It is about time that we stand up to this divisive but vociferous group of detractors who contrary to the teachings of Islam constantly stifle progress for Muslims, attack Islamic activities, denounce other Muslims, hijack Muslim events displaying not even a minimum of the manners (Adab) of Islam, repetitively broadcasting their bankrupt narrow-minded interpretation of a few selected verses of the Qur'an and equally limited Ahadith. 

Islam is a whole system, and the existence of a figure head will no more revive its social, economic, educational etc. fabric than a captain can sail without a ship. That people do not make laws in an Islamic system is a fallacy and a slander against the heritage of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), and it is hypocrisy on behalf of those who whilst denouncing the "kufr system" benefit from it personally. 

Does Islam, as interpreted by them, permit the possession of a passport by leave of Her Majesty the Queen (who has no ruling authority derived from the prophet or his successors), or does it allow them to draw benefits derived at from the social security system brought into being by those man-made laws, as many of their spokespeople do? Do they get themselves killed by jumping red lights when driving because the traffic regulations were not included in divine revelation? By what right do they enrol at universities, knowingly subscribing to their bye-laws, and then denounce other Muslim students for non-compliance with the principles of Islam when they organise activities to engage non- Muslim students and explain Islam to them? Does the Qur'an sanction the award of academic degrees by Western universities? All of them are guilty of the accusation of Allah in the Qur'an "Why do you preach what you don't practise?" 

It is about time that ordinary Muslims who try their best to live by the precepts of Islam and try to follow the compassionate example of the Prophet Muhammad - peace be with him - realise that a spurious line of argumentation does not become more Islamic by hitting other Muslims over the head with a few verses of the Qur'an. The Islamic way of life (Din) is reflected in the actions (Muamalat) of its adherents, and on this count alone their angry, controversial, intolerant approach puts these practitioners of verbal Jihad in the name of the Khilafat beyond the fold and in serious need of further study. By their deeds you shall know them: a reactionary force trying to put the spanner in the works wherever Muslims are progressing, thereby only benefitting the enemies of Islam who in the past have been happy to give them a platform and undue attention. The limited validity of their arguments has been proven elsewhere, but we would advise not to do them the favour of limiting Islamic discourse to their self-centred vain agenda and to get on with the real world instead.

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

Follow up- posted: 20-November-2001

This is the first time I have gone on to your website and I read the following question:  

"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are Kafiroon" (Al-Maida,44)" "And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are Zalimoon" (Al Madia,45)" "And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are Fasiqoon" (Al-Maida,47)" 

The ruling system of Islam is Khilafah only, where the supreme law maker is Allah alone. The people don't have the right to make laws like in democracy. So how can we stay under this ruling system and formulate laws inside a kufr ruling system.   

When reading your response I was expecting you to justify the formualtion of laws in a non Islamic system with evidences from the Qur'an and sunna. However I was saddened by reading your response in that you seemed to deviate away from the core of the question - i.e. the evidences pertaining to the permissibility, but instead seemed to criticise other Muslims! without them being present to defend themselves.   

Please could you e-mail me valid evidences to justify your claim that it is permissible to partake in elections in a non-Islamic system of government.  

Except for Shia Islam, where the command of Muslims has to be passed down within the family of the Prophet, peace be with him, the leader in Sunni Islam, including the first caliph, has frequently been elected. That does not mean that we support the current model of Western style democracy, as the Islamic model is much more akin to a plebiscite on persons and issues. 

However, it is wrong to state that within the Sharia of Islam there are no man-made laws. Ijma' is a well known principle of Islamic fiqh, and this "consensus" of the scholars or the ummah, depending on interpretation, is nothing else than a majority view. Obviously, no majority can overrule the eternal laws of Allah (e.g. hudud), but the greater part of laws within any, including Muslim society, are conventions, which are made by ordinary mortals. 

These are usually arrived at by weighing up the benefits against the harms (Maslaha), and this process does not stop even after the caliphate has been dismantled. How else would you be able to decide that it was Islamically permissible to use the internet to send us an email? (Some Muslim countries, e.g. Afghanistan under the Taliban rule, took the view that its harms outweighed its benefits, and prohibited it). 

Taken to its logical conclusion the argument that no activity nor ruling is valid unless sanctioned by a future caliph stifles all activities and results in a collapse of the remaining fabric of the Muslim ummah rather than helping rebuild its system of governance. As for criticising people without them being present to defend themselves, once you put your views into the public arena, you must be prepared to take the ensuing criticism. Neither Hizb at- Tahrir nor al-Muhajiroun wear velvet gloves when denouncing other Muslims or declaring various Muslim rulers and other individuals disbelievers or hypocrites.