THE SHAPE OF THE ISLAMIC RULING SYSTEM IS NOT IMPERIAL The Imperial system of government is completely inconsistent with the Islamic one. The regions ruled by Islam - although composed of various races and linked to one central place - are not ruled by an Imperial system but by a system contradictory to the Imperial system. The Imperial system does not treat races equally in the various regions of the empire, rather gives privileges, in the ruling, finance and economy to the centre of the empire. The Islamic way of ruling is to establish equality between the subjects in all the regions of the State. Islam grants non-muslims who hold citizenship, the full rights and duties that Muslims have. They enjoy the same fairness as Muslims and are subject to the same accountability as them. Furthermore, every single citizen, regardless of his or her creed, enjoys rights that even a Muslim living abroad who holds no citizenship does not enjoy. With this equality, the Islamic system differs completely from the Imperial one. It does not make the regions under its rule into colonies, areas of exploitation, nor a source of wealth funneled back into the central region for it’s own benefit, no matter how far apart they were, and no matter how different their races were. It considers every single region as an indivisible part of the State and its citizens enjoy the same rights as those in the central region. It also makes the ruling authority, its system and its legislation the same in all the regions.

THE SHAPE OF THE ISLAMIC RULING SYSTEM IS NOT REPUBLICAN The shape of the Islamic ruling system is not republican. The republican system is based on democracy, where sovereignty is given to the people. Thus, the people have the right of ruling and legislation, and they reserve the right to appoint the ruler and remove him. They reserve the right to lay down a constitution and enact laws and to abolish, alter or modify both the constitution and the laws. In contrast, the Islamic ruling system is based on the Islamic ‘aqeedah and on the Shari’ah laws. The sovereignty is to the Shar’a of Allah . and not to the Ummah. So the Ummah has no right to legislate nor does the Khaleefah. The sole legislator is Allah ., and the Khaleefah has the right only to adopt rulings for the constitution and cannons that are derived from the Book of Allah . and the Sunnah of His Messenger .. Also the Ummah has no right to remove the Khaleefah; what removes him is the Shar’a. However, the Ummah has the right to appoint him, for Islam gave the authority and power to her, so she has been given the authority and power to select and give the Bay’ah to whomever she wishes. In the Presidential form of the Republican system, the president of the republic holds the mandatory powers of the head of state. He does not have in his cabinet a prime minister, but secretaries of state, as in the United States. In the parliamentary form, the president has a prime minister, and the mandatory ruling powers are in the hands of the ministerial cabinet not the president of the republic, as in Germany. In the Khilafah system there are no ministers, nor a council of ministers working with the Khaleefah, as is the case in the democratic system, where ministers have special portfolios and mandatory powers of their own. Instead the Khaleefah has Mu’awinoon whom he appoints to assist him in assuming the functions of the Khilafah and discharging its duties. They are delegated and executive assistants. The Khaleefah heads them in his capacity as the head of state and not a prime minister, nor as a head of an executive body. The Khaleefah has no council of ministers working with him, since he has all the mandatory powers and the assistants merely help him in executing his mandatory powers. Besides, in both types of the republican system, the presidential and parliamentary, the president is accountable to his people and their representatives. The people and their representatives have the right to remove him since the sovereignty in the republican system belongs to the people. This is contrary to the Imarah of the believers. The Ameer of the believers is responsible before the Ummah and her representatives and is accountable to the Ummah and her representatives. Nonetheless the Ummah and her representatives have no right to remove him. He can only be removed if he violates the Shar’a in a way that his removal becomes obligatory, the Court of Unjust Acts alone is the one that decides this. In the republican system, whether it is presidential or parliamentary, the term of the presidency is fixed and cannot be exceeded. Whereas, the Khilafah system does not determine the Khaleefah’s term of office. This is rather determined by his implementation of Shar’a. So long as the Khaleefah is implementing the rules of Islam, that are derived from the Book of Allah, and the Sunnah of His Messenger, he remains a Khaleefah, regardless of how long his Khilafah term lasts. If the Khaleefah violated the Shar’a, and deviated from implementing the rules of Islam, his term in office would be terminated even if it were one month or one day; and he must in this instance be removed immediately. We conclude, therefore, that there is a great difference between the Khilafah system and the republican system and between the Khaleefah and the president of a republic. It is, therefore, absolutely forbidden to claim that the Islamic system is a republican system, or to use the term ‘Islamic Republic’, for there exists a great contradiction between the foundations upon which the two systems are founded, in addition to the difference between them in there shape and details.

THE SHAPE OF THE ISLAMIC RULING SYSTEM IS NOT MONARCHICAL The shape of the Islamic ruling system is not monarchical. It neither approves of the monarchical shape of government nor does it resemble it. The ruling in the monarchical system of government is hereditary where sons inherit the authority from their fathers the same way they inherit their legacy. Whereas in the ruling system of Islam, there is no concept of hereditary ruling, rather the ruling is held by whomever the Ummah gives her pledge (of allegiance) to, willingly and selectively. The monarchical system allows the monarch special privileges and rights exclusive to him, and places him above the law and makes him personally answerable to no one. He is made the symbol of the nation, where he owns but does not rule like the monarchs of Europe; or he owns and rules, and even becomes the source of the rules, thus running the country and the people as he wishes, like the kings of Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Jordan. The Islamic system however does not assign to the Khaleefah or the Imam any special privileges or rights, so he is treated the same as any citizen of the Ummah. He is not the symbol of the Ummah where he owns and does not rule nor is he a symbol who rules and runs the affairs of the people and country as he pleases. He is a representative of the Ummah in ruling and power, where the Ummah selects him and gives him the pledge of allegiance willingly so as to implement on her the shar’a of Allah .. He is restricted in all his actions, judgements and looking after the affairs of the Ummah and her interests by the divine rules. There is also no crown princeship in the ruling system of Islam. Islam abhors hereditary ruling and forbids that the ruling be taken by legacy. The Khaleefah only assumes the ruling when the Ummah willingly gives him the pledge of allegiance.

Everyone must have a solution they believe will solve our problems? Surely rather than comiserate with ourselves in relation to the pitiful position the Muslim ummah is in we should put forward solutions to solve this. After all Islam is a complete way of life and for this to be the case it must have a solution to our problems. It is best if we have a clear structure to our discussions so we can take the most from it, so if we can answer using the following structure: 1) Solution 2) What will it solve? 3) How do we go about making this happen? 4) Evidence to support our solution. So as to not discourage people from contributing anyone can offer on any of the above points and then we can all discuss it using the four headings. I think this would be the most constructive way of addressing the variouos issues and would allow us to have a meaningful discussion that we can all learn from and work towards a solution that will give this Ummah its Izzah back.

I apologise in regards to the issue of the khaleef being of the Quraish it is a valid opinion to hold that it is a mandatory condition as the majority of the Ulema held this view. However the opinion I follow and that of Hizb ut Tahrir is that its is a recommended condition (evidence for which I provided) and this was also an opinion of a few such as Imam Baqilani and Imam Qurtubi. I apologise if it came across that I was belittling this view rather I was advocating what I believe to be the correct opinion and the other being incorrect but a valid opinion none the less.

Im not going to agree to disagree becauase you not have given an alternative for me to disagree with, all youo have done is try to pick holes in the Hizb yet when i respond to your posts the discussion ends. the questions still stand... More importantly i would like you to express the method you follow and if it is that strong then it will be clear for all (myself included) to follow.

By the way, i thought we were going to get a detailed response. Im still waiting for your refutation of the haidth of the Prophet (saw) that stated obey even if an Abyssinian was appointed over you. This was to counter your argument that the Khaleef must be of the Quraish. What is your method to establish the state give me a stage by stage evidence by evidence. Forget Hizb ut Tahrir lets here your method for revival. You will notice one thing with the Hizb that it beleives its method to be correct and works towards it without being diverted by the slander thrown at it. It does not make a point of coming in attacking others rather it makes it clear its views and lets people make their decision. So if you beleive your view is strong enough promote it rather than attack another. Lets hear it?

you ask me to recant, recant what? Hizb ut Tahrir was founded by a Mujtahid Imam who looked at the problems of the Muslims and upon deeply scrutinising the reality came to the root problem which was the absence of Islam as a state. Upon understanding this reality the Imam looked in the definate sources of Usul, namely the Quran, Sunnah, Ijma Sahaba and Qiyas to derive the method for reestablishing this state and not only this resuming the Islamic way of life. His books are now widely available and cover this whole issue, so the Imam derived a book on the: - Economic System, to explain how the economic system should be implemented. - Social System, to explain the way the relationship between men and women is controlled. - Ruling System, to explain the structure and form the state would take. - Islamic State, articulating the method the Prophet (saw) used to establish the state. etc... Since the Imam past away the Hizb that he established has carried on with this noble aim and has built on his work with the likes of the Funds in the Khilafah state etc... Salafi online, I have had a simple question for you from the start and that was how do you expect to get Khilafah and your response has been that it will appear. This contradicts the reality and is not how the Prophet (saw) established the state. This obligation of working for khilafah requires a Mujtahid to derive the method to establish it. A parody being that it is not for me to look at the Quran, Sunnah, Ijma Sahaba, Qiyas and derive a method for prayer becuase i am not qualified hence i follow someone who is qualified and has done this. Hence a question for you whos opinion do you follow on the method to Establish the state. Where are the books and the evidences to support this. I follow the opinion used by Hizb ut Tahrir, there books and evidences are widely available.

I think Islam is missing from this debate. Especially since we are talking about Ideologies. Lets look at the successes of these ideologies when they were implemented. - Islam gave the world the greatest civilisation - Capitalism gave the world colonialism and exploitation, servitude. - Socialism proved to be a failiure and denied the existence of the Creator.

Simple but yet clearly ignored: Islam is a complete way of life, therefore it must have a solution for all our problems. So we have a problem, a solution is put forward: Political Parties, what does is Islam have to say on this? When people put forward these solutions have they refered to the Quran and Sunnah for the Hukm of Allah on this issue. What does Islam say on political parties? What basis must these parties be of? What must these parties call for? Simple yet obvious questions that must be answered that Islam does answer but was Islam considered prior to putting forward these parties. Ive thrown these questions out so people can ponder on them and maybe we can discuss what Islam has to say on these.

Career Politicians Politics means the taking care of the affairs of the society internally and externally and it is performed by the State and also the elements in the society. This definition of politics exists amongst all people and systems, for it simply describes the reality of politics as a term and not the detailed manner of how it is undertaken, which is specific to the various political systems. Being a politician also has a universal meaning i.e. the one who undertakes politics. However, the art of being a politician has a practical manifestation in western inspired political systems and culture that is alien to both the concept of politics, being a politician and what is found in Islam. In the west, overwhelmingly, politicians are career people where their position adds credibility and weight to their cv (curriculum vitae) and allows them access to financial stability and wealth generation opportunities. So politicians struggle for election and re-election to retain and secure their privileges, but when it comes to practical actions concerning the affairs of their people - they always fall well short, and all one hears is lip service. The famous western philosopher Machiavelli in his book, 'The Prince' put it simply that politics is the art of manipulation and deceit. How often is it heard of the lavish life styles that rulers, politicians and their families enjoy and the close connections and positions they gain in industry and large multinational corporations. In the US, members of the Bush administration (like all previous administrations) are good examples of this: Vice President, Dick Cheney (Halliburton) Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld (Pharmacia, Motorola and Sears) National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice (Chevron, Charles Swabb and TransAmerica) Secretary of State, Colin Powell (AOL, Gulfstream Aerospace) Attorney General, John Ashcroft (AT&T, Microsoft, Enterprise rent-a-car) Energy Secretary, Spencer Abraham (GM, Ford, Lear Corporation) All this is together with the backdrop of the oil interests that the Bush family has. These connections are common features for western politicians around the world and unfortunately it is no different in the Muslim world. Leaders and politicians in the Muslim world, with their children and/or extended families, control and are responsible over vast industries and wealth in addition to their close connections with foreign multinational companies. While their people languish in poverty, the politicians hoard the wealth that belongs to their people and spend it on lavish lifestyles and security for themselves and their families. The wealth excess, hoarding and business connections of the rulers and the ministers of their governments are well known and need no exposition. Muhammad (saw) said, “Any person Allah has placed in (a position) to foster the peoples affairs and he does not give them his advice he will not even smell the scent of Jannah.†And he (saw) said, “Anyone who took charge of any Muslims and he died while he was deceiving them Allah will prevent him from entering Jannah.†In Islam, politicians are not career people. Their positions may give them status, but the status they seek is neither material gain nor the praise of the people. Neither does it secure them wealth generation opportunities in the future. Rather it makes them humble and they feel the weight of the burden to look after the affairs of the people that appointed them. The best example for this is Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wassallam). Also one can glean from the lives of the Khulafaa. In one incident, when Ali (ra) came to Khaleefah Umar (ra) in the evening to ask about the affairs of the ummah, Umar replied. Then when Ali asked Umar about his personal situation, Umar blew out the candle and spoke to him in the dark. Ali slightly perturbed asked Umar why he blew the candle out. Umar replied that the light of the candle was from the wealth of the ummah. Therefore when Ali asked Umar about the ummah, the candle was on. But when Ali asked about Umar, this had no connection to the affairs of the ummah, so Umar blew out the candle and spoke to him in the dark. Also there is the well known saying of Umar (ra), “If an animal, in the land of Iraq, trips, I would be afraid that Allah would account me, for not fixing the road for it.†Clearly the politics of the Muslims and the Muslim world is not run by true politicians. Aside from the illegitimate monarchies and dictatorships, the governments in the Muslim world are run by career people pretending that they are engaging in the task of politics. Like clowns they perform in response to the circus master e.g. US and local/foreign corporate interests. They ignore their responsibility to their people. And while these clowns perform their circus act to the delight of their masters, the situation of the Muslims remains insecure and in absence of the Islamic authority. Such politicians fit the description from the saying of Muhammad (saw), “Deceiving years will come where the people would believe the liar and not believe the trustworthy, and the traitor would be trusted and the honest would be distrusted. In those years, the Ruwaybidah will speak.†He was asked, “And what is Ruwaybidah?†He (saw) replied, “The shallow man who speaks about the public affairs.â€

The only ruling concept in Islam is Khilafah anything other than this is not valid and kufr. Hence when Allah (swt) says in the Quran Oh you who believe obey .... and those in authority from amongst you. This authority is the Khilafah, Allah (swt) does not oblige obeying the rulers that rule with Kufr (as we have today). I bring clear proof from the Quran and Sunnah as to what i state on this forum, in this particular case of the Khaleef being of the Quraish - the hadith states obey even if an Abyssinian is appointed over you. I explained the evidences you bought forward and explained in a detailed manner. In your comment of difference between Khilafah and ruling then what is your evidence beucase we are only obliged to obey Islam not illegitimate rulers and the Prophet (saw) never commanded this. I have bought the evidence for my point of view and you have not once returned this courtesy. I ask again how do you propose the Khilafah will appear when Islam obliges us to do the neccesary actions for it. I have tried my best to debate as best as i can yet every time I bring the necessary evidences you decide to stop discussing. Lets be honest brother, you class Hizb ut Tahrir as deviant, hence do you even class me as Muslim and because I adhere to the methodology that they (Hizb ut Tahrir) have derived from the Quran and Sunnah to revive this Ummah. Hence you should refer to me as such rather than be insincere and hide behind empty words such as Brother. I think it best if you make your position clear as then we know what basis any future (if any) discussion will have.

At the time of the Prophet (saw) there was the corrupt civilisation of the Quraish - this was changed through: Culturing of the Sahaba with Islam - to enable to challenge the corrupt civilisation. Challenging the thoughts and values in society with Islam - to create a public opinion for the new civilisation. Assume the authority and implement this new civilisation (Islam) by seeking the authority from those of influence. This was achieved and today the same method is to be followed to bring a renewed change and bring back Islam as the correct civilisation. If you would like more information then i am pleased to provide.

Salafi_online: In order for a matter to be a condition of contract, its daleel (evidence) should include a decisive demand that indicates of its obligation. So if the evidence does not include a decisive demand, then the condition is one of preference and not of contracting. No evidence including a decisive demand was reported other than these seven conditions, so they are alone the conditions of contract. Other conditions included in sound evidences are conditions of preference only. It is not a contracting condition to the Khilafah that the Khaleefah must be of Quraish. As for what was reported from Mu‘awiya was he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying: “This matter is in Quraish. None will dispute with them while they establish the deen except that Allah will drag him on his face†(Al-Bukhari). It was also narrated from ibn ‘Umar that he said: The Prophet (saw) said: “This matter will remain in Quraish as long as there are even two of them existing.†These ahadith and others, which were soundly ascribed to the Prophet (saw) about making the Khilafah to Quraish, came in an informative form, and not a single one of them came in the command form. The informative form, although it indicates a request, is not considered a decisive request unless it was associated with a connotation which indicates the confirmation; and these informative forms were not associated with any connotation which indicates confirmation in any sound narration. So these ahadith indicate that this matter is a recommendation and not an obligation, thus it is a condition of preference not a contracting condition. As for his saying in the hadith “None will dispute with them except that Allah will drag him on his face†this is another meaning that prohibits their enmity and not a confirmation to his saying “this matter is in the Quraish.†The hadith states that the matter is in the Quraish, and that their enmity is prohibited. Moreover, the word “Quraish†is a name and not an adjective, and in the terminology of usul (principles of fiqh) it is called a title (laqb). The meaning of the name i.e. the meaning of the title is not acted on at all, because the name i.e. the title carries no perception. Therefore the statement about Quraish does not mean that it cannot be in other than Quraish. So the saying of the Prophet (saw) “this matter is in Quraish†and “this matter will remain in Quraish†does not mean that it is illegal for the Khaleefah to be from other than Quraish. Nor that the leadership remains in Quraish means that it invalid for it to be in other than them. Rather it is in them and it is valid to be in other than them. Thus the statement about them does not prevent the Khilafah to be in other than them. Accordingly, this is a condition of preference and not a condition of contract. Additionally, the Messenger of Allah (saw) did appoint as leaders ‘Abdullah bin Ruwaha, Zaid bin Haritha, and Usama bin Zaid, and all of them were not from Quraish. Thus the Messenger gave leadership to people other than Quraish. The word “this matter†means the authority i.e. the ruling and it is not restricted to the Khilafah alone. We can conclude therefore that since the Messenger (saw) appointed other than Quraish in the ruling then this is an evidence that ruling is not restricted to them and not prevented from people other than them. So these ahadith stated some of the people who are eligible for the Khilafah to indicate their preference, not to restrict the Khilafah to them and to prevent its contracting to people other than them. Also, Al-Bukhari narrated that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Listen and obey even if an Ethiopian slave whose head is like a raisn was appointed over you.†Muslim also narrated from Abu Dharr who said: “My beloved (SAW) advised me to hear and obey even if he were a slave whose limbs are mutilatedâ€. Another narration says: “Even if a mutilated black slave led you by the Book of Allah was appointed over you, listen to him and obey.†These ahadith are explicit texts in allowing a black slave to take charge of leadership of the Muslims. This indicates explicitly that the Khilafah or leadership (wilayah al-amr) is permitted to be held by people who are not from Quraysh, rather not even Arabs. So the ahadith have stated upon the preference of some of those who are of the people of the Khilafah, not the restriction of the Khilafah to them nor the invalidity of contracting it to other than them. The topic I would like to discuss is how you intend to get the Khilafah, How do you get it automatically, did the prophet (saw) automatically get the state in madinah or as he (saw) did the neccessary actions to achieve this i.e. go to many tribes to get the authority. What are the neccessary steps that you are going to do. Dont tell me your going to sit at home and wait until the khilafah appears. Yes the victory is from Allah (swt) but you still have to work towards it, just as Allah (swt) provides the Rizk we also work for it. Can you please clarify, with the neccesarry evidences this point. I have shown that the Prophet (saw) went to all these tribes to seek the authority and that is the work Hizb ut Tahrir undertakes, please explain yours….

Failure of a civilisation The American system, with its claim of upholding all 'civilized' values, its people being 'free' and 'liberated', is unable to stay the hands of brute-force its own leaders sponsor around the world. This impoverished society, despite the highest standards of democracy, freedom, liberalism and education, is unable to flush out hegemonic, fascist elements at the helm of policy-making. This is the failure of a civilization. Memoona Sajjad It makes more sense than the child knew it did. For, in this simple statement lies the link between accepting the biological theory and incorporating the amorality inherent in it; into the social structure_ just what the West has done by unquestioningly accepting the theory of evolution as the authentic explanation of 'how it all began'. School textbooks present it as the Gospel Truth, and children are fed on it. However, when one looks at the many scientific grounds on which the theory has been rejected and criticized as flawed, and the many questions it leaves unanswered; one wonders why a theory that leaves so much to be desired has gained so much ground. On yet another level, the theory has innumerable psychological, spiritual and emotional implications at which the human sensibility revolts. The child who spontaneously reacted against the idea was only being his purely human self. Believing man to have the same inclinations as animals, and human society subjected to the same natural laws as the rest of the animals; seeing him as a part of the natural tussle for survival as just another creature in the jungle, naturally implies that he is devoid of the unearthly notions of morality. For, the human jungle operates on the idea of 'survival of the fittest.' Operating in the jungle and abiding by its jungle-laws, man has to outgrow outmoded versions of morality held by the traditionalists, that hamper the fulfillment of his survival instinct or make him lesser able to fight the battle. Whatever makes man 'fitter' to survive the rigours of the cutthroat, utilitarian jungle, becomes the 'right.' That is all there is of morality, which evolves socially, and hence is a relative concept. The process of evolution, central to any social progress, is the result of a severe struggle for survival amidst the 'sub-species' (as Darwin referred to the various human races) of humanity. The one emerging stronger will secure its survival by exterminating the weaker. Thus would mankind be 'cleansed' and improve qualitatively. This progress or improvement of the species was the 'noble end' Darwin preached, saying, "All do good who work towards that end." Placing the argument socially, it translates itself into the Utilitarian doctrine of 'the good is that which is useful', which is the ruling maxim in capitalistic societies. Within this lies a clear, outright rejection of morality as universal and invariable. It also negates the fact that morality has to be the basis for building social institutions, shaping economy and managing politics. Secularism and its accompanying ideologies take root from this rejection of absolute morality. Secularism rejects innate values and religion as a basis for legislation. The criterion for such legislation becomes 'utility' and 'interest.' These two terms are mutable and constantly evolving, just as the species struggling in the jungle. When these become the criterion, 'good' and 'bad', 'right' and wrong' become shifting, fragile, mutable. What is useful for you, your society or the state today might not be so tomorrow. Thus 'war is peace' and 'ignorance is strength' whenever '1984' recurs. Osama bin Laden suddenly turns from ally and hero to foe and terrorist in a changed global context. And Saddam Hussein from America's blue-eyed boy to archenemy and a barbaric tyrant. Nothing holds_ but, 'what we say, goes', as the American President so honestly observed. Morally unjustifiable, warfare a necessity for making the Superpower 'stronger, safer, and better'; in order to be the fittest one around in the forest. The influence of Freudian thought also comes into play here. Freud saw all human misery to be springing from unsatisfied 'id' desires, and thus laid down the satisfaction of these urges as the basic right of the individual. From the wearing out of the ancient Biblical commandments came, "thou shalt not suppress thy instincts", and "satisfy thy urge." Darwinism's fist having shattered the moral bulwark, this psychological theory quickly gained root, speeding the White man's descent into the jungle of a permissive culture. Hence 'individual freedom' and 'liberty', which seldom means more than the freedom to indulge, become sacrosanct, inviolable values. The place earlier accorded to humanistic traditional moral values is given to these, and whatever violates the code of individual freedom is shocking, inexcusable crime. This becomes all they have of morality, in fact the criterion for a new false, selfish morality. Love, earlier seen as sacrifice, sharing and giving, comes to be selfishly seen as the satisfaction of a human need. All such human values are coloured in the gaudy paint of selfishness. The cult of The Self assumes worship. Hence comes about a massive shift in individual and social psyche. With each individual caught up in battle with fellow-beings to secure the 'fitness' to survive, unabashedly perusing narrow personal interest to be able to win the struggle; seeking satisfaction of the 'instinct-as-superego'; a culture of narcissism, self-preoccupation and self-obsession is created. Christopher Lasch, writing about American society and culture, observes: "People have retreated to purely personal preoccupations. Having no hope of improving their lives in any of the ways that matter, people have convinced themselves that what matters is physical and psychic self-improvement: eating health food, taking lessons in ballet or belly-dancing, immersing themselves in Yoga meditation, jogging etc. Harmless in themselves, these pursuits, elevated to a program and wrapped up in the rhetoric of authenticity and awareness, signify a retreat from the big things in life… to live for the moment is the prevailing passion_ to live for yourself. 'Survival' has become the catchword, and 'collective narcissism' the dominant disposition. The society makes sense only of living for the moment, to fix our eyes on our own private performance, to become connoisseurs of our own decadence, to cultivate self-attention. The world-view emerging among us centres solely on the self and has individual survival as its sole good." Survival and personal well being thus become the two ideals to crave for. The society thus acquires a new orientation altogether_ the culture of narcissism. The individual becomes caged within his minimal self, with his outlook on life severely restricted. The culture develops to suit the needs of the new narcissist individual. It creates a lifestyle of personal ease and comfort to help the narcissist stay in his blissful prison. Thus we have consumerism becoming literally a philosophy of life_ Mc Donalds and Coca Cola, yoga, planned diets, electronic gadgets, frivolous entertainment channels flashing on the telly_ all there to answer the narcissist's personal needs and create an unreal, self-satisfying lifestyle for him. Electronics brands begin to claim that having all these can make 'Life Good', a cola drink becomes a proud identity of a 'new generation' of trivial narcissists, and Cartoon Network is there to help you 'Get Unreal' as you shrivel into the minimal self. The consumerist culture feeds the narcissist and keeps him slumbering in his blissful artificial, air-conditioned and centrally heated paradise. The corporate business interests at the top, dictating American policy sustain the consumerist culture, because such a lifestyle generates capital for the multinational giants. Yet as the self shrivels up, so do the traditional universal human values. Universal humanism shrivels into jingoistic Americanism. With traditional morality absent, all your innate moral energy is held subject to the nationalistic ideal, which is pumped into your veins through typical White-House rhetoric. You feed yourself on the myths of 'The Great American Nation', and you become a believer in a cruel morality of jingoism. A perfect illustration of how this mindset operates is in those stories of violent, inhuman prison-abuse by U.S soldiers at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, as if the inmates were some vile, despicable, lower-order beasts, that you kill under your heavy boots. This is the absolute subversion of morality by narrow nationalism, humanity by blind Americanism. And it is not an aberration; it is a malaise spread deep into the very roots of Western civilization. Such things happen because the minimal individual, whose world is its narcissist paradise, cannot create a link based on its discarded human values with that part of humanity that does not share its particular limited set of values. The narcissist, whose vision is severely limited to the mirror-image before itself, is appalled at the lack of these values of individual freedom and personal liberty in societies that still uphold the traditional universal code of conduct and curtail the individual's freedom within limits dictated by that code. Thus the American system, with its claim of upholding all 'civilized' values, its people being 'free' and 'liberated', is unable to stay the hands of brute-force its own leaders sponsor around the world. This impoverished society, despite the highest standards of democracy, freedom, liberalism and education, is unable to flush out hegemonic, fascist elements at the helm of policy-making. This is the failure of a civilization. Western civilization spirals towards the prehistoric jungle where beasts, for eking out more space for ensured survival, and for making their kind 'stronger, safer, better,' tear up each other; when primitive apes fought bloody duels for tribal hegemony, food or space. The instincts firing the sophisticated 'civilized' warfare of today and the primitive tribal duels of millions of years ago are the same. It is a descent into animalism. When a civilization, preoccupied with sustaining the culture of narcissism is unable to see its descent let alone stop it, it is a failed civilization. When all you have of 'civilization' is trapped within brand labels and sophisticated technology, in highbrow rhetoric justifying unjustifiable warfare, yours is a failed civilization. http://www.weeklyindependent.com/opinion4.htm

The IMF and WB and WTO are all use by the West to achieve their aims of making sure the Muslim world is subjugated. Unfortunately are leaders are intellectualy challenged or blatantly complicit in this. An example is one of the main policies that are encouraged by these instituions is privatisation of public utilitites (which is clearly haram in Islam). This policy of privatisation has resulted in huge problems in the Western world (look at the transport infrastructure) yet it is forced on the Muslim world.

(1) believe i gave u a hadith, scroll up, that the Khalifah must be Quraysh What is the indication to make this an obligation, why cannot it not be a mandoub? (2) u use the seerah to justify ur actions, the king/ruler of madinah was kafir, thus a bla'ah can not be given to a kafir They will be stopping the implementation of Islam, the principles will extend out by greater reason to Muslims. (3) i told u this already, we purify the people and the khalifah will come automatically/why because thats part of the decree of Allah/ do u deny the Qadar of Allah? when the people change their heart Allah changes their conditions for them/ again brother Seeker, when the people purify their souls, Allah changes their conditions form them/ so if its a khalifah is what they seek, then Allah will establish it when the people are ready, i thought we cover this already! How do you get it automaitcally, did the prophet (saw) automatically get the state in madinah or as he (saw) did the neccessary actions to achieve this i.e. go to many tribes to get the authority. What are the neccessary steps that you are going to do. Dont tell me your going to sit at home and wait until the khilafah appears.

Salafi_online: 1) What Qarain (indication) in the text do you bring forward that being Quraish must (Fard) be a condition of a Khaleef? 2) Im sorry I may have not made myself clear, the Khaleef will have been given the bayah (of the people in authority) and then they will remove whoever is the established authority (coup). This is what happened at the time of the Prophet (saw) the ansaar gave the pledge and then prevented the King of Madinah being apointed and the Prophet (saw) entered Madinah to become its ruler. Maybe i miss the obvious but how do the evidences you bring defy this method? 3) I would prefer if we would ask one question at a time, then we can discuss and then move on, other wise it gets complicated. 4) I have asked this question of you a number of times and have yet to have it addressed, how do you propose that you will establish the authority i.e. get the Khilafah (after you have perfected the people). Ive stated seeking the support of those of influence, what is yours?

Maakhir, nationalism is haram.

I apologise for the delay in responding, my time at the moment is very restricted so have not had the opportunity I would have liked to respond however as a number of questions have been raised by a number of people I will inshallah attempt to address them – I try to keep my posts as short as possible – however if a specific point needs clarifying you can ask but can you make it specific as possible so it saves me from ranting on and missing the question. What is classed as Khilafah A condition for a state being classed as Khilafah is that it rules by the Quran and Sunnah in every aspect, this means that the Penal, Social, Foreign, Education, Economic, Creedal, aspects are from Islam. So as an example Iraqs new constitution states that Islam is one of its sources of law so straight away it is clear that it also takes rules from other than Islam so cannot be. Pakistan states in its constitution that Quran and Sunnah are the law, yet we see the penal system neglected, the secular creed adopted (see Qadi Azams inaugral speech). This you can see throughout the Muslim world and no one claims to be khaleef anyway. So how will you recognise the new Khaleef, the Khaleef announce himself as such and will publish immediately the laws of Islam (mere announcement is not enough, needs to show what is going to be implemented) and in the case of Hizb ut Tahrir they have a constituion ready to be adopted (see the book Nidham al Islam for the 180 point contitution, available at www.1924.org). As well as the social, penal, economic, etc… (some of these are available in english others are in arabic only and available at www.Hizb-ut-Tahrir.org) So immedialty the laws of Islam will be implemented, however naturally the actual application of these laws will take time as the administration is bought into place – but Islam will be implemented. So with Saudi an example would be that they are working towards a democratic system, which is haram and is definitely not from Islam. No Muslim country has this and nor does it claim to do so. Who can be Khaleef Anyone can be khaleef as long as they meet these conditions (there are other recommended conditions): 1.Muslim, 2.Male, 3.Mature, 4.Sane, 5.Free, i.e. not a slave 6.Adl, 7.Capable. Structure of the State The details of the structure of the state are to show how the structure would deal with 1.6 billion muslims and beyond: a) A Khalifah or imam for all Muslims to establish the laws of Islam. b) A delegated assistant (muawin tafweed) selected by the Khalifah to be responsible for ruling and carrying out the affairs of the state. c) An executive assistant (muawin tanfeeth) to carry out the decisions made by the Khalifah for the internal and external affairs of the state. He also reports back to the Khalifah and feed back from these areas. d) Amir al Jihad to be responsible for the external affairs, the military, the national security, and the industry and The military forces i.e. the army. e) The justice department (al quadaa) to supervise the litigations on commercial (dealt by Qadi muhtaseb), civil and personal matters, (dealt by the Qadi Aam) as well as looking at the disputes regarding the people and the State Appartatus (dealt by the Makatamat al Mazalim). f) The wulats or Amils, who are governors of the various parts of the Islamic state. Hence you could give each country its own governor as was the case in the time of the prophet (saw). g) The administrative body to carry out, and manage the affairs of the ummah and the needs of the people. Based on 3 aspects, it’s simplicity, it’s effieciency, and those working having capability. h) The consultative assembly Majlis al-Ummah to give opinions on various matters, to account for the performance of the state, to nominate the individuals for the position of the Khalifah and to discuss various laws. Baashi What question was not answered on the websites, method? Theres a whole book on it, Economics, theres a whole book on it etc… – you need to say what it did not answer. As to your method, technological advancement only comes when a state adopts a creed and moves forward on that because they have a basis for existence. The West adopted their creed secularism from the struggle with the church and then using this basis advanced, the principle they used was benefit and acted accordingly. However because it was an incorrect creed they have many problems in their society. Therefore your solution is again a symptom of the absence of khilafah. The Khilafah would progress technologically because its duty is to protect and promote and would need technology to achieve this. The current rulers in the Muslim world havent a clue – why do they need to strive to develop its not as though they wish for the citizens what they wish for themselves? Even if they wanted the west has placed many obstacles in the way to prevent this e.g. World Trade Organisation, IMF and world bank etc…. Salafi_online This last point would normally done by the Party seeking to access the Military in order to take authority after establishing the public opinion for the implementation for Islam through the political struggle so that the nation sees this has her political aim and the means of her salvation. After which the military would be capable of establishing the authority of Islam. Hence a coup de tat would be the manifestation of the political change that the Islamic Political Party had inspired in the people and the practical support in order to actually carry Islam through Dawa and Jihad to the rest of the World. I would like to know your process of getting this Khilafah? All It seems that this discussion is going all over the place and none have really read the literature of Hizb ut Tahrir to make a detailed critique of it. The party goes through the clear practical aspects of the state in terms of Method, Economics, Social, Ruling etc… these are all widely available from the websites I have mentioned. What we have to establish is a basis, Islam is a complete way of life so therefore it must have a ruling system and because this ruling system would apply Islam it is an obligation to have. Having established this we do not refer to our minds as to how we will achieve this but Islam once again. So again we do not go ourselves to the text to derive a method because we are not qualified, a mujtahid goes to the text and derives the method through the process of Ijtihad. So in the case of Hizb ut Tahrir, Sheikh Taqiuddin an Nabhani looked at the Islamic evidences and derived a detailed methodology that would enable the resumption of the Islamic Way of Life. To support this he looked at many issues to the extent that even the process of thinking was explained and how this added to the decline of the muslims and a correct manner of thinking would revive the Muslims once the state establish such thought. Then we found that successive leaders of the party went into further detail such as the Funds in The Khilafah State, How the Khilafah was Destroyed, Usul ul Fiqh etc… An example being the brother who says technology is going to bring revival, did he refer to Islam for this solution or did he take it from his view of reality. Islam is has the Idea but it also has the method so lets refer to that. So all those that propose alternatives give me the ijtihad you follow, show me the books that have your method for establishing the Khilafah, lets see your consititution, lets see your economic policy etc…. What I am getting at is that fundamentally unless you the members of this forum do not look into this issue and the literature of the party with an open mind then it doesn’t matter how much I try to explain things. Read the literature, scrutinies it and then lets discuss issues that arise. End of the day we are all striving for sincerity in following the truth and unless we look into the literature of the hizb and find out for ourselves then were not going get anywhere. The websites are available to all (although at the moment the 1924 site is undergoing a revamp, but www.khilafah.com still has many of the books. One more point for every aspect the hizb discusses it has the relevant evidences to back it up as inshallah you will see from its many books.

A number of issues have been raised and i am very busy at the moment but inshallah i am working on a comprehensive response. Jazakahllah khair for your patience.

I think we maybe missing a number of points here. First of all to have a Khaleef is an obligation from Islam (that is the reason for working towards it) yes it has benefits but that is not why we work towards it. It is a hukm of Allah (swt) and we do not have a choice in it, just as prayer, zakat, obedience to parents etc... The other side of it is the Khilafah will not be a utopian society - in theory it would be - but becuase it would be applied by man on man then there will be problems, hence we have the various checks and balances from Islam to counter these. So as in the past we may have a good khaleef or bad ones but as long as they rule entirely by Islam and the authority is in the hands of the Muslims then it is Khilafah - applying these two conditions to the Muslim world it is clear that they are not khilafah and Fahd is not khaleef.

Because I am in Britain then the reality is slightly different and hence the examples I will use are different to what they would be in the Muslim lands. This does not mean that the work is different rather the topics under discussion are as you rightly state. So for example the Muslims in Britain face problems such as mortgages whereas in the Muslim lands it will be having to live in Mud huts, and the general backwardness. The underlying concept that is still being attacked in both situations is the Kufr system being implemented and it is due to this the problems occurs. So the Hizb in Britain has different issues it highlights such as Integration. Labels of extremism etc… , whereas the Hizb of Pakistan, Jordan, Uzbekistan have other issues such as the education curricular being defined by the West. The discussion on top down bottom up is neglecting the issue of what does Islam say. The Prophet (saw) established a state with a minority of Muslims (even at the battle of badr there were only 313). So what we see is the three stage method I listed. The Khaleef will not adopt on worships as people will be allowed to follow whichever of the Madhabs they follow. However on a society level whatever he adopts is obligatory to be followed in line with the Ayat of Quran, obey Allah and the messenger and those in authority from amongst you. If the ummah have differences with the khaleef they can take their issues to the Qadi Mudhallim (chief Judge) who will investigate the matter and can remove the khaleef. There are legitimate differences in Islam and this is fine and this will not cause a problem, these issues are exagereated to show that we can never be united but the Islamic history states otherwise. Even in Pakistan you have the so called “sects†all lined up together in one party the MMA. The reality of the matter is that the Khaleef will rule by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of his Messenger and will therefore provide for the People food, shelter, clothing – this is all the people want and will accept the Khaleef. A condition of seeking authority is that the people of Nusrah (who give the authority) are Muslims. Another aspect of this is that they have the capability to give this authority because in one example of a tribe that was sought for Nusrah was that it had a treaty with the persians and therfore could not provide uinconditional support so it was rejected. So in todays reality Uzbekistan could not be accepted as the state because it is not able to defend itself.

The Hizb ut Tahrir objective is to resume the Islamic Way of Life through the Establishment of the Khilafah State. The fact of the matter is that EVERY problem the Muslims face is due to the absence of a state that rules by Islam: - Poverty, capitalistic economics are in place that allow the rich to get richer and the poor poorer and allow the exploitation of poor countries, this will only be solved when the whole economic system is uprooted and replaced with the Islamic model which will collect revenue based on those that have rather than those that do not have. The economic problem of scarcity will be shown to be flawed because peoples basic needs (food, shelter, clothing) are not unlimited and resources are available to satisfy these. This economic system will not be in place until Islam is in a governing structure: Khilafah. Yes in the mean time you can give monies to charities that look to provide people but how many people are you going to clothe, feed, etc… this is the duty of a state not its citizens. So the only solution is a state. - Occupation of Land, the enemies of Islam are attacking us and our governments are not using our armies to protect us (the Muslim Ummah as a whole). Yes we can individually go and fight and maybe kill a few of the enemy and prevent a few sisters from being raped but who are we going to decide to save. The solution is a state that uses its miltary to defend its citizens and prevent all the rapes not some. Again this will only happen when we have a leader that rules by Islam and sees his duty is to protect the honour of the Muslims: Khilafah. - The Muslims do not practice Islam, Yes individually we can give dawah and get a few people to practice Islam, but wee will not change a society because its predomniate thoughts are kufr and that is what people will live their lives by. A simple example gays are tolerated in society because it has become accepted to be gay so you will not attack somebody for being gay because you know society will protect him and defend him. Likewise when you go to a job interview you where a suit because that’s what society expects that is the norm, you don’t where some shorts and a t shirt. People live there lives accroding to what society tells them what is acceptable. Therefore Muslims do not pratice Islam because it is not normal to pray five times a day rather it is expected to sit in front of the tele. Yes you will be able to convice a few but society will never be changed this way because you will always be fighting a predominate thought which is kufr. Therfore you need to have a society that allows the predominate thought to be Islam, so every where you go Islam is visualised and at prayer times everything stops and people pray (e.g. can be seen in Saudi), people will then practice Islam because it is the norm and wont go agaist this because they will not want to be the odd one in society. Again this will only happen when you have Islam applied entirely in society: Khilafah The Examples are endless, look at a problem yourself look for its root cause, not the symptoms on the surface. Think of a problem ask yourself why it happens, you will break it down, but these are just symptoms, keep asking why does it happen and you will get to the root of the problem. You need to solve the root of the problem because tackling the symptoms will not eradicate the problem. Absence of Islam is the root problem – all other problems are symptoms of this root. E.g Muslims don’t practice Islam because they have no conviction of Islam a superficial analysis here would be we need Iman, but if we question further and look into why peole have no conviction we find that society does not promote Islam but promotes kufr so society says do whats easy why pray when you can watch a film. Whereas a socety that reminded you of Allah whereever you went and Islam was everrywehre you would have people practicing Islam. Allah (swt) says in the Quran, when Islam is establshed you will see the people flock to it – why because it surrounds you in society and is the focus in peoples lives. This is why the Hizb always says we need Khilafah – we do not look at dealing with symptoms but rather the root cause. Look at the west they are typical at attempting to colve symptoms such as teenage sex, oh it’s a lack of education, not that the fact that sex is pushed everywhere in society and people are told you are free and do what pleases you, so the fundamental problem is freedom not education. The West does not do this because it will not challenge its system. Yes the rhetoric of Khilafah can become tedious but this is the only true solutio to our problems – yes in the mean time you can help out where you can give to the poor, help the youths in your community etc… but these are not going to solve the problem. So the reason why the Hizb does not give other solution s other than the khialfha because there is none, so we work towards it and in the mean time we help out where we can but we work to the only solution – Al Khilafah. The Khilafah will be established by working with an Islamic Political party that calls for Khilafah based on the Method of the Prophet (saw). Allah (swt) says, there must arise from amongst you a group that enjoins all the good and forbids all the evil. So this group must call for all of Islam – Khilafah. The Method to achieve this is: Culture the dawah carriers with Islam in a politicla way so that they can challenge the Kufr in society – the Economucs, Social, Eduicational, ruling, punishment etc… so that they can show Islam as an alternative. Create the Public opinion for Islam and then seek the authority from those that are capable to give it – the military in the Muslim lands. Read a seerah book and you will see that this is the method that the Prophet of Allah (swt) used. - Cutlured the Sahaba in the House of Arqam - Challenged the kufr in society, cheatring in the market place, ineqaulity, burying of daughters. Created the public opinon for Islam in Madinah. - Took the authority from the ansar and establish dar al Islam. The book the Method to Re-Establish the Khilafah State gives the meat to these bones, available at www.1924.org and www.khilafah.com I understand some points may not be clear but be specific and I will try to clarify.

Islam is not a magical path, it is a practical way of life that people can apply in their every day lives. Khilafah will not magically appear - it needs a step by step path to be achieved - the authority needs to be sought (as was the case with the Prophet (saw)) all i ask is what is the Salafs method to get this authority, not how to get the people ready.