Aims and Objectives of the Khilafah State according to ayat-41 of Surah al-Hajj

Allah (swt) says :

الَّذِينَ إِن مَّكَّنَّاهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ أَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ وَأَمَرُوا بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَنَهَوْا عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَلِلَّهِ عَاقِبَةُ الْأُمُورِ

তারা এমন লোক যাদেরকে আমি পৃথিবীতে শক্তি-সামর্থ্য দান করলে তারা নামায কায়েম করবে, যাকাত দেবে এবং সৎকাজে আদেশ ও অসৎকাজে নিষেধ করবে। প্রত্যেক কর্মের পরিণাম আল্লাহর এখতিয়ারভূক্ত।
“Those (Muslim rulers) who, if We give them power in the land, (they) order for Iqamat-as-Salât. [i.e. to perform the five compulsory congregational Salât (prayers) (the males in mosques)], to pay the Zakât and they enjoin Al-Ma’rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm orders one to do), and forbid Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief, polytheism and all that Islâm has forbidden) [i.e. they make the Qur’ân as the law of their country in all the spheres of life]. And with Allâh rests the end of (all) matters (of creatures).”

Here we have 4 fundamental objectives to establish Khilafah. They are - (You can find the answer and write it in comments).

এই ১১ দল সমূহ কি কি ?

ইসলামী রাষ্ট্রের ‍পরিচয়

ইসলামী রাষ্ট্র বলা হয় এমন রাষ্ট্রকে যে রাষ্ট্র ইসলামী নীতি তথা কোরআন-সুন্নাহর ভিত্তিতে পরিচালিত হয়। এভাবেও বলা যেতে পারে, যে রাষ্ট্রে মহান আল্লাহর একচ্ছত্র প্রভুত্ব, আধিপত্য ও আইন রচনার নিরংকুশ অধিকার প্রতিষ্ঠিত। সকল মানুষ আল্লাহর বান্দা এবং তাঁর নিকট সকলেরই দায়ী হওয়ার সুস্পষ্ট স্বীকৃতির ওপরে যে রাষ্ট্র পরিচালিত হয়, তাকে ইসলামী রাষ্ট্র বলে। অর্থাৎ, যে রাষ্ট্রের পরিচালনা, নীতি-নির্ধারণ, প্রশাসন তথা সর্বক্ষেত্রে ইসলামী নীতির পূর্ণ অনুসরণ করা হয়, সেটিই হল ইসলামী রাষ্ট্র।

দারুল ইসলাম

ইসলামী রাষ্ট্রবিজ্ঞানের দৃষ্টিতে ইসলামী রাষ্ট্রকে বলা হয় ‘দারুল ইসলাম’। মুসলিম রাষ্ট্রবিজ্ঞানী, মনীষী ও ফিকহবিদগণ ইসলামী রাষ্ট্রকে ‘দারুল ইসলাম’ বলেই উল্লেখ করেছেন। এখানে ‘দার’ শব্দটি আধুনিক রাষ্ট্রবিজ্ঞানে ব্যবহৃত ‘রাষ্ট্র’ বা `State' এরই সমার্থবোধক। ফিকহবিদগণ দারুল ইসলামের সংজ্ঞা দিয়ে বলেছেন, “দারুল ইসলাম হল এমন দেশ যেখানে মুসলমানদের নেতৃত্বে ও কর্তৃত্বে ইসল‍ামের যাবতীয় নিয়ম-নীতি প্রতিষ্ঠিত”।

কোন কোন ফিকহবিদ এর মতে, ইসলামী রাষ্ট্র হওয়ার জন্য অধিবাসীদের মুসলমান হওয়া শর্ত নয়, বরং রাষ্ট্রের শাসক মুসলমান হওয়া এবং আল্লাহর সার্বভৌম ক্ষমতা প্রতিষ্ঠিত থাক‍া তথা ইসলামী বিধি-বিধান অনুসারে শাসন সম্পাদন করাই ‘ইসলামী রাষ্ট্র’ হওয়ার জন্য যথেষ্ট।

ইমাম শাফেয়ী (রহ) এই মত পোষণ করেন। তিনি বলেন, “ইসলামী রাষ্ট্র হওয়ার জন্য অধিবাসীদের মুসলমান হওয়া শর্ত নয়, বরং রাষ্ট্রক্ষমতা মুসলমানদের নেতার হাতে থাকা এবং তাকে ইসলামী বিধান মেনে চলাই যথেষ্ট।”

ইমাম আবু হানীফা (রহ) এর মতে, “যে ভূখণ্ডের অধিকাংশ অধিবাসী মুসলমান এবং শাসক ইসলামের নিয়ম-নীতি অনুসারে রাষ্ট্রের যাবতীয় কার্য সম্পাদন করেন, তাকে ইসলামী রাষ্ট্র বলা হয়।

ইবনে খালদুন (রহ) এর মতে, “ইসলামী শরীয়তের দাবী অনুসারে নাগরিকদের ইহজাগতিক ও পারলৌকিক কল্যাণ সাধনের সর্বাধিক দায়িত্ব গ্রহণকারী রাজনৈতিক প্রতিষ্ঠানই হল ইসলামী রাষ্ট্র।”

محاكمة 16 عضواً في كتائب جند اليمن

محاكمة 16 عضواً في كتائب جند اليمن

صبري مجاهد
26/05/2009

To read this news in English, please visit www.khilafahonline.blogspot.com

(our another site)

اثنان من المتهمين بالتخطيط لهجمات إرهابية على السفارات الغربية والفنادق التي يرتادها الأجانب يجلسان وراء القضبان في محكمة أمن الدولة في صنعاء. (وكالة رويترز)
صنعاء - حددت المحكمة الجزائية المتخصصة، المكلفة بالنظر في قضايا الإرهاب في اليمن، جلسة الثاني من شهر حزيران/ يونيو للنظر في المرافعات الختامية الخاصة بقضية خلية تريم التابعة لتنظيم القاعدة. وتتضمن الخلية 11 مواطناً يمنياً، ومواطناً سعودياً من أصل يمني، و4 مواطنين سوريين.



وقد وجهت النيابة العامة العديد من الاتهامات إلى أعضاء الخلية، ومنها القيام بتنفيذ عمليات إرهابية خلال العامين الماضيين في منشآت عسكرية ونفطية وسياحية في كل من حضرموت، وعدن، وصنعاء، وشبوة، ومأرب. كما اتهمت النيابة العامة الخلية بتنفيذ هجمات عدائية ضد سفارتي الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية وإيطاليا، ومدرسة سبعة تموز/ يوليو للبنات، الواقعة بالقرب من السفارة الأمريكية، فضلاً عن التعرض لممثلي النقاط العسكرية وغيرها من العمليات الإرهابية.



وشهدت الجلسة التي عقدت برئاسة القاضي محسن علوان، إيضاح ممثل الادعاء أن المتهمين، وغالبيتهم عائدون من العراق، قد قاموا بالاعتداء على مجموعة السياح البلجيكيين في مدينة تريم، الواقعة بمحافظة حضرموت، العام الماضي في حادث أسفر عن مصرع سائحتين وسائق يمني.



وقام ممثل الادعاء أيضاً باستعراض عدد من التقارير الطبية حول حالة الجنود الذين أصيبوا في العمليات الإرهابية التي قام بها المتهمون، بالإضافة إلى تقديم تقريري معاينة، بتاريخ 28 آذار/ مارس 2008، للصواريخ التي سقطت على مقر شركة جيكو الصينية، الواقعة بمنطقة خشعة بمحافظة حضرموت.



وأوضح الادعاء أن المتهمين قاموا بشراء بعض المواد الكيماوية ومنها حمض النيتريك، وحمض الكبريتيك، وهي أحماض تستخدم في صنع المتفجرات. كما أكد أن رجال الأمن ضبطوا في وكر خلية تريم جهاز كمبيوتر بداخله اسطوانة تضم شعارهم وفكرهم والعمليات الإرهابية التي تمّ تنفيذها، منها الاعتداء على السياح البلجيكيين، بالإضافة إلى مجموعة من الملفات التي تشرح كيفية تصنيع المتفجرات، والتي تمّ استخراجها من شبكة الانترنت.



وقامت هيئة الدفاع والمتهمين بنفي جميع التهم الموجهة إليهم.



المصادر: صحيفة الخليج، موقع الصحوة الإخباري، صحيفة الوطن.

الأسم
البريد الالكتروني للمرسل اليه
رسالة شخصية

*ادخل الأرقام

ليس بامكانك روية الارقام أعلاه؟

*بامكانك الأرسال بالبريد الالكتروني لخمسة أشخاص فقط في آن واحد

احفظ في القائمة المفضلة (بوك مارك)

The Concept of Education in Islam (Written by Dr. Absar Ahmad)

The Concept of Education in Islam

It is both fashionable and academically useful sometime to understand and analyze etymological definitions. In the case of English words, these are definitions in terms of the word from which it was derived (normally Greek or Latin). In this sense the word "education" is taken to come out either from educere or educure. In the first sense to educate is to "lead out or bring out," while in the second it means to "form or train." According to an eminent British scholar, G. Langford, education is an activity which aims at practical results in contrast with activities which aim at theoretical results. We agree with Prof. R.S. Peters when he says that education forms a "family" of ideas united by a complicated network of similarities which overlap and criss-cross.

It will be generally agreed that education forms the most important link between man’s past and future. In fact, it constitutes that process of evaluation and transmission, of coping with the present and planning for the future, which determines a community’s survival. It is through education that the cultural heritage, knowledge, and values of a social group are preserved and the continuity of its collective life ensured. In short, education imparts meaning to the existence of a culture and helps it sustain its world-view. As such, it cannot be equated with a mere inventory of the paraphernalia and instruments of instruction, including even institutions and external structures. On the contrary, in every meaningful and constructive way education is inextricably linked with the general intellectualism of a culture, the principal task of which is to provide a forum for self-analysis, criticism, and search for authenticity. Educational philosophy, therefore, not only shapes the destiny and identity of any historical community in its functions as the guardian and cultivator of values, it is also the very basis of all culture and civilization.

Endorsing the above ideas, the well-known Pakistani educationist, the late Dr. Mahmood Hussain, writes in a collection of excellent articles entitled Education and Culture: "Education is a social process and it receives its meaning and essential logic from the human society of which it is a part. In its broadest sense the totality of human experience within the society, whether tangible or intangible, is called its culture.... This consensus within a society, which is both emotional and intellectual, is what gives a culture its inner source of strength and motive force.… The cementing force within a society is a system of sentiments which we can call its value-system. The system of values is essentially a set of inter-related ideas, concepts and practices to which strong sentiments are attached. The value system is nurtured and reinforced primarily by the system of beliefs of a group and by its sense of history and traditions."

In a similar vein the above mentioned ideas are emphasized by A.K. Brohi thus: "By education we understand a participation in a cultural process by which successive generations of men and women take their place in our national history upon the foundation of an ideological commitment to the Islamic way of life, and a certain manner of thinking and action conforming to its tenets and commands." (Cf., Education in an Ideological State, published in Aims and Objectives of Islamic Education ed. S.M. Al-Naquib Attas).

One of the most damaging effects of Western colonialism has been the creation in all colonized countries, particularly Muslim countries, of a class of people called "the elite" but which may be more appropriately called the "deluded hybrids". They are the products of the imposed system of education, which is designed to create a class which is almost totally uprooted from its cultural and moral traditions. They were nurtured as alternatives to the Ulama (men of real knowledge and character) who had refused, with remarkable consistency, to have anything to do with the colonial government. The Euro-Christian educational system of the colonial powers was purposely designed to destroy the identity of its victims while at the same time exalting the European race and culture. The elite class in many Muslim countries exhibits, like their European counterparts, a servile spirit, and can only play the role of slaves to political and cultural imperialism. This obtains even when they claim to be free. This is, of course, in marked contrast to those who are imbibed with true Islamic values and are educated as Muslims. They have remained intellectually and morally independent and do not exhibit, even for one moment, the sickening servility and moral emptiness from which the colonial elite suffer. This is so because the Islamic education, as the celebrated African scholar, Edward Blyden has observed, elevates and exalts the human personality in Africa. On the other hand, the Euro-Christian education which dominates African education today, degrades and demoralizes the human personality. (Cf., Christianity, Islam, and the Negro Race, Edinburgh University Press, 1967.)

What produced this difference between Islam and imperialism, Blyden explains, is that "when the religion (Islam) was first introduced it found the people possessing all the elements and enjoying all the privileges of an untrammeled manhood. They received it as giving them additional power to exert an influence in the world. It sent them forth as the guides and instructors of their favored neighbors, and endowed them with self-respect which men feel who acknowledge no superior. While it brought them a great deal that was absolutely new, and inspired them with spiritual feelings to which they had before been strangers, it strengthened and hastened certain tendencies to independence and self-reliance which were already at work. On the other hand, Christian influences, along with other colonial menaces were imposed on the African when he had already been dispossessed of his freedom and had been put in chains." Along with the Christian teaching, says Blyden, "he [the African] and his children received lessons of their utter and permanent inferiority and subordination to their instructors, to whom they stood in the relation of Chattels.... their development was necessarily partial and one-sided, cramped and abnormal. All tendencies to independent individuality were repressed and destroyed. Their ideas and aspiration could be expressed only in conformity with the views and tastes of those who ruled over them." Consequently, those who have gone through this slave education suffer from "general degradation" and could only play "the part of the slave, ape or puppet" as Blyden laments.

A system of education derives its legitimacy from its world-view. Contemporary Western concept of education is a sibling of the reductive, arrogant, and capitalistic world-view of Western civilization. The West "secularized" knowledge in order to overthrow religion and Truth. On the contrary, the concept of education in Islam incorporates positive spiritual and social dimensions. It makes sense only within the ethical and social frame-work of Islamic metaphysical world-view. As modern ecology has taught us, and Western science is rediscovering, nothing in nature behaves as an isolated system. Everything is connected to everything else — an all-pervasive principle of interconnectedness is in operation. Thus, there is no such thing as pure physics or pure economics devoid of social, political, cultural, environmental and spiritual concerns. Looking specifically on the subject of education, it is worth remembering that data or information of any sort is not generated in a vacuum. It is accumulated in accordance with a pre-conceived pattern and purpose. Its subsequent analysis and dissemination is thus only an extension of the data generation process. Indeed, an authentic classification scheme, or — to use a somewhat Kantian phraseology — a categorical framework must precede collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of information. If it is not sufficiently realized by a Muslim intellectual and educationist, he would unwittingly end up promoting an alien world-view. Saturation with information without the analytical capabilities to sift it, and the value-bias involved in the generation and use of data, are the twin problems which need to be firmly kept in mind by a convinced and committed Muslim if one is not trapped in false illusion of the "information ocean" and if one is to remain faithful to one’s tradition and metaphysical world-view.

For a true Muslim, Islam is the norm for judging and evaluating everything. Not very long ago the dearth of information on a particular subject was the limiting factor on one’s correct cognition of events. With the advances in communication and information technologies, there is an avalanche of data being generated and exchanged. Now one can safely say the limiting factor on analysis of a particular fact or event is too much raw data and too little analysis or too ill-developed analytical tools or norms to handle the data adequately. However, as any intelligent person can see, there is a vital difference between the two situations. Previously the sheer lack of data meant that those privileged to have access could manipulate the information to serve their ends at will. Now, provided one develops sufficiently powerful analytical tools and normative categories, most situations can be understood in their proper perspective. The purveyors of information and so-called value-free empirical data have thus resorted to other means to confuse the public. They bombard the populace with a mass of raw data so that an impression is given that all that is to be known about a situation or reality is available, and the interpretation given to them by the media is the only valid one. Soon, an unshakable image about the "facts of the case" is formed in the public mind which, in turn, is used to shape events and achieve desired results. The Islamic concept of knowledge (ilm) and the process of education is diametrically opposed to all this humbug. In order to sift the relevant from the irrelevant, Muslims have their own scheme of classification, as the mental effort of "constructing" facts precedes their collection.

As a matter of fact it is the Islamic concept of knowledge — ilm — which must form the basis of the theoretical and institutional structure of education in Islam. In other words, what makes education truly Islamic is the fact that it is based on a genuinely Islamic notion of knowledge. The concept of ilm, as has been argued forcefully in recent years by numerous Muslim scholars, integrates the pursuit of knowledge with values, envelopes factual insight with metaphysical concerns, and promotes an outlook of balance and genuine synthesis. This is the ultimate difference between the western notion of knowledge which keeps "knowledge" and "values" in two separate compartments, and does not appreciate any form of knowledge which is not gained by sense perception. The integral world-view of Islam, on the other hand, furnishes us with a number of concepts which, when operationalized and actualized in all their sophistication at various levels of society and civilization, yield an integrated infrastructure for the distribution of knowledge. In addition to the core concept of Tauheed, at least five other Islamic concepts — of ilm (knowledge), adl (justice), Ibadah (worship) Khilafah (trusteeship), istislah (social welfare) — have a direct bearing on education to be pursued in the true Islamic spirit. The all-embracing Qur’anic concept of ilm shaped the outlook of the Muslim people right from the beginning of Islam in Arabia. Islam actually made the pursuit of knowledge a religious obligation: by definition, to be a Muslim is to be deeply entrenched in the generation, production and dissemination of knowledge. This is significantly borne out by the first revelation of Iqra (Read!) given to our beloved Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Again the concept of ilm here is not a limiting or elitist notion. Ilm is distributive knowledge — it is not a monopoly of a few individuals, or a certain class, group, or gender; to acquire it is not an obligation only for a few, absolving the vast majority of the society; it is not limited to a particular field of inquiry or discipline but covers all dimensions of human awareness and the entire spectrum of natural phenomena. Indeed, it seems that the Holy Qur’an places ilm at par with adl; the pursuit of knowledge is as important as the pursuit of justice. One is an instrument for achieving the other. Only when knowledge is widely and easily available to all segments of society can justice be established in its Islamic manifestations. The Islamic civilization has rightly been described by some historians as the civilization of "the book."

Dr. Ismail Raji Al-Faruqi, in his perceptive work entitled Tawhid: Its implications for Thought and Life, has unfolded in a very scholarly fashion the paramount importance of the concept of Tauheed in the ideational and practical spheres of a Muslim polity. We fully agree with him that Iman is primarily and basically a cognitive or gnoseological category. That is to say, it has to do with knowledge, with the truthfulness of its propositions. And since the nature of its prepositional content is that of first principle of logic and knowledge, of metaphysics, of ethics and aesthetics, it follows that it acts in the believer as a light which illumines everything. As Al-Ghazali has described it, Iman is a vision which puts all other data and facts in the perspective which is proper to, and requisite for, a true understanding of them. It is the grounding for a rational interpretation of the universe. In itself, the prime principal of reason cannot be non-rational or irrational, and hence in contradiction with itself. To deny or oppose it is to lapse from reasonableness and hence from humanity.

In the end it must be said that only by rooting their education policy firmly in the matrix of Islamic concepts can Muslim countries generate the type of intellectual energy and productivity needed not only to meet the problems of the contemporary Ummah, but also to rejuvenate and re-establish Islam. A Muslim needs to penetrate beyond the external form of the Modern Age to understand and grasp its transcendental nature and reality. We firmly believe that a dynamic and pulsating faith is not possible to attain unless our knowledge-edifice is firmly based on the spiritual foundations of the Qur’an and Hadith. It is heartening to note that a number of Islamic revivalist movements as well as organizations in the private sector are engaged in educating and training youths and scholars from the Islamic perspective.

Written By: by Dr. Absar Ahmad (Tanzeemi Islami)

Constitutional and Legislative Framework of Khilafah - (written by Dr. Israr Ahmad)

Constitutional and Legislative Framework of Khilafah

Dr. Israr Ahmad

In the present article, we shall discuss the practical issues relating to the constitutional and legislative framework of a modern Islamic State, or the structure of the System of Khilafah in modern times.

Discourse on the System of Khilafah in the 20th Century

The establishment of Hukumat-e-Ilahiyah (i.e., God’s Sovereignty) was the goal before Hizbullah, the short-lived Islamic revivalist party established by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad back in 1913. After the retreat of Maulana Azad, Dr. Abdul Sattar Khairi and Dr. Abdul Jabbar Khairi, the famous Khari Brothers — endeavored for some time to achieve the same goal. It is not clear whether these leaders had any clear framework of the envisioned Hukumat-e-Ilahiyah in their minds. Thus, although the basic principle was well-articulated, practical steps and concrete details regarding how the System of Khilafah will actually function probably remained vague and unclear.

The first individual to have systematically applied his intellectual genius in this matter and to have contributed his thoughts was none other than Allama Muhammad Iqbal. He not only explained and elaborated the concept of an Islamic State in his poetry but also presented his observations and opinions about it in his Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. Iqbal has emphasized in his poetry that sovereignty belongs to Almighty Allah (SWT) alone, Who is the Supreme Ruler, and to nobody else. He has also referred to the concept of the vicegerency of man. In the sixth lecture of Reconstruction, entitled "The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam," Iqbal has made the following observation:

The republican form of government is not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam, but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that are set free in the world of Islam. (p. 125)

Concerning the issue of Ijtihad, Iqbal has said:

The growth of republican spirit and the gradual formation of legislative assemblies in Muslim lands constitute a great step in advance. The transfer of the power of Ijtihad from individual representatives of schools to a Muslim legislative assembly which, in view of the growth of opposing sects, is the only possible form Ijma‘ can take in modern times, will secure contributions to legal discussion from laymen who happen to possess a keen insight into affairs. (p. 138)

We have given these two quotes because we fully agree with both of these observations. Unfortunately, some of our intellectuals are presenting a secularized interpretation of Iqbal’s view about Ijtihad, the essence of which is quoted above. Foremost among them is Dr. Javid Iqbal, with whom we strongly disagree on this issue. (Cf., Iqbal, Dr. Javid., "The Problem of Implementing Iqbal’s Ideas in Pakistan" in the Daily Dawn, Magazine Section, June 21, 1998).

Allama Iqbal had delivered his famous lectures in 1928. Eleven years later, in 1939, Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi gave a lecture in Lahore that was later published under the title Islam ka Nazaria-e-Siyasi. As far as theoretical exposition is concerned, we believe that Maulana Maududi was the greatest political scientist among the Muslims of our times. In his above-mentioned booklet, Maulana Maududi has described two key terms in connection with Islamic political doctrine. The first is theo-democracy and the other is popular vicegerency.

By coining the term theo-democracy, Maulana Maududi has emphasized the point that the Islamic political system is neither a pure theocracy nor a full-fledged Western style democracy, but that it has elements of both. We would describe the concept of a theo-democracy by borrowing a similitude from a hadith of the Holy Prophet (SAW). According to a tradition reported by Abu Saeed Al-Khudri (RAA) and narrated by Imam Ahmad (RA), the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) compared a believer with a horse that is bound to a peg with a rope. If we extend this similitude a little further, we can see that this can serve as an excellent way of describing the combination of freedom and restriction that is characteristic of a believer’s life. Suppose you have a horse that you do not want to lose, then you must use a rope to restrain it; at the same time, you want the horse to run around a bit so that its muscles may not get weak by disuse. To prevent the horse from running away, you would secure it to a peg; but to make sure that it gets some exercise, you would use a rather long rope. If the rope is 100 meters long, for instance, the horse will be free within this circle of 100 meters radius. The horse can do whatever it wants within that circle, but it cannot go beyond the circle. Applying this similitude to the behavior that is required of us, we can see that although we are free within the limits of the Shari‘ah, we cannot — under any circumstances whatsoever — transgress those limits, as these constitute hudud Allah, the limits set by the Creator Lord. The clear injunctions of Qur’an and Sunnah constitute the hudud Allah which can be neither amended nor abrogated. No one has the authority to change these limits, not even the entire body of a legislative assembly!

The restriction of staying within the limits of the Shari‘ah constitutes the theo element in the Islamic political system. There is no special or privileged class of priests or infallible religious divines in Islam. The inclusion of the word theo, therefore, does not imply the rule of any particular ecclesiastic class or group. Instead, it refers to the fact that, just like an individual Muslim, the Islamic State must remain within the limits of the Shari‘ah and must not transgress the hudud Allah.

In the similitude described above, the area enclosed by the circle represents all that is lawful, permissible, and legitimate, what is called mubah in Islamic terminology. This circle of freedom deals with what the Holy Qur’an calls amruhum — "their affairs." According to the Qur’an, "…the conduct of their affairs is by mutual consultation…" (Al-Shura 42:38). Of course, no legislative assembly in an Islamic State can change in any way the injunctions of Qur’an and Sunnah, even by full consensus. The "mutual consultation," therefore, is meant only for those affairs in which the choice is between two or more lawful alternatives. In the Islamic scheme of things, if all the available options in a particular case are mubah, the matter should be decided by discussion, deliberation, and mutual consultation. In this regard, there is absolutely nothing wrong if the final decision is reached by a counting of votes. Under the System of Khilafah, all the higher values of democracy can be incorporated within the circle of the lawful or mubah. However, it should be clear that one of the basic principles of democracy that "sovereignty belongs to the people" is totally incompatible with the Islamic spirit, as it challenges the basic Islamic principle of "Divine Sovereignty" which necessitates the supremacy of Qur’an and Sunnah.

The second term coined by Maulana Abul Ala Maududi to describe the political theory of Islam was that of popular vicegerency. He coined this term to delineate the fact that Islam rejects the idea of "popular sovereignty." Although this is a satisfactory term, we would suggest an improvement to prevent any misunderstanding. In the Islamic political system, the Khilafah or vicegerency actually belongs to the Muslims rather than to all the citizens of a given nation-state irrespective of their beliefs. Instead of popular vicegerency, therefore, we use the term collective vicegerency of the Muslims.

Khilafah — Essence & Form

The entire concept of Khilafah is based on the rejection or negation of human sovereignty. The Holy Qur’an repeatedly proclaims that absolute sovereignty belongs to Almighty Allah (SWT) alone. Since human beings cannot claim to be sovereigns, all they are left with, therefore, is vicegerency. Man is not sovereign in his own right, but he is the khalifah of Allah — the vicegerent of God. The Holy Qur’an describes the status of Adam (AS) in these words: "And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: Verily, I am going to appoint a vicegerent in earth…" (Al-Baqarah 2:30).

The relationship between Divine Sovereignty and human vicegerency can be easily understood by means of the following example. Under the Colonial Raj in India, sovereignty belonged to the British King or Queen, but there was always a viceroy present in India whose duty it was to implement the orders that he would receive from His Majesty’s or Her Majesty’s Government. In matters concerning which there was no express order from the sovereign, however, the viceroy was free to evaluate the situation himself and, keeping the fundamental aims of his Government in mind, to take a decision using his best judgment. This is precisely the relationship between Divine Sovereignty and human vicegerency, with one significant difference. The British sovereign needed a viceroy because of the long distance that separated the ruler and the ruled. On the other hand, Almighty Allah (SWT) is Omnipresent and the limitations of time and space do not apply to His Exalted Being. However, the creatures and the Creator are separated by the veil of ghaib: we cannot see Him, neither are we able to communicate with Him directly. Since the Real Sovereign is hidden, a vicegerent is needed to implement His Orders and execute His Will.

As far as the actual form of implementation is concerned, the following point should be noted. Before the institution of prophethood was concluded, the prophets of Allah (SWT) were His vicegerents in their individual capacities. In other words, by virtue of the fact that they used to receive direct revelation from Almighty Allah (SWT), all prophets were His representatives on earth; they were responsible for implementing His Orders and executing His Will. This implies that Khilafah, before the conclusion of prophethood, was strictly individual and personal, as it used to be the prerogative of a single person, i.e., the prophet, to implement and execute the orders of the Real Sovereign. Thus, Almighty Allah (SWT) has addressed Prophet Daud (AS) in these words: "O Daud! Verily, We have made you a vicegerent in the earth…." (Saad 38:26). Those who know the Arabic language will appreciate that the address here is in second person singular: Almighty Allah (SWT) is addressing only Prophet Daud (AS). It should also be appreciated that although Prophet Daud (AS) was a king, his rule actually had nothing to do with kingship or monarchy in the ordinary sense — mulukiyyah in Arabic — as he did not rule by his personal whims and desires but, in fact, executed the orders that he received from Almighty Allah (SWT), the Real Sovereign. Thus, Prophet Daud (AS) was a vicegerent of Almighty Allah (SWT) in his personal capacity. In contrast, the Egyptian Pharaohs used to claim the right of absolute sovereignty for themselves, and they did not recognize any Higher Authority whose orders they were supposed to obey and implement. Thus, the rule of Prophet Daud (AS) and that of a Pharaoh were diametrically opposed to each other, although apparently they were both kings!

With the advent of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), the institution of prophethood reached its highest echelon and also came to an end. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was the last person who was a Khlifah of Almighty Allah (SWT) in his personal and individual capacity. The institution of Khilafah can no longer continue as an individual and personal affair after the termination of prophethood, as no one can claim that he is receiving direct revelation from God. Thus, after the demise of the Holy Prophet (SAW), the institution of Khilafah must become the collective affair of the entire Muslim community rather than the individual affair of the prophet. Concerning this, Almighty Allah (SWT) says in the Qur’an: "Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them Khilafah in the land…" (Al-Noor 24:55). Note that the address here is in the third personal plural, which indicates that Khilafah is now for the collectivity of Muslims rather than for any single individual.

There is a very significant point towards which we want to draw your attention. We have just seen how, with the social and intellectual evolution of mankind, Khilafah or vicegerency had to be transformed from an individual responsibility to a collective one. Parallel with this development, the concept and form of human sovereignty has also undergone a crucial transformation. Before the advent of democracy, human sovereignty used to be an individual matter, i.e., a king or monarch would rule the masses according to his personal wishes; now, however, this too has become a collective affair. With the development of the concept of democracy, we now have popular sovereignty instead of individual sovereignty. But note that popular sovereignty is as hateful an evil as individual sovereignty, as both represent a state of rebellion against the Creator. Thus, one of Satan’s advisers observes in Allama Iqbal’s Iblees ki Majils-e-Shura (The Devil’s Parliament):

We have ourselves given kingship the garb of people’s rule,

When we saw man becoming self-conscious and independent.

The point to be noted here is that there is no essential difference between individual sovereignty or monarchy on the one hand and collective sovereignty or democracy on the other. Both are different manifestations of political shirk, both are Satanic in origin, both represent rebellion against God. It was the impact of the liberating teachings of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in the form of the Just Social Order of Islam that caused common people to realize their rights, and raised their level of self-consciousness and self-respect. Realizing that man is becoming conscious of his status and capabilities and becoming more and more free from all kinds of bondage, Satan saw that it would no longer be possible to lure human beings into submitting before monarchs and autocrats. He, therefore, turned the "king’s right to rule" into the "rule of the masses," hiding the filth of human sovereignty behind the attractive veneer of democracy. Despite their differences, therefore, both democracy and monarchy are based on the assumption that human beings have the absolute right to rule —individually in the first case, collectively in the latter — and this is clearly un-Islamic!

Khilafah on the Pattern of Prophethood: Implementation in Modern Times

In this context, the following points should be noted:

Two terms should be clearly distinguished from each other. Khilafah Ala Minhaj Al-Nabuwwah can be translated as the "System of Caliphate on the pattern of prophethood." This term is applicable both to the era of Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah — the Rightly Guided Caliphate following the demise of the Holy Prophet (SAW) — as well as to the age of Khilafah that will make its appearance in the future. Although "Caliphate on the pattern of prophethood" will certainly be established in the world, in accordance with the prophecies of the Holy Prophet (SAW), the era of the "Rightly Guided Caliphate" will never be recreated. In other words, there is no possibility of establishing an exact replica of Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah in modern times. We would substantiate this statement with the following four arguments:

The age of the Rightly Guided Caliphate was, in fact, an appendix or addendum of the age of prophethood itself. Since the institution of prophethood has come to an end, there can be no possibility of another Rightly Guided Caliphate.

The four Rightly Guided Caliphs of Islam were trained and educated by the Prophet (SAW) himself, who had purified the souls of his Companions (RAA) to the utmost degree. This feat of training and purification as achieved by the Holy Prophet (SAW) cannot be repeated by anyone, ever. Since we can never have such a high level of sincerity of intent, integrity of character, and inner purification that was the hallmark of the Companions (RAA), we cannot hope to re-create the kind of rule that was Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah.

There was a clear-cut and unambiguous hierarchy among the Companions (RAA) of the Holy Prophet (SAW). It was well known as to who were the Ashrah Mubasharah, the People of Badr, the People of the Baiy‘ah Al-Ridwan, and so on. This factor too will be absent in our times.

The society was basically tribal in character. This meant that instead of adult franchise, it was sufficient to take the opinion of the elders of each clan before taking any important decision. This is no longer the case in our times.

Due to the four reasons given above, it is simply impossible to re-establish an exact replica of Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah in modern times.

Since we cannot recreate as such the Islamic Order as it functioned during the Rightly Guided Caliphate, we must adopt the following principle: We should take the principles and ideals from the model of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs (RAA), and then incorporate these principles and ideals in the political institutions that have been developed in the contemporary civilized world as a result of the process of social evolution.

It should be noted that the concepts of political and economic rights of man, which are claimed to have been born and developed in the West, were actually derived and borrowed from the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Thus, to say that all human beings are born equal, that every human being has certain inalienable rights (including the provision of basic necessities of life) concerning which there must not be any discrimination on the basis of gender, race, color, caste, or creed, and that all forms of exploitation — whether political or economic — must not be allowed to continue in a decent and humane society, is to express the basic tenets of an ideal Islamic State as given by Prophet Muhammad (SAW), as well as to describe the most remarkable features of the era of Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah. Both the evolution of social thought and development of political institutions that took place in Europe after the decline of the Muslim Ummah have as their foundations the highest ideals of social justice that were given to mankind by the Holy Prophet (SAW) himself. The movements of Renaissance and Reformation appeared in Europe predominantly under the influence of German, French, and Italian scholars returning from the universities of Cordova, Toledo, and Granada in Muslim Spain, and carrying with them novel and revolutionary ideas. There is, therefore, nothing wrong in taking from the West what she has acquired by the application of principles originating from Islam itself. Just as we use the technological innovations that were developed by non-Muslim scientists, we should also make full use of the modern political institutions — in accordance with the spirit of Islam.

(C) As far as the details of the workings of state and government is concerned, there is no definite and binding framework provided to us by the Qur’an and Sunnah. As a matter of fact, all the various forms of government that are in vogue today are essentially permissible in Islam. From an Islamic point of view, it does not make any difference if the government is unitary, confederal, or federal, and whether it is presidential or parliamentary, etc. However, we do need to recognize that the system of the Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah was a unitary system and closer in spirit to the modern presidential form of government as compared to the parliamentary form. We also need to realize that this is not binding for us. In this regard, the form of government that has been developed in the United States of America represents the highest stage of political evolution, and we can certainly learn a lot from this system. The American form of government is presidential and federal, with maximum autonomy to the states and maximum decentralization of authority. As far as Pakistan is concerned, we believe that the best option is a federal and presidential form of government. At the same time, the decentralization of authority and maximum autonomy of the federating units is a very important requirement of the modern spirit that must not be ignored.

It is important to emphasize the point that there is no definite form or structure of government in Islam. All we have been provided with are certain basic principles and ideals that we must uphold and implement, although the exact manner of their implementation may vary according to the changing social and political conditions. In this context, we believe that there are three basic principles that, if incorporated in any form of government, will lead to the establishment of the System of Khilafah. These three principles are as follows:

Sovereignty belongs to Almighty Allah (SWT) alone;

No legislation can be done at any level that is totally or partially repugnant to Qur’an and Sunnah; and

Full citizenship of the state is for the Muslims only, while non-Muslims are a protected minority.

If these three principles are incorporated in their true spirit in any form of government, it will become an Islamic State or embodiment of the System of Khilafah, irrespective of the specific details of governance.

Legislation under the System of Khilafah

There is a widespread misconception that there will be no need for legislation in the System of Khilafah. There are people who believe that all that is required today is simply the implementation of the Hanafi fiqh in Pakistan, just as the majority fiqh is being implemented in Iran and Afghanistan. This is not true at all. As a matter of fact, most things are permissible in Islam, and the circle of the forbidden or haram is extremely narrow. Consequently, there is a vast scope for law-making in a modern Islamic State, the only restriction is that no legislation can be done and no decision can be taken at any level that is totally or partially repugnant to Qur’an and Sunnah. As pointed out by Allama Iqbal, law-making must be done through the Parliament so that the viewpoint of the laymen is also included, as they are often better aware of the actual problems faced by the masses and of the facts on the ground, as compared to the scholars and experts of the Islamic law who may become too involved in the technicalities and alienated from hard facts.

There is a question of central importance that must be addressed here. What would happen if the Parliament makes a law and someone feels that it transgresses the boundaries set by the Shari‘ah? Who will settle the dispute? We refer to a very important ayah from the Qur’an:

O You who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those who are in authority from amongst you. If you differ in anything, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination. (Al-Nisa 4:59)

By using the imperative ati‘u (obey!) in connection with Allah (SWT) and His Messenger (SAW) but not with ulul amr, Almighty Allah (SWT) has indicated that the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) are absolute and permanent sources of law, whereas obedience to the rulers is not absolute but must be limited by the injunctions of Qur’an and Sunnah. This ayah goes on to explain that if there is a disagreement as to whether or not the rulers are acting within the limits of the Shari‘ah, the matter must be referred back to the absolute sources of law, Qur’an and Sunnah. There is an obvious vacuum in this ayah, as it does not clarify as to who will settle such a dispute. Once again, we need to take advantage of the political institutions that have developed as a result of human social evolution. If it is settled in the Constitution that no law can be made that is totally or partially repugnant to Qur’an and Sunnah, then the Parliament — made up largely of laymen — will be forced to seek the expertise of Islamic scholars so as to avoid any violation of the Constitution. This does not, however, eliminate the possibility of a dispute or disagreement, and a citizen may still claim that the Parliament is transgressing the Shari‘ah in any particular instance. Since the Judiciary is the custodian of the Constitution, any dispute as to whether a particular law is within the limits set by the injunctions of the Qur’an and Sunnah or whether it violates those limits can be referred to the Supreme Court, which can declare it as invalid in the latter case, forcing the legislative assembly to amend or make an alternate law. Since the question of repugnance to Qur’an and Sunnah is a technical one, it can only be settled in a court where experts from all fields, especially Islamic law, can be called and their arguments can be considered dispassionately. It should also be noted here that when a matter is to be decided in the Court, only the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) would be used as the bases of argument and discussion; the opinions of all the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) may be used as precedents but they cannot serve as absolute sources of law.

Let me mention here a very misguided and totally fallacious opinion that is found in some modernist circles. Some of our modernist intellectuals have argued that the particular and specific injunctions of the Holy Qur’an are not binding on us in a permanent sense, and all we need from the Qur’an are its principles and its general spirit. We strongly reject this argument and believe it to be totally wrong. We have mentioned this only because there is a passage in Allama Iqbal’s Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam that can be interpreted as supporting this view. It is known that Iqbal was not fully satisfied with what he wrote in Reconstruction about this issue, as amply proved by his correspondence with Allama Sayyid Suleman Nadwi even after he delivered the lectures in 1928. However, the actual reason behind Iqbal’s misunderstanding of this issue has come to light only recently, thanks to the painstaking research by Muhammad Suheyl Umar, Director Iqbal Academy. He has conclusively shown in one of his papers that it was Allama Shibli Numani who quoted some passages from Shah Waliyullah in a somewhat distorted manner, which led to a gross misrepresentation of the latter’s true intent. Allama Iqbal, instead of reading the original writings of Shah Waliyullah, relied on the quotations given by Shibli Naumani and was thus misled. (Cf., Muhammad Suheyl Umar., Khutbat-e-Iqbal Nai Tanazur Main, published by Iqbal Academy, Lahore)

Here we would like to make some comments on the issue of Ijtihad. Firstly, as far as the right to do Ijtihad is concerned, it should be understood that no restriction could be placed in this regard. Every Muslim, who claims that he has the necessary capacity and skill, can do Ijtihad and express his opinions. Secondly, even though no one can be barred from doing Ijtihad, there is a definite standard of knowledge and expertise that is required for properly carrying out this great endeavor. For the purpose of Ijtihad, the scholar must be well-versed in the traditional Islamic sciences like Arabic language, tafseer, hadith, fiqh, and so on, and he must also be familiar with modern social thought and the problems and issues of the contemporary world. Thirdly, the real issue with respect to Ijtihad concerns the implementing authority. Anyone can do Ijtihad and present his opinion along with the arguments to support it, but not everyone can implement his view by making it a law. This point requires further elaboration.

During the age of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, the Khalifah was not only the ruler but he was also a mujtahid, having full capability to do Ijtihad as well as the authority to implement it. This was a unique feature of Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah that we cannot have in our times. But later, during the age of monarchy or mulukiyyah, especially during the reign of Banu Abbas, the situation changed. Now the rulers had the authority to implement, but they lacked the capacity to do Ijtihad which had by then become the specialization of the scholars of Islamic law, or fuqaha. In this connection, we find that two of our great scholars — Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik — were offered the post of Chief Justice but they both refused to accept it. Had they accepted the offer, their respective opinions and verdicts would have acquired the status of law. However, both of them considered this to be unacceptable and inappropriate. (It may be noted that Qazi Abu Yusuf, a brilliant student of Imam Abu Hanifa, was also offered the same post and he accepted.)

A very prominent example of the dichotomy of political authority and the ability to do Ijtihad can be cited from the age of the Mughal rule in India. It is well known that Aurangzeb Alamagir had constituted a committee of the scholars of fiqh who compiled their verdicts according to the Hanafi fiqh. This compilation is called Fatawa-e-Alamgiri, after the name of the King who assigned to these verdicts the force of law. This arrangement was needed because the King lacked the ability to do Ijtihad, and the Ulama had no authority to implement their verdicts.

Thus, it is clear that during the age of monarchy it was the King who held the power to make laws, and he would do so by implementing the verdicts and opinions of his favorite and trusted scholars of fiqh. Now consider this question: In our times, who has the authority to make laws? The Parliament, of course! Since anyone can express his opinion, it is possible that ten scholars of fiqh would give ten different verdicts regarding a certain issue. However, only one opinion can acquire the force of law. So we are faced with the question: Whose opinion is to be implemented? The answer is that when the Parliament accepts a certain Ijtihad, then that particular opinion will acquire the force of law. The legislating authority is the Parliament, and not individual fuqaha. This is what Allama Iqbal meant when he approved the "transfer of the power of Ijtihad from individual representatives of schools to a Muslim legislative assembly." It does not mean that the Parliament can make any law and it would be accepted as Islamic just because it was made by a Muslim Parliament. In an Islamic State, the Parliament is not an absolute sovereign but is subject to the injunctions of the Qur’an and Sunnah which it cannot violate. The Parliament consists of the representatives of the people, the majority of which is likely to be laymen rather than experts in Islamic law. As such, the Parliament may not do Ijtihad itself, but it will have the authority to decide as to which particular Ijtihad should be made a law and implemented in the country. However, as we have already made clear, if there is a dispute as to whether the Parliament has transgressed the boundaries set by the Qur’an and Sunnah while making a law, then this issue will be referred to the Supreme Court where all the concerned experts can give their opinions and where the technical aspects of the matter can be carefully examined and adjudicated. In case of a dispute, therefore, the question of repugnance to Qur’an and Sunnah will be decided only by the Judiciary and not by the Parliament.

Some Related Issues

The first question that we want to discuss here is whether the political system in the future Islamic State will be a multi-party system or a single-party one? Many of us believe that it will be a single-party system because discord and difference of opinion are not permissible in Islam. We believe this view is based on naiveté and lack of knowledge. Multi-party system is an indispensable part of the modern state, and their manifestoes are important means of political education of the masses. Therefore, a modern Islamic State will function under a multi-party system, the only difference is that all political parties will be subject to the same principle which the Parliament has to observe. That is to say, no political party will be allowed to include in its manifesto any item that is repugnant to Qur’an and Sunnah, and the manifesto of any party can be challenged in the Court on this basis. Moreover, after a political party receives the people’s mandate and goes into the Parliament, its individual members must not be subject to the "party whip." If a member of the Parliament develops a disagreement regarding something contained in the manifesto of his party, then he must resign from his seat and seek re-election, because he is now disagreeing with the basic document on the basis of which he was elected. Short of that, however, a member of the Parliament should vote on every particular issue on the basis of his personal judgment and should have total freedom to express his opinion, even if it differs from that of his own party.

The second issue concerns the status of non-Muslims in an Islamic State. The basic principle in this regard, even though it is unpalatable for the secular mind, is that only the Muslims are full citizens under the System of Khilafah. Non-Muslims are a protected minority and they do not enjoy full citizenship. Non-Muslims will have the same rights as the Muslims concerning the protection of their lives, property, and honor; they will be allowed to propagate their religion (but only within their own communities); they will be able to compete with Muslims in the job market; the Islamic State will be responsible for safeguarding their places of worship. Despite these rights, however, there are certain matters in which non-Muslims are not treated at par with Muslims. In an Islamic State, non-Muslims cannot take part in the highest level of policy making, neither can they participate in the process of legislation. The topmost priority of an Islamic State, whenever it is established, will be to extend the Islamic Order to other countries. Since non-Muslims do not share this vision with Muslims, they cannot be entrusted to devise, plan, and execute this policy. Similarly, the legislation in an Islamic State will have to be done within the framework of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and those who believe neither in the Qur’an nor in the Sunnah cannot be entrusted to make such laws.

Khilafah in Pakistani Perspective

Here the following points are noteworthy:

(A) With the adoption of the Objectives Resolution on March 12, 1949, it was acknowledged in principle that sovereignty belongs to Allah (SWT), and the authority delegated to us by the Real Sovereign is to be used within the limits of the Qur’an and Sunnah. The opening words of the Resolution are: "Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust…" (italics added). This, in principle, is the essence of the System of Khilafah. Despite the adoption of this Resolution, however, Islam was not implemented in any concrete manner. The late President Gen. Muhammad Zia ul Haq had made the Objectives Resolution an operative part of the Constitution as article 2-A, but the Supreme Court through its decision dated January 14, 1992, refused to give any special status to this article. In order to make the Objectives Resolution truly operative, it should be specified in article 2-A that this provision shall take precedence over the entire Constitution, notwithstanding anything else contained in the latter. To remove the possibility of any further ambiguity, the following words should be added: "The injunctions of Islam as laid down in Qur’an and Sunnah shall be the Supreme Law of Pakistan."

(B) In addition to the Objectives Resolution, we have the imperative to limit all legislation within the bounds set by the Qur’an and Sunnah in article 227 (1) of the Constitution, according to which, "All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions." However, the circuitous route provided for the implementation of this article — through the Council of Islamic Ideology that has absolutely no implementing authority whatsoever — has made this imperative practically ineffective and unproductive. In order to expedite the process of Islamization, therefore, the wordings of article 227 (1) should be incorporated as article 2-B of the Constitution. Since there is no need for the Council of Islamic Ideology after the establishment of the Federal Shariat Court, the article 227 (2) should be deleted.

(C) The establishment of the Federal Shariat Court was a step in the right direction. However, the various restrictions placed on its working have rendered it largely ineffective vis-à-vis the Islamization of laws in Pakistan. As a matter of principle, absolutely nothing should be beyond the rule of Qur’an and Sunnah. If we are to have the supremacy of the injunctions of Islam as contained in Qur’an and Sunnah, then this supremacy must be absolute and without any exceptions. Therefore, all restrictions imposed on the Federal Shariat Court should be removed, whether these concern the Constitution, Muslim Personal Law, any law relating to the procedure of any Court or Tribunal, or any law relating to fiscal and banking practices and procedures. At the same time, the number of Ulama Judges in the Federal Shariat Court and the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court should be significantly increased, and the status and terms of appointment of these Judges should be made at par with those of the Judges of High Court and Supreme Court, so as to enable them to work without any pressure.

We believe that if the amendments mentioned above are made in the Pakistani Constitution, and at the same time riba is eliminated from the economy, then this will constitute a "soft revolution," as pointed out by Gen. (Rt.) Hameed Gul. Through the cooperative effort of the Federal Shariat Court and the Parliament, un-Islamic laws will be gradually replaced with those that do not transgress the Shari‘ah, and in this way Islamization will be achieved in a gradual manner without any legal vacuum or crisis.

(D) It should be made clear in the Constitution that no political party can include anything in its manifesto that is repugnant to the Qur’an and Sunnah, as mentioned above. Party manifestoes could be challenged in the Federal Shariat Court if a citizen feels otherwise, and the Court will then decide the dispute.

(E) The President will now be called Khalifah Al-Muslimeen, and he will be the Khalifah of the Muslims belonging to Pakistan. He will not be the Khalifah of Allah, or the vicegerent of God in his individual capacity, rather he will be the vicegerent of the Muslims whom he will represent. Since an Islamic State is based on the collective vicegerency of the Muslims, and since the Muslims will delegate this right to one man through electing him as their ruler, the latter will become their vicegerent. The Khalifah must be a Muslim male, not less than 40 years old (as this is the age of maturity according to the Qur’an), and he would have to pass a very thorough and strict screening process before he can run for this office. Every Muslim man or woman will have the right to vote, and in this respect all Muslims will be treated equally irrespective of whether or not they are practicing Muslims.

(F) Ideally, as mentioned above, non-Muslims should not be allowed to take part in the highest level of policy making and legislation in an Islamic State. In a country where non-Muslims are in a significant number, giving them the right of joint electorate would mean that they would be able to influence the election results and therefore the policy making and legislative process. Instead, separate consultative bodies for various communities of non-Muslims can be formed that will advice the Parliament regarding minority affairs.

Having said that, however, it should be noted that non-Muslims constitute a very small and therefore insignificant minority in Pakistani. Under these conditions, even if they were given the right of joint electorate, they would not be able to influence the legislative process in any significant measure because of their small number. Under these conditions, we believe that there will be no harm in giving the Pakistani non-Muslims the right of joint electorate on the basis of Meethaq of Madinah, provided it is laid down in the Constitution that no legislation can be done repugnant to Qur’an and Sunnah.

Methodology to Establish the System of Khilafah

There is only one surefire and reliable methodology for the establishment of Khilafah, namely, one that is derived from the Seerah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW). However, the details of this methodology and its application in modern times are outside the scope of the present article. The important point here is that the struggle and effort to establish the ascendancy of Islam is obligatory upon each one of us. According to several traditions of the Holy Prophet (SAW), the domination of Islam on a global level is bound to come. The question for us is whether we achieve success and salvation in the Hereafter by participating in this struggle, or whether we remain idle and indifferent and earn Divine Wrath! This choice has to be made by everyone of us.

Shameless Rulers of Pakistan beg from other nations for Swat - (written by Abdur Rahman Siakhi)

Pakistan prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani whilst addressing a conference of donors in Islamabad said, "Given the magnitude of the task that lies ahead, the government of Pakistan would like to seek the support from the donor community, both for the ongoing relief efforts and for the rebuilding process." This request for yet more money is exactly two weeks after the Pakistani government went to war with its own province due to the challenge posed to the governments writ and the fact that militants had humiliated our women, as articulated by the prime minister. As a result of the military operation in Swat, innocent civilians living in the area have been forced to flee their homes. To help the so-called "displaced" Yusuf Raza Gilani has set up a "Prime Minister's Fund" to collect money to deal with the crisis. He has also shamelessly resorted to begging other nations to contribute to help the people forced out.


The Pakistani government's decision to launch military operations in Swat and the neighbouring areas has led to an unparalleled refugee crisis in Pakistan. Reports say that about 1.5 million people have been displaced since the army's latest offensive began on May 2nd.

This disaster in which children have been separated from their parents, where the weak, elderly and ill have been forced out of their villages - has been entirely instigated by those charged with the duty to look after the affairs of such people. It has been caused by the rulers that make the pretence that they are there to serve the people.

Their excuse being that military action was necessary to deal with people trying to destroy Pakistan - people that exploited the vacuum that the government left due to its indifference to the needs of the people of the area.

The displacement crisis is nothing more than a heinous political crime committed by the rulers in Pakistan. Without a doubt a full-scale military onslaught would involve a huge loss of life, property and an exodus of people from the area targeted. No respectable nation in the world would entertain these repercussions before exhausting all other means to address the problem.

The rulers in Pakistan made no allowance for the effect of a military onslaught on the people of the area and are now taking a begging bowl to other nations- many that are belligerent to Islam and Muslims. The rulers' actions prove the contempt that they hold for the Muslims of Pakistan - treating them like cattle that are to be moved from one pasture to another.

The fate of Muslims in Pakistan does not have to be like this. The current problems facing the people are because the rulers of Pakistan continue to preserve their seats and bow to foreign powers at the expense of the well being of their own people. Even in dealing with a catastrophe of their own making the rulers have no shame in asking for money from the enemies of their people in order to dress the wounds that they have inflicted.

Pakistan is not a country in the need of handouts. It has ample resources - it has plentiful manpower, enough coal to cater for the countries electricity needs for centuries and fertile lands. What Pakistan lacks is leadership. The ruling elite are corrupt to the highest degree and do not work sincerely for the interests of the people. This is not surprising when one examines the credentials and the thoughts held by such individuals - the current ruler of Pakistan is renowned for his corruption.

The only leadership that is suitable for Pakistan is the sincere Islamic leadership of the Khilafah state. A true Islamic leadership that is not primitive and crude in its thinking rather it is sophisticated and understands matters on the basis of Islam.

Many examples of this type of leadership can be seen from the history of the Muslims. It is said that during a famine in Madinah in the time of the Khilafah of Umar (ra) that Umar (ra) went pale because he refused to eat fat, butter, and milk, until all the Muslims were able to afford such food. The rulers of Pakistan continue in their lavish lifestyles whilst the Muslims of Swat fester in refugee camps as a consequence of the decisions taken so lightly in Islamabad.

The leadership of the Khilafah state will think carefully about its actions and their consequences on the people. It will not act to please foreign powers rather it will be independent and implement the Islamic Shariah that obliges the rulers to protect the blood, honour and wealth of the people that they are responsible for and prohibits the rulers from harming them. If they have an iota of Iman those responsible for the calamity in Swat should reflect on the words of Rasool Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم.

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said "On the Day of Judgment there will be a flag for every person guilty of treachery. It will be raised in proportion to the extent of his guilt; and there is no guilt of treachery more serious than the one committed by the ruler of men" [Muslim]

What is the Khilafah ?

What is the Khilafah ?
Below you will find many questions and answers directly related to the Khilafah.

1. What is Dar al-Islam?
Dar al-Islam is the land where Islamic Law is implemented in all matters of life and ruling and whose security is maintained in the name of Islam even if its citizens are non-Muslims.

2. What is Dar al-Kufr?
Dar al-Kufr is the land where Kufr laws are implemented in matters of life and whose security is maintained in the name of Kufr even if all its citizens are Muslims. This is because the criterion of a region being Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Kufr are the laws that are implemented there, and the security by which it is protected, the criterion is not the religion of its citizens.

3. Which Muslim Countries today are Dar al-Islam?
Out of the Muslim countries of today, there is not a single country or state where Islamic laws are exclusively implemented in ruling and life's affairs; therefore all of them are considered Dar al-Kufr although their citizens are Muslims.

4. What is The Muslims Duty towards His Country?
Islam makes it a duty upon all Muslims to work to change their countries from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam, and this can be achieved by establishing the Islamic State i.e. the Khilafah, and by electing a Khaleefah and taking a bay'ah on him that he will rule by the Word of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) i.e. he will implement Islamic laws in the country where the Khilafah has been established. Then the Muslims should work with the Khilafah to combine the rest of the Islamic countries with it, hence the countries will become Dar al-Islam and they will then carry Islam to the world through invitation and jihad.

5. What is the Khilafah?
The Khilafah is the global leadership for all the Muslims in the world. Its role is to establish the laws of the Islamic Shari'ah and to carry the da'wah of Islam to the world.

6. Is the Khilafah known as anything else?
The Khilafah is also known as the Imamah, both terms have the same meaning. Several sound ahadith mention them with the same meaning, neither of the two terms has ever differed in meaning in any Shari'ah text i.e. the Qur'an or the Sunnah of the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam), these being the only Shari'ah sources. It is not compulsory to hold to the term of Khilafah or Imamah, but rather it is compulsory to hold to the meaning of the term.

7. Is the establishment of a Khaleefah an obligation upon all Muslims in the world?
The establishment of a Khaleefah is an obligation upon all Muslims in the world. Performing this duty, like any of the duties prescribed by Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) upon the Muslims, is an urgent obligation in which there can be no choice or complacency. Negligence in performing this duty is one of the greatest sins, for which Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) punishes severely.

8. What is the evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory?
The evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory upon all Muslims is in the Sunnah and the Ijma'a (consensus) of the Sahabah.

9. What is the evidence from the Sunnah?
As for the Sunnah, Nafi'a reported saying: "'Umar said to me that he heard the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) saying: Whoso takes off his hand from allegiance to Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) will meet Him (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) on the Day of Resurrection without having any proof for him, and whoso dies whilst there was no bay'ah (allegiance or a pledge) on his neck (to a Khaleefah), he dies a death of jahilliyah." So the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) made it compulsory upon every Muslim to have a bay'ah on his neck, and described whoever dies without a bay'ah on his neck that he dies a death of jahilliyah. The bay'ah cannot be for anyone except the Khaleefah, and the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) made it obligatory upon every Muslim to have on his neck a bay'ah to a Khaleefah. Yet he did not make it an obligation upon every Muslim to give bay'ah to a Khaleefah. The duty is the existence of a bay'ah on the neck of every eligible Muslim, i.e. the existence of a Khaleefah who accordingly deserves a bay'ah upon the neck of every Muslim. So it is the presence of the Khaleefah which places a bay'ah on the neck of every Muslim, whether the Muslim gave a bay'ah to him in person or not.

Therefore, this hadith of the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) is an evidence that the appointment of the Khaleefah is an obligation and not a proof that giving the bay'ah is obligatory. This is so because the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) rebuked the Muslim who has not a bay'ah on his neck until he dies, not the one who did not give bay'ah. Hisham ibn 'Urwa reported on the authority of Abu Saleh on the authority of Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) said: "Leaders will take charge of you after me, where the pious (one) will lead you with his piety and the impious (one) with his impiety, so listen to them and obey them in everything which conforms with the truth. If they act rightly it is for your credit, and if they acted wrongly it is counted for you and against them." Muslim narrated on the authority of al-A'araj, on the authority of Abu Hurairah, that the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) said: "Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they protect themselves." Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Hazim, who said: "I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him talking of the Prophet's saying: 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 be Khulafa'a and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us? He said: Fulfil the bay'ah to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with." Ibn 'Abbas narrated that the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) said: "If anyone sees in his amir 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, has died a death of the days of jahilliyah".

In these ahadith, the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) informs us that leaders will run the affairs of Muslims, and the ahadith include the description of the Khaleefah as a shield, i.e. a protection. So the description of the Imam as a shield is informative of the benefits of the presence of the Imam, thus it is a command for action, because if the information conveyed by Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) and the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) contained rebuke then it is a command of prohibition, and if it contained praise then it is a command for action. If the ordered action is necessary to implement a hukm shara'i (divine law), or by its negligence a hukm shara'i will be neglected, then this command is decisive.

In these ahadith there is information also that those who run the affairs of Muslims are Khulafa'a, which indicates an order to appoint them. They also include a prohibition for Muslims to separate from the authority, which indicates the obligation upon Muslims to appoint an authority for themselves, i.e. ruling.

Moreover, the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) ordered the Muslims to obey the Khaleefah and to fight those who dispute his authority as Khaleefah, which indicates an order to appoint a Khaleefah and to protect his Khilafah by fighting against whosoever disputes with him. Muslim reported that the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) said: "He who pledged allegiance to an Imam giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him you have to strike the neck of that man." So the command to obey the Imam is an order to establish him, and the command to fight those who dispute with him is an evidence that this command is decisive in maintaining the presence of one Khaleefah.

10. What is the evidence from the Ijma'a of the Sahabah?
In regard with the Ijma'a of the Sahabah they all agreed upon the necessity to establish a successor or Khaleefah to the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) after his death, and they all agreed to appoint a successor to Abu Bakr, then to 'Umar, then to 'Uthman, after the death of each one of them.

The Ijma'a of the Sahabah to establish a Khaleefah manifested itself emphatically when they delayed the burial of the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) after his death whilst engaged in appointing a successor to him, despite the fact that the burial of the dead person is fard, and that it is haram upon those who are supposed to prepare for his burial to engage themselves in anything else until they complete the burial. The Sahabah were obliged to engage themselves in preparing the burial of the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam), instead some of them engaged themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than carrying out the burial, and some others kept silent on this engagement and participated in delaying the burial for two nights despite their ability to deny the delay and their ability to bury the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam). So this was an Ijma'a to engage themselves in appointing a Khaleefah rather than to bury the dead. This could not be legitimate unless the appointment of a Khaleefah is more obligatory than the burial of the dead.

Also, all the Sahabah agreed throughout their lives upon the obligation of appointing a Khaleefah. Although they disagreed upon the person to elect as a Khaleefah, they never disagreed upon the appointment of a Khaleefah, neither when the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) died, nor when any of the Khulafa'a ar-Rashidun died. Therefore the Ijma'a of the Sahabah is a clear and strong evidence that the appointment of a Khaleefah is obligatory.

11. Is the establishment of Islam and the implementation of the Shari'ah rules in all walks of life compulsory?
The establishment of Islam and the implementation of the Shari'ah rules in all walks of life is compulsory on Muslims through definitely proven evidences. This duty cannot be achieved unless there is a ruler who has an authority. The divine principle states 'what is necessary to accomplish a wajib (duty) is itself a wajib'. So the establishment of a Khaleefah is also compulsory according to this divine principle.

Moreover, Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) has ordered the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) to rule between Muslims by that which He (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) revealed to him, and the order of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) to him was in a decisive manner. Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) addressed the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam):

"And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you". [TMQ 5:48]

And:

"And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you and do not follow their whims, and beware (be on the alert) that they may deviate you away from even some part of what Allah revealed to you". [TMQ 5:49]

The speech of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) to the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) is a speech to his Ummah unless there is evidence which limits the speech to him. In this case there is no such evidence, so the aforementioned verses order all Muslims to establish the rule. The establishment of the Khaleefah does not mean other than the establishment of the rule and the authority. On the other hand, Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) made it obligatory upon Muslims to obey those in authority, i.e. the ruler, which indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory upon Muslims.

"O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority amongst you". [TMQ 4:59]

Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) does not order obedience to those who do not exist. This indicates that the existence of the ruler is obligatory. When Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) orders obedience to those in authority it is an order to establish them. The implementation of the Shari'ah depends upon the existence of the ruler, thus, the establishment of the ruler becomes obligatory as its absence will result in the sin of neglecting the Shari'ah.

Therefore, it is clear from these evidences that the establishment of the rule and the authority amongst Muslims is fard, and it is also clear that the appointment of a Khaleefah who takes the charge of the rule and the authority is compulsory upon Muslims in order to implement the Shari'ah laws; and not for the sake of rule and authority only. Reflect upon what the Prophet (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) said: "The best of your Imams (leaders) are those whom you love and they love you, who pray for you and you pray for them; and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you and you curse them and they curse you." The Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) was asked: "Would we not declare war on them (face them with the swords)?" He said: "No, as long as they establish salah (meaning Islam) among you." This hadith is clear in informing about the good and bad leaders, and clear in prohibiting the challenge of their authority as long as they establish the prayer, which in this context indicates upholding of Islam, and establishing its rule.

So the obligation upon Muslims to appoint the Khaleefah who establishes the laws of Islam and conveys its call is a matter which has no doubt with regard to its certainty in the sound texts of Shari'ah. Moreover, it is an obligatory duty due to the fact that Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) made it fard upon Muslims to establish the authority of Islam and to protect the honour of Muslims. However, this duty is a collective one, so if some people of the Ummah accomplished it, the fard is fulfilled and thus responsibility drops from the rest of the Ummah. And if part of the Ummah was unable to achieve the fard, though they carried out the actions which establish it, then the responsibility remains upon all the Muslims, and the fard remains upon every Muslim as long as Muslims are without a Khaleefah.

12. What is the difference between the one who refrains from establishing a Khaleefah and the one who embarks on working to establish a Khaleefah?
To refrain from establishing a Khaleefah for the Muslims is a great sin because it is abstaining from carrying out a very important fard of Islam, upon which the implementation of the divine laws depends, even upon which the presence of Islam in the battlefield of life depends as well. So Muslims as a whole commit a great sin by refraining from establishing a Khaleefah for all Muslims. And if they agreed to remain without a Khaleefah the sin would befall all Muslims in the entire world. If some of the Muslims embarked on working to establish a Khaleefah and the others did not, the sin will drop from the shoulders of those who started to work to establish the Khaleefah, while the fard remains on them until the Khaleefah is appointed. This is so because the involvement in establishing the fard removes the sin for the delay of its fulfilment in its time, and for its non-fulfilment despite one's engagement in the work for establishing it, and despite his hatred of that which prevents him from accomplishing it.

As for those who were not engaged in the work for establishing the fard, the sin will remain on them as soon as the three days period has passed, from the departure of the Khaleefah until the appointment of a new Khaleefah, because Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) has entrusted them with a fard, which they did not carry out nor engage themselves in the work which is required for its completion. Therefore, they are sinful and deserve the punishment and shame from Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) in this life and the hereafter. They are sinful due to their refrain from establishing the Khaleefah or from the actions which (according to Shari'ah) establish the Khaleefah. It is clear and obvious that a Muslim deserves the punishment of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) when he ignores any of the duties enjoined upon him, particularly the duty by which the other duties are implemented and the Shari'ah rules are established and the matter of Islam is brought aloft and the word of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) is exalted in the Muslim and the rest of the world.

Accordingly, no Muslim on the face of this earth has an excuse to abandon the duty of establishing the deen which Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) has ordered, that is, the establishment of a Khaleefah for Muslims, when there is no Khilafah on the earth, and no one to implement the hudood (limits) of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) to protect the sanctities of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala), and no one to implement the laws of the deen and unify the Muslim community under the banner of La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadun Rasul Allah. There is no permission in Islam to abandon the work for this duty until it is indeed completed.

13. Is the Khilafah the Only Structure of the Islamic System of Government?
Islam has determined the structure of Islamic government to be the system of Khilafah and it is the only system of ruling of the Islamic State. Muslim narrated about Abu Hazim, who said, "I accompanied Abu Hurayrah for five years and heard him talking of the Prophet's saying: The Prophets ruled over Bani Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will be Khulafa'a and they will number many."

This hadith is a clear statement of the fact that the Islamic structure of government after the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) is the Khilafah. This fact is strengthened by evidence from numerous other ahadith that the Khilafah or Imamah is the only system of government in Islam, like the hadith, "After me there will be Imams" and the hadith, "If a bay'ah is taken for two Khaleefahs..." and other ahadith which all indicate that the system of government in Islam is the Khilafah only.

14. Are Muslims all over the world allowed to have more than one Islamic State, or more than one Khaleefah?
The system of government in Islam, which is the system of Khilafah, is a unitary system of one state and not a federal system. And Muslims all over the world are not allowed to have more than one Islamic State, nor to have more than one Khaleefah who rules them by the Book of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) i.e. he implements the Islamic Law, because Shari'ah evidences have established this and prohibited the existence of more than one state, as is narrated by 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As, who said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) say, "He who gave the 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, and if another person comes to dispute with him (his authority) you have to strike the neck of that person." And as narrated by Abu Said al-Khudri, that the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) said, "If a bay'ah is taken for two Khaleefahs, kill the latter one", and as narrated by 'Arfajah that he heard the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) say, "If someone comes to you when you are united over one man and wants to break your strength and divide your unity, kill him."

These ahadith are clear statements of the fact that Muslims cannot have more than one Khaleefah, and if another person tries to wrest his power it is necessary to kill that person. If bay'ah is taken for two persons, the first is considered the Khaleefah and the second is killed if he does not back out. If anyone disputed with the Khaleefah in order to break up the State or to put himself forward as Khaleefah, he should be killed.

These ahadith are also explicit that Muslims are not allowed to have more than one state and they are explicit in the necessity that the Islamic State is a state of unity, and not a state of union, made up of many units.

15. What Are the Principles of Government in Islam?
The Islamic system of government is based on four principles:

i. Sovereignty is for Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) and not for the People

What controls and runs the Muslims and the Ummah is not the Muslims themselves, nor the Ummah, rather the choice of the Muslims and the Ummah is controlled by Allah's orders and prohibitions only.

"Surely they will not believe until they make you the judge in what they disagree." [TMQ 4:65]

"It is not for the believer (male or female) that when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter that they should have any choice in their matter." [TMQ 33:36]

"O you who believe! Obey Allah, obey the Messenger and the rulers from amongst you, and if you disagree on a matter then return it (for judgment) to Allah and the Messenger if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day." [TMQ 4:59]

And the Messenger of Allah's (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) saying, "None of you will be a (true) believer until his desire follows that which I have come with (i.e. Islam)."

These evidences are explicit in making the sovereignty for the Laws of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) and not for the Ummah.

ii. The Authority is for the Ummah

It is clear that the authority i.e. the government, is for the Ummah because it is apparent in the method, defined by the Law-Giver in appointing the Khaleefah by the Ummah through the bay'ah, and also from the fact that the Khaleefah takes the authority by the bay'ah and he governs the Ummah on her behalf. And the fact that the Khaleefah takes the bay'ah is a clear proof that the actual authority is from the Ummah, who gives it to whom she sees fit. There are also other explicit ahadith which state that the Ummah appoints the leader and gives a bay'ah to him. It is narrated by 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr that the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) said, "It is not allowed that three be in the open (during a journey) and that they do not make one of them their leader."

It is clear here that the appointer is the Ummah. And the ahadith of bay'ah, already mentioned, clearly make the point that the authority is from the Ummah.

iii. There is only one Khaleefah

To appoint one Khaleefah upon all Muslims to represent them in the government is a duty of the Muslims and we have gone through many ahadith about the appointment of the Khaleefah and the necessity that the Khaleefah is one, a matter which was also indicated by the Ijma'a of the Sahabah.

iv. The Khalifah alone has the right to adopt and enforce Islamic opinions in the State

The Khaleefah is the one who issues the constitution and the various canons. The Ijma'a of the Sahabah proves that only the Khaleefah can adopt divine laws and from this consensus is deduced these famous principles: "The Imam's order settles the differences" and "The Imam's order is implemented" and "The Imam can put forward as many solutions as the (number of) problems which arise."

16. What Does the Structure of the Islamic State consist of ?
The structure of the Islamic State consists of the following components:

1. The Khaleefah.
2. Delegated Assistants.
3. The Executive Assistants.
4. The Amir of Jihad (army).
5. The Walis (Governors).
6. The Judiciary.
7. The Administrative System.
8. The Council of the Ummah.

These components have been taken from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam), because he (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) built the structure of the State, and he (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) was the head of the State, and he (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) ordered the Muslims to put for themselves a Khaleefah (after him) and he (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) appointed Abu Bakr and 'Umar as his assistants (as narrated in Tirmidhi), "My two wazirs from the people of the earth are Abu Bakr and 'Umar."

And wazir means the one who helps, and not the term Minister as used in the Western democracies. Similarly, the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) appointed commanders for war and jihad and appointed walis for the provinces. He appointed Mu'adh as a governor of Yemen and appointed A'ttab ibn Usayd as governor of Makkah after the conquest of Makkah. Similarly, he (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) appointed judges to judge between people. He appointed 'Ali ibn Abi Talib as a judge for Yemen and sent Rashid ibn 'Abdullah as the amir of judiciary and Unjust Acts. As regards to the administration structure, he (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) appointed secretaries for the public administrations, their rank being that of head of department. He appointed Mueqeeb ibn Abu Fatimah as secretary for the spoils of war and Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman as secretary for collection of the zakat on the fruits of Hijaz.

As regards the Council of the Ummah, the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) did not always have a formal assembly, but he (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) used to take advice from Muslims. He (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) collected them on the day of Uhud and sought their advice. And sometimes he (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) used to call specific persons on a continuous basis to seek their advice, and these were some of the leaders of their people (tribes), who included Hamzah, Abu Bakr, 'Umar, Ja'far, 'Ali, Ibn Mas'ud, Salman, 'Ammar, Hudhayfah, Abu Dharr, al-Miqdad, Sa'd ibn 'Ubadah and Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, and they were like an assembly whose advice was sought.

Similarly, the Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) formed an army and he was its real commander and he (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam) also used to appoint commanders in some of his battles.

17. Is the Monarchical system an Islamic System?
The Monarchical system is not an Islamic system and Islam does not approve of it whether the king is a figurehead who does not rule, as is the case in Britain and Spain, because the Khaleefah is not a figurehead, rather he is the ruler and an executor of the laws of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) on behalf of the Ummah, or if the king is the head and the actual ruler, as is the case in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. This is because the Khaleefah does not acquire his position like the kings do; rather, Muslims select him and give him the bay'ah. The hereditary system is not allowed in Islam; the Khaleefah does not have more privileges than any other Muslim citizen and he is not above the Law like the kings who cannot be tried, rather he is subservient to the laws of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) and is liable to be accounted on every act he commits.

18. Is the Republican system an Islamic System?
The Republican system is not an Islamic system and Islam does not approve of it whether it is Presidential in nature as in the US or it is Parliamentary, as found in Germany, because the Republican system in both these forms is based on the democratic system which gives the sovereignty to the people, whilst the system of Khilafah is based on the system of Islam that gives sovereignty to the Shara'. Accordingly the Ummah does not have the right to remove the Khaleefah, though she has the right to choose him and to account him, and only the Islamic rule can remove the Khaleefah i.e. in case he works against the Shara' in such a way that it becomes necessary to remove him. The power to decide whether the Khaleefah has worked against the Law such that he must be removed rests with the Mahkamat ul-Mudhalim (Court of the Unjust Acts) which has the authority to remove him from the seat of Khaleefah, due to Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) ruling,

"O you who believe! Obey Allah, obey the Messenger and the rulers from amongst you, and if you disagree on a matter then return it (for judgement) to Allah and the Messenger if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day." [TMQ 4:59]

This means that they must turn over the matter to the Law of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) and His Messenger (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam), and the Court of the Unjust Acts represents the Law of Allah (Subhaanahu Wa Ta'Ala) and His Messenger (Salallahu Alaihi Wasalaam), whilst in the case of the President of the Republican system the people have the right to remove him, because the people have the sovereignty and the authority. The Khaleefah is not elected for a limited term; the only limitation to his rule is the implementation of Islam. If he does not implement Islam, he will be removed even if it is after only one month of his appointment. In contrast the President of the Republic is elected for a limited term. Moreover, in the Parliamentary system there is the Prime Minister beside the President, and the President is only a figurehead without power, the real power rests with the Prime Minister. The Khaleefah is the real ruler and he rules and implements his orders and he has no ministers who rule independent of him.

19. Is the Presidential system an Islamic System ?
Although the President in the Presidential system is himself the actual ruler, he does have with him ministers who have authority of ruling and he is their head and his rank is that of the President of the government. This is in contradiction to the system of Khilafah where the Khaleefah rules directly, and he has with him assistants. These assistants do not have the powers of ministers as in the democratic Republican system. When the Khaleefah becomes the ruler he is the ruler in the capacity of the head of the State and not the head of an executive committee. Therefore there exists a great difference between the Republican and the Khilafah systems, and therefore it is not allowed to name the Islamic State an Islamic Republic, nor is it allowed to say that the system of government in Islam is Republican nor that Islam is a Republican system because of the complete contradiction between the two.

20. Is the Islamic System an Imperial System?
The regions ruled by Islam - though they are of various races and linked to one central place - are not ruled by an imperial system but by a system contradictory to the imperial system. The Imperial system does not treat races equally in the various regions of the empire; rather it gives privileges in the ruling, finance and economy to the centre of the empire.

The Islamic way of ruling is to equate between the subjects in all the regions of the state. Islam grants non-Muslims who hold citizenship, the full rights and duties that Muslims have. They enjoy the same fairness as Muslims and are subject to the same accountability like them. Furthermore, every single citizen, regardless of his or her creed, enjoys rights that even a Muslim living abroad who holds no citizenship does not enjoy. With this equality, the Islamic system differs completely from the Imperial one. It does not make the regions under its ruling into colonies, areas of exploitation, nor a source of wealth funneled back into the central region for its own benefit, no matter how far apart they were, and no matter how different their races were. It considers every single region as a part of the state and its citizens enjoying the same rights as those in the central region. It also makes the ruling authority, its system and its legislation the same in all the regions.

21. Is the Federal System an Islamic System?
The ruling system in Islam is not federal, where its regions separate by autonomy, but unite in the general ruling. It is rather a system of unity, where Marrakesh in the West is considered to be the same as Khurasan in the East; and the province of Al-Fayoom would be the same as Cairo if it were the Islamic capital. The finance of all the regions will be the same, as will their budget. Funds are spent equally on the affairs of the subjects, regardless of their Wilayah. If for instance, the taxes collected in one Wilayah were double its expenditure, the funds spent will be to cover the Wilayah's needs but not according to how much tax raised. If another Wilayah's taxes fell short of its expenditure, this would not be taken into consideration, and funds will be spent to satisfy the Wilayah's needs from the general budget whether it raised enough taxes or not.

Therefore the ruling system is one unit not a federation. That is why the Islamic ruling system is distinguished from other known systems, in its origin and basis, even if some of its aspects were similar to some of their aspects. Furthermore, the Islamic system is central in its ruling, where the high authority is at head office, and where the authority and power engulfs every single part of the state, no matter how small or large it is; independence of any part of it is not allowed thus preventing disintegration. The high authority is the body which appoints the army commanders, the Walis, rulers and finance and economy officials. He appoints judges in all the regions and everyone whose duties is to rule. He is the one who deals with ruling all over the land.