S U R A U K I N I: Adik ipar Tony Blair peluk Islam

S U R A U K I N I: Adik ipar Tony Blair peluk Islam: "LONDON: Adik ipar bekas perdana menteri Britain Tony Blair yang juga penyiar dan wartawan Lauren Booth, 43, mengumumkan beliau memeluk Isla..."

Selamat Hari Raya

Night of Power. Lailatul-Qadr
Monday, 15 September 2008 00:00








This is an extract from the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir.
بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَاهُ فِي لَيْلَةِ الْقَدْرِ
وَمَا أَدْرَاكَ مَا لَيْلَةُ الْقَدْرِ
لَيْلَةُ الْقَدْرِ خَيْرٌ مِّنْ أَلْفِ شَهْرٍ
تَنَزَّلُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ وَالرُّوحُ فِيهَا بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِم مِّن كُلِّ أَمْرٍ
سَلَامٌ هِيَ حَتَّى مَطْلَعِ الْفَجْرِ
"Verily, We have sent it down in the Night of Al-Qadr.

And what will make you know what the Night of Al-Qadr is

The Night of Al-Qadr is better than a thousand months.

Therein descend the angels and the Ruh by their Lord's permission with every matter.

There is peace until the appearance of dawn."




The Virtues of the Night of Al-Qadr (the Decree)

Allah سبحانه وتعالى informs that He sent the Qur'an down during the Night of Al-Qadr, and it is a blessed night about which Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَاهُ فِي لَيْلَةٍ مُّبَارَكَةٍ إِنَّا كُنَّا مُنذِرِينَ
"We sent it down on a blessed night." [TMQ 44:3]

This is the Night of Al-Qadr and it occurs during the month of Ramadan. This is as Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

شَهْرُ رَمَضَانَ الَّذِيَ أُنزِلَ فِيهِ الْقُرْآنُ

"The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur'an." [TMQ 2:185]

Ibn `Abbas and others have said, "Allah sent the Qur'an down all at one time from the Preserved Tablet (Al-Lawh Al-Mahfuz) to the House of Might (Baytul-`Izzah), which is in the heaven of this world. Then it came down in parts to the Messenger of Allah based upon the incidents that occurred over a period of twenty-three years."

Then Allah سبحانه وتعالى magnified the status of the Night of Al-Qadr, which He chose for the revelation of the Mighty Qur'an, by His سبحانه وتعالى saying:

وَمَا أَدْرَاكَ مَا لَيْلَةُ الْقَدْرِ
لَيْلَةُ الْقَدْرِ خَيْرٌ مِّنْ أَلْفِ شَهْرٍ

"And what will make you know what the Night of Al-Qadr is. The Night of Al-Qadr is better than a thousand months."

Imam Ahmad recorded from Abu Hurayrah: "When Ramadan would come, the Messenger of Allah would say: ‘Verily, the month of Ramadan has come to you all. It is a blessed month, which Allah has obligated you all to fast. During it the gates of Paradise are opened, the gates of Hell are closed and the devils are shackled. In it there is a night that is better than one thousand months. Whoever is deprived of its good, then he has truly been deprived.'"

An-Nasa'i recorded this same Hadith. Aside from the fact that worship during the Night of Al-Qadr is equivalent to worship performed for a period of one thousand months, it is also confirmed in the Two Sahihs from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: "Whoever stands (in prayer) during the Night of Al-Qadr with faith and expecting reward (from Allah), he will be forgiven for his previous sins."



The Descent of the Angels and the Decree for Every Good during the Night of Al-Qadr

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

تَنَزَّلُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ وَالرُّوحُ فِيهَا بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِم مِّن كُلِّ أَمْرٍ

"Therein descend the angels and the Ruh by their Lord's permission with every matter."

This means the angels descend in abundance during the Night of Al-Qadr due to its abundant blessings. The angels descend with the descending of blessings and mercy, just as they descend when the Qur'an is recited, they surround the circles of Dhikr (remembrance of Allah) and they lower their wings with true respect for the student of knowledge.

In reference to Ar-Ruh, it is said that here it means the angel Jibril. Therefore, the wording of the Ayah is a method of adding the name of the distinct object (in this case Jibril) separate from the general group (in this case the angels).

Concerning Allah's سبحانه وتعالى statement,

مِّن كُلِّ أَمْرٍ

"with every matter."

Mujahid said, "Peace concerning every matter."

Sa`id bin Mansur said, `Isa bin Yunus told us that Al-A`mash narrated to them that Mujahid said concerning Allah's سبحانه وتعالى statement:

سَلَامٌ هِيَ

"There is peace."

"It is security in which Shaytan cannot do any evil or any harm."

Qatadah and others have said, "The matters are determined during it, and the times of death and provisions are measured out (i.e., decided) during it."

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says,

فِيهَا يُفْرَقُ كُلُّ أَمْرٍ حَكِيمٍ
"Therein is decreed every matter of decree." [TMQ 44:4]

Then Allah سبحانه وتعالى says,

سَلَامٌ هِيَ حَتَّى مَطْلَعِ الْفَجْرِ

"There is peace until the appearance of dawn."

Sa`id bin Mansur said: Hushaym narrated to us on the authority of Abu Ishaq, who narrated that Ash-Sha`bi said concerning Allah's سبحانه وتعالى statement:

سَلَامٌ هِيَ حَتَّى مَطْلَعِ الْفَجْرِ مِّن كُلِّ أَمْرٍ

"With every matter, there is a peace until the appearance of dawn."

"The angels giving the greetings of peace during the Night of Al-Qadr to the people in the Masjids until the coming of Fajr (dawn)."

Qatadah and Ibn Zayd both said concerning Allah's سبحانه وتعالى statement,

سَلَامٌ هِيَ

"There is peace."

"This means all of it is good and there is no evil in it until the coming of Fajr (dawn)."



Specifying the Night of Decree and its Signs

This is supported by what Imam Ahmad recorded from `Ubadah bin As-Samit that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: "The Night of Al-Qadr occurs during the last ten (nights). Whoever stands for them (in prayer) seeking their reward, then indeed Allah will forgive his previous sins and his latter sins. It is an odd night: the ninth, or the seventh, or the fifth, or the third or the last night (of Ramadan)."

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم also said: "Verily, the sign of the Night of Al-Qadr is that it is pure and glowing as if there were a bright, tranquil, calm moon during it. It is not cold, nor is it hot, and no shooting star is permitted until morning. Its sign is that the sun appears on the morning following it smooth having no rays on it, just like the moon on a full moon night. Shaytan is not allowed to come out with it (the sun) on that day." This chain of narration is good. In its text there is some oddities and in some of its wordings there are things that are objectionable.

Abu Dawud mentioned a section in his Sunan that he titled, "Chapter: Clarification that the Night of Al-Qadr occurs during every Ramadan." Then he recorded that `Abdullah bin `Umar said, "The Messenger of Allah was asked about the Night of Al-Qadr while I was listening and he said: "It occurs during every Ramadan." The men of this chain of narration are all reliable, but Abu Dawud said that Shu`bah and Sufyan both narrated it from Ishaq and they both considered it to be a statement of the Companion (Ibn `Umar, and thus not the statement of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم.

It has been reported that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم performed I`tikaf during the first ten nights of Ramadan and we performed I`tikaf with him. Then Jibril came to him and said, ‘That which you are seeking is in front of you.' So the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم performed I`tikaf during the middle ten days of Ramadan and we also performed I`tikaf with him. Then Jibril came to him and said; ‘That which you are seeking is ahead of you.' So the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم stood up and gave a sermon on the morning of the twentieth of Ramadan and he said: "Whoever performed I`tikaf with me, let him come back (for I`tikaf again), for verily I saw the Night of Al-Qadr, and I was caused to forget it, and indeed it is during the last ten (nights). It is during an odd night and I saw myself as if I were prostrating in mud and water." The roof of the Masjid was made of dried palm-tree leaves and we did not see anything (i.e., clouds) in the sky. But then a patch of wind-driven clouds came and it rained. So the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم lead us in prayer until we saw the traces of mud and water on the forehead of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, which confirmed his dream."

In one narration it adds that this occurred on the morning of the twenty-first night (meaning the next morning). They both (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) recorded it in the Two Sahihs.

Ash-Shafi`i said, "This Hadith is the most authentic of what has been reported."

It has also been said that it is on the twenty-third night due to a Hadith narrated from `Abdullah bin Unays in Sahih Muslim. It has also been said that it is on the twenty-fifth night due to what Al-Bukhari recorded from Ibn `Abbas that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: "Seek it in the last ten (nights) of Ramadan. In the ninth it still remains, in the seventh it still remains, in the fifth it still remains."

Many have explained this Hadith to refer to the odd nights, and this is the most apparent and most popular explanation. It has also been said that it occurs on the twenty-seventh night because of what Muslim recorded in his Sahih from Ubay bin Ka`b that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم mentioned that it was on the twenty-seventh night.

Imam Ahmad recorded from Zirr that he asked Ubayy bin Ka`b, "O Abu Al-Mundhir! Verily, your brother Ibn Mas`ud says whoever stands for prayer (at night) the entire year, will catch the Night of Al-Qadr." He (Ubayy) said, "May Allah have mercy upon him. Indeed he knows that it is during the month of Ramadan and that it is the twenty-seventh night." Then he swore by Allah. Zirr then said, "How do you know that?" Ubayy replied, "By a sign or an indication that he (the Prophet) informed us of. It rises that next day having no rays on it - meaning the sun." Muslim has also recorded it.

It has been said that it is the night of the twenty-ninth. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal recorded from `Ubadah bin As-Samit that he asked the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم about the Night of Decree and he replied: "Seek it in Ramadan in the last ten nights. For verily, it is during the odd nights, the twenty-first, or the twenty-third, or the twenty-fifth, or the twenty-seventh, or the twenty-ninth, or during the last night."

Imam Ahmad also recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said about the Night of Al-Qadr: "Verily, it is during the twenty-seventh or the twenty-ninth night. And verily, the angels who are on the earth during that night are more numerous than the number of pebbles." Ahmad was alone in recording this Hadith and there is nothing wrong with its chain of narration.

At-Tirmidhi recorded from Abu Qilabah that he said, "The Night of Al-Qadr moves around (i.e., from year to year) throughout the last ten nights." This view that At-Tirmidhi mentions from Abu Qilabah has also been recorded by Malik, Ath-Thawri, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ishaq bin Rahuyah, Abu Thawr, Al-Muzani, Abu Bakr bin Khuzaymah and others. It has also been related from Ash-Shafi`i, and Al-Qadi reported it from him, and this is most likely. And Allah knows best.



Supplication during the Night of Decree

It is recommended to supplicate often during all times, especially during the month of Ramadan, in the last ten nights, and during the odd nights of it even more so. It is recommended that one say the following supplication a lot: "O Allah! Verily, You are the Oft-Pardoning, You love to pardon, so pardon me."

This is due to what Imam Ahmad recorded from `A'ishah, that she said, "O Messenger of Allah! If I find the Night of Al-Qadr what should I say?" He replied: "Say: ‘O Allah! Verily, You are the Oft-Pardoning, You love to pardon, so pardon me.'" At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa'i and Ibn Majah have all recorded this Hadith.

At-Tirmidhi said, "This Hadith is Hasan Sahih." Al-Hakim recorded it in his Mustadrak (with a different chain of narration) and he said that it is authentic according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs (Al-Bukhari and Muslim). An-Nasa'i also recorded it.

This is the end of the Tafsir of Surah Laylat Al-Qadr, and all praise and blessings are due to Allah.

http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/ramadan/ramadan/1069-tafsir-of-surah-al-qadr

TURKEY and the OTTOMANS

It was the month of Rajab the Khilafah came to an end in Turkey. Various individuals in post-Ottoman Turkey have attempted to wipe its history away, but Turkey under the Ottoman's was the world superpower for centuries - this will remain the history of Turkey, whatever its future course.


The Ottoman's were one of the many bands of Turkmen horsemen who began to come into the Islamic lands as a result of the Mongol invasions in the 13th century. These Turkmen warriors, who had converted to Islam, were sent to the frontiers of the state by the Seljuks, who themselves were of Turkish origin. They had excellent fighting skills and zeal, which the Seljuks wanted them to apply along the frontier with the Byzantines. The house of Uthman proved to be one of the most successful of these bands, taking many towns and villages from the control of the Byzantines, they then unified the other ghazis, under their banner, brought the lands surrounding Constantinople under Islam, culminating in the capture of Byzantine Empire capital - Constantinople in 1453.

The Uthmani's then swept through the Balkans and Eastern Europe in spectacular fashion. The important city of Thessaloniki was captured from the Venetians in 1387. In 1389, the kings of Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Hungary attacked the Uthmani's but Sultan Murad I crushed them at Kosovo, which shocked Europe. In 1396, the whole of Europe including French and German armies fought against Sultan Bayazid Yaldram at Nicopolis but were comprehensively defeated and 20 rulers and dignitaries were brought to the Khaleefah's court as the captives. Sultan Bayazid had annexed all the territory from Bosnia to Danube. He had also conquered Greece (Athens) in 1398.

Before Suleiman al Qanooni's reign came to an end in 1566 he had expanded the Islamic frontiers well into Eastern Europe bringing Belgrade the capital of Serbia under Islam as well as regaining the Greek island of Rhodes. He had defeated Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia and brought most of Hungary under Islamic authority. By 1578 Georgia and what is today Romania was under Islam. Before the beginning of the 17th century the Ottoman's had brought Southern Italy, Hungary, Austria, Romania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Albania, Malta, Cyprus, Croatia, Ukraine, the Canary Islands, parts of Iceland and the largest island of the Bristol waters in England, UK - Lundy under Islamic authority. Such was the perceived threat of the Uthmani Khilafah under the reign of Suleiman al Qanooni that ambassador Busbecq of the Austrian monarch Ferdinand I warned of Europe's imminent conquest: "On [the Turks'] side are the resources of a mighty empire, strength unimpaired, habituation to victory, endurance of toil, unity, discipline, frugality and watchfulness... Can we doubt what the result will be?...When the Turks have settled with Persia, they will fly at our throats supported by the might of the whole East; how unprepared we are I dare not say."[1]



Achievements

The Ottoman's until the era of decline were hugely successful in integrating and amalgamating the different peoples in the new territories. The Uthmani's like their predecessors gave the non-Muslim populace in matters of marriage, faith and personal issues their own religious leaders. As a result, vast areas of the Balkans remained mostly Christian. The Eastern Orthodox Churches had a higher position in Uthmani Khilafah, mainly because the Patriarch resided in Istanbul and was an officer of the Khilafah.

Sultan Mehmed II allowed the local Christians to reside in Constantinople after conquering the city in 1453, and to retain their institutions such as the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate. In 1461 Sultan Mehmed II established the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople. Previously, the Byzantines considered the Armenian Church as heretical and thus did not allow them to build churches inside the walls of Constantinople. In 1492, when the Muslims and Jews were expelled from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition, Sultan Bayezid II sent his fleet to save them and granted the refugees the right to settle in the Khilafah. Thomas Arnold confirmed in his study of the spread of Islam: "though the Greeks were numerically superior to the Turks in all the European provinces of the Empire, the religious toleration thus granted them, and the protection of life and property they enjoyed, soon reconciled them to the change of masters and led them to prefer the domination of the Sultan to that of any Christian power."[2]

The Ottoman's influence internationally was such that many of the European powers turned to the Ottoman's for help. The French king Francis I was captured at the battle of Pavia in 1525. France felt humiliated by the capture of her king but her army was unable to rescue him from captivity. She made recourse to the Islamic Khilafah state, under the Ottoman's at that time, and she sent a messenger on behalf of the king of France on 6th December 1525 seeking help from the Islamic State. The messenger met the Uthmani Khaleef Sulayman al-Qanooni who responded to his call. Sulayman gave the messenger a letter which read: "we have received the letter delivered by your messenger, and in which you stated that your enemy has attacked your country and you are imprisoned and seek our help in respect to securing your release. We have answered your request so be at ease and do not worry". The Khilafah state used its international weight and military power to rescue the king of France and made an effective contribution towards his release. The Khaleef of the Muslims helped France without compensation, without occupying a part of France or colonising any region of France in return. Rather he did the action as an act of goodwill.

In 1783 the first US navy boat started to sail in international waters and within two years was captured by the Ottoman navy near Algeria. In 1793 12 more US navy boats were captured. In March 1794 the US Congress authorized President Washington to spend up to 700 000 gold coins to build strong steel boats that would resist the Uthmani navy. Just a year later the US signed the Barbary Treaty to resolve the Ottoman threat.

Barbary, was the term for the North African wilaya's of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, under the rule of the Ottomans.

The terms of the treaty were:

1.The treaty will cost the US a one off payment of $992,463
2.The American ships captured would be returned and the American Navy was to be given permission to sail in the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea.
3.In return, the American government would pay $642 000 in equivalent gold.
4.The US would also pay an annual tax (tribute) of $12 000 in gold. The annual tribute would be calculated according to the Islamic calendar and not the Christian calendar
5.$585,000 would be paid for the ransom of the captured American sailors
6.A state of the art steel ship would be constructed and delivered to the Uthmani's, built in the US with all costs borne by the US in return for privileges. (The costs of masts, Yards, and heavy planks, were very costly and so difficult to procure, and then so exceedingly expensive to transport. Once delivered the US had actually paid thirty times their estimated price in the stipulations).
The treaty was written in Turkish and signed by President Washington, This is the only American legal document to ever have been concluded in a foreign language and the only treaty the Americans have ever signed that agrees to pay annual tax to another nation. This treaty continued until the Khilafah was abolished.



Turkey Today

Ever since the destruction of the Khilafah in 1924, Turkey has become a nation with no influence in the world. Turkey has been used by the world's powers to achieve their own interests. Turkey joined NATO and today Turkey provides the most troops after the US to the security organisation that protecting US interests during the cold war.

Whilst most of Turkey's history consists of menacing Europe, today is trying all it can to join the European Union. Whilst Turkey has reforming in the face of EU demands. The EU continues to reiterate that Turkey should be given second class membership.

Turkey has suffered an economic crisis once every decade since the end of the Khilafah, it has used each crisis to bring in more and more reforms in order align the nation to the global market, with little success.

The Turkey of today is a far cry from the international position the Ottoman's had. Today Turkey is being described by many thinkers as a resurgent nation, but like it recent history Turkey continues to protect the interests of other nations. Whilst in the past Turkey menaced Europe. Many accepted it was a matter of time when the Ottoman janissaries would march across Europe, Jews and many other minorities welcomed the Ottoman's due to the treatment they received regarding there faith. Turkey should learn from its history.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Lewis, Bernard (2002). What Went Wrong? : Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response



[2] Thomas Arnold, The Preaching of Islam: A History of the propagation of the Muslim Faith,' 1923, Reprint Nabu press, 2010, pg 127

Source:
http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/concepts/islamic-culture/9967-turkey-and-the-ottomans

Israeli Massacre of Gaza Humanitarian Aid Activists

The Jewish State today launched an attack on a convoy of ships carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip. So far 19 activists have been killed in the raid by Israeli commandos. True to form the coward Jewish State's army shot and killed unarmed civilians, just as it did during the attack on Gaza 18 months ago where young children, babies, women, disabled and the elderly were indiscriminately bombed and shot at.


The list of atrocities committed by the Jewish State in this year alone includes stealing organs from dead Palestinians, torturing and sexually abusing Palestinian children, digging up a 12th century Muslim graveyard in al-Quds and threatening to nuke Makkah and Madinah.

Predictably there has been international condemnation from many Muslim and western countries but these are simply harsh words that will never result in any practical action to stop the Jewish State's atrocities.

Three of the aid ships were provided by Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), a Turkish aid organisation with links to the Turkish government including the lead ship Mavi Marmara which had an estimated 600 Turkish passengers on board. As a result of this direct attack on Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish PM said, "It should be known that we will not stay silent and unresponsive in the face of this inhuman state terror."

Erdogan's response to the last Gaza attack was simply strong words and there is no evidence to suggest anything more from him this time or from the inept Arab leaders.

When Erdogan was the Mayor of Istanbul he recited the following poem in public which landed him in prison.

"Mosques are our barracks,
domes our helmets,
minarets our bayonets,
believers our soldiers.
This holy army guards my religion.
Almighty our journey is our destiny,
the end is martyrdom"

If Erdogan truly believes in the above words then the time has come for him to walk in the footsteps of the great Khaleefah Harun al-Rashid who when confronted with the Roman Emperor Nicephorus refusal to abide by his treaty with the Khilafah, sent the following letter:

"From Haroon Al Rashid, Khaleefah of the Faithful to Nicephorus, the Roman dog: I have read your letter. You will not hear, you will see my reply." The Khaleefah then sent a huge army to the Byzantine Empire and forced Nicephorus to abide by the treaty.

The Muslim Ummah has had enough of strong words and condemnation. Now we want action.

The only acceptable Islamic response to the occupation of Muslim lands and an attack on Muslims is war by the Muslim armies. Anything less is unacceptable.

The Generals in the Muslim armies must disobey their Presidents and their masters in Washington and intervene militarily to liberate the land of Palestine so this much needed aid can flood in. All of the Jewish State's wealth will become ghaneema (war booty) and given to the Muslims of Palestine to rebuild their shattered lives.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَمَلايِينٌ تَنْتَظِرُ تَلْبِيَةَ النِّداءِ وَلَمْ يَمْنَعْها مِنَ التَّلْبِيَةِ الْمالُ وَالْوَلَدُ بَلْ مَنَعَهُمْ حُدُودٌ وَحَواجِزٌ وَصَدُّ طُغاةٍ جَبابِرَةٍ تَحَكَّمُواْ بِالرِّقابِ وَالْعِبادِ .

Oh Allah! We are at Your service, millions are waiting for the call of jihad, and we are not prevented by a shortage of either the willing youth or wealth, rather we are prevented by the borders and barriers imposed by the menace of Taghoot who have subjugated us.

http://www.khilafah.com/

Healthcare in the Khilafah

Tuesday, 23 March 2010 20:46 .

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

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


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

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

50 million Americans do not have health insurance.

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

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

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

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

Taking care of people's affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Healthcare in the Khilafah

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

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

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

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

Medical excellence in Islamic history

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/the-khilafah/khilafah/9054-healthcare-in-the-khilafah

Dhimmi - Non-Muslims Living In The Khilafah

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

Joseph Farah, founder of the WorldNetDaily news site states:

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


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


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


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

Citizenship in Islam

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


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


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

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

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

Categories of non-Muslims in the Khilafah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dhimmi

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

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

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


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



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


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

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

Judiciary

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

Bat Ye’or states:


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


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

Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an:


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


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

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

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

Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an:


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


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

Criminal Punishments

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


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


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


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

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


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

Economy

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

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


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


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


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


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

Jizya

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

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

Allah (swt) says:


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


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

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

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








In sahih Bukhari it has been narrated by Abu Najeeh who said, “I said to Mujahid: ‘What is the matter with the people of Ash-Sham who pay 4 Dinars and the people of Yemen pay 1 Dinar?’ He said, ‘This was decided based on prosperity.’”31


It is forbidden for the Khilafah to overburden the dhimmi with heavy taxation.


The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who harms a person under covenant, or charged him more than he can, I will argue against him on the Day of Judgement.”32



‘Amr ibn Maymun said, “I saw ‘Umar four nights before he was assassinated sitting on top a camel, saying to Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman and ‘Uthman ibn al-Hunayf, ‘Review the affairs under your charge. Do you think that you have burdened the tenants with what they cannot bear?” ‘Uthman replied, ‘I have levied on them an amount that I could double and they would still have the ability to pay.’ Hudhayfa said: ‘I have imposed on them an amount that leaves a large surplus.’”


Abu Ubayd commenting on this said: this is the legal rule in our view for the imposition of jizya and kharaj; they are levied in accordance with the capacity of the dhimmis to pay, without burdening them and without adversely affecting the fay’ of the Muslims; however, no limit is imposed on it.33

When collecting the jizya this cannot be collected by abusing and torturing the dhimmi as some have claimed.


It is narrated from Hisham bin Hakeem, who said; “I bear witness that I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say; ‘Allah will punish those who punish the people in the Dunya.’”34



‘Umar ibn al-Khattab was brought a huge amount of wealth – Abu Ubayd: I believe, he said “Of jizya” – and he (‘Umar) said: “I think you must have placed the people in hardship (for such wealth).” They said: “No, by Allah, we did not collect anything that was not given voluntarily and of their own free will.” He said: “Without using the stick and without stringing (them up).” They said: “Yes.” He said: “Praise be to Allah, who has not caused this to happen at my hands or during my authority.” 35


With regards the Kharaj (agricultural land tax) this applies equally to Muslims and dhimmi with no distinction.

Community Relations

Muslim and dhimmi communities live together, side by side in the Khilafah. They are not persecuted, hated and forced to live in fear by the Muslims.

The dhimmi neighbours have the same rights as Muslim neighbours with no distinction.


The Prophet (saw) said: “Jibril (Angel Gabriel) kept recommending treating neighbours with kindness until I thought he would assign them a share of inheritance.”36


Muslims and dhimmi will visit each other, be courteous and socialise together. The Messenger of Allah (saw) used to visit the poorly from amongst the dhimmi.

It is narrated that a Jewish valet who used to serve the Messenger of Allah (saw) was once taken ill, so the Messenger of Allah (saw) visited him.37

Thomas Arnold describes the relations between dhimmi and Muslim communities in Spain under Islamic rule.


The toleration of the Muhammadan government towards its Christian subjects in Spain and the freedom of intercourse between the adherents of the two religions brought about a certain amount of assimilation in the two communities. Inter-marriages became frequent; Isidore of Beja, who fiercely inveighs against the Muslim conquerors, records the marriage of ‘Abd al-Aziz, the son of Musa, with the widow of King Roderic, without a word of blame. Many of the Christians adopted Arab names, and in outward observances imitated to some extent their Muhammadan neighbours, e.g. many were circumcised, and in matters of food and drink followed the practice of the “unbaptized pagans.38


The Christian Arabs of the present day, dwelling in the midst of a Muhammadan population, are a living testimony of this toleration; Layard speaks of having come across an encampment of Christian Arabs at al-Karak, to the east of the Dead Sea, who differed in no way either in dress or in manners, from the Muslim Arabs.39

Government

Another accusation is that dhimmi cannot be civil servants within the Khilafah or be members of the government.

It’s true that a dhimmi cannot hold any ruling position within the Khilafah. This is because the Shari’ah has restricted these positions to those who believe in the ideology of the state i.e. Islam. This is no different to any ideological state within the world today.

Muhammad Asad states:


One cannot escape the fact that no non-Muslim citizen – however great his personal integrity and his loyalty to the state – could, on psychological grounds, ever be supposed to work wholeheartedly for the ideological objectives of Islam; nor, in fairness, could such a demand be made of him. On the other hand, no ideological organization (whether based on religious or other doctrines) can afford to entrust the direction of its affairs to persons not professing its ideology. Is it, for instance, conceivable that a non-Communist could be given a political key position – not to speak of supreme leadership of the state – in Soviet Russia? Obviously not, and logically so: for as long as communism supplies the ideological basis of the state, only persons who identify themselves unreservedly with its aims can be relied upon to translate those aims into terms of administrative policy.40


Having said this dhimmi can be civil servants and directors of the administrative government departments. Discrimination against dhimmi for civil service posts is forbidden.

The evidence for this is from the Islamic rules on hiring (Ijara) where it is permitted to hire any person whether Muslim or non-Muslim. This is because the evidences for hiring came in a general form.

Allah (swt) says;


And if they suckled for you, do give them their wage.41



The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Allah (swt) said; I will challenge three people on the day of Judgement.…. and a man who employed a labourer, he received from him (the work) but did not give him his wage.”42


The Messenger of Allah (saw) himself once hired a man from the tribe Banu Ad-Deel who was a non-Muslim, which indicates that it is permitted to hire a non-Muslim just as it is to hire a Muslim.

All the above three evidences are general. Therefore, it is permitted for a non-Muslim to be a director of a government department or an employee in that department, for they are all hired staff, and the evidences about hiring are general.43

Although dhimmi cannot hold ruling positions within the government this does not mean they cannot politically participate within the Khilafah.

One of the pillars of the Islamic ruling system is consultation (shura). This function is institutionalised within an elected council called the Majlis al-Ummah (Council of the Ummah) that forms part of the Khilafah government.

The Majlis al-Ummah is an elected council whose members can be Muslim, non-Muslim, men or women. These members represent the interests of their constituencies within the state. The majlis has no powers of legislation like in a democratic parliament but it does have many powers that act as a counterbalance to the executive powers of the Khaleefah.

Members of the majlis can voice their political opinions freely without fear of imprisonment or rebuke. This makes the Majlis ul-Ummah a very powerful institution for accounting the Khaleefah and his government that the dhimmi can fully participate in.44

Religion

A widespread accusation against the Khilafah is that Islam was spread by the sword forcing non-Muslims to convert to Islam or die. This claim in particular is used to create fear and opposition within western countries to the re-emergence of a Khilafah in the Muslim world.

Islam categorically forbids forcing anyone to convert to Islam.

Allah (swt) says:


Let there be no compulsion in religion 45


Thomas Arnold states:


The toleration extended towards the Christian Arabs by the victorious Muslims of the first century of the Hijrah and continued by succeeding generations, we may surely infer that those Christian tribes that did embrace Islam, did so of their own choice and free will.46


Islam has also forbidden tempting non-Muslims away from their beliefs and worships.


The Messenger of Allah (saw) wrote to the people of Yemen: ‘Whoever is adamant upon Judaism or Christianity will not be tormented for it, and he is obliged to pay the jizya.’47


The meaning of ‘will not be tormented for it’ means the dhimmi are left to follow their beliefs and worships.48

Therefore dhimmi are allowed to follow their own beliefs, the rules of their religion and perform actions with although forbidden in Islam were permitted to them by the Messenger of Allah (saw) such as drinking alcohol, eating pork, marriage and divorce.49

The dhimmi places of worship are also protected by the Khilafah. The existence of centuries old Churches, Synagogues and Temples throughout the Muslim world is clear evidence to this fact.

Since these areas are the only areas a religion such as Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism has detailed rules for, the dhimmi will generally face no conflicts between their religions and living within the Khilafah.

Conclusion

The dhimmi are citizens of the Khilafah and enjoy all the rights of citizenship such as protection, guaranteed living and fair treatment. They also enjoy the right of being treated with kindness, leniency, justice and clemency. They can join the Islamic armed forces and fight alongside the Muslims if they choose to do so, but they are not obliged to fight as the Muslims are. They are viewed by the ruler and the judge in the same light as the Muslims are viewed without any discrimination in terms of managing their affairs and when implementing the rules of transactions (mu’amilat) and the penal code (hudud) upon them.

Therefore, the dhimmi enjoys all the rights, equally and exactly as those enjoyed by the Muslims and is in no way classed as a second class citizen.50


References

1 Joseph Farah, October 26, 2006, Between the Lines Commentary, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52609

2 Melanie Phillips, ‘Dhimmi Britain,’ January 14, 2004, http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000265.html

3 Narrated by Sulayman Bin Buraida, Sahih Muslim, Hadith no. 4294

4 Hizb ut-Tahrir, ‘The Methodology of Hizb ut-Tahrir for Change,’ Al-Khilafah Publications, p. 6

5 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ translation of Nizam ul-Hukm fil Islam, Khilafah Publications, Fifth Edition, p. 247

6 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The draft constitution of the Khilafah State. The Introduction and the incumbent reasons,’ translation of Muqadimatud-Dustur Aw al-Asbabul Mujibatulah, Article 184

7 Ibid

8 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Islamic Personality,’ Volume 2, translation of Shakhsiya Islamiyya, Dar ul-Ummah, Beirut, Fourth Edition, Chapter Al-Must’amin

9 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The draft constitution of the Khilafah State,’ Op.cit., Article 7f

10 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Islamic Personality,’ Op.cit., Chapter Ahkam adh-dhimmi

11 Narrated by Yahya b. Adam in the book of Al-Kharaaj

12 Reported by al-Tabarani in Al-awsat on good authority

13 Shaha al-Deen al-Qarafi, Al-furuq

14 Bat Ye’or, ‘The Dhimmi, Jews and Christians under Islam,’ 1985 Associated University Presses, p. 56

15 Holy Qur’an, Chapter 5, Surah al-Ma’idah, Verse 42

16 Holy Qur’an, Chapter 5, Surah al-Ma’idah, Verse 106

17 Ahmad ad-Da’our, ‘The Rules of Testimonial Evidences,’ Translation of Ahkaam al-bayyinaat, Chapter: Conditions (shuroot) of the witness

18 Bat Ye’or, Op.cit., p. 57

19 Narrated from Amru bin Shuaib from his father from his grandfather

20 Al-Bayhaqi, extracted from the hadith of Abdurrahman Al-Bailimani

21 Abdurrahman Al-Maliki, ‘The Punishment System,’ translation of Nidham ul-uqubat, Dar Ul-Ummah, Beirut, Second Edition, Chapter: Al-Qawad

22 Cecil Roth, ‘The House of Nasi: Dona Gracia’

23 Abu ‘Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam, ‘The Book of Revenue,’ Translation of Kitab al-Amwal, Garnet Publishing Ltd, p. 42

24 http://www.jews-for-allah.org/jewish-mythson-islam/dhimmi-tax-fiftypercent.htm

25 Holy Qur’an, Chapter 9, Surah at-Taubah, Verse 29

26 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The draft constitution of the Khilafah State,’ Op.cit., Article 7a

27 Abdul-Qadeem Zalloom, ‘Funds in the Khilafah State,’ translation of Al-Amwal fi Dowlat Al-Khilafah, Al-Khilafah Publications, 1988, p. 58

28 Abu ‘Ubayd, Op.cit., p. 25

29 Ibid, p. 37

30 Abdul-Qadeem Zalloom, Op.cit., p. 61

31 Sahih Bukhari

32 Narrated by Yahya b. Adam in the book of Al-Kharaaj

33 Abu ‘Ubayd, Op.cit., p. 37

34 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ Op.cit., 271

35 Abu ‘Ubayd, Op.cit., p. 40

36 Sahih Bukhari

37 Ibid, on the authority of Anas

38 Thomas W. Arnold, ‘The Preaching of Islam,’ Second Edition, Kitab Bhavan Publishers, New Delhi, p. 128

39 Ibid, p. 47

40 Muhammad Asad, ‘The Principles of State and Government in Islam,’ Dar al-Andalus Ltd, Gibraltar, 1985, p. 41

41 Holy Qur’an, Chapter 65, Surah at-Talaq, Verse 6

42 Sahih Bukhari, narrated from Abu Hurairah

43 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ Op.cit., 235

44 Ibid, p. 247

45 Holy Qur’an, Chapter 2, Surah al-Baqarah, Verse 256

46 Thomas W. Arnold, Op.cit., p. 47

47 Abu ‘Ubayd, Op.cit., p. 25

48 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Islamic Personality,’ Op.cit., Chapter Ahkam adh-dhimmi

49 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The draft constitution of the Khilafah State,’ Op.cit., Articles 5&6

50 Ibid

http://khilafah.com/

Syariah Adalah Kewajipan

Tujuan parti Islam adalah menyedarkan umat Islam tentang kewajipan melaksanakan syariah Islam. Kekalahan parti Islam bukan bermakna syariah tidak laku atau tidak sesuai dengan zaman atau masa kini. Sebab bagi umat Islam syariah bukanlah pilihan tetapi kewajipan yang harus dilaksanakan. Kerana itu, syariah bukan ditawarkan sebagai mana dalam pilihan raya yang di adakan dimana-mana di negara umat Islam, tetapi diwajibkan.
Sejak awal syariah diturunkan bukan untuk ditawarkan kepada manusia,namun diwajibkan ke atas seluruh manusia. “Dan Kami tidaklah mengutusmu untuk menjadi penjaga bagi mereka”. (TMQ Al-Isra:54); “Sesungguhnya Kami telah menurunkan Kitab kepadamu dengan membawa kebenaran, supaya kamu menghukum antara manusia dengan apa yang telah Allah wahyukan kepadamu” (TMQ an-Nisa :105); “Maka demi Tuhanmu (Muhammad), mereka (pada hakikatnya) tidak beriman hingga mereka menjadikan kamu (Muhammad) sebagai hakim terhadap perkara yang mereka perselisihkan...” ( TMQ An Nisaa` : 65); “Barangsiapa yang tidak memutuskan (perkara) menurut apa yang diturunkan Allah, maka mereka itu adalah orang-orang yang kafir.” ( TMQ Al Maaidah :44). Saat itu, memang sebahagian masyarakat Makkah menerimanya, sedangkan kebanyakan menolaknya. Namun, pada saat itu, tidak dikatakan bahawa Islam tidak laku, tetapi belum diimani banyak orang. Ini sama dengan keadaan sekarang, banyak orang Islam namun sebahagian besar masih sekular.
Realiti masyarakat kita yang tidak tunduk pada syariah Islam menjadi bukti bahawa sebahagian besar dari mereka masih belum mengimani syariah Islam sebagai satu-satunya problem solving dalam kehidupan. Ini disebabkan oleh 2 faktor: Faktor internal dan eksternal. Faktor internal ialah dakwah kita tidak menekankan ketundukan atau pasrah pada syariah Islam sebagai sebahagian daripada keimanan, tidak mampu menjelaskan Islam sebagai sistem kehidupan yang mampu menyelesaikan berbagai permasalahan kehidupan manusia, serta banyak kompromi atau toleransi antara yang haq dan batil dengan alasan darurat untuk penyelesaian masa kini. Faktor eksternal kerana besarnya kekuatan kafir untuk menaklukkan Islam dan umat Islam secara sistematik; mulai dari pengetahuan hingga ekonomi, politik dan militer. Akibatnya, umat Islam hidup di dalam sistem kufur demokrasi; aturan dan keberhasilan ditentukan oleh demokrasi. Tak salah jika banyak orang terjebak dalam sudut pandang demokrasi berdasarkan suara terbanyak, bukan pada suara yang paling benar. Siapa yang memperoleh suara terbanyak menjadi pemenangnya; yang mendapat suara sedikit dikatakan jualannya tidak laku, termasuk dalam hal ini syariah Islam.
Untuk mengubah kondisi tersebut, gerakan yang dilakukan harus keluar dari jalan demokrasi dan beralih ke jalan perjuangan Rasulullah saw.. Dalam gerakannya, Rasulullah saw. menanamkan keimanan dan ketundukan pada syariah Islam hingga mampu membangun sistem Islam, bukan ikut-ikutan sistem kufur yang tidak memberikan kesempatan yang sama pada syariah Islam sebagai sistem kehidupan, tetapi hanya sebagai nilai-nilai spiritual saja. Islam harus ditampilkan sebagai sistem kehidupan yang jauh lebih baik daripada demokrasi, bukan sebaliknya; memperbaiki demokrasi dengan nilai dan moraliti Islam.
Realitinya, demokrasi tidak mampu menghadirkan kesejahteraan bahkan menjadi duri kerosakan, kita sebagai umat Islam yang menyakini kebenaran dan kemampuan syariah Islam dalam mewujudkan kesejahteraan harus terus mengempenkan syariah Islam itu wajib dan menyejahterakan manusia. Dengan itu, sebahagian besar umat Islam menerima dan menyakini bahwa hanya syariah Islam yang mampu menjadi satu-satunya harapan meraih kesejahteraan. Umat Islam akan bersatu untuk menuntut berlakunya syariah Islam atas mereka. Saat itulah, akan berdiri Dawlah Islamiyyah ‘ala Minhaj an-Nubuwwah:al-Khilafah ar-Rashidah.Insyaallah.

THE FEAR OF KHILAFAH NOT “TERRORISM”
Abid Ullah Jan
http://www.icssa.org/article_detail_pars...;m_id=1169


Tied to general fear of Muslims is the real fear: the fear of Khilafah. In chapter 3 of the Book (Afghanistan: The Genesis of the Final Crusade) , we will explore the reason for this fear. Here we will establish the existence of this fear.

A prominent leader from South Asia, Mohammed Ali Johar, predicted in 1924:

It is difficult to anticipate the exact effects the “abolition” of Khilafah will have on the minds of Muslims in India. I can safely affirm that it will prove a disaster both to Islam and to civilization. The suppression of the time honored institution which was, through out the Muslim world, regarded as a symbol of Islamic unity will cause the disintegration of Islam...., I fear that the removal of this ideal will drive the unadvanced and semi-civilized peoples..., into ranks of revolution and disorder.175

Eighty-one years later, we witness that the “civilized” world is busy in the noble cause of digging out Saddam’s atrocities, but at the same time tries to burry deep Uzbek president, Islam Karimov’s massacre of civilians in Andijan. The reason for such a silence is the justification which Islam Karimov put forward for his massacre and continued human rights violations in Uzbekistan. In Karimov’s words, the victims “wanted to establish Khilafah.”176 Atrocities of similar, dictatorial regimes in many Muslims countries are acceptable to the “civilized” world because these are considered as secular bulwarks against Hizb ut Tahrir-like movements, whose main crime is the struggle for establishing Khilafah.

The so-called mainstream media and the architects of war at the political and religions levels, make everyone believe that the trouble started, at the earliest, around the Taliban’s coming to power in Afghanistan. In fact, the global troubles have been attributed to Khilafah since its inception in the 7th century. Thirteen centuries later, when the British Empire abolished the remnants of Khilafah in 1924, it took a sigh of relief and considered it as the ultimate victory against Islam.

To the utter disappointment of Britain and its allies, the problem, nevertheless, remains. Khilafah still provides motivation to many actions and reactions; movements and counter-movements in the Muslim world. Consequently, the centuries old zeal of Islamophobes to abolish Khilafah is as much the root of all unacknowledged terrorism of the United States, Britain and their allies as the renewed zeal among Muslims to seek self-determination and real liberation from the colonial yoke. Although a majority may not be thinking in terms of establishing Khilafah, but it will be the natural consequence of true liberation and unified approach towards tackling the prevailing problems. That is why the totalitarian warlords in Washington and London are opposed to granting real independence to Muslim masses and spread the fear of “Caliphate.”

Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times points out in his December 11 column that policy hawks in the Pentagon have used the term Caliphate internally since the planning stages for the war in Iraq, but the administration’s public use of the word increased this past summer and autumn:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it in a speech last Monday in Washington and again on Thursday on PBS. Eric Edelman, the under secretary of defense for policy, said it the week before in a roundtable at the Council on Foreign Relations. Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, said it in October in speeches in New York and Los Angeles. General John Abizaid, the top American commander in the Middle East, said it in September in hearings on Capitol Hill.177

The major problem with Khilafah is the morbid dread it strikes in the hearts of those who are determined not to allow Muslims to become united, exercise their right to self-determination and live by the Qur’an. The key to materializing these objectives lies in thwarting Muslim’s organized struggle towards real liberation from the puppet regimes and uniting the divided world of Islam.

Just the thought of this struggle leads the Islamophobes into taking many pre-emptive measures, which, in turn, lead to grievances, reaction and counter measures on the part of Muslims.

The more time passes, the more people realize the importance of a central, independent authority for Muslims. Unlike all the now defunct revolutions of human history, the 7th century revolution in the heart of Arabia not only culminated in establishing a way of life but also setting guidelines for human governance, which are still valid today.

This realization of the need to have a central, independent authority for Muslims is directly proportional to the struggle on the part of the architects of war on Afghanistan who will never allow Muslims to take any steps that may lead to the establishment of an alternative model to the existing unjust socio-political and economic order.

The “war on terrorism” is a post 9/11 slogan. In fact, it is a summary title for all the anti-Islam efforts: from intellectual escapades to legal hurdles, wars, occupations, detentions, torture and criminalizing the concept of Khilafah. In this process, terrorism is used as a synonym of Khilafah.

One can notice this by carefully listening to the brief statements at the end of summits and conferences these days. It seems as if there is nothing going on in the world except terrorism. The crux of all messages is: We are committed, determined and stand as one against the evil of terrorism. We would not allow terrorists to win. They are against our values and way of life.

A realistic look forces one to ask: Where does the alleged ‘Muslim terrorism’ stand in comparison to the mass killings, tortures, detentions, and exploitations carried out to deter Muslims from being organized and united. This proves that the war is actually on something other than the deceptively labeled terrorism. The first physical action of this war was the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

One month before 9/11, the New York Times reports that most Americans are made to believe that terrorism “is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal.” The Americans are made “to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists and they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.” Larry C. Johnson, nevertheless, concludes: “None of these beliefs are based in fact.”178

Johnson cites figures from the CIA reports. Accordingly, deaths from “international terrorism fell to 2,527 in the decade of 1900’s from 4,833 in the 80’s.” Compare the 2,527 deaths in the 90s due to acknowledged terrorism with the death of 1.8 million in Iraq during the same years due to unacknowledged terrorism of the United States, its allies and the United Nations. The United States and allies’ terrorism remained unacknowledged because they justified it with lies about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. For example, compare the 4,833 deaths due to acknowledged Muslim terrorism with the one million deaths due to unacknowledged aggression of Iraq against Iran on the behest of the United States and its allies.

So, what is consuming the world: the acknowledged terrorism of Muslims or the unacknowledged terrorism of the United States and its allies? This brings us to the point that the endless tirades about Muslim terrorism are directed at holding Muslims from exercising their right to self-determination. Anything in the name of Khilafah in particular becomes part of the struggle towards this end and is instantly criminalized.

Many people believe these measures are part of the wider crackdowns for safety and security in the wake of 9/11. This, however, is not true. The reality is that anything in the name of Khilafah has been ridiculed and presented as a threat to safety since 1924 in particular. The reason: Islamophobes do not want to see real Khilafah re-emerge after their assuming in 1924 that they are done with the remnants of a symbolic Khilafah forever.

An example of this attitude is the reaction in the British press at the eve of Khilafah Conference in London in 1994, long before the staged 9/11 and 7/7. A headline in Independent (August 07, 1994) reads: “Muslim body accused of racism: Muslim rally angers Jews.” A headline in Telegraph (August 8, 1994) reads: “Wembley survives the Muslim call to arms.” An inset in the same story reads: “Fundamentalists’ Elusive Dream of An Islamic Empire.”

The morbid dread of Khilafah is evident from the editorials in the leading British dailies at this occasion. “The threat of Jihad,” reads the title of the Telegraph editorial, which goes on to link the Khilafah conference with the happenings in Algeria: “Islamic fundamentalists won a majority in recent elections, but, for political reasons, have been denied by the old guard.” The editorial goes on to sow the seeds of dissention among Muslims: “in Britain yesterday, for example, a rally of Islamic fundamentalists caused nothing but alarm by its challenge to the British Muslim community’s moderate leadership.”

The Guardian attempted to belittle the conference in its August 8, 1994 report with comments such as: “Much of the Islamic rhetoric meant little to many of the young British Muslims,” as if the participants were forced to join the conference, or that popular opinion decides what is Islamic and what is not.

The fear-mongering trend was not limited to a few presstitutes. Times titled its editorial: “Marching Muslims: Reminder of the need for vigilance” (August 08, 1994) and went on to scare the public: “The rally yesterday of some 8000 Muslims in Wembley Arena provoked understandable nervousness in Britain and abroad.” That “understandable nervousness” is not there since 1994, or 7/7, but since 1400 years. It did not end with systematically abolishing Khilafah in 1924.

A report in The Independent (August 8, 1994) by Tim Kelsey went to the extreme in fear mongering. Headline of the report tells the whole story: “Fundamentalist gathering seeks political overthrow of Western democracies: Muslims call for Israeli state to be destroyed.” One must remember that this is coming from a more progressive paper and not from some right-wing publication and that too in 1994, when even the Taliban had not come to power.

It is understandable that the enemies of Islam would go to any length, beyond these fear-mongering reports, to discredit the concept of Khilafah and deny them the right to self-determination. This includes staged terror attacks, lies for justifying invasions and occupation, and support to criminal regimes, which promise, in turn, not to let Muslims live by Islam. That is how the turmoil widens and the hopes for peace diminish with each passing day.

VIDEO Aljazeera: Rezim Nigeria Membantai Kaum Muslim

Monday, February 15th, 2010

HTI Press. Televisi Aljazeera mempublikasikan video pembantaian kaum muslim Nigeria yang dilakukan oleh Polisi Nigeria. Polisi dan tentara rezim Nigeria menembak kaum Muslim yang sedang berunjuk rasa pada musim panas tahun lalu dalam rangka menuntut penerapan hukum Islam, dan mengganti kurikulum Barat yang dijalankan di Nigeria. Dalam video tersebut memperlihatkan polisi Nigeria menembaki dengan jarak [...]

Posted in Headline, Video | 43 Comments »

A United Muslim

When one thinks of the Muslim world, it conjures up images of poverty, corruption and war. Many negative connotations exist about the state of the Muslim world which continues to occupy news space and newspapers. The global media tends to neglect the achievements of the Muslim world and the contributions it made to humanity. The Muslim world has a rich history of development and discovery, the results of which are being reaped today.


Over the last decade, the call for a united Islamic world i.e. the Khilafah has gained momentum and this momentum continues to grow. The possibility of a united Muslim world behind one ruler (Khaleefah) is something that the Muslim Ummah can achieve as this was achieved in the past and even western historians have testified to this fact. The Muslim lands currently posses:

• The Largest population in the world, 1.6 billion
• Largest army in the world
• Control of half of the world's oil and many other natural resources
• Control key strategic naval straits (A third of the world's oil travels through the straits of Hormuz which is between Iran and UAE) and airspace
• Largest land mass
• Nuclear weapons

The golden period of the Ummah saw many technological developments. Muslims utilised technology which Europe at that time could not even dream of. For example, some of the technology we take for granted today would not have existed if mathematical concepts such as algebra did not develop during the golden period of Islam. Computers which are used today would not have been possible if mathematical concepts such as algorithms did not exist. Many scholars such as Donald Routledge Hill express the view that Islam was the driving force behind the Muslim achievements while Robert Briffault even sees Islamic science as the foundation of modern science.

Oliver Joseph Lodge wrote in the Pioneers of Science: "The only effective link between the old and the new science is afforded by the Arabs (Muslims). The dark ages come as an utter gap in the scientific history of Europe, and for more than a thousand years there was not a scientific man of note except in Arabia"

Through the application of Islam, the Ummah was bound by the Islamic systems, this allowed Muslims and non-Muslims to live in peace and security. The Muslim Ummah has to return to its previous position, the one of leadership and honour as this is the only position that will save the Muslim Ummah from the crisis it is currently facing.

If the Khilafah existed today, it would embrace technology, develop an economy that distributes wealth efficiently and establish law and order. The key to a successful state is to have a government that actually takes care of its citizens, as this will allow the Ummah to make advances since their basic needs are being taken care of. Islam makes it an obligation upon the ruler to fulfil the rights of its citizens and this is the reason why the Khilafah was successful in the past. The Khilafah will make use of its resources so that the needs of its citizens are met. Whereas today, the Ummah with its great reserves of mineral resources labours in poverty. No individual or company will have a monopoly over basic utilities that are essential to the Khilafah such as the water sources and oil wells because the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said in a hadith narrated by Abu Dawud:

"The people are partners in three things: water, green pastures and fire (energy)."

The Muslim lands have no shortage of energy resources; however most of the Muslim lands suffer from load shedding and crumbling infrastructure. The majority of the Muslim world faces an energy crisis. The root problem of the energy crisis within the Muslim world is the attempts by many governments in privatising such resources. Privatisation has lead to increased prices of such basic commodities which ensures the masses labour in poverty. The Khilafah brings its assets together and develops the necessary infrastructure so that the citizens of the Khilafah can benefit from them. The large oil reserves (56% of world oil reserves are in the Middle East, Source: EIA) which exist in the Middle East will be used to fulfil the basic energy requirements of the citizens of the Khilafah as energy commodities will be transferred to all parts of the state. This energy policy is one example of what the Khilafah can do to develop

A number of Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia and Turkey have developed aspects of their industry that has allowed them to make technological advancements, especially in their military industries.

Pakistan has been successful in developing defence hardware such as cruise missiles which are capable of carrying nuclear warheads, aircrafts and the famous Al - Khalid tank (ranked 7th amongst tanks). If the Muslim armies were to unite under one leader, this army would be the largest army in the world with a force of over 3 million personnel.

The Muslim lands have many strengths and advantages. One key advantage that a united Muslim world has, is control over strategic international airspace and naval straits. During the time of Sultan Muhammad Al Fatih, the Muslims had control over the straits of Bosphorus and ships of other nations could only pass through the Bosphorus if the Islamic state gave permission. In the same way the Khilafah will have control over key strategic straits such as the Bosphorus and Hormuz and control over the airspace that comes under the lands it controls; hence the Khilafah will decide which nation can travel through its straits and fly over its airspace. As a result countries such as the US will find it hard to launch attacks on the Muslim world as the Khilafah will restrict American manoeuvrability.

If the US was not allowed to pass through the straits of Hormuz and use the airspace of Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, it would have been very difficult for the US to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Fighter Jets cannot fly non-stop from the US to Iraq or Afghanistan, hence the US requires local air bases and aircraft carriers for its operations.

The Khilafah will face many challenges on its emergence and this cannot be underestimated. Due to this, achieving technological development and improving the current situation of the Muslim world will take time, however the key issue is that a united Muslim world has the potential to become a super power. In the current climate the Muslim world has achieved certain milestones and if a sincere Islamic leadership arises, this leadership will guide the Muslim world to new heights and the Khilafah will become the beacon of light for the whole of mankind InshAllah.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said, "Indeed Allah gathered up the earth for me so that I saw its eastern and western parts, and indeed the dominion of my Ummah will reach what was gathered up for me from it." [Sahih Muslim]

http://www.khilafah.com/images/stories/Places/islamic%20history/caliphatemap.jpg

http://www.khilafah.com/images/stories/Places/islamic%20history/caliphatemap.jpg

Poligami Dalam Perspektif Sejarah, Politik Dan Syariat Islam
Khamis, 07 Januari 2010 11:30
POLIGAMI DALAM PERSPEKTIF SEJARAH, POLITIK, DAN SYARIAT ISLAM
(Bahagian Pertama)

PENDAHULUAN
Poligami merupakan salah satu isu yang tidak pernah putus diperdebatkan oleh masyarakat Islam; sama ada dengan tujuan untuk menjelaskan hukum syarak berkaitan dengan sistem kekeluargaan Islam atau di satu sudut lain, dijadikan modal utama para pejuang feminisme dan kaum liberalis untuk menyerang Islam kerana poligami seringkali dianggap sebagai hukum yang merendahkan dan menghinakan wanita. Melihat kenyataan perdebatan yang tidak kunjung usai berkenaan pro-kontra poligami mutakhir ini, maka artikel ini ditulis sebagai usaha untuk mengupas masalah poligami ini dari perspektif yang komprehensif.

Tujuan penulisan ini adalah:

Pertama, untuk meninjau isu poligami dari tinjauan historis (sejarah), serta untuk menyenaraikan pihak-pihak yang terlibat secara langsung dalam isu perdebatan pro-kontra poligami ini;

Kedua, untuk meninjau isu poligami dari tinjauan politik, iaitu untuk membongkar motif politik di sebalik pelbagai peraturan pemerintah yang mempersulitkan amalan poligami.

Ketiga, untuk meninjau poligami dari tinjauan normatif (syariah Islam) iaitu dengan menjelaskan hukum poligami di dalam Islam dan membantah pendapat-pendapat yang mengharamkan poligami.

SEJARAH PERDEBATAN PRO-KONTRA POLIGAMI
Sepanjang lebih 1300 tahun (sehingga abad ke-18 M atau 13 H), para ulama tidak pernah berbeza pendapat dalam membincangkan tentang hukum poligami (ta'addud al-zawjat). Seluruh ulama pada ketika itu sepakat tentang kemubahan (kebolehan) berpoligami berdasarkan nas-nas dan dalil yang bersifat qath'i (pasti). Abdurrahman Faris Abu Lu'bah di dalam kitab beliau Syawa`ib al-Tafsir fi al-Qarni al-Rabi’ ‘Asyara al-Hijri hal. 360 :

" Menurut para fuqaha', pernikahan dengan lebih dari satu isteri bagi seorang lelaki adalah ketentuan syariah yang sudah tetap (syar'un tsabit) dan sunnah/ jalan yang diikuti (sunnah muttaba’ah). Tidak pernah para fuqaha' memperdebatkan masalah ini, meskipun mereka berbeza pendapat di dalam kebanyakan bab dan masalah fikih. Ini kerana hukum tersebut (kebolehan berpoligami) didasarkan pada dalil qath’i tsubut (pasti bersumber dari Rasulullah) dan qath’i dalalah (pasti maksudnya) dan tidak ada sebarang ruang ijtihad untuk memperdebatkannya"

Para imam madzhab yang empat, iaitu Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam Syafi’i, dan Imam Ahmad, telah bersepakat bahawa hukum poligami adalah mubah. Hal ini disimpulkan melalui kitab al-Fiqh ‘Ala Al-Madzahib Al-Arba’ah karya Syaikh Abdurrhaman Al-Jaziry Juz IV hal. 206-217 (Beirut : Darul Fikr, 1996) yang membahaskan tentang pembahagian nafkah dan bermalam kepada para isteri (mabahits al-qasm bayna al-zawjat fi al-mabit wa al-nafaqah wa nahwihima).

Di dalam kitab Maratib al-Ijma’, Ibnu Hazm menyatakan bahawa para ulama bersepakat bahawa apabila seorang lelaki muslim menikahi maksimum empat orang wanita sekaligus, maka hukumnya adalah halal. (Ibnu Hazm, Maratib al-Ijma’, hal. 62) [Lihat Ariij Binti Abdurrahman As-Sanan, Adil Terhadap Para Isteri (Etika Berpoligami), [Jakarta : Darus Sunnah Press, 2006], hal 41].

Maka, terbuktilah bahawa selama lebih 1300 tahun, tidak pernah ada perdebatan tentang hukum kebolehan berpoligami di kalangan seluruh umat Islam.

Persoalannya, sejak bilakah sebenarnya muncul isu pro-kontra poligami ini seperti yang sering ditimbulkan akhir-akhir ini?. Sebenarnya perdebatan pro-kontra poligami ini hanya muncul pada abad ke-19 M (bersamaan 14 H) ketika imperialisme Barat menjaja ideologi sekular dan menancapkan kukunya di pelbagai belahan Dunia Islam.

Di dalam situasi serangan pemikiran terhadap syariah Islam oleh para kafir penjajah ini, maka muncullah beberapa modernis dan puak liberalis dari kalangan orang Islam sendiri yang menggugat dan menolak poligami. Di antaranya ialah, Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817-1898), Ameer Ali (1849-1928), Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905), Qasim Amin (1863-1908), dan Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958) [Lihat Maryam Jameelah, Islam and Modernism, Lahore : Muhammad Yusuf Khan and Sons, 1988].

Sayyid Ahmad Khan misalnya, berpandangan bahawa asas pernikahan di dalam Islam adalah monogami, manakala poligami adalah satu pengecualian (perkara yang di luar dari norma dan kebiasaan). Maka, poligami tidak diperbolehkan kecuali dalam keadaan tertentu dan bersyarat [Busthami M. Said, Gerakan Pembaruan Agama Antara Modernisme dan Tajdiduddin, hal. 141].

Muhammad Abduh dalam Tafsir Al-Manar (yang ditulis oleh muridnya Rasyid Ridha) di dalam Juz IV hal. 346-363 juga berpegang dengan pendapat yang sama dengan Sayyid Ahmad Khan. Intinya, asas pernikahan di dalam Islam adalah monogami, bukan poligami. Poligami diharamkan kerana ia akan menimbulkan dharar (bahaya) seperti konflik di antara isteri dan anggota keluarga, dan hanya dibolehkan dalam keadaan tertentu atau darurat sahaja [Tafsir Al-Manar, Juz 4/350].

Pendapat Abduh ini seterusnya diikuti oleh para pemikir lain, baik yang dikenali sebagai kelompok modernis/liberalis mahupun yang sekadar pengikut kepada ulama-ulama tersebut. Antaranya ialah Syaikh Al-Bahiy al-Khuli, Syaikh Abdul Muta’al Ash-Shaidiy, dan Abdul Aziz Fahmi [Lihat telaah atas pemikiran tafsir ketiga tokoh ini di dalam Fadhl Hasan Abbas, Ittijahat al-Tafsir fi al-‘Ashr al-Hadits, I/114-115].

Selain itu, pendirian Abduh yang anti poligami sedikit sebanyak turut mempengaruhi Jamaluddin al-Qasimi (Tafsir al-Qasimi/Mahasin al-Ta`wil, V/30), Ahmad Musthafa al-Maraghi (Tafsir al-Maraghi, IV/183), Muhammad Izzat Darwazah (at-Tafsir al-Hadits, IX/11-13), Abdul Karim Khathib (at-Tafsir al-Qur`ani li al-Qur`an, II/697), Dr. Wahbah Zuhaili (Tafsir al-Munir, IV/242), dan Ali Nasuh ath-Thahir (Tafsir Al-Qur`an al-Karim Kama Afhamuhu, I/309). Para “ulama” ini bolehlah dikatakan mempunyai pandangan yang ' senasab' iaitu berasal dari idea Abduh.

Hakikatnya, pandangan golongan ulama yang anti-poligami ini bukanlah sebenarnya berasal dari mereka. Mereka hanyalah menceduk pandangan dari para orientalis atau missionari Kristian/ Katholik. Perkara ini bukanlah suatu yang mengejutkan di kalangan masyarakat barat memandangkan ajaran agama mereka yang menolak amalan poligami. Maka, tidak hairanlah jika penganut agama tersebut sangat menghinakan dan mencemuh amalan poligami yang dibolehkan di dalam Islam

Di dalam kitab Akhthar al-Ghazw al-Fikri ‘Ala al-‘Alam al-Islami karya Dr. Shabir Tha’imah hal. 53 (Beirut : ‘Alam al-Kutub, 1984), disebutkan bahawa poligami merupakan salah satu ajaran Islam yang paling sering dikecam oleh kaum missionaris. Di dalam kitab lain, al-Tabsyir wa al-Isti’mar fi al-Bilad al-Arabiyah hal. 42-43 (Beirut : Maktabah Arabiyah, 1986) Dr. Musthafa al-Khalidi dan Dr. Umar Umar Farrukh menerangkan, bahawa poligami telah menjadi sasaran hinaan atau kritikan oleh kaum orientalis kafir, seperti W. Wilson Cash, di dalam bukunya The Moslem World in Revolution (London : 1926), hal. 98. Orientalis Noel J. Coulson mengatakan, bahawa keadilan di antara isteri adalah sangat mustahil dapat dipenuhi, dan kerana itu, poligami perlu dilarang sama sekali (Lihat Noel J. Coulson, “Konsep Tentang Kemajuan dan Hukum Islam”, dalam Ahmad Ibrahim dkk (Ed.), Islam di Asia Tenggara, [Jakarta : LP3ES, 1990], hal.170]

Kesimpulannya, serangan terhadap hukum poligami sebenarnya bukanlah isu yang baru bermunculan sejak akhir-akhir ini. Sebaliknya, ia telah bermula sejak abad ke-19 M. Kecaman tersebut juga bukanlah datang dari para ulama kaum muslimin, tapi sebenarnya adalah berasal dari kaum orientalis atau missionari kuffar dan seterusnya diteruskan pula oleh kaum modernis/ liberalis seperti Sayyid Ahmad Khan dan rakan-rakannya. Akhirnya, pandangan dari kaum modernis inilah yang telah diambil dan dijadikan sebahagian dari peraturan-peraturan keluarga Islam oleh para pemimpin sekular di negara-negara kaum muslimin.

Maka, dari sini kita boleh melihat tiga tahapan serangan ke atas hukum poligami. Pertama, serangan kaum orientalis dan misionaris. Kedua, serangan tersebut diteruskan pula oleh para pemikir modernis/ liberalis seperti Abduh dan lain-lain. Ketiga, serangan tersebut telah diformalisasikan di dalam bentuk peraturan dan undang-undang keluarga Islam oleh para pemimpin kaum muslimin.[Mohammad Baharun, Isu Zionisme Internasional, hal. 53; Dr. Abdul Majid al-Muhtasib, Ittijahat al-Tafsir fi al-‘Ashr al-Rahin, hal. 187].

Jika dilihat sekali imbas, kaum liberal/ modernis ini seakan-akan membela Islam kerana kebijakan mereka mempergunakan dan memutarbelitkan penafsiran ayat-ayat Al-Quran dan hadis-hadis tertentu bertujuan untuk mengaburi pemahaman umat Islam sehinggalah timbul pemahaman bahawa hukum poligami adalah haram dan dilarang di dalam Islam. Abul A’la Al-Maududi –rahimahullah— mengkritik pandangan kaum modernis/ liberalis ini dengan tegas dan tepat di dalam ucapan beliau,

“Demikian pula tentang idea larangan poligami, tidak lain ia hanyalah barangan asing yang diimport ke negara kita dengan alasan palsu yang disandarkan kepada Al-Qur`an.” [Abul A’la Al-Maududi, Al-Islam fi Muwajahah Tahaddiyat al-Mu’ashir, hal. 259].

Maka, jelaslah bahawa penentangan terhadap poligami itu hakikatnya bukanlah kerana ia adalah perbuatan dosa dan dilarang di sisi syariat Islam. Ia tidak lain adalah kerana terikut-ikut dengan pandangan masyarakat barat yang menganut agama Nasrani (Kristian) yang memandang bahawa poligami itu adalah barang najis yang sangat dibenci oleh mereka. Perlu juga dijelaskan di sini bahawa agama Nasrani secara de facto tidak pernah mengharamkan poligami kerana tidak ada satu pun ayat Injil yang melarang kebolehan berpoligami.

Amalan monogami yang dijalankan oleh masyarakat Eropah adalah semata-mata tradisi kekeluargaan yang diwarisi dari bangsa Yunani dan Rom. Ketika masyarakat Rom berduyun-duyun memeluk agama Nasrani pada abad ke-4 M, mereka tetap meneruskan tradisi nenek moyang mereka yang melarang amalan poligami. Maka, peraturan monogami secara normatifnya, bukanlah ajaran agama Nasrani, melainkan adalah adat warisan lama yang secara sosiologis telah berkembang sejak kaum Yunani dan Rom menganut agama berhala (paganisme)

Pihak gereja hanya meneruskan larangan poligami dan menganggapnya sebagai norma agama Nasrani, sedangkan di dalam lembaran-lembaran Kitab Injil sendiri tidak pernah menyebutkan adanya larangan poligami. [Lihat Sayyid Sabiq, Fikih Sunnah, Jilid VI/157; H.S.A Alhamdani, Risalah Nikah : Hukum Perkawinan Islam, hal. 79-80; Ahmed Deedat, The Choice Dialog Islam-Kristen, hal. 85-88; David C. Pack, The Truth About Polygamy,http://www.thercg.rg].

Inilah sekilas penjelasan tentang sejarah pro-kontra poligami di dalam tubuh umat Islam, termasuklah kaitannya dengan sejarah poligami di dalam masyarakat Eropah. Kesimpulannya, serangan terhadap poligami jika dikaji secara mendalam adalah merupakan sebahagian dari Perang Pemikiran (al-Ghazwul Fikri) di antara kaum imperialis kuffur barat yang beragama Kristian dan berideologi sekular-kapitalis, dengan kaum muslimin yang meyakini Islam sebagai ideologi.

Malangnya, Perang Pemikiran itu nampaknya telah dimenangi oleh puak imperialis Barat yang kafir, dengan dukungan kaum intelektual liberal dan para penguasa sekular. Buktinya banyak negara-negara kaum muslimin yang melarang atau membatasi poligami dengan syarat-syarat yang tidak pernah disebutkan di dalam Al-Quran dan sunnah RasulNya. Contohnya, Tunisia (Undang-Undang Status Peribadi tahun 1957), Morokko (Undang-Undang Tahun 1958), Iraq (Undang-Undang tahun 1960), Pakistan (Ordinan Hukum Keluarga Muslim Tahun 1961), Indonesia (Undang-Undang 1/1974), Mesir (Undang-Undang Jihan Tahun 1979, pindaan 1985), dan sebagainya. (Lihat Noel J. Coulson, ibid.; Taufik Adnan Amal & Samsu Rizal Panggabean, Politik Syariat Islam, [Jakarta : Pustaka Alvabet, 2005], hal. 140).

Sesungguhnya, negara-negara umat Islam yang melarang poligami ini bukanlah sedang mengamalkan ajaran Islam, melainkan sedang bertaqlid buta kepada imperialis Barat-Kristian, untuk menjalankan ajaran palsu agamanya yang anti poligami,. Lebih menyedihkan, mereka menjustifikasikan penipuan mereka dengan memutarbelitkan penafsiran Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah oleh kaum modernis yang menjadi ejen-ejen Barat.

MOTIF POLITIK DI SEBALIK PEMBATASAN POLIGAMI
Berdasarkan tinjauan sejarah di atas, kita dapat mengungkap motif hakiki di sebalik pembatasan atau larangan poligami oleh para pemimpin sekular di negara-negara kaum Muslimin. Motif ini dibongkarkan dengan sangat jelas oleh Abdurrahim Faris Abu Lu’bah di dalam kitabnya Syawa`ib al-Tafsir fi al-Qarni al-Rabi’ ‘Asyara al-Hijri hal. 360. Menurut beliau, tujuan dari seluruh usaha menghalang atau membataskan poligami adalah semata-mata untuk mengubahsuai institusi keluarga masyarakat Muslim agar mengikuti model institusi keluarga masyarakat barat di Eropah, khususnya selepas mereka mengalami revolusi pemikiran (Enlightenment) pada abad ke-17 M (liyu’ida tanzhima al-usrati fi al-mujtama’ al-Islami ‘ala ghirari tanzhimi al-usrati fi al-mujtama’ al-gharbiy). Tujuan akhir di sebalik semua ini tidak lain dan tidak bukan adalah untuk menghancurkan institusi kekeluargaan Islam dan seterusnya digantikan dengan model penjajah kafir.

Inilah motif politik mereka, walaupun mereka (para pemimpin dan pejuang anti-poligami) bermanis kata dan menyebarkan propaganda bahawa pembatasan poligami yang mereka lakukan adalah semata-mata untuk "melindungi wanita" atau dalih-dalih palsu yang lain. Bohong!. Sesungguhnya ucapan-ucapan mereka hanyalah tipu daya agar umat Islam 'terpancing' untuk sedia diatur oleh undang-undang batil yang intinya adalah tradisi kafir barat.

Institusi keluarga masyarakat barat bukanlah model ideal bagi kaum muslimin. Kedua-duanya merupakan entiti yang berbeza secara mendasar dari segi akidah, identiti, norma dan sejarah. Institusi keluarga di barat dibentuk oleh ajaran gereja yang mewarisinya dari kaum Yunani dan Rom. Malah perilaku seks bebas, penzinaan, homoseksual, lesbian, dan pelbagai lagi jenis seks luar tabii tidak dianggap sesuatu yang mengaibkan di Eropah . Anak-anak zina yang tidak diketahui nasab keturunannya bukan lagi sesuatu yang pelik bagi mereka. Hal-hal ini tidak ditemukan di dalam ajaran Islam, malah akan dikenakan hukuman uqubat yang tegas. Maka, akal waras yang manakah yang masih mengakui bahawa institusi keluarga Barat jauh lebih baik atau bertamadun dibandingkan hukum kekeluargaan Islam yang memelihara kemuliaan dan kehormatan manusia, lelaki dan wanita, dengan menghalalkan monogami dan poligami???!!. [Abdurrahim Faris Abu Lu’bah, Syawa`ib al-Tafsir, hal. 360-361].

Wujudnya peraturan dan undang-undang yang membataskan dan meletakkan syarat-syarat bertujuan untuk menyukarkan amalan poligami sebenarnya telah merombak institusi kekeluargaan Islam dan membenarkan proses transformasi sosial untuk meniru gaya hidup masyarakat Barat.

Persoalannya, relakah anda sebagai seorang Muslim yang meyakini akidah dan syariat Islam sebagai yang terbaik; untuk dipaksa menjalani gaya hidup Barat yang jelas-jelas Kafir?

Apakah para pemimpin kaum muslimin dan pejuang anti-poligami ini sudah tidak punya mata, telinga, akal dan hati nurani sehingga tidak mampu menilai betapa bejat dan rosaknya masyarakat dan institusi keluarga di Barat?

Adakah mereka tidak tahu bahawa 75% anak-anak di barat adalah anak zina? Adakah mereka tidak tahu bahawa satu pertiga (31%) daripada masyarakat di Amerika yang sudah berumahtangga melakukan hubungan seksual dengan pasangan lain? Adakah mereka tidak tahu bahawa majoriti masyarakat mereka tidak menganggap bahawa hubungan seksual dengan pasangan lain sebagai tindakan yang salah, memalukan dan berdosa?

Adakah masyarakat dan keluarga rosak seperti ini yang dicita-citakan oleh para pemimpin sekular umat Islam hari ini?! [Lihat James Patterson & Peter Kim, The Day American Told the Thruth, New York : Plume Book, 1991].

Dr. Shabir Tha’imah di dalam salah satu bukunya menyebutkan usaha-usaha mereka ini sebagai “penjajahan moden” (al-isti’mar al-hadits). Istilah ini muncul di kalangan bangsa-bangsa lemah yang terjajah melalui bentuk baru pasca Perang Dunia II. Penjajahan moden ini adalah dominasi, orientasi, dan eksploitasi generasi muda negara bekas jajahan tersebut, di mana mereka bertindak tidak ubah seperti peranan penjajah sebelumnya yang menjajah dengan tangan besi (wa huwa laysa fi haqiqatihi illa as-saytharah wa at-tawjih wa al-istitsmar ‘an thariq abna’ al-balad alladziy kaanat fiihi qabdhah al-isti’mar wa ta’mal amalaha biquwwati al-hadid wa an-nar). [Dr.Shabir Tha’imah, Akhthar al-Ghazw al-Fikri ‘Ala al-‘Alam al-Islami, [Beirut : ‘Alam al-Kutub, 1984], hal. 50].

Kesimpulannya, jika umat Islam sebelum Perang Dunia Ke-II dijajah secara langsung oleh Barat melalui perang fizikal, maka kini pasca Perang Dunia Ke-II, umat Islam dijajah oleh para pemimpinnya sendiri yang menjadi tangan-tangan dan boneka kafir Barat. Inilah hakikat yang terjadi ketika pemimpin umat Islam menerapkan peraturan dari Barat (seperti pembatasan poligami) ke atas umat Islam dengan kekuatan dan paksaan.

Akan Bersambung……

Petikan:
http://www.mykhilafah.com/fokus-muslimah/1856-poligami-dalam-perspektif-sejarah-politik-dan-syariat-islam