Sunday, 24 November 2013



Avertissement sévère aux Musulmans pacifistes et intégrationnistes !
On ne vote pas pour un gouvernement anti-islamique (islamicide) quel qu’il soit, en pays musulman ou non, en abandonnant Al-Jihaad sans qu’on ne soit humilié

Monday, 14 June 2010

 Friday, 27 Rajab 1428

What is the legitimacy of the modern secular state when judged according to the religion of Islam? Is it Halal (permissible) or Haram (prohibited) for Muslims to vote in elections of the modern secular state? This essay attempts to answer those questions.

A US-based Egyptian Islamic scholar declared in a widely circulated Fatwa (legal opinion) that it is Wajib (compulsory) for Muslims to vote in elections of the modern secular state such as USA. The preposterous implication of that Fatwa would be such that if Muslims were to refrain from voting in such elections they would have committed a sin!

On the other hand the outstanding Pakistani Islamic scholar, Dr. Israr Ahmad, has categorically declared that it is Haram for a Muslim to participate in the electoral politics of the modern secular state (i.e., the state which is established on the basis of a secular constitution). He has prohibited all members of Tanzeem-e-Islami, the Jama’at (community) of which he is the Amir (leader), from voting in elections of the secular state. He also disclosed that Maulana Maududi (rahimahullah), who took a stand in favor of participating in electoral politics, subsequently changed his position before his death and opposed such participation.

Our view is that the opinion of the US-based Egyptian Islamic Scholar is false and that he is dangerously misguided. We pray that Allah, Most Kind, may guide our learned brother to the right path. Amin! Millions of Muslims in USA accepted his Fatwa, reassured themselves that they were rightly guided, and then went out and voted for George Bush. But by September 11th (2001) they were wringing their hands in anguish and grief over the fact that their own government (the Bush Administration), which they had themselves had constituted by their votes, was now waging undisguised war on Islam! (See my analysis in ‘A Muslim Response to the Attack on America’ on the website: .)

In my own native land, Trinidad and Tobago, the system of electoral politics has consistently polarized the people racially. In 1956 a secular People’s National Movement (PNM) emerged with nothing more profound to offer than ‘black’ nationalism. It polluted the country. It created a stench far worse than the corruption which it spawned and which led to an epitaph on a 1986 tombstone which read: “All ah we tief” (All of us stole). I myself suffered professionally from the racism of the PNM, and so did my father. In fact it drove my father to his grave.

In time the PNM’s ‘black’ nationalism produced its corollary in the form of ‘Indian’ nationalism. When Indians won political power the racial stench that the ‘Indian’ nationalism of the United National Congress (UNC) spawned was no different from that of the previous ‘black’ nationalism. But the one thing that remained consistent throughout this long dark night of political Jahiliyyah was that Muslims participated in the electoral politics of race without any consciousness that Islam had something significantly different to offer to mankind. How else can we explain the phenomenon of African Muslims supporting the PNM and Indian Muslims supporting the UNC?

Many Trinidadian Muslims are probably going to be surprised by this essay since it would appear that since 1956, when the first real general election took place, few learned Muslims in Trinidad and Tobago have ever seriously questioned the Halal or Haram of elections. There have been frivolous responses that have sought to dismiss Islamic objections to voting in elections based on the inconsistency involved in also having, for example, “a dollar bill in one’s wallet”, “a driving license”, “owning a car or a house”, etc. When distinguished Islamic scholars equate “Shirk” with a “driving license” we know that we are truly in grave danger. The distinguished US-based Indian Islamic Scholar who engaged in that unpardonable frivolity went on to declare that it was Fard (compulsory) for Muslims in Trinidad and Tobago to vote in elections.

But Trinidadian Muslims should pause to consider that there are so many other strange things that also cry out for a response. For example, we have been singing the National Anthem of the State of Trinidad and Tobago in which we have declared, time and again, “This our native land, we pledge our lives to thee,” (i.e., to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago), when the Qur’an has specifically asked us to pledge our lives totally to Allah, Most High:

“Say! Verily my prayer, and my service of sacrifice, and my very living, and my very dying, are all for Allah the Rabb (i.e., Lord, Creator, Sustainer) of all the worlds . . .”
(Qur’an, al-An’am, 6:162)

Indeed, in pledging his life to the state, or his native land, or a mango tree, rather than to Allah, Most High, the Muslim would commit an act of Shirk. The Muslim would also be repudiating the Hijrah (migration) of Abraham (‘alaihi al-Salam) who left his native land because of Islam, and the Hijrah of Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) who did the same.

Again, the Inter-Religious Organization of Trinidad and Tobago, which includes Muslims, has adopted as its motto the slogan of the fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man. But the Qur’an has categorically declared that God is not a father (lam yalid). Anyone who is a member of the Inter-Religious Organization of Trinidad and Tobago has ipso facto recognized Allah to be father and has thus committed Shirk!

This essay commences with a description of the world order today, including an introduction to the modern secular state and a description of its origins. We discover that the foundations of that state are firmly rooted in Kufr (disbelief) and Shirk (blasphemy) – terms that are defined in the essay. Shirk, or blasphemy, is one of the major signs of the Last Day, and it is connected to Dajjal the false Messiah or Anti-Christ.
Muslims are reminded that Islam gave to the world a conception of political organization and of state in which there was no Kufr and Shirk. That was the Islamic Caliphate. It was destroyed by Europe because it constituted an obstacle to Europe in its quest to force all of mankind into Kufr and Shirk.

We admit that there are obvious merits of the secular state and we go on to examine, from an Islamic perspective, the status of the modern secular state. This includes a Qur’anic explanation for the universal Shirk of the modern secular state. We conclude by offering to Muslims an alternative to electoral politics of the modern secular state. In presenting that alternative we call believers back to the political Sunnah (example) of the blessed Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).


An essentially godless medieval Europe, which had conveniently cloaked itself in the garb of Christianity and which subsequently and mysteriously discarded that Christianity for materialism in the modern age, was strangely armed with a scientific and technological power that appeared to be irresistible and indestructible. Europe used that power to take such military and political control of the Muslim world that the Islamic Caliphate was destroyed. Europe then proceeded to render it impossible for Muslims to liberate any of their territories and to establish authentic Islam anywhere on earth. A relentless and merciless European attack on Islamic civilization that has continued uninterrupted for more than a thousand years, and which witnessed the destruction of the Caliphate in 1924, has finally resulted in the subjugation of Muslims to European political control. This control commenced with Europe and then continued with the new Europe in America. Not only is Islamic civilization in a state of utter political and cultural disarray, but also it is fast approaching a state of total economic enslavement through European Riba disguised as ‘Capitalism’.

The result of this attack is that large numbers of Muslims have essentially left Islam and have become part of the new secular world that Europe created. This is emphatically so in respect of governments in the new world of Muslim nation states. Such Muslims are busy creating a new Islam (i.e. Islamic modernism) that can be accommodated in the modern godless world. The late outstanding Islamic scholar, Maulana Dr. Muhammad Fadlur Rahman Ansari, denounced this Islamic modernism and urged Muslims to grasp dynamic orthodoxy in which they would turn to the Qur’an to locate both the explanation of the modern world as well as the way to respond to its great challenges.

In the midst of all of this Europe succeeded in first ‘liberating’ the Holy Land of Muslim rule and then in ‘restoring’ a State of Israel in the Holy Land. After that the Israelite Jews were brought back to the Holy Land by European Jews in the strangest and most mysterious ‘return’ of a people history has ever witnessed. Indeed it has become clear that godless European control over the whole world was meant to make possible the return of the Israelite Jews to the Holy Land. The fact that Israelite Jews accepted this road back to Jerusalem, and interpreted it as an act of fulfillment of a divine promise concerning the return of the golden age and the advent of the Messiah, is indicative of their spiritual blindness. In fact Dajjal, the False Messiah (i.e., the Anti-Christ), deceived them.

How should Muslims respond to this drama that is still unfolding? How should Muslims extricate themselves from their present predicament? The answer is that nothing can possibly explain the strange world of today and nothing can save Muslims from its perils except the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the blessed Prophet (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). Salvation depends upon the reconstruction of Muslim society as authentically as is possible. Authenticity depends upon fidelity to the Qur’an, and to the one who was sent to teach the Qur’an and to establish its guidance in a concrete model.

It is not possible at this time for Muslims to take such control over territory anywhere in the world in order to establish Islam as a ‘public order’ or ‘state’ (i.e., Dar al-Islam). Any effort to do so would result in the entire godless world ‘ganging-up’ to prevent the emergence of Islamic control over the state. Those Muslims who do not recognize this are a people who do not understand the Gog and Magog World Order that now controls the world. The only exception to this appears to be the territory of Khorasan (of the time of the Prophet) i.e., territory located within the East of the Euphrates. It is significant that modern godless Europe never succeeded in conquering the heart of this territory. The British tried to conquer Afghanistan and failed. Then the Russians tried and they also failed. The present American effort represents the most sophisticated ever launched by European civilization to subdue and control that territory. But this effort is also doomed to fail as Islam slowly reasserts itself. Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) prophesied that Islam will reemerge from precisely that part of the world when a Muslim army proceeds to liberate every occupied territory from Khorasan all the way to Jerusalem:

“Abu Hurairah reported that the Prophet said: Black banners shall emerge from Khorasan and no force would be able to stop them until they are inserted in Aelia (Jerusalem).” (Sunan, Tirmidhi)

The world may not have to wait for long before that event takes place.

How should Muslims respond to the relentlessly increasing attacks on Islam and on Muslim society in the immediate future? How can they survive this remaining period of time (before freedom and victory) if they cannot establish macro-Islam anywhere since nowhere can they take control of the state? We will attempt to answer that question when we deal with the alternative for Muslims to the electoral politics of the modern secular state.

It is strange that in a world that still comprises many great non-European civilizations, some of which are thousands of years old, none today has control over territory. Everywhere in the world today mankind is subjected to the rule of European civilization. Everywhere in the world mankind is imprisoned by the European model of a secular state. This political globalization of the European model of a secular state is something absolutely unique in human history. It is also something mysterious and ominous. The European system of secular states eventually produced a novel international political institution called (initially) the ‘League of Nations’ and then resurrected it as the ‘United Nations’. In the name itself, ‘United Nations’, was enshrined the goal of the New World Order created by Europe. That goal was to unite the world under European political influence and control so that Europe could eventually rule the world as world government. At the time this essay is being written, Europe (i.e., the white world order) stands at the very verge of final and complete success of that political goal. All the non-European civilizations in the world appear helpless to liberate themselves from the secular European strangle hold.

Arnold Toynbee, the well-known British historian, has responded to this unique phenomenon with the view that all previous civilizations (i.e., previous to modern western civilization) are either ‘dead’ or ‘moribund’, and that “it is not inevitable that western civilization would suffer the fate which attended all previous civilizations.” (Toynbee: Civilization on Trial, Ox. Univ. Press, London, 1957: p.38). The European goal was clear, mysterious and ominous. Europe’s goal was to establish European rule over the whole world. But that was not all. The rule of Europe was supposed to mark the ‘End of History’ since there was nothing that could possibly replace Europe’s rule over the world! Toynbee made an amazingly candid statement in his famous book, “Civilization on Trial”:

“Western civilization is aiming at nothing less than the incorporation of all of mankind in a single great society and the control of everything in the earth, air and sea … ” (Ibid. p.166).

The ultimate European goal, however, was to make possible the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and to deliver the rule of the world to the Jews so that they could rule the world from Jerusalem. My recent book, Jerusalem in the Qur’an explains that otherwise inexplicable fact which even Toynbee did not understand! The return of the Jews to the Holy Land and the establishment of the State of Israel some 2000 years after Allah, Most High, had Himself destroyed Israel and expelled the Jews, is the strangest event ever to have occurred in history. Only the Qur’an has explained it. And only the Qur’an can describe the destiny that now awaits Jerusalem and the Jews.

The Qur’an (al-Anbiyah, 21:96) has very plainly declared that when Y’ajuj (Gog) and M’ajuj (Magog) were released into the world by Allah, Most High, they would eventually “descend from every height, or spread out in every direction”. The Qur’an declared that in consequence of this, a people who had been expelled from a ‘town’ which was destroyed by Allah, Most High, and whose return was prohibited, would now return to that ‘town’ to reclaim it. My book has argued that the ‘town’ is Jerusalem. But when Gog and Magog descend from every height, or spread out in every direction, it would be impossible for the rest of mankind to resist them because of the divine declaration:

“I have brought forth from among My servants such people (i.e. Gog and Magog) against whom none will be able to fight . . .” (Sahih, Muslim)

It is clear from the above that modern European civilization is the civilization of Gog and Magog. And so, the World Order that now controls the world in its iron grip and which is waging war on Islam, is the World Order of Gog and Magog. It is Gog and Magog that explain the indestructible power of the ruthlessly oppressive, corrupt, decadent and essentially godless rulers of the modern world. Gog and Magog also explain the strange phenomenon of globalization in the modern world.

My book, ‘Jerusalem in the Qur’an’, also explains the phenomenon of Dajjal, the False Messiah. He constitutes, with Gog and Magog, one of the major signs of the Last Age. Since it is his mission to impersonate the Messiah who must rule the world from Jerusalem, it follows that he, too, must rule the world from Jerusalem. My book has explained the famous Hadith of Tamim Dari in Sahih Muslim. It is this Hadith that made it possible for us to identify Dajjal’s initial location, from which he embarked upon his mission, to be the island of Britain. From Britain, the ruling state, he relocated in USA, the second ruling state, and he is soon to relocate in Israel. The Jewish State would then replace USA as the new ruling state in the world. We anticipate that event to take place soon. Thus the ultimate European goal was to not only make possible the return of the Jews to the Holy Land but also to deliver to them the rule of the world so that they could rule the world from Jerusalem!

The reader should understand that the modern secular state formed an essential part of the overall political strategy through which Europe sought to achieve political rule over the world. In other words, the modern secular state was specifically designed to function as the instrument of political globalization that would deliver to the white world order political rule over the whole world. That process of political globalization was, in turn, linked to Euro-Jewish Israel becoming the ruling state in the world.


The modern secular state emerged in consequence of the application of secularism to political philosophy and political theory. The secular state then universalized itself in the modern age in a new secular world order. This did not happen by accident. Secularism emerged in Europe after European civilization was mysteriously attacked from within and was subjected to ominous and revolutionary change. That revolution caused a civilization that was ostensibly based on faith in Christianity and Judaism (since one emerged from the other) to be strangely transformed into one with a terrifying combination of characteristics. Here are just some of those characteristics (there are many more not mentioned here):

• A scientific and technological revolution delivered unprecedented power to Europe. That power was then used to take control of the world. No people in human history had ever previously succeeded in imposing their total control over the whole world; 

• Power was used to oppress all those who resisted the new masters of the world; 

• Religion bereft of its internal spiritual substance suffered constant decline until society became essentially godless. The external form of religion survived in a state of such pathetic weakness that eventually men were legally permitted to marry men;

• The godless way of life caused a collapse of morals to such an extent that society descended into a state of decadence; 

• Greed and lust provoked society to self-destruction; 

• Deception was used to steal mankind’s wealth and reduce the masses of humanity to poverty. It was also used to lure mankind into copying the new godless European way of life; 

• Globalisation is taking the whole world into the grip of Israel’s new messianic dictatorship. This was one of the most unique and momentous events ever to have occurred in both European and world history. Yet so many so-called educated people never seem concerned about understanding how and why all of the above happened. They see nothing mysterious in it.
Let us therefore explain some more. 

The godlessness of modern European civilization was plainly apparent in its choice of ‘materialism’ to replace religion’s spiritual interpretation of reality. What this meant was that Europe no longer recognized the existence of any reality beyond material reality. The resort to materialism was itself the logical culmination of the adoption of a new ‘one-eyed’ epistemology (Dajjal sees with one eye) that adamantly insisted that knowledge was derived from only one source, i.e., external observation and experimentation. The other ‘eye’, i.e., internal intuitive spiritual insight that comes from the heart, was rejected as a means through which knowledge could be acquired.

The godless European revolution was an even more mysterious phenomenon since it was accompanied by a scientific and technological revolution that empowered godless Europe with a ‘power’ that seemed invincible, and gave it such ‘glamour’ that made it irresistible. The steam engine, trains, motorcars, trucks, mechanized tanks for warfare, ships powered by steam and oil, airplanes, etc., completely changed the way the world traveled and waged war, and that, in turn, changed the way people lived. Electricity produced power and this changed peoples lives. Telephones and telegraph made instantaneous communication over long distances possible and this, in turn, changed the way people lived and behaved. And a feminist revolution took the ‘night’ and made it ‘day’ and, in doing so, gave to woman the freedom to adopt the functional role of men in society. This was done in defiance of the functional difference established and ordained by Allah, Most High. (See Qur’an, al-Lail, 92:4, where an analogy is established between the functions of the ‘night’ and the ‘day’ on the one hand, and the creation of the ‘male’ and the ‘female’ on the other.) That was heralded as women’s liberation! It resulted in the most momentous and ominous change of all in the way people lived.

The new Europe directed a sustained attack on mankind by appealing to base instincts of greed and lust. A sexual revolution promised to make sex – natural and unnatural – as readily and freely available as sunshine. Pornography, homosexuality, lesbianism, public nudity and public sex of the white world now inundated the rest of the world. Marriage was increasingly considered to be redundant and people could choose to live together without being married and yet be considered as respectable. Jacqueline Kennedy, the wife of former President John F. Kennedy and an American icon of the days of Camelot, lived the last years of her life cohabiting out of wedlock. 

When she died, her Jewish ‘partner’ in life was introduced to the world as her ‘companion’. Homosexuality and lesbianism were defended as alternate sexuality and became so acceptable in the popular consciousness that a homosexual or lesbian priest or Rabbi could emerge out of the closet to claim respectability and continue to function as a priest or Rabbi. Indeed, even the word ‘homosexuality’ was secularized in order to remove the social repugnance attached to unnatural sex. It was replaced with the word ‘gay’. An unsuspecting public accepted the apparently innocent change of name. Those who opposed homosexuality were accused of something called ‘homophobia’.

A consumer revolution gave to mankind an insatiable appetite for acquiring more and more of the new consumer goods that dazzle the eye. The consumer goods revolution penetrated mankind to such an extent that even the kitchens, bathrooms and toilets of all but the most primitive of homes were totally transformed.
The new godless Europe proceeded to use ‘power’ to conquer the rest of the world and to colonize it, and then to use ‘glamour’ to seduce all of mankind into imitating the godless decadent European way of life and new consumer culture. The godless European revolution witnessed its political turning point in the American, French and Bolshevik revolutions in 1776, 1787-1800, and 1917. The economic turning point was the emergence of the usurious economic system based on Riba, (borrowing and lending money on interest, and the replacement of real money – having intrinsic value – with paper money whose value could be manipulated and changed so that it constantly decreased), and it was fully achieved through the Protestant revolution. (See R. W. Tawney’s classic work: ‘Religion and the Rise of Capitalism’.) The cultural turning point was the emergence of the feminist revolution with its struggle for women’s liberation. But none of these revolutions would have been possible without the accompanying scientific and technological revolutions.


The secular state could not have won acceptance amongst Euro-Christian and Euro-Jewish people, or amongst Muslims, had it not camouflaged its Kufr and Shirk with certain obvious merits. What were those merits? The modern secular state emerged in Europe in response to a dominant and oppressive Euro-Christian theocracy and in order to challenge the ‘temporal’ power of the Euro-Christian Church. It challenged the Church when it proclaimed a fresh and exciting new gospel of complete and unfettered intellectual and religious freedom, human rights and religious tolerance for all. It also established the political conditions that preserved peaceful coexistence amongst different religions within the same territory. It thus put an end to all the bloody religious warfare that had plagued Europe for so many centuries.

It also skillfully bribed its way into the bellies and the hearts of mankind through its inventive creativity. It discovered or produced most of that which has been joyfully accepted by mankind, regardless of religious beliefs, as an indispensable necessity of modern life, e.g., electricity, radio, telephone and hand phone, television, computer, aircraft, automobile, fax machine, photocopying technology, etc. etc. Whenever anyone accepted modernity with all its wondrous inventions one also accepted the secular state and the secular way of life. That was no mean achievement!

But these obvious merits of the secular state, some of which also existed in the city-state of Madina established by Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), did not change its basic foundation of Kufr and Shirk. Indeed the modern secular state slowly began to reveal its real hidden agenda of rivalry when it began to wage a relentless war on the religious way of life. As society became secular, fewer and fewer people went to church, and empty churches and synagogues were put on sale to become ‘bingo’ halls. Indeed, religion slowly became a receding force in the new essentially godless secular world.

The democracy of the modern secular state turned out to be a sugar-coated pill of poison. The ‘political’ democracy worked in such a way as to sustain a usurious system of economic oppression and exploitation of the masses (since the economy was based on Riba). Economic oppression was oft-times supplemented by racial and ethnic oppression. The impoverished masses could never wrest real political power from the rich predatory elite, and hence, could never have the power with which to end economic oppression. This was because it was the wealth of precisely that predatory elite that increasingly made the difference between success and failure in expensive electoral campaigns. The new gospel of the modern secular society was that the rich shall inherit the earth. And that is precisely what has happened.

The new Europe proceeded to use its invincible military power and awesome powers of deception to dominate and brainwash non-European humanity. The new godless political philosophy with its godless conception of a sovereign state, exploitative economic system, and corruptive culture, eventually globalised itself. That was no mean achievement!

Western colonial rule was now imposed upon the rest of mankind, including the Muslims, and through this means the new godless political system, based on Kufr and Shirk, was deceptively and subtly introduced. The Ottoman Islamic Caliphate was destroyed. From its ashes emerged the modern godless secular Turkish state. The Dar al-Islam which was established by the Prophet (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) himself in the Arabian peninsula was destroyed, and from its ashes emerged the modern secular State of Saudi Arabia (complete with all the trappings of territorial sovereignty, citizenship etc.) as a client-state of the godless West. Thus the ominous prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) was fulfilled. He prophesied that his community (of Muslims) would imitate and follow the Jews and Christians to such an extent that even if they were to go down into a lizard’s hole, his community would do the same.
The result was that the world of Jews, Christians and Muslims entered into a collective trial of all trials (fitnah) and failed miserably in obeying Allah’s command when He ordered:

“Follow what has been sent down unto you by your Lord-God, and follow no Master other than Him. How seldom do you keep this in mind!”
(Qur’an, al-’Araf, 7:3)

The new modern secular state devised a system of electoral politics for constituting Parliament, Government and (sometimes) for electing Judges. Citizens of the secular state, regardless of their religious beliefs, voted in democratic elections. Even if the elected government were to be constituted of those who worshipped Satan himself as their Lord and Master, the principle of democratic elections required that Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., who voted in such elections, were obliged to accept such a government as lawful, legitimate and authorized to rule over them. They were also obliged to submit to its authority and be obedient to it. If the elections were to produce a government dominated by idol-worshipping Hindus who were openly hostile to those who worshipped the God of Abraham (‘alaihi al-Salam), or a government which declared to be Halal (permissible) everything which Allah Most High had declared to be Haram (prohibited), then the principle of democratic elections required that Jews, Christians, Muslims etc., who were citizens of that secular state, must recognize that government as their lawful government, submit to its authority, and be obedient to it.

There is nothing in the revealed scriptures (Torah, Gospel, Qur’an) or the Sunnah (example or way of life) of the Prophets that can be used to justify Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc., participating in such elections in which they freely vote for such a government as lawful to govern over them. On the contrary, there is very clear prohibition of such conduct!

“… nor does He share His Command (i.e., His Sovereignty, Supreme Authority, Governance, Rule, etc.) with anyone whatsoever.”
(Qur’an, al-Kahf, 18:26)

“Praise be to Allah (Who) has no partner in His Sovereignty … ”
(Qur’an, Banu Israil, 17:111; al-Furqan, 25:2)

The Qur’an also warns those who help in an evil deed that they will share in its burden:
“Whoever recommends and helps a good cause becomes a partner therein: and whoever recommends and helps an evil cause shares in its burden: and Allah hath power over all things.”
(Qur’an, al-Nisa, 4:85)


Euro-Christian and Euro-Jewish civilization used to be based on faith in God and in His Sovereignty and Supremacy. In Euro-Christianity this was done through the theory of the Divine Rights of Kings administered by ‘God’s representative on earth’ in the institution of the Church of Rome. But in consequence of revolutionary change, that civilization no longer recognized the God of Abraham (‘alaihi al-Salam) as Sovereign, and no longer recognized His Authority and His Law as Supreme. The ‘modern secular state’ was now recognized as ‘sovereign’, and that was Shirk! (Shirk is the worship of any other than the God of Abraham (‘alaihi al-Salam). Any corruption of that worship of that one God is also Shirk. Kufr is the rejection of Truth.) The authority and law of the ‘modern secular state’ were now recognized as ‘supreme’, and that, also, was Shirk. The state had the authority to declare Halal (i.e. legal and permissible) that which the God of Abraham (‘alaihi al-Salam) had declared to be Haram (illegal and prohibited) – and it proceeded to do so – and that, also, was Shirk. The Qur’an declared Shirk to be the only sin that Allah would never forgive.

The Prophet (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) prophesied that Muslims would betray Islam by imitating and following the Jews and Christians (i.e., the Jewish-Christian alliance) to such an extent that even if they were to go down a lizard’s hole, Muslims would follow them down the hole:

“Narrated Abu Said al-Khudri: The Prophet said, You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e., inch by inch) so much so that even if they entered a lizard’s hole, you would follow them. We asked, O Messenger of Allah (Do you mean) the Jews and the Christians? He responded, Whom else?” (Sahih, Bukhari)

Then he warned that when Muslims would imitate the Jews and Christians (i.e., the Jewish-Christian alliance) there would be frightful consequences:

“Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr, Allah’s Messenger said: There will befall my Ummah exactly (all those) evils which befell the people of Isra’il, to the extent that if one amongst them openly committed fornication with his mother there will be among my Ummah one who will do so. And if the people of Isra’il were to fragment into seventy-two sects my Ummah would fragment into seventy-three. All of them will be in Hell Fire except one sect. They (the Companions) asked: Allah’s Messenger, which one is that? Whereupon he said: It is one to which I and my companions belong.”
(Sunan, Tirmidhi)

Muslims who pledge allegiance to the modern secular state, or vote in the elections of that state, cannot expect to be recognized as belonging to the one group that would escape the hellfire! Shirk is a very great sin. Indeed it is the greatest of all sins. It is the one sin that Allah, Most High, does not forgive:

Surely Allah does not (or will not) forgive Shirk. But He (can) forgive everything else to whomsoever He wishes. And whoever commits Shirk has committed an awesome sin.”
(Qur’an, al-Nisa, 4:48)

Whoever commits Shirk, and dies in that state, can never enter into heaven:
“… Allah has made it Haram for whoever commits Shirk to ever enter into heaven. Such (people) will dwell in hell.”
(Qur’an, al-Maidah, 5:72)

The worship of idols is the most overt form of Shirk. This form of Shirk has largely disappeared from the world today. But the Hindu world has clung stubbornly to it. And so a believer can never be excused if he fails to recognize the Shirk of the Hindus! The Qur’an has clearly warned the believers that they would find, time and again, that Jews and those who commit Shirk (such as the worship of idols) would treat them with the greatest hatred and hostility:

“You will find Jews and those who commit Shirk to have the greatest hatred and enmity (time and again) for the believers . . .
(Qur’an, al-Maidah, 5:82)

But there are other forms of Shirk that are also described in the Qur’an. Pharaoh, for example, declared to Moses (‘alaihi al-Salam): “I am your Lord-God the Most High”, and he declared to the Chiefs of his people: “Oh Chiefs! No God do I know for you but myself . . .” That was Shirk. The worship of Pharaoh by the Egyptian people required them to submit to his authority as the supreme authority, and his law as the supreme law, in the land of Egypt.

The Qur’an has repeatedly admonished those who, like Pharaoh, establish Hukum, i.e., government, law and justice, on the basis of ‘other than’ or ‘contrary to’ Allah’s authority and Allah’s law. However, when the divine guidance reaches a people (such as Jews, Christians, Muslims), and they accept that guidance, then the situation is quite different. If such people have an opportunity to establish their control over territory, as the Muslims of India did when they established Pakistan, and they then fail to establish law and authority on the basis of the revealed Divine Law, then the Qur’an unequivocally condemns them and accuses them of Kufr (disbelief), Dhulm (injustice) and Fisq (enormous sin):

“ . . . And whoever fails to govern (judge, etc.) on the basis of that which Allah revealed has committed Kufr (disbelief).” 

“ . . . And whoever fails to govern (judge, etc.) on the basis of that which Allah revealed has committed Dhulm (injustice and oppression).” 

“. . . And whoever fails to govern (judge, etc.) on the basis of that which Allah has revealed, has committed Fisq (enormous sin).”

(Qur’an, al-Maidah, 5:44 - 47)

Since the declaration by Pharaoh and its concrete application in the land of Egypt were acts of Shirk, it follows that the same declaration by the modern secular state is also an act of Shirk. Since the God of Abraham (‘alaihi al-Salam) declared that: “Whoever fails to judge on the basis of that which Allah revealed has committed Kufr (disbelief), Dhulm (injustice and oppression) and Fisq (enormous sin)”, and the modern secular state has done precisely that, it follows that Jews, Christians and Muslims who establish the secular state after having received the Divine Law through the Torah, Psalms, Gospel and Qur’an, would be guilty of having committed Kufr, Zhulm and Fisq! 

If a Jew, Christian, or Muslim, were to cast a vote in a national election in a modern secular state, that vote would imply that he considered that party he voted for to be fit to govern over him. And if that party as government committed or commits Shirk, Kufr, Dhulm and Fisq, then the implication would be that the Jew, Christian, or Muslim, would follow his party and his government into Shirk, Kufr, Dhulm and Fisq! (The same would be true for Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) The Qur’an has also denounced as Shirk the act of making Halal whatever Allah had made Haram (and vice-versa). Thus revelation came down from the Allah, Most High, in which He denounced Jews and Christians of precisely such a sin:

“They took their Priests and Rabbis as Lord-Gods beside Allah; and (they did this in respect of) the Messiah, the son of Mary (as well). But they were not ordered other than to worship and serve one God. Glory is to Him. He is far and above the Shirk which they commit.”
(Qur’an, al-Taubah, 9:31)

When this verse of the Qur’an was revealed a man came to the Prophet (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) and protested that the Jews and Christians did not worship their priests and rabbis. How then, he asked, could the Allah, Most High, accuse them of such? The Prophet (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) responded by asking rhetorically: Did they not make Halal that which Allah had made Haram? That, he declared, was Shirk. Then he asked: Did the people (i.e. Jews and Christians) not follow them in it? That, he declared, was their Shirk! Among the Haram things which were declared to be Halal were gambling and lottery, the consumption of alcohol and the consumption of Riba (interest on loans). In some cases the Torah itself was rewritten in order to make them Halal. (See my books: ‘The Religion of Abraham and the State of Israel – A View from the Qur’an’, and ‘The Prohibition of Riba in the Qur’an and Sunnah’.)

When the Jews acted in this way, David (‘alaihi al-Salam) and Jesus (‘alaihi al-Salam) cursed them:
“Curses were pronounced on those among Banu Israil who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus, the son of Mary, because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses. They did not enforce the prohibition of that which was sinful and evil which they committed: evil indeed were the deeds which they did.”
(Qur’an, al-Maidah, 5:78-9)

Whoever dies with a curse of a Prophet upon them have no chance whatsoever of ever escaping from the burning flames of the hellfire! In fact, it is the height of hypocrisy for a people to declare that they worship the God of Abraham and to then proceed to legalize that which He had made illegal and to prohibit that which He had made permissible:

“The Hypocrites, men and women, (have an understanding) with each other: they enjoin evil, and forbid what is just, and they withhold their hands (from doing good). They have forgotten Allah; so He hath forgotten them. Verily the Hypocrites are rebellious and perverse.”
(Qur’an, al-Taubah, 9:67)

If it was an act of Shirk when priests and rabbis made Halal that which Allah declared to be Haram, then it would also be an act of Shirk when a government does the same thing now. If it was an act of hypocrisy at that time, it would be the same now. And if it earned the curses of Prophets at that time, it would do the same now.

The usual method of approach for studying this subject is to weigh the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of participation by believers in the electoral politics of the modern secular state. The defenders of the secular state wax eloquent about its merits. They argue that it is the most advanced and progressive model of a ‘political order’ and of a ‘state’ ever to have emerged in history. Some argue: “If we do not participate in electoral politics then we will have no political representation, and no one to struggle for our rights.” At a more serious level of thought another argument is raised: “Participation in electoral politics is the necessary condition for any successful struggle to change the godless political system.” The matter of Shirk is addressed by way of a subterfuge (i.e., a deceptive stratagem or device): “We will participate in elections but will do so on the basis of a public stand that we do not accept the secular constitution and the secular state which it preserves. This escape clause will protect us from Shirk.”

Our response is to point out that participation in electoral politics in a secular state, ipso facto, signifies acceptance of the secular character of the state. The secular state makes the same declaration that Pharaoh made to Moses (‘alaihi al-Salam). That declaration is: The state is sovereign! Its authority is supreme! Its law is supreme! That is Shirk. When people vote in elections in a secular state they thereby accept the claim of the state to be sovereign, its authority to be supreme, and its law to be the highest law. When believers vote in such elections, therefore, they cannot escape from committing Shirk. Even if the above does not convince a Muslim reader there should at least be doubt in the heart that one might be committing Shirk.
Secondly, when believers vote in elections in a secular state they have to vote for a political party. If that party, as government, declared to be Halal what Allah, Most High, made Haram, or enforced laws as such, then that government committed Shirk. A few years ago right here in Trinidad an attempt was made by a Muslim Minister in the Hindu-dominated government to organize the Muslim youth of the country. Had the effort succeeded there would have been significant political benefit for the government and the ruling party. Some 600 Muslim youths were provided with free transportation to a convention center. They were also provided with free meals. It was later discovered that a grant for $25,000 from the National Lotteries Board was used to fund the meals provided for the Muslim youth at that Convention. Apparently, the Muslim Minister must have considered it Halal (legal and permissible) to use Lottery money to fund transportation costs and meals. If he did, and still does, then he in effect declared Halal (legal and permissible) that which Allah declared Haram (illegal and prohibited).

Around the world today governments and parliaments of secular states have already declared Halal nearly everything that Allah has declared to be Haram. When believers cast their votes for such political parties and governments that have already committed Shirk upon Shirk, such votes would imply acceptance of such people as fit to govern over them. Thus believers follow them into Shirk, Kufr, Dhulm and Fisq.
Thirdly, this method constitutes a violation and an abandonment of the Sunnah of the blessed Prophet of Islam (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam).

Political parties and governments around the world today are comprised of those who disdainfully persist in declaring Halal that which Allah has declared to be Haram. This essay has provided numerous examples of such. When believers vote for such parties in national elections and then recognize such parties as fit to govern over them, believers should pause to consider the practical implication of such an act. When a people disdainfully persist in Haram they pay a dreadful price. It is as plain as daylight that the modern secular world is already paying precisely that price. What is it?

“ . . . and then, when they disdainfully persisted in doing what they had been forbidden to do, We said to them (i.e., We ordained for them) Be as apes despicable!” (What this implies is that they would now live like apes, so incapable of exercising any restraint over their gross appetites and passions that, by the ‘End Time’, they would be showing a distinct preference for sex in public.) (Qur’an, al’Araf, 7:166)
The modern secular state legalized the lending of money on interest (Riba). Around the world today an ever-increasing number of modern secular states have already legalized gambling (and lottery), the consumption and sale of intoxicants (e.g. alcohol) and pork and the use of paper money that constantly loses value. (When it does, the masses are ripped-off and are eventually imprisoned in ‘slave labor’.) Abortion, homosexuality, lesbianism, adultery and fornication are all legal today. There are businesses in USA that advertise to those willing to sell their babies. They even have mobile ‘condom delivery service’ for those who wish to take advantage of an unexpected opportunity, and condoms are available in High Schools in USA. School girls are increasingly becoming pregnant and having abortions which, by law, can be concealed from parents. Yet it is illegal for a girl less than 16 years of age to marry.

Around the world today most modern secular states no longer recognize Allah’s law that a son must inherit twice as much as a daughter. They declare such a law to be discriminatory against women, and they establish their own laws that, they claim, are more just than Allah’s laws. In fact their law is no law. A man can leave his entire estate to a pet and leave nothing for his wife and children! The modern secular state has prohibited a man from marrying more than one woman at a time since it claims that such would be discriminatory against women. Rather the state has made it mandatory for a man to have no more than one wife at a time, and such, it claims, removes the injustice against women that is present in Allah’s law. This strict monogamous alternative has resulted in a sexual revolution that is making a mockery of marriage itself since a man can have as many mistresses as he wants so long as he does not marry them. The secular state declares that a wife no longer has an obligation, legal or moral, to be obedient to her husband since such would discriminate against the equality of the male and female.

This writer warns that the sun has never risen on a stranger world than the modern, godless, and glamorous Euro-world. That is surely an ominous sign.

The defining characteristic of the religion of Abraham (‘alaihi al-Salam) is that there is no place whatsoever for Kufr (disbelief) and Shirk (corruption of, or rejection of the worship of One True God) in it. Yet, the secular political system of the new essentially godless Euro-Christian civilization, now known as modern western civilization, is based on Kufr and Shirk. The United Nations Organization was founded on precisely the same Shirk. The UN Charter declared that Allah, Most High, is not al-Akbar (the Supreme)! Articles 24 and 25 of the Charter declared that the Security Council has supreme authority in the world in all matters pertaining to international peace and security. In other words, the authority of the Security Council is higher than the authority of Allah Most High and of His Messenger (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). That is Shirk.

How then do we explain the acceptance by Muslims around the world of the modern secular state, such as the Republic of Turkey, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Republic of Pakistan, State of Malaysia, etc., as a valid substitute for the Caliphate)? And how do we explain Indian Muslims in Trinidad consistently identifying themselves racially and politically with the Indian political party, and African Muslims doing likewise with the African political party? Perhaps this is the right moment for us to explain the political system of Islam and the Islamic conception of a state, i.e., the Caliphate, and then compare it with the modern secular state. The ignorance of the world today is such that even Muslims are unaware of the subject.


The Islamic Caliphate was a conception of a state and political system that recognized Allah’s Sovereignty, Supreme Authority and Law, and enforced Haram (i.e., that which is divinely prohibited) as Haram and Halal (i.e., that which is divinely permitted) as Halal. The Caliphate emerged as a consequence of the divine imperative demanding obedience of Allah, His Messenger (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), and ‘those in authority amongst the Muslims’.

“Oh you who believe, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and (obey) those from amongst yourselves who are in (positions of) authority. . .
(Qur’an, al-Nisa, 4:59)
Islam refused to recognize divided loyalties – that one could deliver supreme loyalty to the state and yet, also deliver supreme loyalty to Allah, Most High. The two worlds (the worlds of religion and of politics) were not to be separated from each other since the Qur’an proclaimed that “Allah is the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Hidden” (Qur’an, al-Hadid, 57:3). Supreme loyalty must be delivered to Allah, not to the state, since the Qur’an asked the believers to proclaim: “Say: Verily my prayer, and my service of sacrifice, and my very living and my very dying are all for Allah the Lord of all the worlds . . .”
(Qur’an, al-An’am, 6:162)

Europe destroyed that Islamic model of a state and political system when the Ottoman Caliphate was targeted and destroyed. Europe went on to ensure that the Islamic Caliphate could never be restored. It did so when it assisted in the creation of the secular State of Saudi Arabia in the Hejaz (i.e., that province in the Arabian peninsular in which Makkah and Madina are located), and then went on to ensure the survival of that state by guaranteeing its security. The Caliphate could never be restored because of two reasons. Firstly, the Saudi-Wahhabi regime that controlled the Haramain (the sacred territories of Makkah and Madina in which are located the Ka’aba and the Masjid of the Prophet), the Hejaz and Hajj (pilgrimage) could never claim the Caliphate. Secondly, so long as they controlled the Haramain, the Hejaz, and the Hajj, no one else could claim the Caliphate. (For an explanation please see our book: ‘The Caliphate the Hejaz and the Saudi-Wahhabi Nation-State’.)

There are a number of reasons that explain why Europe targeted and destroyed the Islamic Caliphate. The first, of course, was to facilitate the achievement of the goal of liberating the Holy Land and returning the Jews to that land. But the second reason was to make it possible for the new European model of a secular state to corrupt all mankind with Shirk. When the Caliphate was destroyed, the modern secular State of Turkey replaced it at the very seat of the Caliphate. Then emerged a similar ‘state’ in Iran, in the heartland of Shia Islam, and a similar ‘state’ in Saudi Arabia in the Arabian heartland of Sunni Islam. Finally Indian Muslims were exquisitely deceived into accepting the secular Republic of Pakistan. Thirdly, the Caliphate had to be destroyed because it obstructed the realization of the ultimate goal in the new godless European agenda. That European goal was to establish Jewish Israel as the ‘ruling state’ of the world, ruling the world from Jerusalem.

Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) prophesied that the Caliphate would disappear. He did so in the following Hadith:

“How will you be at that time when the son of Mary descends amongst you and your Imam (i.e., Amirul M’umineen or Khalifah) would be from within your midst (i.e., he would be a Muslim)”?
(Sahih, Bukhari)

This Hadith revealed three things:

Firstly, it informed us that the Caliphate would be present in the world in the ‘End Time’. This amounted to a prophecy that the Caliphate would disappear from the world but would one day be restored. Secondly, prior to the restoration of the Caliphate, Muslims would live for a period of time under the authority, control and rule of those who would not be Muslims. That is precisely the world in which we live today. Thirdly, the return of the Caliphate would be an event that would be contemporaneous with the return of the son of Mary.

And since we know that when Jesus (‘alaihi al-Salam) returns he will rule the world from Jerusalem as a just ruler enforcing Allah’s Law, the implication is that the modern secular State of Israel would be replaced in the Holy Land by the authentic Islamic state which would be free from the Shirk of secular Israel.
Those who adamantly defend the status quo of secular Islamic nation-states should pause to reflect over the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) concerning the restoration of the Caliphate. By our calculation that prophesy is most likely to be fulfilled shortly.


Only the Qur’an can explain, and has explained, the momentous political change that overtook the Euro-Christian and Euro-Jewish world, and then overtook the rest of mankind. What is that explanation? The Qur’an has taught that the historical process would one day come to an end when Allah, Most High, ordains that the ‘Last Day’ should come upon mankind and the world. Before that ‘Last Day’ can occur, however, there would be a Last Age that would be filled with numerous Signs from Allah indicating that it is the ‘Last Age’. Among those events that would take place in the Last Age would be the advent of the Last Prophet, Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). The release into the world of Dajjal, the False Messiah, and of Gog and Magog took place in his lifetime (see my book ‘Jerusalem in the Qur’an’). When they were released into the world they eventually became the dominant actors in the historical process, and it is they who are the masterminds orchestrating this unique and ominous transformation of mankind and the world. The Prophet (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) declared that the age of Dajjal, the False Messiah (i.e., the Anti-Christ), would witness the universal appearance of Riba with its extreme economic oppression. It would also be an age of Kufr since Dajjal has ‘Kafir’ written between his eyes. And it would be an age of Shirk since Dajjal will ‘play’ the role of God and deceive mankind into accepting him as such. It is as plain as daylight to this writer that Dajjal is the mastermind behind the creation of the modern essentially godless secular state and its system of electoral politics.


The Jewish, Christian or Muslim reader is likely to ask: Is there an alternative (for believers) to electoral politics in the secular state? Yes, there is! The alternative is to struggle to restore the sovereignty of the One God in the political system – to struggle for recognition of His Authority as Supreme Authority – and to struggle for recognition of His Law as the Supreme Law. That is the highest and noblest of all political struggles any one can ever wage, and it is a struggle that must be pursued until the end of time. Indeed Allah, Most High, has guaranteed that time cannot end before that struggle ultimately succeeds.
The alternative for believers is to uphold whatever Allah made Halal as Halal, and whatever Allah made Haram as Haram, regardless of the price they may have to pay. Also, when a people commit Shirk, Kufr, Dhulm and Fisq, then believers should condemn such conduct, oppose it, struggle against it, and turn to Allah and ask Him to separate them from such people:
“ . . . So separate us from this sinful rebellious people!”
(Qur’an, al-Maidah, 5:28)

The Qur’an refers to this mission of believers as “amr bil ma’aruf” (enjoining the right) and “nahi ‘an al-munkar” (opposing the wrong). If the struggle to restore the sovereignty of Allah Most High and the supremacy of His Authority and Law (in any territory) were to succeed, then that territory would become Dar al-Islam. Muslims would rule over that territory. But there is an alternative model of a plural state in which Muslims would share control over a territory with non-Muslims on the basis of political equality and through a constitutional agreement that would allow Muslims to recognize the sovereignty of Allah and the supremacy of His Authority and Law over ‘them’. Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) established that model of state in the city-state of Madina wherein Muslims, Jews and pagan Arabs shared control over territory and over the state on the basis of political equality.

Mankind has the freedom of choice to accept or to reject the religion of Abraham (‘alaihi al-Salam). However, once the religion of Abraham (‘alaihi al-Salam) is accepted, believers do not have the freedom to choose between a government of believers or a non-believing government. So long as believers have the freedom to do so, they must choose fellow-believers to rule over them. When they are denied that freedom in any territory they must search for some place where that freedom exists and then migrate to such a territory! Thus the God of Abraham, Most High, has commanded believers to: “Oh you who believe, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and (obey) those from amongst yourselves who are in (positions of) authority. . . “
(Qur’an, al-Nisa, 4:59)

When they no longer have the freedom to establish their own government anywhere, and they have to live under non-believing rule, believers in the religion of Abraham (‘alaihi al-Salam) ‘submit’ to that rule until such time as they can once again choose fellow-believers to rule over them. But ‘submission’ to such non-believing rule cannot involve their participation in establishing that non-believing government. Secondly, believers submit to such rule on the condition of religious freedom, i.e., that nothing is forced upon them that violates the Law of the God of Abraham. Such a law would be, for example the religious obligation to fight (al-Qital) and hence to receive military training!

While such a government will not be ‘their’ government, they can advise and assist the government in all that is true, good and virtuous, while warning, resisting and abstaining from all that is false, evil and harmful. Herein lies the most important political role of Muslims in the politics of Trinidad and Tobago.
It is in the very nature of the modern secular state that it would never allow elections to be used to transform it into a different model of a state - such as a state that would recognize the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham (‘alaihi al-Salam) and the supremacy of His Authority and His Law. Electoral politics must function subservient to the godless secular state.

The Prophet (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) declared that the world of Kufr constituted an essential unity (al-kufru millatun wahidah). This is precisely what has now emerged in the world. The Jews and the Christians should ponder over the fact that when the Muslims of Algeria used ‘electoral politics’ to seek to restore the religion of Abraham (‘alaihi al-Salam) in Algeria and won 85% of the votes in the national elections, the godless world all came together to ruthlessly punish that 85% of the electorate which dared to seek to transform the godless secular foundation of the state. The merciless and shameless rape of Algeria by the entire godless secular world still continues even years after that unfortunate election.

Thus, rather than voting in elections and legitimizing the secular model of a state based on Shirk, Muslims should protect themselves from Shirk by disconnecting from the secular state. They should also respond to it by arguing that the model of a state established by Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) is a superior model when compared with the godless secular state. The alternative to the political Shirk of the secular state and its electoral politics must also be an alternative that would save Muslims from the Riba of the modern economy. That Riba is bringing upon all of mankind a new sophisticated slavery. Muslims also need an alternative to the moral corruption that is descending upon all of mankind. Perhaps the most dangerous of all evils from which Muslims must flee is an educational system that secularizes knowledge and education and, in so doing, produces people who are internally, spiritually blind.

There is only one road through which Muslims can preserve their faith in the world today and that road is given in Surah al-Kahf of the Qur’an (the Surah which protects from Dajjal). It is to disconnect from the godless world, i.e., to ‘drop out’.

The Qur’an itself directs the Muslim to disconnect from the godless world:
“ . . . So separate us from this sinful rebellious people!”
(Qur’an, al-Maidah, 5:28)

The method through which Muslims in Trinidad and Tobago can effectively disconnect themselves from the Shirk that now surrounds them is given in the Qur’an in the story of the young men in Surah al-Kahf. That method is to establish Muslim Villages that are detached from the nation.


Muslims must concentrate on establishing micro-Islamic communities wherever they can. But let me at once enter into the record my admiration for the effort made by Br. Nazim Mohammed in establishing a Muslim Village at the Boos Settlement Jama’at in Rio Claro, Trinidad. I visited the Muslim Village and found to my happiness that he succeeded in bringing the races together in a racial fraternity. This essay is written for the specific purpose of encouraging readers to take the initiative in establishing wherever possible multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual villages that would be united in the fraternity of faith in Islam.
If an authentic Muslim Village is to be established, and if it is to provide Muslims with the means of preserving their faith in today’s increasingly godless world, then, in addition to abstaining from voting in elections of the modern secular state, it must fulfill the following conditions:
• The public life of the Muslim Village must be established on the firm foundations of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Whatever is not based on the Qur’an and Sunnah cannot be recognized as essential for survival. If a Muslim religious practice cannot be so established then, regardless of how beneficial it may be, or how long Muslims may have observed it, it should not be brought into the Masjid and into the public life of the Muslim Village, nor should it be allowed to become the grounds for division and conflict between Muslims. Only thus would the Muslim Village survive the sinister contemporary effort directed at purging Muslim communities of all practices (both harmless and harmful) that are not based on the Qur’an and Sunnah and the way of the Aslaf (plural of Salaf, i.e., early Muslims). One implication of the above would be that the Halaqa of Zikr of the Qaderiyyah Sufi Order to which I belong, or other such Sufi Orders, would be held in private locations within the village.

• The Muslim Village must be self-sufficient in food production and in energy. Surah al-Kahf of the Qur’an points to solar energy as the solution for energy. The Surah also warns concerning absolute purity in food, hence abstinence from chemical fertilizers,genetically re-engineered food, hormones in milk and meat, etc. Surplus production of this organic food of the Muslim Village can be marketed out of the Village and this would form part of the foundation of the Village economy. An effective marketing strategy can include, for example, an explanation of the link between food, sexuality and sexual virility. In the process of producing food that is pure and healthy, the Muslim Village would be demonstrating a capacity to do that which the rest of the people are increasingly incapable of doing. The same would be true for the capacity of the Muslim Village to cure alcoholism and drug addiction, to reverse the decline in sexual morality, to preserve the family unit at a time when it is collapsing around the world, to establish peace and security and thus eliminate violence and crime, etc. All of these achievements would make an effective political impact upon the politics of Trinidad and Tobago in the sense that they would demonstrate Islam’s capacity to solve problems that governments and secular political parties cannot solve.

• The Muslim Village would also have to establish a micro-market which would be independent from the macro-market, and which would use real money (i.e. gold and silver) rather than the artificial paper money of the macro-market. In this way the micro-market would survive when the fraudulent international monetary system based on paper money collapses. I expect the international monetary system based on paper money to collapse at that time when Israel wages her great war of territorial expansion to occupy the entire area from ‘the river of Egypt’ (Nile?) to the river ‘Euphrates’ in Iraq. That war is likely to take place very soon.

One of the most important characteristics of the micro-market of the Muslim Village is that it would ensure that wealth circulates throughout the village economy. So the poor of the village would not remain permanently poor and the rich would not remain permanently rich. Since all forms of Riba would be prohibited in the village — both ‘front door’ and ‘back door’ — the Muslim Credit Union would not be allowed to do business in the Muslim Village.
• The Muslim Village would have to make a determined effort to pursue al-Ihsan (or Tasawwuf) in order to achieve internal spiritual insight. Thus the village life would have to be one of great simplicity, austerity and piety. There will have to be a strict enforcement of the Shariah. In addition, the Muslim Village would have to ensure that it takes complete control over education. The Qur’an must remain at the center of the system of education throughout all stages of education. The Muslim school in the Muslim Village would have one great advantage over the Muslim school located outside. The children of such a Muslim school would be supported by a Muslim community that would be living Islam! Only such children can truly be trained and educated as Muslims! • All those Muslims who reside in the Muslim Village must collectively constitute One Jama’at under the leadership of One Amir. The Amir must be someone who knows the Din (religion) and lives the Din. He must also know the world today. Regardless of whether he is African or Indian or ‘Dougla’, etc., he must enforce the Din on the members of the Jama’at and they must respond with as-Sam’u wa at-Ta’atu (listening and obeying). This will preserve the internal integrity and discipline of the Muslim Village. It will also bring the races of Trinidad and Tobago together in a racial fraternity and in so doing it would make an eloquent political statement to a racially polarized Trinidad and Tobago as well as to a racially polarized world.

• The Muslim Village cannot be, and must not be, a stepping-stone for the eventual control over the state. The only purpose of the Muslim Village is to preserve the faith of the believers. Thus, the Village would not be armed except with the weapons needed to defend it against robbers, rapists and thieves! It would have no capacity to defend itself if attacked by the state or by enemies of Islam. In addition, the Village would encourage Hindus, Christians and others to reside with Muslims in the Village on the condition that they are not hostile to Islam and they agree to abide by the public norms of conduct of the Village. In this way, non-Muslims would themselves be able to dispel the rumor-monger and the ‘doubting Thomas’ concerning the peaceful nonthreatening nature of the Muslim Village. But the Muslim Village, despite not being armed, would still have to develop the means of ensuring the safety and collective security of all villagers. This cannot be a Village in which people have to live like prisoners with iron bars on every window of their homes, and with expensive security and burglar-alarm systems installed in every home. Security in the Village should be such that even a woman can walk in and around the Village at night in complete safety and security. This security of the Muslim Village would make a tremendous political statement to the rest of the beleaguered nation.
• The entire guidance which emerges from the Qur’an and Sunnah and which must be applied to the task of establishing the micro-Muslim communities in Muslim Villages, needs to be extracted and classified. And this is precisely the task that Maulana Dr. Ansari has accomplished in his magnificent work entitled ‘The Qur’anic Foundations and Structure of Muslim Society’. He has also articulated the concept of Islamic spirituality with great care and with quite some detail, and in so doing he has answered critics who had not even emerged at the time that the book was written. But ‘spirituality’ cannot be achieved unless there is a prior moral struggle for purity. One of the major achievements of his book is its detailed exposition and classification of the Islamic moral code and the beautiful explanation and guidance that it provides of the methodology of Tazkiyah (i.e., moral purification) and of Zikr (i.e., the fragrance which only true love can deliver when it embraces the heart and provokes, in the privacy of the heart, a constant remembrance of the beloved). • “The Qur’anic Foundations and Structure of Muslim Society” constitutes a textbook, workbook and a veritable manual for the survival of Muslims of the present age. I intend to use this book as my manual for establishing the authentic Muslim community in Muslim Villages wherever I can. I pray that the reader will also be inspired to do the same. Amin!

Before this essay ends there is a warning that must be entered into the record. It is this. The secular state and secular political system that Muslims have inherited from Britain and Europe is one which requires an essential homogeneity of godlessness in the polity in order for it to work. European civilization achieved that homogeneity in the emergence of an essentially godless secular way of life. The rest of the world does not yet possess that essential homogeneity. And so it was hardly surprising that racially and tribally divisive politics should have plagued non-European polities from the very beginning of self-rule. Indeed it has now reached dead-end and there is a distinct possibility that it can lead to racial riots. If Muslims remain a part of the system of electoral politics and identify themselves politically with the party of their race, they will remain the most vulnerable of all groups to be targeted when racial riots begin. When they raise their hands in prayer at that time of bloodshed and killing, and find to their dismay that they receive no help from above, they may then understand the verse of the Qur’an which warns that Allah will not change the condition of a people until they (the people) take the initiative, using Allah’s guidance, to change their own condition (Qur’an, ar-R’ad, 13:11). That is the basic function this essay seeks to perform.


This writer has based his arguments on the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Sunnah of the blessed Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), to the effect that participation in electoral politics in the modern secular state constitutes Shirk and Kufr. In the event of disagreement with the view expressed in this essay, scholars should respond with arguments based on the Qur’an, Hadith and the Sunnah of the blessed Prophet (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam). They should declare the specific conditions in which it would be Halal for believers to vote in national elections. For example, can a believer vote for an idol-worshipping Hindu, or for an enemy of Islam, a liar, a drunkard, a thief, an adulterer, a moneylender, who owns shares in a bank or is a bank director etc.? Can he vote in elections on the basis of racial solidarity or on the basis of a trade: “We will vote for you on the condition that we get such and such from you.” Can he vote for a political party that is committed to supporting the Zionist State of Israel in its continuing occupation of, and oppression in, the Holy Land and Masjid al-Aqsa? Can he vote for a political party that supports the legalization of the lending of money on interest, lottery, homosexuality and abortion?

The blessed Prophet (sallalahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) declared: What is Halal (permissible) is clear! And what is Haram (prohibited) is clear! Abstain from whatever is doubtful! It now remains for the Islamic scholars, who are the guides of the believers, to declare whether it is Halal for Muslims to participate in electoral politics in the modern secular state. In order to deliver an unambiguously positive answer the scholars must demonstrate, firstly, that it is not Haram to do so, and secondly, that it is not ‘doubtful’ to do so. And they must establish their response on the authoritative foundations of the Qur’an and the authentic Hadith. If they do not do so, and still insist that Muslims can vote in elections, then such scholars are very dangerous people and should be avoided like a plague. Those who insist on following such scholars should pause to reflect over the terror of the Day of Judgment: “Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, The people would sweat so profusely on the Day of Resurrection that their sweat would sink seventy cubits deep into the earth, and it will rise up till it reaches the people’s mouths and ears.”
(Sahih, Bukhari)

Ruling by Kufr is Haraam

By Prof. Muhammad Al-Mass'ari
Last revision: Tuesday 20th of August 2002.

       The 'Muslim News' published in its March 28 1997 issue 95, page 4, in its 'Election Special' feature an article entitled: "Islam is not opposed to power-sharing" by Brother Azzam Tamimi. The article argues, in essence, that participating in Kufr governments and elections is perfectly permissible, even a duty for Muslims! Unfortunately Br. Tamimi could not accept that the other opposing point of view is based on respectable and considerable train of thought, rather he insisted to belittle it and its advocates.  For example he said: [Islamists, who treat the questions of democracy or power-sharing as matters of 'Aqidah (faith), usually have no specialised or adequate knowledge in the humanities, and are indoctrinated with some shallow Islamic literature]. This is most unfortunate! The following discussion will clearly expose Br. Tamimi's point of view as the weakly founded and shallow one.

       In the first four paragraphs or so Br. Tamimi summarises the position of Ayman Az-Zhawahiri, a leader of one of the Egyptian Jihaad movements, in his "Bitter Harvest" and the position of Hizb-ut-Tahreer. I do not have currently a copy of "The Bitter Harvest", but I am sufficiently familiar with Hizb-ut-Tahreer, its struggle, literature and thought, to describe Br. Tamimi's representation as essentially flawed and simplistic. Even historic facts are given inaccurately.

       It is a matter of public record that Sheikh Ahmad Ad-Da'our, member of Hizb-ut-Tahreer, did NOT give, after his election to the Jordanian Parliament, the official oath of allegiance to the King of Jordan (Check the Jordanian Parliaments minutes and records for this). As a matter of fact he sat with late founder and leader of Hizb-ut-Tahreer Sheikh Taqi-ud-deen An-Nabhaani, may Allah be pleased with him, for hours, to devise an oath formula affirming allegiance to Allah, His Messenger, the Ummah and the Jordanian people and not contradicting the party's classification of the Jordanian regime as a Kufr regime.

       Br. Tamimi's claim that: "Only Ad-Da'ur won because he entered into an arrangement with the Muslim Brotherhood" is not supported by historic evidence! Both Hizb-ut-Tahreer and the Muslim Brotherhood are Islaamic organisations. Co-operation and arrangements between them is their Islaamic duty. They should have been doing it all the time intensively. Unfortunately the Muslim Brotherhood preferred to treat their Muslim brethren as enemies to the extent that some researcher believe that the Muslim Brotherhood was more opposed to Hizb-ut-Tahreer than to the Communist Party! (see, for example, Prof. Riyadh Yusuf As-Subh's article series about "The Jordanian Islaamic political parties and their impact on society and politics", in the London based newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, concluded in No. 2471, of Saturday/Sunday 19/20 April 1997, page 14). If this is true than we have to ask ourselves: Which kind of  "Muslim Brotherhood" is this?! 
       Prior to those elections of the early fifties, in which Hizb-ut-Tahreer did participate, as well as prior to the elections of the late eighties, in which Hizb-ut-Tahreer did not participate, Hizb-ut-Tahreer issued communiqués in which its point of view about participating in elections of Kufr systems, like the Jordanian one, was elaborated and clarified. That basic theory was developed further in the Hizb-ut-Tahreer's magazine Al-Wa'i and other publications. Members of Hizb-ut-Tahreer and students in its circles developed and polished the theory further [see: Memorandum of Advise by a group of activists, intellectuals and scholars in Arabia; My book entitled: "Taa'at Uli-l-amr" (Obedience to the Ruler)]. We summarise it here for the benefit of the readers.

       Elected bodies are either law making, that is making essential laws, or not. The non law-making bodies are essentially administrative (classical examples are: City and regional councils, school boards ..etc). They administer and manage within given "laws", enacted by a higher law-making authority (King and/or Parliament; Revolutionary Council; Military Junta, Cardinal Convent; Sanhedrin; Central Committee of the Ruling Party in one party dictatorship, ... etc). They do issue regulations and by-laws, which are administrative and procedural (That is regulating the how? when? with which means? .. etc) in nature, rarely enacting essential law (That is what is obligatory, permitted or forbidden; conditionals, causatives, exceptions, waivers, valid, invalid, void  ..etc).

Since the basic Islaamic ruling about administrative and procedural regulations that they ALL are permitted in principle (unless a specific prohibition with its specific legitimate evidence can be shown), it should be clear that elections and membership in those bodies (city, county and regional councils; school boards; medical associations; … etc), as well as administrative and management jobs and positions in general are basically permitted and not a problem. It is also not a problem, for example, to work in agricultural banks (like the Saudi Agricultural Bank) which are designed to give interest free loans, equipment, fertilisers, seeds for cash or instalment payments.

       This does not mean, that in a Kufr domain problems rarely arise, they do arise frequently! For example a city council may have to regulate 'red light districts' made legal by a higher law making authorities. A Muslim member of the city council will face that and other dilemmas. The same applies to the Muslim public servant in the domain of Kufr, if he is ordered to draft and execute an interest (Riba) loan contract. These problems arise, from time to time, in a Kufr or in an unjust corrupt system, but they are not the standard day to day basic situation: They are accidental and they are not an essential part of the job or functions definition. A Muslim should, for example, never be a party, witness or writer/drafter of a Riba contract, unless he is comfortable with inviting the Divine course invoked by the Messenger of Allah on Riba, its parties, its witnesses and its writer! He can never issue permits for prostitutes or other 'red light district' businesses.

       As a matter of fact the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, in a strong (Saheeh) Hadeeth, after warning of coming times of corrupt rulers: (Should any one of you reach that time, do NOT be: 'Areef, Shurti, Jaabi, or Khaazin!), narrated by Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh.
       (a) Shurti = Policeman or security service man. Obviously working in secret services is a compounded crime and even worse and more sinful.
       (b) Khaazin:  Literally Storage Keeper, mostly used in the meaning of Treasurer.
       (c) Jaabi: Collector of state revenues. This even applies to Zakaat collection, but also to Kharaaj (land tax), customs and excises, and all other taxes.
       (d) 'Areef: Most difficult to translate, literally "Recogniser". From other Hadeeth evidence we know that a 'Areef is some one who know the people in a village, city subsection or a sub-tribe, so he could report their opinion, marital status .. etc. This meaning is evidenced and explained by the following incident: After the battle of Hunain the Messenger of Allah decided to set his own prisoners of war of the defeated tribe of Hawaazin free and asked the people in congregation to do the same, possibly in return for a future re-imbursement. The masses shouted: Yes, we do the same, but the Messenger of Allah insisted: "Go to your camps! Your ('Areefs) will check with each of you one by one and report back to us, so that we know who is really satisfied or not". 

       This Hadeeth together with the numerous Qur'aanic and Prophetic injunctions against Kufr, oppression, injustice  and their perpetuators and any support for, even 'inclination' or 'closeness' to, them are strong evidence of the prohibition of at least certain jobs and functions under Kufr and/or  Zulm regimes, as Allah, blessed be His Names, says: {Do not incline (or lean) towards the unjust one, else you would experience the touch of hell-fire, you will not find any protector besides Allah, nor shall you be helped or supported} (Hood; 11:113). Some Islaamists argue even for complete abstaining from any public office under such regimes, but the above Hadeeth indicates otherwise, because it enumerates clearly four categories instead of saying, for example: "Do not work (or do not do any thing) for them!" More over Jihaad is a duty and called for under the command of even corrupt and oppressive rulers.
       I therefore argue that in principle administrative functions (as public servant or as a member of such administrative bodies) is in principle permitted. We must in any case be alert to the above stated prohibition of certain functions and also ready to stand firm in any single conflict situation (usury contracts, 'red light district', licences for prostitution, quality certification for alcoholic beverages, .... and much, much more).

       The discussion above was concerned ONLY with administrative function under Kufr (disbelief) and Zulm (oppressive) systems. The question of law-making (legislative) functions and court and tribunal rulings (judicial) function has not been yet addressed.

       We must first clarify the different meanings and usages, in Qur'aan and Sunnah, of the word 'Hukm' best translated as 'Rule'. If we go through an indexed dictionary of the Qur'aan (see: Muhammad Fou'aad Abdul-Baqee's famous indexed dictionary) then we find the following usages:
       (a) Ruling (mostly judicial ruling). The Judge is also termed Haakim (or Qaadi).
       (a.1) Allah, blessed his names, has the sole Hukm in the day of Judgement as in: Ghaafir (40:48), Aal-Imraan (3:55), Az-Zumar (39:46), Al-Baqarah (2:113), An-Nisaa' (4:141), An-Nahl (16:124),  and many more.
       (a.2) In this world this function is performed by duly appointed officials (judges), to arbitrate and settle disputes. This is the most prominent  usage of the Qur'aan and Sunnah like in Al-Maa'idah (5:42), An-Nisaa' (4:58), An-Nisaa' (4:105), Al-Anbiaa' (21:78), Saad (38:22), An-Nisaa' (4:60), Al-Maa'idah (5:44-50), Al-Baqarah (2:188) and many more. Most, but not all,  these verses could and should be also understood in the sense of general "rule" and govern, even manage and administer i.e. applying certain laws and principle in managing public affairs!
       (a.3) Ruling in the intellectual sense; Informed opinion; Judgement of an opinion or situation. Allah, blessed be His Names, condemns the practice of burying baby girls: {If one of them is informed about the birth of a baby girl his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! * Ashamed he hides himself from the people, because of the bad news he just received! Shall he retain it on sufferance and contempt, or bury it in the dust?! Oh how miserable they judge (rule)?!!} (An-Nahl 16:59); See also Yunus (10:36), As-Saaffaat (37:154), Al-Qalam (68:36,39), Al-An'aam (6:136) and many more.
       (b) Law-Making. The word "Hukm" is used less frequently in this meaning in the Qur'aan. We have Allah, blessed be His Names, saying after prohibiting hunting while in the holy precincts and/or in the state of Ihraam: { ... Allah commands (rules) what he wants} (Al-Maa'idah 5:1). We have also Al-Maa'idah (5:50), Al-Kahf (18:26), Yusuf (12:40) and Al-Mumtahinah (60:10), and some others. The word "Hukm" is used there in the meaning of commanding, ordering, or enacting a law. Normally the Qur'aan refers for such meanings of commanding and making laws to Allah being Lord (Rabb), Sovereign or King. The word "Amr" meaning command is more often used, like in: {.. indeed His is the Creation (Khalq) and the Command (Amr), blessed be Allah, the Lord of the universes} (Al-A'raaf 7:54). The term (Tashree') is also some times used. This Sovereignty or Law-Making power is the privilege of Allah alone according to the overwhelming evidence of Qur'aan, Sunnah and necessities of the reason, any belief to the contrary is necessarily Shirk and Kufr. The scholars of Usul-ul-Fiqh (principles of law derivation) have used the term Hukm to denote any specific legislation and Haakim as the lawmaker. All of them agree unanimously that Allah is the Haakim, not Humans nor Reason, nor anything else.

       The "law making" process in Islaam is quite complex. We have:
       (1) Revelation:           The Divine revelation in Qur'aan and Sunnah, which is textual and concerned mainly, but not exclusively, with the details of "essential" laws.
       (2) Ijtihaad:                These textual references must be understood and applied to real concrete situations. So proper understanding of the texts and understanding of the reality and the essential ingredients of the situation is a necessary condition for 'extracting' the divine ruling for that specific situation. This process of extraction is called "Ijtihaad". Ijtihaad is both the right and duty of the Muslim Ummah. The Ummah is empowered, by Allah blessed be His Names, to perform Ijtihaad. It is a duty on the Ummah as an Ummah. It is "Fardh Kifaayah". For any new situation we face in life there is a Divine ruling, which we must find, else we betray the reason of our existence: To worship Allah, that is, love, respect, glorify, praise, obey and surrender to Him. At least one Mujtahid must exist to face the challenge and perform that duty, else the whole Ummah becomes sinful.

       The scholars of Usul-ul-Fiqh (principles of law derivation) have studied the subject of Ijtihaad in full detail, so we refer to their works in this matter. We stress only some very important facts:
       (2.a)     Every single Muslim, man or woman is empowered to Ijtihaad. You do not need an ordination or authorisation from any ruler or scholar. There is no Church, and no official clergy, in Islaam. Indeed you do need the necessary knowledge and other pre-conditions, most likely you will have "Ijaazah", that is certification, from a scholar, a university or any other scholarly body, but this is neither necessary, nor sufficient. You have to argue for and justify your Ijtihaad in the community of the scholars, and the believers in general, but it is your responsibility in front of Allah, and Allah alone.
       (2.b)     The Ijtihaad is a human process and it is not infallible. The results of Ijtihaad are not THE Revelation or THE Shari'a. They are the Mujtahid's or Faqih's understanding of the Revelation or Shari'a. The same is to be said about the bulk of statements in the Fiqh books. It is generally improper, impolite and arrogant to say: This is Allah's ruling or the verdict of Islaam, rather a more cautious and humble statement like: This is my understanding of Allah's ruling or of the verdict of Islaam, or this is an Islaamic point of view!
       (3) Adoption:             Because Ijtihaad is fallible human process, and because a considerable number of problems and questions do not admit a definitive (qat'i) textual evidence and because a considerable number of Hadeeth references is not of well established agreed upon authenticity; Because of all these main reasons and other minor reasons there will be a considerable number of diverging points of view and results of Ijtihaad today and possibly until the Day of Judgement. The believer will face, sooner or later, the problem which one of the different, some times conflicting, rulings he should follow: This the problem of adoption.

For individual Muslims the problem has been studied extensively by the scholars of Usul-ul-Fiqh (principles of law derivation) under the Chapters of (Taqleed) and (Ittibaa'). The conditions and permissibility of Taqleed, that is following a scholar on the merit of his personality, reputation, ... etc., but not on the merit of his argument for the specific ruling, has been extensively discussed. The same was done for (Ittibaa'), that is following on the merit of the argument for the specific ruling.

       Unfortunately the question of adoption in the public domain that is by the STATE has not been addressed in past centuries in any respectable length. All what the classical scholars have said was only: The legitimate Waliyy-ul-Amr, Imaam, or Khaleefah generally has the right to adopt and must be obeyed, that is: His adoption, if duly enacted and published, becomes binding law.

       The problem of scope and limits of the state's adoption were addressed in a quite elaborate level in the "Draft of Constitution" (Mashroo'-ud-Dustoor), together with its justification in the "Prologue to the Constitution" (Muqadimat-ud-Dustoor) published by Hizb-ut-Tahreer over 40 years ago in the early fifties of the twentieth century. Hizb-ut-Tahreer invited scholars, movements and all Muslims to participate in the further development of those drafts, to no avail. Nobody else, including the leading Islaamic movements, according to my knowledge, contributed any thing significant to this most important constitutional debate. It is rather regretful that members of such movements, like Br. Tamimi, preferred to indulge in mockery of such works, belittlement of their Muslim brethren and admire instead Western democratic thought, which is based on a completely different view of God, man, life and the universe.

       Further developments were made in the above-mentioned "Memorandum of Advice", in which the problem of "essential" and "procedural" law has been addressed and largely clarified. This has been further developed in my book "Taa'at Uli-l-amr" (Obedience to the Ruler). Therein the most significant problem of adoption in 'Ibaadat (pure cultic activities and acts of worship) and 'Aqa'id (creed) has been addressed and significant solutions suggested. It is not an exaggeration to state, that a satisfactory resolution of those constitutional problems is a necessary condition for the survival of the Islaamic state in our modern times in competition with secular materialistic West.

       It is also interesting to note that the "Draft of The Constitution" (Mashroo'-ud-Dustoor), together with its justification in the "Prologue to the Constitution" did address and, at least partly, resolved the problems of existence and permissibility of multiple parties in the Islaamic state, elections in general and of the head of state (Imaam or Khaleefah) in particular, accountability of the government, constitutional court, permissible taxes, public and private ownership, and women participation in elections and membership in elected assemblies and many other important constitutional issues. In those times (the fifties of the twentieth century) the Ikhwaan-ul-Muslimoon, the biggest Islaamic movement, was arguing for one-party-system and were at loss, to say the least, about women's role and participation in party activities, not to speak from elected bodies of the Islaamic state!! Even the Ikhwaan-ul-Muslimoon's more 'liberal' daughter organisation in Sudan is still stuck with a military one-party dictatorship and still unable to firm their opinion about such a simple problem like currency exchange over borders: Is it Halaal or Haraam, and if Haraam should any one, because of it, face capital punishment, as they did administer?! The brothers should fear Allah and educate themselves more thoroughly about Islaamic thought, before even starting with Locke and John Stewart Mill, or even dare to assume government responsibility!

       It is obvious, from the above, that law making in Islaam is quite involved! Elaborate developments are needed to clarify the principle of Divine Sovereignty (God's Rulership) and its relation to human authority and responsibility. We must distinguish sharply between Sovereignty and Rule (Siyadah or Haakimiyyah), which is God's exclusively, and Authority (Sultaan), which belongs to the Ummah (or to a divinely appointed Imaam in the Shi'a's school of thought). Western Liberal Capitalist democracy is on the other hand based on human sovereignty or, theoretically at least, sovereignty of the reason. Things are simple there: People meet and decide with a suitable majority, or elect an assembly, which has the right to enact, in a suitable majority decision, essentially any thing: The most base crimes, like Sodomy punishable by death in times past, becomes respectable expression and assertion of human "dignity" and "self-determination" and a legally protected right after a simple vote of the parliament! 

       Now since enacting (essential) laws is the Divine privilege, any one doing the same is transgressing against the Divine Rank and Majesty of God Most High and trespassing on the secluded Divine Domain of the Sovereign Most Ultimate and Absolute and hence committing a crime of cosmic proportion: Shirk and Kufr. If rebellion against a worldly king is high treason, then rebellion against the King of kings is the Highest of High Treason!! This ought to be known, by necessity, from Qur'aan, Sunnah, and principles of reason and consensus of scholars, even consensus of all rational beings.

       This is for enacting of laws, but what about ruling, governing, judging, administering according to any law enacted not according with the principle of Divine Sovereignty or God's Rule?!

       Allah, blessed be His Names and exalted be His Attributes, condemned such acts, that is ruling, governing, judging, administering according to any thing not sanctioned by the Divine law, as criminal. These acts are classified as acts of: Kufr (disbelief), Zulm (oppression and injustice) and Fisq (manifest and public rebellion and disobedience). The appropriate verses in Qur'aan are well known and lengthy. I will not quote them, rather I would just give their references. Please refer first to the verses of Al-Maa'idah (5: 41-50) as main authority in the subject, but the Qur'aan is full with other relevant direct and indirect evidence for this most fundamental fact, see also An-Nisaa' (4:105), Saad (38:22), An-Nisaa' (4:60,65), and many more. The scholars are in agreement that a judge applying any thing other than Islaamic law is Kaafir, unless he has valid excuse like compulsion ... etc. They have had never any argument about that. The only dispute was about intentional misapplication of the Islaamic law for a monetary gain (bribe) or for family, tribal, national or political bias. Some scholar regard a judge in such a case as only Faasiq (sinful) Muslim, others insisted in regarding him a Kaafir, that is a disbeliever and exclude him from the domain of Islaam and out of the community of the believer, but all agree on the extreme seriousness of this crime.

       It is obvious that a judge is obliged to apply the valid law and hence in a Kufr system he must generally apply Kufr rules and laws. Such judges deserve then all the condemnation and the titles of Kaafir (infidel, disbeliever), Zaalim (oppressor, unjust) and Faasiq (rebellious, disobedient) according to Al-Maa'idah (5: 41-50), possible exemption are judges in some Muslim countries in special courts, for example family courts, who apply only and exclusively Islaamic law in marital and other specific disputes.

       The head of state, prime minister and cabinet ministers whose constitutional duty is to protect the constitutional order, to govern, manage the public affairs, administer and participate in the law making process as well members of law-making bodies, in their law-making capacity, are (in a Kufr system) necessarily in an even bigger transgression against the Divine Sovereignty as detailed above.

       How then could it be conceivable for a Muslim to accept to fall in Shirk, Kufr, Zulm and Fisq for the return of a miserable "share" of Kufr or Zulm power?! Human beings were not created to exercise power or share in power, rather they were created to worship Allah, Most High, that is to love, respect, glorify, praise, obey and surrender to non but Him. This SURRENDER legitimises and empowers them to establish God's Rule and a system of true justice on earth, based on a firm moral and spiritual base.

       The train of arguments of Br. Tamimi has not yet been discussed here in full. His representation of the theory of Imaam Ash-Shaatibi in Al-Muaafaqat, his invocation of the principle of "necessity" and their relevance or rather irrelevance for the problem at hand deserve another more lengthy discussion in a future article. Some fine points of the membership in Kufr law-making bodies and the permissibility of using such bodies as Da'wa platform and an instrument for accounting the government ought also to be treated in our future article.

       Meanwhile let us agree on the fact that it is very difficult to live and work UNDER Kufr and Zulm regimes, but the difficulties escalate to higher order of magnitudes if you want to work WITH them. Br. Tamimi and the other advocates of power-sharing should fear Allah, do their home work studying the relevant Qur'aan verses and Hadeeths before indulging in simplistic, sweeping and virtually useless general statements and empty slogans about "power-sharing"

Ruling by Kufr is Haraam

       In a previous article entitled: "Ruling by Kufr is Haraam Part(I)” the present author argued for the general non-permissibility of "power-sharing" in Kufr and Zulm regimes.     It was argued specifically that, in a Kufr system, that is in Dar-ul-Kufr, the law-making function of the parliament, but also the "ruling", that is: sharing in law-making process; Governing, Managing public affairs, Defending the constitutional system, Establishing law and order ... etc. normally performed by the head of state, prime-minister and cabinet minister, in their capacity as cabinet members, are necessarily: Kufr (disbelief), Zulm (injustice and oppression) and Fisq (manifest rebellion against God) according to the definite ruling of the Qur'aan, Sunnah, and consensus of the Companions and all generations of scholars till today.

       We should not overlook the fact that parliaments do have other functions to perform, besides their basic first function of law making, these are:
(2) Control and Check of the government (mainly the executive power), and
(3) Intellectual and Media Platform, that is representing and arguing for or against certain ideas and views being widely discussed in the society.

       It is known from Islaam by necessity that accounting the rulers is a fundamental right of every single Muslim, man or woman, of every group or organisation and of the whole Ummah as an Ummah (See any standard references about "Al-Amr bil Ma'roof wan-Nahyi 'an-il-Munkar", also our book: (Muhaasabat-ul-Hukkaam)). Actually it is the duty of the Ummah as an Ummah, that it is "Fardh Kifaayah", if it is not performed in sufficiency, the whole Ummah becomes sinful and punishable, except those who are struggling to perform, individually and collectively, that fundamental duty.

       The sad and miserable state of affairs of our Ummah currently is, partially, the necessary result and worldly punishment for its negligence of this vital duty, and there is more and severe questioning coming in the Day of Judgement!

       This accounting of the rulers by Muslims could and should be only based on Islaam. If a ruler punishes an adulterer or adulteress, his act will be praised and supported by Muslims, but he will be severely criticised and attacked by Western Liberals for punishing "love" and interfering with personal "choice", "freedom" and "self-determination". Both, the Muslims and the Western Liberals, are doing their "duty" and accounting their ruler according to their "Deen", that is their ideology and way of life, Islaam and Western Liberal Secularism respectively.

       The accounting process entails many actions by a parliament (or any other elected body) and its member. The function of accounting, check and control can take many forms, procedures and styles: Live debates, votes of no-confidence, rebuttals, written and oral questions, parliamentary investigations, petitions, ombudsman action, confirmation of certain officials in certain systems (American Congress), and many others. All are only procedures, and as such, in principle, permitted for Muslims if based on Islaam and Islaam alone.
       It is, for example, outrageous and unacceptable from any Muslim to give his vote of confidence to any government applying Kufr law. This is precisely the blunder, that a "Muslim Brotherhood" members of the Jordanian parliament committed arguing that: "A vote of confidence has no relation to applying Kufr or Islaam"!! A vote of confidence for Kufr law means that we trust it to make human beings happy in this world and, as a consequence, in the hereafter! If so, than why Islaam in the first place?! Why then scream all the time: (Islaam is the solution)?! Why then the ferocious, some times bloody, confrontation with the secular regimes in Muslim countries?!

       The function of elected bodies, law-making or not, as intellectual and media platform is very intriguing, specifically in these modern times of mass media, which is being declared "the fourth power" in the public domain, the three other powers being the legislative, executive and judicial powers. A Muslim member of such a body will have an over proportional share in the media power and if is he a committed Muslim, then he is by necessity a Daa'iyah, a caller and inviter to Islaam: Its creed, its laws, morality, code of conduct and all of its way of life. Almost all parliamentary functions and actions can by intelligently used for Da'wa and expressing the Islaamic point of view, but there are, for this purpose, specific actions possible: Motions, questions, written and oral, to officials, debates, rebuttals and non-binding resolutions. 

       It should be clear now that a Muslim could nominate himself  for law-making Kufr parliament under the following conditions:
(1)   Abstain from law-making process. All Muslims would agree that this entails voting against any law contradicting Islaam in its content. I do not believe that this is enough, because derivation of the law by reference to Qur'aan and Sunnah is as essential as, even more important than, the content of the law. Worshipping Allah necessitates surrender and submission to Him without any question to content of His command. We submit because He is the Lord, the King, the Sovereign; He commanded per se, not because He commanded this specific regulation, which we may like or dislike! Hence the process of referring to the revelation is the test for Islaam and Imaan. It is very well possible, that our understanding of a certain revelation is wrong, but this does not make us Kuffaar (disbeliever), actually not even sinful if we did our best Ijtihaad. But not referring to the revelation makes us sinful Kuffaar!  So a Muslim should never accept any law not derived by a an acceptable Ijtihaad, regardless of the content. A Muslim member of any elected body must vote against such law: This is the minimum!

       A more cautious Muslim member would abstain completely from any law-making regarding essential law, because a Kufr parliament is enacting them based on the belief of its "right" to enact laws: It is original law-making based on the sovereignty of the People, the king of the realm or the Reason, or what-so-ever. In any case it is not derivation and then adoption from revelation!
(2)   Controlling, Checking and Accounting the government based on Islaam. No vote of confidence for Kufr rule is possible (let alone membership in such governments in the first place).
(3)   Propagating the Islaamic point of view in every occasion, at every question and towards every issue.
(4)   Refusal of any oath or statement, which entails allegiance, even acceptance, of the Kufr regime. The usual way out is to devise a suitable oath formula or statement, which is accepted by Islaam and sufficiently embarrassing for the regime! For example instead of allegiance to the King, an oath to "serve the nation and protect its interests based on Islaam" may be substituted. This may not work and could result in termination of membership of such an elected body before is even really started, but their is no way out. The principle of "necessity" does not apply here, as elaborated below.
(5)   Electorates must be clearly informed about these points, so they can make their choice and vote accordingly. They must know that the candidate, if elected as their representative, is going to adhere to the points given above. The elected representative is, like any carrier of a power of attorney (Wakaalah), in a position of trust. Any non-disclosure is criminal cheating and  breaking of trust.

       These conditions may sound almost impossible to fulfil, but the Example of  Sheikh Ad-Da'our, of Hizb-ut-Tahreer, who was elected to the Jordanian Parliament twice in the 1950s, and strictly adhered to them proves otherwise: It is difficult but not impossible. It sound also quite meagre for power-hungry characters, who want power at any price, but the reason of the creation and the purpose of life is not power, full power or share in power, rather it is to become spiritual by acknowledging and surrendering to Allah's Sovereignty and Lordship and worshipping Him alone, thus achieving Divine pleasure, that is achieving eternal happiness!

       Now what the individual Muslim is supposed to do in Dar-ul-Kufr, that is a domain of Kufr rule or Kuffaar supremacy, with a Muslim majority like Jordan or a non-Muslim majority like Britain?! Obviously again worship Allah alone and hence stick to Halaal and avoid Haraam. As Muslim is not permitted to do Haraam, he is not permitted to authorise Haraam. So he cannot vote for a Muslim candidate who is committing Haraam by not adhering to the conditions given above. The authorisation is then invalid and the act is sinful, possibly an act of Kufr!

       The same applies for a non-Muslim candidate too, because he is not permitted by Islaam to rule, govern or have an all-over authority over Muslims like the one exercised by the Head of State, Prime minister, Cabinet Members and the like, in short he is not permitted to be a "ruler". He may manage and administer but only according to Islaam and under an ultimate and supreme Islaamic authority!

       Voting a non-Muslim into a position of authority (rule), even if he would apply Islaam only, violates the principle of Islaamic supremacy in any case! Voting for a non-Muslim or an un-Islaamic party with Kufr ideology and program, and hence approving that ideology and/or program, is a compounded crime! This cannot be compared and is vastly and essentially different from pork breading, keeping, selling and eating by non-Muslims, which Islaam expressively permits for them.

       Br. Azzam Tamimi asks: (But what if such supremacy is not established in the land. Should all Muslim affairs be put on hold? Should Muslims go to sleep for 309 years like the "people of the cave"). Obviously they should not, but unfortunately his answer is participating in Kufr, which he gives a nice name: Power-sharing! Again here he lumps vastly different cases and sub-cases into one pile and suggests a sweeping, albeit empty general solution, like the old alchemist who dreamed all his life of the impossible life-elixir, which, in one strike, cures all ills and keeps youth for ever!

       Let give things their right names. the land in which Islaamic supremacy (that is Rule of Islaamic Law and authority and power for the Muslims) is not established is called Dar-ul-Kufr, an old fashioned name, which many people like Br. Tamimi do not like, but it is extremely precise and descriptive. Such a Dar-ul-Kufr could be one of several cases:
(1)   The majority of the citizens are Muslims. The domain is then a Muslim country. It is then obligatory on Muslims to do their utmost best to convert their domain into a domain of Islaamic supremacy that is Dar-ul-Islaam. They, as majority, should normally have no excuse in not doing so. If they do not do then they are all, except those who are struggling individually and/or collectively to establish Islaamic supremacy, committing Haraam and are sinful. This sinful state of affairs is not improved at all by adding the sins of participating in Kufr rule, rather it is worsened and compounded!

       The existence of a military dictatorship, possibly veiled like in Turkey or Egypt, is not an excuse. No dictator can rule without the silent approval of ignorant or coward masses. The job of the Islaamists is to educate, mobilise and lead the masses, NOT to betray their belief and defeat their goal by sanctioning Kufr through power sharing.

       In the battlefield Muslims are not permitted to retreat if confronting a fighting enemy of no more than twice their strength in numbers and equivalent gear. So it may be argued, that the same obligation exist for Muslims, to stand firm and reach for full Islaamic supremacy, if their fraction in the population exceeds a third! They are a minority, but a significant one. In such a situation every Muslim is facing roughly no more than two opponents in the ideological and political struggle. The situation ought to be even better than in military confrontation in the battle field: If Muslims are such a strong and significant (one third, or more) minority, then society is normally deeply fragmented, divided and no seriously organised counter force is to be expected.

       Any inability to perform as described above indicates essential defects in the Muslims themselves: In their understanding of Islaam, in their commitment and/or in their willingness to sacrifice. If so, then Muslims are not qualified to exercise power and rule in the name of Islaam. They are also prohibited, as elaborated above and in the previous article from ruling by anything other than Islaam, so Da'wa, that is intensive culturing, education and  purification, that is self betterment, is needed first, leading to self organising and identity assertion. There is no need for illicit power sharing. This is the only viable alternative Islaamically. 
(2)   The Muslims are a (non significant) minority of the citizens of the realm facing considerable social forces preventing them from establishing Islaamic supremacy, but they enjoy some basic protection of their life and individual liberties like in Britain or the US. In such cases the order of the hour is to keep the Islaamic identity, carry Da'wa and invite others to Islaam, to increase the number of Muslims, as to become a significant minority or even a majority in the long run. This is not possible in Isolation. It is only possible by interacting with the society, while keeping their distinguished character and identity, and also not by integration and hence melting away in the surrounding Kufr society. The slogan should be: Interaction, but not Integration!
Establishing a strong Islaamic schooling system, in the short run, is of utmost importance in such cases. This necessitates, at least partial economic self sufficiency:
(a)   to establish a (small starting) number of private Islaamic schools, and
(b)   to achieve sufficient media presence to start exercising pressure on the power centres in the surrounding society forcing them to acknowledge the necessity of approving and funding of further Islaamic schools.

       This acting as a pressure group for well-defined and limited objectives (Islaamic schools, non co-educational public schools, non mixing in sport, more say in certain parts of the curriculum ... etc.) means concentrating the limited resources on a small target and hence a higher probability of achieving penetration and success.

The limited participation in the political and administrative process described above, which is permitted by Islaam, is more than adequate. I would personally regard any participation higher than local councils and school board in such a situation, although Islaamically permitted, as counter-productive. Such a participation may absorb the energies of talented Muslims in early battles against economic, tax, penal legislation (homosexuality, incest, ... etc.), which will be wasteful abuse of limited precious resources.

       Even if "power-sharing" on higher levels of government (ruling and law-making) were permitted by Islaam (which is not the case), it would, in most cases, be viewed by the surrounding society (or by any powerful section thereof) as dangerous and provocative, leading to confrontations, crackdowns and disruptive severe conflicts, and become hence counter-productive. The current example of Turkey, which should be followed and evaluated very, very carefully (*), and the recent example of Algeria should remind and warn any rational thinker. In other cases Islaamists, who are, unfortunately, less politically and ideologically aware like the "Muslim Brotherhood" in Jordan, may be abused as tools to stabilise and serve the Kufr regimes for a limited time and then later disposed off in a disgraceful way: weakened or eliminated by political manoeuvres and dirty games, a process, in full swing, going now in Jordan!! 

(3)   The Muslims are an oppressed minority, threatened in their lives, wealth and liberties and prevented from performing their basic individual duties, with no capabilities to counter or fight the oppressors and with no powerful Islaamic state around to perform Jihaad for their rescue. In such cases "power-sharing", irrespective of being Halaal or Haraam, could not be conceivably a matter of consideration!
A person, or a few persons, may hide their belief (Tuqyah) and "sneak" in a power position and help a few Muslims here and there, but could not possibly bring any real relief for the oppressed general Muslim minority. Such cases may be justifiable under the principle of necessity, but they are singular and largely accidental admitting no general theory of political action! The only real solution is: Immigration to any realm of security, preferably to an Islaamic domain if it exists.

       I admit that the above division in three main case may not exhaust all relevant sub-cases, but it should be a guide to more thorough discourse.

       I tried my best to see how the argument of "necessity" fits generally in this study, to no avail. As far as I know there is no compulsion on any one to participate in election, actively or passively. We did not hear yet of machine-gun holding soldiers forcing the populace into election boots. In certain countries you may penalised for not participating, but all what you need to do is to go to the boot and give an invalid or empty ballot slip! Even enduring the mild, mostly monetary, penalty should not be a problem and does not constitute a case of necessity or compulsion by any stretch of imagination. So could any intelligent human being out there show me where is the general "necessity" mentioned by Br. Tamimi in his article?!

       It is also very important to note, as we mentioned casually in the above, that non-Muslims are not permitted under Islaamic supremacy that is in Dar-ul-Islaam to participate in "ruling". They enjoy  otherwise the full protection, all the rights and privileges of citizenship together with exemption from certain duties. This is perfectly well established in Islaamic thought and rationally acceptable for any fair-minded person completely comprehending the meaning of Islaamic domain or Islaamic state! 

       The fundamental principles of equity, justice and reciprocity requires Muslims to ask for no more than that in any Kufr domain, even if some Kufr regimes like Liberal Secularism (in a self-contradicting way) grants them more! Islaam treats all humans in equal manner, there are no "Elected People of God" with all privileges, and "Gentiles" with treatment like animals! For these reasons it is also obvious that the opportunistic behaviour, past experience, successes(!) and achievements(!) of Jewish minorities in the world could never be a model or a worthy example for true Muslims, however remarkable those were and however great is the temptation!

       So when Br. Azzam Tamimi concludes: (Should all Muslim affairs be put on hold? Should Muslims go to sleep for 309 years like the "people of the cave"), the answer must be neither, nor. There is plenty of permitted (Halaal), effective and wise things to do, most likely exceeding available precious manpower and resources of Muslims, which are still very limited indeed. If all resources are pooled together, then may be we will have soon an Islamic educational network with model schools, renowned for academic excellency, with little or no drug problems, with little or no teenage pregnancy problems, with little or no violent bullying problems. I trust we will be having long waiting lists of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Non-Muslims attending OUR schools will come to see the true face of Islaam. They will be OUR ambassadors to the “surrounding” society. We DO NOT need to be sucked into the FILTHY ideology and politics of Labour and Conservatives (in the UK) or Democrats and Republicans (in the US), or whatever. COME ON, Brothers and Sisters: They just want your vote to gain power, once in power they will sell you out. DON’T BE fooled by the Zionist example: The Zionist and the US establishment, for example, are joined in disbelief and are allied in aggression and injustice. You will never achieve the same without clearly and openly denouncing Islaam and committing apostasy. If that what you really want, then by all means: DO IT!

Moreover the "people of the cave" were true, committed, rightly guided young believers who deserted their society and did not "share" in any Kufr power. They refused to mix with Kufr and Shirk and even isolated themselves physically. They did not go to sleep, rather Allah, blessed be His Names, made them to do so, to show a miracle for all mankind! They are actually a prime counter-example to Br. Tamimi's theory of power sharing! 

       It is amazing how the largest Islaamic movements, which diverted the energies of hundred thousands of young dynamic Muslims during the last half century into politically and socially counter-productive "charity" activities, and other petty activities like boy-scouting(!), are now struggling to lead the Muslims in the abyss of "power-sharing", which has proven disastrous and counter-productive in the past. Even worse: It is Haraam, sometimes-even Kufr!

       The large Islaamic movements, Br. Tamimi and the other advocates of power-sharing should fear Allah, review objectively, and with devotion to Allah, their wrong and misguided "theory" and repent.  {O, Who you believe turn to Allah with sincere repentance, in the hope that your Lord will forgive your evil deeds and admit you to gardens beneath which rivers flow!} (At-Tahreem; 66: 8)


(1)   An abridged version of the first article was published in Muslim News, No.96, on Friday 25 April 1997 (18/12/1417H), Page 6].
(2)   These articles were edited for the last time on Tuesday 20th of August 2002.

       (*) Note added on Wednesday 19 November 1997: That was written originally on Tuesday 29 April 1997, when Erbakan was still in power. It looked like a prophetic statement, but it is not: it is a simple rational conclusion! The precarious current situation of Erbakan, an the even more miserable one of his party should be a lesson for all of us. The future may hold things worse in store. May Allah have mercy on the Muslims in Turkey!!

    (**) Note added on Tuesday 20th of August 2002: The Sudanese regime established Dr. Hassan At-Turabi is for all practical purposes politically finished. This shows also that opportunistic and machiavellian policies must fail. Islaam cannot be served this way!

Written by Jallal Ziat    

Large numbers of Muslims in France, as in the rest of the world (including the world of Islam), participate in electoral politics of the modern secular State without any consciousness of the religious implications of such conduct.

While it is quite clear that Muslims must be involved in politics in order to respond, for example, to oppression in the world today, few Muslims are conscious of the fact that the modern secular State was created and fashioned by Dajjāl on the foundations of Shirk (i.e., blasphemy), and that when they vote in elections of the modern secular State they become a party to that Shirk.

In my essay entitled: “Can Muslims vote in elections of the modern secular State?” I explained the subject in some detail and urged my students to abstain from participation in such electoral politics.

I sent a message recently to Alain Soral, the prominent French political thinker and activist, urging respect for our Muslim religious view concerning non-participation in electoral politics in France, and I am happy to share with you the news of his positive response:

“My answer is simple: I never called for the Muslims to vote Front National, I just pointed out that honour would command them to stop voting for PS ! (Socialist Party) which means, logically, that I advise them effectively not to vote anymore.” (I sought and obtained Mr Soral’s permission to publish his response in this statement.)

I must confess my astonishment at this clear, unambiguous and bold response. Most politicians in the world today, Muslim as well as non-Muslim, are incapable or unwilling to make such a response which would effectively ruin their political career.

I can only hope and pray that our areas of agreement with each other - Mr Soral in France, Prof Alexander Dugin in Moscow, and others elsewhere who are already showing great interest in our Islamic eschatology - may benefit our common cause of struggling to liberate the oppressed of the earth from an oppression the likes of which have never been experienced by mankind ever since the time of Pharaoh.

The Qur’ān has warned that if we do not reach out to build alliances with those who share a common cause with us, the consequences for mankind would be terrible:

وَالَّذينَ كَفَرُواْ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاء بَعْضٍ إِلاَّ تَفْعَلُوهُ تَكُن فِتْنَةٌ فِي الأَرْضِ وَفَسَادٌ كَبِيرٌ

“With all this, [remember O Muslims that] the Kuffār (i.e., all hostile forces to Islam) are allies of one another; and unless you act likewise [i.e. you Muslims ally yourselves with like-minded forces], oppression will reign on earth, and great corruption.” (Qur’ān, al-Anfāl, 8:73)

 Message du Sheikh Imran Hosein à ses étudiants français
Un grand nombre de musulmans en France, comme dans le reste du monde (y compris dans le monde de l’Islam), participent à la politique électorale de l’État moderne et laïque sans aucune conscience des implications religieuses d’un tel comportement.

Bien qu’il soit tout à fait clair que les musulmans doivent être impliqués dans la politique pour répondre, par exemple, à l’oppression dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, peu de musulmans sont conscients du fait que l’État laïque moderne a été créé et façonné par Dajjal sur les fondations du Shirk (c’est à dire, le blasphème), et que quand ils votent aux élections de l’État moderne et laïque, ils deviennent une partie de ce Shirk.

Dans mon essai intitulé : « Est ce que les musulmans peuvent voter aux élections de l’État moderne et laïque », j’ai expliqué le sujet en détail et exhorté mes élèves à s’abstenir de participer à ces politiques électorales.

J’ai envoyé récemment un message à Alain Soral, le penseur politique français et militant, appelant au respect de notre point de vue religieux musulman concernant la non-participation à la politique électorale en France, et je suis heureux de partager avec vous les nouvelles de sa réponse positive :

« Ma réponse est simple : je n’ai jamais appelé les musulmans à voter Front national, je viens de souligner que l’honneur serait de leur ordonner d’arrêter de voter pour le PS ! Ce qui signifie, logiquement, que je leur conseille effectivement de ne pas voter non-plus. »

(J’ai cherché et obtenu la permission de M. Soral de publier sa réponse dans cette déclaration.)

Je dois avouer mon étonnement de cette réponse claire, univoque et audacieuse. La plupart des politiciens dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, les musulmans ainsi que les non-musulmans, sont incapables ou ne veulent pas faire une telle réponse, qui aurait pour effet de ruiner leur carrière politique.

Je peux seulement espérer et prier pour que nos points d’accord les uns avec les autres – M. Soral en France, le professeur Alexandre Douguine à Moscou, et d’autres d’ailleurs qui montrent déjà un grand intérêt pour notre eschatologie islamique – puissent bénéficier à notre cause commune : lutter pour libérer les opprimés de la terre d’une oppression qui n’a jamais été connue par l’humanité depuis l’époque de Pharaon.

Le Coran a averti que si nous n’arrivons pas à construire des alliances avec ceux qui partagent une cause commune avec nous, les conséquences pour l’humanité seraient terribles :
وَالَّذينَ كَفَرُواْ بَعْضُهُمْ
أَوْلِيَاء بَعْضٍ إِلاَّ تَفْعَلُوهُ
تَكُن فِتْنَةٌ فِي الأَرْضِ وَفَسَادٌ

Et [rappelez-vous, ô Musulmans, que] ceux qui n’ont pas cru (c’est-à-dire les forces hostiles à l’Islam) sont alliés les uns des autres. Si vous n’agissez pas ainsi [c’est-à-dire vous allier avec des forces bien disposées a votre égard], il y aura discorde sur terre et grand désordre.
 (Coran, chapitre 8, verset 73)

Retrouvez le Sheikh Imran Hosein chez Kontre Kulture :

Les deux derniers livres d’Alain Soral sont disponibles chez Kontre Kulture :

Retrouvez également Alexandre Douguine chez Kontre Kulture :

Dans la même rubrique (678)
  • ► Un œil sur le "hollandisme révolutionnaire" 23 octobre
  • ► Devenir autonome en tomates avec Égalité & Réconciliation : à vie et gratuitement ! 26 février
  • ► Introduction à l’économie moderne 24 juillet
  • ► Procès Zéon : le compte-rendu 22 septembre
  • ► Un oeil sur le "hollandisme révolutionnaire" 17 janvier
  • ► Entretien avec Bruno Gollnisch sur la Syrie 4 septembre 
  • Sects Condemned By God

    I seek refuge in God from Satan the rejected.
    In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

    In Quran we are commanded not to divide ourselves into sects. Thus dividing our religion into sects is against God's command. Those who divide into sects are termed as idol worshippers, and not members of God's religion.
    [6:159] Those who divide themselves into sects do not belong with you. Their judgment rests with GOD, then He will inform them of everything they had done.
    [30:31] You shall submit to Him, reverence Him, observe the Contact Prayers (Salat), and - whatever you do - do not ever fall into idol worship.
    [30:32] (Do not fall in idol worship,) like those who divide their religion into sects; each party rejoicing with what they have.
    [42:14] Ironically, they broke up into sects only after the knowledge had come to them, due to jealousy and resentment among themselves. If it were not for a predetermined decision from your Lord to respite them for a definite interim, they would have been judged immediately. Indeed, the later generations who inherited the scripture are full of doubts.
    We learn from above that dividing religion into sects is akin to falling into idol worship, an unforgivable sin (if maintained to death). It doesn't matter what a person calls his or her sect, it is not authorized by God. God condemns all sects.

    So Who Are We?

    We are Submitters (Muslims in Arabic) to God alone. We follow God's words in His Final Testament to us, Quran and accept all of God's scriptures. We believe that Quran is perfect and fully detailed as God says, and that we should not follow any other sources besides it. We also believe that God alone is worthy of worship, and that we have to abandon all kinds of idols.
    [41:33] Who can utter better words than one who invites to GOD, works righteousness, and says, "I am one of the submitters"?

    Do We Need Sects?

    What we need to ask ourselves is why there are several religions and sects to begin with? What sets them apart? If all worshipped God alone, and uphold God's words, wouldn't they all be united and not differ at all? What sets these different sects apart is mainly their the human factors, and the upholding of various sources besides God's words. For example – traditional muslims uphold a multitude of Hadith and Sunna besides the Quran. In addition to that, some follow writings of various scholars and religious leaders, that go against God's words, without any kind of proof from God.

    Was Abraham or Muhammad the member of a sect?

    Again, if we stop to think about Abraham, Moses, Jesus or Muhammad, we realize they were never a member of any sect. They were simply submitters, devoted to God Alone. These sects were formed much after these prophets of God had departed, and are in direct contradiction with God's teachings mentioned above.
    Thus, a person who abides by the Quran says "I am a Submitter (Muslim)", not "I am Shia", nor "I am Sunni", or anything else (2:128, 132, 133, 136; 3:52, 64, 67, 84, 102; 5:111; 41:33; 46:15, and more.) People who do so, also forget that Abraham was the original messenger of Submission (Islam), and not Muhammad. If we follow the religion of Abraham, as God commands us to do (3:95), we will call ourselves what Abraham called himself, i.e. a submitter.

    Abraham Delivered All the Practices of Submission (Islam)

    [2:127] As Abraham raised the foundations of the shrine, together with Ismail (they prayed): "Our Lord, accept this from us. You are the Hearer, the Omniscient.
    [2:128] "Our Lord, make us submitters to You, and from our descendants let there be a community of submitters to You. Teach us the rites of our religion, and redeem us. You are the Redeemer, Most Merciful.
    [2:129] "Our Lord, and raise among them a messenger to recite to them Your revelations, teach them the scripture and wisdom, and purify them. You are the Almighty, Most Wise."
    [2:130] Who would forsake the religion of Abraham, except one who fools his own soul? We have chosen him in this world, and in the Hereafter he will be with the righteous.
    [2:131] When his Lord said to him, "Submit," he said, "I submit to the Lord of the universe."
    [2:132] Moreover, Abraham exhorted his children to do the same, and so did Jacob: "O my children, GOD has pointed out the religion for you; do not die except as submitters."
    [2:133] Had you witnessed Jacob on his death bed; he said to his children, "What will you worship after I die?" They said, "We will worship your god; the god of your fathers Abraham, Ismail, and Isaac; the one god. To Him we are submitters."

    May God protect us from creating sects and falling into idol worship.




    The kufr of the Saudi Regime by Imam Muhammad Al Asi 12-04-2004

  2. Quand un « Chrétien » ou une « Chrétienne » (de « Jésus Christ, Prêtre (RABBIN ?), Prophète et Roi ») écrit sur un forum géré par Alain Soral, le plus grand intellectuel et le plus honnête combattant de France, l’unique Alain Soral, on ne vient pas ici avec des bobards pour nous faire perdre notre temps et préserver la division alors que la démarche d’Imran Hossein et d’Alain Soral est de nous réconcilier au nom de la justice pour tous. La solution est de rechercher des points communs et des valeurs communes, et il y en a pas mal.

    Mais, quand on ne sait rien de la Shari’a, sauf ce que les médias racistes colportent, on se la ferme !

    Quand on répète des tels mensonges (concoctés par les Judéo-Francmaçons et les fanatiques anti-Dieu et anti-moralité) que la Syrie est un pays « laïque », ou même que la France ou la Turquie sont des pays « laïques », on ne mérite même pas une réponse car on ne pourra jamais faire entendre raison à de tels promoteurs de la haine de l’autre.
    Les Écritures Saintes de l’Islam sont là, à la disposition de toutes et de tous, pour répondre à quiconque recherche vraiment la vérité en toute sincérité.

    Promouvoir un Dieu en « trois personnes » n’est surement pas le point commun que nous recherchons ! D’ailleurs, des Chrétiens ont trouvé que le verset des la « Bible » concernant cette fameuse trinité fut rajouté aux textes sacrés, et ils l’ont enlevé dans leurs traductions modernes du Nouveau Testament.

    Alors, trouvez autre chose, mon bonhomme ou ma bonne dame, et surtout trouvez-vous un nom de baptême, et non un faux nom asexué qui nous interdit de vous adresser selon les règles de la courtoisie d’usage!

    Basheer A. Frémaux-Soormally
    Ce mercredi 27 novembre 2013

    Le 26 novembre à 10:45 par esperanza
    Message du Sheikh Imran Hosein à ses étudiants français

    J’ai posé la question hier , mais mon message n’est pas passé :

    Quelle est la position de Cheik Imran Hossein au sujet de la Syrie ? Il me semblait qu’il dénonçait l’agression extérieure contre cet Etat pourtant laïque, de la part de milices qui veulent pourtant instituer la sharia ?

    Et , autre question : je comprends en effet qu’ il est favorable à l’instauration de la sharia , c’est bien ça ? Il me semble l’avoir entendu dire, avec une nuance : la sharia ne s’applquerait qu’aux musulmans (c’est gentil).

    Merci par avance à tous ceux qui suivent de près son enseignement de leurs réponses.

    Quant à l’appel à l’abstention aux élections pour les musulmans, je ne vois pas en quoi le fait de voter pour un parti (quel qui’il soit) considéré comme "moins pire" que les autres est une forme quelconque d’ "associationnisme"... .. Je trouve ça dommage pour les musulmans mais à titre personnel je préfère qu’ils s’abstiennent plutôt que de voter UMPS... : )

    En revanche, nous tous les chrétiens, sommes bel bien des associationnistes et devons le revendiquer sans peur : un seul Dieu, trois Personnes ! Nous sommes donc bien bien pires que les Juifs, et nous en sommes fiers ! : ). Nous sommes prêts à supporter les anathèmes et le mépris de ceux qui du haut de leurs pauvres certitudes nous voient brûler en enfer, pour l’Amour de Jésus Christ, Prêtre, Prophète et Roi, Viae, Veritatis, Vitae !

    Répondre à ce message