Draft Constitution 8 to 11

Article 8

The Arabic language is exclusively the language of Islam and it is the only language used by the State.

The evidence of this article is derived from the fact that although all people are addressed by the Quran as Allah (swt) says “And We have explained to man in this Quran every kind of similitude” (TMQ 17:89), “And We have propounded for people in this Quran every kind of parable” (TMQ 30:58), Allah (swt) has however revealed it in Arabic and made it an Arabic Quran. Allah (swt) says: "an Arabic Quran" (TMQ 12:2) and Allah (swt) also says: "in the Arabic language" (TMQ 26:195).

Therefore, the Arabic language is the sole language of Islam because it is the sole language of the Quran and because the Quran is the miracle (Al-Mu’jizah) of the Messenger of Allah . The miracle of the Quran lies in the Quran’s expression with this Arabic wording; in other words with the Arabic wording and style. Although the miracle is found in both the wording and the meaning inseparably, what is meant by its miracle in meaning is not the miracle of what the Quran has brought in terms of meanings and topics for the Sunnah has expressed these meanings and topics and yet it is not considered a miracle. The miracle in meaning is established through the fact that the meaning is itself expressed by this wording and this style. Hence, expressing such a meaning in such a wording and in such a style is miraculous. Therefore, the miracle lies in the Arabic wording that expresses the meaning with the Arabic style. In other words, Allah’s (swt) saying: “If you fear treachery from any group, throw back their covenant to them so as to be on equal terms” (TMQ 8:58) is in itself incapacitating to all people to produce something similar. Its miracle comes from the splendour in expressing these meanings with this formulation and with such a style. Thus, the miracle was the Arabic wording and the Arabic style that expressed this meaning. Therefore, the miracle in the Quran is confined in its Arabic for it is the origin of the miracle and the subject of the challenge to produce something equal to it. Hence, the Arabic language is an integral part of the Quran that cannot be separated from it. The Quran itself could not be considered Quran without it. It is therefore forbidden to translate the Quran for if it were altered it would lose its order and it would no longer be the Quran or be like the Quran; it would rather be a commentary of it, and if its commentary were anything like it then people would not have failed to produce something equal to it when they were challenged to do so. Besides, Allah’s (swt) saying “An Arabic Quran” means that if it were not Arabic it could not be called Quran. Furthermore, we worship Allah (swt) with its wording; therefore, the prayer would not be correct without it since Allah (swt) says: “So read of the Quran as much as may be easy for you.” (TMQ 73:20) and the Messenger of Allah  said: “A prayer is not accepted from he who does not recite the Fatiha of the Book in every Raka’ah” (agreed upon through ‘Ubadah). Therefore, the Arabic language is an integral part of Islam.

As for Allah’s (swt) saying: “This Quran has been revealed to me that I may warn you and all whom it reaches.” (TMQ 6:19), this means: so that I warn you with what is in the Quran, and this applies to warning people with its wording and with its commentary for all of this is considered as warning. By contrast, Allah’s (swt) saying: “Read” does not refer to the reading of its commentary and nor does it refer to the reading of its translation, because reading a book means reading its text, and not its translation or commentary. This is therefore not akin to warning with the Book, which means warning with its text and its contents. Besides, Allah (swt) had decreed that the warning of the Messenger of Allah  is made in Arabic as Allah (swt) says: “With it came down the Faithful Spirit; to your heart so that you admonish; in a clear Arabic language.” (TMQ 26:193-5). This serves as a conclusive evidence that it is forbidden to read the Fatiha in prayer in other than the Arabic language, and this nullifies and refutes the argument of those who claimed that the verse in which Allah (swt) says: "And this Quran has been revealed to me" (TMQ 6:19) refers to the permissibility of reading the Fatiha in other than the Arabic language for those who do not master Arabic.

This is from the fact that the Arabic language being a fundamental part of Islam. As for the evidence pertaining to the fact that the Arabic language should be exclusively the official language of the State, the evidence for it is that when the Messenger of Allah  sent letters to Caesar, Kisra and Muqawqas in which he invited them to Islam, those letters were written in Arabic though they could have been translated into their own languages.  Although Caesar, Kisra and Muqawqas were not Arabs and although the Messenger of Allah  wrote the letters to convey Islam to them, the Messenger of Allah  didn’t write his letters in their languages. Hence, this serves as evidence that the Arabic language is exclusively the official language of the State because the Messenger of Allah  did this. Besides, the fact that the need to translate in order to convey Islam was pressing but the Messenger of Allah  did not translate serves as an indication for the obligation of restricting the State’s address of people to the Arabic language whether the addressees were Arabs or non-Arabs. Therefore all non-Arab people should learn the Arabic language and it is forbidden for the State’s official language to be other than the Arabic language.

Imam Al-Shafi’i outlined in his celebrated book of Usul (foundations of jurisprudence) entitled Al-Risalah the following: “Allah (swt) has made it an obligation upon all nations to learn the Arabic tongue following their address with the Quran and their worshipping by it”.

Therefore, all this makes it obligatory for the State to adopt the Arabic language as the exclusive official language.

However, it must be made clear that adopting the Arabic language exclusively as the State’s language does not necessarily mean that the State could not use other than the Arabic language since it is permitted for the State to use other than the Arabic language in an official correspondence either for fear of distortion, to acquire vital information, to convey the call to Islam abroad or for any similar reason. This is the case because the Messenger of Allah  used Hebrew and Syriac. Hence, the ruling stipulates the sole use of the Arabic language when adopting the State’s official language rather than preventing the State from using other than the Arabic language.

The question that comes to mind now is: Would it be permitted to have a written and spoken language other than Arabic in the lands ruled by the Islamic State?

The answer to this is that the speaking and the writing of other languages could either be related to the State itself, to the subjects’ relationship with the State, to the subjects themselves or to individuals with one another.

If it were related to the State itself or to the State’s relations, then in this case it would not be permitted for the language to be other than the language of the state (the Arabic language). This is because the Messenger of Allah  did not translate his letters to the non-Arabs despite the pressing need to translate in order to convey Islam and this serves as evidence stipulating the obligation of the sole use of the Arabic language in the State’s administration and relations or in anything related to it.  Based upon this, the State would not have any place in its educational curricula to teach any other language apart from Arabic whether these were the languages of the non-Arab peoples living under the authority of the Islamic State or the peoples living outside the authority of the Islamic State. In the same manner, public schools are prevented from adopting anything other than the Arabic language as an academic language and from introducing other than the Arabic language as a subject because they are obliged to adhere to the State’s curricula. Accordingly, every matter related to the State, to its relations, the relations of its subjects with it or any other matter related to it must be conducted solely in the Arabic language, spoken and written.

However, if speaking and writing in other than the Arabic language were related exclusively to the subjects or related to people’s relationships amongst themselves, this would be permitted because the Messenger of Allah  permitted the translation of other languages into Arabic and permitted the learning of other languages. This indicates that it is permitted to speak and to write in other than Arabic. In a narration from Zayd Ibn Thabit: “The Messenger of Allah  ordered me to learn the Book of the Jews, until I became able to write the letters of the Messenger of Allah  and to read to him their letters if they wrote to him” transmitted by Al-Bukhari. So, this is an evidence for the permissibility of speaking and writing in other than the Arabic language. In the times of the Companions, there were people who used to speak and to write in other than Arabic and they were not forced to learn it, and someone used to interpret for the ruler.

Al-Bukhari reported in the section “History of the Rulers”: “Kharija Bin Zaid Bin Thabit from Zaid Ibn Thabit said: “The Messenger of Allah  ordered me to learn the Book of the Jews, until I became able to write the letters of the Messenger of Allah  and to read to him their letters if they wrote to him”. Umar (ra) said in the presence of ‘Ali, ‘Abd al-Rahman and Uthman: “What is this woman saying?” Abdul-Rahman Ibnu Hatib said: “She is informing you about the man who did so and so to her.” Abu Hamzah also said: “I used to translate between Ibn Abbas and other people”.

Two evidences that indicate the permission of translation are: the narration in which the Messenger  ordered Zaid Bin Thabit to learn the Book of the Jews and when Umar (ra) asked what that woman was saying - he meant the woman who was found pregnant - ‘Abd al-Rahman was translating for him. The fact that Abu Hamza used to translate what people would say for Ibn ‘Abbas means that there were people who spoke other than Arabic. Therefore, speaking and writing in other than Arabic is permitted according to the Sunnah and to the actions of the Companions. Accordingly, the State would allow the publication of books, newspapers and magazines in other than Arabic, and their publication would not require a permit because it is part of the Mubah (permitted) actions. It is also allowed to televise programmes in other than Arabic if these stations belonged to an individual or to a group of people. However, this will be prohibited in the State’s own radio and television stations because everything related to the State must be exclusively in Arabic. As for what is related to people among themselves, it will be permitted for them to use other than Arabic in everything except for any specific issue which was in origin permitted that may lead to harm; in such case, that matter will be prohibited.

Article 9

Ijtihad is a duty of sufficiency and every Muslim reserves the right to perform Ijtihad provided he meets all its prerequisites.

The Islamic Shari’ah has made Ijtihad to deduce the Shari’ah rules from the address of the Legislator – i.e. from the Shari’ah texts which are revealed by Allah (swt) to the Messenger of Allah  - an obligation upon the Muslims. The fact that Ijtihad is an obligation has been confirmed through several narrations. The Messenger of Allah  said: “If a ruler were to give a ruling, so he made Ijtihad and reached the sound rule, he would get double the reward. However, if he were to give a ruling and he made Ijtihad but reached the wrong rule, he would still get a reward”  (agreed upon through Amru Bin Al-Aas). He  also said: “and a man judged people without knowledge, he is in Hell fire” (transmitted by the compilers of the Sunan and Al-Hakim and Al-Tabarani with a Sahih chain). This confirms that the judge must be acquainted with what he judges on. It is also reported that he  said to Ibn Mas’ud: “Judge by the Book and the Sunnah wherever you found (the ruling) in them, and if you don’t find the ruling in them then do Ijtihad” as mentioned by al-Amidi in al-Ahkam and al-Razi in al-Mahsul. He  said to Mu’ath and Abu Moussa Al-Ash’ari when he was about to dispatch them to Yemen: “What will you judge by?” They said: “If we did not find the rule in the Book or in the Sunnah, we would make analogy between the two matters and whichever were closest to what is right, we would act upon” (mentioned by Al-Amidi in aAl-Ahkam and Abu Al-Husain in Al-Mu’tamad). This analogy is in itself an Ijtihad to deduce the rule, and the Messenger of Allah  approved it. It is also reported that the Messenger of Allah  said to Mu’ath when he appointed him as governor to Yemen: “What will you rule by?” He said: “By the Book of Allah.” He  said: “What if you do not find the rule?” He said: “By the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah.” He said: “What if you do not find the rule?” He said: “I will exert my own opinion.” Upon this the Messenger of Allah  said: “Praise be to Allah Who guided the envoy of the Messenger of Allah to what satisfies His Messenger” (transmitted by Ahmad and Al-Tirmidhi and Al-Darimi and Abu Dawud and was authenticated by Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir Al-Basrawi who said that the narration is Hasan Mashur and relied upon by the scholars of Islam).

This clearly indicates the approval of the Messenger of Allah  with regard to Mu’ath’s performance of Ijtihad. Furthermore, the knowledge of the rules is linked and is related to Ijtihad since the realisation and the comprehension of the rules could not be established without it. Hence, Ijtihad becomes obligatory because the Shari’ah principle stipulates: “Whatever is necessary to establish a duty is in itself a duty”.

In origin, the deduction of the rules is performed by Mujtahideen (those capable of Ijtihad) because the knowledge of Allah’s rule in a given matter cannot be reached except through Ijtihad, and Ijtihad therefore becomes indispensable. The scholars of Usul Al Fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) have indicated that Ijtihad is a duty of sufficiency upon the Muslims and that it is forbidden for Muslims to be without a single Mujtahid at any given time, and that if they all agreed upon forsaking Ijtihad, they would be sinful because the only way to know the Shari’ah rules is through Ijtihad. Therefore, if an era were devoid of at least one Mujtahid upon whom it could be relied in perceiving the rules, it would lead to the paralysis of the Shari’ah and this is forbidden. Besides, the Shari’ah texts make it incumbent upon Muslims to perform Ijtihad because these Shari’ah texts (i.e. the Book and the Sunnah and nothing else) have not come in a detailed manner but rather in a general manner that can be applied to every reality faced by humanity. Their understanding and the deduction of the rule of Allah require the exhausting of efforts in order to obtain the Shari’ah rule from them for every matter. This Ijtihad is not an impossible task nor is it extremely difficult; rather, it is the process of exhausting one’s effort in order to acquire the Shari’ah rules with the least amount of doubt. In other words, it is the understanding of the Shari’ah texts with the exhausting of one’s utmost effort in order to attain this understanding and to perceive the Shari’ah rule. This is in fact within everyone’s reach. Ijtihad was natural and evident to the Muslims in the early times and it had no prerequisites. However, since the understanding of the classical Arabic language started to weaken and since people started to devote less attention to discerning the Deen, it has become incumbent upon the Mujtahid to know the narrated evidences (adillah sam’iyyah) from which the principles and the rules are deduced. It has also become incumbent upon him to discern the meaning of expressions which are commonly used in the classical Arabic language and in the usage of rhetoric. There are no other conditions apart from these two to performing Ijtihad. Therefore, in addition to being a duty of sufficiency upon the Muslims, Ijtihad is within the reach of all the Muslims. These are all the evidences for this article.

Article 10

All the Muslims should bear the responsibility of Islam. There are no clergymen in Islam and the State should prohibit any sign of their presence among the Muslims.

Although Mujtahids are scholars, however not every scholar is necessarily a Mujtahid since a scholar could either be a Mujtahid or a Muqallid (imitator). If the Muslim were to take the Shari’ah rule in order to act upon, then, it requires some consideration: if he took the rule from a Mujtahid, he in this case would be emulating the Mujtahid. If he took it from a non-Mujtahid, he would be learning that rule from the person he had taken it from, and he would not be emulating him. However, if the Muslim was to take the rule in order to learn it, he would be learning the rule irrespective of whether he took it from a Mujtahid or a non Mujtahid. Therefore, these scholars - whether Mujtahids or otherwise - are not clergymen since none of them has any right to legitimise or prohibit anything and they are just like any other Muslim regarding every single Shari’ah rule. None of them should distinguish himself from the rest of the Muslims in anything with regards to the Shari’ah rules regardless of how high his rank is in terms of knowledge, Ijtihad and respect. Hence, what is haram for others does not become allowed for the scholar and nor does the wajib upon others become mandub (recommended) for him. He is rather like any other individual Muslim. Therefore, the idea of clergymen held by Christians has no existence in Islam. The concept of clergymen is specific to Christians because a clergyman does legitimise and prohibit rules to them. Thus, attributing such a term to the Muslim scholar might give the impression of attributing the Christian concept to the Muslim scholars despite the fact that Muslim scholars do not allow and nor do they prohibit anything. Therefore, it is not fitting to attribute the term of clergyman to a Muslim scholar.

There are explicit narrations prohibiting the emulation of Christians and Jews. Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri narrated that the Messenger of Allah  said: “You shall follow the ways of those before you inch by inch and yard by yard; even if they were to enter a lizard’s hole you would follow them. We said: O Messenger of Allah, the Jews and the Christians? He (saw) said: Who else?” (Agreed upon with the words from Muslim) This narration has been said within the context of prohibition. Hence, the emulation of the Jews and the Christians is - as it stands - prohibited, let alone if this emulation were to lead to the generating of a Kufr concept among the Muslims. Considering the Muslim scholar as a clergyman is an emulation of the Christians who regard their scholars as clergymen and it also transfers the Christian concept of clergyman to the Muslim scholar; therefore, it is strictly prohibited in terms of emulation and it is classified as even more strictly prohibited in terms of introducing the concept. Therefore, it would be wrong to refer to the Muslim scholar as a clergyman and it is forbidden for the scholars to consider themselves as clergymen according to the Christians’ concept of clergyman. If someone was found claiming this according to the understanding mentioned, he will be prohibited and punished since he will have committed a prohibited act. In addition,  the Prophet  did not differentiate from the companions in terms of a specific dress or appearance. Al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih from Anas Bin Malik who said: “While we were sitting with the Prophet  in the mosque, a man entered upon a camel into the mosque, then he tied it and said to them:  "Which one of you is Muhammad?" The Prophet  was leaning between us so we said: "this white man who is leaning". And so the man said to him: "O Ibn ‘Abd Al-Muttalib" Then, the Prophet  said to him: "I have answered you…"” For these reasons, this article has been drafted.

Article 11

Conveying the Islamic Da’wa (call to Islam) is the fundamental task of the State.

This article has been drafted because as well as being an obligation upon the Muslims, conveying the Islamic Da’wa is also an obligation upon the State. Although conveying the call to Islam forms a part of the implementation of Shari’ah in the relationships and although it is a Shari’ah rule that the State must implement as the individual Muslim does, it is considered as the basis upon which its relationships with other states is built. In other words, it is the basis upon which the whole of the State’s foreign policy is built. Therefore, conveying the Islamic Da’wa is the State’s main task.

The evidence that conveying the call to Islam is an obligation is reflected in the words of Allah (swt) “And this Quran has been revealed to me so that I warn you with it and those whom it reaches” (TMQ 6:19); meaning to warn whoever this Quran reaches. Hence, the warning is to you Muslims and it is also a warning to those whom you convey it to; thus, it is an invitation to them to convey it on behalf of the Messenger of Allah . In other words, it is not only a warning to you but rather a warning to you and to all those whom the Quran reaches. The Messenger of Allah  said: “May Allah brighten a person who had heard my saying, perceived it, memorised it and conveyed it; for one may be conveying Fiqh (knowledge) to someone who is more of a Faqih than him” (in Musnad Al-Shafi’i through ‘Abd Allah Bin Mas’ud).  Allah (swt) also said "Let there arise from among you a group calling to the goodness” (TMQ 3:104), and the goodness is Islam. He (swt) also says "Who is better in speech than one who calls to Allah" (TMQ 41:33), in other words to the Deen of Allah. All of these texts indicate that conveying the call to Islam is obligatory and this obligation is general and encompasses the State as well as the Muslims as a whole.

As for the fact that conveying the Da’wa must be the State’s main activity, its evidence is derived from the words and actions of the Prophet . He  said “I have been ordered to fight people until they profess that there is no god but Allah. If they said it, their lives and their wealth would be inviolable to me, except that which is by right, and their account is with Allah” (agreed upon, with the wording from Muslim). Al-Bukhari reported from ‘Urwah B. Al-Ja’d from the Prophet : “The horse which is tied to its forelock is good until the day of Judgement” and the horse is an allusion to the continuation of the obligation of Jihad. Additionally, Jihad is not restricted to whether the leader is righteous or immoral since it also indicates the continuation of the Jihad with the righteous and immoral as long as they are Muslim. Al-Bukhari used this narration as evidence for Jihad continuing with the righteous and the immoral leader when he separated a section with the title “Chapter Jihad Continues with the Righteous and the Immoral due to the words of the Prophet  “The horse which is tied to its forelock is good until the day of Judgement””. Ahmad also used it as an evidence in the same manner as Al-Bukhari. And in the same manner, it is reported by Said Bin Mansur through Anas who said that the Messenger of Allah  said “and Jihad has been on-going since Allah sent me and will continue until the last generation of my Ummah fight the Dajjal; it shall not be discontinued by the tyranny of a tyrant nor by the justice of a just”. This Hadeeth was also narrated by Abu Dawud and Al-Tirmidhi didn’t comment on it). So the order to fight until those who resist say that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, serves as evidence about the obligation of conveying the call to Islam upon the State. The fact that this conveying, which is Jihad, is ongoing until the last of the Ummah fights the Dajjal is evidence that the State’s constant activity is Jihad that is not permitted to be disrupted. The two narrations together indicate that the call to Islam is a constant action that is not to be interrupted; therefore, it is the main duty because the main duty is the action that is constantly performed under all circumstances and without any disruption.

Besides, the Messenger of Allah  was in a constant state of Jihad ever since he settled in Madinah until he  departed this world and Jihad was the main activity. The rightly guided Khulafaa’ came after him and followed in his footsteps assuming Jihad as their main duty. So the State that the Messenger of Allah  founded and headed undertook Jihad as its main duty; when he (saw) departed, the State was headed by the Khulafaa’ from among the Companions and similarly the State’s main task was Jihad. Therefore, the evidence stipulating that conveying the Islamic Da’wa is the State’s main task is derived from the Sunnah and the Ijma’ of the Companions.

Additionally, the Messenger of Allah  used to convey the call to Islam since Allah (swt) sent him as a Prophet until he departed this world. He  was the Head of State in Madinah and since he settled there he made his foreign policy the main activity and the State’s focus of attention. The activities undertaken ranged from raids, expeditions, intelligence gathering and signing treaties. All these activities were for the sake of conveying Islam and its Da’wa to all people. When the Messenger of Allah  sensed the strength of the State and its ability to convey the Da’wa internationally, he dispatched twelve envoys simultaneously to twelve monarchs inviting them to Islam, amongst them the Kings of Persia and Rome. Muslim reported from Anas Bin Malik: “The Prophet of Allah wrote to Kisra and Caesar and Al-Najashi and to every powerful one calling them to Allah”. When he  was satisfied about the might of the State within the Arabian Peninsula and about the spread of the Da’wah among the Arabs and people started to embrace the Deen of Allah (swt) in droves, he  looked towards conquering the Romans; hence, the battles of Mu’ta and Tabuk took place. This also serves as evidence that conveying the Da’wa is an obligation upon the State and that it is its main task.