I want to state that this is not a rant against the 'West' or 'Europeans' or 'Americans' or any such grouping. I am more than aware that we, the ordinary people of every country today, are each equally helpless in the context of influencing our governments to be accountable to us and not to take actions which benefit a few at the expense of the many who voted them to power. This is the raising of a voice in the hope that I will be joined by other voices – not only Muslim voices – but Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Atheist, Anyone voices – of people who believe in compassion, morality, ethical behavior, justice and accountability. People who live by principles that reflect integrity and honesty and a sense of responsibility for our lives and actions. People who are not racist and who don't put a differential value on the lives of other people; who consider murder to be equally heinous no matter who is killed. People who genuinely believe in human rights; not those who like to talk about them while killing innocent people and calling that a 'bug splat'. People who are not hypocrites and who have the courage to take a stand for justice; no matter who that stand offends. People of courage, especially when they stand alone. People who don't do it because they think it will change the world. But who do it because they don't want the world to change them. People who one day will then discover that the world did change. Change for the better to leave behind a legacy of honor. It is to such people that I speak. And it is they who I wish will respond – not to me but by raising their own voices for justice, moral, integrity and compassion. This article is a bridge. Let us hold hands and cross it. All of us because the issues affect us all as human beings, irrespective of belief.- Yawar Baig
I live by the motto: I will not allow what is not in my control to prevent me from doing what is in my control. I invite you to do the same. Do what you can. For you will not be asked, “What happened?” You will be asked, “What did you do?” Do something worthwhile. For to live, is not merely to draw breath.
This piece is for those who have asked me personally for my thoughts on ISIS. It is not a fatwa, edict, ruling or judgment. It is a sharing of thought and reflections based on my study of Islam, the seerah (biography) of Rasoolullah 
and his Sahaba and the Code of Conduct of the Muslims, especially when it comes to dealing with non-Muslims living in countries ruled by Muslims. In today's increasingly linked and paranoid world, it is essential that we continue to put before anyone who wants to take the trouble to get to the real facts, what those facts are. It is our job to convey. Not to convince. Whether to believe or not is up to the reader.
Before we go into this discussion, I want to share some thoughts on why such a discussion is critical today. To quote Pressenza International Press Agency,
“We can check our bank balances every second on our phones. We can navigate through the streets with real time traffic information. We can look up the market value of every corporation in the world. We can take a photo and send it to a million friends in one second. We can buy and sell everything 24/7, yet none of this gives us any power, none of these advances has directly empowered the population at large. We as human beings have not gained any political power with the advance of technology. Democratic processes, for example, have been almost untouched during the past 50 years, a period of great technological development and astronomical economic expansion. Voting is still one of the most complicated administrative processes, for no logical reason. A secretly-negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “trade” agreement is being negotiated right now — in secret, even from! the US Congress — between representatives of governments and giant multinational corporations. Most societies in the world have done very little to develop more direct participation in decision-making for the majority of their constituents, in comparison to the business community who can now buy and sell everything all over the planet.”
On Elections
The notion of voting in general has lost its charge, and the process of selection it represents is old- fashioned and barbaric. These so-called electoral campaigns are now entertainment contests for starlets. They are marketing campaigns, more about selling a specific product than addressing the issues faced by the majority of people: employment, access to health, poverty, education, immigration, internet access, etc.
On Independent Media
Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now, spoke in New York on February 17, 2015 about the link between independent media and democracy. “Why is it important to speak about independent media? We need to open up the public space to have a discussion about the critical issues of the day: war and peace, life and death. Less than that is a disservice to the service men and women of this country, who can't have these debates in military bases. They rely on us in civilian society to have these discussions about whether they should live or die, or rather whether they are sent to kill or be killed. Anything less than that is a disservice to a democratic society. And these are the issues that are at stake today, war and peace, the environment, the growing inequality between rich and poor. We have a majority silenced by big corporate media. These media will not bring the discussion about climate change but will spend all day talking about dramatic weather condition. Today we are sitting with Pablo Iglesias of Podemos from a Party-Movement PODEMOS that didn't exist a year ago and count four elected at the European Parliament with over 1.2 million votes and possibly the next Premier Minister of Spain and if you say that is not possible look at Greece. This grassroots media, the Internet are the oxygen of Democracy. We don't achieve democracy but have to fight for it every single day.”
I echo, 'We don't achieve democracy but have to fight for it every single day.' The same goes for human dignity, justice, morality and global peace. We have to fight for peace by establishing justice.
Peace is the effect of justice
Those who like to talk about peace must ensure that justice is established. Until that is done, any apparent peace is only a recess between wars. We. All of us. White or black. Christian, Jew, Hindu or Muslim or of any faith. We who believe in goodness and are against exploitation of all kinds. We the people of the world. We need to take it back from the hands of those who want to exploit it and us for their own ends. We have to stand together.
Political processes and structures change over time. So has the idea of Khilafa which changed from being a selective (vote by leaders) process to monarchy. Then it ended. So there is no history of Khilafa as a democratic process. I mean a real democracy where the opinion of every citizen counts. How this is to be achieved logistically is another matter and so one must question the viability of the very model of one global Khalifa. A modern model needs to be evolved perhaps with regional/country leaders coming together in a federation of mutual cooperation like the European Union – for want of a better example. Independent locally and cooperating globally. In today's context it is not enough simply to quote the model of the Khulafa Raashida and say that it must be applied.
The Khulafa Raashida can be relived in terms of its principles but not in terms of its processes both because the scope and complexity of the situation has changed to such an extent that it doesn't resemble Madinah and the Islamic world in the 6th century in anything but name. This is not surprising if you read history especially of the Islamic world and reflect that we are today in the 21st century in a world which is more alien to the world of the 6th century than perhaps would be a planet with life, if and when we find one. Madinah and the Islamic world of the Khilaafa Raashida was quite literally a different world. But it still presents a beautiful example to learn from and to draw on the principles it represented of integrity, morality, Taqwa, accountability of the rulers to the public, justice for one and all, nobody above the law, simplicity of the lifestyle of the ruler, compassion and concern for the other (non-Muslim). These are timeless principles which must be adhered to. But the way they are to be applied today has to change with the times if they are to be applied at all.
The long and short of it is that as we speak we don't have a viable model of the Khilafa. I am saying this because to understand what is going on and to think of alternatives (that is not in the scope of this paper) we need to keep things in perspective.
The key points in this whole discussion about the ISIS appear to be:
1. Legitimacy of the Khalifa – what does it take for a Khalifa to be accepted as legal (so to speak)?
2. Actions of the ISIS in the name of Islam, especially the horrific killings of innocent civilians including Muslims, Christians, Yazidis and others – what is the Islamic position on these actions?
3. The origin and very existence of this group – how did they come to be and frankly why do they still continue to exist and thrive?
4. What must the ordinary Muslim man and woman do when faced with the ISIS's claims to legitimacy of the Khilaafa and the 'duty' of the Muslims to it?
I have taken the liberty to add a fifth passage addressing our non-Muslim brothers and sisters because they are also participants in the game whether they like it or not and if we are to win this game then we have to stand together and not against each other as the Great Manipulators want us to do. We must open our eyes to our realities and work together to defeat the Manipulators and create a world that is worth leaving behind for our children. I hope I have covered all the points and will proceed to address them below.
Let me try to address each of these points to the best of my knowledge and ability. I ask Allah for His help to say what is correct and true and to save me and you from mistakes in understanding or interpretation that I may make.
Legitimacy of the Khalifa – what does it take for a Khalifa to be accepted and legal (so to speak)?
In one line, simply declaring oneself as the Khalifatul Muslimeen and Ameerul Mu'mineen (Leader of the Believers) is not sufficient for one to be accepted and recognized as the Khalifa. So that declaration means nothing. Let us look at some evidence from our history.
If we evaluate how the four Khulafa Ar-Raashida came to power, we see the following:
1. Abu Bakr Siddiqi 
was selected by the leaders of the Muhajiroon and Ansar. The next day the entire community swore allegiance to him, but there wasn't an election as such. They merely affirmed the choice of their own leaders.
2. Omar ibn Al Khattab (R) was nominated by Abu Bakr (R) after consultation with the leaders of the Sahaba, especially the Asharaum Mubashshara and Badriyeen (The ten who were promised Jannah and those who participated in the Battle of Badr) who all accepted him as did the people.
3. Uthman ibn Affan was elected by the leaders of the Muhajiroon and Ansar by Abdur Rahman ibn Awf going to each of them to ask for their opinion. When he had been stabbed and was on his deathbed Omar ibn Al Khattab nominated a group of Sahaba (those of the Ten who were alive) to elect a Khalifa from amongst themselve Abdur Rahman ibn Awf voted himself out of the leadership but accepted the role of mediator. He then asked each of them and the other leaders of the Muhajiroon and Ansar and finally when he had the name of Othman ibn Affan as the consensus candidate, he went to Sayyida Ayesha and borrowed Rasoolullah 's turban and wearing it, ascended the Minbar and announced the result.
4. When Othman ibn Affan was assassinated his assassins tried to force Ali bin Abi Taleb to accept the role of Khalifa. He refused but was eventually persuaded by many of the other Sahaba who were afraid of more bloodshed if a leader was not appointed forthwith.
The nature of the Khilaafa changed from the time of Muawiyya ibn Abi Sufyan , who selected his son Yazeed to rule after himself, thereby establishing the first hereditary kingship in Islam. One must note that the appointment of Yazeed was accepted by most of the Sahaba who were alive at the time. So though Yazeed ibn Muawiyya was a poor choice and went on to prove exactly how poor by his actions – the most heinous of which was the killing of the grandson of Rasoolullah , Husain ibn Ali – the fact remains that kingship was accepted as a legitimate form of Khilaafa. Right up to the end of the Othmani (Ottoman) Khilaafa the ruler who was almost always a hereditary monarch, was called (and called themselves) Khalifa and Ameerul Mu'mineen and was accepted as such – meaning both temporal and religious head for all the Muslims of the world.
The temporal leadership was symbolic and had no real authority outside the immediate borders of their personal territories (for example the Khalifa had no authority over the Muslim Kings in India) but he was still acknowledged as the head of the Ummah. Similarly, the religious authority never became a Papal type of authority but du'a for the Khalifa was done in the Jumu‘ah Khutba, which is a symbolic recognition of his authority.
What this goes to show is two things:
1. There are many ways in which a Khalifa may come to power
2. But all those are subject to the universal approval of the Muslim Ummah.
Universal approval doesn't necessarily mean a formal referendum but a general acceptance by the people, even if tacit. Going by that Standard I need hardly point out that even if one were to accept the unilateral declaration of the leader of the ISIS that he is the new Khalifa, he has the approval of perhaps less than 30,000 out of 1.5 billion Muslims. That is not a majority by any stretch of the imagination. So his Khilaafa is an illusion that he and his followers are laboring under and has no meaning for anyone else.
Actions of the ISIS in the name of Islam, especially the horrific killings of innocent civilians including Muslims, Christians, Yazidis and others – what is the Islamic position on these actions?
I want to make three points before I go any further and submit that the reader keeps them in mind when reading what I have written as they are its basis.
1. The Standard must define and justify the action of the one who claims to follow Not vice versa. If someone claims to follow Islam then his or her actions must be judged against the Standard of Islam rather than attempting to define Islam by the actions of the individual who claims to be doing them in the name of Islam.
2. The Standard of Islam has always been the actions of Rasoolullah and his Sahaba
(Companions); especially the Khulafa Ar-Raashida (Rightly Guided Khulafa). All the scholars of Islam have always used this Standard, even in something like understanding the meaning of words and Ayaat of the Qur'an. Whenever a doubt arose about what the specific meaning of a word was, the scholars always asked, “How did the Sahaba understand that word?” That definition is taken as the correct way to understand that word or ayah.
3. Any action carried out in the name of Islam but which is not in accordance with the Standard of Islam must be seen as the isolated action of that individual which is against Islam and his claim that it is Islamic must be dismissed.
It is important to define the Standard because today there is an attempt by some people to say that the actions of ISIS are actually representative of Islam simply because they say so. When you ask them that since the ISIS are 30,000 out of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, how can their actions be taken as representative of Islam instead of the goodness of the other 1.4999 billion; they have no answer except to keep repeating their lie. That logic doesn't seem to be interesting enough and raucous cawing takes the place of reasoned argument. Haykal's statement that 'there's no such thing as Islam' is certainly surprising, to put it politely. How a religion which has a complete theology based on Divine Revelation, recording of the teachings of the Prophet preserved in a feat of historical accuracy that has no parallel and a comprehensive legal system can be called, 'no such thing' is beyond me. How the fact that despite the many different sects of Muslims, all agree on the basic fundamentals bearing testimony both to the coherence of the message as well as the diversity of understanding and interpretation that there is room for can be called, 'no such thing', is something that I fail to understand. Haykal apparently wants us to trash 1400 years of scholarship simply on the basis of his statement that there's no such thing as Islam.
However perhaps he means the position of Sunni Islam that as long as someone accepts the Declaration of Faith (There is nobody worthy of worship other than Allah and Muhammad (S) is His Prophet) then he is considered to be a Muslim no matter what else he believes in or does. Not to say that everything that is done is accepted as correct but it is accepted that it doesn't negate his Islam and his actions don't constitute apostasy. This is and has always been the position of the major scholars of Islam based on which people with some very questionable practices are permitted to come for Haj and are not turned away claiming that they have left Islam by their actions. This remains the situation to this day even with the much maligned hardline Saudi regime, which doesn't stop anyone from making Haj, though many of their scholars have some hard things to say about the Shia and others.
That is why I am saying that one must first decide whose actions constitute a definition of Islam and then use that definition to examine the actions of the ISIS to see if they represent or contradict Islam. Some call the actions of the ISIS a 'literal interpretation' of the Qur'an. We will also examine this claim to see if it is indeed true in the same light i.e. the actions of the Prophet (S) who is the only one whose interpretation of the Qur'an is a Standard to judge every other. Nobody can claim to understand the Qur'an or to interpret it more accurately than the one to whom it was revealed. So let us see how he interpreted it and acted upon it and see if the actions of the ISIS match that Standard or not. ISIS may be a state but is it an Islamic State? Is it a Khilafa Islamiya – Islamic Khilafa? Is it something that represents what the Islamic State under Rasoolullah (S) and his Khulafa Raashida was? Or is it a distortion of it; a parody of the real thing; a bad joke? We can decide that only by looking at the standard that Rasoolullah set. A Gold Standard that's good for all time.
What does Islam offer to the world today? Islam is not the name of only a theory or a theology or a philosophy. Islam is the name of a practice. A practice that has withstood the test of time and has seen circumstances far worse than what we are seeing today and emerged stronger and more resilient. Islam is the name of a practice that works and produces measurable results for those who use it – but like all practices, it only produces results when and if they use it.
Islam gives two essential things to the world – both of which are critically absent today and which the world is crying out for. Allah said about these in the famous ayah that you hear in every Jumu‘ah Khutbah and on which I have done a series of four to five lectures.
Nahl 16: 90. Verily, Allah enjoins Al-Adl (justice) and Al-Ihsan [perfection – more than justice] and giving (help) to kith and kin and forbids Al-Fahsha (shameful acts), and Al-Munkar (sins), and Al-Baghy (oppression), He admonishes you, that you may take heed.
The ayah mentions five things: Justice, Ihsaan (mercy), helping your family, forbidding all sins and oppression. But out of these five the first two are the key out of which the others are derived. So the gift of Islam to the world is Justice and Mercy.
Allah told us categorically about these two; He said about justice:
Nisa 4: 135. O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it is against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector of both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts) so that you may not be unjust and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do.
Harvard Law School, thought highly enough of this ayah and posted it at the entrance of its faculty library, describing it as 'one of the greatest expressions of justice in history.'
Not only that, but Harvard quotes the Qur'an as one of the greatest expressions of justice in the world.
Stand out for justice even if it is against yourself? What can be stronger than that? So let us see what those who understood this, did. Then compare the actions of ISIS against this Standard and see if they are the same. The actions of Rasoolullah and his Sahaba, especially the Khulafa Raashid are the Standard which represents Islam. Not the actions of anyone who comes after them. So no matter how much people with a vested interest in creating an imaginary 'Global Enemy' by demonizing Islam and Muslims may wish to do – we can't accept that the actions of ISIS or anyone else are representative of Islam unless Rasoolullah (S) and his Sahaba also did such things. So let us see what they did, especially in the context of treatment of non-Muslims who lived under their governance.
The first and most famous evidence of Islam's position with respect to the treatment of non-Muslims living under Muslim rule is the famous 'Constitution of Madinah' which Rasoolullah promulgated when he became the Ruler of the city state of Yathrib which was renamed Madinatun Nabawi ( City of the Prophet). The Constitution reads:
The Treaty between Muslims, non-Muslim Arabs and Jews of Madinah was put in writing and ratified by all parties. The document referred Muhammad (S) as the Prophet and Messenger of God but it was understood that the Jews did not have to recognize him as such for their own religious reasons.
Ibn Ishaaq: Contract between the Muhajiroon and Al Ansar
In the name of Allah the Beneficent and Merciful. This is a document from Muhammad the Unlettered Prophet between the Believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and their followers, allies and supporters establishing that they are one nation apart from all others.
The immigrants from Quraysh will maintain their current practice and will honor blood money contracts between themselves and will treat their weaker members with kindness and justice. The Banu Awf shall maintain their current practice and honor their former blood money contracts each party treating their weaker members with kindness and justice among all believers. (He mentioned all the clans of the Ansar and all the families from them).
The believers shall not leave anyone among them burdened by debts without giving to him in kindness and paying for him any ransom money or blood money he owes.
A believer shall not ally with any freed man of a second believer against that man. Pious believers act against any of their own who practice evil, or seek to bring harm, sin, aggression or corruption among believers. Believers will unite against anyone doing this even if he be one of their own sons.
No believer shall kill any believer for any non-believer nor shall he help any non-believer against a believer. Allah's protection is all one, the least of them can offer protection to others. Believers are allies to one another excluding others.
Whoever from among the Jews follows us shall receive help and equality. They shall not be maltreated nor shall help be afforded to others against them. No peace shall be accepted for any one believer to the exclusion of others when the battle is for Allah's cause. Among them equality and justice must prevail. In any expedition we engage in, riders will take turns on their mounts. Believers shall avenge one another for blood, shed in Allah's cause. Believers who are pious are well guided on the straightest of paths.
No polytheist shall be allowed to offer protection for the property or persons of Quraysh. Nor try to interfere with any believer. Anyone who has clearly aggressed and caused the death of any believer shall be subject to retaliation unless the dead person's executor can be satisfied. Believers as a whole shall take action against him and no excuse for their not doing so shall be acceptable. It shall not be permissible for any believer who accepts what is in this document and who believes in Allah and the Day of Judgment to give help or shelter to any wrong doer. Any believer who does so will be the object of Allah's curse and anger on Judgment Day and neither compensation nor excuse will be accepted from him. Any matter in which you disagree must be referred to Allah and to Muhammad .
The Jews shall pay expenses along with the Muslims so long as they are allied in warfare. The Jews of Bani Awf are one nation with the Believers. The Jews shall have their religion, the Muslims their own. This applies to their freedmen and to themselves except to those who commit sins and are unjust. Such people only harm themselves and their families.
What applies to Bani Awf shall also apply to the Jews of Banu Najjar, Banu Harith, Banu Sa'ada, Banu Jushan, Banu Aws, Banu Thalaba, Jufna and Banu Shutaiba. The close associates of the Jews shall be viewed as themselves. None of them shall go to war without Muhammad 's permission. However he is not thereby constrained from taking revenge for injury.
Whoever attacks another shall do so to protect himself and his family and act not unjustly. For Allah condemns such acts. The Jews shall bear their own expenses, the Muslims theirs. Each must help one another against those who fight those who adopt this document. They must give one another advice and consultation and do good and avoid evil. A man is not held blameworthy on behalf of his ally. Help must be given to those wronged.
The center of Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for those who agree to this document. One's neighbor shall be treated as oneself without being harmed on sinned against.
No property shall be entered upon without the permission of its owner. In the case of any dispute or incident occurring between those agreeing to this document and involving consequences likely to be harmful, the matter must be referred to Allah and to Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah . Allah acknowledges what is very good and very pious in this document.
Quraysh and those who help them shall receive no protection. Those accepting this document must help one another against anyone attacking Yathrib. If they are called upon to make peace and do so and keep to it, they will be making peace. If they make a similar demand it is up to the Muslims to agree except if the warfare is over faith.
Each participant shall receive whatever portion is due to him from his own side's winnings.
This document will not provide protection for anyone sinful or unjust. Whoever goes to war will be safe and whoever stays in the town will be safe except those who have sinned or been unjust. Allah provides protection for those who are good and pious.
This is the first written constitution of a State ever promulgated by a sovereign in human history and it emanated from the Prophet of Islam. It was enacted from the first year of Hijra (622 CE). The treaty stipulated a city state in Madinah, allowing wide autonomy to communities. Private justice (revenge) was to be banished. The head of the State had the prerogative to decide who should participate in any military expedition. Social insurance was to be instituted. It is perfectly clear that non-Muslims (Jews in this case) were not forced to convert but were treated as equal citizens, given the same rights and promised justice. The Jewish and Muslim citizens of Madinah specifically covenanted to support one another against enemies. It is a sad fact that the Jews reneged on this covenant and committed treason and consequently were punished for that reason. They were not punished for being Jewish but for committing treason. More on this later.
Let us see how those who learnt Islam from the Prophet behaved. A famous story is that of a Coptic Christian man and Amr Ibn Al-'Was the Governor of Egypt. The Governor's son got into an argument with the Coptic Christian and being arrogant about his parentage hit the Copt with a whip. The Copt complained to the Khalifa Umar Ibn Al-Khattab who then summoned Amr Ibn Al-'Aas and his son to Madinahh. Umar gave a whip to the Copt and said, “Now whip this son of noble parents.” After he had done so, Umar said, “Now whip the bald head of Amr, because his son beat you on account of his father's authority.” The Copt replied, “I have already whipped the person who whipped me.” Then Umar ibn Al-Khattab turned to Amr and said his famous words, “O Amr, since when do you treat as slaves those who were born as free men?” This is how the Sahaba treated non-Muslims. Justice came first and justice meant equal treatment for everyone.
Umar Ibn El-Khattab was stabbed by a Christian called Abu Lulua and was on his death bed. Even there he admonished people around him with respect to the rights of non-Muslims in the following words: “Admonish whoever becomes Khalifa after me concerning the fair treatment of non-Muslims. He must fulfill his pledge of protection towards them, and should fight for their rights and should not take work from them beyond their capacity.” History is witness that not a single Christian was killed in retaliation for the man who killed the Ruler of the Muslims.
Allah said about killing innocent people:
Ma'idah 5: 32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.
Please notice that Allah didn't say – if a person kills a Muslim. He said, 'If a person kills another person it is as if he killed all of humanity.' There isn't another religious book in the world which defines the murder of one innocent person as the murder of all humanity. This is Islam's official position on the murder of anyone, Muslim or not. Official position as defined by Allah Himself. Islam doesn't distinguish in sanctity of life between Muslim and non-Muslim. All life is sacred. Death sentences can be handed down only by a court of law after due process and carried out by the state. Islam doesn't give any individual the right to kill another person except in self-defense. Murder is murder no matter who does it and who is killed. It is Haraam and punishable in Islamic law and in the court of Allah. That is the whole meaning of Rule of Law which is to be contrasted against Rule of the Individual, the essence of feudalism. In Rule of Law nobody is above the law. Rasoolullah (S) demonstrated that in his own life though he was the Law Giver – who brought the law from the Law Maker, Allah. In many cases Allah also gave him complete authority to make the law. Allah ordered:
Hashr 59:7 And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad) gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it) and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Severe in punishment.
Yet he never misused that privilege nor did he take advantages for himself or his family. There are several other Ayaat with similar injunctions. Yet there is no record of Rasoolullah ever abrogating to himself and his family, special privileges over his followers. On the contrary he gave others more than he gave his own family. There is the famous story of Sayyida Fatima who came to him to ask for a servant from the prisoners of war to help her in her household duties. Rasoolullah said to her, 'How can I give you when the people of Suffah are hungry and I need to ransom these prisoners to feed them?' Then he taught her the Tasbeeh which we know as Tasbeeh Al Fatimi which is the Sunnah to read after every Fardh salah and at night before going to bed, as the means of relieving hardship. Rasoolullah never murdered anyone nor did he order the murder of any innocent person. Today ISIS does it in the name of Islam and ignorant self-proclaimed 'scholars on Islam' claim that this is indeed Islam. Truly none as blind as those who refuse to see.
Allah said about killing of Muslims:
Nisa 4: 93. And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein, and the Wrath and the Curse of Allah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him.
What do you say about someone who is cursed by Allah and is promised the Hellfire forever – is he a Muslim or not? For a Muslim to kill another Muslim is to leave Islam and enter the Hellfire. Ask what the religion of humanitarian worker Abdur Rahman Peter Kassig was? Ask what the religion of Iraqi cameraman Raad Al-Azzawi was? Why were they killed? They were not soldiers. They were not fighting anybody. Yet they were publicly beheaded. Islam doesn't even allow prisoners of war – soldiers – to be treated like this. But they did it to non-combatants in the name of Islam. Also with them was another German who had reverted to Islam who was also murdered. Their Islam didn't save their lives but gave them Shahada and sent their killers to Jahannam. Once again an example of gross injustice which is inexcusable and Haraam. Yet thanks to the reactions that such actions instigate, Islam and Muslims are maligned and innocent Muslims pay the price.
When Hajjaj bin Yusuf hanged Abdullah bin Zubair for raising a rebellion against his oppression, he was not content with his evil deed. He called for the mother of Abdullah bin Zubair , Asma bint Abi Bakr who was in her nineties and almost blind. He showed her the body of her son hanging from the Ka'aba and said, 'See what I did to your son.' The daughter of Abu Bakr was no softie. She didn't shed a single tear and replied, 'You sent him to Jannah and he sent you to Jahannam.' There have been people like ISIS in our history and our Salaf showed us how to deal with them. All these are actions of the Prophet and those who learnt Islam from him. These are our Standard. Anyone who compares with integrity, the actions of ISIS with the actions of the Prophet and his Companions the Sahaba, will see that there is no resemblance. ISIS is not Islamic at all.
During the reign of Sayyidina Ali Ibn Abi Talib he lost his shield in a battle and was told that a Jewish man had taken it. Sayyidina Ali bin Abi Talib called the man and asked him to return his shield. The Jew refused and insisted that the shield belonged to him and not to Ali . Ali was the Khalifa (ruler) and could have simply taken the shield if he wanted to but he didn't. Instead he took the case to court.
As the Jew and Ali stood before Qadhy Shuraih ibn al-Hârith ibn Qays one of the most famous judges in Islamic history; the judge said, “Please state your case Ya Abal-Hassan (the Kunya of Sayyidina Ali – it's a mark of respect and friendship to be called by it)”. Ali said to him, 'Don't call me by my Kunya; just call me by my name because I am an ordinary man before you seeking justice. My position and personal friendship with you has no relevance here.'
After each one finished stating his case, the judge asked for evidence. Since Ali was the accuser the burden of proof was on him. He produced his son Al-Hasan ibn Ali and his servant as his witnesses. The judge refused to take their testimony as he said that one was related to him and the other was in his pay. Ali had no other proof to show that he owned the shield so the judge ruled in favor of the Jew.
The Jewish man couldn't believe what he was hearing – that he had won the case against the Khalifa on the Muslims in a Muslim court with a Muslim judge who ruled against the Ruler of the State. He stood up and declared, 'Wallahi this is the character of the Prophets and Messengers. I declare that there is nobody worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is his Messenger.' He then said to Sayyidina Ali bin Abi Talib , 'Here is your shield Ya Ameerul Mu'mineen. I picked it up when it fell off your camel.'
Ali returned the shield to him and said, 'This is my gift to you as you are now my Muslim brother.' The man became Muslim and always stayed close to Sayyidina Ali and was martyred in the Battle of Siffeen. He accepted Islam not because of anything that Sayyidina Ali had said to him. He became Muslim because he saw the justice of Islam and that nobody was above it – not even the Ruler himself. People don't care what you say until they see what you do. Compare the actions of ISIS to this.
Another example is imam Al-Awzai's attitude toward an Abbasid ruler who had exiled one of the non- Muslim tribes from Mount Lebanon after some of them had refused to cooperate with the agricultural tax collector. The ruler, Salih ibn Ali ibn Abdullah ibn Abbas, was a relative of the caliph. Al-Awza'i wrote him a detailed letter in which he stated, “How can all of these people be punished and driven from their lands and properties because of some individual transgressors when Allah states:
Najm 53: 38. That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another
This is the true ordinance to be followed. There's no collective punishment in Islam. (Al-Awza'i further stated) …They (that is, the dhimmis – non-Muslims living under an Islamic government) are not slaves to be transferred from place to place, but they are free men and ahl adh-dhimma.”
There is no killing or hurting innocent civilians for whatever their rulers may have done. There is no punishing one for the crimes of another. This is justice in Islam.
I can cite many other instances of justice and the treatment of non-Muslims in Islam under the rule of Rasoolullah and his Sahaba but let this suffice for the present. Anyone researching objectively using authentic sources can find all the proof he needs about the justice and mercy of Islam and see for himself how far removed ISIS is from that Standard. And how much at fault are those who claim that the actions of ISIS represent Islam. Propaganda is not fact. We must recognize those who seek to malign Islam for their own reasons and expose their falsehood and lies clearly so that innocent people are not misled. We must read and inform ourselves for only knowledge can set us free.
Rasoolullah gave the following advice, which is well worth remembering: If any man oppresses a non-Muslim or tries him beyond his strength, I will be the advocate for the oppressed before Allah.
So how do these people (ISIS) who are a curse upon this Ummah justify not just killing innocent people but publicly beheading them on camera? Barbarism unparalleled. The actions of the ISIS are not a 'literal interpretation' of the Qur'an but its gross misinterpretation. The ISIS has caused more damage to Muslims and the image of Islam worldwide than anyone else in our modern times. So one must question if they are really wolves in sheep's clothing, created by those whose agenda is to cast Islam in the role of 'Global Enemy' so that their war machine can continue to be funded. Rasoolullah warned of the coming of a people like ISIS and described their rigidity, rudeness and lack of mercy as signs of their distance from Islam and its true teaching and understanding.
There's no 'expert opinion' that can supersede the opinion of the Prophet himself, who said:
Jabir b. Abdullah reported that a person came to Rasoolullah at Ja'rana when the Prophet (S) was on his way back from Hunain, and there was some silver with Bilal. Rasoolullah took a handful out of that and bestowed it upon the people. A man said to him, “Ya Muhammad, do justice.” He (Rasoolullah) said, “Woe to you, who would do justice if I do not do justice and you would be very unfortunate and a loser if I do not do justice.” Upon this Umar b. Khattab said, “Permit me to kill this hypocrite.”
Upon this he (Rasoolullah) said,” May Allah protect us! People would say that I kill my companions. This man and his companions would recite the Qur'an but it would not go beyond their throat, and they swerve from it (Islam) just as the arrow goes through the prey. [Sahih Muslim: Book 005, Number 2316]
That man then returned to his people. Khalid b. Walid then said, “Ya Rasoolullah should I not strike his neck? Upon this he (Rasoolullah) said, “Perhaps he prays.” Khalid said, “How many of those who pray profess with their tongue what is not in their heart?” Upon this Rasoolullah said, “I have not been commanded to pierce through the hearts of people, or to split their bellies (insides) (Meaning that he had not been commanded to ascertain a man's sincerity if he was praying). He looked at the man as he was going back to his people. And then he (Rasoolullah) said, “There would arise a people from the progeny of this (man) who would recite the Qur'an glibly, but it would not go below their throats; they would (hurriedly) pass through (the teachings of their) Deen just as the arrow passes through the prey.” [Sahih Muslim: Book 005, Number 2319]
Narrated `Abdullah bin `Amr bin Yasar : That they visited Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri and asked him about Al-Harauriyya, a special unorthodox religious sect, “Did you hear the Prophet saying anything about them?” Abu Sa`id said, “I do not know what Al-Harauriyya is, but I heard the Prophet saying, “There will appear in this nation —- he did not say: from this nation —- a group of people so pious apparently that you will consider your prayers inferior to their prayers, but they will recite the Qur'an, the teachings of which will not go below their throats and will go out of their religion as an arrow darts through the game, whereupon the archer may look at his arrow, its Nasl at its Risaf and its Fuqa to see whether it is blood-stained or not (i.e. they will have not even a trace of Islam in them) [Sahih Bukhari 6931]
Ali bin Abi Talib said, “I heard Rasoolullah saying: There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go below their throats, and they would pass through the Deen as an arrow goes through the prey. [Sahih Muslim: Book 005, Number 2328]
One of the signs of such people that Rasoolullah (S) described is that their hearts will be (as if) made of iron; without any mercy. The ISIS has amply demonstrated its lack of mercy. There is nothing in Islam which permits what they do. Their actions are an abomination against Islam.
Another famous example of the Islamic tradition of dealing with non-Muslims is the letter of Rasoolullah 's Charter of Privileges in 628 C.E to the monks of St. Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai.
“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far; We are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants violated. No one of the nation