الحمد لله، الحمد لله الذي جعل صحةَ الإنسان وحياةَ المجتمعِ في إصلاح المعاملة، وحفِظها في المدينة المنورة، نحمده تعالى ونستعينه، ونشكره تعالى ونستغفره ونستغيثه، نعوذ بالله من شرور أنفسنا ومن سيئات أعمالنا، من يهد الله فهو المهتد ومن يضلل فلن تجد له وليا مرشدا، ونشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له، له الملك و له الحمد، يحيي ويميت، بيده الخير، وهو على كل شيء قدير،  ونشهد أن سيدنا و مولانا محمداً عبده ورسوله، وحبيبه وصفيه، بلغ الرسالة وأدى الأمانة ونصح الأمة، النبي الأمي الذي أرسله الله بالهدى والدين الحق، بشيرا ونذيرا بين يدي الساعة، صلى الله عليه وسلم وعلى آله وأصحابه ومن تبعهم بإحسان إلى يوم الدين.

أما بعد! فيا عباد الله اتقوا الله حق تقاته ولا تموتن إلا وأنتم مسلمون. يأيها الذين ءامنوا اتقوا الله وقولوا قولا سديدا يصلح لكم أعمالكم ويغفر لكم ذنوبكم. ومن يطع 

الله ورسوله فقد فاز فوزا عظيما. اتقوا الله فيما أمر وانتهوا عما نها عنه وزجر.

As the Shaykh mentions in his latest article, the deen of Islam is, and always has been, based on a dual witnessing: 

The first part relating to our interaction with our Creator, ibada, and the second part relating to our interactions with creation, mu'amala. One half of the shahada is not complete without the other and one cannot separate them or declare the one more important than the other. Allah says,

وَمَنْ لَمْ يُؤْمِنْ بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ فَإِنَّا أَعْتَدْنَا لِلْكَافِرِينَ سَعِيرًا

the translation of which is, “Whoever does not have belief in Allah and His Messenger  - We have prepared a Blazing Fire for the unbelievers.” Failing to believe in the Messenger is just as much a cause of entering the Fire as failing to believe in Allah, and thus divorcing Islam from the zone of economic and political activity is just as much kufr as is abandoning the prayer or the fast of Ramadan. And yet this is the inevitable consequence of incorporating the doctrine of human rights into one's belief system and relegating Islam to the private sphere, considering it to be just one right of many rights possessed by human beings, a step that has been taken by all too many of the most prominent Muslim 'thinkers' of our day - thinkers who have only risen to prominence because they have been championed by either the secularist leadership of the Muslim world and given a platform to disseminate their views in the media, whether that be television or the newspapers, or because they have been championed and celebrated by the enemies of Islam in the West. Examples of such scholars abound, including among others Sayyid Qutb, Abul Ala Maududi and many others. Such scholars were confronted with a world in which Caliphate was no more and the Muslims had been defeated, colonised and overrun by their enemies. And they were forced to ask themselves why? 

Unfortunately for them and the millions of Muslims who followed them, they approached the question from completely the wrong direction - for they based their analysis on the premise that the West was somehow ahead of the Muslims and that the Muslims had fallen behind. And that in order to catch up, Islam had to modernise, reform and adapt to the times. And how better to reform than to emulate those who had already achieved financial and military success, and take on their system, keeping all that was compatible with Islam and discarding the rest. But this approach was premised upon a number of false assumptions - first that the Western system was inherently better than the one found in the Muslim lands, second that success is due to system and not Allah, and third that there was any part of that system that was compatible with Islam. For the fact of the matter is that millat al-kufr and millat al-Islam have nothing whatsoever in common - the one is based on humanism - the belief that human beings are the arbiters and masters of their own destiny, while the other is based on tawhid - submission to Allah and accepting that our destiny is totally in His hands. The one puts legislation in the hands of ignorant and short-sighted men while the other takes it solely from the One who Sees and Hears everything and possesses complete and total knowledge of our affair and the world we live in. The one is a total denial of the other and vice-versa, so to think that the adoption and Islamicisation of any part of the kafir system is possible is total madness.

Central to the capitalist kafir ideology is the universal declaration of human rights, the idea that human beings possess certain intrinsic unalienable rights purely because they are human beings. Firstly, people do not really have 'rights'. As the Shaykh said,

“Rights, properly speaking, can only be given by a ruler who commands both regulation and punishment. He can enforce where it is done and he can punish where it is not done. For example in the early Middle Ages the chivalric knights imposed rights forcing the Monarch to sign the Magna Carta, or Great Charter. Its key ‘rights’ were the backbone of domestic law from then, 1245, until the ‘democratic ruler’ Blair abolished it in 2001-2004. Now with a mythic ‘international community’ there is neither command nor punishment relative to any action.”

Secondly, even were there a one world government to enforce these 'rights', still the fact would remain that these 'rights' were formulated by people, and people, when left to their own devices, always tend to put their own personal interests first and work to their own agenda. So these ‘rights’ will always tend to favour the ideology of the grouping that penned them. As A.J. Milne put it, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights professes to be a statement of human rights, irrespective of the particular social and political order under which they happen to live,” but “goes on to enumerate a detailed list of rights which presupposes the values and institutions of a certain kind of social and political order, namely liberal, democratic, industrial society.”

Yet, despite these two points, still we find many Muslim thinkers talking of Islamic human rights and using them as the yardstick for measuring what is justifiable and acceptable in the deen and what is not.

And they feel justified in doing this because, on the surface the doctrine of human rights appears to have much in common with the laws of Islam: the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the right to a fair trial, the right to privacy etc. etc. - all of these are respected within the Shari’a. And it is because of all these apparent shared principles that they brush over the inconsistencies and try to explain Islam in such a way so as to incorporate them. By acknowledging a set of ‘core universal values’ outside of religion, they are already guilty of making the Will of God subject to the will of man for it is man who decides what those values are, and that is the very essence of kufr.

One of the core values that some of these apologists acknowledge is the right to freedom. The first article of the universal declaration of human rights reads:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Some compromise their deen by affirming the brotherhood of man, thereby implying that the believer is the equal of the unbeliever. This is in direct contradiction to the deen and the teachings of the Prophet. Allah says,

إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ

the translation of which is, “Indeed, the believers are brothers,” The muminun are brothers to one another, not to anyone else. No one with belief in Allah and the Last Day holds any love in their hearts for those who go against the Messenger, not even if they are their own physical brothers. Allah also says,

مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ أَشِدَّاءُ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَاءُ بَيْنَهُمْ

the translation of which is, “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are fierce to the kafirun, merciful to one another.” To be Muslim, we must love what Allah loves and hate what He hates, and there is no doubt He hates kufr, for He says,

وَلَا يَرْضَى لِعِبَادِهِ الْكُفْرَ

the translation of which is, “He is not pleased with kufr in His slaves.” Others go even further in order to justify this doctrine and declare that Islam came to abolish the institution of slavery, and reinterpret the Quran in order to justify their claim, saying that because Allah says in surat Muhammad that we should free or ransom prisoners after war and because the major source of slaves is prisoners of war, that is a firm indication that the Quran sought to abolish it. Riffat Hassan writes, “A Book which does not give a king or a prophet the right to command absolute obedience from another human being could not possibly sanction slavery in any sense of the word.”

This point of view is an extremely damaging one, for it suggests that all of the Companions who held slaves after that point, and indeed the Prophet himself who had the coptic slavegirl Maria, were directly going against the Commands of Allah, and second that the deen as it has come down us through the Quran and Sunna was somehow incomplete, for there was nothing in either that unambiguously abolished slavery. Slavery is valid in the deen of Allah when its conditions are met and so it is not a right of the human condition to be born free. 

Moreoever, the truth of the matter is that in the societies that drafted this declaration, no one is born free, but everyone is born a debt slave, forced to work to pay of the existing national debt of the country into which he is born, and everyone must get permission of their master, the state, before they can do anything. You want to drive, you need a licence, you want to live somewhere, you must pay your rates, you want to sell something, you need a permit, you want to fish and take from the bounty of the ocean, you need a permit. And on and on and on. The article should read, "All human beings are born slaves without dignity." This is the reality of the world in which we find ourselves and is the inevitable consequence of putting our affairs in the hands of fellow human beings who are inherently selfish, and not submitting to the Will of the One who created us and knows what is best for us. 

أَقُولُ قَوْلِي هَذَا وَأَسْتَغْفِرُ اللهَ الْعَظِيمَ لِي وَلَكُمْ وَلِسَائِرِ المُسْلِمِينَ مِنْ كُلِّ ذَنْبٍ فَاسْتَغْفِرُوهُ إِنَّهُ هُوَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ.الحمد لله الحمد لله رب العالمين، وأشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له وأشهد أن محمداً عبده ورسوله، صلى الله وسلم وبارك عليه وعلى آله وصحبه، والتابعين وتابعي التابعين ومن تبعهم بإحسان إلى يوم الدين.

أما بعد! فيأيها الذين ءامنوا اتقوا الله ما استطعتم واسمعوا وأطيعوا وأنفقوا خيرا لأنفسكم. يا عباد الله أوصيكم وإياي بتقوى الله وطاعته وأحذركم وإياي عن معصيته ومخالفته.

As for the second article of the doctrine of human rights, it states as part of it that we have no rights to distinguish or differentiate on the basis of religion. Furthermore, article 18 goes on to state that everyone is free to change their religion and manifest it openly or privately. Many Muslims say this is perfectly compatible with the deen of Islam, quoting such ayats as,

لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ

the translation of which is, “There is no compulsion in the deen.” And,

فَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِنْ وَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ

the translation of which is, “So let whoever wishes have iman and whoever wishes be kafir.” And furthermore, some even go so far as to say there is no prohibition in the deen against apostasy, and that the fighting and killing of such people is only valid when they actively foment rebellion. This goes totally against the hadith of the Prophet,

مَنْ غَيَّرَ دِينَهُ فَاضْرِبُوا عُنُقَهُ

“Strike the neck of any who change their deen.” And it also goes against the ijma/consensus of the people of knowledge among the Muslims. Furthermore, while it is true that the Muslims never put a sword to any of the throats of the people of the Book and forced them to become Muslim, for what a person believes and does not believe is between him and Allah, still they did not treat Muslims and non-Muslims the same. For Allah instructs us to form a dhimma contract between us and them, saying,

حَتَّى يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ

the translation of which is, “Until they pay the jizya with their own hands in a state of complete abasement.” And does not permit them to enter into the Hijaz. Furthermore, they have no right to inherit from Muslims nor Muslims to inherit from them. 

Many other articles are also inconsistent with the deen of Allah, but are in danger of being swept along with the tide of modernism and made part of the deen, such as article sixteen which permits anyone of any sex or any marriage to marry, thereby permitting same sex marriages and marriages of non-Muslim men to Muslim women, all of which totally go against the Shariah of Allah. Or article 19 permitting absolute freedom of expression, thereby permitting slander, tell-taling and insulting the Messenger of Allah and his Companions.

This human rights document purports to be about freedom, but in fact is more about enslavement, placing the world under the hegemony of a single world order that claims to liberate and tolerate difference, but in fact only tolerates those who share the same world view, a world order that claims to offer justice but allows banking and usury, a transaction that is built upon inequity. Human rights is a tool of conquest and empire. As Del Valle writes, ‘The fundamentalism of the Rights of Man is truly a weapon of subversion designed to discredit all patriotic sentiment and beyond, to destroy the legitimacy of nation-states.”

And to accept it means to turn the deen into a private religion that impacts on no part of one’s life other than one’s individual and personal relationship with one’s Creator. It means the separation of the shahadatayn. And we cannot accept that. The shahadatayn must be reunited and the Deen must be made whole - ‘Ibada and Mu‘amala - Prayer and Trade. This has to be our goal and our aim and the goal and aim of every Muslim who lives in these troubled times. 

إِنَّ اللهَ وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ، يَا أَيُهَا الذِينَ آمَنُواْ صَلُّواْ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُواْ تَسْلِيماً. اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ وَسَلِّمْ وَبَارِكْ عَلَيْهِ وَعَلَى آلِهِ وَصَحْبِهِ  أَجْمَعِينَ. 

وَارْضَ اللَّهُمَّ عَنِ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ وَعُثْمَانَ وَعَلِيٍّ، وَعَنْ سَائِرِ الصَّحَابَةِ أَجْمَعِينَ، خُصُوصاً اِلأَنْصَارَ مِنْهُمْ وَالمُهَاجِرِينَ، وَعَنِ التَّابِعِينَ وَتَابِعِي التَّابِعِينَ وَمَنْ تَبِعَهُمْ بِإِحْسَانٍ إِلَى يَوْمِ الدِّينِ.

اللَّهُمَّ اهْدِ وُلَاةَ أُمُورِ المُسْلِمِينَ لِمَا يُرْضِيكَ وَلِاتِّبَاعِ سُنَّةِ نَبِيِّكَ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَثَبِّتْ أَقْدَامَهُمْ عَلَى الصِّرَاطِ المُسْتَقِيمِ، وَأَصْلِحْهُمْ يَا رَبَّ الْعَالَمِينَ.

اللَّهُمَّ بَارِكْ عَلَى شَيْخِنَا، وَعَلَى أَمِيرِنَا، وَعَلَى جَمِيعِ أُمَرَاءِ وَزُعَمَاءِ المُسْلِمِينَ.  

اللَّهُمَّ بَارِكْ عَلَى المُسْلِمِينَ فِي هَذِهِ المَدِينَةِ، وَوَفِّقْهُمْ لِمَا تُحِبُّهُ وَتَرْضَاهُ يَا أَكْرَمَ الأَكْرَمِينَ. 

اللَّهُمَّ أَعِزَّ الإِسْلَامَ وَالمُسِْلمِينَ (3) وَاخْذُلِ الْكُفْرَ وَالْكَافِرِينَ، وَانْصُرِ المُجَاهِدِينَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللهِ. وَاجْعَلْ كَلِمََتَكَ هِيَ العُلْيَا وَكَلِمَةَ الْكُفْرِ هِيَ السُّفْلَى.

رَبَّنَا ءَاتِنَا فِي الدُّنْيَا حَسَنَةً وَفِي الآخِرَةِ حَسَنَةً وَقَِنَا عَذَابَ النَّارِ. 

اللَّهُمَّ لاَ تَدَعْ فِي مَقَامِنَا هَذَا ذَنْباً إِلاَّ غَفَرْتَهُ، وَلاَ عَيْباً إِلاَّ سَتَرْتَهُ، وَلاَ مَرِيضاً إِلاَّ شَفَيْتَهُ وَعَافَيْتَهُ، وَلاَ مَسْجُوناً إِلاَّ طَلَقْتَ سَرَاحَهُ، وَلاَ مُسَافِراً فِي بَرِّكَ وَبَحْرِكَ إِلاَّ سَلِِمْتَهُ وَغَنِمْتَهُ.

إِنَّ اللهَ يَامُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالإِحْسَانِ وَإِيتَاءِ ذِي الْقُرْبَى، وَيَنْهَى عَنِ الْفَحْشَاءِ وَالمُنكَرِ وَالْبَغْيِ، يَعِظُكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَّكَّرُونَ، وَلَذِكْرُ اللهِ أَكْبَرُ وَاللهُ يَعْلَمُ مَا تَصْنَعُونَ. وَقُومُواْ إِلَى صَلاتِكُمْ يَرْحَمُكُمُ اللهُ.