Archive for October, 2008

Caliphate and sharia law

October 22, 2008
Jakarta Post

Mohamad Abdun Nasir

This newspaper ran an article by Muhammad Ismail Yusanto, a spokesperson of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI), about sharia and the caliphate (April 23), as a reaction to an article written by Bramanto that appeared several days before. Such a discourse is very healthy. We can have different views and the readiness to appreciate other views — although probably we do not agree at all — and an exchange of views will be very helpful not just to promote Islam as a tolerant religion but also to enrich people’s horizons.

With this strong spirit to enrich our horizons, I am interested in joining the debate on the issues of sharia and the caliphate.

HTI offers two central discourses: the establishment of a caliphate and the application of sharia law. Both seem to be inseparable; without a caliphate, the sharia application will never be totally accomplished. Therefore, both are complementary to each other. These grand themes in fact constitute the global discourse applied by most Hizbut Tahrir movements in the world and have become the main idea that links their global ideological ground and commonality.

To the HTI, the caliphate constitutes a basic Islamic political institution that will unite all Muslims in the world regardless of their ethnicity, language or culture into a single community called the ummah, which is headed by a caliph. In this view, a caliph merely serves as a God’s representative on earth whose duties are to obey God’s commands and realize His rules.

Consequently, it denies modern secular political thoughts such as democracy and nationalism. Democracy is seen to be contrary to God’s sole sovereignty. Moreover, inconsistencies and double standards in the realization of democracy have strengthened Islamists’ criticism of it. Similarly, nationalism, as a logical consequence of the emergence of nation-states, is rejected because it is a Western invention contrary to the concept of ummah.

However, if we closely examine politics in Islam, it is obvious that there is no such strict concept of political Islam like a caliphate. It is a historical creation rather than a normative concept. The power transformation from the Prophet to the subsequent four caliphs took place in different ways.

Abu Bakar became the first caliph through a public pledge of allegiance by the majority of Muslims.

Umar, the second caliph, was elected by a team comprising seven members. While Usman and Ali, the third and the fourth caliphs, reigned after being preceded by political chaos. In this period, a caliph was strictly appointed through a familial lineage. Following this pattern, there is no fixed political system in Islam. It was during the Muslim empires that the concept of caliphate took its firmest definition, formulated through the writings and work of Muslim scholars and jurists who served for the caliph.

As for sharia, with the open era and democratization in Indonesia after reformasi, several Muslim political parties and organizations wish to retrieve the seven lost sharia words — the obligation to implement sharia for Muslims — once incorporated in the Constitution but later deleted.

Although this effort has never been successful in the national context due to lack of a national consensus and disagreement among Muslims themselves, it works on provincial and regional levels.

Some local governments have successfully imposed sharia law in regional ordinances and bylaws. Despite its blurry and weak conception, sharia does apply in certain provinces and regencies, like Cianjur, Tasikmalaya and Garut in West Java and in Bulukumba, South Sulawesi. Each sharia ordinance has addressed different legal issues in different regions, and thus reflects the disparity and partiality of the sharia legal conception.

This has become a major critique, that the sharia application lacks fundamental conception and articulation and thus is ineffective. This reflects more the vested interests and ambitions of politicians rather than idealism. Political parties and Islamic organizations that support this issue are a minority.

Islam in Indonesia is not monolithic, but pluralistic. It consists of diverse Islamic organizations, political affiliations, languages and ethnic-cultural identities. The majority of Muslims represented by the two largest Muslim organizations in the country, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah, which decline the idea of an Islamic state, remain moderate. This suggests that the majority of Muslims remain obedient to “Indonesia’s diversity in unity” and are attempting to develop Islam in this pluralistic manner. Both sharia and the caliphate thus appear to be less than popular to the Muslim majority.

The writer is a lecturer at Mataram State Institute for Islamic Studies and a Fulbright scholar who is pursuing his PhD in religion at Emory University, Atlanta. He can be reached at
var prefix = ‘ma’ + ‘il’ + ‘to’;
var path = ‘hr’ + ‘ef’ + ‘=’;
var addy38479 = ‘sier1975’ + ‘@’;
addy38479 = addy38479 + ‘yahoo’ + ‘.’ + ‘com’;
var addy_text38479 = ‘sier1975’ + ‘@’ + ‘yahoo’ + ‘.’ + ‘com’;
document.write( ‘<a ‘ + path + ‘\” + prefix + ‘:’ + addy38479 + ‘\’>’ );
document.write( addy_text38479 );
document.write( ‘<\/a>’ );
document.write( ‘<span style=\’display: none;\’>’ );
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
document.write( ‘</’ );
document.write( ‘span>’ );


Clarifying the meaning of Jihad

October 22, 2008
‘Jihad’ is extracted from the source, ‘Jaahada’ and it measured upon the fourth verb structure, which means interaction between two sides, al-Mufa’ala. Another example is ‘Al-Khisaam’ which means to quarrel and is extracted from its roots source – Khaasama. Also, there is the example of ‘Jidaal’, which means to discuss or to argue and is taken from the root source ‘Jaadala’.
In the tongue of the Arabs, al-Jihad means, ‘exerting ability and effort to do an action or express opinions’.

In Al-Munjid, the words Jaahada, Mujaahada and Jihadan means, ‘exerting effort and ability to push the other away’. In the Tafseer of al-Naysaboori it is clearly stated that ‘al-Jihad’ means to exert effort to achieve the objective or what is intended.

After all of these related definitions of the word ‘al-Jihad’ in the language, it is possible to give a clear linguistic definition, which is: ‘al-Jihad is the exerting of all effort and ability between two sides by the least.’

Based on the linguistic definition, the exerted effort could be via material weapons or without a weapon, with money or without money. Also it could be the struggle between two opposing desires exerting effort (Jihad) to overcome the other. It could also be by words and could be by refusing to do an action or to speak. An example of this is like the one who disobeys his parents when they order him to disobey Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta’ala) and the person becomes patient and perseveres when his parents insist in ordering him. And it is like the one who abstains from committing a haram desire when his nafs calls him to it. This is what is mentioned in Hashiyat Al-Jamal in al-Jalalayn: “Jihad is to have patience on difficulties. It could be during war and it could be inside the nafs.”

Based on this linguistic definition, the opponent that the Muslim engages Jihad against could be his own nafs, or the shaiytan, or the transgressor or the kuffar. Additionally, by this definition, Jihad could also be that which is in the way of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta’ala) ‘Fi Sabeel Lillah’’. So the Jihad could be undertaken to please Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta’ala) or to please the shaiytan, like the Jihad of the Kuffar against others. Al-Naysaboori, wrote, “It is exerting effort to achieve the objective or what is intended regardless of the nature of the objective intended by the one who is exerting the effort.” The Quran used the word ‘Jihad’ in describing the activity of the kaafir fathers to make their believing children reject true belief. Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta’ala) says:

وَإِن جَاهَدَاكَ عَلى أَن تُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا

“If they do Jihad to make commit association with me…do not obey them” (tmq Surah Luqman 31:15)

In the Shariyah, the word ‘al-Jihad’ was transferred from the general linguistic meaning to a special confined (restricted) meaning in the Quran and the Sunnah. It is, “the exerting of the effort to fight in the Way of Allah directly or by financial aid, or opinion and the like” This special meaning of Jihad was given in Medina. In Mecca, the legislation concerning Jihad was not revealed and that is why the subject of Jihad in the Mecci surahs carries the general linguistic meaning. They are the three verses (ayaat) in Surah al-Ainkaboot:

وَمَن جَاهَدَ فَإِنَّمَا يُجَاهِدُ لِنَفْسِهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَغَنِيٌّ عَنِ الْعَالَمِين

“And if any struggle ‘Jaahid’ (with might and main), they do so for their own souls: for Allah is free of all needs from all creation.” (tmq 29:6)

وَإِن جَاهَدَاكَ لِتُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا إِلَيَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَأُنَبِّئُكُم بِمَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ

“But if they (either of them) struggle ‘Jaahada’ (to force) you to join with Me (in worship) anything of which you have no knowledge, obey them not. You have (all) to return to me, and I will tell you (the truth) of all that ye did.” (tmq 29:8)

وَالَّذِينَ جَاهَدُوا فِينَا لَنَهْدِيَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَمَعَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ

“And those who strive in Our cause ‘Jaahadu’- We will certainly guide them to our Paths: For verily Allah is with those who do right.” (tmq 29:69)

Also in surah Luqman verse 15, the word Jihad is used in the linguistic context. Regarding the verse in surah Al-Nahl talking about Jihad, it mentioned ‘al-Hijra’, which means that this is a Madani verse in a Mecci surah (chapter) – and this was mentioned by the al-Mufasiroon. The verse is:

ثُمَّ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لِلَّذِينَ هَاجَرُواْ مِن بَعْدِ مَا فُتِنُواْ ثُمَّ جَاهَدُواْ وَصَبَرُواْ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ مِن بَعْدِهَا لَغَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

“But verily Your Lord- those who leave their homes after trials and persecutions,- and who thereafter struggle ‘Jaahadu’ and fight for the faith and patiently persevere,- Your Lord, after all this is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful”. (tmq 16:110)

The subject of Jihad in Medina occurs 26 (twenty-six) times and the majority of them carry the clear meaning of Fighting, ‘Qitaal’. From these verses are:

لاَّ يَسْتَوِي الْقَاعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُوْلِي الضَّرَرِ وَالْمُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ دَرَجَةً وَكُـلاًّ وَعَدَ اللّهُ الْحُسْنَى وَفَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا

“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). To all (in Faith) has Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight has He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” (tmq 4:95)

It is clear in this verse that al-Jihad is in the meaning of going out to fight and that it is better than staying at home. Also from the verses about Jihad in surah Al-Tawba:

انْفِرُواْ خِفَافًا وَثِقَالاً وَجَاهِدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ وَأَنفُسِكُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ ذَلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ

“Go forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the cause of Allah. That is best for you, if you (but) knew.” (tmq 9:41)

The order of ‘Nafr’ (going out) means that Jihad is fighting.

لَـكِنِ الرَّسُولُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَعَهُ جَاهَدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ لَهُمُ الْخَيْرَاتُ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

“But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.” (tmq 9:88)

Also in surah Al-Saf, after mentioning fighting (Jihad) at the beginning, Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta’ala) says:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِهِ صَفًّا كَأَنَّهُم بُنيَانٌ مَّرْصُوصٌ

“Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.” (tmq 61:4)

It is clear in the Madani verses that the subject of Jihad is specifically related to fighting and what fighting entails naturally from finance, weapons and the like. Also these verses demonstrate aspects of the conditions that precede the action of fighting and are conditional for its legality i.e. propagating the invitation for non-Muslims to embrace Islam (as this is the original condition for fighting as has been mentioned in ‘Mughni al-Muhtaj) and/or accept the Islamic authority over them. From the Sunnah of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam), Jihad has been mentioned also with this shariyah meaning i.e. fighting and what it entails.

On the authority of Abi Hurayrah, who said: “People asked, “Oh Rasoolallah, tell us about an action that is equal to the Jihad fi Sabeel Lillah?” Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) replied, “You will not find it bearable.” They replied, “Tell us oh Rasoolallah, maybe we can be able to withstand it.” Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “The example of a mujahid Fi Sabeel Lillah is like the fasting man, the one who stays up at its night and prays and the one who is obedient to the verses of Allah, does not get tired of fasting, nor stops sadaqah until the mujahid returns back to his family.”

It is clear from the wording of the hadith that the question was about the mujahid with the meaning of the fighter in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) specifically. The answer also indicated the same meaning when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “Until the mujahid returns back to his family” i.e. returns back from the fighting. Also by the authority of Jaabir, that the people asked Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam), “Which Jihad is better?” He (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “The one in which one’s horse is wounded and one’s blood is split in it.” On the authority of ibn Abbas, he said that Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “When your brothers were killed in the battle of Uhud, Allah put their souls inside green birds that wonder inside Jannah landing on the rivers of Jannah and eats from its fruits. When they see how they spend their time and they look at their food and drink and how great it was, they say, ‘How we wish that our people know about how Allah rewarded us, so that they may love Jihad and not refrain from it.’ So then Allah says to them that, ‘I will tell you people and your brothers on your behalf.’ So they became happy with that news.” Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta’ala) sent this in surah Al-Imran on the occasion of the Battle of Uhud:

وَلاَ تَحْسَبَنَّ الَّذِينَ قُتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ أَمْوَاتًا بَلْ أَحْيَاء عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يُرْزَقُونَ

“Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.” (tmq 3:169)

From all of these shariyah texts, it is clear that the Legislator transferred the word Jihad from its general linguistic meaning to a special meaning, which is ‘al-Qitaal’ (fighting) and whatever is linked to it directly and indirectly, as has been mentioned earlier. Moreover, it relates to the words, which carry the same meaning of al-Jihad like war. From this we can see that the shariyah texts defined Jihad as fighting (qitaal) in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) and this can be found in the books of fiqh, which dealt with the shariyah meaning of Jihad and laws related to it.

In Badi’ul Sanai’ of the Hanafi Mazhab, it states the following: “Jihad in the language is exerting effort. In the understanding of the Shara, it is exerting effort and energy in fighting fi sabeel lillah by nafs, finance, tongue or another.”

In Manhul Jaleel of the Maliki Mazhab, al-Jihad is defined as the, “fighting by a Muslim against a kaafir (who does not have a treaty with the Muslims) to make the word of Allah the highest…. or for a Muslim to arrive to do Jihad or to enter the Kaafir’s land for fighting.” Ibn Arafa defined this.

According to the Shafi Mazhab in Al-Iqna, Jihad is fighting ‘Fi Sabeel Lillah’. Al-Shirazi in Al-Muhazab said that Jihad is ‘qitaal’.

In Al-Mughni according to the Hanbali Mazhab, Ibn Qudama did not give any other definition. In the section ‘kitab ul-Jihad’ whatever is related to war, whether it was fard ul-kifaya (collective obligation) or fard ul-ayn (individual obligation) or whether it was in the form of guarding the believers from the enemy and the guards ‘ribat’ at the borders, all of this is connected to Jihad. He also said, “If the enemy arrives, Jihad becomes fard ul-ayn on the murabitoon (border guards). If it becomes evident that the enemy arrived, then they do not leave to meet them except by an order of the Ameer, since the Ameer is the one who has the authority for issuing orders in the matters of war.”

So it is clear that the meaning of Jihad was transferred from the linguistic to the shariyah meaning, such that it was understood to mean fighting and nothing else. Such purity and clarity over its meaning today is clearly vague, from what is heard from the lips of rulers over the Islamic lands and even amongst the Muslim ummah itself, as a result of the dominance and pollution of western political thought and reeling from a defeatist mentality that seeks to be apologetic.

So what emerged and dominated the opinion were those who sincerely but incorrectly took Jihad as the rule for all matters whilst others reduced Jihad as a matter connected to defending the ‘nafs’ and identity i.e. defensive fighting as opposed to offensive fighting. Others went further to say that Jihad is of the ‘nafs’ and overcoming desires only, calling it the ‘Great Jihad’, further saying that it is better than the small Jihad which is ‘qitaal’ (fighting). Such are those that have become lazy and feeble, with their hearts filled with the fear of the enemy.

So the protection of the Deen, hatred of the Kuffar and the love of Jihad has become replaced with the protection of the nation-state (nationalism), pleasing the colonialists and the love of excessive material gain. Since these incorrect concepts have become common between Muslims and the clear definition of Jihad is absent from the minds, the incentive and love to do Jihad, for many, has died (though the increased hostility and aggression of the western nations in the Islamic lands has served to re-kindle the correct desire).

It is, therefore, naturally important to clarify this matter such that the Muslims are able to refute the erroneous misunderstandings that exist, refute false claims and rekindle the love of Jihad.

Greater/Smaller Jihad

Firstly, the common understanding of Muslims is that Jihad is divided into two sections: Jihad ul-Akbar (the ‘Greater Jihad’), which is connected to Jihad ul-Nafs i.e. fighting the inner desires and shaiytan etc… Jihad ul-Asghar (the ‘Smaller Jihad’), which is fighting the kaafir enemy in battles and what is related to it.

Of the evidences that are quoted from the Islamic texts, the main one is the hadith, where Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “We have arrived from the small Jihad to the great Jihad”. So they asked, “What is the great Jihad?” He (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) replied, “It is Jihad ul-Nafs (against the inner self).”

In another narration, Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) referred to the “…Jihad of the slave against his desires.”

Though it is correct that there is a Jihad against the nafs, like against shaiytan, however, it is not greater in the sight of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta’ala) from the physical Jihad against the Kuffar and it (Jihad ul-Nafs) does not cancel nor invalidate it.

This Jihad against the Kaafir enemies is continuous until the Day of Judgment as is the Jihad against the nafs also continuous until the Day of Judgement. But one should know that the evidences of doing Jihad against the nafs are different to the evidences of Jihad against the Kuffar.

Each has a situation different from the other (context) and it is not permitted to mix the two or to use the evidence of one for the other or to change one in place of the other. Rather there is a need for each, but in its correct context and each of them is a responsibility when put in their correct contexts.

This is why saying that ‘Jihad ul-nafs’ is better and greater in the sight of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta’ala) is both very dangerous and an outright mistake, which contradicts the understanding of Jihad in the Way of Allah.

It is invalid from many angles:

1. Jihad has two meanings as mentioned previously, a linguistic and a shariyah meaning. Jihad of the nafs comes under the linguistic meaning and not the shariyah meaning.

2. The evidences used to say that Jihad ul-nafs is greater than Jihad against the Kuffar cannot be used to prove this and this is clear from the reality of the evidences that are used. This is because,

a. The hadith is ‘mardood riwayatan’

b. The hadith is ‘mardood dirayatan’

With regards to its invalidation from narration that is because the hadith is weak ‘Da’eef’ as is clarified in Al-Ajmi Al-Saghir by Imam Suyuti. As for its invalidation by meaning that is because it is contradicting definite text, which makes Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah obligatory and makes it the greatest of action.

This can be seen from three aspects:

a. The verses that mention the value of the Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah and that it is from the best actions like the verse:

لاَّ يَسْتَوِي الْقَاعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُوْلِي الضَّرَرِ وَالْمُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ دَرَجَةً وَكُـلاًّ وَعَدَ اللّهُ الْحُسْنَى وَفَضَّلَ اللّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا

“Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). To all (in Faith) has Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight has He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” (tmq 4:95)

b. The verses that praise Jihad and the Mujahideen Fi Sabeel Lillah like the verse,

لَـكِنِ الرَّسُولُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَعَهُ جَاهَدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ لَهُمُ الْخَيْرَاتُ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

“But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.” (tmq 9:88)

إِنَّ اللّهَ اشْتَرَى مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنفُسَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُم بِأَنَّ لَهُمُ الجَنَّةَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَيَقْتُلُونَ وَيُقْتَلُونَ وَعْدًا عَلَيْهِ حَقًّا فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنجِيلِ وَالْقُرْآنِ وَمَنْ أَوْفَى بِعَهْدِهِ مِنَ اللّهِ فَاسْتَبْشِرُواْ بِبَيْعِكُمُ الَّذِي بَايَعْتُم بِهِ وَذَلِكَ هُوَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ

“Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” (tmq 9:111)

c. The verses that condemn and promises punishment to those who do not participate in Jihad, the ones left behind and the lazy neglectful ones,

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَا لَكُمْ إِذَا قِيلَ لَكُمُ انفِرُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ اثَّاقَلْتُمْ إِلَى الأَرْضِ أَرَضِيتُم بِالْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا مِنَ الآخِرَةِ فَمَا مَتَاعُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فِي الآخِرَةِ إِلاَّ قَلِيلٌ

“O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that, when you are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter.” (tmq 9:38)

In addition to this are the sayings of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) that the best action to Allah is Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah and the fighting (qitaal) against the Kuffar: From the many narrations, Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, ”Taking a journey in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) is better than the duniya and what is in it.”

“Those who guard (the borders) for one day in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) is better than the duniya and what is in it.” ”If anyone takes a position in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) it is better than his prayer ‘salah’ in his house for 70 years. Don’t you want Allah to forgive you your sins and enter you in the Jannah? Invade, in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah).”

Therefore what has been mentioned in the text shows clearly that Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah is one of the best actions and of the highest degree, which is clearly shown by the shariyah indicators, ‘Qarain’, that connect praise, condemnation, reward and punishment to expose the fact that Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah is greater and better than Jihad against the nafs. This is why the hadith is invalid in meaning ‘dirayatan’ because it contradicts the definite texts and therefore it is invalid ‘baatil’ to use as an evidence (i.e. to show that Jihad ul-nafs is a greater action).

Is Jihad defensive only?

As for the opinion that Jihad in Islam is defensive and not offensive by using the evidence (and similar evidences):

وَإِنْ جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that Hears and Knows (all things)”
(tmq 8:61)

وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.”
(tmq 2:190)

This is also incorrect and invalid for its application upon this matter is incorrect for the following reasons:

1. The evidences of Jihad are general ‘mutlaq’ evidences and include all offensive and defensive actions e.g. waging war to pre-empt an attack, to protect the borders, killing on the battlefield. To restrict or specify the evidences only to defensive and not offensive Jihad, requires a textual evidence to show that the Jihad is restricted to defensive Jihad only. And there is no such text in the Quran or the Sunnah that restricts or specifies this. Therefore, the evidences regarding Jihad remain general and to be used for all types of war and all types of fighting with the enemy. So it is invalid (baatil) to use the verse,

وَإِن جَنَحُواْ لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do you…” (tmq 8:61), to show that Jihad is only defensive.

That is also the case with the rest of the evidences that are used by proponents of this erroneous understanding. This and similar verses cannot be used to specify or restrict the generality of the verses in surah al-Tawba because they were the last verses revealed regarding Jihad and what came prior to these verses regarding Jihad does not specify the verses which were revealed after them or came afterwards. And the verse does not restrict the latter revealed verses either. There has to be a text present to restrict or specify the general verse and they also must be revealed after the initial, which are general or mutlaq or even they (i.e. those verses which are restricted or specific) should be mentioned together with the general verses so that the two situations can be shown (i.e. to show the different situations upon which they apply). So Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta’ala) says: وَإِن جَنَحُواْ لِلسَّلْمِ , which is regarding the time of the peace. And He (Subhanna Wa Ta’ala) says,

قَاتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”,
(tmq 9:29) which is at the time of war and fighting.

So peace and fighting are two situations, which remain un-abrogated, i.e. neither abrogates the other.

2. In addition to this, the saying and actions of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) show that Jihad definitely is to start (offensive) fighting the kuffar to make the Words of Allah the highest and to propagate (da’wa) the call of Islam. Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said,

“I have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness that, ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger’ and they establish the prayer and the zakat. And if they do this, then from me is protected their blood and their wealth except by the right granted by Allah.”

As for his (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) actions, they are full of actions that show Jihad is to start the fighting. So when he went out to Badr to take the caravan belonging to the Quraysh, this was going out to fight, this is offensive – as Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) initiated the action before the Quraysh.

Likewise, when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) invaded Hawazin in the battle of Hunayn, when he (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) seiged Ta’if and the battle of Mutah to fight the Romans and the Battle of Tabuk – all of these are evidences to show that Jihad is to start fighting kuffar (offensive). This should clarify the erroneous view that in origin Jihad is defensive.

3. From Ijma as-Sahabah, it is clear that Jihad is fighting Fi Sabeel Lillah to carry Islam and that it is offensive. The evidence, which is sufficient to explain this, is the opening of Iraq, Persia, Sham, Egypt and North Africa. They were all opened at the time of the Sahabah with their Ijma’ (consensus). Therefore, all what we mentioned are sufficient evidences to refute the claim that Jihad is defensive.


In conclusion, Muslims should gain the confidence to present the reality of Jihad to our ummah and raise the level of thinking on this issue such that the Muslims become clearer about its meaning, obligation, gain an increased love for it and importantly, understand the contexts in which it exists and is applied.

The Islamic Ummah, served with the responsibility to present and guard Islam should not allow the rulers over the Islamic lands to pollute the meaning of Jihad and remove its love from the hearts of the believers. Indeed, the Islamic Ummah should not allow these rulers to commit the greater crime to rule over her by other than Islam and dilute the purity of the whole of Islam with their shamelessness, implementation of kufr and humiliating subservience to a part of the creation i.e. their colonial masters, instead of their subservience to the Creator and Master of all that is seen and unseen, Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta’ala).

As for the interaction with the non-Muslims, it is important that the Muslims have the clarity and strength to tackle the malicious, incorrect and hateful propaganda that is focussed on Jihad that is presented as barbaric against peaceful people with the objective to force them to embrace Islam by compulsion and the sword.

The Islamic ummah should tackle this from two perspectives.

Firstly, the Muslims should expose the violent, barbaric and inhumane foreign policy of the ‘civilised’ colonial powers that have destroyed nations, states and people; left millions to starve for the sake of securing capitalist interests, appointed and protected oppressive regimes that suppress the will of their people; plundered resources of the lesser developed and invade lands with brute force, terrorising the local civilian people with indiscriminate policies of killing, imprisonment, rape, ‘carpet bombing’; razing whole villages and towns into the ground; and forcing the people to adopt their life-styles, values and political structures. What right do such people have after witnessing the implementation of such a wicked and brutal foreign policy with their own eyes – in South America, Africa, Palestine, Afghanistan and more recently in Iraq, from the various credible news sources – to even begin laying a criticism against Jihad.

Non-Muslims need to see the reality of their own governments and not be blinded the hysterical and deceitful propaganda that increasingly is aimed at Islam and its values.

Secondly, Muslims should demonstrate some of the rules that surround Jihad and state that offensively carrying the struggle against non-Islam does not permit Muslims to compel the local people to embrace Islam. This is because Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta’ala) does not allow compulsion:

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ

“There is no compulsion in deen” (tmq 2:256)

Likewise Islam does not allow the exploitation, plundering, razing and desecration of places of worship, people’s homes and honour – when Jihad is carried offensively. Rather Jihad is carried offensively to cleanse the earth from the kufr, with the implementation of Islam as a system thus liberating man from the rule of man. The history of the Islamic conquests, the presence of Christians and Jews, who lived in security and prosperity under the Islamic State and the safe-haven that the Islamic authority provided for people savaged by the forefathers of the modern colonialists is sufficient proof for this.

On the horizon, as the struggle between Iman and kufr increases day by day – it is imperative for the Muslims to hold to the truth of Islam, its rules and not permit the dilution of its intellectual wealth – a wealth which soon will transform the darkness of colonial rule to the mercy and shade of the Islamic authority, Al-Khilafah, by Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta’ala’s) permission.

The Emerging ‘New Middle East’

October 22, 2008

Project Syndicate

by Joschka Fischer

Joschka FischerPresident George W. Bush’s Middle East policy undeniably managed to achieve one thing: it has thoroughly destabilized the region. Otherwise, the results are not at all what the United States had hoped to accomplish. A democratic, pro-Western Middle East is not in the cards.
But, while things are not developing as American neo-conservatives had intended, they are nevertheless developing. The historical failure named Iraq war, the demise of secular Arab nationalism and the soaring oil and gas prices have wrought profound changes in the region. From Damascus to Dubai, from Tel Aviv to Teheran, a new Middle East is now emerging.

The old Middle East arose from the borders and political identities created by the European powers after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. Its driving ideological force was a European-inspired secular nationalism, which strove for political and social modernization through top-down government action. This type of nationalism, or “Arab socialism,” reached its apex during the Cold War, when it could lean on Soviet military, political, and economic support.

Its end came with that of the Soviet Union, as it petrified into authoritarian, corrupt, and inefficient military regimes and dictatorships. The end of the Soviet Union also triggered a profound military crisis in many Arab states: without Soviet support as an external guarantor of their military capabilities, the nationalist regimes were no longer able to keep pace with military modernization.

The nationalist regimes thus gradually lost domestic popular legitimacy, creating a vacuum that non-state actors have now largely filled. The ideological forces and the currency of power have also changed, with political Islam replacing secularism while skillfully integrating social issues and revolutionary, anti-Western nationalism.

Today, the old Middle East can still be found in Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Algeria, and Fatah-controlled Palestine. The new Middle East includes Dubai, the Gulf emirates, and Israel, as well as Hezbollah, Hamas, and jihadi terrorism – and, partly, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Jordan and Morocco are also trying to associate themselves with the new Middle East.

Obviously, as these examples suggest, “new” does not necessarily mean better, but simply different and more modern. Indeed, modernization by no means implies a solution to the conflicts that continue to fester in the region. Instead, these conflicts are themselves “modernized,” which could make them even more dangerous than in the past.

An aspect of such modernization could be seen in the 2006 Lebanon war between Israel and Hezbollah, where tank warfare was rendered obsolete by missiles and Katyushas. At the same time, non-state actors, such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda, have taken the place of traditional armies, and suicide bombers equipped with road-side and car bombs or explosive belts have replaced guerrilla fighters with their Kalashnikovs.

Perhaps the most important change is the shift in the region’s political and military center of gravity. While Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon defined the most important hot spots in the old Middle East, regional power and politics in the wake of the Iraq war is now centered in the Persian Gulf. The dominant conflict is no longer the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, but the threat of a confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia for sub-regional supremacy, and between Iran and the US for regional hegemony. Indeed, it is by now virtually impossible to implement any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without Iran and its local allies – Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.

In a way, then, the war in Iraq forms the strategic and military bridge between the old and the new Middle East. The US intervention has brought about four far-reaching changes in the region:

· Iran’s hegemonic ambitions have been unleashed, and the country has been helped to a strategic position that it could never have reached on its own.

· The democratization of Iraq has empowered the Shi’a majority, which in turn greatly strengthened Iran’s influence. Indeed, the war in Iraq has transformed the centuries-old Shi’a-Sunni conflict by infusing it with modern geopolitical significance and extending it to the entire region.

· The rise of Iran poses an existential threat to Saudi Arabia, because the country’s oil-rich northeast is populated by a Shi’a majority. A Shi’a government in Baghdad, dominated by Iran, would, in the medium term, threaten Saudi Arabia’s territorial integrity – a scenario that the Saudis cannot, and will not, accept.

· Should Iran manage to become a nuclear power, the Saudis’ existential fears would dramatically escalate. More generally, the currency of conventional military power in the Middle East would largely lose its value, inevitably resulting in a regional nuclear arms race.

Emanating from this new situation is the threat of disintegration of the whole Anglo-French system of states in the Middle East. The first candidate is, of course, Iraq.

Whether Iraq can be held together despite the ethnic and religious confrontations that pit Kurds against Arabs and Sunnis against the Shi’a is one of the most pregnant questions for the new Middle East. For Iraq’s disintegration would be hard to contain; indeed, it could bring about a thorough balkanization of the region.

Another important question is whether political Islam will move toward democracy and acceptance of modernity or remain trapped in radicalism and invocation of the past? The forefront of this battle is, at the moment, not in the Middle East, but in Turkey; nevertheless, the result is bound to have more general significance.

The emergence of the new Middle East may present an opportunity to establish a regional order that reflects the legitimate interests of all the actors involved, provides secure borders, and replaces hegemonic aspirations with transparency and cooperation. If not, or if such an opportunity is not seized, the new Middle East will be much more dangerous than the old one.

How to rule the world after Bush

October 22, 2008

Asia Times

By Mark Engler

Picture January 20, 2009, the day George W Bush has to vacate the Oval Office.

It’s easy enough to imagine a party marking this fine occasion, with antiwar protesters, civil libertarians, community leaders, environmentalists, health-care advocates and trade unionists clinking glasses to toast the end of an unfortunate era. Even Americans not normally inclined to political life might be tempted to join the festivities, bringing their own bottles of bubbly to the party.
Given that presidential job approval ratings have rarely broken 40% for two years and now remain obdurately around or below 30% – historic lows – it would not be surprising if this were a sizeable celebration.

More surprising, however, might be the number of people in the crowd drinking finer brands of champagne. Amid the populist gala, one might well spot figures of high standing in the corporate world, individuals who once would have looked forward to the reign of an MBA president but now believe that neo-conservative bravado is no way to run an empire.

One of the more curious aspects of the Bush years is that the self-proclaimed “uniter” polarized not only American society, but also its business and political elites. These are the types who gather at the annual, ultra-exclusive World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and have their assistants trade business cards for them. Yet, despite their sometime chumminess, these powerful few are now in disagreement over how American power should be shaped in the post-Bush era and increasing numbers of them are jumping ship when it comes to the course the Republicans have chosen to advance these past years. They are now engaged in a debate about how to rule the world.

Don’t think of this as some conspiratorial plot, but as a perfectly commonsensical debate over what policies are in the best interests of those who hire phalanxes of Washington lobbyists and fill the coffers of presidential and congressional campaigns. Many business leaders have fond memories of the “free trade” years of the Bill Clinton administration, when chief executive officer salaries soared and the global influence of multinational corporations surged.

Rejecting neo-conservative unilateralism, they want to see a renewed focus on American “soft power” and its instruments of economic control, such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Trade Organization (WTO) – the multilateral institutions that formed what was known in international policy circles as “the Washington Consensus”. These corporate globalists are making a bid to control the direction of economic policy under a new Democratic administration.

There is little question that the majority of people on the planet – those who suffered under both the corporate globalization of the Clinton years and the imperial globalization of Bush – deserve something better. However, it is far from certain that social justice advocates who want to encourage a more democratic approach to world affairs and global economic well-being will be able to sway a new administration. On the other hand, the damage inflicted by eight years of neo-con rule and the challenges of an increasingly daunting geopolitical scene present a conundrum to the corporate globalizers: Is it even possible to go back to the way things were?

The revolt of the corporatists

Throughout their time in office, despite fulsome evidence of failure, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have maintained a blithe self-confidence about their ability to successfully promote the interests of the United States, or at least those of their high-rolling “Pioneer”-class donors. Every so often, though, the public receives notice that loyalists are indeed scurrying to abandon the administration’s sinking ship of state. In October 2007, for instance, in a front-page story entitled “GOP Is Losing Grip On Core Business Vote”, the Wall Street Journal reported that the party could be facing a brand crisis as “[s]ome business leaders are drifting away from the party because of the war in Iraq, the growing federal debt and a conservative social agenda they don’t share”.

When it comes to corporate responses to the president’s “war on terror”, we mostly hear about the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater – companies directly implicated in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and with the mentality of looters. Such firms have done their best to score quick profits from the military machine. However, there was always a faction of realist, business-oriented Republicans who opposed the invasion from the start, in part because they believed it would negatively impact the US economy. As the administration’s adventure in Iraq has descended into the morass, the ranks of corporate complainers have only grown.

The “free trade” elite have become particularly upset about the administration’s focus on go-it-alone nationalism and its disregard for multilateral means of securing influence. This belligerent approach to foreign affairs, they believe, has thwarted the advance of corporate globalization. In an April 2006 column in the Washington Post, globalist cheerleader Sebastian Mallaby laid blame for “why globalization has stalled” at the feet of the Bush administration. The White House, Mallaby charged, was unwilling to invest any political capital in the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO. He wrote:

Fifteen years ago, there were hopes that the end of Cold War splits would allow international institutions to acquire a new cohesion. But the great powers of today are simply not interested in creating a resilient multilateral system … The United States remains the only plausible quarterback for the multilateral system. But the Bush administration has alienated too many players to lead the team effectively. Its strident foreign policy started out as an understandable response to the fecklessness of other powers. But unilateralism has tragically backfired, destroying whatever slim chance there might have been of a workable multilateral alternative.
Frustrated by Bush’s failures, many in the business elite want to return to the softer empire of corporate globalization and, increasingly, they are looking to the Democrats to navigate this return. As a measure of this – the capitalist equivalent of voting with their feet – political analyst Kevin Phillips notes in his new book, Bad Money, that, in 2007, “[h]edge fund employees’ contributions to the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee outnumbered those to its Republican rival by roughly nine to one”.

This quiet revolt of the corporatists is already causing interesting reverberations on the campaign trail. The base of the Democratic Party has clearly rejected the “free trade” version of trickle-down economics, which has done far more to help those hedge-fund managers and private-jet-hopping executives than anyone further down the economic ladder.

As a result, both Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running as opponents of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and of a newer bilateral trade deal with Colombia, a country in which organizing a union or vocally advocating for human rights can easily cost you your life. The tenor of the current campaign represents a significant shift from the 1990s, when top Democrats were constantly trying to establish their corporate bona fides and “triangulate” their way into conservative economic policy.

Still, both candidates are surrounded by business-friendly advisors whose views fit nicely within an older, pre-Bush administration paradigm of corporate globalization. The tension between the anti-NAFTA activists at the base of the party and those in the campaign war rooms has resulted in some embarrassing gaffes during the primary contest.

For Hillary Clinton, the most notable involved one of her chief strategists, Mark Penn, a man with a long, nefarious record defending corporate abuses as a Washington lobbyist. As it turned out, Penn’s consulting firm received US$300,000 in 2007 to support the “free trade” agreement with Colombia. Even as Clinton was proclaiming her heartfelt opposition to the deal and highlighting the “history of suppression and targeted killings of labor organizers” in that country, a key player in her campaign was charting strategy with Colombian government officials to get the pact passed.

The Obama campaign found itself in similar discomfort in February. While the candidate was running in the Ohio primary as an opponent of NAFTA, calling that trade deal a “mistake” that had harmed working people, his senior economic policy adviser, University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee, was meeting with Canadian government officials to explain, as a memo by the Canadians reported, that Obama’s charges were merely “political positioning”.

Goolsbee quickly claimed that his position had been mischaracterized, but the incident naturally raised questions. Why, for example, had Goolsbee, senior economist to the Democratic Leadership Council, the leading organization on the corporate-friendly rightwing of the party, and a person praised as “a valuable source of free-trade advice over almost a decade”, been positioned to mold Obama’s economic stances in the first place?

If pressure from the base of the party lets up after the elections, it would hardly be surprising to see a victorious candidate revert to Bill Clinton’s corporate model for how to rule the world. However, a return to a pre-Bush-style of international politics may be easier dreamed than done.

The neo-con paradox

To the chagrin of the “free trade” elite, the market fundamentalist ideas that have dominated international development thinking for at least the past 25 years are now under attack globally. This is largely because the economic prescriptions of deregulation, privatization, open markets and cuts to social services so often made (and enforced) by the IMF and the World Bank have proven catastrophic.

In 2003, the United Nations’ Human Development Report explained that 54 already poor countries had actually grown even poorer during the “free trade” era of the 1990s. The British Guardian summarized well the essence of this report:

Taking issue with those who have argued that the “tough love” policies of the past two decades have spawned the growth of a new global middle class, the report says the world became ever more divided between the super-rich and the desperately poor. The richest 1% of the world’s population (around 60 million) now receives as much income as the poorest 57%, while the income of the richest 25 million Americans is the equivalent of that of almost 2 billion of the world’s poorest people.

Such findings led United Nations Development Program administrator Mark Malloch Brown, in a remarkably blunt statement, to call for a “guerilla assault on the Washington Consensus”.

In fact, in 2008, such an assault is already well under way – and Washington is in a far weaker position economically to deal with it. The countries burned by the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, for instance, are now building up huge currency reserves so they never again have to come begging to the IMF(and so suffer diktats from Washington) in times of crisis. Moreover, virtually the whole of Latin America is in revolt. Over 500 million people reside in that region, and over two-thirds of them now live under governments elected since 2000 on mandates to split with “free trade” economics, declare independence from Washington, and pursue policies that actually benefit the poor.

In late April, economist Mark Weisbrot noted that, with so many countries breaking free of its grasp, the IMF, which once dictated economic policy to strapped governments around the world, is now but a shadow of its former self. In the past four years, its loan portfolio has plummeted from $105 billion to less than $10 billion, the bulk of which now goes to just two countries, Turkey and Pakistan. This leaves the US Treasury, which used the body to control foreign economies, with far less power than in past decades. “The IMF’s loss of influence,” Weisbrot writes, “is probably the most important change in the international financial system in more than half a century.”

It is a historic irony that Bush administration neo-cons, smitten with US military power, itching to launch their wars in Central Asia and the Middle East, and eschewing multinational institutions, actually helped to foster a global situation in which US influence is waning and countries are increasingly seeking independent paths. In 2005, British journalist George Monbiot dubbed this “the unacknowledged paradox in neo-con thinking”. He wrote:

They want to drag down the old, multilateral order and replace it with a new, US one. What they fail to understand is that the “multilateral” system is in fact a projection of US unilateralism, cleverly packaged to grant other nations just enough slack to prevent them from fighting it. Like their opponents, the neo-cons fail to understand how well [presidents Franklin D] Roosevelt and [Harry S] Truman stitched up the international order. They are seeking to replace a hegemonic system that is enduring and effective with one that is untested and (because other nations must fight it) unstable.

Battered by losing wars and economic crisis, the United States is now a superpower visibly on the skids. And yet, there is no guarantee that the coming era will produce a change for the better. In a world in which the value of the dollar is plummeting, oil is growing ever more scarce relative to demand, and foreign states are rising as rivals to American power, the possibility of either going ahead with the Bush/Cheney style of unilateralism or successfully returning to the “enduring and effective” multilateral corporatism of the 1990s may no longer exist. But the failure of these options will undoubtedly not be for lack of trying. Even with corporate globalization on the decline, multinational businesses will attempt to consolidate or expand their power. And even with the imperial model of globalization discredited, an overextended US military may still try to hold on with violence.

The true Bush administration legacy may be to leave us in a world that is at once far more open to change and also far more dangerous. Such prospects should hardly discourage the long-awaited celebration in January. But they suggest that a new era of globalization battles – struggles to build a world order based neither on corporate influence nor imperial might – will have only just begun.

Mark Engler, an analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus, is the author of How to Rule the World: The Coming Battle Over the Global Economy (just published by Nation Books). He can be reached via the website Democracy Uprising.

Nine Geopolitical Myths

October 22, 2008

Geopolitics has traditionally been the study of the relationship and links between political power and geographic space. The doctrine of Geopolitics gained attention largely through the work of Sir Halford Mackinder in England and his formulation of the Heartland Theory in 1904, which in reference to the British Empire at the time explored the significance of sea power in world conflict.

Whilst politics looks at the application of power, geopolitics looks at power in relation to places and resources. The Western world has dominated the geopolitical scene since the beginning of the 20th century. This has led to the creation of a number of myths, whilst a number of narratives also hide the underlying problems with the Western world. As aware Muslims we should be acquainted with the global situation for not only is this necessary for the defence of the ummah and Islam, it also exposes the weakness of the Capitalist West.

What follows is a list of such myths:-

The world is over populated

The rate of population growth over the last century has been labelled the underlying cause of the world standing on the brink of disaster; it is argued we are running out of food to sustain such growing population. It is argued by the proponents of over-population that the huge growth in world population is responsible for poverty, environmental destruction and social unrest. Economic development in the third world is impossible as long as populations continue to grow as a result international agencies and governments have developed numerous programmes to curtail the rate of population growth, all of these have been implemented in the third world.

This alleged over-population has to be in relation to something to qualify it being over. That something is the use of resources. The resources being consumed leading to global imbalances are attributed to population sizes.

When all assumptions on the effects of population growth are scrutinised population increases in no way has ever contributed to the many ills of the world today and what becomes clear is that there is a clear political agenda in attributing the increasing global population as the cause of the worlds potential disaster. This agenda is to shift the real cause away from the lifestyles, living patterns, un-sustainability of consumerism, poverty and blatant abuse of the Third world in order that the western world can live of the third world.

The developed world also faces a very series conundrum; Japan, Russia, Germany, Switzerland and much of Eastern Europe are experiencing population decline, due to a huge reduction in births. The rest of the Western world would also have declining populations was it not for immigration. As population numbers decline in the West relative to the third world and Muslim world such countries will have a legitimate right based upon their numbers to demand greater say in so called international institutes and representation on international bodies. The issue of overpopulation is a very useful tool to vilify nations with rising populations and at the same time protecting its potential loss of future influence. This can be seen clearly with Turkish EU accession, upon joining the EU, Turkey’s almost 70 million inhabitants would bestow it the second largest number of MEPs in the European Parliament. In addition Demographic projections indicate Turkey would surpass Germany in the number of seats by 2020. Turkey’s membership would have wide ranging consequences for the future direction of the EU including the thorny issue of future enlargement plans, grounds by which Valéry Giscard d’Estaing of France has opposed Turkey’s admission.[1] d’ Estaing has suggested that it would lead to demands for accession by Morocco.

The world in not overpopulated, the West just consumes too much

Western intervention in the Balkans in the 1990’s was in order to help Muslims

The NATO attack on Yugoslavia in 1993, was presented by the West as the consequence of Yugoslavia’s stubborn refusal to settle for any reasonable peace plan – in particular its rejection of plans for an international security force to implement a peace plan in Kosovo. Intervention by the West and then the eventual bombing campaign by NATO is continually held as evidence that the current ‘war on terror’ is not a war on Islam and how the West will intervene across the world for ‘humanitarian’ purposes even helping Muslims as they apparently did in 1993. In reality the geopolitical aims were very different. The political instability in the Balkans during the 1990’s was exacerbated by American determination to reduce Russia’s influence in the region, increase Europe’s dependency upon her and confer new legitimacy to NATO when it appeared increasingly redundant after the Cold War.

The Western powers and specifically both the US and Britain worked for the fragmentation of Yugoslavia as was revealed by the then US Ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmerman in January 1992 before the outbreak of hostilities ‘we are aiming for a dissolution of Yugoslavia into independent states.’[2] On the 18th March 1992 the EU brokered a deal in Lisbon among Bosnian Muslims, Croatian and Serb communities partitioning the Serb republic into three ethnically based cantons which would act as a confederation functioning as an independent state. This agreement was sabotaged by the US which urged the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic to renege the deal by declaring statehood saying ‘this was justified by the referendum on March 1st .‘ Jose Cutileiro, sectary general of the Western European union confirmed ‘to be fair President Alija Izethbegovics and his aids were encouraged to scupper the deal and to fight for a unitary Bosnian state by Western mediators.’ This is what caused the Bosnian civil war.

Today 11 000 troops are stationed in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia for peace, however such troops have ensured US economic interests are secured. Former US congressman Lee Hamilton commented in the New York Times ‘we have completely taken over the control of the Balkans. US officials exercise managing functions all states of the former Yugoslavia. We are virtually the pro consul.’ Karen Talbot geopolitical expert confirmed “the determination by the U.S and NATO, at all costs, to occupy Kosovo and virtually all of Yugoslavia, is spurred on by the enticement of abundant natural resources. Kosovo alone has the richest mineral resources in all of Europe west of Russia. The New York Times observed that “the sprawling state-owned Trepca mining complex, the most valuable piece of real estate in the Balkans, is worth at least $5 billion.” producing gold, silver, pure lead, zinc, cadmium, as well as tens of millions of dollars in profits annually. “Kosovo also possesses 17 billion tons of coal reserves and Kosovo (like Serbia and Albania) also has oil reserves.”[3] President Bill Clinton at the time let slip ‘If we are going to have a strong economic relationship that includes our ability to sell around the world, Europe has got to be a key…That‘s what the Kosovo thing was all about.’[4]

Since the bombing has ended, numerous US bases in the Balkans have been set up. A military base is being built in Kosovo, described as the largest US foreign base built since the Vietnam War. US domination of NATO meant intervention by NATO forces in the Balkans would ensure US influence in the region. A leaked version of the Pentagon’s 1994-1999 Defense Planning Guidance report advises that the United States ‘must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO … Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for US influence and participation in European security affairs.’

This all confirms the influence of Russia, the oil in the Caspian sea and the revitalisation of NATO (to continue US influence) where the geopolitical aims behind US and Western intervention, the lives of thousands of innocent people, the lives of the slaughtered in Srebrenica were a price worth paying for continued US dominance.

The world is running out of Oil

The struggle for global supremacy between Germany and Britain at the beginning of the 20th century drove them to search for alternative fuels to power the bulky coal based war machines. The discovery of oil fields in the Middle East in the 1920’s spurred a century of new technologies, created new patterns of society and consumption and changed the global balance of power.

However like oil fossil fuels they are limited and will eventually finish. For the most part of the 20th century this was never a discussion as most of the worlds oil will still not discovered, technologies such as the fighter jet, tanks, automobiles were all designed to run on oil, apart from oil prices exploding if oil was drying up, such technologies would also become redundant.

Peak oil was fist introduced in the 1970’s, this is the point where half of the known oil has been consumed, and at the time this view wad ridiculed and labelled a fringe view. Today it is considered a mainstream view and the world is running out of oil is considered a geopolitical headache for the world. No doubt the world is running out of oil; however this masks a number of deeper political issues.

The world is running out of oil is a convenient excuse for West’s over consumption, to reduce consumption is considered the ultimate taboo. As more and more nations scramble for the ever dwindling supply of oil, this has exposed the West. The Western world consumes 50% of the 21st century’s most important resource but produced less then a quarter of it. It is over consumption rather then China and India that are causing the crisis. The US specifically produced only 8% of the world’s oil but consumes 25% of it

As US consumption continues to rise the competition for dwindling energy sources will intensify, this will make the Muslim lands even more important and as with Iraq, occupation may well be justified for stable supplies of the black stuff.

The third world is in poverty because their is not enough food in the world

Numerous organisations have researched into the general causes of poverty which range from the lack of resources to the nature of the local climate to the lack of democracy. There is generally no consensus on the causes by sociologists and think tanks however a dominant idea that exists is that only the diffusion of capitalism with its free markets is the cure. However a cursory glance at not just the Muslim world but the third world in general shows a handful of factors have played a large part in the poverty in the world today.

The role IMF and World Bank and their notorious structural adjustment policies in countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Egypt have directly aided some of the underlying economic problems. The general solution provided by such institutions is the engaging of trade to climb out of poverty. In reality there are a number of obstacles placed by the developed nations that ensure developing nations will never reach a level where they can compete. What this actually means is that Western goods should be imported rather than allow imports from poorer countries. The theory is that only via trade will nations pull themselves out of poverty. The development of a market economy with a greater role for the private sector was therefore seen as the key to stimulating economic growth and removing poverty.

As an example Pakistan actually required essential investments in health, education and infrastructure before they could compete internationally. The World Bank and IMF instead required Pakistan to reduce state support to these sectors and concentrate on exports. They insisted on pushing Pakistan into markets where they were unable to compete with the might of the international private sector. Such policies inevitably undermined the economic development of Pakistan.

Africa is being asked to repay it’s a legacy of the colonial era. Africa’s debt is partly the result of the unjust transfer to them of the debts of the colonizing states, in billions of dollars, at very high interest rates. It also originates from ‘odious debt’, whereby debt was incurred as rich countries loaned funds to dictators and corrupt leaders when it was known that the money would be wasted. South Africa, for example inherited “apartheid-caused debt” at £28 billion (which is now $46 billion). Post Apartheid Africa was forced to repay debts incurred by the apartheid regime so, in effect, South Africans are paying for their own oppression. In 1998 ACTSA (Action for Southern Africa) estimated that the £11 billion (now $18 billion) that South Africa borrowed to maintain apartheid, and the £17 billion (now $28 billion) that the neighbouring states borrowed because of apartheid destabilisation and aggression now represents 74% of African debt owed.

Much of the situation in the Muslim world stems from the colonial era and is summed up best by David Fromkin, Professor and expert on Economic History at the University of Chicago “Massive amounts of the wealth of the old Ottoman Empire were now claimed by the victors. But one must remember that the Islamic empire had tried for centuries to conquer Christian Europe and the power brokers deciding the fate of those defeated people were naturally determined that these countries should never be able to organize and threaten Western interests again. With centuries of mercantilist experience, Britain and France created small, unstable states whose rulers needed their support to stay in power. The development and trade of these states were controlled and they were meant never again to be a threat to the West. These external powers then made contracts with their puppets to buy Arab resources cheaply, making the feudal elite enormously wealthy while leaving most citizens in poverty“.[5]

The third world remains poor due to the policies of the West and will remain poor not because of a shortage of food but due to the excessive consumption of the West – the West with 20% of the world population consume 80% of the worlds agricultural production.

The United Nations upholding of international law makes it best placed to regulate international relations and solve international conflicts.

The UN was founded in 1945 primarily to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’. Since then there have been more then 250 conflicts worldwide, it is patently clear the UN has been unsuccessful for the purpose it was created for.

The West as well as many policymakers from the third world considers the UN a non-biased, internationally represented institution boasting nearly 200 member states, who uphold the beacon for the values of internationalism, multilateral action, democracy, pluralism, secularism, compromise, human rights and freedom. This could not be further from the truth.

The UN in reality is a tool of exploitation where it is manifestly apparent from the inherent structure of the organisation that it legitimises wholesale abuse by the colonialist, permanent members of the Security Council. Many events have undermined the UN. The invasion of Iraq, the selective application of international law on the State of Israel, the failure to stop the massacre of Srebrenica and ethnic cleansing in Rwanda under its watchful eye.

In reality the UN is an international organisation which the five permanent security members have used as an extension of their foreign policies. Also international law in reality does not exist, only international norms. For international law to exist enforcement must be possible at a global level, supranational level. As this does not exist we must expect nation-states to flout the regulations of the international agencies when it suits them – neo-realism (cf. Waltz. K. 1979. ‘A Theory of International Politics’).

The third world need to liberalise their economies for them to develop

The last three decades have seen Capitalism dominate the international development scene. It has completely monopolised economic development and enforced its formula upon the world. The Asian tiger economies of China, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong are held regularly held as successful nations who adopted liberalism and progressed. The IMF alongside the World Bank proclaimed industrialisation and the diffusion of liberal economic ideas would transform traditional economies and societies. These influences would place poor countries on a path of development similar to that experienced by Western industrialised nations during the Industrial Revolution.

Today Poverty is the state for the majority of the world’s people. 3 billion people in the world live on fewer than two dollars a day; another 1.3 billion people live on less than one dollar a day. 1.3 billion have no access to clean water; 3 billion have no access to sanitation and 2 billion have no access to electricity. Liberalism has actually been the cause of the wealth disparities in the world and the poverty the majority of the world’s people face. A number of surveys have highlighted that liberlism has created even more poverty stricken people in the world. The 7th December 2006 saw the culmination of a global study – from the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations. Some of its findings are staggering; by gathering research from countries all over the world the studies findings concluded that the richest 1% of the world owns 40% of the planet’s wealth and that only 10% of the world’s population owned 85% of the world’s assets.[6]

Liberalism has resulted in the Western world feeding of the remainder of the world. Liberalism in no way helped alleviate poverty, it actually contributed to it, and hence any continuation of liberal economic policies in the third world will result in the poor getting even poorer.

Global warming is due to the development of India and China

Global warming and climate change refer to an increase in average global temperatures. Natural events and human activities are believed to be contributing to the increase in average global temperatures. This is caused primarily by increases in the greenhouse which is the rise in temperature on Earth as certain gases in the atmosphere trap energy gases such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Every few years, leading climate scientists at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have released major reports detailing the progress in understanding climate change. From the outset they have recommended that there be emission reductions. This body is comprised of hundreds of climate scientists from around the world. At the beginning of January 2007, the IPCC’s fourth major report summarised that they were even more certain than before of human-induced climate change because of better scientific understanding; ‘The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.’ Their definition of “very high confidence” and “very likely” is a 90% chance of being correct. (Their 2001 report claimed a 66% certainty).
In terms of historical emissions, industrialised countries account for around 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date. Since 1950, the US has emitted a cumulative total of roughly 50.7 billion tons of carbon, while China (4.6 times more populous) and India (3.5 times more populous) have emitted only 15.7 and 4.2 billion tons respectively. Annually, more than 60% of global industrial carbon dioxide emissions originate in industrialized countries, where only about 20% of the world’s population resides.
Much of the growth in emissions in the developed world stem from rapid industrialisation from the industrial revolution era. The US with its $14 trillion economy is the world’s largest polluter and has acted as an obstacle to any agreement on emission reduction targets. Reducing emissions would mean industry in the West would need to produce less – this would lead to the economies of the West to collapse rather then grow. To reduce consumption is considered Shirk in Capitalism. By the same token, the rate of consumption of fossil fuels in developed countries is also extremely high relative to the rest of the world.  The depletion of non-renewable resources and environmental destruction is primarily caused by the consumption patterns of US. US consumption of fossil fuels is well over five times the global average.
Global warming is the result of rapid industrialisation from the West with the sole concern of profit making. Although there exist technologies that allow the development of clean low-emission industrial development, their costs are high and as a result have been unable to break into the mainstream market. China and India have only in the last 20 years have seen rapid development, global warming was already high prior to that, US continued attacks on China and India for developing too quickly in reality is attempts by the world superpower to stifle their development.

The Muslim world does not want Islam

For years the West argued Muslim across the world want democracy and freedom rather then Islam, they argued only a minority of people in Pakistan and Afghanistan want Islam, the majority of the world was smitten by the West and wants to live by Capitalism. However today it is modernist Muslims who argue the Muslim world do not want Islam and are not ready for it. The West on the other hand is convinced the Muslim world wants Islam and have begun the process of defending themselves from the emergence of such a threat.

The US national intelligence council published its report following its ‘global 2020′ project, entitled ‘mapping the global future.’ The national Intelligence council (NIC) is the American intelligence community’s centre for mid-term and long-term strategic thinking. The report set out the likely scenario the world will face in 2020. The report concluded that the appeal of Islam today revolved around is call to return to earlier roots of Islam where the Islamic civilisation was at the forefront of global change under the khilafah. The report portrayed a fictional scenario ‘of how a global movement fuelled by radical religious identity could emerge.’[7] The report revealed unequivocally that at the highest levels of US policy planning preparation is being made for the emergence of the khilafah. Other reports from US policy makers and think tanks across the world acknowledged there is a broad based ideological movement seeking for the return of the Khilafah.

The CIA has already revitalized programs of covert action that once helped win the Cold War, targeting Islamic media, religious leaders, and political parties. The agency is receiving ‘an exponential increase in money, people, and assets’ to help it influence Muslim societies.

At the same time various surveys, think tank reports and policy makers have all accepted that Muslims globally have rejected western values. This represents a glaring failure on the part of the West as it has faced no challenges to its global supremacy. This means the battle for hearts and minds and physical occupation represents a last ditch effort to salvage the emergence of an alternative system of governance.

The actins of the West clearly show rather then the Muslim wanting Islam; they are not very far from achieving such aims.

Israel is invincible, it has proven this in 4 wars, hence the Muslim world should accept its here to stay.

Since its formation in 1948, the reality of Israel’s military strength has been shrouded by a mythical aura of invincibility. Interestingly such myths have not been actively expressed by Israel, but have been given life by the actions of the treacherous Muslim rulers

Israel’s performance in the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 against the Muslims in the region has long been seen as confirmation of Israel military superiority. In light of this apparent superiority and its seizure of Muslim lands, it is argued that direct military conflict with Israel is not a viable course of action for the Arab states, creating the necessity of entering into negotiations. The direct consequence of such a move has been the acceptance of Israel’s sovereignty through plans such as the peace process.

In reviewing Israel’s supposed military might one must keep in mind: What purpose does the construction of this myth serve?

1948 war – Israel’s creation

The war of 1948 led to the establishment of the State of Israel. On the surface, one may find it difficult enough to understand how 40 million Arabs could not match the fighting strength of just 600,000 Jews. A closer study of the defenders of the Palestinian cause shows how their actions in fact led directly to the establishment of Israel.

The primary representatives of the Palestinian cause was King Abdullah of Transjordan, King Farook of Egypt and the Mufti of Palestine, all of them were extremely weak rulers subject to constant manipulation by the British. King Abdullah’s portrayal of himself as a defender of the Palestinian cause was a façade. It was known he and Ben Gurion (Israel’s first Prime Minister) were students together in Istanbul and that in clandestine meetings Abdullah had offered to accept the establishment of Israel in return for Jordanian control of the Arab populated parts of Palestine.

Abdullah had the Arab Legion at his disposal, a highly trained unit of 4,500 men, with General John Glubb an Englishman as its commanding officer. Glubb in his memoirs recounted that he was under strict orders from the British, not to enter areas under Jewish control. Egypt further weakened the attack against Israel when Nakrashi Pasha , the Prime Minister initially did not use existing military units but sent an army of volunteers that had only been organised in January of that year. Jordan had also delayed the passage of Iraqi troops across its territory thus thwarting any attack against Israel. This is why a blind Imam brought to rouse the Jordanian army prior to the battle embarrassed Abdullah when he said : “O army I wish you were ours.” (referring to the Arab Legion being British)

Although the combined Muslim forces were 40,000 only 10,000 were trained soldiers. The Zionists had 30,000 armed personnel, 10,000 men for local defence and another 25,000 for home guard. Furthermore there were nearly 3,000 specially trained Irgun and Stern gang terrorists. They were armed with the latest weaponry and funded heavily through Zionist agencies in America and Britain. Despite the preparedness of the Jews, the treachery of the Muslim rulers secured a foothold for the Jews in Palestine.

The 1956 Suez Canal crisis

This conflict was never a war for the liberation of Palestine but rather a struggle between America and Britain for control of the strategically important Suez Canal.

The US saw Egypt as a critical ally if America was to gain influence in the Middle East. Through the CIA, she moved to depose the Pro British King Farook in a coup in 1952, bringing into power the Free Officers who were soon afterwards led by Nasser. The CIA worked on a project in 1951 known as “The Search for a Moslem Billy Graham.” Mike Copeland the CIA operative, published classified information in his memoirs in 1989, The Game Player, about The CIA supported coup d’etat that ousted the British puppet King Farook. Copeland, who activated the project, explains that ‘the CIA needed a charismatic leader who would be able to divert the growing anti-American hostility that was building up in the area.’ He explains both the CIA and Nasser were in agreement on Israel. For Nasser talk of war with Israel was irrelevant. Much more of a priority was British occupation of the Suez Canal Zone. Nasser’s enemy was Britain.

In 1956 Nasser carried out American demands of nationalising the Suez Canal. The response of Britain was to lure France and Israel into the struggle. This was outlined by historian Corelli Barnett, who wrote about the Suez in his book, ‘The Collapse of British Power,’ ‘France was hostile to Nasser because Egypt was helping the Algerian rebels, and attached to the canal for historical reasons. After all, a Frenchman built it. Israel was longing to have a go at Nasser anyway because of Palestinian fedayeen attacks and the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran.’ so Sir Anthony Eden (British Prime Minister) concocted a secret tripartite plot with France and Israel. [8] He further explained ‘that Israel would invade Egypt across the Sinai Peninsula.’ ‘Britain and France would then give an ultimatum to the parties to stop fighting or they would intervene to ‘protect’ the canal.[9]

The US and USSR exercised diplomatic pressure to force Britain to withdraw. Russia directly threatened Paris and London with nuclear attacks. The immense international pressure forced the British and French to withdraw and consequently lose their footing in Egypt. The American administration, under Eisenhower, went as far as threatening the Israelis with economic sanctions if they did not withdraw from occupied territory seized from Egypt, a measure that would have had disastrous consequences on Israel at the time. In the aftermath of the crisis, America emerged as the dominant force in the Middle East.

1967 six day war

This war was again another episode in the Anglo-American conflict for control of the region. Britain had been surpassed as the region’s dominant force 11 years earlier, but still retained some influence through its agents in Jordan, Syria and Israel. In an attempt to weaken Nasser, Britain sought to lure Israel to drag Egypt into a war whereby Israel would seize territory and use it as a bargaining tool in a land for peace settlement, a means through which to achieve the security which the Israelis so desperately sought. On 5 June 1967 Israel launched a pre-emptive strike destroying 60% of Egypt’s grounded air force and 66% of Syrian and Jordanian combat aircraft.

From Jordan the Israelis seized the West Bank and east Jerusalem. King Hussein, prior to the battle, had positioned his troops in different areas from where the main battle was taking place. In a matter of 48 hours the Israelis seized the major West Bank towns and most of those who were shot dead of the Jordanian forces were in retreat. In a similar manner the Israelis seized the Golan Heights on the 6th day of the war. The Syrian troops occupying the Golan Heights heard news of Israel’s capture of the strategically important heights through their own State radio announcing the Israeli capture of the heights while the Syrian troops were still clearly occupying them. Israel also dealt America’s Nasser a blow by capturing Sharm al Sheikh and securing the waterway of the Straits of Tiran. The objective of weakening the regime of Nasser was achieved, thus indirectly aiding British interests within the region. Israel was able to seize more land and use it as a bargaining asset in any land for peace negotiations, which today is still used as a basis for negotiations rather then the status of 1948.

1973 war: more treachery by the rulers

An examination of the October 1973 war launched by Egypt and Syria against Israel shows that the aims were limited and never included the liberation of Palestine. The aims never even included the liberation of the Golan Heights which were designed to be restored as part of a peace treaty between Syria and Israel. The aims were to solidify the positions of Anwar Sadat and Hafez al Assad who were relatively new leaders in countries prone to military coups. Sadat in particular was vulnerable given the fact that he had succeeded the charismatic Nasser.

Mohammed Heikal the respected editor of Al Ahram from 1957 – 1974, who witnessed the war,    he explained the extent of Anwar Sadats underlying motives in his book ‘The Road to Ramadhan’ where he cites Sadat’s mood in the run up to the war. Heikal quotes one of Sadat’s generals, Mohammed Fouwzi who gave the analogy of a samurai drawing two swords – a long one and short one in preparation for battle. Fouwzi said that this battle would be a case of the short sword, signifying a limited battle for certain motives.

Anwar Sadat had no intention of having a protracted war of liberation with Israel. This is why he sought peace with Israel whilst commanding a winning position in the war. In the first 24 hours of the war Egypt smashed through the Israeli’s much heralded Bar-Lev fortifications east of the Suez canal with only 68 casualties. Meanwhile 2 Syrian divisions and 500 tanks swept into the Golan Heights and retook some of the land captured in 1967. In two days of fighting Israel had lost 49 aircraft and 500 tanks. In the midst of this Sadat sent a message to US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in which he said that the objective of the war was ‘the achievement of peace in the Middle East and not…partial settlements.’ The message went on to state that if Israel withdrew from all occupied territories Egypt would be prepared to participate in a Peace conference under UN or neutral auspices.

Thus despite having an immense strategic advantage Sadat was in the mood for negotiation in this early stage. Sadat’s refusal to press home his initial advantage and his delay in launching the second Sinai offensive allowed Israel to mobilise with aid from the US and she began to seize back lost territory. Hostilities formally came to an end on 25 October after Israel had violated previous cease-fire agreements.

All the wars with Israel best illustrate how the Muslim rulers have never seriously fought Israel with the intention of liberating Palestine, all the mentioned examples illustrate the reality behind the myths which the Ummah has been led to believe. The real treachery has been committed by the insincere rulers who have collaborated and helped create the myth of Israeli superiority, kindling it, nurturing it and maintaining it. The wars the Arab world fought show that the Muslim countries have never singularly nor collectively fought Israel with the intention of destroying it. Each of the wars was conducted in order to meet specific objectives, none of which were to liberate the land of Palestine and eliminate Israel. Hence the objective of seriously threatening Israel was never an aim, despite the unquestionable strength of the combined Arab armies.


History is always written by the victors, this is also the case with geopolitics. There are many myths that still exist including the reasons for WW1 and WW2 and apart from deceiving the world of the West’s invincibility; this is also a very useful tool to continue to fool the host populations in the West. US superiority has taken a major hit due to the Iraq and Afghanistan war, as well as Israel’s invincibility with its defeat at the hands of Hizbullah in 2006.  Muslims should bear in mind that however dire the situation may look globally for the ummah, much of this picture is a mirage and can very easily be changed and replaced.

[1] “The ins and outs: The EU’s most effective foreign-policy instrument has been enlargement. But how far can it go?” The Economist, March 2007,

[2] US Ambassador Warren Zimmerman in an interview with the Croatian daily Danas, 12 January 1992, reprinted at

[3] Karen Talbot ‘Backing up Globalization with Military Might‘ New World Order Onslaught, Covert Action Quarterly, Issue 68, Fall 1999, retrieved 22nd May 2008,

[4] Benjamin Schwarz & Christopher Layne ‘The Case Against Intervention in Kosovo,’ the nation, 19th April 1999, retrieved 22nd May 2008,

[5] Fromkin D, A Peace to End All Peace, p 45, New York: Avon Books, 1989


[7] National Intelligence Estimate, December 2004, Report of the National Intelligence Councils 2020 project, ‘Mapping the Global Future,’ Pg 83-92, retrieved 26th October 2007,

[8] Barnett C (1972) ‘The Collapse of British Power,’ Macmillan, ISBN 0333679822, and also Paul Reynolds, ‘Suez: End of


[9] Barnett C (1972) ‘The Collapse of British Power,’ Macmillan, ISBN 0333679822

A letter from Bosnia

October 22, 2008

The future of Bosnia lies in the Khilafah

Abdul-Kareem, writes from Bosnia-Herzegovina

After touching down in Sarajevo and a brief stop at passport control we made our way outside the airport to catch a taxi. Up until this point, the flight, the airport, the baggage collection, everything was perfectly normal as you’d expect from any European capital. We flagged down a taxi, managing to haggle a fairly reasonable price despite the soaring petrol prices, and proceeded to our destination. The taxi ride from the airport is where you begin to notice that this is no ordinary European city. The NATO army truck driving past and rows of derelict houses punctured by machine gun holes give indications that this now calm city was once the scene of a terrible war. Our taxi driver speaks of war criminals, The Hague and his time fighting with the army, but this is not the Second World War. This is a war that ended just thirteen years ago in the heart of Europe.

Islam entered Bosnia nearly 600 years ago through the Ottoman conquests in the Balkans and Eastern Europe. The famous Sultan, Muhammad al-Fatih who opened Constantinople and fulfilled the Prophet Muhammad’s (saw) prophecy that one day the Muslims would conquer the city, also opened up much of Bosnia to Islam. Dotted around Sarajevo and the towns and villages across Bosnia are hundreds of mosques, many that can date their origins back to this time. With the azan echoing across the towns and villages five times a day, Bosnia takes its place as an integral part of the Muslim world, and its people part of the wider Muslim Ummah who love Islam. Despite suffering some of the worst atrocities imaginable at the hands of the Christian Serbs and Croats, they never gave up their religion and remained steadfast in the fold of Islam.

Bosnia, like all Muslim countries today is a playground for the competing interests of the international powers. The major players in the Balkans – the US, Russia and Western Europe all vie for influence through the UN, EU and NATO in addition to their historical links with the governments of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. America claims it intervened in Bosnia and later Kosovo for defending Muslims, whereas in actual fact it followed the long established principle ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend.’ America’s enemy’s enemy in this case was Russia and its subordinate Serbia.

Like all Muslim countries today, whilst the ordinary people struggle to survive, the governments and foreign powers get richer. Very little of the foreign investment makes it way to the ordinary man on the street. They see bright, new shopping malls being built but rarely could they afford to shop there. A similar situation exists in many Gulf countries hidden away among the seven star hotels, artificial islands and indoor ski slopes.

The Bosnian economy is extremely weak with over 50% unemployment. Many families survive on the handouts of family members now living abroad in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the UK. Because of this, the EU, the real power in Bosnia, is supporting efforts to develop Bosnia’s tourist industry. Croatia is already a popular tourist destination, and there are hopes Bosnia can follow suit. Major reconstruction work is taking place to build new motorways linking the north and south of the country and luxury hotels are springing up in some of the major cities. Following in the footsteps of other Muslim countries like Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey and Egypt, tourism is one industry the west is very happy for the Muslim world to adopt. Tourism ensures the economy remains un-industrialised and poses no threat to the western industries. It also provides a means for western culture to permeate the country with alcohol, casinos and scantily clad women becoming the norm. Any Islamisation of the country is fought against severely by the governments in the name of protecting the tourist industry and hence the economy. Egypt is a prime example of this. It’s one of the world’s top tourist destinations but is also one of the world’s most repressive regimes where torture and imprisonment without trial is routine.

The Bosnian government showed its true colours recently when it began efforts to deport all the mujahideen who travelled across the Muslim world in the early nineties to protect Bosnia during the war. These mujahideen were given Bosnian citizenship, many married Bosnian women and started families. Now they face the prospect of losing everything and being deported back to the most oppressive Muslim countries like Algeria, Syria and Egypt to face almost certain torture and imprisonment.

Bosnia, as with many Muslim countries suffers from underlying ethnic tensions. Deeply rooted nationalism among Serbs and Croats is what led to the outbreak of war in the first place in 1992. The wounds from the war have still not healed despite a relative calm on the surface. Flashpoints exist in some areas notably between Muslims and Serbs in Srebrenica and Muslims and Croats in Mostar. The rape camps, massacres, torture and genocide Muslims suffered are not easily forgotten. These atrocities, many committed under the watchful eyes of the UN, showed Bosnian Muslims that there is no one to protect them. I remember during the war speaking with one Bosnian soldier who simply said, ‘the Serbs have Serbia, Croats have Croatia, who do the Muslims have?’

Despite strong nationalistic tendencies, for the ordinary people whether Muslim, Croat or Serb they all suffer from the same basic day to day problems of rising food and petrol prices, unemployment, crime and government corruption. Separating on the basis of ethnic or nationalistic identity does not resolve these basic issues for the common man.

In contrast the Islamic Khilafah is not a nationalistic state or a state just for Muslims. Citizenship in Islam is based on someone permanently living within the territories of the Islamic State regardless of their ethnicity. Catholics (Croats) and Orthodox Christians (Serbs) can easily live as a religious minority in the Khilafah without compromising their religion, as long as the deeply rooted nationalistic ideas are removed. All citizens have access to justice, security and the economic benefits of a stable Islamic economy. This may seem like a dream to some, but Muslims, Christians and Jews lived peacefully together under the Ottoman Khilafah in the Balkans for many years until the period of decline.

Interestingly, Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are all seeking EU membership. They are willing to unite together for the economic benefits this will bring to their nations, even though they must sacrifice some of their national sovereignty. The recent arrest of Radovan Karadzic and his extradition to The Hague is a stark example of this. Karadzic is a national hero in Serbia and there is widespread opposition to his arrest. There have even been death threats made against the government which are being taken seriously after the assassination of a former Serb Prime Minister just a few years back. Despite all this Serbia is willingly to sacrifice a national hero to pursue EU membership talks.

Similarly, a future Khilafah that manages to project its Islamic values internationally showing the strength of the Islamic aqeeda and its systems, will see many countries willingly annexing their lands to the Khilafah even though they must give up their national sovereignty in the process.

How Islam Came to Germany

October 6, 2008
PDF Print E-mail

The history of Islam in Germany goes back as far as the 8th century. From the reign of Charlemagne, to Goethe’s literature, to the Turkish guest workers who arrived in the 1950s and 60s and made a home here, the Muslim religion has been a part of German culture for hundreds of years.

The history of Islam in Germany is believed to date back to the Caliph Harun al-Rashid. In the fabled tales of “1001 Nights,” al-Rashid is said to have wandered the streets of Baghdad at night dressed as a merchant in order to learn about the needs of his subjects. Various sources relate that Charlemagne established diplomatic relations with this Abbasid ruler in the year 797 or 801. Both sides reportedly guaranteed freedom of belief for members of the other religion in their respective empires. It is in any case an established historic fact that the elephant Abul Abbas died in 810. This magnificent animal had been sent by the caliph to Charlemagne in Aachen as a token of his friendship.

The Spread of Islam in Europe

At the time of Charlemagne, most of the Iberian Peninsula was already under the control of the Moors (more…), who ruled over this part of Europe for nearly 800 years until the final stage of the reconquista — the Christian reconquest of Spain and Portugal — in the year 1492. Additional military advances by the Muslims in Europe were stopped — exactly one century after the death of the Prophet Muhammad — in 732 at Tours and Poitiers and in 759 in Narbonne and Nimes in France.

Between the 8th and 10th centuries, Arab Muslims carried out raids on Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily and even Rome. Islamic forces advanced from the south and the west via Piemont and Burgundy into the Rhone Valley. They occupied alpine passes and parts of Switzerland, where they remained from 952 to 960.

The last great onslaught came from the east. When the Ottoman Turks captured the Byzantine capital Constantinople (today Istanbul) in 1453, it spelled the end of the Eastern Roman Empire and this final bastion of Christianity in Asia Minor. Afterwards, the Ottomans expanded their realm of influence and made incursions in 1529 and 1683 throughout the Balkans and as far as the gates of Vienna, and Islamized Bosnia and Albania.

Cultural Influences

While successive Islamic military campaigns rolled over large parts of Europe for over a millennium, the areas that make up modern Germany remained largely unaffected. There were, however, cultural influences from occupied Spain. The synergy of Islamic, Jewish and Christian learning spread the seeds of knowledge and shaped Western civilization. Treasures of antiquity, such as the works of Galen, Euclid and Plato would have been lost forever were it not for Arab translations, most of which were rendered into Latin under the orders of Archbishop Raimundo in the 12th century. Above all the commented translation of the writings of Aristotle by Ibn Rushd — better known in the Latin West as Averroes — enjoyed considerable influence on medieval scholasticism.

In order to better understand the “Koran of the Turks,” church reformer Martin Luther called for the printing of a complete Latin translation of the Islamic holy book in the Swiss city of Basel. In his treatise, “On the War Against the Turk,” he didn’t mince his words when summarizing his opinion that “the Muslim is possessed by the lying spirit” and “where the lying spirit holds sway, the murdering spirit is present as well.” Although he granted that the Turk had a number of admirable characteristics, he opined that — just like the Pope — he was a “servant of the devil.” For many years, Europeans widely believed that Islam was a Christian sect, the Koran was a Turkish bible and Muhammad was an epileptic, a swindler and a charlatan.

Acceptance of Islam

Up until the 17th century, the “Turkish threat” and fear of the Turkish wars overshadowed interactions with Muslims. It was not until 1701 that the situation began to change. That was the year when Sultan Mustafa II conveyed his congratulations to King Frederick I of Prussia on his coronation. This led to more or less open diplomatic relations between the two powers. When the Duke of Kurland presented King Frederick William I with 20 Muslim Tatars as prisoners of war, the German monarch saw to it that they received a prayer room, but ordered by decree that they hold their day of rest not on Friday, as dictated by Islam, but on Sunday.

During his rule between 1712 and 1786, Frederick II (“The Great”) also showed tolerance towards other religions. In reference to the state and the civil rights of Catholics, he said: “All religions must be tolerated and the crown must ensure that none is detrimental to the other, for each must be allowed to worship in their own way.” Furthermore, he said: “All religions are equal and good when the people who profess them are honest people; and should Turks and heathens come to populate the land, then we shall endeavor to build mosques and churches for them.”

In order to create a counterweight to the Habsburg crown, Frederick II sought and found a loyal ally in the Ottoman Empire. Official diplomatic relations to the Sublime Porte — the court of the sultan — were established, and on Nov. 9, 1763 the first Turkish envoy, Ahmed Resmi Efendi, arrived in Berlin with an exotically dressed entourage of 73 aides who were greeted by the cheering inhabitants of the city. Deeply impressed and evidently slightly confused by this emphatic reception, the diplomat wrote to Sultan Mustafa III that “the people of Berlin recognize the Prophet Muhammad and are not afraid to admit that they are prepared to embrace Islam.”

When a successor to the envoy died in 1798, Frederick William III, who ruled from 1770 to 1840, ordered that he should be buried in accordance with Islamic rites. This required a royal bequest, and thus the first Turkish-owned property on German soil was the Islamic cemetery in Berlin.

The Exotic Orient Comes to Germany

The history of Islam in Germany and German views of the religion were strongly influenced by the Enlightenment. One of the key figures of the day was Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, who lived from 1729 to 1781 and was the most important German poet of the period. He argued for the right to freedom of thought, even in matters of religion, and for tolerance of other religions. His famous “ring parable” leaves open the question of whether Christianity, Judaism or Islam possesses the sole truth.

The philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the leading advocate of German Idealism, was also fascinated by Islam and characterized it as the “religion of grandeur.”

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe had outstanding knowledge of Islam, which he brought into play in his “East-West Divan,” a collection of works published in 1819 that emulate Sufi and other Muslim poetry. Thanks to his high regard for their religion, many Muslims would just as soon adopt the great German poet as one of their own.

Muslim life was often viewed with the tunnel vision of prisoners of war and travelers. Tales of splendid royal palaces, extravagant harems and Turkish baths ignited male fantasies, including those of French painters Eugene Delacroix and Jean Auguste Ingres and their German colleague, the much acclaimed Adolf Seel. The rhythms and instruments of the military musicians of the Janissary corps, which always rode ahead of the Ottoman army and “made the earth tremble,” had a profound influence on European music, and inspired Christoph Willibald Gluck to compose his Turkish operas — “The Pilgrims to Mecca” in 1764 and “Iphigenia in Tauris” in 1779. Viennese classical composers were also fond of music “alla turca:” Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart included these exotic sounds in the overture to his comic opera “The Abduction from the Seraglio” about the escape from a Turkish harem — and the “Turkish March” in Piano Sonata No. 11. Joseph Haydn and later Ludwig van Beethoven also succumbed to the irresistible charm of oriental music.

Even the armchair travel accounts of famed German author Karl May (who lived from 1842 to 1912) — with his tales of the Ottoman Empire starring the protagonist Kara Ben Nemsi (i.e., Karl, son of Germany) — have lost none of their appeal over the years, and probably prompted many a young German to pursue Oriental studies. Secular buildings constructed in a mosque style, like the “Red Mosque,” which was built between 1780 and 1785 and set in the midst of the “Turkish Garden” at Schwetzingen Palace near Heidelberg in southern Germany, and the Yenidze tobacco factory, which was built in the early 20th century in Dresden and now serves as the venue for the “1001 Nights Festival,” must seem like mockery to devout Muslims. The builders certainly never intended to offend anyone; they were merely fascinated by the foreign and exotic elements and the architectural beauty.

In 1889, just one year after his ascendance to the throne, Kaiser William II traveled to Istanbul and nine years later journeyed to Jerusalem and Damascus, both of which belonged to the Ottoman Empire. In Damascus, the Kaiser visited the grave of Saladin, who recaptured Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187. In his speech delivered on Nov. 6, 1898, the German monarch declared: “May his majesty the Sultan and the 300 million Muslims who live scattered across the globe (…) rest assured that the German Kaiser will be their friend at all times.” Thereafter, the local religious leader intoned “in the name of the world of Islam, may Allah’s blessing be on the Kaiser, the German Empire, and all Germans.” Relations could not have been better.

During World War I the Germans and the Turks were allies. The multinational Muslim prisoners of war of the Entente were held in two camps in Zossen and in Wünsdorf near Berlin, where they were provided with a beautiful mosque in 1915, which was demolished, however, after the camp was closed.

Part 2: The Founding of Germany’s First Islamic Religious Communities

The Berlin Islamic Community was founded in Berlin in 1922 for purposes that were essentially the same as today’s Islamic organizations. The idea was to promote Islam, carry out religious instruction and build a mosque. In addition, the community oversaw the establishment of a student organization. At the same time, the Ahmadi Muslims — who are members of a special Islamic movement — formed their own organization in Germany. From 1923 to 1925, they established a mission and built a large mosque in the Berlin district of Wilmersdorf, which have since served as the center of a stable, permanent religious community. Their magazine, Moslemische Revue, or Muslim review, can be downloaded from the Internet.

When Hitler seized power in 1933, the number of Muslims in the country had risen to over 1,000, consisting primarily of students, individuals living in exile and former prisoners of war. Those who came from French and English colonies saw the Nazis as allies in the struggle against the colonial rulers. Prisoners of war and deserters from the Soviet Red Army — including many Muslims of various nationalities — signed up to fight as members of the Eastern Legions of the Third Reich in the hope that their home countries could break away from Moscow. As a result, the “Germanic” Waffen-SS evolved into a multinational force that even included Bosnians.

Post-War Germany and the Nazi Roots of Political Islam

Anyone closely examining the emergence of political Islamic movements in post-war Germany will inevitably come across the name of Stefan Meining. The historian and TV journalist working for southern Germany’s regional Bayerischer Rundfunk network researched in archives, spoke with the last remaining witnesses and shed light on a virtually unknown chapter of contemporary German and international history. In July 2006, German public TV network ARD broadcast his documentary film, “Between the Crescent and the Swastika,” which describes an unholy alliance between Islamists, Cold War hawks and former Nazis.

After the war, thousands of the Third Reich’s former Muslim fighters sought refuge in the West, with many ending up in Munich, in the American zone of occupation. Thanks to their language skills and contacts back in the Soviet Union, these Muslims were recognized as a valuable prize by US, West German, Soviet and British intelligence agencies as the world geared up for the Cold War.

Meining carefully traced how this community of ex-Nazis built a mosque in Munich after founding the Mosque Construction Commission in 1960. Today, the Mosque Construction Commission goes by the name of the Islamic Society of Germany (IGD) and has become Germany’s most important Muslim organization, with longstanding close links to the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical fundamentalist group based in Egypt. Meining’s research has revealed that two former prominent members of the IGD are also associated with al-Qaida. “If you want to understand the structure of political Islam, you have to look at what happened in Munich,” Meining told the Wall Street Journal. “Munich is the origin of a network that now reaches around the world.”

Guest Workers: The New Face of Islam

The guest workers who flocked to West Germany to help rebuild the country and fuel the economic miracle made Islam a permanent part of the country’s cultural landscape. Turks (from 1961), Moroccans (from 1963) and Tunisians (from 1965) were brought in as workers. Neither a stop on recruitment nor limitations on reunifying families have stemmed the influx of Muslim arrivals. More recently, these immigrants have been joined by refugees from war-torn regions like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Bosnia. According to the German government, more than 3 million Muslims live in Germany today, and roughly 1 million of them are German citizens.

Islamic and Islamistic organizations have been established as interest groups and developed concepts for how devout Muslims can live in a non-Islamic country without neglecting, or even worse, betraying their beliefs. At first, they lobbied for prayer rooms, which were furnished as suitably as possible. Over the past few years, mosques and minarets have appeared in most large cities and in many small towns, clearly underscoring the Islamic presence in Germany. Religious communities have confidently selected names for their houses of worship like Fatih Mosque and Ayasofya Mosque, both of which are designations that recall the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Muslims have achieved a great deal and changed a number of things (more…) that many Germans once took for granted. Nowadays, there are women-only swimming days for Muslims with female supervisors, where the pool windows are draped with heavy curtains to prevent outsiders from peering inside. Crosses have been removed from many hospitals and schools, and special Islamic prayer rooms have been introduced to factories and public buildings. And there have been many other changes. Muslim parents now seek to exempt their daughters from overnight school field trips and co-ed sports classes. The question of whether public employees should be allowed to wear Islamic headscarves has been referred to the courts, along with the issue of religious studies in schools. Germany has already begun providing university education for its Muslim religious instruction teachers (more…) and imams.

It appears the quiet settling-in period has been replaced by a loud and demanding phase. This raises concerns among many Germans that the minority society may come to dominate the majority society.

After nearly 50 years, Germany’s institutions still react rather helplessly to the permanent changes that have taken place in society. Self-proclaimed representatives of Islam — many of which have been included by the German government in the German Conference on Islam to promote intercultural dialogue, despite their openly Islamistic tendencies — have accomplished a great deal and are demanding much more. This is a distressing development for a large number of integrated Muslims, many of whom emigrated to Germany to flee precisely this type of fundamentalism. Critics of the government’s approach say that it would be better to gauge concessions toward Islam to the needs and interests of these Muslims. They suggest that by bolstering the more moderate elements of Islam, it will be possible to shape a common future with their help.

Ursula Spuler-Stegemann

Source: Spiegel

The Iranian Brotherhood!

October 6, 2008
PDF Print E-mail

Should we be surprised by the partiality of the Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) Supreme Guide Mahdi Akif towards the Shia Lebanese Hezbollah with regards to the latest crisis in Lebanon?

Did the Jordanian Islamic Action Front, the MB’s political wing, present anything new as it supported Hezbollah’s actions in Beirut and Mount Lebanon since this party is considered a symbol of resistance and the force that disciplines Arab Zionists?

It might seem odd to the average observer that an Islamic Sunni group, described as fundamentalist, supported a Shia group over Sunnis, i.e. the inhabitants of west Beirut.

Is this because of a position that transcends all differences whether color, creed or doctrine? Or are matters not so innocent?

If the MB’s position stems from tolerance and fraternity then why did the brotherhood devote so many pages of its history books to conflicts with those who disagreed with it but belonged to the same sect or were even part of the brotherhood itself?

Where has this ideological and doctrinal tolerance, which has been bestowed so generously upon Khomeini’s Hezbollah and Iran, disappeared to?

The truth is that there is a spiritual relation between the Muslim Brotherhood and Shia Islam that follows the Khomeini system based on the pretext that is always used; to confront the foreign enemy, whether it is Britain, Israel or America.

Both sanctify politics and elevate it to the status of religion in exactly the same way that Iranian Hezbollah deals with foreign policy, as though it were a matter related to faith in God and a decree from the heavens above.

This is exactly the approach that is followed by the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood: the escalation of politics, the focus of activity towards resistance, the antagonizing of others and the marginalizing of all other aspects of politics, including internal development policies. Moreover, this is precisely the way in which modern politicized Shia fundamentalism was created. The most prominent group in this field was the Iraqi Islamic Dawa Party that was formed in the 1950s. Some of the party leaders were active members of the Iraqi Hizb ut-Tahrir [Party of Liberation], which was founded by Taqiuddin al Nabhani, a Sunni Palestinian who broke away from the Muslim Brotherhood.

The reasons behind this easy transition from Hizb ut-Tahrir or the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood to the Shia Dawa Party are shared ideas and ideological political dreams.

Sheikh Aref al Basri, who was one of the key founders of the Dawa Party and a fundamentalist Shia activist, left the Sunni Hizb ut-Tahrir organization for the Dawa Party.

Mansour al Jamri, a writer in Bahrain, wrote that Iraqi Shia figures joined the Dawa Party after having worked under the auspices of the MB in Iraq, as mentioned in his article entitled ‘History of Bahraini Islamic Movements: From Dawa to Ahrar al Bahrain to al Wefaq’ that was published in ‘Al-Wasat’ newspaper.

The Syrian Sheikh Ali al Tantawi, who is close to the MB, recounts in his memoirs how the Syrian MB welcomed the Iranian fundamentalist and revolutionary activist Navvab Safavi, the leader of the Fadayan-e Islam movement, upon his arrival in Syria.

Safavi was Khomeini’s ideological and political predecessor and was mentioned on numerous occasions during Khomeini’s speeches after he returned to Tehran victorious.

The idea behind this all is that there is a kind of political ‘kinship’ between the Sunni MB, its affiliates and the writers and journalists who support it and introduce themselves as independent Islamists or ‘nationalists’, and the Khomeini Shia movement and its various branches.

What links these two sides is the significant involvement in politicizing classical Islam for the benefit of a political agenda and their specific visions of a solution for the state and society.

There is hardly any methodological difference between the literature of the MB and a group like Hezbollah. One is reminded from time to time that one group is Shia whilst the other is Sunni by historical references or symbolic figures or the pure notion of Islam which is sometimes referred to as “Caliphate” or the state of “Sahib al-Zaman” [the master of time; a reference to the awaited Mahdi]. Amongst the Shia there are references to al Hussein, Al Abbas Ibn Ali and Zainab and Shia titles such as “Haidara” and “al Karrar”. Amongst the Sunnis [there are references to] Omar Ibn al Khattab, Salahuddin Ayoubi, Nour ad-Din [ruler of Damascus during the Zengid Dynasty] and so on and so forth.

Based on this, it was not strange to hear the MB guide in Egypt, Mahdi Akif, vehemently defending the Iranian fundamentalist revolutionary trend to the extent that one would think he was born in Qom or in Jabal Amil [in southern Lebanon]!

In an interview published in ‘Al Watan Al Arabi’ magazine in August 2006, in reference to the nature of the alliance between the MB and Hezbollah, Akif stated, “It is solidarity, alliance, support…everything.”

When asked about the existence of an Iranian agenda to control the Arab region and expand Iranian influence, Akif stated, “Let leave this aside; talk of an Iranian agenda comes from the enemies of the Ummah [Islamic nation].” He expressed admiration for Iran’s argumentative discourse, and in reference to Tehran’s mullahs, he said: “When you speak to the Iranians, you find that their words are balanced by logic and evidence; they never speak about a desire to control and establish a global state.”

These comments were made two years ago by the Muslim Brotherhood guide, yet nowadays, after the recent raid that was carried out by the divine party in Beirut, Akif pledges his support once again for the Khomeini party, brushing aside any talk about Iranian interference in Arab issues because only the sacred cause, confronting America and Zionism, is pure even if it means the destruction of all countries. In response to a warning about Hezbollah’s weapons being directed towards the inhabitants of Beirut and Mount Lebanon, Hezbollah’s representative at the recent Doha talks, Mohamed Raad, said, “Our weapons are sacred.”

Why is there such tension within the Sunni and Shia Muslim Brotherhood or the Sunni and Shia Hezbollah towards peace, coexistence, life and development?

Why is there such a stubborn and narrow-minded escalation towards politics? Are the intentions pure or do the popular speeches aim to win over the frustrated masses through emotion? Are matters more complicated and can they be attributed to an unremitting conflict between a trend that calls for internal development and economic and educational reform, and another that focuses on confronting foreign parties and the postponement or marginalization of everything else for the sake of this confrontation?

The Muslim Brotherhood’s position towards Hezbollah’s raid is a grave one. What is strange is that despite Akif’s pragmatism and the MB’s usual political slyness, he gave up on word play this time and explicitly offered his support to Hezbollah’s actions. Moreover, a number of Egyptian Islamic voices that are considered moderate also chanted their support for Hezbollah on Al Manar television channel.

Beyond the similarity between political fundamentalist thought, and beyond the exasperation towards the Egyptian ruling regime, it seems to me that the MB’s ‘Sayyed’ is keen to win over the ‘Sayyed’ of the resistance. And the master of both is Iran, which supports the Hamas Brotherhood, the first Brotherhood organization in the Arab world to establish authority despite its isolation and besieging. And in the end; it is an authority born of reality on the ground, with its ministries and agencies, and its supporter is none other than Iran and its disciple Hezbollah, the secretary-general of which repeats the name ‘Hamas’ almost as much as he uses the term ‘treason’ against all his opponents!

The MB’s position is indicative of the depth of the crisis that it is experiencing as part of the Arab political system, and with which it is in a constant state of hostility. And perhaps it views, and rightfully so, that it has a wide support base and wonders why it hasn’t reached power like its offshoot Hamas.

If the brotherhood has not considered that, and it most certainly has, then who else but the Safavid mullahs in Tehran can place it in power in what would be one of history’s greatest paradoxes…

The MB and Hezbollah are two sides of the same coin; they reduce religion to a political authoritarian project and the pretext is always about the foreign enemy, turning a blind eye to any other kind of enemy whether it is ignorance, poverty, backwardness or scientific stagnancy.

Iran remains in the distance whilst ingeniously and masterfully managing the game from afar. However, no matter how long this game lasts, it is certainly only a temporary one that will end as soon as the clouds of ignorance and delusion have cleared – just Hezbollah’s summer cloud has evaporated.

Nusrah: The Shara’i Method to Assume Authority

October 6, 2008

The following is an English translation of two articles published in the Arabic magazine, Al-Waie Rajab & Sh’aban 1429 hijri (2008) issue.

Nusrah: The Shara’i Method to Assume Authority

It is enjoined upon the people of power.

By Abu Taqi Al Shami

Allah سبحانه وتعالى has bestowed the early Muslims with His honour, decreed rewards for them, and mentioned their praise in the Great Book. He سبحانه وتعالى mentioned each of the two brotherly groups, who embarked upon a great endeavour, and referred to them as Muhajirin and Ansar (the Immigrants and the Sponsors), which means the people who under took Hijrah and those who offered them the Nusrah. The Hijrah itself was the declaration of the state and migration to the land or abode of Islam (Dar ul Islam), while the Nusrah was created for Hijrah and for establishing the Dar ul Islam. Without the Nusrah and the Ansar, there could be no Hijrah or Muhajirin. Therefore, how can a Muslim, who very often recites the Quran and therein comes across the virtues of the Muhajirin and Ansar, continue to ignore the virtues of Hijrah and Nusrah?

Since we are discussing Nusrah which followed the Hijrah, it becomes inevitable to refer to the biography of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and follow his example. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم’s efforts in Makkah were directed at establishing an abode of Islam (Dar ul Islam), he treaded clearly defined path with properly calibrated milestones which could later be imitated by later generations when the Dar ul Islam ceases to exist and in fact following these well laid tracks will be mandatory in working towards establishing the Dar ul Islam. In fact the re-emergence of Dar ul Islam has been mentioned by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم in Ahadeeth where he also gave glad tidings of the return of the Khilafah.

In the tenth of the Prophethood, which is three years prior to the Hijrah, after the death of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم’s uncle Abu Talib who provided some measure of Nusrah and protection which enabled the Prophet to safely carry the call of Islam, and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم realised that the society in Makkah was neither affected by the call of Islam nor there was any public opinion for Islam and its concepts. It was in this phase that Allah سبحانه وتعالى ordered him صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم to seek Nusrah. Nusrah means good support, in the lexicons, Nasr means supporting the victims of injustice, while Ansar means a group of those who provide support and succor to the oppressed. Under the chapter titled: Efforts of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم to seek Nusrah from the tribe of ‘Thaqeef’, in Seerat ibn Hisham, it is reported:

“Ibn Ishaq says: when Abu Talib died, the Quraysh inflicted persecuted the prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم so much which they could not during the time of his صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم uncle. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم left for Ta’if in order to seek their support and protection and asked them to accept what was revealed to him from Allah سبحانه وتعالى. He went alone to Ta’if.”

It is narrated on the authority of Ibn Abbas (r.a) in Ibn Hajar’s Fath ul Bari, Tuhaft ul Ahwadhi & al Kalam as well as Hakim, Abu Nua’im and Baihaqi in Dala’il with sound narrations, Ibn Abbas quotes Ali ibn Abi Talib who says:

“When Allah سبحانه وتعالى ordered the Prophet to approach the Arab tribes, I and Abu Bakr accompanied the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم to Mina until the court of the Arab tribes.”

It is therefore established that the command to approach the Arab tribes and seek their support, as well as the timing of this approach came from Allah سبحانه وتعالى as is evident from the narration of Ali ibn Abi Talib (r.a) above. The timing of this command coincides with the loss of protection & support of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم. He was no longer safe and protected, the Quraysh would not allow him to carry the call of Allah, and at the same time the Prophet had no hopes that the society in Makkah would accept his authority since the public opinion itself in Makkah was not favourable to Islam. Thus the Prophet was ordered to seek Nusrah at that point in time in order to make encourage the da’wah and bring Islam to position that befits it in terms of ruling, authority and a comprehensive implementation of its Ahkam. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم began this task of seeking the Nusrah from Ta’if which was counted among the most powerful entities in the Arabian Peninsula at the time. In fact it rivaled the Quraysh in terms of strength, prestige and position. This is what was stressed by Walid ibn Mughairah when he refuted the revelation of Quran on Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and not upon the nobles of Makkah & Ta’if. Allah سبحانه وتعالى then revealed the ayah:

وَقَالُوا لَوْلَا نُزِّلَ هَذَا الْقُرْآنُ عَلَى رَجُلٍ مِّنَ الْقَرْيَتَيْنِ عَظِيمٍ

“And they say: “Why is not this Qur’ân sent down to some great man of the two towns (Makkah and Tâ’if)?” [TMQ: al-Zukhruf: 31]

The strength of the people of Ta’if is evident by the fact that even after the Islamic state was later established, Ta’if was not conquered by ease, it was under siege resulting in heavy casualties on both sides and canons had to be fired to break their resistance. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم proceeded to Ta’if intending to meet their chieftains and nobles, he met three of them and talked to them about Islam and Nusrah. He returned disappointed from there due to the rejection of Nusrah by the tribal heads. This was the beginning. The Prophet returned from Ta’if and stayed with al Mut’im ibn ‘Adai on the outskirts of Makkah and began to approach the powerful leaders of other Arab tribes during the hajj seasons. These tribal leaders were in effect the heads of governments in our times. In Seerat ibn Hisham, under the chapter about the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم approaching the tribes, Ibn Ishaq says:

“The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم came to Makkah but his people (the Quraysh) were even more severe than before except the few who had embraced Islam. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم would approach the tribes during the hajj season and call them to Allah, inform them that he was the Messenger sent by Allah and urge them to believe in him and protect him until Allah manifests for them what He سبحانه وتعالى has sent down.”

The books of seerah show that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم during the hajj season approached anyone who occupied a position of honour and was powerful. In seerat Ibn Hisham, under the chapter “the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم approaching the Arabs during the seasons”, it says: “Ibn Ishaq said:

“The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم persistently pursued this matter whenever people met him during the (hajj) seasons, he called the tribes to Allah and to Islam and presented himself to them as well as what guidance was revealed by Allah سبحانه وتعالى. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم heard of no one of some significance and nobility visiting Makkah except that he called him to Allah and presented his call to him.”

The books of Seerah inform us that the Prophet visited Bani Kalb at their place and they refused to accept him, he came over to Bani Hanifah of al Yamamah at their place and they behaved very rudely like no other Arab tribe. The Prophet called on Bani ‘Aamer ibn Sa’sa’ and refused unless he gave them the authority after him which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم rejected. He then visited Bani Kindah of Yemen at their camp and they also demanded authority after him and so the Prophet rejected their Nusrah. He called on Bakr bin Wa’il at their camps; they refused to protect the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم because they were in the vicinity of Persia. When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم visited Bani Rabee’ah’s camp, they did not answer. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم called on Bani Shaiban at their camps who also were in close vicinity of Persia. Bani Shaiban offered to protect the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم from the Arabs but not the Persians, so the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم replied to them:

“Your eloquence of the truth amounts to its rejection. No one stands by the deen of Allah except the one who covers all its aspects.”

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم continued to seek Nusrah despite the refusal of several tribes; he did neither waver, nor despaired nor changed his course. ‘Zaad al Ma’ad’ reports from al-Waqidi who says:

“The tribes known to us whom the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم approached and called them are Banu ‘Aamer ibn Sa’sa’, Muharib ibn Hafsah, Fazarah, Ghassan, Murrah, Haneefah, Sulaym, ‘Abs, Banu Nadhar, Banu Bika’, Kindah, Kalb, Harith ibn Ka’ab, ‘Udrah and the Hadhramis. None of them responded positively.”

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم persisted in seeking Nusrah until Allah سبحانه وتعالى blessed His deen with Nusrah. Ibn Ishaq is quoted in Seerat ibn Hisham:

“When Allah سبحانه وتعالى decreed the domination of His deen and honouring His Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and accomplish His promise, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم went out in the hajj season when he met people of the Ansar. He presented himself to the Arab tribes as he had been doing during the hajj seasons. So while he was at al-‘Aqabah, he met people from the Khazraj tribe whom Allah سبحانه وتعالى wished to bless. Those people from Khazraj accepted his call and went to reconcile their dispute with the tribe of Aws. They returned the next year with twelve persons and met the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم at al-‘Aqabah, this was the first Bai’ah of ‘Aqabah. Then after the society of Madina was prepared by Mus’ab ibn ‘Umair (r.a) the nobles of the city visited the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم to offer him their protection and assistance. They met the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم again at al-‘Aqabah and made the pledge of allegiance which was a pledge of fighting along with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم. Seerat ibn Hisham narrates from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم during this bai’ah:

“I take your pledge that you will protect me just as you protect your women and children.” Al Bara’ ibn Ma’roor took the hand of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and said: “Indeed, by the One Who sent you with the truth as the Messenger, we shall protect you like we protect our children therefore, take our pledge oh Messenger of Allah, We by Allah are the sons of battles and the weapons of war are like toys for us, this has been our heritage from the times of our forefathers.” With this, Allah promise was fulfilled and a state for Islam was established.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم was seeking Nusrah to accomplish two things: One was to ward off any harm to him and protection in order to carry the call of his Rabb سبحانه وتعالى, and the other to bring Islam to a position of authority and state. On the first aspect, Hakim narrates in his Mustadrak on the authority of Jabir and on the conditions of the two Sheikhs (Bukhari & Muslim), Jabir (r.a) says:

“The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم used to approach the people and say: “Is there a man who would take me to his people, the Quraysh prevent me from carrying the word of my Rabb?” A man from Bani Hamdan came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and said: “Do your people have the strength? The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: “Yes” and he asked the man from where he came, the man replied that he was from Banu Hamdan. The man was then afraid that his people may let him down i.e. break his pledge, so he came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and told him: “My people are coming, so talk to them and I shall meet you the next year.” the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم told him: “Yes.”

Seerat ibn Hisham narrates from Ibn Ishaq:

“The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم used to approach the Arab tribes during the hajj season and call them Allah and to provide him Nusrah, he used to inform them that he was indeed the Messenger of Allah and ask them to believe in him and to protect him until Allah manifests what He revealed.” Therefore this was a request to provide him the Nusrah in order to enable the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم to carry his call.

While the second aspect concerns what the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم discussed with Bani Sha’ban at their camps and asked them their protection which they refused. Similarly what the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم discussed with Bani ‘Aamer ibn Sa’sa and Bani Kindah who asked him to accede authority to them after him and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم refused it. This sequence culminated with asking for protection at the pledge of Aws & Khazraj which was a pledge of war that took place at the second pledge at ‘Aqabah.

Indeed this relentless effort of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم of seeking Nusrah as ordered by Allah سبحانه وتعالى and his persistence & perseverance on this effort without changing his course despite the frustrations & persecutions he was met with, clearly indicates that the order of Allah سبحانه وتعالى to seek Nusrah was categorical and hence was obligatory. This is from the methodology of establishing the state and resuming the Islamic way of life, hence it is not permitted to waver from this path. In our times this can be accomplished by a political party working to revive the Islamic way of life on the pattern of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and seeking Nusrah from the people of power of the present times who happen to be the armed forces of the Muslim lands. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم considered the tribes as such and used to seek their protection. He used to first and foremost ask them to accept Islam as a precondition to offer their protection. This condition is applicable to the armed forces of the Muslim lands and certain large tribes who can bring about a change in ruling and authority. The seeking of Nusrah by the Hizb, which works to revive the Islamic way of life, is a political action and those who have the potential to engage in material action are the people of power and thus they have the means to mobilise force. The Hizb urges the people of power who have the means to give the Nusrah. The Hizb works with the Ummah to impress upon the people of power to take up this great responsibility. This is a most urgent task although its obligation is by way of methodology. The task begins after preparing a popular base and making the Islamic concepts dominant basic public opinion. When the societies lack such resolve and are overwhelmed by the present systems, change can not be accomplished in the natural manner. This task is completed and accomplished when power and authority is achieved to implement Islam completely and radically.

Since the task of seeking Nusrah is so important and critical that on this great Shara’i command depends the formation of the state after it has been lost and the rise of Allah’s banner, as well as this is required to eliminate the treachery upon treachery that are confronting the Ummah: it is ruled by other than what Allah سبحانه وتعالى has revealed, it is subjugated to the system of capitalism and is faced with dilemmas, tragedies, woes and great afflictions, and since this task of seeking the Nusrah concerns those who have power and the means to bring about change in ruling to support the call of Islam, and since this matter is of such grave concern and urgency, therefore the responsibility of those who have the means assumes greater significance to bring about a change. Certainly, their rewards are also great if they stand up to their responsibility, and what is a better reward than the Jannah?

Virtues and Merits of those who provide the Nusrah

In the Quran al Kareem:

It is enough merit of the Ansar that Allah سبحانه وتعالى mentioned them in His Book and attributed them with qualities that every Muslim aspires to. He سبحانه وتعالى said about them that they are from the Sabiqoun al Awwaloon (the first ones) and asked us to meticulously follow them. He سبحانه وتعالى is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him سبحانه وتعالى. Allah سبحانه وتعالى prepared for them heavens underneath which flow the rivers…their happiness are eternal. Allah سبحانه وتعالى says about them:

وَالسَّابِقُونَ الأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالأَنصَارِ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُم بِإِحْسَانٍ رَّضِيَ اللّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُواْ عَنْهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي تَحْتَهَا الأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا ذَلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ

“And the foremost to embrace Islâm of the Muhâjirûn (those who migrated from Makkah to Al-Madinah) and the Ansâr (the citizens of Al-Madinah who helped and gave aid to the Muhâjirûn) and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allah is well-pleased with them as they are well-pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success.” [TMQ at Tawbah: 100]

He سبحانه وتعالى further says about them:

لَقَد تَّابَ الله عَلَى النَّبِيِّ وَالْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالأَنصَارِ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ فِي سَاعَةِ الْعُسْرَةِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا كَادَ يَزِيغُ قُلُوبُ فَرِيقٍ مِّنْهُمْ ثُمَّ تَابَ عَلَيْهِمْ إِنَّهُ بِهِمْ رَؤُوفٌ رَّحِيمٌ

“Allah has forgiven the Prophet, the Muhâjirûn (Muslim emigrants who left their homes and came to Al-Madinah) and the Ansâr (Muslims of Al-Madinâh) who followed him (Muhammad) in the time of distress (Tabuk expedition), after the hearts of a party of them had nearly deviated (from the Right Path), but He accepted their repentance. Certainly, He is to them full of kindness, Most Merciful.” [TMQ at Tawbah: 117].

Allah سبحانه وتعالى orders the believers to be Ansar in order that we be pleased:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا كُونوا أَنصَارَ اللَّهِ كَمَا قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ لِلْحَوَارِيِّينَ مَنْ أَنصَارِي إِلَى اللَّهِ قَالَ الْحَوَارِيُّونَ نَحْنُ أَنصَارُ اللَّهِ فَآَمَنَت طَّائِفَةٌ مِّن بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَكَفَرَت طَّائِفَةٌ فَأَيَّدْنَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا عَلَى عَدُوِّهِمْ فَأَصْبَحُوا ظَاهِرِينَ

“O you who believe! Be you helpers (in the Cause) of Allah as said ‘Esâ (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), to the Hawârîyyûn (the disciples): “Who are my helpers (in the Cause) of Allah?” The Hawârîyyûn (the disciples) said: “We are Allah’s helpers” (i.e. we will strive in His Cause!). Then a group of the Children of Israel believed and a group disbelieved. So, We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, and they became the victorious (uppermost).” [TMQ as-Saff: 14].

The Ansar Virtues in the Prophet’s Seerah:

Regarding the second pledge of ‘Aqabah, it is reported in the seerah books:

They (The Ansar) asked: “Ya Rasool Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, what is our reward if we honour our word?” The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: “Jannah”. They responded: “Hold your hand”, so the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم held his hand and they made the pledge. As against this, those who have the onus of giving the Nusrah, so that Islam is brought to the fore and they remain faithful to its, are persistent in their loyalty to the rulers who have actually usurped power over the neck of the Ummah.

The two Sheikhs (Bukhari & Muslim) have narrated on the authority of Anas ibn Malik (r.a) who reports that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: “Love for the Ansar is a sign of faith and hatred for the Ansar is a sign of hypocrisy.”

While Tirmidhi reports on the authority of al-Bara’ bin al’Azib who says he heard the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said regarding the Ansar: “None but the believer loves them, none but the hypocrite hates them. He who loved them loved Allah and he who hated them hated Allah.”

Bukhari reports on the authority of Anas (r.a): “The Prophet saw the women and children (of the Ansar) coming forward. (The sub-narrator said, “I think that Anas said, ‘They were returning from a wedding party.'”) The Prophet stood up and said thrice, “By Allah! You are from the most beloved people to me.”

Bukhari has another narration from Anas (r.a) again who says: “A woman from the Ansar came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم along with her child and spoke to him, so the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: “By the one who has my soul in His hand, you (the Ansar) are dearest to me of all people” he said this twice.”

Muslim reports on the authority of Anas ibn Malik (r.a) that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: “The Ansar are like my veins vaults (they occupy a position of trust), people will increase in numbers while the Ansar’s numbers will shrink. Therefore accept those from Ansar who do good deeds and forgive those from Ansar who do wrong.”

It is also reported in Muslim on the authority of ibn ‘Abbas (r.a) that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said about the Ansar: “No man who believes in Allah and the day of judgement hates Ansar.”

Bukhari reports on the authority of ‘Amr bin Murrah who says: “I heard Abu Hamza, an Ansar say: “the Ansar said: “Every people have a following and we have followed you, therefore pray to Allah that He makes our people follow our example, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: “Oh Allah, make their followers from among them.”

Then we have that most eloquent and effective address that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم made after distributing the spoils of Hunain, this narrative is from Musnad Ahmad on the authority of Abu Said al-Khudri (r.a):

“Oh Ansar! are you pleased that others walk away with sheep and camels and you return with Allah‘s Messenger in your company; By the one Who possesses Mohammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم’s soul, were it not for the Hijrah, I would myself be from the Ansar. And if the entire people tread a valley and the Ansar went for another valley, I would tread Ansar’s valley. Oh Allah! Have mercy on Ansar, have mercy of their sons, and their sons’ sons.”

What attribute could be greater that loving Ansar is the sign of being a believer, and hating the Ansar is taken as a sign of being hypocrite? What can a greater position than the position of those who are dearest to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم than the rest of the people and they are his chosen people and his kin? What could be higher honour than their sons, and progeny being forgiven? Not only that the Prophet followers and his friends are from them. What can be more significant than the fact that the Allah, the Merciful’s heaven trembles at the passing away of a man named Sa’ad ibn Ma’adh, what discerns him from the rest of the Sahabah is his giving the Nusrah!

Bukhari narrates on the authority of Jabir (r.a) who says: “I heard the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم say: “the heavens trembled at the death of Sa’ad bin Ma’adh.”

All these are in fact the exclusive virtues of the Ansar that no one shares with them except the Muhajirin. So where are the Ansar, now that there is great potential for Nusrah for them to emulate the fist Ansar, the first heroes. And the doors for Nusrah which though were shut for long centuries are now wide open. Blessings and congratulations are for those who are chosen by Allah to open these doors, Allah knows, the doors once they are shut may never open again!

Sa’ad ibn Mu’adh

By Jawad Abdul Muhsin, Al-Khaleel (Hebron), Palestine.

It is the duty of the people of power to realise that the Islamic State was established and destroyed only once before. The greatness of the one who now establishes it is like the one who protected and supported the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم. His status, by the will of Allah سبحانه وتعالى will be like that of Sa’ad ibn Ma’adh (r.a) about whom the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: “The heavens have trembled at the death of Sa’ad ibn Ma’adh.”

It is the duty of every person who commands power among the Muslims to study about Sa’ad ibn Ma’adh (r.a)…it was him who stood on the decisive day of the battle of Badr and told the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: “We have believed in you and trusted you…and testify that what you have brought is the truth, and on that we have given our pledges to listen to you and obey you. Therefore you decide (any which way) and we are with you, by the One who sent you down with the truth if you order us to jump into the ocean, not one of us will waver. We are not averse to confronting the enemy tomorrow, we shall be steadfast in our fight, and may Allah manifest to you what will please your eyes, let us march and count ob His support.”

In another narration: “You may proceed where you wish and have relations with whom you wish and cut off relations with whom you wish, take from our wealth what you want and give whatever you want. What ever you take from us will be dearer to us than what you leave with us.”

This is what the people of power must bear in mind regarding the critical issue confronting the Ummah, they should not be like Banu ‘Abd Ashhal but rather like a poet says:

Strong, when they confront (the enemy), mild hearted when praying (to Allah)

This was Sa’ad about whom the people told the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: “We have not carried a dead body lighter than this.” And the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم replied to them: “Nothing made his body lighter, but it was such and such number of angels who descended and carried him along with you. Those angels had never before descended.” This is narrated in Tabaqat ibn Sa’ad.

Such was Sa’ad that when his soul was carried to his Creator, Jibreel (a.s) came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and said: “Who was this good soul who died? The gates of the heavens were opened for him and the throne moved.” This is narrated by Haakim and authenticated by al-Dhahabi; also Imam Ahmad reported it with an authentic chain of narration.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: “This virtuous servant for whom the gates of heavens were opened and the throne moved. Seventy thousand angels descended for him, he was buried and left.”

Such was Sa’ad who enjoyed the blessings of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, Asma’ bint Yazeed Sakan reports…that when Sa’ad died, his mother wept and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم told her: “Your tears would recede and your sorrow be lessened if you know that your son is the first person for whom Allah سبحانه وتعالى smiled and the heavens trembled.” This is reported in at-Tabarani.

Such is the position of the one who provided support & protection to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم when the Islamic State was established…but perhaps the blessings of Allah سبحانه وتعالى will be even greater for the one who now provides that support for His deen because now it is overwhelmed with kufr from all sides and the nations of the world are united against it.

At the same time if person shirks away from his duty to support the deen of Allah, his military ranks and honours will not be able to stop the wrath of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. Every officer who controls power in any way must realise that Sa’ad ibn Ma’adh was not meant to be the last person and the like of him will not surface again… every Muslim officer must realise that he himself is Sa’ad and is in a position to give Nusrah like Sa’ad (r.a). This address to him is just like the address was to Sa’ad then!

Usaid ibn Hudhair (r.a)

A person of noble traits leaves an inheritance of nobility.

His father was Hudhair al-Kataib who was a chieftain of the Aws tribe. He was a senior leader of the Arabs and a fierce fighter during the period of Jahilliyah.

Usaid (r.a) inherited his father’s position, his bravery and other qualities. Before he accepted Islam, he was a leader of Madina and a noble among Arabs and an archer of rare expertise. When he accepted Islam and was guided to the righteous path of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, his honour and nobility was obvious. He was among the Ansar of Allah سبحانه وتعالى and His Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and an early entrant to Islam. He was quick to accept Islam and it was conclusive.

When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم sent Mus’ab ibn ‘Umair to Madina to teach the Muslims of the Ansar who had made their pledge of allegiance at the first bai’ah of ‘Aqabah and cultivate Islamic thinking in them, and to call other people of Madina to Islam, Usaid (r.a.) was sitting with Sa’ad ibn Ma’adh, both leaders of their people and discussing on this new issue of Islam which had come from Makkah and called for something unknown to them.

Sa’ad said to Usaid (r.a): “Go to this man (Mus’ab) and ask him (about the matter).” Usaid (r.a) picked his stick and walked to where Mus’ab was sitting as the guest of As’ad ibn Zurarah, another leader of Madina who had already accepted Islam.

There he saw a group of people listened intently to the nobles words of Mus’ab ibn ‘Umair who was inviting them to Islam. Usaid (r.a) surprised them with his anger.

Mus’ab (r.a) told Usaid: “Would sit and listen… if you like this matter, you accept and if you do not like, you can leave it.” Usaid was a person of open heart and wise thinking, in fact he was known to his people as al-Kamil, the accomplished, a title that he inherited from his father.

When he saw that Mus’ab was addressing his intellect, he pierced his stick to the ground and sat down and said to Mus’ab: “You are fair, tell me what you have?”

Mus’ab recited a portion from the Quran to Usaid and explained his call of the new religion, the true path for which he was ordered by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم to spread and raise its banner. Those who were present at this gathering narrated the incidence:

“By Allah, before he spoke, we recognised Islam on his face by its peaceful glow!”

Mus’ab had not even completed his speech, when Usaid was spellbound and shouted out: “What a beautiful discourse this is!” and he asked: “What do you do when someone wants to embrace this deen?” Mus’ab (r.a) told him that he must clean himself up and his garments then bear witness to the Truth and pray two rak’at.

Usaid’s was a personality of consistence and steadfastness, a pure soul, when he was convinced of a matter, he would never waver in his firm resolve. He stood up to accomplish his task without any delay and tardiness and accepted the deen for which his heart testified and his soul satisfied. He cleaned himself, prayed to Allah سبحانه وتعالى and announced his acceptance of Islam and discarded his previous crooked ways of ignorance! Now he had to go back to Sa’ad ibn Ma’adh and report to him his mission that he was dispatched by Sa’ad for this was to quell Mus’ab ibn ‘Umair. He returned to Sa’ad, as he approached the gathering, Sa’ad told those around him: “By Allah, Usaid is coming with an expression different from the one he left with.”

Indeed! When he had left, he was full of bitterness, anger and hostility, and returned with an expression brimming with mercy, enlightenment and content. Usaid decided to put his intellect to good use; he knew that Sa’ad was identical to him in terms of his purity, decisiveness, resolve and fair thinking. He knew that nothing would come between Sa’ad and his acceptance of Islam if he heard what he had himself heard from Mus’ab ibn ‘Umair, the emissary of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم. But he knew that if told Sa’ad of his acceptance of Islam, it will be a confrontation of uncertain results. Therefore he decided to influence Sa’ad’s enthusiasm in order to push him to the place where Mus’ab was sitting so that Sa’ad could listen to the same and see for himself.

Now the question was how to accomplish this? As mentioned, Mus’ab had come to Madina as the guest of As’ad ibn Zurarah who was a cousin to Sa’ad, the son of his maternal aunt. So Usaid (r.a) told Sa’ad: “I have learnt that Banu al-Harithah have come out with intention of killing As’ad ibn Zurarah although they are aware that he is your cousin.” Sa’ad stood up full of anger and picked up his sword and came walking briskly to the place where Mus’ab (r.a) sat with As’ad and other Muslims.

When he approached the place, he saw no noise or disturbance and the people sat with patience and calmness with Mus’ab who was reciting the Quran and the people listened to him intently.

He realised that Usaid (r.a) had intended that he listen to the words of the Mus’ab, the emissary of Islam. Usaid’s intellectual acumen in his friend was vindicated, Sa’ad had barely heard the words when Allah سبحانه وتعالى opened his heart to Islam and Sa’ad quickly occupied a position of prominence among the early Muslims.

Usaid (r.a)’s heart was filled with steadfastness and enlightenment of Iman…his Iman gave him patience, discernment and fairness of judgement and these qualities made him a reliable person of trust…During the battle of Bani Mustalaq, ‘Abdullah ibn Ubai was enraged and said to those people of Madina who were around him:

“You have given away your city to the Muslims and you have shared your wealth with them. If only you had caught them with your hands and turned them away from your place anyway, by Allah, when we reach Madina we will make the respected person a humiliated one.”

Zaid ibn Arqam, an eminent companion heard these venomous words of hypocrisy, and as was his duty he informed the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم who was very much pained to hear it. When Usaid (r.a) met him, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم enquired: “Have you heard the words uttered by your friend? Usaid: “and which friend do you mean?” The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: “Abdullah ibn Ubai.” Usaid: “and what did he say.” The Prophet: “he said that when we reach Madina we will make the respected person a humiliated one.” Usaid: “insha Allah, it will be you who will expel him, he is the humiliated one and you are the exalted one.” Usaid added further: “Leave him, Allah سبحانه وتعالى has brought you to us. The people (of Madina) were preparing a crown for him and make him the king. Therefore he considers that Islam has denied him the kingship.”

With such deep, clear and balanced understanding of issues Usaid (r.a) always solved critical problems; he would face issues and take all relevant matters into consideration.

Then at the Saqeefah, in the aftermath of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم’s demise, where a group of Ansar led by Sa’ad ibn ‘Ubadah (r.a) declared that the Khilafah was their right and this dialogue rather stretched for a long time and tempers were raised. At this sensitive moment the stand taken by Usaid (r.a), who as we know was an Ansar, was an effective stand which conclusively settled the matter. His words set the direction; he stood up and addressed his people: “You know that the Prophet himself was from the Muhajirin therefore his successor should also be from among them. And we were the supporters and protectors of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم today, it is our duty to support and protect his Khaleefah”

His words soothed the nerves and calmed the tempers. Throughout his life, Usaid (r.a) lived the life a true servant of Allah, he was content and satisfied and spent his life and wealth to good use and strived to meet the Prophet at the pool of Kauthar as the he had said: “Have patience until you meet me at the haudh.”

He loved his friends and was highly respected by Amir ul Mumineen ‘Umar (r.a) as well as all other companions. He was a very profound reciter of the Quran and the companions were always keen to listen to his recitation.

That splendid but fearful voice about which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said that the angels descended to listen to Usaid (r.a) passed away in the month Sha’ban in the twentieth year of hijrah and he was carried by none less than Amir ul Mumineen ‘Umar (r.a) on his shoulders and buried at the Baqee’. The companions saw the body of this great Mu’min for the one last time and returned to Madina and continued to remember his virtues and recalled the words of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: “The Best of men is Usaid ibn Hudhair”

Nusrah: Meticulously planning and brave execution

Nusrah is a divine command and binding upon the people of power among the Muslims, and they are sinful for their failure in this, indeed it is a great sin. The people of power have two duties, none any less significant than the other: The first duty is to take away power, or seize by force if necessary, from those rulers who rule over people by other than what Allah سبحانه وتعالى has sent down. And the second obligation on the people of power is to hand over this power and authority to those who may be working to establish such an authority that rules by what Allah has revealed. By honouring these two obligations, the duty of Nusrah is achieved and the one who accomplishes this achieves the status of being an Ansar of Allah. Once the khilafah is established, their position and dignity in the state will be like their predecessors who provided Nusrah to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم like Sa’ad ibn Ma’adh, Sa’ad ibn ‘Ubadah, As’ad ibn Zurarah and Usaid ibn Hudhair and they will be remembered for this until the day of judgement.

What must be borne in mind in this context is that the process of taking over power and handing it over requires detailed & meticulous planning and unprecedented braveness in its execution as well as adopting innovative means.

At the same time, it also requires well coordinated cooperation between those people of power who want to provide Nusrah, and the hizb that works among the Ummah which must have prepared for all the Shara’ required groundwork needed to establish the Islamic State. For instance like having proper Islamic personalities, statesmen who have been properly cultured and well versed in its thoughts & concepts, shaped public opinion. This coordination between them will help move to the desired destination, which is the establishment of authority to rule by what Allah has sent down.

Therefore, planning and proficient execution are two key requirements and we are reminded of what the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم did when he migrated from Makkah to Madina. He صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم adopted a plan and utilised resources and means very intelligently; he considered every matter in detail and did not leave any breach either in planning or in implementation and then the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم relied on Allah سبحانه وتعالى, completely believed in Him and did not harbor a speck of doubt that Allah alone is to be worshipped and obeyed, He is the One who helps and accomplishes and He has promised the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم with Nusrah. We shall see how the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم planned and how Allah سبحانه وتعالى helped him, until the state based on The Truth was established, the state of the kalimah (La ilaha illa Allah Muhammad ur Rasool ullah). Thus his example is a beacon of light that which will guide us right in these days of gloom especially gloomy in terms of Nusrah.

The books of seerah remind us that Jibreel (a.s) descended on the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and brought the Wahi from Allah سبحانه وتعالى and informed him of the conspiracy of the Quraysh to kill him and asked him to leave Makkah and said to him: “Do not sleep on your bed on which you sleep daily.”

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم went to the house of Abu Bakr (r.a) and was armed, and this was a time when no one visited another at this hot hour of rest. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم informed him of the order to migrate and the modalities of the hijrah process were agreed between them. He returned to his house and awaited the night.

On the other hand were the criminal leaders of the Quraysh who had decided during the day to execute their plan of assassinating the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and distribute his blood among the tribes. They chose eleven of their leaders and during the early part of the night they gathered at the door waiting for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم to go to sleep so that they could strike at him. This is how the Prophet began to execute his plan.

He ordered Syeddina ‘Ali (r.a) to sleep on his bed and cover himself with the green Hadhrami sheet which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم used, he also told ‘Ali (r.a) that nothing untoward would befall him confuse the enemy and blind them and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم fully succeeded in this. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم emerged from his house while reciting:

وَجَعَلْنَا مِن بَيْنِ أَيْدِيهِمْ سَدًّا وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِمْ سَدًّا فَأَغْشَيْنَاهُمْ فَهُمْ لاَ يُبْصِرُونَ

“And We have put a barrier before them, and a barrier behind them, and We have covered them up, so that they cannot see.” [TMQ Yaseen: 09]

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم threw a handful of sand over the heads of those surrounding his house and yet they could not see him. When another person saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم he informed these men that he had already left, but they did not believe him because they felt that the one who was covered with the green sheet of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم was himself. Although they came to know the reality later, but the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم had meanwhile gone far away from them, first to the house of Abu Bakr (r.a) and from there they followed their decisive plan. They did not leave the house of Abu Bakr (r.a) by the door but through an opening in the wall so that they are not seen coming out and are not recognized. They reached the cave of Thawr in the direction of Yemen which is the opposite direction of Madina. This was on 27th of Safar.

When the people surrounding the house realised that it was ‘Ali in the house instead of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, they realised their folly. They asked ‘Ali (r.a) about the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, but ‘Ali (r.a) told them that he did not know and fell in their hands.

The plan of Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم was that the spies of the Quraysh will look for him in the direction of Madina in the north, therefore he took to just the opposite path in the south that leads towards Yemen. After travelling for some five miles they reached the mountain of Thour which is a high altitude range of mountain, the path is stony and arduous. There was a cave in the mountains where they spent three nights. Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr would come to accompany them for the night and leave early in the morning so that he could be with Quraysh at day break and they would presume that he was in Makkah itself. When ‘Abdullah would come to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and Abu Bakr (r.a), he would inform them about the situation in Makkah. ‘Amer ibn Fuhairah (r.a), the slave of Abu Bakr (r.a) would ensure that milk was supplied to them during the late hours of each of the three nights. Then before dawn when ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr (r.a) would depart for Makkah, Amer (r.a) would follow him behind along with his herd of sheep so that his track marks were erased.

When the Quraysh learnt about the departure of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, they were mad with anger, they beat up ‘Ali (r.a) and pulled him to Ka’ba and detained him for some time so that he gives them information regarding the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, but they were disappointed. Then they went to the house of Abu Bakr (r.a) and enquired about him. His daughter Asma (r.a) told them that she did not know, Abu Jahal (may Allah’s curse be on him) slapped her face.

The Quraysh then met for an emergency meeting to decide upon using all resources at their disposal in order to get hold of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and his companion Abu Bakr (r.a). They placed their spies on all routes going out of Makkah under intense surveillance and placed a huge booty on their heads which was a hundred camels each for bringing them dead or alive. As a result several people mounted and on-foot, experts of the tracks left out to look for them. They spread out in the mountains, hills and valleys, but to no avail. They even reached the opening of the cave, but Allah سبحانه وتعالى is competent in His work, He سبحانه وتعالى saves whom He سبحانه وتعالى wishes.

Once reached so close that Abu Bakr (r.a) says that if they had looked at their feet, he would have seen us, but the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم reassured him and said to him: “What do you say abut the two men, the third of whom is Allah.” In this regard, Allah سبحانه وتعالى revealed the following ayah:

إِلاَّ تَنصُرُوهُ فَقَدْ نَصَرَهُ اللّهُ إِذْ أَخْرَجَهُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ ثَانِيَ اثْنَيْنِ إِذْ هُمَا فِي الْغَارِ إِذْ يَقُولُ لِصَاحِبِهِ لاَ تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ اللّهَ مَعَنَا فَأَنزَلَ اللّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَيَّدَهُ بِجُنُودٍ لَّمْ تَرَوْهَا وَجَعَلَ كَلِمَةَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ السُّفْلَى وَكَلِمَةُ اللّهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيَا وَاللّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

“If you help him (Muhammad) not (it does not matter), for Allah did indeed help him when the disbelievers drove him out, the second of the two; when they (Muhammad and Abu Bakr) were in the cave, he said to his companion (Abu Bakr): “Be not sad (or afraid), surely, Allah is with us.” Then Allah sent down His Sakînah (calmness, tranquillity, peace) upon him, and strengthened him with forces (angels) which you saw not, and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowermost, while the Word of Allah that became the uppermost; and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.” [TMQ at Tawbah: 40]

Thus the interceptors returned frustrated, though at one time, they were just a few steps away from them.

The search was loosened and the patrolling parties gave up and then the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم prepared along with his companion to depart towards Madina. They had already engaged ‘Abdullah ibn Uraiqah al- Laithi to guide them to their path because he was considered an expert and trustworthy person. He was still on the deen of his people. It was agreed that he will come to the cave after three nights with the mounts. As he had promised, he came on the night of the first of Rabi’ ul Awwal and Asma (r.a) brought them food for the journey, and they left along with ‘Amer ibn Fuhairah.

The guide ‘Amer ibn Fuhairah first took them southwards on the way to Yemen, he then turned west towards the coast and reached a path not known to the people. Then he turned northward near the coast of the Red Sea and again took a path known only to few people.

On his way, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم met al-Zubair bin al-‘Awwam (r.a) who in the company of some Muslim traders had gone to al-Sham and were returning from there, he presented some white clothes for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and Abu Bakr (r.a).

On 8th day of Rabi’ ul Awwal, in what later became the first year Hijrah, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم arrived at Quba.

The Muslims in Madina had already heard of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم’s departure from Makkah and they used to go out each day towards al-Harrah to receive the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and wait there until it became too hot when they would return back to their places after lengthy waiting. A Jew who had ascended to his rooftop to look for something saw the white-radiating Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم along with his companion, he could not hold himself and shouted at the top of his voice: “Oh the Arabs! Here comes the one you have been waiting for.” the Muslims reached for their arms.

The Muslims chanted the takbeer in their delight at the arrival of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and left homes to receive him, this was an unprecedented day in the history of Madina… the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم stayed in Quba for four days and on the 5th day, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم mounted his camel with Abu Bakr (r.a) behind him. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم informed Bani Najjar, the clan of his maternal uncles who came to receive him and were carrying their swords. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم thus entered Madina with voices glorifying Allah echoing from every lane and house.

In this process of the Hijrah, two important points are noted in the planning of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم:

I. Preparing Manpower Support:

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم himself prepared the plan and attended to every detail and did not leave any aspect unattended. This preparation itself bears to the fact that the entire process was a matter of judgement, war and strategy. Allah سبحانه وتعالى had ordered the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم to undertake the hijrah and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم prepared the detailed plan, taking all resources and means available to him in order to make the hijrah successful. It is therefore required that the people who provide Nusrah should undertake a detailed & exhaustive plan which should meticulous to detail and creative in adopting means and resources as well as boldly & fearlessly executed. The example of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم bears testimony to this. In short, as a matter of reminder, the various stages may be summarised as follows:

  • Lodging ‘Ali (r.a) on the bed of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم.
  • The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم departed from his house to the house of Abu Bakr (r.a) in darkness to avoid being detected by anyone.
  • Both of them left Abu Bakr (r.a)’s house through a gap in wall so that they are not caught, recognised and followed.
  • They took the road to Yemen towards south which is opposite to the direction of Madina in the north.
  • Took shelter in the cave of Thour for three days so that the search for them subsides.
  • ‘Abdullah ibn Abu Bakr (r.a) was asked to come every night in order to brief them about what the people of Makkah were saying about them.
  • Food supply for the journey was ensured through Asma bint Abu Bakr (r.a).
  • It was ensured that foot marks were erased. This was done by the sheep herded by ‘Amer ibn Fuhairah, the slave of Abu Bakr (r.a).
  • Ibn Uraiqah, a professional expert guide well-versed with the route was hired.

II. Divine Intervention

This divine intervention has been reported in the books of seerah during the process of hijrah. They are mentioned in the Quran as well as the authentic Ahadith. What are these? How do we interpret then and how do we benefit from them in our times for Nusrah. It will suffice to cite just two examples:

In the narration of Imam Ahmad regarding the pursuers & interceptors of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم & his companions, it is reported that they left Makkah from around the Mountains until the Mountain where they settled for three nights. So Abu Bakr (r.a) told the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: “Oh, the Messenger of Allah, he (the interceptor) may find us.” The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم replied to him: “No, the angels have covered us with their wings.” The man sat down facing the cave, and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: “If he had spotted us, he would not be doing so.” This has been reported by Ibn Hisham, while in the report of Bukhari, it is reported that Abu Bakr (r.a) says: “So I told the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم that if some of them only lower their heads, they would see us.” So the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم told him: “Quiet Abu Bakr, we are two and the third is Allah.”

Here, despite all possible human efforts exerted by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم in planning and execution of this mission, the Kuffar interceptors managed to reach the place of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم’s hiding. This demonstrates their committed resolve as well as exhaustive & concerted efforts to assassinate him and finish off his da’wah. So also the support of Allah سبحانه وتعالى is also manifest. This is despite all possible efforts & precautions by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, so Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

إِلاَّ تَنصُرُوهُ فَقَدْ نَصَرَهُ اللّهُ إِذْ أَخْرَجَهُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ ثَانِيَ اثْنَيْنِ إِذْ هُمَا فِي الْغَارِ إِذْ يَقُولُ لِصَاحِبِهِ لاَ تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ اللّهَ مَعَنَا فَأَنزَلَ اللّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَيَّدَهُ بِجُنُودٍ لَّمْ تَرَوْهَا وَجَعَلَ كَلِمَةَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ السُّفْلَى وَكَلِمَةُ اللّهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيَا وَاللّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

“If you help him (Muhammad) not (it does not matter), for Allah did indeed help him when the disbelievers drove him out, the second of the two; when they (Muhammad and Abu Bakr) were in the cave, he said to his companion (Abu Bakr): “Be not sad (or afraid), surely, Allah is with us.” Then Allah sent down His Sakînah (calmness, tranquillity, peace) upon him, and strengthened him with forces (angels) which you saw not, and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowermost, while the Word of Allah that became the uppermost; and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.” [TMQ at Tawbah: 40]

This is what the da’wah carriers and the people of power must understand that certainly no one can overwhelm the one who supports Allah. The Nusrah of a servant to his Creator and His deen is through complete & comprehensive compliance, while the Nusrah of Allah سبحانه وتعالى to His servant is by supporting him and making the deen dominant through him.

Also, despite utmost precautions exercised by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم & his companion (r.a), Suraqah ibn Malik managed to come face to face with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم in his greed for the prize amount. Harm came close to them more than once during this journey but did not succeed and even the front legs of Suraqah ibn Malik’s steed caved in knee into the sand by which he understood that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم is immune to harm from him. In fact he himself said that the matter of the Prophet will come to dominate. He called them to safety and they stopped. They were four: the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, Abu Bakr (r.a), ‘Amer ibn Fuhayirah (r.a) and Ibn Uraiqat. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم told him to guard the secrecy of their travel and in Suraqah’s request gave him a letter of safety. When Suraqah returned back he found people were looking for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم so he told them that he has already searched for them there. Thus he led them elsewhere, Suraqah, who was himself trying to intercept them in morning, happened to be guarding them by the evening. This again was a divine interception from Allah سبحانه وتعالى that protected the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and his companions (r.a) from any harm and removed obstacles in their way to come to Madina and establish the state.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم fully deserved this protection from Allah سبحانه وتعالى because he perfectly complied with that was expected of him to the extent that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم did not overlook a minute matter when it came to preparing for the hijrah journey. And Allah’s gift and prize to him was: establishment of the Islamic State in Madina…and today, if the multitude of the believers among the people of power and carriers of da’wah stand up to this task and exert all their efforts without any reservations, the Nusrah from Allah سبحانه وتعالى will certainly be on the way, there is no doubt on that, and Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

إِنَّا لَنَنصُرُ رُسُلَنَا وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَيَوْمَ يَقُومُ الْأَشْهَادُ

“Verily, We will indeed make victorious Our Messengers and those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah – Islâmic Monotheism) in this world’s life and on the Day when the witnesses will stand forth (i.e. Day of Resurrection)?” [TMQ al-Ghafir: 51].

The intervention and support from Allah سبحانه وتعالى will certainly come though we do not know its nature.

A Warm Call to the People of Power & Force

We direct this call to the people of rank and decorations, to the officers & commanders, to the captains and soldiers in the forests of the Muslims lands and all those who carry the da’wah to their religion, we say:

Oh! The people of power & force, is it that you invite Allah’s wrath or that you provide Nusrah to the deen of Allah سبحانه وتعالى? Would you rather pledge your allegiance to your rulers or comply with the deen of Allah? Don’t you have the excellent examples of Sa’ad ibn Ma’adh, Usaid ibn Hudair and As’ad ibn Zurarah? Do you not vie for the Jannah who expanse is like the heavens & earth and which has been prepared for those who are mindful & fearful of Allah? What happens to your zeal & enthusiasm for Islam when you see the honour of Muslim women violated by the lout Kuffar who humiliate the book of your Master, does this not infuriate you? Is there not one among you who is angered by all this and stands up to provide Nusrah to those who work fir the Khilafah? Are you not concerned that you will stand right in front of your Creator and your present rulers will not be in a position to save you from His wrath, neither will your ranks & military honour that you hold so dear to your chest. Even the wealth of your rulers of which you are so possessive & proud will be able to save your on the day of Judgement. Would you not move & mobilise and realize that it just a matter of your life- if it is utilised in the path of Allah- its sole owner-so that you enjoy the company of the master of the martyrs and the hoors- or it this life may be used up at the service of these treacherous rulers and this soon to be over world and thus become the source of misery and sorrows on the day of the judgement. May Allah save us from such an end. Have fear of Allah for this Ummah and your soul and demonstrate to Allah what will please Him and grant you His forgiveness for your past sins before you come to face the inevitable death and say:

حَتَّى إِذَا جَاء أَحَدَهُمُ الْمَوْتُ قَالَ رَبِّ ارْجِعُونِ

لَعَلِّي أَعْمَلُ صَالِحًا فِيمَا تَرَكْتُ كَلَّا إِنَّهَا كَلِمَةٌ هُوَ قَائِلُهَا وَمِن وَرَائِهِم بَرْزَخٌ إِلَى يَوْمِ يُبْعَثُونَ

فَإِذَا نُفِخَ فِي الصُّورِ فَلَا أَنسَابَ بَيْنَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ وَلَا يَتَسَاءلُونَ

“Until, when death comes to one of them (those who join partners with Allah), he says: “My Lord! Send me back, “So that I may do good in that which I have left behind!” No! It is but a word that he speaks; and behind them is Barzakh (a barrier) until the Day when they will be resurrected. Then, when the Trumpet is blown, there will be no kinship among them that Day, nor will they ask of one another.” [TMQ al-Mu’minoun: 99-101]

Oh the soldiers in the armies! Oh the people of power & force! These are times to firm up your determination and resolve, the Ummah is looking up to you for your stand, the world is suffering under the treacherous claws of kufr and the yoke of capitalism and is awaiting the moment to turn aside these systems of oppression and the declaration of the second Khilafah al Rashidah on the method of the Prophethood. If your respond positively to this call-on this occasion of the destruction of the khilafah, great honour awaits you in this world as those who formed the khilafah and provided Nusrah to those who worked for it. But if you turned away from this call and failed to provide Nusrah, then remember that Allah سبحانه وتعالى Himself protected His messengers before and He سبحانه وتعالى alone shall provide Nusrah to those who are His allies. He سبحانه وتعالى shall then choose you for His wrath and evident loss & misery. He سبحانه وتعالى says:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَن يَرْتَدَّ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَسَوْفَ يَأْتِي اللّهُ بِقَوْمٍ يُحِبُّهُمْ وَيُحِبُّونَهُ أَذِلَّةٍ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَعِزَّةٍ عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ يُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ وَلاَ يَخَافُونَ لَوْمَةَ لآئِمٍ ذَلِكَ فَضْلُ اللّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَن يَشَاء وَاللّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ

“O you who believe! Whoever from among you turns back from his religion (Islâm), Allah will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him; humble towards the believers, stern towards the disbelievers, fighting in the way of Allah, and never fear the blame of the blamers. That is the Grace of Allah which He bestows on whom He wills. And Allah is All-Sufficient for His creatures’ needs, All-Knower.” [TMQ al-Maidah: 54]

Ibn Katheer (r.a) said: “Anyone who turned away from providing Nusrah to Allah’s deen and from firmly establishing the Sharee’ah, then Allah سبحانه وتعالى shall bring another set of people who are better than them and of more power & strength.”

In the end we say that we are treading this path of guidance from Allah سبحانه وتعالى and have complete hope & faith to accomplish our objective with the blessings of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. We direct this call to the all the Muslims-men & women- to share this concern with us, because this is the mission of the times where it is not permissible for anyone to ignore this duty or shy away from it. We also repeat our call to the soldiers and tell them: This is by Allah, the moment where you are losing out- this moment when Allah سبحانه وتعالى has opened the trade of Jannah for you. So show up your best to Allah سبحانه وتعالى and provide Nusrah to the deen of Allah in order that you have your share of the honour in this world and the hereafter. We pray to Allah سبحانه وتعالى to open your hearts to this vital issue and to provide for this Ummah the honour of the Nusrah for this deen and declaration of the khilafah, He سبحانه وتعالى hears all and He سبحانه وتعالى responds to prayers.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ اسْتَجِيبُواْ لِلّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُم لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ يَحُولُ بَيْنَ الْمَرْءِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَأَنَّهُ إِلَيْهِ تُحْشَرُونَ

“O you who believe! Answer Allah (by obeying Him) and (His) Messenger when he [saw] calls you to that which will give you life, and know that Allah comes in between a person and his heart (i.e. He prevents an evil person to decide anything). And verily, to Him you shall (all) be gathered.” [TMQ al-Anfal: 24]

Prepare the Ground

Indeed the Nusrah and putting the Ummah in position authority is beginning of Allah’s blessing to His believing worshippers, it is a great prize for the steadfast, He سبحانه وتعالى says:

وَنُرِيدُ أَن نَّمُنَّ عَلَى الَّذِينَ اسْتُضْعِفُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَنَجْعَلَهُمْ أَئِمَّةً وَنَجْعَلَهُمُ الْوَارِثِينَ

وَنُمَكِّنَ لَهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَنُرِي فِرْعَوْنَ وَهَامَانَ وَجُنُودَهُمَا مِنْهُم مَّا كَانُوا يَحْذَرُونَ

“And We wished to do a favour to those who were weak (and oppressed) in the land, and to make them rulers and to make them the inheritors, And to establish them in the land, and We let Fir’aun (Pharaoh) and Hâmân and their hosts receive from them that which they feared.” [TMQ al-Qasas: 5-6].

This is the beginning of carrying the divine trust- the revelation of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, He says:

وَجَعَلْنَاهُمْ أَئِمَّةً يَهْدُونَ بِأَمْرِنَا وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْهِمْ فِعْلَ الْخَيْرَاتِ وَإِقَامَ الصَّلَاةِ وَإِيتَاء الزَّكَاةِ وَكَانُوا لَنَا عَابِدِينَ

“And We made them leaders, guiding (mankind) by Our Command, and We revealed to them the doing of good deeds, performing As-Salât (the prayers – Iqâmat-as-Salât), and the giving of Zakât (obligatory charity), and of Us (Alone) they were worshippers.” [TMQ al-Anbiyaa: 73].

Imam Shawkani says in his tafseer al-Fath al Qadeer: “meaning, the leaders in the path of good and those who call to it and the governors over people.”

Certainly there must some preconditions attached by Allah سبحانه وتعالى to bear & carry this great custody and trust-the divine revelation. These pre-requisites are the same that Allah سبحانه وتعالى attached for the followers of the messengers & prophets before giving them Nusrah and authority. What are these pre-requisites to carrying this custody?

Before this question is addressed, it must be clear that now the custody is not a new Messengership or Prophethood, because that has already been sealed by Allah سبحانه وتعالى with the Prophethood of Syedina Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم. This custody is the succession of the Prophethood, which, in other words is its inheritance. This has been the duty of the messengers and the pure souls, Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُم فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّن بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا وَمَن كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

“Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the land, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practise their religion which He has chosen for them (i.e. Islâm). And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear (provided) they (believers) worship Me and do not associate anything (in worship) with Me. But whoever disbelieved after this, they are the Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient to Allah).” [TMQ an-Noor: 55].

And He سبحانه وتعالى says:

يَا دَاوُودُ إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاكَ خَلِيفَةً فِي الْأَرْضِ فَاحْكُم بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا تَتَّبِعِ الْهَوَى فَيُضِلَّكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَضِلُّونَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ بِمَا نَسُوا يَوْمَ الْحِسَابِ

“O Dâwûd (David)! Verily, We have placed you as a successor on the earth; so judge you between men in truth (and justice) and follow not your desire – for it will mislead you from the path of Allah. Verily, those who wander astray from the path of Allah (shall) have a severe torment, because they forgot the Day of Reckoning.” [TMQ Saad: 26]

And the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: “The Prophets used to rule Bani Israel. Whenever a prophet died another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophets after me; instead there will be Khulafaa’ (Khalifahs) and they will number many”. They asked: what then do you order us? He said: “fulfil allegiance to them one after the other. Give them their dues. Verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with.”

And He صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: “The scholars (‘ulama) are the inheritors of the messengers…”

The prerequisites of succession & authority on earth for the carrying the custody of the divine revelation after the messengers and these have been expounded by Allah سبحانه وتعالى Himself and His Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, and they are:

First: Earnest and true Iman of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, He says:

إِنَّا لَنَنصُرُ رُسُلَنَا وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَيَوْمَ يَقُومُ الْأَشْهَادُ

“Verily, We will indeed make victorious Our Messengers and those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah – Islâmic Monotheism) in this world’s life and on the Day when the witnesses will stand forth (i.e. Day of Resurrection)?” [TMQ al-Ghafir: 51].

And He says:

وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ رُسُلًا إِلَى قَوْمِهِمْ فَجَاؤُوهُم بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ فَانتَقَمْنَا مِنَ الَّذِينَ أَجْرَمُوا وَكَانَ حَقًّا عَلَيْنَا نَصْرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

“And (as for) the believers, it was incumbent upon Us to help (them).” [TMQ ar-Room: 47]

Secondly: Virtuous deeds that spring from such true, firm and whole hearted Iman. Virtuous deeds are indeed the symbols of true Iman in one’s heart & mind, goods indicate true and firm Iman. Such deeds are in fact a natural culmination that manifest in a believer, Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُم فِي الْأَرْضِ

“Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the land,” [TMQ an-Noor: 55].

And He سبحانه وتعالى says:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَهَاجَرُواْ وَجَاهَدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ

“Verily, those who believed, and emigrated and strove hard and fought with their property and their lives in the Cause of Allah” [TMQ al-Anfal: 72]

Thirdly: Testing & Examination: Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

أَمْ لَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَعَهُ مَتَى نَصْرُ اللّهِ أَلا إِنَّ نَصْرَ اللّهِ قَرِيبٌحَسِبْتُمْ أَن تَدْخُلُواْ الْجَنَّةَ وَلَمَّا يَأْتِكُم مَّثَلُ الَّذِينَ خَلَوْاْ مِن قَبْلِكُم مَّسَّتْهُمُ الْبَأْسَاء وَالضَّرَّاء وَزُلْزِلُواْ حَتَّى يَقُولَ الرَّسُولُ وَا

“Or think you that you will enter Paradise without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? They were afflicted with severe poverty and ailments and were so shaken that even the Messenger and those who believed along with him said, “When (will come) the Help of Allah?” Yes! Certainly, the Help of Allah is near!” [TMQ al-Baqarah: 214]

Mus’ab ibn Sa’eed reports on the authority of his father who says:

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah, which people are put most (hardest) of tests?” He said: “The messengers, then those closest to them and then those closest to them. A man is tested in proportion to the firmness of his deen, if his deen is strong, his test is intense, and if his deen is weak, he is tested accordingly. The testing continues until the man is walks sinless on earth.”

Patience and steadfastness on the path of truth are the indications of success in these tests, i.e. a man does not waver, does not falter, does not follow his baser desires nor is blinded by the worldly relishes. If a Muslim remains steadfast when tested or persecuted because of his Iman and virtuous deeds, Allah سبحانه وتعالى looks at him with utmost beneficence and accepts him in this world and the hereafter and grants him authority on earth, and in the hereafter, he is awarded an eternal Jannah, Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

وَلَقَدْ كُذِّبَتْ رُسُلٌ مِّن قَبْلِكَ فَصَبَرُواْ عَلَى مَا كُذِّبُواْ وَأُوذُواْ حَتَّى أَتَاهُمْ نَصْرُنَا وَلاَ مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللّهِ وَلَقدْ جَاءكَ مِن نَّبَإِ الْمُرْسَلِين

“Verily, (many) Messengers were denied before you (O Muhammad) but with patience they bore the denial, and they were hurt; till Our Help reached them, and none can alter the Words (Decisions) of Allah. Surely, there has reached you the information (news) about the Messengers (before you).” [TMQ al-An’aam: 34]

Fourth: Prepare atmosphere for proper nurturing of the believers who are sincere, true to test and steadfast. Such a nurturing structure or nursery is indispensible which will culture the believers and fearful, this will be the beginning of Allah’s rewards in this world. Allah سبحانه وتعالى blesses His friends with those sincere persons who provide Nusrah, who love the believers, stand to protect them and move with them. Islam & Islam’s authority take the centre-stage of public opinion in their lands and public awareness is based on these. When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and the believers with him demonstrated their consistency, steadfastness and were subjected to tests and persecution and yet they remained steadfast, then Allah سبحانه وتعالى prepared for them such a nurturing place at Madina where the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم lived with his companions and those who treaded the path of truth with them. Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

لِلْفُقَرَاء الْمُهَاجِرِينَ الَّذِينَ أُخْرِجُوا مِن دِيارِهِمْ وَأَمْوَالِهِمْ يَبْتَغُونَ فَضْلًا مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرِضْوَانًا وَيَنصُرُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ أُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الصَّادِقُونَ

وَالَّذِينَ تَبَوَّؤُوا الدَّارَ وَالْإِيمَانَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ يُحِبُّونَ مَنْ هَاجَرَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَا يَجِدُونَ فِي صُدُورِهِمْ حَاجَةً مِّمَّا أُوتُوا وَيُؤْثِرُونَ عَلَى أَنفُسِهِمْ وَلَوْ كَانَ بِهِمْ خَصَاصَةٌ وَمَن يُوقَ شُحَّ نَفْسِهِ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

“And there is also a share in this booty) for the poor emigrants, who were expelled from their homes and their property, seeking bounties from Allah and to please Him, and helping Allah (i.e. helping His religion – Islamic Monotheism) and His Messenger (Muhammad). Such are indeed the truthful (to what they say). And those who, before them, had homes (in Al-Madinah) and had adopted the Faith, love those who emigrate to them, and have no jealousy in their breasts for that which they have been given (from the booty of Banû An-Nadîr), and give them (emigrants) preference over themselves even though they were in need of that. And whosoever is saved from his own covetousness, such are they who will be the successful.” [TMQ al-Hashr: 8-9]

We must dwell for a little while on the issue of nurturing. It is necessary to start the call for this from very stage in order to achieve Nusrah and authority. This stage precedes the stage of Nusrah to come to power. By the term preparing a nurturing ground, we mean the presence of a mass of people and mobilised youth who carry the da’wah in such a way that it dominates the society and they occupy considerable position in it. Then there must be a public opinion & support for this da’wah and most importantly for implementing Islam radically and comprehensively in every aspect of human life via the Islamic State. It is of utmost importance that this public opinion springs from understanding & comprehension, and this means that there have to be a public awareness on the main issues of da’wah and not just intense emotions which peak high very fast and wane even faster.

Further, there must emerge a readiness from among the people to stand along the da’wah. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم accomplished this before he started to seek Nusrah to establish the state i.e. before the second bai’ah at ‘Aqabah. He deputed Mus’ab ibn ‘Umair (r.a) to Madina who worked to prepare the atmosphere and public opinion and the readiness to stand by the da’wah.

Fifth: Nusrah & Authority. This is the final phase after the nurturing place has been prepared on Allah’s earth. This is where Allah سبحانه وتعالى will bless the believers with the people of power & force from the sons of this place who will protect the deen and provide shelter to the sincere believers, Allah says:

وَاذْكُرُواْ إِذْ أَنتُمْ قَلِيلٌ مُّسْتَضْعَفُونَ فِي الأَرْضِ تَخَافُونَ أَن يَتَخَطَّفَكُمُ النَّاسُ فَآوَاكُمْ وَأَيَّدَكُم بِنَصْرِهِ وَرَزَقَكُم مِّنَ الطَّيِّبَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

“And remember when you were few and were reckoned weak in the land, and were afraid that men might kidnap you, but He provided a safe place for you, strengthened you with His Help, and provided you with good things so that you might be grateful.” [TMQ al Anfal: 26].

Indeed an observer of the da’wah carrier observes that the accomplishment of the pre-requisites that precede Allah’s Nusrah must be fully achieved by Muslims since they believe in Allah as their Master, Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم as the Prophet & messenger and they stood their ground in the midst of shirk and remained steadfast despite all forms of oppression, punishments, ordeals and menace which can not be described in words. These Muslims neither gave their way, nor weakened their resolve and neither did they turn away their heads nor body. They remained steadfast as the companions of the previous messengers like the Ansar of prophet Eesa (a.s) when they were cut through with saw, or like the companions of Musa (a.s) when Fir’awn slaughtered their sons and left their women or even like the people of Ukhdood who were consigned to flames, or like the companions of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم like Bilal (r.a), Khabbab (r.a), ‘Ammar (r.a), and Yassar (r.a) among others.

Yes indeed multitudes of Muslims have the true Iman in them and their deeds are virtuous and they carry this custody of Allah’s revelation and are steadfast and consistent upon it. And the blessing of Allah سبحانه وتعالى is not far away, it is just around the corner and has begun to spread the da’wah with huge number of da’wah carriers and protectors who can prepare such a nurturing place anywhere on this earth insha Allah سبحانه وتعالى.

The da’wah has began to fortify and strengthen its base in the world and it will not be long before from this place emerges the Nusrah by the will of Allah سبحانه وتعالى just as the place of Madina was prepared for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and his honoured companions.

In the end, we pray to Allah سبحانه وتعالى to quicken the coming liberation and joy everywhere on earth by the establishment of Khilafah al-Rashidah on the method of the Prophethood which will please every inhabitant of earth and the Creator of heaven & earth and so will the believers be pleased.

فِي بِضْعِ سِنِينَ لِلَّهِ الْأَمْرُ مِن قَبْلُ وَمِن بَعْدُ وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ

بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ يَنصُرُ مَن يَشَاء وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ

وَعْدَ اللَّهِ لَا يُخْلِفُ اللَّهُ وَعْدَهُ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ

يَعْلَمُونَ ظَاهِرًا مِّنَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَهُمْ عَنِ الْآخِرَةِ هُمْ غَافِلُونَ

“The decision of the matter, before and after (these events) is only with Allah, (before the defeat of the Romans by the Persians, and after the defeat of the Persians by the Romans). And on that day, the believers (i.e. Muslims) will rejoice (at the victory given by Allah to the Romans against the Persians) -With the Help of Allah. He helps whom He wills, and He is the All-Mighty, the Most Merciful. (It is) a Promise of Allah (i.e. Allah will give victory to the Romans against the Persians), and Allah fails not in His Promise, but most of men know not. They know only the outside appearance of the life of the world (i.e. the matters of their livelihood, like irrigating or sowing or reaping), and they are heedless of the Hereafter.” [TMQ ar Room: 4-7]