PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL COEXISTENCE IN AN ISLAMIC STATE

Fundamental principles of an Islamic State compiled and endorsed unanimously by eminent Islamic scholars of all schools of thoughts, ethnic groups and communities including Sunni, Shia and Ahl-E-Hadis of undivided Pakistan in 1951.

All Pakistan multiparty conference of Islamic scholars was convened under the chairmanship of Late Hazrat Maulana Syed Sulaiman Nadvi r.a. from 21 to 24 January 1951 corresponding 12 to 15 Rabius-Sani Hijrah in Karachi, Pakistan.  The 22 fundamental principles of Islamic governance adopted unanimously at the conference were published for the information and benefit of the general population.

09.    Universally recognized Muslim communities will have the unrestricted freedom and liberty to lead their lives within the jurisdiction of the legal system of their respective schools of thoughts. All Muslim communalities will have the right to impart Islamic education to their followers according to their respective schools of thoughts. They will possess the rights to propagate their religious ideologies. They will enjoy the fullest rights to conduct the judicial proceedings by their own judges according to the laws of their schools of thoughts on their individual and social problems.

10.    The non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic state will enjoy the fullest rights to observe their religious rituals, perform cultural activities, pursue religious education, organize social events and functions. They will also have the rights to avail of the judicial proceedings on their individual and social issues according to their religious laws and customs.

Following eminent Islamic scholars and dignitaries unanimously adopted the resolutions:

1.                Hazrat Maulana Syed Solaiman Nadvi – Chair

2.                Maulana Syed Abu A’ala Maudidi, President of Jamaat-E-Islami, Pakistan.

3.                Hazrat Maulana Shamsul Afghani – Minister, Kalat State

4.                Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Badre Alam – Teacher of Hadith, Darul Uloom Islamiah, Ashrafabad, Tashullah Iar, Sindh, Pakistan

5.                Hazrat Maulana Ihteshamul Hoque – Principal, Darul Uloom Islamiah, Ashrafabad, Sindh, Palistan

6.                Hazrat Maulana Mohammad Abdul Hamed Quadri Badayuni, President – Jamiatul Ulama Pakistan, Sindh

7.                Hazrat Maulana Mufti Mohammad Shafi Saheb, Counsellor, Talimat-E-Islam Board, (Pakistan General Assembly)

8.                Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Idrees Saheb, Shayekhul Jamiah Abbasiah, Bhawalpur, Pakistan

9.                Hazrat Maulana Kahair Mohammad Saheb, Principal, Madrashah Khairul Madaris, Multan City, Pakistan

10.           Hazrat Maulana Mufti Mohammad Hasan Saheb, Principal, Madrashah Ashrafiah, Neela Gombad, Lahore, Pakistan

11.           Hazrat Maulana Ameenul Hashnat, Peer Saheb, Manki Shareef, South West Frontier Province, Pakistan

12.           Hazrat Maulana Yousuf Binnuri, Shayekhut-Tafseer, Darul Uloom Islamiah, Ashrafabad, Sindh, Pakistan

13.           Hazrat Hazi Khademul Islam Mohammad Ameer, Khalifah, Hazi Tarangajai, Mojahedabad, Peshwar, South West Frontier Province, Pakistan

14.           Hazrat Quazi Abdus-Samad Sharbazi, Quazi of Kalaat, Beluchistan, Pakistan

15.           Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Atahar Ali Saheb, President, Jamiate Ulamae Islam, East Pakistan (Bangladesh)

16.           Hazrat Maulana Abu Zafar Mohammad Saleh, Ameer-E-Jamaat, Hizbullah, East Pakistan (Bangladesh)

17.           Hazrat Maulana Raghb Ahsan, Vice President, Jamiate Ulamae Islam, East Pakistan (Bangladesh)

18.           Hazrat Maulana Habibur Rahman, Vice President, Jamiatul Madareseen, Sharshina, East Pakistan (Bangladesh)

19.           Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Ali Jalandhari, Mazlis-E-Ahrar-E-Islam, Pakistan

20.           Hazrat Maulana Daud Gaznavi, President, Jamiat-E-Ahl-E-Hadis, West Pakistan

21.           Mufti Zafar Hossain, Shiah Mujtaheed, Member, Talimat-E-Islam Board, Pakistan General Assembly

22.           Mufti & Mujtaheed Hafez Kefayet Hossain, Shia Institution, Lahore, Pakistan

23.           Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Islam Saheb, Secretary, Jamiat-E-Ahl-E-Hadis, Gujranwala, Pakistan

24.           Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Habibullah, Jamiah-E-Deeniah, Darul Huda, Terhi, Khairpur, Meer, Pakistan

25.           Hazrat Maulana Ahmed Ali, Ameer, Anjuman-E-Khuddamuddin, Shiranwala Darwaja, Lahore, Pakistan

26.           Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Sadeque, Principal, Mazharul Uloom Madrashah, Khaddha, Karachi, Pakistan

27.           Professor Abdul Khaleque, Member, Talimat-E-Islam Board, Pakistan General Assembly

28.           Hazrat Maulana Shamsul Hoque Faridpuri, Jinjira Jame Mosque, Dhaka

29.           Mufti Muhammad Sahebdad, Sindh Madrashatul Islam, Karachi, Pakistan

30.           Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Zafar Ahmed Ansari, Secretary, Talimat-E-Islam Board, Pakistan General Assembly

31.           Hazrat Peer Saheb Muhammad Hashem Muzaddedi, Tando, Sayendad, Sindh, Pakistan

Colonial occupation of the Muslim countries led to huge genocidal massacre, massive economic exploitation and extreme political deprivation.

"Colonial occupation of the Muslim countries led to huge genocidal massacre, massive economic exploitation and extreme political deprivation." -Dr.Firoz Mahbub Kamal

 Defeating Islam is the issue

[selected excerpts]

The imperialists do politics, fight wars, occupy lands and kill millions not for mere economic exploitation and military or political gains. They want to defeat and destroy their ideological competitors and survive as the sole civilizational force on earth. After the sudden demise of Socialist Soviet Union – the West’s most powerful ideological challenger, the Western imperialists had a great joy of relief and a strong spell of euphoria.  They thought that they have won the final war of ideas and the history of mankind has reached its end with liberal capitalism as the global norm of civilisation. They could really think of a global village with global Western values. The euphoria was so immense that many capitalist gurus like Francis Fukuyama declared it the end of history. Carl Marx too, died with a dream of such euphoria. He believed
that the victory of the proletariat and the emergence of classless communist society are inevitable. Marx claimed it the ultimate end of historical determinism. But such Marxist theory
proved utter nonsense.

With the emergence of Taleban Islamists in Afghanistan, establishment of Islamic khilafa in Iraq and Syria, and rise of militant Islamists in many other parts of the world, euphoria of the
capitalists has also quickly evaporated. Fukuyama’s “end of history” proved nonsense, too. In fact, the history itself proved it never ends. Since the clash between the Divine truth and the
satanic falsehood survives in all ages; history too continues. Contrary to the common belief of the capitalists and the socialists, history never takes a linear course. History takes turns and
even makes reversals. It itself doesn’t possess any inherent determinants to decide its own destiny. Force of the Divine faith, concomitant commitment of the followers of the faith and
ultimate wish of Allah Subhana wa Taala decide which way the history should move.

The engine of history is running fast in many parts of the Muslim world. It is getting enormous fuel from the blood of the Islamists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Somalia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Nigeria, Algeria and many other parts of the world. Islam is showing a strong global resurgence. The Western imperialists are not happy with such a new trend of history; and want to stop it. Hence President Barak Hussain Obama and his cronies had to declare a global war against the Islamists.  So the US, the UK, the French, the Canadian and the Australian planes are on a bombing mission in Iraq and Syria. What Israel did in Gaza, they are doing the same in the Islamic State. Defeating Islam has now emerged as the most important issue in the capitalist camp.


Phobia of Islamic State & the paranoia
  
Iraq and Syria is more than 7 thousand miles away from the USA and Canada. But the imperialists living in that distant part of the globe find their survival at risk with the resurgence of Islam in the Muslim lands. The Islamic State has no Navy or Air Force. But still, the USA and its capitalists ally find high security threat in their homes, offices, streets, trains, planes, buses and in capitals from the army of Islamic State. They could win a World War in 5 years, but can’t think of winning the war against Islamists even in 25 years. Now the current challengers to the imperialists are not the other imperialists, but the Islamists. In World Wars they need not fight
such Islamists. Hence the scenario is different. President Barak Obama’s former Defence Secretary and former CIA chief Mr Leon Panetta recently told: it may take 30 years to defeat the Islamic State. It is also an incorrect assumption by an imperialist who still think that the US army can never be defeated, it only takes some extra time to win. Does he think that the US can fight a war for 30 years?

The US and its gang of ally couldn’t win the war against Taleban even in 13 years. At the end, they are packing bags to return home with sense of extreme humiliation. Nor could they win war in Iraq. They couldn’t win war in Vietnam either. The Islamic State has proved its strength much stronger than the Taleban and the Vietnamese. Eight hundred Islamic State fighters could rout
30 thousand US trained troops in Mosul in less than 24 hours. The US has superior air power; but that too is failing. The constant US bombing in the city of Kobane failed to stop the Islamists’ advance. Such a display of fighting strength of the Islamists has generated an intense Islamo-phobia in imperialists’ mind: the fear has indeed made them pathologically paranoid and wholesale homicidal. As a consequence, in the absence of army barracks, arms industry or war
installations, the US and UK fighter jets are now bombing roads, houses, caves, hills and mountains in Syria and Iraq. They consider them as the potential military targets. From the US warships in the Mediterranean, they even fire Tomahawk missile of several million dollar worth to blow up few Islamists’ home in residential cities. Due to same homicidal paranoia, they could kill and maim hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq and
Afghanistan without a single remorse of conscience.


Defending capitalism is the war cry

In wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US alone has spent more than one trillion dollars and sacrificed more than 5 thousands of their own people. More than forty countries also fought side by side with the US. Now the US and the same bunch of its ally are back in Iraq and Syria to do the same. More than 60 countries have announced their readiness to join the war against the Islamic State. Here the issue is not defending their national borders: in fact, the war is taking place thousands of miles away from their border. It is the war for defending capitalism as a global ideology. So, the whole world is their war field. The backbone of the capitalism is its

massive military power: not any ideological superiority. So, they have decided to defend their ideological frontier with fighter planes, missiles and bombs. In war of ideas, the imperialists consider it the only option for their ideological defence. In the past, Pharaoh, Nimrod and other forces of evil deployed the same lethal tool and the same strategy to defend their tyranny and falsehood.

The US-led war in Afghanistan was not for mere removal of the Taliban. Nor was it for oil or gas. In fact, Afghanistan has little oil or gas to offer. But the country has much more precious asset in its possession. Under the Taleban rule, Afghanistan possessed Islam as the state ideology. It was enough to be the target of the global nexus of the evil forces. Afghanistan also possessed other strategic assets: out of all Muslim countries it was the only country that had the largest number of jihadists who could readily sacrifice their life for anything that is Islamic. Hence, Afghanistan appeared as the number one threat to the hegemonic agenda of the imperialists. This is why it became the immediate target of the West’s savage war and a full military occupation. The prime aim of the war was to dismantle the Islamic State of Afghanistan and its Islamic institutions; and to raise secular institutions populated by their own brand of ideological converts with extreme anti-Islamic commitment. ...

In the past, the colonial occupation of the Muslim countries led to huge genocidal massacre, massive economic exploitation and extreme political deprivation. But the greatest damage to the

Muslim Ummah was done by dispossessing Islam from the ownership of a state. The full Islam can never survive or grow with such dispossession. It was the greatest harm not only to the

Muslims, but also to the whole mankind. As a consequence of such dispossession, Islam –the only revealed religion of the Almighty Allah Subhana wa Ta’ala couldn’t deliver His greatest gift

to the mankind for the benefit both here and in the hereafter. As a result, Islam -the complete roadmap for the mankind, could survive only as a bunch of religious rituals with few dogmatic beliefs. The arenas of politics, economy, culture, judiciary, education and other institutions of public guidance and governance were overtaken by the followers of toxic ideologies of the evil forces. Such occupation of the Muslim lands still persists: only the ethnicity of the occupiers has changed, but not the anti-Islamic commitment.

An ideology always needs a powerful state as its supporting backbone. Otherwise it can’t stand anywhere in the society. Nor can its social, moral and ethical policies get any place in politics,

culture, education, economy, judiciary and other important arenas of life. Such a stateless ideology can never emerge as a civilizational force, therefore fails to make any positive impact

on human history. ... 

King Najashy of Habasha (Abyssinia) and Prophet Muhammad (Blessings of Allah upon him)

It was the month of Muharram in the 7^th year of the Migration.

First, the Prophet gave the following letter to Umayya and sent him to Ashama, the Negus of Abyssinia:

“In the name of God, the most Merciful, the most Compassionate!

From Muhammad, the Messenger of God to the Negus of Abyssinia!

O king! I want you to be a Muslim.

I praise Allah, except whom there is no god, who is the Absolute Ruler, the Pure One, the Source of Peace, the Inspirer of Faith and the Guardian, on behalf of you.

I witness that Jesus, son of Mary, is the slave and word of God.  God breathed that word —which is the word “Kun!” (be)— and that spirit into Maryam, who was very clean and chaste and who had left the worldly life completely. She became pregnant to Jesus. Thus, God created Jesus. Similarly, God had created Adam with His hand of power (as a miracle).

O King! I invite you to believe in God, to worship him, to obey me and to believe in what was sent to me by God; I am the Messenger of God appointed to convey them to people. I invite you and your people to believe in God, who is mighty and glorious. 

I conveyed you the principles of Islam and advised you; accept my advice.

May peace be upon the guided ones!”[1]

Amr, who set off from Madinah in order to go to Abyssinia, was also assigned the following tasks:

a) To ask the Negus to send the Muslims that had migrated there to Madinah,

b) To ask the Negus to marry Umm Habiba, who was a widow among the mujahids, off to the Prophet.

Amr, the envoy of the Prophet, who arrived in Abyssinia, handed the letter of the Prophet to the Negus.

The Negus held the letter of the Prophet with respect, rubbed it on his eyes, kissed it and put it on his head; then, he made his men read it.  After the letter was read, he came down from his throne and sat on the ground with modesty. Then, he declared his Islam by uttering kalima ash-shahada and said, “If it was possible, I would go and visit him.”[2]Then, he added, “He is the illiterate prophet that Jews and Christians have been waiting for. Moses gave the good news about the emergence of Jesus by saying, ‘he rides a donkey’; similarly, Jesus gave the good news about the emergence of Muhammad by saying, ‘he rides a camel’.[3]I wish I were in Muhammad's service rather than being a sovereign king.”[4]

The Letter is Put in a box

Ashama, the Negus, asked for a box made of elephant bone and put the letter of the Prophet in it. He said, “Abyssinians will not lack goodness and abundance as long as they have this letter.”[5]

It is mentioned that a man in Damascus has a letter resembling this letter of the Messenger of God. That person said he bought the letter from a market Abyssinia.

According to the information given, the letter is about 23x33 cm and it is written on a piece of leather in brown ink.  

At the end of the 17^th line of letter, there is a mark of a round seal. This seal is 2,5 cm in diameter. It is in the form of three lines; from top to bottom: “Muhammad” in one line, “Messenger” in one line and “God” in one line.[6]

The Demand of Amr b. As from the Negus

Amr b. As, who was a genius of politics from the Quraysh, was in Abyssinia at that time. He saw that Amr b. Umayya frequently went to the presence of the Negus. He was very angry when he saw it; he even thought of killing Amr b. Umayya. Once he went to the presence of the Negus and said,  “O Negus! I see someone often comes to your presence; he is the envoy of a man who is our enemy. Surrender him to me so that I will kill him!”

The Negus got very furious when he heard this suggestion. He hit Amr on the nose with the back side of his hand. Amr thought his nose was broken.

Then, the Negus said furiously, “You demand a person whom Gabriel (Jibril), who had brought revelation to the Prophet Moses, brought revelation to in order to kill him; is that right?”

Amr said, “O Negus! Is he really a prophet?”

The Negus answered as follows:

“Woe on you, O Amr! Listen to me and obey him at once! I swear by God that he is on the right path and will defeat those who oppose him just like Moses, who defeated the Pharaoh and his army.”

It was time for Amr to embrace the true path. He said to the Negus, “Will you accept my allegiance to him and witness my being a Muslim?”

The Negus accepted his offer. Amr became a Muslim and offered his allegiance to the Prophet through the Negus. However, he did not tell his friends that he had become a Muslim. Amr b. As, who embraced Islam in Abyssinia in the 7^th year of the Migration, revealed that he had become a Muslim in Madinah in the 8^th year of the Migration in the presence of the Messenger of God one year later.   

The Negus of Abyssinia, Ashama, who declared recklessly that he had become a Muslim, gave a letter to Amr b. Umayya, the envoy of the Prophet. He stated in the letter that he fulfilled what the Prophet had demanded. He also stated that he was sending him some valuable presents and that he himself would go and visit the Prophet in Madinah if the Prophet asked him to do so.[7]

Umm Habiba is Married off to the Prophet

Umm Habiba was the daughter of Abu Sufyan, the leader of the Quraysh. She had migrated to Abyssinia from Makkah with her husband Ubaydul­lah b. Jahsh in order to be able to practice her religion freely. Ubaydullah became a Christian later but she maintained her religion. When Ubaydullah died, she became a widow. Meanwhile, she saw in her dream Ubaydullah calling her as , ”O Mother of Believers!”. She interpreted it as, “the Messenger of God will marry her.”[8]

As it is known, the Arab women would not marry unless they found someone equal. Umm Habiba could not find anyone equal to her in a land that she was not familiar with; she was in a difficult situation. It was necessary to reward such an honorable woman who was alone and away from her relatives in a land far away from her country. Therefore, the Messenger of God wanted to marry her.  

The Prophet had asked the Negus to marry her off to him. The Negus fulfilled the wish of the Prophet and married her off to him.[9]

Muslim Muhajirs are Sent to Madinah

Another demand of the Messenger of God from Ashama was “to send the Muslim muhajirs to Madinah”. As­hama fulfilled this demand, too. He embarked the muhajirs on a ship and sent them to Madinah under the command of Hazrat Jafar.[10]

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

[1]Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. 3, p. 89; Ibn Qayyim, Zadu’l-Maad, Vol. 3, p. 71; Halabi, Insanu’l-Uyun, Vol. 3, p. 293.

[2]Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, Vol. 1, p. 258.

[3]Badiuzzaman Said Nursi, Mektûbat, p. 159.

[4]Ibn Qayyim, Zadu’l-Maad, Vol. 2, p. 71; Halabi, Insanu’l-Uyun, Vol. 3, p. 294.

[5]Ibn Sa’d, ibid, Vol. 1, p. 258; Halabi, ibid, Vol. 3, p. 293.

[6]Prof. Dr. Muhammed Hamidullah, İslam Peygamberi, Vol. 1, p. 201.

[7]Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. 3, p. 89; Ibn Qayyim, Zadu’l-Maad, Vol. 2, p. 71-72.

[8]Ibn Sa’d, ibid, Vol. 8, p. 97.

[9]Ibn Sa’d, ibid, Vol. 8, p. 97-98.

[10]Ibn Sa’d, ibid, Vol. 1, p. 259; Tabari, Tarikh, Vol. 3, p. 89-90.

=

(from another source)

The letter to al-Najashy:

(Amru bin Umayyah al-Dhimry our Master Muhammad's delegate, arrived in Habasha carrying the letter of the Prophet of Islam.)

The letter read:

From Muhammad, Allah's Apostle

To al-Najashy the King of Habasha

You are safe.

I thank Allah. There is no god but Him, the King, the Holy, the Peace, the Believer; the Almighty.

I bear witness that Isa is Allah's Spirit, and His word He has given to Maryam, the Virgin, the good, and the chaste. Allah created him with His power as He created Adam before.

I am inviting you to worship Allah only, to obey Him, to follow me, and to believe in what has come to me. I am Allah's Apostle. I am inviting you and your soldiers to worship Allah, the Almighty. I have told and advised you. So, accept my advice.

And peace upon him who follows guidance.

-

Al-Najashy read the letter. He came down the throne and sat on the ground to show his humbleness and respect for Allah's Apostle, our Master Muhammad (saw).

Al-Najashy put the letter on his eye to show his great respect. Then he ordered his guards to get him an ivory box to put the letter in. He said:

Habasha will be prosperous as long as its people keep this letter.

The Prophet's delegate gave the King another letter. The letter asked the King to allow the immigrants headed by Ja'far bin Abu Talib to come back to their country.

The Moslems were very happy to hear about their repatriation to their homeland. In the meantime, they thanked al-Najashy for his good hospitality.

Al-Najashy ordered his guards to prepare some ships to bring back the immigrants to the land of al-Hejaz. He sent his representative with them.

The representative was carrying gifts and a letter of greetings to our Master Muhammad (saw).

The sails of the ships were raised to start journey, the Moslems set off. They rejoiced at Allah's victory.

=

Background

The Quraysh (of Mecca) intensified their persecutions against Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his followers. Even influential men who now followed the Prophet were not spared. They were boycotted and several of them were restrained in their own homes. Many of the Muslims with little or no influence were tortured publicly and repeatedly. Finding this continuing situation difficult to bear for his followers, the Prophet allowed some of them to emigrate to Abyssinia in 615 CE. Their total number was about eighty, not counting the small children. They did not all go at the same time. Their flight was secretly planned and carried out unobtrusively in small groups. The emigrants were well received in Abyssinia, and were allowed complete freedom of worship.

The leaders of Quraysh, however, were none the less determined that they should not be left in peace, to establish there, beyond their control, a dangerous community which might be increased tenfold if other converts joined them. So they speedily thought out a plan, and made ready a quantity of presents of a kind that the Abyssinians were known to value most. Leatherwork they prized above all, so a large number of fine skins were collected, enough to make a rich bribe for every one of the Negus's generals. There were also rich gifts for the Negus himself. Then they carefully chose two men, one of whom was 'Amr ibn al-'As, of the clan of Sahm. Quraysh told them exactly what to do: they were to approach each of the generals separately, give him his present, and say:

“Some foolish young men and women of our people have taken refuge in this kingdom. They have left their own religion, not for yours, but for one they have invented, one that is unknown to us and to yourselves. The nobles of their people have sent us to your king on their account, that he may send them home. So when we speak to him about them, counsel him to deliver them into our hands and have no words with them.”

The generals all agreed, and the two men of Quraysh took their presents to the Negus, asking that the emigrants should be given into their hands and explaining the reason as they had done to the generals, and finally adding: “The nobles of their people, who are their fathers, their uncles and their' kinsmen, beg thee to restore them unto them." The generals were present at the audience, and now with one voice they urged the Negus to comply with their request and give up the refugees, inasmuch as kinsmen are the best judges of the affairs of their kinsmen. But the Negus was displeased and said:

“Nay, by God, they shall not be betrayed - a people that have sought my protection and made my country their abode and chosen me above all others! Give them up I will not, until I have summoned them and questioned them concerning what these men say of them. If it be as they have said, then will I deliver them unto them, that they may restore them to their own people. But if not, then will I be their good protector so long as they seek my protection."

Then he sent for the companions of the Prophet, and at the same time assembled his bishops, who brought with them their sacred books and spread them open round about the throne. ‘Amr and his fellow envoy had hoped to prevent this meeting between the Negus and the refugees, and it was indeed in their interests to prevent it, even more so than they realized.
The Abyssinians were Christians, many of them devout; they had been baptized, they worshiped the One God, and they carried in their flesh the sacrament of Eucharist. As such they were sensitive to the difference between the sacred and the profane, and they were keenly conscious of the profanity of men like 'Amr. So much the more were they receptive - none more than the Negus himself - to the impression of holy earnestness and depth which was made on them by the company of believers who were now ushered into the throne room, and a murmur of wonderment arose from the bishops and others as they recognized that here were men and women more akin to themselves than to such of Quraysh as they had previously encountered. Moreover, most of them were young, and in many of them their piety demeanor was enhanced by a great natural beauty.
Not for all of them had the emigration been a necessity. ‘Uthman’s family had given up trying to make him (ra) recant, but the Prophet none the less allowed him to go and to take with him Ruqayyah (ra). Their presence was a source of strength to the community of exiles. Another couple very pleasing to look upon were Ja’far (ra) and his wife Asma' (ra). They were well protected by Abu Talib; but the refugees needed a spokesman and Ja'farwas an eloquent speaker. He was also most winning in his person, and the Prophet said to him on one occasion: “Thou art like me in looks and character.” It was Ja'far he had chosen to preside over the community of exiles; and his qualities of attraction and intelligence were amply seconded by Musab of 'Abd ad-Dar (ra), a young man whom the Prophet was later to entrust with a mission of immense importance in virtue of his natural gifts.
When they were all assembled, the Negus spoke to them and said:

"What is this religion wherein ye have become separate from your people, though ye have not entered my religion nor that of any other of the folk that surround us?"

Ja'far answered him saying:

"O King, we were people steeped in ignorance, worshiping idols, eating unsacrificed carrion, committing abominations, and the strong would devour the weak. Thus we were, until Allah (The One True God) sent us a Messenger from out of our midst, one whose lineage we knew, and his veracity and his worthiness of trust and his integrity. He called us unto God, that we should testify to His Oneness and worship Him and renounce what we and our fathers had worshiped in the way of stones and idols; and he commanded us to speak truly, to fulfil our promises, to respect the ties of kinship and the rights of our neighbors, and to refrain from crimes and from bloodshed. So we worship God alone, setting naught beside Him, counting as forbidden what He hath forbidden and as licit what He hath allowed. For these reasons have our people turned against us, and have persecuted us to make us forsake our religion and revert from the worship of God to the worship of idols. That is why we have come to thy country, having chosen thee above all others; and we have been happy in thy protection, and it is our hope, O King, that here with thee we shall not suffer wrong."

The royal interpreters translated all that he had said. The Negus then asked if they had with them any Revelation that their Prophet had brought them from God and, when Ja'far answered that they had, he said: "Then recite it to me," whereupon Ja'far recited a passage from the Surah of Mary, which had been revealed shortly before their departure:

And make mention of Mary in the Book, when she withdrew from her people unto a place towards the east, and secluded herself from them; and We sent unto her Our Spirit, and it appeared unto her in the likeness of a perfect man. She said: I take refuge from thee in the Infinitely Good, if any piety thou hast. He said: I am none other than a messenger from thy Lord that I may bestow on thee a son most pure. She said: How can there be for me a son, when no man hath touched me, nor am I unchaste? He said: Even so shall it be; thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. That We may make him a sign for mankind and a mercy from Us; and it is a thing ordained. (Qur'an 19:16-21)

The Negus wept, and his bishops wept also, when they heard him recite, and when it was translated they wept again, and the Negus said:

"This hath truly come from the same source as that which Jesus brought."

Then he turned to the two envoys of Quraysh and said:

“Ye may go, for by God I will not deliver them unto you; they shall not be betrayed."

But when they had withdrawn from the royal presence, 'Amr said to his companion: “Tomorrow I will tell him a thing that shall tear up this green growing prosperity of theirs by the roots. I will tell him that they aver that Jesus the son of Mary is a slave.” So the next morning he went to the Negus and said:

“O King, they utter an enormous lie about Jesus the son of Mary. Do but send to them, and ask them what they say of him."

So he sent them word to come to him again and to tell him what they said of Jesus, whereupon they were troubled, for nothing of this kind had ever yet befallen them. They consulted together as to what they should reply when the question was put to them, though they all knew that they had no choice but to say what God had said.
So when they entered the royal presence, and it was said to them: "What say ye of Jesus, the son of Mary?" Ja’far answered:

"We say of him what our Prophet brought unto us, that he is the slave of God and His Messenger and His Spirit and His Word which He cast unto Mary the blessed virgin."

The Negus took up a piece of wood and said:

“Jesus the son of Mary exceedeth not what thou hast said by the length of this stick."

And when the generals round him snorted, he added: "For all your snorting." Then he turned to Ja'far and his companions and said: "Go your ways, for ye are safe in my land. Not for mountains of gold would I harm a single man of you"; and with a movement of his hand towards the envoys of Quraysh, he said to his attendant: "Return unto these two men their gifts, for I have no use for them." So ‘Amr and the other man went back ignominiously to Mecca.
Meantime the news of what the Negus had said about Jesus spread among the people, and they were troubled and came out against him asking for an explanation, and accusing him of having left their religion. He thereupon sent to Ja'far and his companions and made ready boats for them and told them to embark and be ready to set sail if necessary. Then he took a parchment and wrote on it:

“He testifieth that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is His slave and His Messenger and that Jesus the son of Mary is His slave and His Messenger and His Spirit and His Word which He cast unto Mary."

Then he put it beneath his gown and went out to his people who were assembled to meet him. And he said them: "Abyssinians, have I not the best claim to be your king?" They said that he had. “Then what think ye of my life amongst you?" “It hath been the best of lives," they answered. "Then what is it that troubleth you?" he said. "Thou hast left our religion," they said, "and hast maintained that Jesus is a slave." “Then what say ye of Jesus?” he asked. “We say that he is the son of God," they answered. Then he put his hand on his breast, pointing to where the parchment was hidden and testified to his belief in “this”, which they took to refer to their words. So they were satisfied and went away, for they were happy under his rule, and only wished to be reassured; and the Negus sent word to Ja'far and his companions that they could disembark and go back to their dwellings' where they went on living as before, in comfort and security.

In 628 CE, a few months before Hudaybiyah, news had come from Abyssinia of the death of 'Ubayd Allah ibn Jahsh. His wife Umm Habibah (ra) was Abu Sufyan's daughter. When four months had elapsed after the death of her husband, the Prophet sent a message to the Negus, asking him to stand proxy for himself and to ratify a marriage between him and the widow, if she were willing. To her the Prophet sent no message directly; but she had a dream in which someone came to her and addressed her as "Mother of the Faithful", and she interpreted this as meaning that she would become the wife of the prophet. The next day she received the message from the Negus which confirmed her dream, whereupon she chose her kinsman Khalid ibn Sa'id to give her in marriage, and he and the Negus solemnized the pact between them in the presence of Ja’far and others of the brethren. Then the Negus held a wedding feast in his palace, and all the Muslims were invited.


The Prophet’s letter to Negus inviting him to proclaim Islam was sent at this time. The Prophet had also sent word to Ja'far that it would please him if he and his community would now come to live in Medina. Ja'far forthwith set about making preparations for the journey, and the Negus gave them two boats.   

A Muslim Peeks into the Post World War l Anglo-American Conspiracy in Redrawing their Map and Destiny - Search for Survival

Syria became a part of the Ottoman Empire in 1516. European machinations and intrigues played a major role in the disintegration and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. As World War I unfolded, the Ottoman Empire joined hands with the Central Powers (Germany and Austro-Hungary) against the Allies (France, Great Britain and Russia). The Allies declared war on the Ottoman Empire shortly after the outbreak of the war. In 1915 the British entered into a secret pact with the Sharif of Makkah, Hussein ibn Ali. The pact involved an armed revolt against Ottoman rule under the Sharif’s command, for which Great Britain and France would supply money, weapons and logistic support. In exchange, he was promised an Arab kingdom in the event of Ottoman defeat. The Sharif organized tribal groups from the Hejaz and Jordan and led them to attack Ottoman troops. By the end of 1916 the French had given 1.25 million gold francs to the Arab tribes who participated in the uprising. The British spent £220,000 a month on the Arab fighters, who were also provided with rifles and machine-guns. By 1918 the Arab troops succeeded in driving the Ottoman forces out of the Hejaz and other parts of the Arab region. Thomas Edward Lawrence, popularly known as “Lawrence of Arabia,” the British secret agent who played an important role in instigating the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire, wrote in 1916 that the Arab revolt would be useful to the British Empire because “it matches with our immediate aims, the break-up of the Islamic ‘bloc’ and the defeat and disruption of the Ottoman Empire”.

British and French troops seized Palestine in 1917. Amir Abdullah, who later became Jordan’s first king, fought on the side of the British during World War I against the Ottoman Empire. The British rewarded him for his loyalty by giving him a fixed stipend and the control of Jordan. Italy, which had joined the Allies against Germany and the Ottoman Empire, was promised a large part of southwestern Anatolia. By the time the Treaty of Sevres (1920) was signed, the Ottoman Empire had lost all the Arab provinces and ceded a large area of Asia Minor to the newly created Armenian state. France and Britain also backed the creation of an independent Kurdish state as part of the Treaty of Sevres, but the idea fizzled out. The withdrawal of Russia from the war and the victory of the Turkish nationalists saved Anatolia from being expropriated by Italy.

Though Britain and France had made a promise to the Arabs at the beginning of the20th century that if they rose in revolt against the Ottoman Empire and supported the Allies they would be granted independence, they did not keep the promise and the Arab region continued to be under British and French control. In 1920 a short-lived independent Kingdom of Syria was established under Faisal I, but after a few months France invaded Syria and deposed and expelled the king. Under a League of Nations mandate, Syria came under direct French rule.     

In 1916, in the middle of the war, Great Britain and France, with the assent of imperial Russia, hatched a conspiracy to dismember the Ottoman Empire and to divide the territories that were under Ottoman rule between themselves. Mark Sykes, a British diplomat, and Francois Georges-Picot, a high-ranking official of the French government, were tasked with working out the modalities of the plot. Sykes and Picot drew a map, according to which the coastal strip between the Mediterranean and the river Jordan, Transjordan and southern Iraq were allocated to Britain, while Syria, Lebanon, northern Iraq and south-eastern Turkey would be under French control. Russia, according to the map, would acquire the Ottoman provinces of Erzurum, Trebizon and Bitlis in Asia Minor. The pact was kept hidden for more than a year until the Bolsheviks revealed it after the 1917 Russian Revolution. In addition to geopolitical and strategic factors, religious and sectarian considerations also played a role in the division of the Ottoman territories among the Allies. For example, France favoured the creation of a Christian-dominated state in Lebanon, which was sliced out of Syria. Sykes and Picot’s map suggested that Palestine should be given to Belgium, but on November 2, 1917 the British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour promised the Zionist Federation of Great Britain “the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. US historian David Fromkin, in his book A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (1989), calls Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Palestine the “children of England and France.”

Syria gained independence from French colonial rule on 24 October 1945. However, French troops did not leave the country until April 1946. This period of French colonial rule, from 1920 to 1946, witnessed the rise of the anti-colonial movement and Arab nationalism in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Hasan al-Banna (1906-1949) in 1923 in Egypt, emerged as an influential social and political force in Syria in the late 1930s in the context of rising anti-colonial and nationalist sentiments. After independence, the Muslim Brotherhood was pitted against secular nationalists, Communists, Bathists and Nasserists. The Arab military defeat in the 1948 Israel-Palestine war enabled the Muslim Brotherhood to expand its urban base, particularly in Damascus.

In 1958 there was a short-lived political union between Egypt and Syria. The idea of the United Arab Republic, as the union was called, was mooted by the socialist Ba’ath Party and was envisaged as a first step towards the creation of a unified pan-Arab political entity. However, the United Arab Republic collapsed in 1961 when Syria decided to secede from the union following a coup d’etat. The Muslim Brotherhood supported Syria’s secession from the Egyptian-dominated United Arab Republic. In the 1961 parliamentary elections the Muslim Brotherhood won 10 seats. Following the coup d’etat by the Ba’ath Party in 1963, the Muslim Brotherhood was banned by the government.   

Al-Kitlah al-Wataniyyah (Patriotic Block) was a representative group of prominent Syrian intellectuals and public figures who were committed to the goal of independence from French colonial rule.

For centuries, Syria has nurtured a climate of cultural diversity and pluralism and tolerance and accommodation of different religions, sects, denominations and schools of jurisprudence. This ethos of tolerance and accommodation has been reinforced by the pervasive influence of Sufism on Syrian society.  This offered expansive and inclusionary social milieu. 

Until the 1970s the study of Islamic family laws by Western scholars was largely dominated by the agenda of the British colonialist’s Orientalist framework. Western scholars and their local mercenaries generally focused on Islamic legal texts, viewed Islamic laws as suffused with a patriarchical worldview, static and unresponsive to changing circumstances. During the past couple of decades, an increasing number of scholars, both Muslim and Western, have sought to move away from this biased, dishonest, ahistorical and blinkered approach.

While in reality Islamic Shariah is flexible and elastic and responsive to changing circumstances. There is really no conflict or contradiction between reason and Islamic traditions.   In choosing options Islam prefers solutions that reduce hardships of people. One of the distinctive features of Islamic civilization’s illustrious legacy of jurisprudence is legal pluralism. Legal pluralism is generally defined as a situation in which two or more legal systems coexist in the same society or social field. The contemporary discourse on legal pluralism takes little or no cognizance of the fact that a legal system may allow the coexistence of diverse legal cultures and traditions within its fold. This, for example, is the case with Islamic law.  Legal pluralism in the Islamic tradition is reflected in two distinct spheres:

(i)                the coexistence of divergent interpretations and schools of Islamic jurisprudence

(ii)              the recognition of the religious, cultural, legal and judicial autonomy of non-Muslim minorities living in Islamic state.

The Prophet's Companions and the Followers had certain differences in matters of jurisprudence, legal pronouncements and religious rituals. The Quran says: “Allah desires for you ease and convenience, and not hardship” (2:185).

Further: “Allah does not burden a person beyond his capacity” (2:286).

The Prophet (SAAW) said: “Make things easy for people; do not make things hard for them. Give them good tidings and do not make them turn away from religion (by making things hard for them).” 

Imam Shafi’i considered frogs, crabs and tortoises impermissible for consumption while some other jurists did not prohibit their eating. Imam Abu Hanifah was of the opinion that the quantum of blood money for a non-Muslim citizen of the Islamic state should be the same as that for a Muslim. Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, on the other hand, held that it should be half of that of a Muslim, while Imam Shafi’i opined that it should be one-third.

What is note-worthy is that, by and large, jurists, scholars and men of piety in the early centuries of the Islamic era viewed legal differences in terms of convenience and ease for the common people. They never doubted the honesty, integrity and sincerity of their contemporaries. They never allowed differences in legal matters to affect inter-personal relationships and viewed the legal differences among their predecessors and contemporaries not as a bane or a hindrance but as a blessing in disguise. Sufyan al-Thawri, for example, used to say: "Do not say that the Ulama have differed in such and such matter; say, instead, that they have provided convenience and ease for the people (by their difference of opinion)." Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Shaybani, the distinguished followers of Imam Abu Hanifah, had certain differences in matters of jurisprudence and legal pronouncements with their mentor. Yet, their opinions were incorporated in the corpus of Hanafi jurisprudence. Hanafi scholars and jurists have maintained that there is nothing objectionable if Hanafi scholars and jurists reach a consensus in respect of an extraordinary case in an extraordinary situation, whereby they give a legal opinion in accordance with the principles and tenets of the Maliki school of jurisprudence, rather than with those of their own Hanafi school. Thus, Hanafi scholars and jurists in pre-independence India gave a ruling, which was endorsed by the majority of ulama, in regard to the dissolution of a Muslim woman's marriage whose husband had left her with no trace of his whereabouts.

In the early Islamic period, some rulers sought to bring about uniformity and homogenization in legal matters under the auspices of the state. However, they were dissuaded by eminent scholars and jurists from doing so. During the caliphate of Umar ibn Abd al Aziz, it was suggested that he should bring about uniformity and consensus in respect of legal rulings, to which he replied: "I would not have been very happy if Muslim scholars had not had any differences in legal matters. The companions of the Prophet had certain differences in legal matters. Therefore, anyone who follows the precepts of any of the companions is on the right path". He then circulated an order through the Islamic territories to the effect that the people of every region should abide by the ruling over which the local scholars and jurists had reached a consensus. Once the Abbasid caliph al-Mansur told Imam Malik that he proposed to circulate copies of his books in every city and town, with the instruction that people should follow only those books. Imam Malik dissuaded the caliph from doing anything of the kind. He told him that people in different cities were following the rulings of local scholars and jurists and that it was advisable to allow this situation to continue. Likewise, caliph Harun al-Rashid told Imam Malik that he wished to have the latter's celebrated work Al-Muwatta to be hung in the Ka'bah, so that the Muslim masses could follow it in a uniform manner. Imam Malik advised him not to do so.

Islamic law makes it incumbent upon the Islamic state to ensure the safety of its non-Muslim citizens and to protect their religious, cultural, and judicial autonomy. In fact the Islamic state assumed responsibility for the maintenance and even defence of Jewish, Christian and pagan identities. The protection of minority rights under the Islamic dispensation has no parallel in the annals of history.

The literature on different schools of Islamic jurisprudence is incredibly vast and variegated and it is well-nigh impossible even for scholars of Islamic law to be conversant with it. The need for compiling a comprehensive and accessible encyclopaedic compendium on Islamic jurisprudence has been felt for the past several decades. An international conference on Islamic jurisprudence held in Paris in 1951 emphasized and recommended the preparation of a compendium on Islamic law and urged Muslim countries to take an initiative in the matter. In 1956 a committee was set up at the Faculty of Shariah at Damascus University for preparing the blueprint of the project. Shaykh Al-Zarqa, who was then teaching at the university, was closely associated with the committee.

In 1961 the Egyptian Ministry of Awqaf took over the project on Al-Mausuah al-Fiqhiyyah and published 24 volumes over a period of six years. In 1967 the project was taken over by the Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic affairs, Kuwait. Shaykh Al-Zarqa was requested to oversee and supervise the project. The project has been completed in 45 volumes. The Delhi-based Islamic Fiqh Academy has embarked upon the translation of all the 45 volumes of Al-Mausuah al-Fiqhiyyah into Urdu, with financial assistance from the Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic affairs, Kuwait. The Academy has already translated and published 12 volumes and work on the remaining volumes is underway.

Muslim scholars and jurists, such as Al-Ghazali, Abu Islaq al-Shatibi, Ibn al-Qayyim and Izz al-Din ibn Abd al-Salam, have dwelt at length on the guiding principles and higher intents of Shariah (Maqasid al-Shariah). They emphasize that the principles and provisions of Islamic law are essentially aimed at ensuring and enhancing human well-being. Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 1350) says: "The basis of the Islamic Shariah is wisdom and welfare of the people in this world and in the Hereafter. This welfare lies in complete justice, mercy, well-being and wisdom. Anything that replaces justice with oppression, mercy with harshness, welfare with misery and wisdom with folly, has nothing to do with the Shariah." Al-Shatibi (1194) says that the primary objective of Shariah is the attainment, protection and perpetuation of the well-being of human beings in this world and the Hereafter. He focuses on the concept of the common good (maslaha) and argues that this principle provides the basis of the universality and rationality of Islamic law as well as its flexibility in regard to changing circumstances.  Noah Feldman, a professor of law at Harvard University, has pointed out that for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world.

Syrian born Islamic scholar and jurist (Faqih) Shaykh Al-Zarqa’s approach to Ifta (pronouncement of legal edicts on specific issues) was guided by a cardinal principle of Islamic jurisprudence which emphasizes taysir (facilitation and ease for Muslims) and the avoidance and mitigation of inconvenience and hardships.