Is/Isis/'Islamic state'/Daesh has nothing to do with the classical form of caliphate

The Is/Isis/'Islamic state'/Daesh, has nothing to do with the classical form of caliphate. I will clarify what I mean with this piece.

In this article, I will refer to Is as the rebellion, and the caliphate as the period from 632 to 1924. 

The term state was borrowed from communist writings by 'reformers' about one hundred years ago. In a desperate way to halt western thought in the Muslim world. These reformers where trying to do something but it was not born from anything other than rejection of the other. It failed and instead brought forward an idea of a Utopian world that never had any previous historical precedence. Those influenced by communist works brought the word state forward. It has no place in classical Islamic thought or any historical reference; it is very alien in fact. 

Islamic ethics of war

The Prophet (may Allah bestow peace and blessing upon him) said, “Go forth in the name of Allah, fight the enemies of Allah, your enemies in Syria. If you shall find men in monasteries then do not disturb them. Do not kill women, children, or the elderly. Do not cut down trees and do not destroy buildings.” (Source: Nur Al-Yaqin by  Muhammad Al-Khudayri p. 206)

This wondrous statement of the Prophet (may Allah bestow peace and blessings upon him) was the basis for a just war policy. It would also be adopted by western law as the basis for things like the magnacata, human rights and other just war policies. 

Innocent civilians should not to be harmed under any circumstances. Unlike modern warfare which is the murder of civilians in their homes. The killing of non combatants is unlawful and a war crime in all classical books of Islamic law.

Treatment of non-Muslims

Non-Muslims had rights in the classical caliphate. They had rights to transact in things that were unlawful for Muslims as long as they kept it within their areas. So non-Muslims could transact in wine/alcohol and pork to sell to their own people without any interference from the caliphate. (Ref Quduri).

Non-Muslims were referred to as Dhimma - meaning protected. They were protected from harm of other armies by the Muslim government, they had recourse to any harm reached by Muslims too. 

Non-Muslims had the right to believe as they wished. There was no forced conversion historically recorded according to the book Preaching of Islam by T. Arnold. However he claimed there were some events in India but it could be easily rebutted because the British were trying to control India at the time. However, it is historical fact that even after hundreds of years of Mogul caliphate, Hindus remained the majority by almost 85%. 

There might have been isolated incidents but forced conversion is not accepted in Islamic law. As faith is defined as belief on the tongue with truthfulness in the heart. 

Therefore, forced conversion is not acceptable. Because a person who professes faith on the tongue and not the heart is not a believer. So forced conversion is not valid in any school of Islamic law.

It took hundreds of years for Muslims to reach a significant amount in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and so forth. Forced conversion takes no time at all!

Jews in Spain actually called the Muslims to come to Spain because the Jews had no right to own their own property in a Christian state but had this right with the Muslims. Jews were expelled from Spain with the Muslims after the reconquest in 1492. Where did they go? To Turkey, Morrocco and so forth. The Ottoman caliphate prepared areas for Jews to live and they were welcomed.

Jizyah was a tax that non-Muslims paid under Muslim rule. The value of this was twenty dinars for a rich person and if they could not afford it then they did not have to pay (Quduri). This was a yearly amount and other non Muslims had right to what would become known as the pension which was initiated when an old Jewish man was seen begging by Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him). He admonished the ruler and arranged for the Jewish man to attain wealth from the public funds. This was the first pension in history and would be copied from then on.

In the early century of Islam, conversion was difficult. People had to align themselves with a Muslim tribe before being accepted! Otherwise, they were not taken seriously! The Ummayyad dynasty actually put off converts and this is historical fact!

Within the first one hundred years of Islam, the political system of Islam spread to china and to Spain. Christians in Egypt were more comfortable and happier living under the caliphate than their own Christian byzantine rulers. The majority of the people were Christians and other religious denominations. Muslims were the minority rulers but the people preferred them over their own rulers. 

In Ottoman times, Christians would pretend that their children were Muslims so that they could be part of the high-class Ottoman army, Janissaries.

The Sunnis and Shia tolerated each other overall but there were incidents that should not have occurred on either side. Yet now we see tragic events meant to bring opposition against these two forces. Before the invasion of Iraq, Sunnis and Shia used to live next door to each and now look at the violence! Where has this come from?

Courts were convened and judges were in place according to each religious tradition. Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians had their own courts and they were not to be interfered with by the classical caliphate. You can see this in any place where Christians lived in Syria, Egypt and other places. There was nothing like the court of hillbillies that we see now by the Is/daesh rebellion. That is a mockery and its 'rulings' are not acceptable and will be punished. Respect was given to the law and it was not merely some degraded man with over grown beard and hair like a woman barking. It was much like you see and English court of law because the classical part is where the court of law was taken. All law has an 'Islamic' influence and that not a joke.

Declaring other Muslims as disbelievers is typical of a group that has no understanding of Islam. Cases of disbelief are taken to a court of law then the judge rules on them. Declaring groups of Muslims disbelievers is wrong and should not be tolerated. In addition, disbelief by association is not acceptable. Disbelief only occurs when an individual makes a statement that cannot possibly be interpreted in a good way. See link.

They meet Muslims and question them about their faith but because they are so religious they have not read the Quran.

تَقُولُواْ لِمَنْ أَلْقَى إِلَيْكُمُ ٱلسَّلَـٰمَ  لَسْتَ مُؤْمِناً

"Do not say to those Muslims you meet 'you are a not a believer.'" (Quran: Al-Nisa 4:94). This verse warns against delving into someones faith. If someone says they are Muslim then that is enough, the average Muslim does not need to know proofs of faith. This is totally unlawful and a sin they are committing.

 

The rebellion

First of all, they are nothing but a rebellion that was founded because law and order was removed in Iraq. Therefore, it is primarily the fault of outside interference and they should shoulder all the blame. Think for a moment, the invasion was supposed to make law and order, then how did it let this rebellion appear unnoticed? That seems very convenient does it? Invading Iraq did not make the world safe from terrorism as they claimed instead it escalated the problem. Maybe thats what they want, to use this 'problem' to invade countries with vital natural resources so they can plunder them. All of this under the pretext of 'threat' that does not exist except in the 'controlled' media of Orwellain overtones.

I have always wondered how crazy groups get their funding. Is it from oil or from what? Someone is funding them, you want to stop them, then stop funding them!

Why are they beheading people who are not a threat to anyone? They have killed many charity workers and this is nothing but wrong and unlawful. What kind of stupid criminal keeps a record of his own murder? He must be very stupid or consider himself above the law. Only serial killers keep reminders of their depraved acts.

However, in either case, he should show his face and that proves that this is an ignoble cause, to say the least! Just for the sake of clarification that killing innocent people is unlawful and wrong especially beheading in this manner. This rebellion is actually succeeding in portraying Islam in the most evil way. Ask yourself why? They are already placing the idea that an Islamic caliphate is evil which clearly not the case is when you take an historical glance. With the weight of the western media behind the IS rebellion, everything is reported with great detail. They must be most well orchestrated rebellion movement in history! The movie Way the dog is worth watching because that is way that war is sold. Could this all be a figment of the imagination of the media? Or just pretext to invade somewhere else?

After the tragic events in Tunisia and Kuwait, how can the IS rebellion be that organised to do things on the same day! How have they spread so fast and set up training camps! How long does it take to train people and then send them out? A short while ago the blame would have been laid at al-Qaida but where have they gone and have they been replaced by IS rebellion. This is like product replacement before the last one runs out, the new IS rebellion is out! Whoever is behind these groups because it seems like the same hand! How can government security services turn a blind eye to such people? Either the intelligence services are not doing their jobs or are they....? 

Its also strange to see some non-Muslims dressed in Muslim clothes killing people then the war mongering media slanders Islam! Some reporters said that the rebellion did not even have the Quran with them or know it when asked! 

Calling them an 'Islamic state' is like calling a piece of dung a castle. There is no relation to either thing or the fact that the media is using the term and refuses to change it. Shows how much bias is in their reports and the fact the news is no longer subjective. Big brother in Orwells classic 1984 re-wrote history to serve their needs and is that what the media does now?

Moreover, there is a deliberate usage of this term to denigrate Muslims and Islam. Maybe that is what the financiers of these rebellion groups wanted in the first place.

Interesting article by the guardian click here