6 March 2015

New PREVENT laws will spread Islam to all corners of the UK

Posted by AK | 6 March 2015 | Category: | 0 comments


During the time of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم when he began his mission in Makkah, the leaders of Quraysh met in their assembly Dar an-Nadwa and discussed how to prevent the message of Islam which was increasing in popularity. They focused specifically on what they should tell the Arabs coming to Makkah for Hajj. After a lengthy debate, Quraysh agreed to accuse Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم of being a sorcerer possessing the Sihr al-Bayan (magic of words). They then dispersed among the congregations of pilgrims warning the Arabs against listening to Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and depicting him as a magician of speech. They said that his Message separated a man from his brother, or from his father, or from his wife, or from his family. [1] 

One time a highly respected and influential poet at-Tufail ad-Dawsiy entered Makkah. Quraish feared that At-Tufail would meet the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and convert to Islam so they prepared for him hospitality that included every kind of joy, comfort, and ease. Then they went on to warn him about meeting the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. They said to him, "He has charming speech like magic and he makes division between a man and his son, and a man and his brother, and a man and his wife. I fear for you and your people from him. So do not talk to him nor listen to any talk from him." 

At-Tufail narrates: So by Allah, they were still insisting on me not listening to anything from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and not meeting him. And when I went over to the Ka'bah, I filled my ears with cotton so as not to hear anything he had to say when he spoke. There I found him standing praying at the Ka'bah, so I stood close to him. Allah refused nothing but He made me hear some portion of what he was reading. I heard a fine speech, and I said to myself, "Oh, may I lose my mother! Indeed I am an intelligent poet. I would not fail to recognize the good from the ugly. What is it that hinders me from listening to the man and what he says? If that which he brings is good, I should accept it, and if it is bad…" 

 I stayed until Muhammad departed to his house. I followed him until he entered his house, so I entered behind him and said to him, "O Muhammad, verily your people have told me such-and-such about you. By Allah, they kept making me afraid of you until I blocked my ears with cotton in order not to hear your words. But Allah willed that I hear, so I heard a fine speech. Set forth to me your message." 

So the Messenger presented to me Islam and recited to me from the Qur'an. By Allah, I had never heard a speech better than it, nor a matter more just than it. So, I surrendered and bore witness to the truth. I said, "O Messenger of Allah, indeed I am a person of credibility among my people and I am returning to them to invite them to Islam, so call on Allah to make a sign for me that will be a help for me in that which I call them to." He said, "O Allah, make for him a sign." [2] 

Quraysh’s prevent propaganda campaign failed and in fact had the opposite effect by spreading Islam far and wide to Arab tribes at the Hajj who hadn’t heard the message before. As the saying goes, There is no such thing as bad publicity. 

 Today the leaders of Britain have had a similar debate on how to prevent Islam and in fact came up with a similar solution to Quraysh which is now enshrined in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 where nurseries, schools and universities have a legal duty to prevent students being ‘radicalised’ by Islam. What this means is PREVENT officers will be hired, trained and dispatched to educational establishments across the country to teach the kids good Islam (approved by UK Government) and bad Islam (way of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, sahaba and the saliheen). This will spread Islam far and wide to schools in areas where there are no Muslims as happened when Quraysh undertook such a campaign. Telling school children that something is ‘bad’ and not to do it many times has the opposite effect and simply makes the ‘bad’ thing more appealing. This can be seen with the government’s anti-drug campaign which the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has said “may even increase the risks of drug use”.[3] 

Something similar may occur with the ‘just say no to Islam’ prevent agenda. More people will be exposed to Islam and some will inevitably convert as happened with At-Tufail during the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. 

The government and media believe they are working against Islam in their draconian laws and hate filled articles but in fact they are contributing to the Islamic revival because the Islamic thoughts are haqq and no matter what lies and misinformation are thrown at the haqq it will ultimately succeed. 

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

 بَلْ نَقْذِفُ بِالْحَقِّ عَلَى الْبَاطِلِ فَيَدْمَغُهُ فَإِذَا هُوَ زَاهِقٌ ۚ وَلَكُمُ الْوَيْلُ مِمَّا تَصِفُونَ 

“Rather We hurl the truth against falsehood and it cuts right through it and it vanishes clean away! Woe without end for you for what you portray!”
(Al-Anbiyaa, 21:18) 

And He سبحانه وتعالى says:

 وَيَمْكُرُونَ وَيَمْكُرُ اللَّهُ ۖ وَاللَّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ 

“They were plotting and Allah was plotting, but Allah is the Best of Plotters.”
(Al-Anfaal, 8:30) 

By Abdul-Kareem

Notes 

1. Taqiudeen an-Nabhani, ‘Islamic State’ (Dowlah Islamiyya), p. 11

2. Khalid Muhammad Khalid, ‘Men Around the Messenger’, p. 474

3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11447217/Anti-drugs-lessons-are-counter-productive-Governments-drug-experts-tell-Theresa-May.html

7 January 2015

Islam’s view towards Freedom of Speech

Posted by AK | 7 January 2015 | Category: | 10 comments


This is an old article but still relevant in light of recent events in France.

Islam and Freedom of speech has become a contentious issue in recent times. The limits of what is, and what is not, acceptable speech is becoming a new battleground between Islam and the west. The issue came to a head in September 2005 a few days before Ramadan when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed insulting and blasphemous cartoons of our noble Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

The newspaper editor Flemming Rose, made the objective of printing the cartoons very clear. He said, “Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.”1

Geert Wilders, a Dutch Politician who has made a career out of his opposition to Islam has publicly called for a ban on the Holy Qu’ran, and produced a film last year called ‘Fitna’ in which he equates Islam with violence, communism and Nazism.

This month, the UN is hosting a World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) in Geneva, Switzerland. The conflict over freedom of speech raised itself again in this conference because some Muslim countries campaigned for a declaration that would equate criticism of a religious faith with a violation of human rights.2 This is seen as a way of preventing future attacks on the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Islamic ‘aqeeda. Western countries, however, objected to such a declaration because they say it would limit freedom of speech.3 After a number of western countries including the US and EU threatened to boycott the conference this clause was eventually dropped, along with clauses criticising Israeli’s inhumane treatment of the Palestinians.4

Freedom of Speech is an emotive topic in the west since it is one of their fundamental values. As Muslims we need to understand the reality of freedom of speech and the Islamic viewpoint towards it.

Origins of Freedom of Speech

Europe lived in the dark ages for hundreds of years ruled by tyrannical Kings on behalf of an oppressive Church. Book burning, inquisitions, torture and death were common place for those who dared to confront this tyranny. Scientists, thinkers and scholars were all subject to harassment and even imprisonment for their views. The famous scientist Galileo, for example, was convicted of heresy in 1633 and spent the rest of his life under house arrest for claiming that the earth moved around the sun.

After the reformation and the adoption of secularism in Western Europe and newly independent America, the shackles of the church were thrown off in public life. Fundamental to these new secular states was the adoption of freedom of the individual, ownership, expression and religion for all their citizens.

In the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,’ a fundamental document of the French revolution it states in article 11:

“The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.”
Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

The famous First Amendment to the US Constitution states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” December 15, 1791.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948 states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Therefore freedom of speech forms one of the cornerstones of the western way of life, and for them is considered a fundamental human right.

Absolute Freedom of Speech is a myth

Noam Chomsky, summed up the western concept of freedom of speech when he said: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of freedom of speech, that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”5

However, the reality is that every society including the west has limits on public speech and views they don’t like. The only difference is in who defines the limits of this speech and how restrictive these limits are. Racism, national security, holocaust denial, incitement, glorification of terrorism, racial hatred and libel among many others, are all limits imposed on freedom of speech by western nations.

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten could never have printed cartoons denying the holocaust in the name of free speech. Geert Wilders could never have produced a film likening Israeli’s treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazi treatment of the Jews, without charges of anti-Semitism being brought against him.

It’s contradictions like these, on the limits of free speech where the clash of values between Islam and the west is currently taking place.

No freedom of speech for Muslims

The controversy over this month’s UN World Conference Against Racism is a stark example of this clash. The build up to the conference and agreement on a final draft resolution has highlighted this rift over the limits on freedom of speech.

Differences initially arose over wording in the draft declaration that criticised Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Israel, Canada, Italy and America announced that they would not participate in the conference unless this wording was removed.

A spokesman for Franco Frattini, Italy's foreign minister, said the declaration, which relates to the situation in the Palestinian territories, contains "unacceptable, aggressive and anti-Semitic phrases".

The EU was also unhappy with resolutions criticising Israel and sought to remove at least five paragraphs from the draft such as the phrase that, "in order to consolidate the Israeli occupation, [Palestinians] have been subjected to unlawful collective punishment, torture.”6

The other contentious resolution that some western nations wanted dropped was, “to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols.” This was added by some Muslim countries as a means of preventing future attacks on the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Holy Qur’an which we have witnessed recently in Europe. Western countries were unhappy with this resolution because it limited their freedom of speech i.e. the freedom to attack Islam. This was dropped from the final draft and now the resolution simply states, “recognizes with deep concern the negative stereotyping of religions...”7

Therefore for the west it’s perfectly acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to account the brutal policies of another country in this instance Israel, but it’s not acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to insult and defame the character of the Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه وسلم.

There is no clearer example of this than in Geert Wilder’s campaign to ban the Holy Qur’an on the basis of freedom of speech. In fact Wilder’s was asked about this during a recent interview with the Boston Globe.

Q: An American defender of free speech would say "Mein Kampf" shouldn't be banned, the Koran shouldn't be banned; books shouldn't be banned. To publish ideas in a book, even if they're hateful ideas - the First Amendment says you have that freedom. Is that what you would like in Holland as well?
A: I would, with the exception of incitement of violence.

Q. Doesn't that contradict your defense of free speech?
A: ... I want us to have more freedom of speech. But there is one red line - incitement of violence.8

In other words, you only have freedom of speech to propagate western ideas not Islamic ideas because Islamic ideas are an “incitement to violence”.

Europe is increasingly using limits on free speech such as glorification of terrorism, incitement to racial hatred and incitement to violence as ways of clamping down on Islamic expression.

Peaceful Muslim demonstrations, Islamic political parties and Islamic literature are all in the firing line simply for expressing Islamic opinions contrary to the western way of life. Muslims expressing opinions the west doesn’t like are branded by the media as ‘preachers of hate’, militants and extremists.

Freedom of speech is a colonial tool

“You only have freedom of speech to propagate western ideas not Islamic ideas” not only holds true for Muslims living in the west but also when it comes to western colonial interests in the Muslim world.

Many Muslims are attracted to the concept of freedom of speech since they see it as a means of accounting the oppressive dictatorships they currently live under. Yet when Islamic groups speak out against their rulers and are subsequently tortured and imprisoned by their regimes western governments remain silent. In fact Britain and America openly support these ‘western friendly’ regimes.

Egypt as an example has been under a state of emergency since 1967. Thousands of members of the Islamic opposition have been tortured and imprisoned by the Egyptian regime. Current estimates are that there are 30,000 political prisoners in Egypt. However, since 1979 Egypt has been the second largest recipient of US aid in the Middle East after Israel. The west turns a blind eye to this clampdown on political expression because it suits their colonial interests.

On the 50th anniversary of the uprising against Chinese rule in Tibet there was widespread media coverage and support for the Tibetan cause in the west. Compare this to the almost non-existent coverage on China’s daily oppression of Muslims in Xinxiang. At the same time as the 50th anniversary in Tibet was taking place the Chinese were clamping down heavily on Muslims involved in what they call "illegal religious activity”. A secretary with Hotan's Communist Party Propaganda Department confirmed that some illegal religious activity has been halted and illegal books, writings, computer discs and audio tapes had been confiscated.9 The only difference between Tibet and Xinxiang is that the opposition in Xinxiang is Islamic calling for Islamic ideas rather than western ideas.

Islamic view towards Freedom of Speech

The concept of ‘freedom of speech’ is derived from the Capitalist ideology that is based on the belief that God and religion should be separated from life’s affairs (secularism). Human beings define how to live their lives free of the constraints of religion which is why freedom of individual, ownership, religion and speech are essential cornerstones of Capitalism. The right to speak and what are the limits of speech are therefore all defined by human beings.

This view completely contradicts Islam. In Islam it is the Creator of human beings Allah سبحانه وتعالى who gave the right of speech to people and defined the limits on what is acceptable and unacceptable speech.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, then let him speak good (khair) or remain silent.”10

Khair in this hadith means Islam or what Islam approves of.11

Every word a human being speaks is recorded by the two angels Kiraman Katibeen. Even the speaking of one ‘bad’ word may lead someone to the hellfire.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "The person who utters a word which meets with Allah's favour may think it has not been heard, yet for this Allah will raise him to a higher level of Paradise. Conversely, the person who utters a word that stirs Allah to anger may give no thought to what he said, only to have Allah cast him in Hell for seventy years."12

This is why the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم emphasised the importance of controlling the tongue.

Mu'az ibn Jabal narrated: I was in company with the Prophet in a travel, and one day I was close to him while we were travelling. So I said: “O Messenger of Allah, tell me of an act which will take me into Paradise and will keep me away from Hell fire…shall I not tell you of the foundation of all of that?” I said: “Yes, O Messenger of Allah,” and he took hold of his tongue and said: “Restrain this.” I said: “O Prophet of Allah, will what we say be held against us?” He said: “May your mother be bereaved of you, Mu’az ! Is there anything that topples people on their faces - or he said on their noses into Hell-fire other than the jests of their tongues?”13

There are some situations where Islam has obliged Muslims to speak out against oppression and evil (munkar).

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Whoever saw a Munkar, let him change it by his hand and if he cannot then by his tongue and if he cannot then with his heart and that is the weakest of Imaan."14

Many Muslims nowadays are attracted towards the concepts of human rights and freedom of speech due to the medieval oppression waged against them by the corrupt governments in the Muslim world.

In the majority of Muslim countries today speaking out against the munkar and oppression of the governments is made illegal by the rulers and their agents. They brutally suppress all political opposition and try to silence Muslims through torture and imprisonment. Even in the west they are also moving towards silencing Muslims who criticise foreign policy or hold what they deem ‘extreme’ political views under the guise of anti-terror policy.

Despite all these limits they are trying to impose on Muslims speaking out, the fact remains that it is Allah سبحانه وتعالى who defined what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. Therefore if He سبحانه وتعالى obliges Muslims to speak out against munkar and oppression then no government in the Muslim world or western world can take away this right.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “The master of martyrs is Hamza bin Abdul-Muttalib and a man who stood to an oppressor ruler where he ordered him and forbade him so he (the ruler) killed him.”15

Muslims who account their governments or speak out against oppression are not doing it because of freedom of speech or because the west allows them to speak. Rather they are doing it as an obligation from Islam even if it leads to death.

Rights of speech in the Khilafah

The west propagates to the Muslim world that freedom and democracy is the only way forward if they want to progress and rid themselves of their oppressive dictatorships. However, as Muslims we look to Islam and Islam alone for our political solutions. The Qur’an and Sunnah have given us all the answers we need to establish an Islamic political system that will free us of the current corrupt systems ruling over us. This is the Khilafah Ruling System.

In the Khilafah it’s the constitutional right of all citizens (men and women, Muslim and non-Muslim) to express their opinions freely without fear of arrest or imprisonment within the limits of shar’a. The main areas where this right is exercised is the Majlis ul-Ummah (Council of the Ummah), media and political parties.

Majlis ul-Ummah
This is an elected house whose members are representatives of the citizens of the Khilafah. The members of this house can be men or women, Muslim or non-Muslim. It is not a legislature like a western parliament. The main powers of this council are related to accounting the Khilafah government and its policies. The Majlis Member’s main role is to study closely the activities of the Khaleefah, government officials and civil servants working in the State’s departments and offices and holding them all accountable. This would involve giving them advice, voicing opinions and presenting suggestions, entering into debates, together with objecting to all of the wrong actions performed by the State.16

Media
Media in the Khilafah is under the jurisdiction of the Information Department (Da'irat ul I'laam). No permission is required to establish media in the state. Rather, every citizen in the Islamic State is allowed to set up any media, whether readable, audible or visible. They only need to inform the Information Department about the establishment of their particular media whether a newspaper, TV channel or Radio Station. General news can be published without permission of the state. However, sensitive information related to national security or government policy needs permission from the Information Department before publishing as is the case with any media organisation in the world.

The owner of the media is responsible for any information he publishes, and will be accounted for any violation of the shar'a like any other citizen.17

Political Parties
The right of the Khilafah’s citizens to establish political parties is established from the Holy Qur’an. No permission is required for this since Islam made the establishment of at least one political party fard al-Kifiyah (obligation of sufficiency).

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

وَلْتَكُن مِّنكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
“Let there arise from amongst you a group(s) which calls to al-Khair (Islam), enjoins al-ma’aruf (good) and forbids al-munkar (evil), and they are the successful ones.”18

This order in the Qur’an to establish a group is an order to establish political parties. This is because the verse has determined the duty of this group as the call to Islam, enjoining the Ma’aruf (good), and forbidding the Munkar (evil). The duty of enjoining Ma’aruf and forbidding Munkar is general and not restricted. It therefore includes the rulers and this implies holding them accountable. The holding of the rulers accountable is a political task performed by political parties and it is the most important task of political parties. Thus the verse indicates the obligation of establishing political parties which would call to Islam, enjoin Ma’aruf and forbid Munkar, and would hold the rulers accountable for their actions and conduct.19

At the time of the Khulufaa Rashida (rightly guided Khaleefah’s) the sahaba fulfilled this role.

In the Khilafah of Umar bin al-Khattab, some cloth from the spoils of war was distributed to the people, out of which each companion had one piece of clothing cut. One day `Umar got up to speak and said: ‘Lower your voices so that I may hear you.’ He was wearing two pieces of that cloth. Salman al-Farisi said, ‘By Allah, we will not hear you, because you prefer yourself to your people.’ ‘How is that?’ asked Umar. He said: ‘You are wearing two pieces of cloth and everyone else is wearing only one.’ Umar called out: ‘O Abdullah!’ No one answered him. He said again, ‘O Abdullah ibn Umar! Abdullah, his son called out: ‘At your service!’ Umar said, ‘I ask you by Allah, don't you say that the second piece is yours?’ Abdullah said ‘Yes.’ Salman said: ‘Now we shall hear you.’20

Thousands of sincere Muslims are today following in the footsteps of the sahaba and accounting their rulers. They are standing up to oppression and speaking out against the munkar befalling this Ummah, fearing none but Allah سبحانه وتعالى.

Conclusion

Freedom of speech is a western concept that completely contradicts Islam. In reality there is no such thing as absolute free speech. What exists is speech within predefined limits that differ between nations.

Nowadays freedom of speech is used as a colonial tool in the Muslim world to support the propagation of western ideas and to suppress Islamic ideas. Increasingly this is happening within western societies also as anti-terror policies are used to clampdown on what are deemed as ‘extreme’ opinions.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Creator and NOT human beings decides the limits on speech. We will be accountable for every word spoken on the Day of Judgement. If Allah سبحانه وتعالى has ordered us to speak in certain circumstances such as accounting the rulers and speaking out against oppression then no government in the world can take away that right no matter how hard they try.

The Khilafah implements the law of Allah سبحانه وتعالى on earth and contains a detailed system for accounting the government and speaking out against oppression. This right of speaking out is enshrined mainly within the Majlis ul-Ummah, media and through forming political parties.

As Muslims we are in no need of any other system of life except the Islamic system, and no other source of legislation except the Qur’an and Sunnah of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. Therefore when we call for accountability in the Muslim world this should not be a call for introducing freedom of speech but a call for introducing the Islamic Shariah which enshrines the right to speech among many other rights.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: "Whoever introduces into this affair of ours that which is not of it, then it is rejected." Al-Bukhari and Muslim related it, and in a narration of Muslim's there is, "Whoever does an act for which there is no command of ours then it is rejected."

References

1 Flemming Rose, 'Why I Published Those Cartoons,' Washington Post, 19 February 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html

2 Al-Jazeera English, ‘Italy attacks 'anti-Semitic' summit,’ 6 March 2009, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/03/200936143343157839.html

3 Ibid

4 Associated Press, ‘Draft for racism meeting drops Israel criticism,’ 17 March 2009, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-NABlEjaGSsDBh_qdpdNmX7V6VwD9701NMO1

5 Noam Chomsky, 'Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media,' 1992

6 Al-Jazeera English, ‘Italy attacks 'anti-Semitic' summit,’ Op.cit.

7 http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/Rolling text YB, 17-3-2009.pdf

8 Boston Globe, 'Islam and Freedom of Speech,' 8 March 2009, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/islam_and_freedom_of_speech/?page=3

9 Alexa Olesen, Associated Press Writer,'China cracks down in Muslim west,' 30 March 2009, http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=385&sid=1626138

10 Agreed upon. Narrated by Abu Hurayra.

11 Hizb ut-Tahrir, ‘American Campaign to Suppress Islam,’ p. 23

12 At-Tirmidhi

13 Reported by Ahmad and at-Tirmidhi and declared hasan by the latter. Also reported by an-Nasaa`i and Ibn Maajah.

14 Sahih Muslim. Narrated by Abu Sa'eed al Khudree.

15 Abu Dawud

16 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ translation of Nizam ul-Hukm fil Islam, Khilafah Publications, Fifth Edition, p. 261

17 Hizb ut-Tahrir, ‘Khilafah State Organisations,’ translation of Ajhizat dowlah ul-Khilafah, Dar ul-Ummah, Beirut, 2005, First Edition

18 Holy Qur’an, Chapter 3, Surah al-Imran, Verse 104

19 Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, ‘The Ruling System in Islam,’ Op.cit., p. 297

20 Ibn Qutaibah, ‘Uyun al-Akhbar, 1/55 and also Anwar al-Awlaki, ‘Life of Umar bin al-Khattab’

20 August 2014

DHIMMI: Non-Muslims in the Caliphate

Posted by AK | 20 August 2014 | Category: | 1 comments



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


Joseph Farah, founder of the WorldNetDaily news site states:


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


Melanie Philips, prominent Zionist author and commentator states:


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


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


Citizenship in Islam


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


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


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


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


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



Categories of non-Muslims in the Khilafah


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


1. Mu’ahid

2. Must’amin

3. Ambassadors, diplomats, consuls and envoys

4. Dhimmi


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


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


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


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


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


The Dhimmi


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Judiciary


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


Bat Ye’or states:


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


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


Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an:


And if you judge, judge with justice between them.

Verily, Allah loves those who act justly.15


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


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


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


Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an:

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


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


Criminal Punishments


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


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


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


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


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


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


Economy


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


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


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


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


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


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


Jizya


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


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


Allah (swt) says:


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


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


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


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


YEMEN28



Dinars

(Gold coin)
Weight of
dinar in grams
Grams
in
gold
Everyone eligible
1
4.25
4.25g

IRAQ29



Dirhams

(Silver coin)
Weight of
dirham in grams
Grams
in silver
The rich

48
2.975
142.80
The middle class

24
2.975
71.4
The worker

12
2.975
35.7

EGYPT AND ASH-SHAM30



Dinars

(Gold coin)
Weight of
dinar in grams
Grams
in gold
The rich

4
4.25
17g
The middle class

2
4.25
8.50g
The worker

1
4.25
4.25g

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Community Relations


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


Government


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


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


Muhammad Asad states:


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


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


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


Allah (swt) says;


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Religion


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


Islam categorically forbids forcing anyone to convert to Islam.


Allah (swt) says:


Let there be no compulsion in religion45


Thomas Arnold states:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Conclusion


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


Therefore, the dhimmi enjoys all the rights, equally and exactly as those enjoyed by the Muslims except those rights which are specific to them because of their belief or specific to Muslims because of their belief. They are in no way classed as second class citizens.50



References


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


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


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


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


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


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


7 Ibid


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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




18 Bat Ye’or, Op.cit., p. 57


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


28 Abu ‘Ubayd, Op.cit., p. 25


29 Ibid, p. 37


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


31 Sahih Bukhari


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


33 Abu ‘Ubayd, Op.cit., p. 37


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


35 Abu ‘Ubayd, Op.cit., p. 40


36 Sahih Bukhari


37 Ibid, on the authority of Anas


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


39 Ibid, p. 47


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


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


42 Sahih Bukhari, narrated from Abu Hurairah


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


44 Ibid, p. 247


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


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


47 Abu ‘Ubayd, Op.cit., p. 25


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


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


50 Ibid