Hakimiyya is the Essence of Tawheed Part 2

The Meaning of ‘Ruling’

Since the subject matter of these verses concerns ‘Ruling by what Allaah has revealed’, it is impossible that the word is meant to mean anything other than the sole exclusive right of Allaah ta ‘ala to legislate both in essence and meaning.

He alone has the sole prerogative of command, and this is precisely what Allaah has revealed.  From this basis, other types of ruling emanate from the Nass (text) which we are supposed to elaborate upon as to how we are to rule by what Allaah has revealed. These various types are meant with the word Ruling here, and these can be placed into the following categories:

* al-Futiyyah. The first type of ruling is to give Fatwah, which means expressing an opinion which you believe to be true without it being legally binding upon others. This can be an expression of an opinion in any aspect, including religious, scientific, rational, aesthetic, and morality.  All of these come within the meaning of ruling, and are construed to be within the context of what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed.

* al-Qa’dthaa’ (Judicial ruling).  This involves pronouncing a point of view to settle a dispute in a binding way.  It is different from a Fatwah which is not (necessarily) legally binding. This is where it can be enforced by a State. In modern times this is seen as one of the three major powers of the state, and in Arabic a judge is called Haakim, and what he pronounces is known as a Hukm (ruling). Therefore it is not permissible to enact judicial ruling except by what Allaah has revealed and whoever does not do so is one of the Thaalimun, Faasiqun and Kaafiroon.

* Managing the affairs of the public. The third type of ruling meant by the ayat is managing the affairs of the public by administrative and executive powers. The one who does this is known in Arabic as the Wali / Wali- ul amr / Haakim / Sultaan. In modern times it is also common to call the governments in the Arab world Hukoomah which refers to the executive authority of state. In the United States, the Hukoomah is the President who is the chief executive.  It is not permissible to manage the affairs of the public in both the executive and administrative arms of the state except by what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed.  If it is done by other than what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed then they are Dhaalimoon, Faasiqoon and Kaafiroon.

* Adoption in Ruling. This refers to the practical implementation of the divine laws.  It is not formulating primary legislation but procedurally enacting the divine laws, whether that is in the format of a constitution, bye-laws or executive decree(s).  The essence of adoption in ruling is ijtihad applied in governance.  One can therefore discern that there is a sharp distinction between this and modern parliamentary / legislative systems that assign sovereignty to man – either the entire body politic, but more commonly through their ‘elected representatives’ – who formulate not only administrative laws, but also primary legislation.  The management of the modern political society or state through the adoption of rulings, enacting constitutions, bye-laws or the like, which are made legally binding, has to be done according to what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed.   Moreover, ruling does not merely involve the provision of formulating legislation.  Exercising political judgement in a given situation or scenario arguably forms a key element of ruling.  Underpinning such judgement are core fundamental values, and indeed, a distinctive reference point.  In Islaam, this reference point is only the divine sources, namely, the Qur’aan and the Sunnah.

* Nevertheless, in either of the aspects mentioned above ruling cannot be conducted upon personal whims or desires of a political leadership, nor for that matter, can it be based upon what is considered the will of the majority or the majority’s opinion.  It has to be according to what Allaah ta ‘ala has revealed, lest the leadership falls within the categories of Thaalimun, Faasiqqqn and Kaafiroon as specified in the verses of al-Maa’idah.

The word Ruling in the ‘ayahs cannot be restricted to mean only judicial rulings as some contend.  It is ruling with the full range of meanings in the Arabic language and has been shown and proven by the Qur’aan as it is the main authority in this issue.  The word ruling and the meaning which we have discussed are encompassed within it.  Other meanings are also mentioned in the Qur’aan, but they are not relevant to this present study. To give a brief example, Allaah ta ‘ala’s ruling on the day of judgement.  Obviously this is confined to the ‘Aakhirah and our focus of the word is concerned with the Dunyah, but this is also a meaning of the word ruling.

Imaam Shawkaani’s (rah) Criticism on Claims of Ijmaa’

“Whoever claims to have the Ijmaa’ of the Muslim scholars of his age on a given religious issue has made a gross claim (‘athama ad-da’wa) and asserted its existence with something which does not obtain. The feasibility of this is impossible, even If one assumes that it is possible to have such agreement, without investigation and knowledge of the opinions of each man or group of men. The truth is that this is impossible (mamnoo’). This is because the consensus of all the scholars of all the regions on an issue is impossible given the [existence of] different schools, temperaments, and differences in understanding, contradictory dispositions and the love of contradiction. This is with regards to a scholar speaking about the consensus of his generation. If he is claiming an ijmaa’ about a generation which he did not know after the age of the companions then the claim, is too impossible… The one who claims that ijmaa’ constitutes proof is not correct, for such [a claim] constitutes mere conjecture on the part of an individual from the community of Muslims. No believer can worship Allaah on the basis of this… In my works, when I report a consensus from others I do this in order to prove my point to the one who accepts that Ijmaa’ constitutes proof.”

[Wabl Al Ghamaan ‘alaa Shifaa’ Al-Uwaam in Kitaab Shifaa’ Al Uwaam 3 vols]

The Zahiris: Their Docrine and Their History

This is a treatise on the Zahiri school of thought and their history.  One of the greatest and famous scholars of all time, Imaam Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm of Al-Andalus, was a follower of this Mathhab.  Another title for this school and its followers is Dawudis, or Ahl az-Zahir, named after Imaam Dawud az-Zahiri.

Download links:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=H02N1R4R

http://rapidshare.com/files/219494839/Zahiri_Doctorine.pdf.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/219507923/The_Zahiris.pdf.html

http://www.sendspace.com/file/483yon

Alhumdulillaah, someone also uploaded the book to Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14116513/The-Zahiris-Their-Doctrine-and-Their-History-by-Ignaz-Goldziher

Imaam Malik on “Two Deens Shall not Coexist in Arabian Peninsula”

Ahumdoolillaah, as-salaatu was-salaam ‘ala Rasoolullaah

This is a excerpt from the book ‘Kitab al-Jami’ by one of the greatest Maliki scholars ever lived, Imaam bin Abu Zaid al-Qairawani (310AH-386AH).  He quotes Imaam Malik’s view about the following authentic hadeeth from al-Muwatta’ under the heading ‘The banishment of the Jews from Medinah.’ We will only quote the needed material from the section InshAllaah.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Isma’il bin Abi Hakim that he heard ‘Umar bin ‘Abdul ‘Aziz say, “One of the last things that the Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa sallam said was, ‘May Allaah fight the Jews and the Christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration. Two deens shall not coexist in the land of the Arabs.'”

Yahya related to me from Malik from bin Shihab that the Rasoolulllaah sallaahu alaihi wa sallam said, “Two deens shall not coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.”

Malik said that bin Shihab said, ”’Umar bin al-Khatab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa sallam had said, ‘Two deens shall not coexist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar.”

Malik said “That (Arabian Peninsula) is Makkah, Medinah, Yemen and the land of the Arabs.”

Then ‘Umar expelled the people (Jews) of Najran (place in Yemen).  As for the people of Fadak, a treaty had been made with them for a half (of the produce of their land.)  Their half was evaluated and he gave them camels, packed saddles and gold for it, and bought it for the Muslims.  He expelled the Jews of Khaibar and didn’t take anything away because they didn’t have anything.

Malik said “As for Tayma’, their affair is clear.  Between us and them is eleven nights (journey), it is not an Arab land, it is a district of Sham.  I believe that the Wadi’s (Wadiul Qura) Jewish inhabitants were left because they didn’t think that it is a land of Arabs.”  As for Egypt, Khorasaan and Sham, they were not expelled from there because they are non-Arab lands.  Whoever is expelled from places other than Medinah which they had been inhabiting may delay more than three days until they have loaded up.  ‘Umar imposed three days on them in Medinah because they were only passer-by.”

Bin Shihab said, “Khaibar (was conquered) by force, and some of it by treaty, and most of the Kateebah by force.”

Malik was asked, “What is the Kateebah?” He said, “The land of Khaibar, which is forty thousand palm trees with their fruits.”