrestricted form (mutlaq) of their meaning, allow the option of any style (for accounting) that the Sharī'ah has not expressly forbidden.

To elaborate further, consider the following hadīth:

'The best struggle (jihād) is the word of truth spoken to a tyrant ruler.' (Al-Nasā'ī).

This hadīth encouraging political struggle does not specify the manner in which the truth should be spoken to the tyrant ruler, which means any style that has not been prohibited by another text is permitted. So whether by a letter, distribution of leaflets, publication of a book, article in a newspaper or speaking directly to the ruler, these are all permissible means of fulfilling the obligation. This is similar to the hadīth of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم when he said: 'Convey from me, even if it be one verse.' (Bukhārī) This hadīth enjoins on us to convey Islamic knowledge or carry da'wah to others, but nowhere in the language of this hadīth did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم restrict it to any particular style or means. Therefore, it is permissible to impart knowledge via one to one teaching, group lessons or even via the internet. These are all permissible style as the command ballighū (convey) is unrestricted (mutlaq): so whatever action will realise this is permitted, as long as there is no specific nass (text) to the contrary.

The above hadīth for example says 'the best struggle (jihād)': this fits a reality where the accounting is done publicly, since that is truly a struggle, whereas it is easier to account privately. It is when the ruler is accounted in front of everyone that he is likely to kill or imprison the person accounting him. This is also the import (mafhūm) of the following hadīth:

"The tyrant ruler to advise him and was killed" (Reported by al-Hākim and declared sound (sahīh) by al-Albānī in hisSahīh al-Targhīb no. 2308)

The fact that ruler was accounted publicly is the most likely reason for the accounting-person being killed; and therefore such evidences can also be considered as specific evidences in their own right by their implicit meaning (mafhum).

Therefore, the uprisings against the oppressive rulers who have not been legitimately appointed by the Ummah and have been oppressing the ummah and ruling her by other than the Quran and the Sunnah is actually recommended for the Ummah rather than prohibited.

Application of the term "Khawarij" in today's reality

As for the applicability of the term Khawarij today, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said in a hadith:

يقتلون أهل الإسلام ويدعون أهل الأوثان

"They will kill Muslims and spare Idol-worshippers."

Hafiz Ibn Hajr al Asqalani writes in his book "al fath"

أما الخوارج فهم جمعُ خَارجة أي طائفة، وهم قوم مُبتَدِعُون، سُمّوا بذلك لخروجهم عن الدّين، وخروجهم على خيار المسلمين

"As for the Khawarij this is the plural of the word 'kharija''rebel' and they are group of bida'a (innovation) and they have been called as such because of their inventions in the deen and their rebellion against the opinion of the Muslims"

He further writes in the same book:

وعَظُمَ البلاء بهم - أي الخوارج - وتوسّعوا في معتقدهم الفاسد، فأبطلوا رَجْمَ المحصن وقطعوا يد السارق من الإِبط

"And the biggest disaster due to the Khawarij is the expansion in their false beliefs, so they abolished the stoning of the adulterer and they cut the hand of the thief from the arm"

These characteristics truly apply to the rulers of the Muslim world today who came to power after killing thousands and still support the kuffar in butchering the Muslims as we have seen in Iraq & Afghanistan. Had it not been the support of the Arab countries like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others, the Americans would never have made the progress they made in occupying Iraq and Afghanistan during which they killed over 2 million innocent Muslims. It is clear that it is these rulers who are fulfilling the characteristic of killing their fellow Muslims and supporting the Kuffar as mentioned in the hadith.

It is clear as day and night that the rulers in the Muslim lands have abandoned the Quran and Sunnah and adopted the western secular laws and they should be called the "Khawarij" for they are the ones who are rebelling against the Ummah and its demand to rule by the Quran and Sunnah.

hijab is ALLAH`S command

Unfortunately, we as Muslims live during a time when there is no Islamic State to stop the Munkar we see on a daily basis. It is an obligation on Muslims that we try to stop the different Munkars we see. It is one of the biggest challenges a Muslim has to endure to stop a Munkar when there is no support from the Islamic State.

We have been brought back to a time when the kuffar in Mecca used to order the Muslims to stop carrying the da'wah and not to worshipping publicly. As the ayah stated;

وَلْتَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ

"Let their arise out of you a group of people inviting to all that is good (Islam), commanding al'Ma'ruf (good) and forbidding al'Munkar (evil)" [Al-Imran, 3:104]

One type of Munkar that we see is the new trend of hijab. Hijab is not a fashion statement and never was meant to be. It is an act of obedience that has been clearly defined in the Qur'an and Sunnah. There is no debate on what is allowed and what is prohibited. Allah سبحانه وتعالى has clearly defined the meaning and as time goes on it should not meet the new trends of society. Unfortunately, we now see the hair bangs showing from the veil, the earlobes showing their earrings, tight fitting clothes, sandals displaying their feet. The neck is shown because the veil is tied at the side or from the back, the huge barrettes to make a hump like style under the veil. These are all types of tabarruj (revealing the beauty), which Islam has prohibited. We see women in public wearing tight fitting clothes even though the awrah is covered, that is under the category of Tabarruj.

A hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم stated that, "Two categories of people; have not seen them (yet): some people who hold whips like the tails of the cow by which they lash people. And women who wear (clothes) but (are) half -naked, bending (their bodies) and bending the sight of men to them. Their heads are like the tilted humps of the camels. These women will not enter the paradise nor will they experience its smell (odor), though its odor is felt at a distance of so and so."

It is disturbing to find hijab fashion magazines and websites to teach fashionable hijab styles. It gives Muslim women the Western style format of how to match the veil with the shirt, pants, and purse. One magazine steered clear of the idea of the jilbab and only introduced Western clothing to go out with. This is intentionally done to steer the Muslim sisters away from what Allah سبحانه وتعالى revealed. This has weaved doubt among Muslims with their religion. Hijab should not merit discussions on what is allowed or prohibited. Allah has defined his laws about hijab.

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ

"Oh Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (Jalabeeb) all over their bodies." [Al-Ahzab, 33:59]

Did the Muslims forget when Umm Atiyya (ra) asked the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, "Oh Messenger of Allah, what about one who does not have a jilbab?" The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم replied, "Let her use the Jilbab of her sister." This clearly states that if her excuse is that she does not own a jilbab, she is to borrow one from her neighbor.

The West is trying to redefine the meaning of hijab in order for Muslim women to break ties with Islam. Discussions about hijab were generated by the colonialists to corrupt the Islamic Aqeedah. The West realized that Muslim women all over the world implemented the standards of hijab. The West gradually started to place ideas of fashionable hijab. The West makes the women feel that the idea of hijab is an oppressive and constraining form of dress. They are using so-called scholars to give another meaning to the jilbab and distort what certain ayat mean. The West purposely is encouraging scholars to change the meanings of hijab to steer Muslims away from Islam. It is clearly stated in several ayat what happens when proofs from Allah سبحانه وتعالى have been revealed. One being,

 وَلَا تَكُونُوا كَالَّذِينَ تَفَرَّقُوا وَاخْتَلَفُوا مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ ۚ وَأُولَٰئِكَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

"And be not as those who divided and differed among themselves after the clear proofs had come to them. It is they for whom there is an awful torment." [Al-Imran, 3:105]

The West mocks the Muslim woman for wearing hijab and tries to disgrace her. The West has succeeded in passing laws banning the hijab. Tunis and Turkey restricts the wearing of the headscarves in government buildings and public schools, and discourages women from wearing the hijab on public grounds. France has banned the wearing of any religious symbols, including the hijab in public schools and government buildings. On June 22, 2009; the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, said that "burqas are not welcome in France,"commenting that, "In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity." Belgium passed a law that banned face-covering clothing in public as seen when a Moroccan immigrant was fined due to wearing of the burqa. Some states in Germany have also banned the hijab in public schools. This clearly shows that the West is threatened by the hijab and Muslims in general.

Why are some Muslims then trying to fit in with a regime that is trying to destroy Islam in all aspects? We need to stand together as one Ummah fighting this Munkar we see on a daily basis. We as Muslims should not try to fit into a regime that is man-made but a regime that was sent down by Allah سبحانه وتعالى. We need to forbid this Munkar we are seeing and be strong in fighting for the cause of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. We should not fear any laws that were man-made but only Allah سبحانه وتعالى. It is crucial that we as Muslims join together and call for the Islamic ideology to lift this oppression on all Muslims and decrease the Munkars we see. This cause needs perseverance, steadfastness, and patience. As many ayat show the importance of patience as such,

أَمْ حَسِبْتُمْ أَنْ تَدْخُلُوا الْجَنَّةَ وَلَمَّا يَأْتِكُمْ مَثَلُ الَّذِينَ خَلَوْا مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ ۖ مَسَّتْهُمُ الْبَأْسَاءُ وَالضَّرَّاءُ وَزُلْزِلُوا حَتَّىٰ يَقُولَ الرَّسُولُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مَعَهُ مَتَىٰ نَصْرُ اللَّهِ ۗ أَلَا إِنَّ نَصْرَ اللَّهِ قَرِيبٌ

"Or think you that you will enter Paradise without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? They were afflicted with severe poverty, ailments and were so shaken and that even the Messenger and those who believed with him said, ‘when will come the Help of Allah?' Yes certainly, the help of Allah is near!" [Al-Baqarah, 2:214]

UMM SUNDUS

the plight of women under liberal democracy

Western governments have lined up to condemn a proposed law currently going through the Afghan parliament related to the rights of women within marriage. Puppet governments in the Muslim world have a track record of implementing faulty laws, incomplete Islamic systems, and a failure to implement Islam's framework of solutions that prevent problems arising.

The details of the proposed law that is causing this controversy cannot be properly known from western media sources. It is reported that it would oblige a wife to fulfil the sexual desires of her husband and that she cannot leave the house without his permission. However, whatever the specific details of this law it has unquestionably become yet another excuse to attack the Islamic social system.

Islamic marital law places importance upon strong marriages and consequently strong family units. It is also indicative of the high status Islam has afforded the woman in society that it obliges the husband to ensure her security and well-being when she leaves the home.

Regarding the proposed law, President Obama said, "I think this law is abhorrent" and Gordon Brown said it, "risks putting Afghanistan back to its past rather than towards a democratic future where men and women are treated equally." Terms such as "legalization of rape in marriage", "sexual enslavement", and "women's imprisonment" have contributed to the highly charged and emotive language fuelling the hysteria surrounding these proposed law.

Islam has a quite distinct view on the respective roles of men and women in marriage. Islam places great importance upon strong marriages and consequently strong family units, gives a woman a high status in society, and obliges wives to fulfil their marital roles as well as husbands to ensure the security and well-being of their wives when she leaves the home.

While attacking individual Islamic laws, Western leaders seem to ignore the "abhorrent" epidemic levels of abuse, violence, and rape facing women within their own liberal secular countries. In the UK, 1 in 4 women face domestic violence and 1 in 20 have been raped. In the US, a woman is sexually assaulted every two and a half minutes.

Furthermore, Western governments conveniently ignore the plight facing the vast majority of Afghan women following the introduction of a liberal democratic system in the country. Eight years post-invasion, millions of women in Afghanistan face lives of abject poverty, increasing violence and miserable living conditions. Prostitution has increased in the country, resulting from the dire poverty facing so many women "Sex for bread" has become a familiar term in the country.

Rapes and abductions are at epidemic proportions. More than 70% of Afghans are chronically malnourished. Over 80% of Afghan women are still illiterate. Girls continue to be married off to settle debts or tribal differences. The country boasts the 2nd highest rate of maternal mortality in the world with the Eastern province of Badakshan having the highest recorded rate in history. Afghanistan has the highest child mortality rate in the world with 1/5 of children dying before the age of 5. It also has the highest number of widows (proportionate to the total population) in the world due to armed conflict 1.5million out of a 26.6 million population. Self-immolation has become an increasing problem in the country with women setting themselves alight out of desperate misery due to wretched living conditions and abject poverty.

Regarding this controversy, Dr. Nazreen Nawaz, Women's Media Representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain said, "Western governments are presiding over a social and family meltdown within their own countries, just as they are trying to deal with a financial meltdown, with escalating levels of divorce, adultery, teenage pregnancies and broken families. The "freedom-loving" culture of liberal values has nurtured a hedonistic and care-free attitude to life based upon the pursuit of carnal and individual self-interest, rather than creating a mindset of responsibility. Furthermore, the rhetoric of "Gender Equality" in defining rights and responsibilities of men and women in society and family life has not stemmed the tide of abuse facing women within secular societies nor eradicated the oppressive treatment of women in the Muslim world due to traditional culture."

"As for accusing Islam of " female sexual enslavement" in marriage, this is farcical coming from leaders that govern over systems that have legalized the "sexual enslavement" of women under the guise of "liberty", through accepting pornography, brothels, and the exploitation of women's bodies in the advertising and entertainment industries. Western governments are therefore in no position to attack Islamic family law. Nor do they have any moral ground to preach "women's rights" to the Muslim world."

"Women in Afghanistan and across the Muslim world are fully aware of the disastrous impact of liberal democracy upon their lands. They recognise that the democratic system has not guaranteed for them their security, basic needs nor eradicated oppressive traditions from their societies. They realise that simply enshrining "gender equality" into their constitutions or symbolic gestures such as fixed quotas for women in their parliamentary systems, do not translate into an improved standard of living for ordinary women. They acknowledge that the selective - rather than the comprehensive implementation - of Islamic laws will not secure the rights Islam ordained for the woman. It is understandable then why millions of Muslim women across the world look forward to the establishment of the Khilafah State a true alternative to the decrepit systems that currently plague their lands. It will be a system that will raise their status in society, eradicate oppressive tribal customs, provide their basic needs and guarantee a life free from a fear of violence."

the central asian mafia of BIG OIL

According to Kurt Wulff of the oil investment firm McDep Associates, the Four Horsemen, romping in their new Far East pastures, saw asset increases from 1988-1994 as follows: Exxon Mobil- 54%, Chevron Texaco- 74%, Royal Dutch/Shell- 52% and BP Amoco- 54%.  Big Oil had more than doubled its collective assets in six short years.

This quantum leap in global power had everything to do with the takeover of the old Soviet oil patch and the subsequent impoverishment of its birthright owners.

While the Four Horsemen gorged on Russian and Central Asian oil, Wall Street investment bankers were facilitating the oil grab and ripping off the Russian Treasury.

Salomon Smith Barney’s Philbro Energy oil trading subsidiary set up shop in Moscow.  Goldman Sachs was hired by Yeltsin to lure foreign capital to Russia.  Heading the Russian Goldman Sachs team was Robert Rubin, later Clinton Secretary of Treasury & Citigroup CEO.  CS First Boston took a 20% stake in Lukoil, in partnership with BP Amoco.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar was in charge of Russia’s IMF-mandated economic reforms.  Gaidar knew that the oil and gas sector was the key to Rubin’s plan.  Russian opposition parties cried foul, saying US economists and the IMF were taking control of Russia’s economic and political system.  In 1994 Clinton FBI Director Louis Freeh, flaunting Constitutional restraints, personally opened an FBI office in Moscow. [1]

In 1997 Freeh’s FBI led a half-hearted investigation into a growing conflict of interest scandal involving top-level Harvard economists who had been overseeing Russia’s privatization program in tandem with Rubin and Gaidar.  Russia criticized the FBI probe, calling it a whitewash of the facts.

The controversy centered on the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID), which ran several of Russia’s privatization schemes.  HIID Directors Jonathan Hay and Jeffrey Sachs held investments in multinationals which benefited from an $89 million World Bank loan to Russia which HIID had arranged.  Russia’s top securities regulator Dmitry Vasiliev spotted this and other irregularities, terminating HIID’s contract with the russian government. [2]  But not before the Wall Street investment bankers had looted the Russian Treasury, leading to the Russian economic collapse of 1998.

In 1999 the Bank of New York, which worked with CS First Boston in selling off Russian ownership in Lukoil, was indicted by a New York court for laundering over $10 billion in drug money for Russian mobsters, all of whom held Israeli passports.  According to Dr. Aldo Milinkovich, consultant to numerous New York financial firms, “The Israelis have infiltrated and manipulated the post-Soviet economy in Russia in pretty much the same way they have infiltrated and now manipulate Washington and Wall Street.”[3]

At the center of the scandal was Bill Casey Hardy Boy Itzak “Bruce” Rappaport. He set up clearing affiliate Benex, which laundered drug money for three wealthy Russian/Israeli bankers.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky was one of the wealthiest people in Russia. He ran Menatep Bank until it was shut down.  In November 2003, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a crackdown on Khodorkovsky, relieving him of his controlling share in Yukos Oil.

Shlomo Mogulevich has been called the “Meyer Lansky of Russia” and was described by US law enforcementtas a major arms and drugs trafficker.

Konstantin Kagalovsky was in charge of doling out IMF/World Bank funding to the Yeltsin government. [4]  All three held Israeli citizenship.

Rappaport, the National Bank of Oman crony, began buying Bank of New York shares during the 1980’s. He set up Bank of New York-Intermaritime in Geneva.  The company owns Swiss American Holdings, SA Panama, which the US government identified as key to a 1998 money laundering scandal involving Antigua Prime Minister John Fitzgerald. [5]

Rappaport arranged US financing for purchase of an Antigua melon farm by an Israeli Mossad agent named Sarafati.  The Israeli Defense Ministry funneled arms through Rappaport and Sarafati’s farm to Columbian cocaine kingpin and death squad godfather Jose Gonzalo Rodriguez Gacha.  Mossad and British commandos trained Medellin Cartel death squads in a CIA program funded by President Reagan’s much-touted Project Democracy.

The Panamanian ship Sea Point that delivered Gacha his weapons was owned by CIA’s hand-picked Panamanian President Guillermo Endara, who was installed after the Noriega putsch.  In 1989 that same ship had been busted off the Mexican coast carrying a massive shipment of cocaine.  Endara and Gacha co-owned the Panamanian drug laundry Banco Interoceanico. [6]

Corruption was the modus operandi during the economic privatization of Russia, the Caucuses and Eastern Europe.  In 1996 Ukraine’s government-owned aircraft factory sold a small fleet of Antonov-32B twin-engine turboprops to Columbia cocaine cartels. [7]  In 1997 Pratt & Whitney, subsidiary of US defense giant United Technologies, was fined $14.8 million for diverting $10 million in US military aid into a slush fund controlled by israeli air force officer Rami Dotan.  Saudi billionaire Sulaiman Olayan owned a big chunk of United Technologies, as did James Baker.  The slush fund was used for CIA/Mossad destabilization efforts in Central Asia. [8]

A 1997 Russian FSB report cited Alfa Group for involvement in drug trafficking.  Top company executives had met with representatives of the Cali Cartel.  The report stated that Alfa worked with a Chechen crime family, which was in charge of the drug smuggling.  An Alfa Group subsidiary is Tyumen Oil, which teamed up with Brown & Root in an oil and gas development project that received ExIm Bank financing. [9]  Brown & Root is a subsidiary of Halliburton, where Dick Cheney was Chairman and CEO at the time.

In mid-February 2001 Alfa Group bought Marc Rich Holdings from its namesake fugitive Israeli financier. Rich lives in Switzerland after being pardoned by President Clinton as he exited the White House. Rich is an associate of Rappaport.

Halliburton and its subsidiaries received $3.8 billion in federal contracts and taxpayer-insured loans from 1996-2000. [10]  On July 9, 2002, amidst a tidal wave of corporate accounting scandals, the Washington D.C.-based Judicial Watch filed suit in Dallas charging Cheney and other Halliburton directors with making millions selling stock options while cooking the Halliburton books just before the company’s share price plummeted.  The SEC announced its own investigation of Halliburton the same day, but nothing came of it.

Chechen Drug Lords

As Saudi Taliban backer Sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz’ Nimir Petroleum dug into Kazakhstan oil fields with Chevron Texaco, the Unocal-led Centgas was offering to pay the Afghan Taliban government $100 million a year to run their pipeline across Afghanistan in a deal orchestrated by Unocal adviser Hamid Karzai- now Afghanistan’s President.  Centgas arranged high-level meetings in Washington between Taliban officials and the State Department via Unocal insider and President Bush Jr. NSA Zalmay M. Khalilzad, now US Ambassador to US-occupied Iraq.  In 2005 Chevron Texaco bought Unocal.

Bush blocked US Secret Service investigations into US-based al-Qaeda terrorist sleeper cells while he continued to negotiate secretly with Taliban officials.  The last meeting was in August 2001 just five weeks before 911.  bush administration and Saudi officials offered aid to the Taliban to seal the Four Horsemen deal, telling the Islamists, “You either accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”[11]

In 1997 zbigniew brzezinski, graying but not straying from his role as go-between for the international banking houses and their global intelligence networks, wrote The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geopolitical Imperatives.  In his book the BP Amoco board member suggested that the key to global power lies in the control of Eurasia and that the “key to controlling Eurasia is controlling the Central Asian Republics”.  He singled out Uzbekistan as key to controlling Central Asia.

In 1999 a series of explosions rocked the Uzbek capital of Tashkent.  Islamic al-Qaeda-trained militants were to blame.  The rebels, who call themselves the Islamic Party of Turkistan, attempted to assassinate socialist President Islam Karimov.  They attacked the fertile Fergana Valley in an attempt to disrupt harvests and the Uzbek food supply, Pink Plan-style.  Two years earlier Enron had attempted to negotiate a $2 billion deal with the Uzbek state-owned Neftegas with help from the Bush White House. [12]

When that effort and other privatization attempts were rebuffed in 1998 by Tashkent, the Islamist attacks on Uzbekistan were ratcheted up.  After the “carpet of bombs” began raining down on neighboring Afghanistan in October 2001, Uzbekistan, along with neighbors Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, was soon sporting new US military bases.  In 2005 Kyrgyzstan’s President Askar Akayev was deposed in the “Tulip Revolution”.  Within days donald rumsfeld was meeting with the new leaders. [13]

The timing of both Brzezinski’s book and bush administration threats to the Taliban are instructive since both occurred prior to the 911 attacks, the perfect pretext for the massive Central Asian intervention that Brzezinski, Bush and their Illuminati bosses were advocating.

Dr. Johannes Koeppel, former German Defense Ministry official and adviser to NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner, explained of this rash of “coincidences” in November 2001, “The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the trilateral comission and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now implementing open world dictatorship (which will be established) within the next five years.  They are not fighting against terrorists.  They are fighting against citizens.”

Central Asia came to produce 75% of the world’s opium just as the Four Horsemen and their CIA guard dogs were moving into the region.  While the US issues humiliating certifications to judge countries on their ability to stop drug traffic, Big Oil produces 90% of the chemicals needed to process cocaine and heroin, which CIA surrogates grow, process and distribute.  CIA chemists were the first to produce heroin.

As Ecuadorian Presidential Candidate Manuel Salgado put it, “This world order which professes the cult of opulence and the growing economic power of illegal drugs, doesn’t allow for any frontal attack aimed at destroying narco-trafficking because that business, which moves $400 billion annually, is far too important for the leading nations of world power to eliminate.  The US…punishes those countries which don’t do enough to fight against drugs, whereas their CIA boys have built paradises of corruption throughout the world with the drug profits.”[14]

The Afghan “paradise of corruption” yielded 4,600 metric tons of opium in 1998-1999.  When the Taliban cracked down on opium production poppy fields bloomed to the north where CIA/ISI-sponsored Islamists were fighting in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Chechnya, Dagestan and Kashmir.  Pakistani writer Ahmed Rashid says the Saudis paid the moving bill. [15]

The US had harassed socialist India for decades, using Kashmiri fundamentalists based in Pakistan.  It was no coincidence that the proposed Enron pipeline to their Dabhol, India white elephant was to run right through the heart of Kashmir.

Ever since Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov proposed a “strategic triangle” between India, Russia and China as a counterbalance to “US global hegemony” in 1998, US establishment think tanks have been scratching their heads at how to derail the idea.  The Harvard-linked Olin Institute proposed attacking India, the weakest part of the triangle.

Not content with the Polish Solidarist-led grab of Eastern Europe and the partitioning of Soviet Central Asian republics, the CFR/Bilderberger crowd now used mujahadeen surrogates to further squeeze Russia.

In 1994 35,000 Chechen fighters were trained at Amir Muawia camp in Afghanistan’s Khost Province, the camp osama bin laden built for the CIA.  In July 1994 Chechen Commander Shamil Basayev graduated from Amir Muawia and was sent to advanced guerrilla tactics camp at Markazi-i-Dawar, Pakistan. There he met with Pakistani ISI officials, who have historically excelled at carrying out the CIA’s dirty laundry. [16]  The other Chechen rebel Commander was Saudi-born Emir al-Khattab.

The Chechen Islamists took over a big chunk of the Golden Crescent heroin trade, working with Chechen crime families affiliated with the Russian Alfa Group that did business with Halliburton.  They also had ties to the Albanian heroin labs being run by the NATO-backed Kosovo Liberation Army.

A Russian FSB report stated that the Chechens began buying real estate in Kosovo in 1997, just prior to the US-led partition of Kosovo from Yugoslavia.  Chechen Commander Emir al-Khattab set up guerrilla camps to train KLA Albanian rebels.  The camps were funded by the heroin trade, prostitution rings and counterfeiting.  Recruits were invited by Chechen Commander Shamil Basayev and funded by the House of Saud muslim brotherhood Islamic Relief Organization. [17]

On September 20, 2002, after emerging from a White House meeting on Iraq with President Bush, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov dodged all questions regarding another round of US harassment targeting Iraq.  Instead he stated that the al Qaeda-trained Chechen rebels still targeting his country were being given safe-haven by the closest US ally in Central Asia- the government of Georgia.

In 2003 the National Endowment for Democracy & other CIA-front NGOs sponsored the phony Rose Revolution, which brought IMF stooge Mikheil Saakashvili to power in Georgia. The Four Horsemen’s strategic Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline would eventually run right through the Georgian capital Tblisi.

A month later Chechen rebels strapped with explosives entered a Moscow theater, taking hundreds hostage.  The timing was interesting, since the Russians were refusing to go along with Bush’s plans to invade Iraq.  Nearly 200 people died after Russian Special Forces stormed in to overtake the Chechens.  The US news media, fixated on al Qaeda’s every move just months earlier, ignored the link between the Chechens and their bin Laden-led cohorts.  Instead they blamed the Russians.  A week after the incident Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev claimed responsibility for the siege on a rebel website. [18]  Kremlin officials saw Basayev’s comments as a smokescreen to protect Chechnya’s elected leader Aslan Maskhadov, who was on his way to Sweden to take part in a conference on Chechnya.  Basayev was killed in Ingushetia in July 2006.

For all the hoopla over the Caspian Sea oil bonanza and after all the CIA-bred carnage wrought upon the region of Central Asia and the Russian Republic on behalf of the Four Horsemen, the huge deposits of black gold may not materialize.

According to BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2003, the two countries which Big Oil had counted on to become the next Saudi Arabia – Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan – have proven oil reserves of only 63 billion and 26 billion barrels, respectively.  The report also stated that Russia itself, torn asunder by Big Oil and their spooks, possessed a mere 22 billion barrels of crude reserves.  It is also possible that BP is lying, using the phony “peak oil” shortage argument to rationalize gauging consumers.

Whatever the case, tired of Four Horsemen scams, since 2005 a now wide awake Russia has been steadily re-nationalizing its energy sector.

[1] “Legendary FBI Director Sets Up Shop in Moscow”. USA Today. 7-5-94

[2] “Russia Cuts Harvard Links in Flap, Throwing Aid Programs into Disarray”. Steve Liesmen & Robert Keatley. wall street journal. 6-2-97. p.A19

[3] “Israelis Behind Bank of New York Scam”. Martin Mann. The Spotlight. 9-6-99. p.5

[4] Ibid.

[5] “US Fails to Recover Drug Money in Antigua”. Michael Allen. wall street journal. 11-2-98. p.A27

[6] Dope Inc.: The Book That Drove Kissinger Crazy. Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Washington, DC. 1992 p.19

[7] “Ukraine Leasing Aircraft to Columbian Drug Traffickers”. Los Angeles Times. 2-19-96

[8] “Pratt & Whitney to Settle Israeli Slush Fund Case”. Missoulian. 5-21-97

[9] Center for Public Integrity. January 2000.

[10] Ibid

[11] Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth. Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. Paris 2001

[12] “Central Asia Unveiled”. Mike Edwards. National Geographic. 2-02

[13] Reaping the Whirlwind: The Taliban Movement in Afghanistan. Michael Griffin. Pluto Press. London. 2001. p.124

[14] “The Geostrategy of Plan Columbia”. Manuel Salgado Tamayo. Covert Action Quarterly. Winter 2001. p.37

[15] Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. Ahmed Rashid. Yale University Publishing. New Haven, CT. 2001.

[16] “Who is osama bin laden?” michel chudovusky. www.copvcia.com 12-17-01

[17] Ibid

[18] “Rebel Warlord Takes Credit for Theatre Seige”. Springfield News Leader. 11-2-02

DEAN HENDERSON

the free masonic america

The united states of America has never been a country in its own right.  It was established by Britishfree masonary to perpetuate the deception of ‘freedom for the people.’

By John Hamer
(henrymakow)

Two thousand five hundred years ago, the Greek philosopher Plato described Atlantis as an ideal society destroyed in some unknown cataclysmic event,  thousands of years previously.  

This event may have been a gigantic tsunami, an earthquake or the result of massive volcanic activity, but the real reason for its sudden demise is not known.

Ever since Plato’s description of this ‘utopian’ world became widely known, the elites have attempted to recreate it in all its glory.

In the early 17th century, Sir Francis Bacon, wrote his classic work ‘The New Atlantis’, citing America as the ideal location for the fulfilment of the long-held dreams of the Rosicrucians and the other forerunners offreemasonry.  

Bacon was the leader of the Rosicrucian movement and the fledgling organisation that would become the Freemasonry. The Rosicrucians and Freemasons arrived in America in their great numbers during the mass migrations of the first half of the seventeenth century.

Freemasons practised their art in much the same way as in Europe, embedding their secret  designs in both individual buildings and indeed, entire cities and wider areas.  For example, the original American major cities, washington DC, Baltimore, philadelphia, New York and Boston are all in perfect alignment along a 400 mile line, in effect connecting them together along the eastern seaboard of the US.  This line, if continued eastwards also aligns perfectly with Stonehenge and then London.  Can this be a coincidence? 

Despite what you may believe, the american revolution was conceived and perpetrated by Freemasonry to further the financial interests of the north american Elite and create an impression of independence from British money interests and the ‘Crown.’ It was not, as we are told, the product of a popular uprising against British tyranny.  Indeed most ‘ordinary’ Americans were of British ancestry, and were fiercely loyal to King George III.

Benjamin Franklin, the American ‘hero’ was in reality an agent of British intelligence working towards the goal of transition of the American colonies from overt to covert control in a microcosm of what was taking place on a worldwide basis as openly monarchies were replaced by a manufactured ‘democracy’ to create the false impression of ‘government by the people, for the people’.

According to official history, the spark that ignited the conflict was when a band of men dressed as Mohawk Indians dumped all the tea from the British clipper, Dartmouth into Boston harbor.   In reality, the ‘Indians’ were members of the St. Andrew’s Freemasonic lodge in Boston, led by their junior warden, Paul Revere. The easy access to the ship was facilitated with ‘insider’ help from the colonial militia detailed to guard the waterfront at Boston harbour.  The Captain of this militia was a certain Edward Proctor who was a senior member of the St. Andrew’s Lodge.  Another lodge member also happened to be John Hancock, the first signatory of the Declaration of Independence and whose name has become synonymous with ‘signature’ as a result. 

Of the fifty six signatories of the Declaration of Independence, at least fifty were known to be Freemasons and only one was definitely known not to be.  Is this significant in any way?  I believe so.  In addition, all the signatories were provably descended from British royalty as indeed most senior American politicians still are to this day.  For example george w bush is a sixth cousin of Queen Elizabeth II.

So, on the 3rd September 1783, America was officially recognised by Britain as an independent country.  Would this have been the case had the revolution really been to sever ties with Britain unilaterally?  Highly unlikely, I would argue.

The British establishment would have fought tooth and nail to retain the colony ‘ had the War of Independence been lost against its will (instead of simply being ‘handed over’.) 

The first President (although that was never his official title) george washington, was from a British aristocratic background and was a 33rd degree Feemason.  His initiation ceremony was in effect a freemasonic ritual attended by all the freemasonic hierarchy of the country in full freemasonic regalia, aprons et al.

The new capital, washington DC was designed and built on Freemasonic principles with Babylonian and Romanesque architecture well to the fore including an abundance of esoteric symbolism.  It is well known that occult and masonic ceremonies were common-place during the laying the foundation-stones of many of its original structures.  As with the Egyptian pyramids, Washington DC is also in alignment with important star systems.

In actuality, the united states of America has never been a country in its own right.  It was established by British Freemasonry, in conjunction with American Freemasonry to perpetuate the deception of ‘freedom for the people’ and to enable covert control of the masses and facilitate huge, ongoing profits at the expense of those masses.

In effect, the Virginia Company, established in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, simply changed its name to The United States Corporation Inc. and this is the real power structure behind the scenes.  

The President is merely the president of a large corporation and so the war on terrorism was launched by the president of a private corporation to further the geo-political interests and profits of that corporation.  The privately owned ‘United States’ is in effect the holding company and the fifty states, its subsidiaries.

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