the justice of islamic governance

The continuing protests in the Arab world are demanding change rather than more of the same Western interference

With the Arab spring in full flow, it is becoming clearer that many players are competing for the space created by the overthrow of some rulers in the Middle East. Whilst the Ummah braved the brutal crackdown on the streets to end the architecture of client rulers, foreign interference and foreign dependency constructed by the Western colonial powers, the West continues to call the Arab spring as a call for democracy, Western values and more Western involvement. The decades of oppression by the dictatorial rulers has led to some confusion on where Capitalism ends and where Islam begins.

However, the Islamic system is fundamentally different in that it takes the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم as the basis of governance. What follows are some of the key aspects of the Islamic system:

• The Khilafah applies the Islamic constitution, it replaces the existing plethora of constitutions that keep the Muslim world subjugated and backward. The Khilafah guarantees elections, and regional and 'nationwide' assemblies which form the pre-requisite governance institutions, including a judicial authority to check the actions of the executive, and protect the rights of all citizens – men and women, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. The Islamic state will neither be theocratic nor does it model itself on any other contemporary Muslim state.

• The new Islamic constitution will have one head of state (Khalifah) to replace the current unstable and ill-defined roles of Monarch, President or Prime Minister. A new People's Assembly (Majlis ul Ummah) will replace the plethora of lower and upper houses and a strengthened judiciary, with a new court targeting state injustice (Mahkamat ul-Madhalim), will replace the existing politically manipulated legal system. Both the new judiciary and elected People's Assembly will provide the requisite institutional checks and balances in the Islamic political system.

• Both the head of state and the new People's Assembly will be elected via an open, transparent and fair process. The People's Assembly comprises representatives from across the Khilafah and will include Muslims and non-Muslims. The council is designed not only to make representations to the state, but also has the power to scrutinise and overturn state policy, analyse the budget and hold leaders to account.

• All judges in the new Court of Injustices and other courts will be independent from the executive and consultative assembly. No individual – not the Khaleefah, armed forces and their chiefs, the elite, or industrial barons – is above the law. The rule of law will be implemented without fear or favour. All policies of the state can be challenged in court. Where the court is actively investigating a complaint against the head of state, the head of state has no right to remove any judge involved in the case. Any verdict by a Judge is final irrespective of the wishes of the ruler.

• The appointment of a Chief Justice and Qadi in the Court of Madhalim (injustices) creates a dedicated office of the judiciary charged with checking the state's compliance with the law. The Madhalim court does not rely on a plaintiff raising a specific complaint against the state and is charged with ongoing monitoring of all organs of state. The Madhalim has the power to remove the head of state if he breaches his terms of contract.

• Islam obliges the people to criticise, account and denounce, if necessary, any action of the ruler, his advisors or any policy carried out by the state that disagrees with Islam or oppresses the people. This is done by individuals, scholars, the media and political groups and parties.

• The independent judiciary and People's Assemblies institutionalise the culture of accountability and scrutiny that is a collective obligation in Islam.

• The state believes torture, spying and arbitrary arrest as carried out by the Muslim world's intelligence and security apparatus under the supervision of the US is forbidden under Islamic law. Such activities therefore are absolutely illegal (haram), have no place at all in any civilised society and would be prosecuted under the Shariah.

• The Khalifah will introduce radical Islamic policies that tear down any provisions that enforce the Police State. Citizens of the Khilafah, Muslims and non-Muslims, will have the right to take any member of the enforcement agencies, regardless of rank, to court and/or register a complaint to an independent judiciary (Mahkamut ul-Madhalim) without any implications for his/her wellbeing.

Whilst the West has a history of developing checks and balances fundamental problems exist in every secular democracy, advanced, emerging, large, small, western or eastern. They all show the same thing: they serve the elite and not the public; their politicians are largely corrupt; wealth remains confined to a tiny minority; and long term challenges are consistently ducked – this is the reality of democracy. To copy and paste this system in the Islamic lands will just turn the uprisings from dictatorships to examples of democratic failures.

وَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ تِبْيَانًا لِّكُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ

"And We have sent down to you the Book (the Qur'an) as an exposition of everything, a guidance, a mercy, and glad tidings for those who have submitted themselves (to Allah as Muslims)." [An-Nahl 16:89]

health policy in KHILAFAH

Barack Obama signed the controversial US healthcare bill into law  after months of heated debate.

US Healthcare has been under the spotlight in recent years and gained international focus after Michael Moore released his documentary, "Sicko" three years ago. In it, he focused on the failure of the American healthcare system. Particular attention was given to the Insurance Companies and how their purpose was not to help people in need but rather to increase profits. The solution proposed was to have a public healthcare system similar to those in Canada, Britain, France and Cuba.

With an economy in disarray and the rising costs of the Iraq and Afghan wars, you may wonder what is wrong with the US's priorities? The debate over health care in the US centers on whether there is a fundamental right to healthcare, or who should have access to healthcare and on the quality achieved for the high sums spent.

Medical debt is cited as the single biggest factor in 62% of all personal bankruptcy in the United States.

50 million Americans do not have health insurance.

Approximately 18,000 of the 50 million die every year because they do not have health insurance.

The US does not view health as a basic right, but as a privilege. Barack Obama is challenging this view through his reform bill to provide universal health care through health insurance for all. This has been met by wrath from the right wing,

The US does provide a government funded programme the biggest being Medicaid and Medicare. But generally it is up to individuals to obtain health insurance. Most get coverage through their employers, but others sign up for private insurance schemes. Under the terms of most plans, US citizens pay regular premiums, but are required to pay part of the cost of their treatment before the insurer covers the expense. This is the situation of the 250 million people who have health care. It has become a common occurrence for those with health insurance, having to incur much debt after the deductibles for health insurance are removed, causing a significant number to even sell their homes.

So how will a future Khilafah address the issue of healthcare?

Taking care of people's affairs

Islam is a unique system revealed by Allah سبحانه وتعالى that provides the needs for both the individual and society. Allah سبحانه وتعالى being Al-Khaliq - The Creator of all that exists - will evidently know what is best for us. With His infinite knowledge, His system will be able to provide solutions to any problem that human beings have or will encounter. With regards to governance, the Khalifah is entrusted in applying the laws of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. The Khalifah is directly responsible before Allah سبحانه وتعالى for any issue that affects citizens in the Islamic State.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said, "He who has been ruler over ten people will be brought shackled on the Day of Resurrection till justice loosens his chains or tyranny brings him to destruction."[Tirmidhi]

The ruler does not only have to respond to the people under his care but must also answer to a higher authority, Malik-al-Mulk (The Owner of All Sovereignty). As such, he must fulfil the obligations placed upon him as this is not only a mandate of the state but is the Ahkam of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. Therefore the Khalifah must care for every citizen's need and ensure that they are not facing any undue hardships such as lack of access to healthcare or even long wait times.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Whoever is put in charge of any of the affairs of the Muslims and remains aloof from them and pays no attention to their needs and poverty, Allah will remain aloof from him on the Day of Resurrection, and will pay no attention to his needs and poverty." [Abu Dawood, Ibn Maajah, Al-Haakim]

The above hadith clearly shows the weight that lies on the shoulders of those in authority. When Umar ibn Abdul Aziz became the Khalifah, he was seen to be rather gloomy. His servant asked him why he was so sad and worried. Umar replied, "Anyone in my shoes should be so; I must deliver and grant all the nation's citizens all their rights, whether they demand them or not."

The care of those under the authority of the state is not judged based on the annual budget or political aspirations but rather it is based on the rights afforded to them by Allah سبحانه وتعالى. This obliges the Khalifah to provide them with the utmost care to the best of his ability regardless of whether the citizens are aware of this right or not and whether they have asked for it or not.

Healthcare in the Khilafah

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Each of you is a guardian and is responsible for those whom he is in charge of. So the ruler is a guardian and is responsible for his subjects." [Bukhari & Muslim]

The Imam is responsible for managing the affairs of the people. One of the basic needs that the Khilafah must provide for is healthcare. When the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم as head of state in Medina was given a doctor as a gift, he assigned him to the Muslims. The fact that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم received a gift and he did not use it, nor take it, rather he assigned it to the Muslims is evidence that healthcare is one of the interests of Muslims.

Since the state is obliged to spend on providing a free healthcare system for all, then part of the Bait ul-Mal's budget must be for healthcare. If insufficient funds are available then a wealth tax will be imposed upon the Muslims to meet the budget deficit.

Unlike the Capitalist system, the Islamic system views the provision of healthcare to its citizens from a human perspective and not an economic aspect. This means that the leader of the Islamic State looks to provide adequate and good quality healthcare to the people, not for the sake of having a healthy workforce that can contribute to the economy but for the sake of fulfilling his duty of looking after the needs of the people in obedience to Allah سبحانه وتعالى.

Medical excellence in Islamic history

When Islam is implemented as a complete system, it provides a means to excel in all fields such as science and technology. In the past, individuals under the Khilafah made a tremendous contribution to the medical field.

The Khilafah was blessed with many first class hospitals and doctors in several of its cities: Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Cordova, Samarqand and many more. Baghdad alone had sixty hospitals with in-patient and out-patient departments and over 1,000 physicians.

Public hospitals like the Bimaristan al-Mansuri Hospital, established in Cairo in 1283, had accommodation for 8,000 patients. There were two attendants for each patient who did everything for his/her comfort and convenience and every patient had his/her own bed, bedding and vessel for eating. It treated in-patients and out-patients giving them free food and medicine.

There were mobile dispensaries and clinics for the proper medical care of the disabled and those living in the villages. The Khalifah, Al-Muqtadir Billah, ordered that every mobile unit should visit each village and remain there for some days before moving to the next.

From the above historical accounts, we see that when the Khulafaa' properly implemented the rules of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, then and only then did a society truly thrive and succeed. However, it is important to keep in mind that material advancement does not equate with true success - seeking the pleasure of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. For the Khulafaa' it was not about simply providing medical services, rather it was to fulfil the needs of the citizens entrusted to them for which they will be held accountable for.

strange video fly over by nasa`s dawn probe reveals asteroid like a small planethuge rippled

• Ancient asteroid has iron core, like Earth
• Formed in similar way to our own planet
• Video flyover built from data obtained by orbiting satellite since 2011

It’s very unlikely that anyone on Earth will ever enjoy a flight over the huge asteroid vesta, the second-biggest in the asteroid belt – but Nasa’s satellite Dawn has created the next best thing.

The Nasa video ‘flyover’ has revealed that Vesta is a ‘building block’ of a planet, with an iron core, like Earth, which formed in a similar way to our planet and our own moon.

The video was created from Dawn’s collection of images built up since it entered orbit in July 2011, including the first looks inside mysterious craters first spotted by the hubble space telescope.

Scroll down for video

The video was created from Dawn’s enormous collection of data on the rock collected as it has orbited since July 2011, including the first looks inside mysterious craters first spotted by the hubble space telescope

 One of the ‘snowman’ group of craters on Vesta: The ‘flyover’ has revealed that Vesta is a ‘building block’ of a planet, with an iron core, like Earth, which formed in a similar way to our planet and our own moon

 Although Vesta and its family are located between Mars and Jupiter, smaller pieces of these asteroids can be found in meteorite collections on Earth, including most eucrite, howardite and diogenite meteorites

‘Dawn’s visit to Vesta has confirmed our broad theories of this giant asteroid’s history, while helping to fill in details it would have been impossible to know from afar,’ said Carol Raymond, deputy principal investigator at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.

‘Dawn’s residence at Vesta of nearly a year has made the asteroid’s planet-like qualities obvious and shown us our connection to that bright orb in our night sky.

Scientists now see Vesta as a layered, planetary building block with an iron core – the only one known to survive the earliest days of the solar system.

The asteroid’s geologic complexity can be attributed to a process that separated the asteroid into a crust, mantle and iron core with a radius of approximately 68 miles about 4.56 billion years ago. The terrestrial planets and Earth’s moon formed in a similar way.

Dawn observed a pattern of minerals exposed by deep gashes created by space rock impacts, which may support the idea the asteroid once had a subsurface magma ocean.

A magma ocean occurs when a body undergoes almost complete melting, leading to layered building blocks that can form planets. Other bodies with magma oceans ended up becoming parts of Earth and other planets.

Although Vesta and its family are located between Mars and Jupiter, smaller pieces of these asteroids can be found in meteorite collections on Earth, including most eucrite, howardite and diogenite meteorites

Data also confirm a distinct group of meteorites found on Earth did, as theorized, originate from Vesta.

The signatures of pyroxene, an iron- and magnesium-rich mineral, in those meteorites match those of rocks on Vesta’s surface.

These objects account for about 6 percent of all meteorites seen falling on Earth.

This makes the asteroid one of the largest single sources for Earth’s meteorites. The finding also marks the first time a spacecraft has been able to visit the source of samples after they were identified on Earth.

Scientists now know Vesta’s topography is quite steep and varied. Some craters on Vesta formed on very steep slopes and have nearly vertical sides, with landslides occurring more frequently than expected.

Another unexpected finding was that the asteroid’s central peak in the Rheasilvia basin in the southern hemisphere is much higher and wider, relative to its crater size, than the central peaks of craters on bodies like our moon. Vesta also bears similarities to other low-gravity worlds like Saturn’s small icy moons, and its surface has light and dark markings that don’t match the predictable patterns on Earth’s moon.

‘We know a lot about the moon and we’re only coming up to speed now on Vesta,’ said Vishnu Reddy, a framing camera team member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany and the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks. ‘Comparing the two gives us two storylines for how these fraternal twins evolved in the early solar system.’

Dawn has revealed details of ongoing collisions that battered Vesta throughout its history.

Dawn scientists now can date the two giant impacts that pounded Vesta’s southern hemisphere and created the basin Veneneia approximately 2 billion years ago and the Rheasilvia basin about 1 billion years ago. Rheasilvia is the largest impact basin on Vesta.

‘The large impact basins on the moon are all quite old,’ said David O’Brien, a Dawn participating scientist from the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson,  Arizona. ‘The fact that the largest impact on Vesta is so young was surprising.’

another foolish tactic to pressurize PAKISTAN

Hillary clinton, US Secretary of state is on Asian visit for 8 Days, passing 3 Days in India she seems to have given some innovative ideas to Indians in-order to further push Pakistan to the corner on the ‘Mumbai 26/11’ Issue. Ms.Clinton chose Indian soil to ask Pakistan to ‘Do-More’ against ‘Prof.Hafiz Saeed’ Ameer of Jamat ud Dawa, allegedly the founder of Lashker-e-Taiba whom Indian believes to be the master mind, and Hillary considers a ‘Principal Architect’ behing 26/11 attacks  in 2008. She also confirmed the $10 Million ‘Bounty’ on Saeed and also claimed that ayman al zawahiri’s strong hold to be somewhere in Pakistan.

Only a day after Ms.Clinton has left India, Indian intelligence agencies have alerted the Mumbai Police for a Serious Terror Alert in the same city known for the infamous attack four years ago, here is what india today has reported along with major indian media,

“Vital Installations in Mumbai were put on high-alert as the city faces a fresh Terror-Alert. The Mumbai Police has released photographs of five suspected Lashker-e-Taiba (LET ) terrorists who have sneaked into Mumbai.

Headlines Today accessed the photographs of these militants who have been allegedly planning to target vital installations

Sources told Headlines Today that the terrorists have sneaked into the city through sea-route”

This News went viral and indian media collectively initiated the campaign that they are famous for against Pakistan and to be precise, against ISI-LET or further simplified to Hafiz Saeed.

Before we narrow down, let’s have a close look at the pictures of these ‘terrorist’ that Indian intelligence had handed over to Mumbai Police, and so on to the Indian Media. As we write these lines, these ‘terrorists’ as India has labeled them, will be delivering a very intriguing press-conference in Lahore to reveal who they really are, we would most probably embed the video of the conference for you. Meanwhile, we would take this opportunity to break this news as our sources revealed instantly about these people, So,  let’s see who these people are.

1. Mehtab Butt (Center)

Shop Owner – 26 LG, Hafeez Center, Main Boulevard, Gulberg III, Lahore Phone 042-35713798, CNIC No: 35202-4221503-3

2. Atif Butt (Right)

Shop Owner – Sun Mobile – 125 Lower Ground, Center, Main Boulevard, Gulberg III, Lahore Phone 0321-8884565, CNIC No:35202-1394712-7

3. Baber (Left)

Security Guard at Center, Main Boulevard, Gulberg III, Lahore .

There goes the credibility of Indian agencies and Mumbai Police in to the abyss of deception that they have been preparing for Pakistan, its ISI and Individuals. They would certainly have not imagined such vigilant busting of their Terror-Myth. Unfortunately, Ms.hillary clinton’s advice seemed to have wasted by Indians in haste, miserably failed to nail Pakistan yet again on False-flags, it is high time that 26/11 Myth is also busted in a similar way. We are thankful to almighty, that Within hours we are able to ascertain the perpetrated deception by Indian Intelligence agencies that are preparing for a ‘False-Flag’ attack similar to 26/11 to further their nefarious designs against Pakistan with Hillary Clinton as its ‘principal architect’. Let’s not forget what Pakistanis from around the world trended on twitter for 3 days during her visit to India and her baseless allegations against Pakistan, yes, it was  let’s trend once more this time

the decline of america

The fall of America doesn't have to be a complete collapse -- it is, after all, a country that has managed to reinvent itself many times before. But today it's no longer certain -- or even likely -- that everything will turn out fine in the end. --Der Spiegel

The world as we know it is embroiled in a protracted political crisis that threatens to reshape the existing political order for decades to come. At stake is the fate of two political systems that are inextricably linked and are slowly unravelling on opposite sides of the globe.

In the West, the mighty European Union, once a bastion of stability and power is teetering on the brink of implosion. The euro-debt crisis that has engulfed the European continent threatens to unleash dark forces of nationalism that have remained dormant for sixty odd years.

In the East, the Arab world enslaved by the autocratic regimes implanted by the old European powers are falling like dominoes, and unveiling forces of change that are dynamic and untested.

These events when seen through the lens of optimism are interpreted positively by some; Europe will emerge stronger and more united than before, and the Arab world will be transformed into an oasis of liberty and democracy.

When viewed through the prism of realism a completely different picture emerges. The post-modern European experiment is fast coming to an end, and the Arab world is finally freeing itself from the vicious shackles of colonialism by dislodging pro-Western autocratic regimes. The demise of both political systems is no accident, and is tied to America's global decline. In many ways, the political systems of Europe and the Arab world are a product of American hegemony and ingenuity.

The Marshall Plan provided the edifice for America to control Europe's propensity for war and curb her ambitions to seek and maintain colonies abroad. Post World War II, American leaders sought to diminish Europe's domination of the world. As the historian John Lumberton Harper put it US President Roosevelt wanted "to bring about a radical reduction in the weight of Europe" and thereby make possible "the retirement of Europe from world politics" (Harper, American Visions of Europe: Franklin D. Roosevelt, George F. Kennan, and Dean G. Acheson, Cambridge UK, 1996).

Under the shadow of American economic aid and security architecture, Europe ravaged by war charted a new route towards a postmodernism—a break from the warring nation state which had consumed the continent in the past. Eventually, the European Union (EU) was born, where nationalism was finally suppressed and national sovereignty gave way to a transnational authority that presided in Brussels. Europeans marvelled at their postmodern creation and touted it as the natural evolution from the nation state model. A foremost proponent of this model, Robert Cooper an advisor to former Prime Minister Tony Blair, said, "The postmodern system in which we Europeans live does not rely on balance; nor does it emphasise sovereignty or the separation of domestic and foreign affairs. The European Union has become a highly developed system for mutual interference in each other's domestic affairs, right down to beer and sausages...It is important to realise what an extraordinary revolution this is." (The new liberal imperialism, The Guardian, Sunday April 7 2002). However, the birth of the postmodern state came at a cost. The EU was no position to challenge America's primacy in the world and lost many of its colonies to the US. America employed several means to subdue the EU, especially its most powerful member Germany: the enlargement of NATO, the expansion of the EU to include new member states, and the use of the single currency i.e. the euro.

Through this approach, America was able to control levers of economic and military power in Europe. This continued until the collapse of Lehman brothers, which brought the onset of the current economic depression. The American financial crisis is the real cause behind Europe's economic and political turmoil. It is precipitating the collapse of the EU thereby undermining sixty years of American primacy over European affairs. Probably, Germany will arise from the EU rubble as a major power capable of not only thwarting American interests in Europe, but supplanting her as the main provider of peace and security on the continent. The euro-crisis and not Germany's militarism has handed Berlin a carte blanche to cast European politics in its own image.

Another portent is that within the context of European history the postmodern experience is truly an anomaly. Europe's disposition is to eschew peace and engage in inter-warfare fuelled by unbridled nationalism and the quest for ascendancy over other nations.

The present day Arab world owes much of its political structures and institutions to the old European powers that colonised it. However, after 1945, America emerged as the world's leading state and entered the Arab world with the intention of displacing British and French influence, and usurping the oil fields of the Middle East. The US state department described the find as "[the Middle East is] a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."

America had no intention of dismantling the despotic regimes; rather she sought to place her own agents to run these regimes while making false pretences about delivering freedom and democracy around the world. America armed with the "Truman Doctrine" proceeded to deprive the Arab world the freedom from tyranny and the ability to rule for themselves. She covertly buttressed these regimes to keep the Arab population imprisoned and subdued. But in 2011, popular revolts erupted throughout the region, removed a few tyrants, and destabilised the political order America had so painstakingly put together.

Today the political landscape is no longer dominated by secularists; a new wave of Islamic revival has hastened to fill the void. In Morocco, Tunisia, and Egypt political Islam is on the ascendancy and its dominance pervades the political medium. Most probably Libya and Yemen will follow suit. Nothing epitomises the Islamic trend better than the stir caused by the moderate Tunisian Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali who referred to the present time as"a divine moment in a new state, and in hopefully a 6th Caliphate," and that "the liberation of Tunisia will, God willing, bring about the liberation of Jerusalem." If the moderates possess grandiose designs to resurrect the Caliphate then one can only image what most of the Arab masses covet.

The nation state concept is alien to the Arab world, and was imported to the region by European powers. The natural inclination of the Arab masses is to gravitate towards the caliphate—a political system that kept them united under a single leader for well over a thousand years. And certainly the Arab world is firmly on that trajectory, no matter what the American government contrives to portray.

As America struggles to manage its decline, the fate of two political systems is about to change for good. The world will then return to the pre-1945 model—a multipolar world, dominated by different centres of geopolitical influence, with the caliphate at its helm.

ABID MUSTAFA

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.