Islamically

Jumada Al-'Awwa 1431 A.H ~ April 2010 ~

Speaking
Vol 07
The U.K General Elections Special

Featuring
01Shariah & Reality: Islam and the Issue of Voting
02 The Corrosiveness of Western Politics
03A Brief Introduction : Islamic Politics
04 A letter to Umar ibn Abdul Aziz
1
ISLAMICALLY SPEAKING VOL 7
The U.K General Elections
Special
Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim
As salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah
Salaams once again dear Brothers and Sisters, it feels
good to finally present Volume 7 of Islamically
Speaking to you, Alhamdulillah. We apologise for
the long absence, suffice it to say that the editor was
quite pre-occupied! However, we are now back in
full force and will be more consistent in the future,
insha’Allah. Now on to the main message for this
volume…
On the 6th April 2010, Prime Minister Gordon
Brown, in a live press conference, announced the
date for The United Kingdom General Elections,
which are to be held on May 6th. There is some
controversy amongst Muslims regarding the issue of
voting in democratic elections and whether or not
political participation is permissible from an Islamic
perspective. This volume is solely dedicated to deal
with this issue and offer sincere advice to the
Muslim community in order to make us all hold the
correct view on this subject.
Volume 7 contains four articles. The main feature
this month analyses the reality of the political
2
situation that Muslims living in Britain (and the
‘west’) find ourselves in, particularly in relation to
the general elections, presenting the Islamic view on
the issue, from evidences contained in the Qur’an
and Sunnah.
The second article examines the Muslim MPs who
entered into the system and who have mostly
supported and even helped to shape the un-Islamic
and aggressive policies of the British Government.
The third article presents an introduction to the
Islamic conception of politics and some of it’s basic
features for the purpose of showing the reader that
Islam has solutions for all spheres of life and
critically, the political dimension.
The fourth and final article contains a letter written
to an Islamic ruler in Islamic history, which
beautifully summarises what a leader in Islam
should be like.
Insha’Allah, the usual contents will return in
Volume 8.
If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to e-
mail us at islamicallyspeaking@hotmail.co.uk .
Shariah & Reality:
Islam and the Issue of Voting
Much has been made of the upcoming general election and the need of
the Muslim community to participate by casting their votes for the various
political parties that are contesting. The nature of the election is such that
it is being depicted as being one of the most closely contested elections in
recent history, with the Muslim vote being deemed critical to the outcome.
As such, different groups of people from inside and outside of the Muslim
community have been strongly advocating the need of Muslims to vote to
secure their interests and ensure that their voices are heard.
It is worth while asking ourselves an important question at this stage.
What the attestation of faith is? This question is important, for it sets the
basis upon which a Muslim (or indeed any human being) will organise
his life, determine his values, relationships and criteria in order to
measure right and wrong. As Muslims, we know that the attestation of
faith is,
“There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah (swt) and that
Muhammad (saw) is his Messenger.”
The Shahadah constitutes our oath of obedience to the Creator, Allah
(swt). Therefore, any decision we make about conducting an action (be
this voting in the upcoming elections or any other action) we first
establish its ruling from the Islamic evidences. Likewise, when we define a
‘benefit’ or an ‘interest’, we must ensure two very important principles
are applied and constantly observed: firstly, that the ‘benefit’ or ‘interest’
is one that Islam accepts e.g. Islam in principle does not consider alcohol
as beneficial, whereas a masjid is considered beneficial. Secondly, where
Islam has made a matter beneficial, the means to acquire it must also be
according to Islam e.g. Muslims cannot build a mosque by taking out a
loan with riba (usury/interest) or get married by force (without consent).
Therefore it is important that we recognise, understand and accept that in
Islam, ‘the ends do not justify the means’. Rather the Muslim should
restrict himself to that which Allah (swt) has revealed in the Quran and
from the noble example of our beloved Messenger, Muhammad (saw).
There are numerous verses in the Quran that confirm this:
“I created the jinn and Man only (so) that they worship Me.” (TMQ Ad-
Dhariyat:56)
“It is not for a believer, male or female, when Allah and his Messenger
have decreed a matter that they should have any say (opinion) in their
decision, and whoever is rebellious against Allah and his Messenger, have
gone far astray.” (TMQ Al-Ahzab:36)
“Warfare is ordered for you though you dislike it, and it maybe that you
dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing that is bad
for you. Allah knows but you know not.”
(TMQ Al-Baqarah:216)
“These are the limits (imposed by) Allah. Whoever obeys Allah and his
Messenger, he will make him enter gardens underneath which rivers flow,
where such will abide forever. That will be the great success. And
whoever disobeys Allah and his Messenger and transgresses his limits, he
will make him enter Fire, where he will dwell for ever; his will be a
shameful doom.”
(TMQ Al-Nisa:13-14)
Therefore, the measurement of halal/haram is the correct evaluation of
3
benefit/harm for the Muslim. Islam also makes it clear that it is Haram
(prohibited) to rule by other than what Allah (swt) has legislated, as He
(swt) Says:
"And he who does not rule by what Allah has revealed, it is they who are
the Disbelievers." (TMQ Al-Ma’idah:44)
"And he who does not rule by what Allah has revealed, it is they who are
the Oppressors."
(TMQ Al-Ma’idah:45)
"And he who does not rule by what Allah sent down, it is they who are the
Sinners." 
(TMQ Al-Ma’idah:47)
The above verses help us understand the following:
- Muslims are in no position to violate the commands and
prohibitions of Allah (swt). The consequences of doing so are the
humiliation in the Duniya and more importantly, the humiliation in
the Akhira.
- Allah (swt) condemns those who give or make legislation, besides
Him (swt). Likewise, Allah (swt) names include Al-Hakim (The
Judge) and Al-Malik (The Sovereign), reinforcing a fundamental
creedal matter that legislating belongs to Allah (swt) alone.
- That giving man the right and authority to legislate is haram and
tantamount to shirk, a matter which Allah does not forgive.
So whilst voting, participating in elections, appointing a ruler are matters
sanctioned by Islam – they are limited to the appointment of an Islamic
political authority and the implementation of the Islamic system. Its
absence does not mean that we twist Islam to somehow legalise voting in
non-Islamic elctions, but rather emphasises two important matters:
- How Muslims struggle in the absence of Islam
- How Muslims should focus their thinking and efforts to revive
Islam comprehensively.
Therefore, Muslims cannot be dismissive or care-free in this subject
whatsoever, nor be blinded by their immense sincerity to try and secure
some benefits for the Muslim community – where the interest or action
contradicts Islam and results in appointing people into positions to
legislate by their whims.
So when one scans the political parties and their respective leaders and
local candidates for the upcoming General Election – where does one
identify those who will submit ruling to Allah (swt) alone and appoint a
ruler to rule by Islam?
Whilst it is an obvious point that there is no such political party, leader or
manifesto, then it should be equally obvious that a Muslim could not cast
his vote in such elections.
Islam and its view of the political parties
A mere cursory glance at the parties standing will clearly show that
none of the parties can be considered to be running on the basis of
Islam, rather they are running on the basis of secularism. This basis
demands that man is sovereign and has the sole right to decide halal
and haram, whilst considering (and demanding) that Allah (swt) has no
right to legislate in political and public affairs.
The consequence of this viewpoint has given rise to the following:
• MP's expenses scandal,
•Occupation of Muslim land e.g. Palestine
• Brutal wars in the Muslim world for economic and political interest
e.g. Iraq
•Appointment of oppressive and brutal dictators in the Muslim world
• Bailing out criminals with huge bonuses, whilst victims are left to
suffer is abject misery i.e. the global financial crisis
• The rise of racism and religious discrimination, particularly the
insults and attacks upon Islamic beliefs and values
• Promoting alcohol and behaviour considered immoral and abhorrent
in Islam
• Encouraging Muslim women to leave Islam in their garments and
values
• Spiralling social misery, immorality and decadence
• Exploitation of the world resources and depriving millions of basic
needs
All the above situations have arisen since man is sovereign, unable to
determine objectively right or wrong and competes to secure his
interest against others, based on his limitations and prejudices.
Muslims correctly believe it is only the unlimited Creator of all things,
Allah (swt), who has the right to determine these matters – and to Him
(swt) we shall all return.
Numerous additional verses attest to this very fact:
“We have sent down to you the Book (the Qur'an) as an exposition of
everything, a guidance, a mercy, and glad tidings for those who have
submitted themselves (to Allâh). (al Qur’an, An Nahl, Ayat 89)
“The rule is only for Allâh, He declares the truth, and He is the Best of
judges.”
(TMQ Al-Anaam:57)
“Say (O Muhammad SAW): O Allâh! Creator of the heavens and the
earth! All-Knower of the Ghaib (unseen) and the seen. You will judge
between your slaves regarding their disputes." (TMQ Az-Zumar:46)
The above verses clearly show that Allah (swt) is sovereign and not
man, in contrast to western liberal democracy that advocates the exact
opposite. Participation, therefore, in a system that advocates man as
sovereign, as opposed to Allah (swt) is completely and Haram, placing
one's very Iman at risk. We will now respond to some arguments from
those who say that voting and political participation is permissible. By
looking at both Fiqh ash Shari’ah (Law of Shari’ah) and al
Waaqi’ (reality).
Proof That Voting is Haram: The Shari’ah
We will now prove that from an Islamic legal perspective, that voting in
a Secular Democracy is Haram by refuting a number of arguments:
The Principle of Dhoroora (Necessity)
Some use this principle to claim that we are in a situation that
necessitates our voting, and thus voting is now Halal. The response is
that this principle must not be used beyond it’s limits. There are five
basic necessities that the Shari’ah aims to fulfil, they are the
preservation of a person’s Deen (adherence to a certain way of life, in
this case Islam), life, wealth, honour/lineage, and intellect. Now, if we
look at the action of voting, it helps a secular party into power, which
will legislate contrary to the Shari’ah. This is an action of shirk as it
facilitates one to hold legislative authority, which is only for Allah (swt).
This action is in violation of the first and most important necessity, and
4
that is a person’s Deen. In regards to this Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) stated:
“Verily, the things which are forbidden; from them is that which is
clearly stated that the (Islamic) legislation did not permit anything from
it; neither for necessity or for other than necessity, such as Shirk and
illegal sexual acts and speaking about Allah without knowledge and the
clear transgression.” (Al-Fatāwa, vol. 14/470-471).
As a final note, the principle of Dhoroora is to be applied in a case of
compulsion, and it is clear that there is no compulsion upon us to vote
due to to it’s being avoidable. Compulsion is defined by ‘Alā’ Ad-Dīn Al-
Bukhārī as: “Holding another person upon a matter, which he refused
to do, through his fear that the one who is committing it (i.e. the
compulsion) is able to implement it (i.e. his threat). So the other one
becomes fearful and his being satisfied is removed, due to the
implementation (of this compulsion).” (“Kashf Al-Asrār” vol. 4/482)
Ibn Hajr said, “And the conditions of compulsion are four. The first is
that the one committing it is able to implement what he is threatening
with, while the one being threatened is unable to repel that (threat)
even by fleeing. The second is that it is his strong assumption that if he
refuses (to comply) then this (threat) will be put upon him. The third is
that what he threatened with is immediate. So if he says, ‘If you do not
do this, I will beat you tomorrow,’ he is not considered a compelled one.
And an exception from that is if he mentioned an amount of time,
which is very near or if customarily he does not backtrack. The fourth
is that nothing is shown by the commanded one that would indicate his
voluntary compliance.” (“Fath Al-Bārī”, Vol. 12/311) These are
scholarly definitions of the scenario wherein one is compelled., and it is
simply not applicable to the 2010 Election, as such a scenario as the
one described by al Bukhari is not a reality in this case, because voting
is very much avoidable. Thus, this principle cannot be used due to the
absence of such compulsion.
The Principle of “The Lesser of Two Evils”
Some claim that since we are faced with several un-Islamic candidates, that we
should simply vote for “the lesser of two evils”, in other words, the one who will
implement the least amount of Kufr and Haram upon society. However, such a
principle should be seen from a number of angles. Either:
There is no such principle because the examples which are stated by its
proponents, i.e. matters of life and death and compulsion are actually where Islam
has given the permission to choose an action, which otherwise would be
prohibited. Therefore in the specific context, Islam has legislated that an action is
permitted (denying belief at the point of death) or even obliged (eating haram at
point of starvation).
Or
There is no such principle, since Muhammad (saw) said, ‘Whatever I have
commanded, do as much as you can. Whatever I have prohibited (made haram)
leave it’. In this hadith, Islam did not given an exception to commit some haram or
to leave as much as possible, rather the prohibition was absolute. Rather the actual
principle is ‘The Lesser of Two Harms’ i.e. where Islam has given the Muslim a
choice in an area that is permitted, it is for him to select the action that is the least
harmful (but not haram) for him. For example, if a Muslim is locked outside of his
house and can either break the front door or a side window to enter, he can
choose which is less harmful for him, but critically, neither action is haram.
Or
This principle does indeed exist and is applied, but it is specific to what the
Shari’ah has specified i.e. matters of life and death and compulsion.
In all the above scenarios, the issue of elections are inapplicable, for it is neither a
matter of life or death (compulsion), nor a choice of what is less harmful in what
is permitted.
Additionally, the extension of this principle by logic would be that the occupation
of Palestine, the blessed land of al-Quds accepted by all parties, which is a matter
of Iman and the oppression of the Muslims in Palestine is the greater evil than any
evil that Muslims in the UK are trying to avoid, notwithstanding that can there
cannot be a greater evil than committing shirk by appointing to someone to rule
besides Allah (swt). Finally, logically how would one fit such a principle within the
reality of all the current parties, which are secular and adamant on maintaining
the legalisation of matters that are categorically Haram e.g. alcohol, pornography,
night-clubs, fornication, same-sex relationships.
Another form this argument has taken is that of “benefit overriding
harm”, so we should vote for a party that advocates laws which are more
towards the interests of the Muslims. There are two key points regarding
this:
Firstly, in the beautiful example of Muhammad (saw), in the early stages
of Mecca, when he (saw) was offered leadership, when faced with
immense hardship and persecution, he (saw) rejected it completely, even
though it would have secured him (saw) and the Sahabah immense some
benefit.
Secondly, as alluded to in the introduction, the criteria of benefit for the
Muslim is what the Shari’ah has defined, both in terms of aim and also
in terms of the means to achieve the aim. Any party that gets into power
will implement Kufr laws along side those which are deemed “beneficial
to us”. Indeed, nothing is beneficial if it means that with it we have
committed the absolute worst of sins, which is Shirk.
The Claim to Enjoin Good and Forbid Evil
Similar to above, some claim that by voting for the candidates with more
agreeable policies, we can then perform our duty of enjoining good and
forbidding evil, and so voting is allowed.
Responding to this argument in his book, Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) said: “And
if those commanding and forbidding know that the outcome of their
action will have an inseparable combination of good and evil, then they
are not allowed to do it until they evaluate its outcome. If the good would
be predominant, then they should proceed with it. And if the evil would
be predominant, then they are prohibited from doing it, even if it entails
the loss of a lesser good. In this case, commanding the good that would
result in more wrong would be an act of commanding evil and
promoting disobedience to Allāh and His Messenger.” (“Al-Amru Bil-
Ma’rūfi Wan-Nahyu ‘An Al-Munkar”, Pg. 21) Further to this, Ibn al
Qayyim said: “So if one’s act of forbidding the evil will lead to what is
worse and more hated by Allāh and His Messenger, then it is not allowed
to forbid it, even though Allāh hates it (i.e. that evil) and hates those who
do it.” (“‘I’lām Al-Muwāqqi’īn”, Vol.3/4) While it is repetitive, it is
important to continually emphasise that Shrik is the greatest sin and
crime a person can commit, and thus nothing can justify it, even if it
were voting for a perceived “good”.
Yusuf (as)
Some us the example of Yusuf (as), who participated as a minister in the
government of the King of Egypt.
“And the king said: “Bring him to me that I may attach him to my
person.” Then, when he spoke to him, he said: “Verily, this day, you are
with us high in rank and fully trusted.” [Yūsuf] said: “Set me over the
storehouses of the land; I will indeed guard them with full knowledge.”
Thus did We give full authority to Yūsuf in the land, to take possession
therein, as when or where he likes.” (TMQ Yusuf:54-56)
Those who argue for the permissibility of political participation use this
ayah as an argument, as they allege that since Yusuf (as) accepted his
appointment to a post in a non-Islamic Government, that it must be
permissible to actively get involved in non-Muslim states at the political
level. However, it is important to remember that Yusuf (as) also said
before taking this position: “The Hukm (i.e. judgment) is for none but
Allāh. He has commanded that you worship none but Him, that is the
(true) straight religion, but most men know not.” (TMQ Yusuf:40) So
Yusuf (as) clearly accepted that Allah (swt) alone has the right of
legislation, and consequently, not man.
Furthermore, those who allege that the actions of Yusuf (as) are an
evidence for them need to prove that the government of The King of
Egypt was actually not following the Shari'ah at the time of Yusuf (as).
And there is no real evidence to indicate this, on the contrary, The King
of Egypt himself actually became Muslim, Ibn Jarīr At-Tabarī narrated
that Mujāhid said, “The King whom Yūsuf was with entered
Islām.” (“Jāmi’ Al-Bayān ‘An Ta’wīl Āy Al-Qur’ān”, Vol. 9/217) In
addition to this, Al-Baghawī said, “Mujāhid and others said, ‘Yūsuf, upon
whom be peace, did not stop calling the King to Islām while being kind to
him, until he and many of the people entered Islām.” Ibn Zayd
concerning His (SWT) saying: “…to take possession therein, as when or
where he likes…” He said, “We put him in authority over whatever was
5
in it (i.e. Egypt), wherever he willed from that place. He did in it
whatever he willed. It was granted to him.” Yusuf (as) was put in charge
and ruled by Islam, not Kufr.
Al-Qurtubī said, “And when the King gave the authority of Egypt to
Yūsuf, he was generous to the people and called them to Islām until they
believed in him and he established the justice amongst them. So the men
and the women loved him. And from what has come from Wahb and As-
Suddī and Ibn ‘Abbās and others is the saying of the King to Yūsuf, when
he saw his complete wisdom in implementing the ruling and spreading
the justice: “I give you the authority, so do whatever you will. And we are
merely your followers and I am not one to refuse being your subject and
obeying you and I am no more than one of your subjects.” (“Al-Jāmi’ Li-
Ah’kām Al-Qur’aan”, Vol 9./215)
Yusuf (as) used the authority he was given to implement Islam, and
Islam only. This stands in stark contrast to voting in secular Britain, due
to the fact that any of the parties and individuals one would vote for,
would be secular in nature, and would implement non-Islamic laws as
they have done for decades using the democratic system. What laws from
the Shari'ah do Labour, Conservatives, or any other party for that matter,
intend to implement? Of course, the answer is none.
“Actions Are Judged By Their Intentions”
Some used this Hadith of The Prophet (saw) to justify their position. The
reasoning used is that one will intend to vote only to help Muslims, or
ease their suffering in some form. And so if this is the intention behind
the action, then voting becomes permissible.
In regards to this, al Ghazali stated: “His saying, peace be upon him:
“Actions are based on intentions” is restricted, as far as the three
categories are concerned, to obediences and permitted things (i.e.
Mubāhāt), but not to sins. This is because an obedience can be turned
into a sin by the (the wrong) intention. Also the permitted action (i.e.
Mubāh) can be turned into a sin or an obedience by the intention. In
contrast, a sin can never be turned into an obedience by the (good)
intention.” (Ihya Ulum ad Din Vol. 4/388-391)
We cannot accept that one can “have the right intention”, while at the
same time, commit, a sin. If this were acceptable, then we would be able
to transgress many of The Prohibitions of Allah (swt), such as selling
alcohol or drugs, and then justify it by saying the proceeds were for
Muslims in Palestine!
The Example of an Najashi
Those who use this argument claim that an Najashi, The King of
Abyssinia during the time of The Prophet (saw), was in a position of
ruling in his country as a Muslim, yet he never applied the Law of Allah
(swt), and so it must be alright to participate in a non-Islamic system.
It is mentioned by Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah wan Nihhayah
(Vol.3/277), and also in the books of other scholars of history, that
Najashi passed away before the revelation of the Ayat: "… Today I have
perfected your system of belief and bestowed My favours upon you in
full, and have chosen submission (Al-Islam) as the creed for you. “(al
Quran, Surah al Baqarah, Ayat 111)
Some use the instance wherein The Prophet (saw) prayed
Janazah Salaat for an Najashi. They use this to say that because The
Prophet accepted an Najashi as a Muslim, while still implementing un-
Islamic laws, that he must have been allowed to rule in a kufr system. We
have already said that it is unclear as to whether or not an Najashi
implemented what he knew of Islam, but also, there is the Hadith in
Sahih Muslim in which Anas ibn Malik (ra) narrates that, there was
there were two Najashis, one who the Muslims met in Abyssinia, and
second, who took power after the first. The second eventually became
Muslim and then died, and it was for this person that The Prophet
prayed Janazah. This is supported by scholars such as Ibn Hazm (ra). If
this is true, then it means that The Prophet (saw) never approved the first
Najashi to rule by kufr, because The Prophet did not pray Janazah for
him, but rather, he prayed for the second Najashi who came after the
first, and so the whole argument falls down.
The Prophet’s Participation in Hilf al Fudhool
The Hilf ul-Fudhool was an agreement made by Zubayr ibn Abdul-
Muttalib before Islam. It was aimed at preventing traders from
committing any kind of scam or economic injustice. The Prophet (saw)
said that he would approve of that agreement if initiated again. This is
used in an attempt to prove that a Kufr law can be good if it is just, and
that Muslims are allowed to take the good things from Kufr.
In regards to this, we must realise that anything that took place before
The Prophet started his mission which was then accepted became a part
of Islam itself, it was allowed. And so Hilf al Fudhool falls into that
category, it became part of Islam because it conformed with Islam, and
thus it had no elements of Shirk. All it shows us is that The Prophet (saw)
accepted that kind of dealing because it agreed with Shari’ah and if that
kind of agreement was allowed today, it would be valid, because it’s basis
would be Islam which mandates that Allah (swt) is the one who
legislates, not man. And so this argument also cannot be used.
Summary
We have shown, from Islam, that voting in democracy has no sound basis
from the viewpoint of our Deen, and that all the arguments that are used
by the supporters of voting are false. This should prove that voting and
political participation in Democracy is Haram.
Proof That Voting is Haram: The Reality
Islam is a Deen which deals with reality, it is for this reason that it is not
enough to know Fiqh when making a judgement, but also what it is that
is being judged. This is perfectly reasonable, as one does not understand
something, may not reach the correct judgement of it.
It is for this reason that Ibn al Qayyim (ra) said: “The mufti or judge is
not able to issue a fatwa or verdict without understanding two things: 
Understanding and having a good grasp of reality: he should have a good
understanding of what is happening, on the basis of circumstantial
evidence and other signs, so that he has a full understanding of it.
Understanding what is required in the light of these circumstances,
which means understanding the ruling of Allah that He issued in His
book or on the lips of His Messenger concerning this reality, then he
should apply the one to the other.” (I‘laam al-Muwaqqi‘een,
1/87) 
Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) also said when talking about whether or not to fight
the Mongols who invaded parts of The Islamic State and then
implemented Kufr Laws: “Yes, it is obligatory to fight them on the basis of
the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and the consensus
of the imams of the Muslims. This is based on two principles: knowledge
of their reality and situation, and knowledge of the rulings of Allah
concerning people like them.” (Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa, 28/510) 
Applying this principle to this discussion, some one who states that
voting in Democracy is Halaal, must know the reality of what he is
talking about.
Democracy is, as Abraham Lincoln defined: “Government of the people,
by the people and for the people.” As already stated, man legislates
according to his whims in this system, and the result is the environment
we find ourselves in, which one could hardly call Islamic. That is why we
see so many policies proposed by the parties that go against Islam in the
domestic and foreign spheres
In keeping with the principle of looking at the reality, brief
analysis tells us that voting to any of these candidates is clearly not
allowed. None of them are out to prohibit many of the Haraam things
not allowed in Islam that are now prevalent in the society because of
democracy, such as alcohol, zina, etc. Rather, every single one of them
(Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, Respect etc.) will keep them all legal,
prohibiting them is not even part of the discussion for them.
None of these people have anything to offer us but the same
problems. Back in late 2009, in his weekly e-mail to party activists The
Conservative Leader David Cameron said regarding British troops in
Afghanistan: “It's time they got the right kind of support from the
Government at home. He also said on a separate occasion in late 2009
that if elected he would use: “Sweeping measures to drag the
Government on to a proper war footing.” In March 2010, He accused
Gordon Brown of not spending enough on the war, saying that war
expenditure had been “massively underestimated” despite the fact that,
6
on top of the defence budget, Brown allowed £9 billion more to the war
effort. Cameron has also said that he would set up a War Cabinet if
elected, further saying that sending more troops was the “potential
answer” to winning the conflict, and he would do so if he could provide
enough supplies. He has announced unequivocal support for Israel when
he said: “The belief I have in Israel is indestructible – and you need to
know that if I become Prime Minister, Israel has a friend who will never
turn his back on Israel.” Further to this, he made clear his affiliation with
Zionism, saying: “If by Zionist you mean that the Jews have the right to a
homeland in Israel and the right to a country then I am a Zionist,”  In
addition to that he also said he might attack Iran with a “pre-emptive
strike”, when he admitted soon after attending the Davos Economic
Summit: "It's not sensible to rule all these things out in advance however
much you want to avoid them." He has also made a resolution to ban any
Shari’ah courts in this country, which shows us that trying to implement
Islam here is impractical. Mayor of London Boris Johnson, in true
Conservative Party fashion, has also made some attacks on Islam. In
2005, Johnson wrote an article for The Telegraph wherein he stated:
“The proposed ban on incitement to ‘religious hatred’ makes no sense
unless it involves a ban on the Koran itself…. Militant Islam has been
shielded from proper discussion by cowardice, political correctness and
a racist assumption that we should privilege the beliefs of a minority,
even when they appear to be mediaeval.”  On July 16th, he stated in The
Spectator: "The Islamicists last week horribly and irrefutably asserted the
supreme importance of that faith, overriding all worldly considerations,
and it will take a huge effort of courage
and skill to win round the many thousands of British Muslims who are
in a similar state of alienation, and to make them see that their faith
must be compatible with British values and with loyalty to Britain. That
means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is
Islam. Islam is the problem." An in the style of a true right-wing bigot,
topped things by
remarking in the same article: “When is someone going to get 18th
century on Islam's mediaeval ass?"
Labour however, are no alternative. Regarding the war in Afghanistan,
we know that it was under The Blair Government that Britain entered
this war, along with The War in Iraq. When Gordon Brown came into
power, he continued operations in Afghanistan and even increased the
amount of troops when he sent 500 more. The 2010 Labour Manifesto
states: “There is no greater responsibility than to commit our troops into
action. That is why we take our responsibilities in Afghanistan and to our
Armed Forces so seriously.”  It is The Labour Party that has already put
literally billions of pounds into this conflict, with Brown admitting that
he has already put over £9 billion in addition to his defence budget
specifically for this campaign abroad. It was the prominent Labour
politician Jack Straw who attacked the Niqab in 2006 one the baseless
grounds that is was: "…bound to make better, positive relations between
the two communities more difficult." Brown supported Straw when
asked about the issue, replying: “That is what Jack Straw has said and I
support. But I think the important thing is that we have a debate on this.”
An interesting side note is that The BNP also supported Jack Straw’s
comments when an article published in 2006 on their website,
congratulating him for: “…quite rightly, observing the problems of
communication arising from the wearing of veils by Muslim women." It
was also they who began the PVE Agenda, which has been discussed
elsewhere in this volume and also in Volume 6. Suffice it to say that it
facilitates spying Muslims in this country, among other things.
The Liberal Democrat Manifesto states their Government would be:
“Critical supporters of the Afghanistan mission.” In November 2009,
Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg stated: “The Liberal Democrat
approach to Afghanistan has always been simple: we should do this
properly or not at all.” He further went to criticise Brown for making the
war effort “…under-sourced in practice.”
All of these groups support the killing of Muslims abroad, so how can a
Muslim in this country use their vote to help any of them get into
power? Voting for them can by extension mean helping these people
against our own Brothers and Sisters. The Prophet (PBUH) said: "Abusing
the Muslim is an aggression and fighting him is disbelief." (Bukhari) The
Prophet also said: “The destruction of the world is less severe on Allah
than the killing of one Muslim.”(Tirmidhi) The policies of these parties
have led not only the deaths of Muslims, but also to their oppression, be
it here in Britain, or abroad.
Further to this, candidates like The Respect Party and The Green Party
are on the fringe of British Politics and have no real following. Not to
mention the fact that there are a plethora of legal evidences, as has
already been presented, to prohibit voting for these groups anyway. And
of course the BNP and UKIP are parties that no Muslim would vote for,
obviously.
And so it is proven that from an analysis of the reality of this scenario,
that voting for any of these groups is Haraam.
Addressing Various Anxieties
Some Muslims feel as though voting is a must due to certain issues,
which are all perceived as a threat to us. The major concern that
seems to be the supposed threat of the BNP. A first obvious note is that
it is overtly obvious that the BNP will not win this General Election,
not much else should be explained is this regard. A second point is
that without the help of the BNP, all of the problems The Muslim
Ummah in Britain and across the world contend with and suffer from
have been caused by The Labour and Conservative Governments in
the past, not the BNP. All of the Haraam things we see in the society
are the results of the agreement between Labour, Conservatives and
Liberal Democrats, not the BNP. We would argue that all of these
parties are as bad as each other, and one of them should note be seen
as the salvation from another. The only thing that distinguishes the
BNP from the others is a somewhat more overt disdain for Islamic
values.
Another issue commonly brought up is that of a fear of groups like
UKIP, who want to ban the Niqab. The fact remains that this party is
rather insignificant due it’s marginal status, and has very little
following. Rather, it was Jack Straw, a prominent and leading member
of the Labour Party who attacked Sisters who wore it. Regarding
foreign policy, there is a consensus among all these parties that
occupying Muslim land is to still be carried out.
Recommendations For The Muslim Community
As the old saying goes: “United we stand, divided we fall”. Muslims in
this country should unite as a strong Islamic community. The opposite
is that of being divided along partisan lines because different Muslims
are voting for different secular parties which can do nothing for them.
Rather that being divided along such meaningless lines, we should
stand united with each another. Allah (SWT) said: "…and hold fast to
the rope of Allah and do not be divided."
7
(al Qur'an, Surah ale Imran, Ayat 103)
We should work to preserve our values and also to spread them to the
wider society in the form of Da’wah. The opposite is that we conform
to western values and forsake our own, which in the end is
detrimental to one’s Islam.
We should be more independent and rely on ourselves to secure our
needs. The community itself can raise money for it’s own Masajids,
Islamic Schools etc. Becoming dependent on Government funding
means that we must now continue to do what the Government
commands in order to keep getting this funding, which would lead to
compromise and corruption.
Regarding problems and threats we face, of course, they should be
countered, but not by voting, rather by a distinct from of activism,
voicing opposition, demonstrations, writing, among other things. Just
because voting is haraam, it does not mean that apathy is halaal.
We must remind ourselves that The Islamic Aqeedah is the most
powerful of all doctrines that exist due to the concepts that
come from it. Among them is the concept that Allah (SWT) is ar
Razzaq (The Provider). Rizq (or provisions) are from Allah (SWT), all
we must do is work in the Halaal way and have patience, and
insha’Allah what we need will come. And we also know la ḥawla wa
la quwwata illa billah – There is no power or strength except with
Allah (SWT). And so we must place our trust in Him (SWT), who said:
“If Allah helps you, none can overcome you: If He forsakes you, who
is there, after that, that can help you? In Allah, then, Let believers put
their trust.”
(al Qur’an, Surah ale Imran, Ayat 160)
The Corrosiveness of
Western Politics:
The Example of Muslim Politicians in Britain

The Corrosiveness of Western Politics:
The Example of Muslim Politicians in Britain
A common argument put forward by our Brothers and Sisters who
advocate political participation, is that of the advances The Muslim
Community could make if there were those from among us who could
enter Parliament, thus representing Muslims and their interests in the
British Political Arena, which was somehow perceived to be
accommodating of Islam and it’s values. Eventually, Muslim politicians
(albeit a very small number of them), appeared in both Houses of
Parliament, supposedly ready to “fight the good fight” and become our
brave representative heroes, displaying impeccable character all the
while. However, the bottom line is this, the hope that we would have
strong Islamic politicians who would champion the cause of Islam and
it’s values, not to mention the political interests of The Muslims, is no
more than a mere myth, that has long since been annihilated by the
actions of the supposed heroes themselves. Rather than the idealistic
picture above, Muslim Politicians in Britain have fundamentally
betrayed us and have only managed to impact upon Muslims in a
negative way, mainly by voting for the legalisation of things which
clearly go against The Shari’ah of Allah (SWT), not to mention their
complicity in supporting the colonialist foreign policy and their
embarrassing the Muslim Community through expenses claims.
We will present below an analysis of Muslim Politicians in Britain and
evaluate their actions in the light of Islam in order to prove that it is a
false hope to think that Muslims entering the system is somehow viable
as a method to obtain the needs of The Muslim Community. With all of
these individuals, there is a consistent pattern of their compromising
Islamic values and rules in some field or another.
The Metropolitan Police. This kind of attitude had led to voices of
concern and rebuke from Muslims.
The MPs Expenses Scandal: This incident involved the overuse of tax
payer’s money by various Ministers of Parliament to purchase their own
needs and wants. One would expect Muslims in Parliament to not
indulge in such an action.
These politicians have all disappointed us in regards to some of these cases as we will
see below.
Analysis of Muslim Politicians in Britain:
Khalid Mahmoud:
MP since: 2001
Anti Terror Legislation: There have been various bills and
clauses in relation to these types of laws that have been
presented before Parliament. Khalid Mahmoud has voted on
64 of these from 2001 – 2008. He has voted in favour of 59 of
these 64 clauses and bills, being absent from voting the other 5 times. He never voted
against a single one. Among the things he voted for were imprisonment without trial
at first for 28 days, he then voted for increasing this term to 90 days. He also voted in
favour of the Control Orders.
Investigation into The Iraq War: From 2003 – 2004 and 2006 – 2009, there were
two lots of votes on the issue of an investigation into The Iraq War. Khalid
Mahmoud was in office for both and voted against setting up an investigation both
times.

The Areas of Study:
Anti – Terror Laws: While officially titled as “anti terror” legislation, it
should be known that these sets of laws have actually allowed The
Home Secretary to impose “control orders”, or prohibitions and
restrictions, on the possession of private property, employment, privacy,
among other things (Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005). Additionally,
there is detention (imprisonment) of “terror suspects” without any
charge for up to 28 days (Terrorism Act 2006). Some pushed for this to
increase even further to 90 days.
Support for Colonialist Foreign Policy: Being conveniently absent for most of the
proceedings, Khalid Mahmood was recorded as voting both for and against The
Iraq War, but later went to say “Muslims have no right to be angry about Britain’s
foreign policy.” He also adamantly supported The War in Afghanistan, and when
the BBC found that 80% of Muslims in Britain were against the war, he simply
dismissed it by saying "I think the way the poll was conducted needs to be looked at
as well.”name instead. Not only has he been in support of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but he also voted against arms embargos on Israel too.

Support for Colonialist Foreign Policy: The Wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
civilians. British involvement has been harshly condemned, with the
loudest of these voices coming from the Muslim Community. Hopefully
those Muslims in Parliament would have the same attitude.
Investigation into The Iraq War: This particular conflict was justified on
allegations which had no sound basis at all, so surely these individuals
would have wanted to see justice served by voting to facilitate such an
investigation?
Support for The “Prevent” Agenda: The PVE (Preventing
Violent Extremism) Agenda has essentially allowed the government to
spy on Muslims in Britain by the use of various methods, among them
being “Information Sharing Agreements” between Local Councils and

8
 Muhammad Sarwar:
MP since: 1997
Anti-Terror Legislation: Like Khalid Mahmoud,
he has also strongly supported and voted for
these laws. Among the things he voted for was
the initial introduction of indefinite detention,
and he also voted for extending it to longer
periods, such as for 90 day detention without
trial. He also voted in favour of the introduction of control orders.
Investigation into the Iraq War: Like Khalid Mahmoud, he was present
for both instances where there were votes on an investigation. In both
cases he was either absent for the voting procedures, or he voted
against an investigation, there was not a single instance where he voted
in favour of anything. He did publicly oppose the war, though it is
curious as to how he would then vote against an enquiry into it.
Expenses Scandal: Already possessing a fortune of £16 million, he also
claimed £2,000 a month for his second home in Vauxhall, South
London. And when this was called into question he failed to give a
response.
Shahid Malik:
MP since: 2005
Anti-Terror Legislation: This individual has
voted very strongly in favour of the anti-
terror legislation presented before
Parliament. Again, like the others he also
voted in favour of the extension of the period of detention without trial
from 28 days to 90 days. In addition, he too has voted in favour on the
issue of “control orders”.
Investigation into The Iraq War: Shahid Malik was in office for the
second time Parliament voted for an investigation. He also strongly
voted against it. Like Mohammad Sarwar, one would have to question
why an individual who was supposedly against the war would then
strongly vote against an investigation of it.
Support for The Prevent Agenda: In an article he co-authored in the
Guardian, Shahid Malik has defended The PVE Agenda and the sharing
of private information, saying: “It is perfectly lawful for partners to
share personal information on a case-by-case basis as part of Prevent
and to do so they must show due regard for necessity and
proportionality.” It is interesting however to note that the Information
Sharing Agreements in places like Islington have been accused of
involving information ranging from political views to sexual activity!
While the ISA drawn up between Waltham Forest Council and The
Metropolitan Police states that any information that is gathered on an
individual must be held until the subject is aged 100! This goes far
beyond “necessity and proportionality.”
Expenses Scandal: Shahid Malik had been exposed for having
purchased a massage chair for £730, and a home cinema system for
£2,600. He defended himself from the allegations of excessive use of
taxpayers money to buy these things, but at the same time stepped
down from his post as Justice Minister.
I believe the reader has now realised that there is a certain trend
regarding these people.
We will now analyse others very briefly:
Sadiq Khan, is known to have voted for Labour’s anti-Terror laws,
against an investigation into the Iraq war, and is known to have taken
over £2,500 of taxpayer’s money for the mere purpose of buying
stationery, which he then had to pay back. He also attacked Islam when
he stated: “I would be very concerned about sharia courts applying in
the UK. ‘I don’t think there is that level of sophistication that there is in
Jewish law.”
Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, has had a poor
record for attending voting sessions at
The House of Lords. She had the
opportunity to vote against the 2005
Prevention of Terrorism Act when it was
9
reviewed in The House of Lords on 3rd March 2010. Instead of
turning up to vote against the Act, she was absent for that too. She has
also supported civil partnership (gay marriage) when she said publicly
on Question Time: “I think that people who want to be in a relationship
together, in the form of a civil partnership, absolutely have the right to
do that."
Lord Nazir Ahmed, supported Jack Straw’s
comments over the Niqab when he remarked in
2007: "The veil is now a mark of separation,
segregation and defiance against mainstream
British culture.”
Baroness Uddin, claimed £100,000 in house
expenses, despite living only a few miles away
from the Parliament building. Her case was
passed to the police for possible fraud, and
when questioned, she refused to co-operate.
S h e wa s eve n t u a l ly a c q u i t t e d o n a
technicality. The House of Lords then
continued to investigate her case afterwards.
Summary
All of these individuals have been found to be an utter failure and
disgrace, not only in their voting records, but also in their conduct
relating to taking taxpayers money for no good reason, condoning
attacks on Islam be they intellectual or physical, supporting things
which are clearly sinful and essentially displaying a lack of regard for
Islam and Muslims when in the public eye.
Those who object to this conclusion may point to the example of how
some of these individuals opposed British Foreign Policy, such as
Shahid Malik or Nazir Ahmed. The response to this argument is the
following, while some of these individuals may have gone against one
attack on Islam, they at the same time supported another, be it the PVE
Agenda, or Jack Straw’s comments on the Niqab. And all of these
individuals have failed us in one way or another. And even when they
opposed certain policies, they always found themselves in the minority
when doing so, which shows us that in the extremely rare occasion
where they use their position for the benefits of the Muslim
Community, it turns out to be utterly ineffective and useless. Thus these
people are powerless, and are not the solution for Muslims in Britain.
Conclusion
The above should show us that political participation in a non-Islamic
governmental system will only lead to compromise and corruption on
the part of those who decide to get involved. Those who placed their
hopes in Muslim Politicians had done so on the premise that they
would stand for Islamic values and ethics, and that they would work
for the political interests of Muslims. What we have found is that they
have done the opposite most of the time, this shows us that British
Politics is by it’s very nature corrosive to one’s Islamic character and
ethics. Muslims cannot look for political salvation through non-Islamic
politics, which has it’s web of corruption and values of compromise
and individual benefit. Rather, our solution lies in Islamic politics,
which will be briefly introduced to the reader in the next article.
“These are they who have sold Guidance for misguidance. But their
trade is profitless, and they have lost true direction”
(al Qur’an, Surah al Baqarah, Ayat 16)
A Brief Introduction :

Islamic Politics
While political participation in a democracy is Haraam, this does not mean
that there is no other avenue by which Muslims can achieve their political
objectives and ideals. The correct concept we should have regarding Islam
is that it is a Deen, or a comprehensive way of life which provides efficient
solutions for man’s problems, be they spiritual, social, economic or indeed,
political. As Muslims, we should refer back to Islam as the correct basis
upon which to establish a political programme that can provide solutions to
the problems we face in the contemporary world. Classical scholars
understood the importance of referring to Islam for issues of government
and politics. Scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) have written books such as
Siyasa ash Shariah, which details a ruler’s obligation towards the people
and vice-versa from an Islamic perspective. The word siyasa literally means
“to look after”, or “to tend towards something”. This word is the Islamic
term for what is known in world today as “Politics”, thus Islamic politics is
defined as “looking after the affairs of the people”. And this is the objective
of an Islamic Government. Below are brief discussions relating to some
components of this political system, and how they are enshrined in the
Islamic tradition.
Justice and Security from Oppression
The concept of “looking after the affairs of people” is an idea of just and
fair governance and this been ingrained in the Islamic tradition from as far
back as the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and al Khulafa ar
Rashidun (The Four Rightly Guided Caliphs), who for us represent the
highest calibre in regards to political ethics due to it’s being from Qur’an
and Sunnah. It was in the time of The Prophet (PBUH) when The Islamic
State in Medina was established that he produced The Constitution of
Medina which reinforced the concept of justice: “Verily, this constitutional
document shall not protect any traitor or oppressor.” This document
established a political order that was based upon the notion of equity, and
affirmed what Allah (SWT) said regarding justice: “O you who believe!
Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allâh, even though it be against
yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allâh is a Better
Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you
may avoid justice, and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily,
Allâh is Ever Well Acquainted with what you do.” (al Quran, Surah an
Nisa, Ayat 135)
follow the law, and are devoted to religion, I will be most soft and tender. I
will not tolerate any person make any excess. He who commits any
tyranny, him I will sternly call to book. I will be harsh and stern against the
aggressor, but I will be a pillar of strength for the weak and the meek. They
will find in me their best friend.”
Consultation of the People
Islam also recognises that to look after the affairs of people, you must know
what the issues are that the people are facing. Consequently, another
component of Islamic Politics is that of asking the people about their
problems and requesting their opinions, and it is for this reason that
Muslims have Majlis ash Shura (consultation). Allah (SWT) said: “And do
consult them in the matter, and if you decide (on an action/on an opinion)
put your trust in Allah.” (al Qur’an, Surah Al-Imran, Ayat 159) Ibn Kathir
(ra) said regarding Shura: “The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) used to ask his
Companions for advice about various matters, in order to comfort their
hearts, and the decision they reached together was actively
implemented.”(Tafsir ibn Kathir Vol. 2/307) It is also narrated from Abu
Hurayra (RA) that he heard The Prophet (PBUH) say: “I never saw a
person who consulted his companions more than the Messenger of Allah
(SWT) did.” (at Tirmidhi)
It is from Islam that when The Khaleefah consults his Majlis ash Shura, he
must abide by their decision in matters that are domestic such as ruling,
education, health, trading, industry, farming etc. This is proven as it was
narrated that The Prophet (PBUH) said to Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA):
“Had you agreed together on a consulted matter I would have not
disagreed with you.” (Musnad of Imam Ahmad) Under an Islamic system,
the sentiments and opinions of the people are valued, and this is what
creates a prosperous relationship between the state and it’s citizens, and
stifles any chance of civil discontent.

Abu Bakr (RA) reinforced this ethic when he said in his first speech after he
became Khalifa: “Now, it is beyond doubt that I have been elected your
Amir, although I am not better than you. Help me, if I am in the right; set
me right if I am in the wrong. Truth is a trust; falsehood is treason. The
weak among you will be strong with me till, God willing, his rights have
been vindicated; and the strong among you shall be weak with me till, if the
Lord wills, I have taken what is due from him.”

And this was further affirmed by Umar (RA) when he was reported to have
said soon after he became Khaleefah: “For those who practice tyranny and
deprive others of their rights, I will be harsh and stern, but for those who

10
Accountable Governance
Another vital component for a healthy relationship between a
state and it’s people is that of accountability. It is the role of
the Khaleefah in Islam to provide for his citizen’s needs, if he
does not do this to an acceptable standard or if he has done
something thought to be wrong and un-Islamic, then he is to
be accounted about this. The Prophet (PBUH) said: “By Him in
whose hand is my soul, you must enjoin the good and forbid
the evil, otherwise Allah will be about to send His punishment
upon you. And then if you pray to Him (to ask Him), he
would not answer you.” (Musnad of Imam Ahmad) He (PBUH
also said: "The best Jihad is to speak the truth before a tyrant
ruler" (al Bukhari)
If the Khalifah is found to be corrupt in some way, if he is
found to be incompetent, or if he insists upon the
implementation of non-Islamic laws, then he can be removed
from office by the Mahakamat Mazalim or Court of Unjust
Acts. In the times of the Sultans of Egypt and Ash-Sham the
Court of Unjust Acts was known as the ‘House of Justice’ (Dar
al-‘Adl). The Sultan Al-Malik Al-Salih Ayyub appointed
deputies to act on his behalf in the Dar al ‘Adl, where they sat
to remove the Mazalim, and to gather the witnesses, judges
and the Faqihs.
Nasser O. Rabbat, Professor of Islamic Architecture at The
Massachusetts Institute of Technology describes the historical
workings of the Dar al-‘Adl as follows:
“This unique institution, which may be best translated in
today’s context as “palace of justice,” was initially conceived
for the qada al-mazalim service that is, for the public hearings
held once or twice each week and presided over by the ruler
himself or his appointed deputies to review and redress
grievances submitted by his subjects. The earliest known dar
al-‘adl (pl. dur al-‘adl) was built ca. 1163 by Nur al-Din
Mahmud ibn Zanki is his capital Damascus, and the last one
was constructed by the Mamluk Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad
ibn Qalawun (r. 1294-1341, with two interruptions) at the
Citadel of the Mountain (Qal’ at al-Jabal) in Cairo in 1315 (it
was rebuilt in 1334). Three more dur al-‘adl are known to
have been constructed between these two dayes: one in Aleppo
in 1189 by al-Zahir Ghazi, the son of Salah al-Din, one by al-
kamil Muhammad in the Citadel of Cairo ca. 1207, and one
by al-Zahir Baybars in 1262 on the slope of the spur upon
which the Citadel of Cairo was built. After this no more dur
al-‘adl seem to have been built until modern times, then the
palace of justice was introduced.”
A story that crystallises how accountability in an Islamic State
would be is found in Jalal ad Din as Suyuti’s Tarikh al
Khulafah (History of the Caliphs) wherein he narrates a story
about a man who came to Mu’awiya (RA) when he was
Khalifa and accounted him harshly while he was meeting
with Roman ambassadors, as Suyuti (ra) narrates the story as
follows:
“One day, Jariya Ibnu Qudama Al-Saadi entered to Mu'awiya
who, at the time, was the head of the Islamic state. Three of
the Roman emperor's ministers happened to be also present.
Mu'awiya said to Jariya: “Were you not one of Ali's allies in all
of his opinions?”
11
Jariya said: “Leave Ali (may Allah honour him) aside, for we
have not despised him since we loved him, nor have we
cheated him since we advised him.”
Upon this Mu'awiya said to him: Woe to you o Jariya! You
must have been lowly in your parents' eyes, for they called you
Jariya (meaning slave girl or maid).”
Jariya replied: “You must have been lowly in your parents'
eyes, for they called you Mu'awiya, the bitch on heat who
barked and lured the dogs.”
Mu'awiya shouted: “Shut up you motherless one!”
Jariya replied: “You shut up o Mu'awiya (he did not say Amir
of the believers), for I have a mother who bore me for the
swords with which we faced you one day. Then we have given
you our pledge of allegiance, to hear and to obey, so long as
you rule us by what Allah has revealed. So if you fulfil your
promise, we fulfil our loyalty to you, and if you fail to keep up
your promise, remember that we have left behind us some
ferocious men and plenty of armour, they shall not let you
abuse or harm them.”
Mu'awiya yelled: “May Allah rid us of the likes of you!”
Jariya replied: “You! (again he did not say Emir of the
believers), say something good and be courteous, for the worst
rulers are in hell fire.
Jariya then left, fuming with anger without even asking
Mu'awiya permission to leave.
The three ministers turned to Mu'awiya and one of them said:
Our emperor would not be addressed by any of his subjects
unless the subject were prostrating with his forehead at the
base of his throne. If the voice of one of the closest people to
him or any of his immediate family were to be raised, they
could be cut to pieces, or burnt, so how could this rough
desert Arab, with his ill-mannered behaviour, come and
threaten you like this? As if he was your equal ?”
Mu'awiya smiled then said: “I rule over men, who are fearless
of any censurer when it comes to the truth, and all my folk
are like this desert Arab, none of them prostrate save to Allah
(SWT), none of them keep silent over an injustice and I am no
superior, nor better than any of them except in piety. I have
said some harsh words to the man and he rightly responded, I
was the one who started, thus I am more to blame than he.”
Upon hearing this, the senior Roman minister burst out
crying, so Mu'awiya asked the reason why, so he said: “We
had thought before today that we were your equals in terms
of protection and force, but after witnessing this, I fear that
one day you would spread your authority over our empire.”
In Islam, accountability is the right of the people, and this
form of political participation must be carried out
consistently, the role of the people in politics is not to be
simply electing an individual into power once every few years
as we see here in Britain, and then becoming politically
inactive to a large extent afterward.
Independent Judiciary and The Rule of Law
Allah (SWT) said in the Qur’an: “And judge between them by
that which Allah has revealed.”(al Qur’an, Surah al Ma’idah,
Ayat 49) The responsibility of the judiciary is to settle the
disputes with people, it also prevents any obstacles to the
rights of the people and settles problems between the people
and the government. No bias or favouritism is allowed on the
part of the Qadi, or judge. The Prophet (PBUH) said: "If two
men come to you do not give a judgment for one of them
until you have heard what the other has had to say, then you
will be able to judge."  (at Tirmidhi & Musnad of Imam
Ahmad) The practical application of this was seen at the time
when Ali (RA) was the Khalifah there was a situation in
which Ali's (ra) coat of armour was missing. He saw that a
Jew had it in his hands and so he demanded the armour back.
The Jewish man refused, stating that it was his. Both of them
went to a Qadhi ( judge) by the name of Shurayh.
Qadhi Shurayh said about the case,  "Speak O Amir al-
Muminin."
He said, "Yes. This armour which this Jew has is my armour; I
did not sell it and I did not give it away."
Shurayh said, "What do you say Jew?"
He said, "It is my armour and it is in my possession."
Shurayh said, "Do you have any evidence Amir al-Muminin?"
He said, "Yes. Qanbar and al-Hasan will witness that the
armour is mine."
Shurayh said, "A son's witness is not acceptable on behalf of
his father."
Ali said, "A man from Paradise, and his testimony is not
acceptable? I heard the Prophet  (PBUH) saying, “Al-Hasan
and al-Hussein are the two lords of the youth of the people of
Paradise.”
The Jew said, "The Amir al-Muminin brought me before his
Qadi, and his Qadi gave judgment against him. I witness that
12
this is the truth, and I witness that there is no god but Allah
and I witness that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and
that the armour is your armour."
Despite the fact that one of the participants in the case was
the Khalifah of the Muslim Ummah at that time, Qadhi
Shurayh upheld the rule of law and did not give him a
favourable verdict. This shows us judicial independence from
any ruler, as adherence is actually to Shari’ah and to Allah
(swt).
The Khaleefah can also be removed by The Court of Unjust
Acts if he implements non-Islamic laws, or if his conduct is
deemed un-Islamic. This is because Ubadah ibn Samit (RA)
reported: “The Messenger of Allah (SWT) called us and we
gave him the Bay’ah (oath of allegiance). Among the
injunctions he made binding upon us was to listen and obey
to the Ameer in our pleasure and displeasure, in our adversity
and prosperity, and giving (others) preference over ourselves,
and not to dispute the authority with its people, he said;
‘Unless you see a flagrant disbelief on which you have clear
proof from Allah.” (Muslim)
Regardless of whether he is Khaleefah or not, he will be
removed if he is found deserving to be taken from office.
Ultimately, the job of the Judiciary is to judge between people
by the laws of Allah (SWT), to whom ultimate allegiance is
owed, and thus, the Khaleefah cannot exert any control over
the Judicary if he is not in compliance with those laws.
Conclusion
Islam has the components which create an efficient and
robust political system. And those who desire political
participation within such a system should actively work to
establish a state wherein such participation would be
possible. If this work is not undertaken, then such a state will
never arise, and thus the endless spiral of political unrest we
as an Ummah face will continue to ensue. It is only by the re-
establishment of The Islamic State (Khilafah) in the Muslim
World, that we can achieve the vehicle by which we can be
the active political participants that we deserve to be.
Letter of al Hasan al Basri to Umar ibn Abdul Azeez
The Letter of al Hasan al Basri to Umar ibn Abdul
Azeez
Historical context:
Hasan al Basri (RA) was one of the Salaf, from amongst the
Tabi’een, who grew up in the care of Umm Salamah (RA), one of
The Prophet’s Wives. He also became a student of Ali ibn Abi
Talib (RA) at a young age. He is among the greatest of the
scholars in our history, and was known for his piety. He lived
through the reign of many Khulufaa, including that of Khalifa
Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (ra), who he had good relations with. On
one occasion, Hasan (ra) is reported to have written a letter to
this ruler, and the advice he gave effectively summarises the duty
of a ruler in Islam:
“O Leader of the Faithful! Know that Allah has made the just
ruler as one who straightens the crooked, one who restrains the
oppressors, one who reforms the corrupt, one who strengthens
and brings justice to the weak, and one who brings refuge to the
afflicted.
O Leader of the Faithful! A just ruler is like a kind shepherd who
looks for the best pastures for his flock and steers them away
from areas of danger and wild animals, and protects them from
harms.
O Leader of the Faithful! A just ruler is like a caring father who
toils for the sake of his children, educates them as they grow up,
and earns bread for them while he is still alive, and leaves for
them (wealth) after his death.
O Leader of the Faithful! A just ruler is like an affectionate
mother who has loving care for her son. She bears him with
hardship, and delivers him with hardship. She cares for him
while he is a little child, staying awake at night when he does
and sleeps when he does. She feeds him at times, and weans him
at others, and she feels happy about his good health and worries
when he complains.
O Leader of the Faithful! A just ruler is the guardian of orphans
and sponsor of the needy, he cares for the young and provides
for the old.
O Leader of the Faithful! A just ruler is like a heart within the
ribs. When the heart is healthy the ribs become healthy, but
when it is sick they grow unhealthy.
O Leader of the Faithful! A just ruler is the one who listens to the
Words of Allah and makes them listen to it, he is the one who
seeks the reward of Allah, and makes his subjects seek His
reward. He is the one who submits to the will of Allah and
makes his subject submit to Him.
O Leader of the Faithful, do not misuse what Allah has bestowed
upon you, like a slave who his master entrusted him with his
wealth and family, and he squandered the wealth and made his
children homeless.
13
O Leader of the Faithful, know that Allah has prescribed certain
castigatory punishments to deter his slaves from doing evil…
what if the one who is charged with this duty does a sin that
necessitates punishment? Punishments would safeguard people's
lives… what if the one who is charged with this duty commits
murder?
O Leader of the Faithful be mindful of death, and what will take
place thereafter, and the little number of helpers; so gather
whatever provisions you can in order to prepare for it and the
horrors that follow it.
O Leader of the Faithful, know that you have a different home
unlike your present home. In it your sleep will last long, and
your friends will part with you, and leave you all by yourself.
Therefore, take those provisions which may accompany you.
“That Day shall a man flee from his brother. And from his
mother and his father and from his wife and his
children.” (Surah al Abasa, Ayat 34 – 6)
O Leader of the Faithful, remember the words of Allah: “When
the contents of the graves are brought out and poured forth.
And that which is in the breasts (of men) shall be made
known…” (Surah al Adiyyat, Ayat 9 – 10) “On that Day secrets
will be revealed, as well as your record of deeds: that leaves
neither a small thing nor a big thing, but has recorded
it.” (Surah al Kahf, Ayat 49)
O Leader of the Faithful, there is still time for you before death
comes and all hopes are shattered and lost (to work
righteousness).
O Leader of the Faithful! Judge between your subjects with the
laws of Islam, and do not lead them in the way of the wrong-
doers. Do not give the proud power over feeble, as they do not
observe any pacts or honour towards a believer; and so that you
should not bear the sins of others. Do not be deceived by those
who enjoy things that lead to your misery, and devour the good
things while depriving you of the good things of the Hereafter.
Do not think of your power today; but think of it tomorrow
when you become the captive of death, standing on the Day of
Requital before Allah in the presence of an assembly of angels,
prophets and messengers, when… “(All) faces shall be humbled
before (Allah,) the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and
protects all that exists.” (Surah Ta Ha, Ayat 111)
O Leader of the Faithful! Although I have not attained with this
advice the level of wise men or their reason and wisdom before
me, I have done my best to be sincere in my advice to you. So
take my message as a medicine given by a loving person to his
favourite friend… although it has bitter taste, it would serve as a
cure.”
The description above is the Islamic idea of governance, and
rather than voting for secular individuals who are no where near
the calibre as described above, we should look to establish Islam
as a comprehensive system in The Muslim World for the sake of
appointing such a man to lead us, who will be as described
above, who will look after our affairs, and who will create a
society which will be the fertile ground for many more just
rulers to arise, insha’Allah.
 News Bites
Thousands mourned during the funeral of scholar Dr. Israr
Ahmed in Lahore
“The scholar and founder of Tanzeem-e-Islami, Dr. Israr
Ahmed who died of cardiac arrest, was laid to rest in
the Model Town graveyard in Lahore on Wednesday night. Israr,
president of Anjuman-e Khuddam Al-Quran, has left behind four
sons, five daughters and a widow.
Thousands of people across the country, including PML-N
(Punjab president) Sardar Zulfiqar Ali Khan Khosa, Senator Sajid
Mir, Jamaat-e-Islami Ameer Syed Munawar Hassan and Qazi
Hussain Ahmed and all other religious leaders attended the
funeral, Worldbulletin correspondent Ubaid ur Rahman said.
He wrote more than 100’s books. He taught his family and
children in the same way of Islam.
Dr. Israr was in favor of Caliphate and struggled for it through
out his life.”
Taken from World Bulliten
Comments: Above is the example of a man to be respected.
He was among those scholars who renounced democracy and
openly called it a non-Islamic system. All of his long life, he was
simply a Da’wah carrier for Allah’s (SWT) Sake. This is the
example of the kind of people we need to be. We should do as Dr.
Israr did by struggling to see the whole of Islam implemented by
an Islamic State. May Allah (SWT) give him a high status in
Jannat ul Firdous, insha’Allah. Ameen
Muslim couple say train attack was racial hatred
Chain Reaction: Belgium Bans Burqa
“Belgium started the procedure of drafting a law that would
ban Muslim women from wearing burqa in public places. On
March 31, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee voted
unanimously to endorse the move. The law was initiated by the
liberal Reformist Movement party in early March. “It is necessary
that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and
encloses an individual,’’ said a member of the party.”
Taken from Pravda
Comments: It seems as though draconian and regressive
laws are not just the aim of UKIP or the BNP. There is now a
growing intolerant trend across Europe. In Switzerland we saw
the banning of Minarets, in France we saw the banning of the
Niqab, and now we see this. In modern times, Europe has always
brandished itself as having a “pluralistic” tradition, but in recent
times, we see that this only applies when it doesn’t involve Islam
and it’s codes of conduct. Could this be the start of a chain
reaction?
Mass deportation feared after West Bank permit ruling
“The Israeli army is to enact a ruling that could leave tens of
thousands of Palestinians vulnerable to deportation from the West
Bank, human rights groups have claimed. A coalition of ten Israeli
groups appealed to the Defence Ministry not to enact the military
order, due to come into effect tomorrow, that would define
anyone in the West Bank who does not hold an Israeli permit as
an “infiltrator”.

“Police are searching for a gang of about 20 Derby men after
an attack on a Muslim couple on a train to Nottingham. Abida
Malik said the men called her and her husband Asif Ahmed
terrorists. One man put Mr Ahmed in a headlock saying he was
making a citizen's arrest.
Those without a permit would be liable to seven years in
prison and the cost of their deportation from the West Bank —
most likely to the Gaza Strip.”
Taken from The Times Online

The gang boarded the train at Loughborough on Easter Sunday
evening, after what British Transport Police believe was a drinking
session.
Officers have described it as an "unpleasant and nasty" incident.”
Taken from BBC News
Comments: Many hope that some kind of “peace deal” can
be reached between Israel and Palestine, and that the “two-state
solution” will solve the problems of the people there. The above
however, is one of many examples of how this kind of thinking is
simply unrealistic. It is quite obvious that Israel will continue to
remain as a threat to the Palestinians, despite the voices of
objectors who are ignored all too often.

Comments: This is the fruit of the media mis-representation

of Islam. Indeed there always seems to be something in the
Western Media regarding Islam and Muslims, and very rarely is it
of a positive nature. The incident is one of many above that show
the power of “free press” propaganda, and what it can make
some people do. As a second note, I wonder how many other
incidences like this have been caused by alcohol…..one can only
wonder.

Farewell Message:

We hope that what has been written here in these pages has shown you, the reader the correct view pertaining to the issue of voting. We
also hope you will take the right course of action by not voting and engaging in political participation. It is for the benefit of all of us that
you don’t. Instead, we hope that you will take the correct course of action and look to Islam and only Islam for solutions in the political,
and indeed, any sphere of life.

Next Volume will feature all of the usual articles, including “al Muhit as Sahra”, “Islam Around The World” etc. We urge you to please look
forward to it. Please do take care dear Brothers and Sisters.

As salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah

14