Processing your request, Please wait....
Published On: Wednesday 19 Apr, 2017
By: Mazin Abdul Adhim

This is a reply I made to a brother regarding why I believe the Ummah had rejected ISIS’s “Khilafah,” and why I believe this sort of rejection will not happen when the real Khilafah is re-established. This disagreement among the Ummah with ISIS’ “Khilafah” is not an emotional or biased rejection. It is an objective one for many valid reasons and many “borderline valid” reasons based on what we know of ISIS’s history. One does not need to be a political analyst to know when a good thing has happened, or when a very questionable event is being promoted as an unquestionably good thing. People know the truth when it reaches them. It’s not just the government scholars or the traitors who have rejected this “Khilafah,” rather it is the masses who have rejected it, including the sincere groups. This is why I don’t believe that this will be an issue when the true Khilafah is re-established.

I’ll remind you of a few things:

1. ISIS was established on a takfiri approach to anyone who disagrees with them. This has pushed most of the Ummah away from them, and they have no popular support.

2. The “Khilafah” of ISIS was established on the blood of the Muslims in Al-Shaam, and almost nothing else. They stepped into the already-successful and well-established uprising in the north of Syria, and turned the struggle against the Kafir forces of Bashar into a Muslim vs Muslim bloodbath. Even if someone disagrees and can cite one or two little stories of a skirmish between ISIS and Bashar’s forces, that doesn’t change what we all have seen and know.

3. Most people can clearly see that ISIS has no actual state. Again, it does not matter if ISIS has a lovely advertising campaign and many people on Facebook (who have never stepped foot there) are sold on their claims. The rest of us, including verified and proven eye-witness accounts from the area (including the recent article from 5Pillars), know that they do not have control over their resources, including power, water, phone lines, or much else.

4. Adding to the previous point, we know that Mousil and the rest of the “Khilafah” has very little internal security. Al-Baghdadi couldn’t even attend his first Friday Khutbah except under extreme security arrangements, where phone lines were even cut the morning of that Khutbah (a coincidence?). People do not feel safe at all under ISIS (except those carrying the guns, of course), and I have personally verified this.

5. ISIS has neither proven itself capable of fighting Bashar’s forces, since all the lands they took in Syria were already liberated by Muslim fighters long before ISIS arrived, nor has ISIS proven itself capable against Iraqi forces, since Mousil was handed over to them. We all know that Iraq’s army made an organized withdrawal from Mousil, which itself raises some very serious questions.

So, these issues are not fleeting, shallow, biased, partisan, or whatever. These are very serious issues that any rational human being would question. If this was the Khilafah that the Hizb helped establish, I would completely understand why everyone is rejecting it. This is not a Khilafah, this is not a state, it’s just a militia occupying a part of someone else’s state, half of which was established on Muslim blood without dealing with the actual government in the region, and the other half was handed to them on a silver platter.

As for the actual Khilafah, and why we believe that these disagreements will not be an issue after it is re-established, this is because when the real Khilafah is re-established, it will have Nusrah according to how Rasool Allah (P) sought Nusrah, which is to seek a formidable force that has real influence and control of the region they reside in.

It will also have completed the “intellectual struggle” component of the work in the area it is established in, which means it will have popular support. The people of the land will be WITH the Khilafah and a PART of the Khilafah, not a bunch of confused, scared people, who look at ISIS as a bunch of dangerous, overzealous, young Takfeeris who consider everyone as inferior in Aqeeda, weak in Iman, and will kill anyone who refuses to give them Bay’ah based on an incredibly shallow Tafseer of the Hadith “Whoever tries to divide you while you are united on one man, then kill him.”

Remember, when Al-Khazraj spent a year calling their people to Islam, and returned with news that every house was speaking about Islam, Rasool Allah (P) did not accept that as enough, and sent Mus’ab bin Umayr (R) to Madinah for another year to establish a deep understanding and loyalty to Islam and the leaders of Muslims.

Establishing a state is not just taking a land and dominating the people. Establishing a state means to have the people of that land with you and the Nusrah of that land loyal to you. It means to have full and total control of the resources of the land, and the resources must be to a minimum standard, not just “any resources,” otherwise long ago we would have gone to the middle of a desert and established the Khilafah there.

The Prophet(P) asked many tribes about their strength, and if they were not very powerful, he(P) did not ask them for Nusrah at all, such as the tribe of Rabi’ah: Abu Bakr found them to be weak, and he found that they were not the dominant force in their area, so the Prophet(P) walked away. (Source (Ar.))

When the true Khilafah is re-established, it will shock the world. It will be an immediate threat to all powers in the region, and the response of the surrounding tyrants will likely show it. The return of the true Khilafah will absolutely spell the end of all the regimes that rule over the Muslim world, and they know it.

The Khilafah does not need to be *stronger* than other neighboring forces. But the strength must be relative, and capable of handling fighting the powers in the region. If Rasool Allah (saw) had around 500 fighters in the early days of Madinah, and Makkah had, let’s say a total of around 4000 fighters (as many seerah books note that usually 1 in 10 of any population back then are fighters), that is an 8:1 ratio. If we include the other imminent threats in the region, that might raise it to 10:1. The Khilafah needs something relative to the powers in the region.

Just taking Iraq and Syria alone, since ISIS is occupying their states, Iraq has around 800,000 personnel, including reserves, and Syria has around 400,000. That is 1.2 million men on TWO fronts, not one. What does ISIS have? 15,000? Maybe 20,000? Against 1.2 million on two fronts, with no water or power, no airforce, no navy, just ground forces, some AKs and a few rockets? The only reason why the IS exists right now is because no one is really attacking them, which again raises very serious questions.

And if you think that the “Allah will protect us” claim will work, ask yourself how far that took the Taliban, as they said the same thing. And don’t forget that they had some serious tactical advantages, including a very favorable terrain, and a well-established government that had full control over the lands resources.

Rasool Allah (P) did not ignore the rational rules (rules which were designed by Allah into the system of life itself) of how to prepare for a war. The Prophet(P) wouldn’t even accept Nusrah from tribes that offered it if he (saw) believed they would not be reliable (Banu Shaybaan, for example). Islam teaches us that, yes, we don’t need to match the powers in the region, but we need to have a relative amount of power that Islam teaches us that we must have, as demonstrated by Rasool Allah (saw).

And if anyone claims, “Well, then help them and make it a Khilafah,” then we go back to the issue of how to re-establish the Khilafah, and our disagreement with a gradualism approach to re-establishing it, whether gradual political implementation or gradual military strength. Neither are acceptable. Rasool Allah (P) taught us to demand all or nothing.

Email Email Print Print