Skip to main content

Gaddafi's Deceitful call for Jihad

The Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi in a long running dispute with Switzerland declared "Let us wage jihad against Switzerland, Zionism and foreign aggression. Any Muslim in any part of the world who works with Switzerland is an apostate, is against Muhammad, God and the Koran." Such a declaration is unusual for most of the Muslim rulers who have become accustomed to selling out the Ummah.


The response of the international community has been the usual outrage. "Such declarations on the part of the head of state are inadmissible in international relations," said Sergei Ordzhonikidze, the UN chief in Geneva. Philip Crowley, US State Department spokesman said "...a call for jihad against any country or individual has the potential to harm and is not something the United States takes lightly." Whilst the EU said "If these reports are correct, they come at a most unfortunate moment." The international community saw fit to comment on this largely bilateral affair between Switzerland and Libya; they however remained silent when Switzerland banned the construction of minarets in December 2009.

The row began after the arrest of Gaddafi's son Hannibal and his wife in Geneva in July 2008. They were accused of assaulting two servants while staying at a luxury hotel in the Swiss city, though the charges were later dropped. Libya retaliated by cancelling oil supplies, withdrawing billions of dollars from Swiss banks, refusing visas to Swiss citizens and recalling some of its diplomats. Switzerland retaliated by blacklisting 188 high-ranking Libyans, denying them entry permits.

Whilst both nations have used this tit-for-tat quarrel to achieve other aims, Gaddafi is most certainly not sincere to Islam by calling for Jihad. In 1977 Colonel Gaddafi, openly announced that the ahadeeth mentioned by the tongue of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم are of doubtful authenticity because they were compiled two hundred years after the death of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Globally the concept of Jihad has been maligned by the West. Unfortunately some from the Ummah even embarrassed about the concept of Jihad and began calling for struggle against ones nafs (desires) using a fabricated hadith in their attempt the change the meaning of Jihad. The West has a long history with the Ummah who on many occasions through jihad successfully defeated Western Christian attempts at defeating the Ummah. Having Jihad declared against you by the Khilafah was something the whole world feared in the past; such was the standing of the Khilafah and the Ummah. Today Jihad doesn't create fear in the West whilst the Muslim rulers embarrass the Ummah as they act as lackeys for the West when they do call for Jihad.

There are many examples from Islamic history where the Khilafah undertook manoeuvres, was proactive or threatened the enemies of Islam creating fear across the world, what follows are some examples:

- The French king Francis I was captured at the battle of Pavia in 1525. France felt humiliated by the capture of her king but her army was unable to rescue him from captivity. She made recourse to the Islamic Khilafah state, under the Uthmani's at that time, and she sent a messenger on behalf of the king of France on 6th December 1525 seeking help from the Islamic State. The messenger met the Uthmani Khaleef Sulayman al-Qanooni who responded to his call. Sulayman gave the messenger a letter which read: "we have received the letter delivered by your messenger, and in which you stated that your enemy has attacked your country and you are imprisoned and seek our help in respect to securing your release. We have answered your request so be at ease and do not worry". This is how Sulayman responded. The Khilafah state used its international weight and military power to rescue the king of France and made an effective contribution towards his release. The Khaleef of the Muslims helped France without compensation, without occupying a part of France or colonising any region of France in return. Rather he did the action as an act of goodwill.

- Byzantine Emperor John V was forced to sign an unfavorable treaty with Orhan in 1356 that recognised his Thracian losses (Balkan Peninsula). The son of Osman, Orhan I, conquered Nicaea in 1331 and Nicomedia in 1337 and established the capital in Bursa. During Orhan's reign the Khilafah was organised as a state with a new currency, government and a modern army. Osman married Theodora, the daughter of Byzantine prince John VI Cantacuzenus. In 1346 Orhan openly supported John VI in the overthrowing of the emperor John V Palaeologus. When John VI became co-emperor (1347-1354) he allowed Orhan to raid the peninsula of Gallipoli which gained the Uthmani's their first stronghold in Europe.

- In 1783 the first US navy boat started to sail in international waters and within two years was captured by the Uthmani navy near Algeria. In 1793 12 more US navy boats were captured. In March 1794 the US Congress authorized President Washington to spend up to 700 000 gold coins to build strong steel boats that would resist the Uthmani navy. Just a year later the US signed the Barbary Treaty to resolve the Uthmani threat. Barbary, was the term for the North African wilaya's of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, under the rule of the Ottomans.

The terms of the treaty were:

1.The treaty will cost the US a one off payment of $992,463

2.The American ships captured would be returned and the American Navy was to be given permission to sail in the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea.

3.In return, the American government would pay $642 000 in equivalent gold.

4.The US would also pay an annual tax (tribute) of $12 000 in gold. The annual tribute would be calculated according to the Islamic calendar and not the Christian calendar

5.$585,000 would be paid for the ransom of the captured American sailors

6.A state of the art steel ship would be constructed and delivered to the Uthmani's, built in the US with all costs borne by the US in return for privileges. (The costs of masts, Yards, and heavy planks, were very costly and so difficult to procure, and then so exceedingly expensive to transport. Once delivered the US had actually paid thirty times their estimated price in the stipulations).

The treaty was written in Turkish and signed by President Washington, This is the only American legal document to ever have been concluded in a foreign language and the only treaty the Americans have ever signed that agrees to pay annual tax to another nation. This treaty continued until the Khilafah was abolished.

The Khilafah of the past was feared throughout the world. Any attack on any Muslim was considered an attack on the whole Ummah and was dealt with severely. Today the Muslim rulers like Gaddafi sit idly when the Muslims of Palestine are butchered by the Israelis. They in fact participate by having cordial relations with such nations. The Muslim rulers will continue to use Islam to show the Ummah they have some semblance of the deen in them. The Ummah however will never be deluded at the acts of the rulers who have shown on numerous occasions that they are the enemies of Islam.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An advice to Muslims working in the financial sector

Assalam wa alaikum wa rahmatullah wabarakatahu, Dear Brothers & Sisters, We are saddened to see Muslims today even those who practise many of the rules of Islam are working in jobs which involve haram in the financial sector. They are working in positions which involve usurious (Riba) transactions, insurance, the stock market and the like. Even though many of the clear evidences regarding the severity of the sin of Riba are known, some have justified their job to themselves thinking that they are safe as long as they are not engaged in the actual action of taking or giving Riba. Brothers & Sisters, You should know that the majority of jobs in the financial sector, even the IT jobs in this area are haram (prohibited) as they involve the processing of prohibited contracts. If you work in this sector, do not justify your job to yourself because of the fear of losing your position or having to change your career, fear Allah as he should be feared and consider His law regard

Q&A: Age of separating children in the beds?

Question: Please explain the hukm regarding separation of children in their beds. At what age is separation an obligation upon the parents? Also can a parent sleep in the same bed as their child? Answer: 1- With regards to separating children in their beds, it is clear that the separation which is obligatory is when they reach the age of 7 and not since their birth. This is due to the hadith reported by Daarqutni and al-Hakim from the Messenger (saw) who said: When your children reach the age of 7 then separate their beds and when they reach 10 beat them if they do not pray their salah.’ This is also due to what has been narrated by al-Bazzar on the authority of Abi Rafi’ with the following wording: ‘We found in a sheet near the Messenger of Allah (saw) when he died on which the following was written: Separate the beds of the slave boys and girls and brothers and sisters of 7 years of age.’ The two hadiths are texts on the separation of children when they reach the age of 7. As for the

Q&A: Shari' rule on songs, music, singing & instruments?

The following is a draft translation from the book مسائل فقهية مختارة (Selected fiqhi [jurprudential] issues) by the Mujtahid, Sheikh Abu Iyas Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Uweida (May Allah protect him) . Please refer to the original Arabic for exact meanings. Question: What is the Shari’ ruling in singing or listening to songs?  What is the hukm of using musical instruments and is its trade allowed? I request you to answer in detail with the evidences? Answer: The Imams ( Mujtahids ) and the jurists have differed on the issue of singing and they have varying opinions such as haraam (prohibited), Makruh (disliked) and Mubah (permissible), the ones who have prohibited it are from the ones who hold the opinion of prohibition of singing as a trade or profession, and a similar opinion has been transmitted from Imam Shafi’i, and from the ones who disliked it is Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who disliked the issue and categorised its performance under disliked acts, a similar opinion has been tran