2 Kirish

2 Kirish - Davlatdagi muassasalar (Xilofat tuzumida) | Quran Course

hudud (huquqiy jazolar) va turli hukmlarning (ahkom) ijro etilishi majburiy ekanligi va ularni hokimsiz amalga oshirib bo‘lmasligidan kelib chiqadi. Vojib ishning amalga oshishi uchun zarur bo‘lgan narsa o‘zi ham vojibdir. Shu sababli, shariatni joriy qiladigan hokimni tayinlash vojibdir. Bu yerdagi hokim Xalifa, tizim esa Xilofat tizimidir.

from the fact that the execution of the legal punishments (hudud) and the various rules (ahkam) are obligatory and they cannot be implemented except by a ruler. That which is necessary for implementing an obligation is itself obligatory, therefore, appointing a ruler that establishes the divine law (shara’) is obligatory. The ruler in this case is the Khalifah, and the system is the Khilafah system. .

Sunnat haqida, Nofi' rivoyat qilishicha, Abdulloh ibn Umar shunday degan: .

Regarding the Sunnah, it was narrated from Nafi' that Abdullah ibn ‘‘Umar said: .

"Men Allohning Rasulini shunday deganlarini eshitdim: "Kim (amirga) itoatdan qo‘lini tortsa, Qiyomat kuni Allohga duch kelganda o‘zi uchun hujjat topolmaydi va kim bay’at (sodiqlik qasami) bo‘yinida bo‘lmasdan vafot etsa, u johiliyat o‘limi bilan o‘ladi."" [Muslim, Sahih, #1851].

"I heard the Messenger of Allah say: 'Whoever withdraws his hand from obedience (to the Amir) will find no proof for himself when he meets Allah on the Day of Judgment, and whoever dies without having an oath of allegiance (Bai'ah) on his neck he would die the death of Jahiliyyah."' [Muslim, Sahih, #1851] .

Payg‘ambar ﷺ har bir musulmonning bo‘yniga bay’at (sodiqlik ahdi) bo‘lishini majburiy qilgan. U bo‘yinida bunday bay’at bo‘lmasdan vafot etgan kishini johiliyat o‘limi bilan o‘lgan deb ta’riflagan. Allohning Elchisidan keyin bay’at faqat xalifaga beriladi. Hadis har bir musulmonning bo‘yinida bay’at bo‘lishini talab qilgani uchun, u xalifa tayinlanishini ham talab qiladi.

The Prophet obliged every Muslim to have a pledge of allegiance (bay’ah) on his neck. He describes the one that dies without having such a bay’ah on his neck as dying a death of jahiliyyah. After the Messenger of Allah, bay’ah is only given to the Khalifah. Since the hadith obliges the existence of a bay’ah on the neck of every Muslim it also obliges the appointment of a Khalifah. .

Muslim Al-A'raj orqali Abu Hurayradan rivoyat qilgan: Payg'ambar ﷺ shunday degan:

Muslim narrated from Al-Araj on the authority of Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: .

“Darhaqiqat, imom — bu qalqon bo‘lib, uning orqasida jang qilinadi va uning orqali himoyalanadi.” [Muslim, Sahih, #1841]

“Indeed the Imam is a shield, from behind whom one would fight, and by whom one would protect oneself.” [Muslim, Sahih, #1841] .

Imom Muslim Abu Hazim orqali rivoyat qilgan: u aytdi: “Men Abu Hurayra bilan besh yil birga bo‘ldim va u bizga Payg‘ambar ﷺ haqida xabar berdi, u shunday degan: “Payg‘ambar ﷺ Isroil o‘g‘illari ustidan hukm yuritar edi. Har safar bir payg‘ambar vafot etganida, uning o‘rniga boshqa payg‘ambar kelar edi. Lekin mendan keyin payg‘ambar bo‘lmaydi. Tez orada xalifalar bo‘ladi va ularning soni ko‘p bo‘ladi.” Ular so‘radilar: “Unda bizga nima buyurasiz?” U aytdi: “Ularga ketma-ket bay’at qiling va ularga haqlarini bering, chunki Alloh ular zimmasiga topshirilgan narsalar haqida albatta so‘raydi.”” [Buxoriy, Sahih, #3455 va Muslim, Sahih, #4750].

Muslim also reported on the authority of Abu Hazim that he said: “I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years, and he informed us of the Prophet saying: “The Prophet ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafa’ and they will number many.” They asked: ‘what then do you order us?’ He said: “Fulfil the Bay’ah to them, one after the other and give them their dues for Allah will verily account them about what he entrusted them with.”” [Bukhari, Sahih, #3455 and Muslim, Sahih, #4750] .

Ushbu hadislarda xalifaning qalqon, ya’ni himoya sifatida ta’riflanishi bor. Imomni qalqon deb ta’riflash esa ... maqtovni anglatadi.

In these Ahadith, there is a description of the Khalifah as being a shield, i.e. a protection. The description of the Imam as a shield implies praise for the

...Imom huzurida bo'lishi, bu talab (talab) tarzida bo'lishini bildiradi. Chunki Alloh yoki Uning Rasuli biror narsa haqida xabar berganda, agar u malomat (tanbeh) o'z ichiga olsa, bu undan tiyilishga talab sifatida qabul qilinadi. Xuddi shuningdek, matnda biror ishni maqtash bo'lsa, u ishni bajarishga talab sifatida qabul qilinadi. Agar buyurilgan ish ilohiy hukmni amalga oshirish uchun zarur bo'lsa yoki uni e'tiborsiz qoldirish ilohiy qonunning tark etilishiga olib kelsa, bu qat'iy talabdir. Bu hadislar shuningdek bizga xabar beradiki, musulmonlarning ishlarini boshqaruvchilar xalifalardir (Khulafa’), bu esa ularni tayinlash buyrug'iga ishora qiladi. Bundan tashqari, Alloh Elchisi ﷺ musulmonlarga xalifalarga itoat etishni va ularning hokimiyati to'g'risida nizo qiluvchilarga qarshi kurashishni buyurgan, bu esa xalifa tayinlash va uning xalifaligini uning hokimiyatiga da'vo qiluvchilarga qarshi kurash orqali himoya qilish farz ekanini isbotlaydi. Muslim rivoyat qilganki, Alloh Elchisi ﷺ dedi: .

presence of the Imam, making it a request (talab). This is because when Allah or His Messenger informs us about something that includes a rebuke, this is taken as a request to abstain from it. Similarly, when the text contains praise for an action it is taken as a request to perform it. If the commanded action is needed to implement the divine rule, or if its neglect would cause the divine law to be abandoned, then this is a decisive request. These ahadith also inform us that those who run the affairs of the Muslims are the Khulafa’, which indicates a command to appoint them. Moreover, the Messenger of Allah ordered the Muslims to obey the Khulafa’ and to fight those who dispute with them regarding their authority, which proves that it is an obligation to appoint a Khalifah and protect his Khilafah by fighting those who dispute his authority. Muslim reported that the Messenger of Allah said: .

“Kim bir imomga bay’at bersa, unga qo‘lini berib va qalbining mevasini bersa, qo‘lidan kelganicha unga itoat etsin. Agar biror kishi unga raqobat qilib chiqsa, o‘sha odamning bo‘yniga urish kerak.” [Muslim, Sahih, #1844].

“Whosoever gave a Bay’ah to an Imam, giving him the clasp of his hand, and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him, you must strike the neck of that man.” [Muslim, Sahih, #1844] .

Shunday qilib, imomga itoat etish haqidagi buyruq uni tayinlash buyrug'idir (tarjimondan: axir uning o'zi mavjud bo'lmasa, unga qanday itoat qilinadi?). Bundan tashqari, u bilan talashganlar bilan jang qilish haqidagi buyruq bitta xalifaning mavjudligini saqlash masalasi uchun yig'ma dalildir.

Therefore the command to obey the Imam is an order to appoint him (translator: for how can he be obeyed if he does not exist?). Furthermore the command to fight those who dispute with him is cumulative evidence for the decisive matter of maintaining the presence of one Khalifah. .

Sahobalarning ijmoʻiga kelsak, ular (Allohning ulardan hammasidan rozi bo‘lsin) Allohning Elchisi vafotlaridan keyin unga voris (ya’ni xalifa) tayinlash zarurligi haqida kelishib oldilar. Ular hammasi Abu Bakrni xalifa etib tayinlashga, uning vafotidan keyin esa ‘Umar (roziyallohu anhu)ni uning vorisi etib tayinlashga kelishdilar. Xuddi shunday, ular ‘Usmon (roziyallohu anhu)ning vorisi etib, uning vafotidan keyin ‘Ali (roziyallohu anhu)ni tayinladilar. Xalifa tayinlashning muhimligi borasida sahobalar o‘rtasidagi umumiy kelishuv Allohning Elchisi ﷺ vafot etganlarida yaqqol namoyon bo‘ldi: ular unga voris tayinlash vazifasini uni dafn etishdan ustun qo‘yishdi, holbuki, o‘lgan kishini vafotidan keyin dafn etish vojib ekani ma’lumdir.

As for the Ijma’ of the Sahabah, they (may Allah be pleased with them all) agreed upon the necessity of establishing a successor (i.e. Khalifah) to Allah’s Messenger after his death. They all agreed to appoint Abu Bakr as the Khalifah and upon his death to appoint ‘Umar (ra) as his successor. Similarly they appointed ‘Ali (ra) as the successor to ‘Uthman upon his death. The general consensus of the Sahabah on the importance of appointing a Khalifah manifested itself emphatically upon the death of the Messenger of Allah where they prioritised the task of appointing a successor to him over his burial, even though it is known that the burial of the dead person after his death is obligatory. .

Sahobalar Alloh Elchisini dafn etish bilan shug'ullanishlari lozim edi, lekin ular o'rniga birinchi xalifani tayinlash bilan band bo'lishdi. Ba'zi sahobalar, Alloh Elchisini tezroq dafn etish imkoniyatiga ega bo'lsalar ham, bu kechikish haqida ikki kecha davomida jim turishdi. Elchi dushanba kuni ertalab kech vafot etdi va o'sha kuni ham, kechasi ham dafn etilmadi. Faqat seshanba kechasi, Abu Bakr (ra) bay'at qilinib, xalifa bo'lganidan keyingina Alloh Elchisi ﷺ dafn etildi. Shunday qilib, dafn ikki kecha kechiktirildi va Abu Bakr Elchining dafnidan oldin bay'at qilindi.

The Sahabah were obliged to prepare for the burial of Allah’s Messenger but instead were preoccupied with the appointment of the first Khalifah. Some Sahabah kept silent about this delay for two nights, despite having the ability to bury the Messenger of Allah sooner. The Messenger passed away late on Monday morning and was not buried that day or night. Not until Tuesday night, after Abu Bakr (ra) was given the bay’ah and became Khalifah was Allah’s Messenger buried. So the burial was delayed for two nights, and Abu Bakr was given the bay’ah before the burial of the Messenger..

Shunga ko‘ra, sahobalarning bu ishi dafn etishni kechiktirib, xalifa tayinlash bilan shug‘ullanganliklari xalifa tayinlashning vojib ekanligiga dalil bo‘lgan ijmo’ (konsensus)dir. Agar xalifa tayinlash vojib bo‘lmaganda va dafn etishdan muhimroq bo‘lmaganda, bu ish to‘g‘ri bo‘lishi mumkin emas edi. Bundan tashqari, sahobalar butun hayotlari davomida xalifa tayinlash vojibligiga rozi bo‘lib kelganlar. Xalifa kim bo‘lishi haqida ixtiloflar bo‘lgan bo‘lsa-da, ular xalifa tayinlanishi kerakligi haqida hech qachon bahslashmaganlar, bu Allah Elchisi ﷺ vafotidan keyin bo‘ladimi yoki har bir Xulafo’i Roshidinning vafotidan keyin bo‘ladimi, farqi yo‘q. Demak, sahobalarning umumiy ijmo’i xalifa tayinlashning vojib ekanligini aniq tasdiqlaydi.

Therefore, this action of the Sahabah is an evidence of Ijma’ (consensus) for engaging in the appointment of the Khalifah instead of burying the dead person. This could not have been legitimate unless the appointment of a Khalifah was obligatory and of higher priority than the burial of the dead person. Furthermore, throughout the lives of the Sahabah, they consented to the obligation of appointing the Khalifah. Although there were disagreements concerning who should be selected for the post of Khalifah, they never disputed the fact that a Khalifah must be appointed, whether after the death of the Messenger of Allah or after the death of each of the Khulafa’ ‘Rashidin.’ Accordingly, the general ijma’ (consensus) of the Sahabah clearly confirms that the appointment of a Khalifah is obligatory. .

2. Islomdagi hukmronlik tizimining shakli (Xilofat) dunyoda hozirda keng tarqalgan boshqa hukmronlik tizimlaridan o‘zining asoslari, fikrlari, tushunchalari, mezoni, ishlarini boshqarish qoidalari, amalga oshirish va ijro etish uchun qabul qilingan konstitutsiyasi va qonunlari hamda Islom davlatini ifodalovchi tuzilmasi bilan farq qiladi.

2. The shape of the ruling system in Islam (the Khilafah) is distinguished from other ruling systems commonly found in the world today in its foundations, thoughts, concepts, criterion, the rules by which it manages its affairs, the constitution and laws enacted for implementation and execution, and in the structure that represents the Islamic state. .

Xilofat tizimining shakli monarxiyaga xos emas. U monarxik boshqaruv shakliga na mos keladi va na o‘xshaydi. Sababi shundaki, monarxiya tizimida o‘g‘il meros orqali hukmdor bo‘ladi, bunda ummatning bu borada hech qanday so‘zi bo‘lmaydi, holbuki Islomda xalifani tayinlash usuli bay’at berish orqali amalga oshiriladi. Monarxiya tizimi hukmdorga maxsus imtiyozlar beradi va unga xos huquqlar bilan uni qonundan yuqori qo‘yadi. Ba’zi monarxik tizimlarda monarx millat ramzi bo‘ladi, ya’ni hukmronlik qiladi, lekin boshqarmaydi. Boshqalarida esa u ham hukmronlik qiladi, ham boshqaradi, shu bilan davlatni va xalqni xohlaganicha idora qiladi. Ikkala holatda ham u xalq oldida hisobdor bo‘lishdan xoli bo‘ladi, uning xalqqa qanchalik zulm va yomon muomala qilgani ahamiyatga ega emas. Aksincha, Xilofat tizimi xalifaga o‘z fuqarolaridan ustun yoki ortiq hech qanday maxsus imtiyoz bermaydi. Sud oldida ham xalifaning oddiy odamdan ajratib turadigan maxsus huquqi bo‘lmaydi. Xalifa monarxiyalardagidek ummat ramzi emas. Balki u hukmronlik va hokimiyatda ummatning vakilidir, ya’ni ummat uni tanlaydi va o‘z ixtiyori bilan unga bay’at beradi, shunda u ummat ustida Allohning Shariatini joriy qilishi uchun xizmat qiladi. U barcha harakatlari, hukmlari va ummatning manfaatlari hamda ishlarini boshqarishida ilohiy qoidalar bilan cheklangan bo‘ladi. Islom davlat tuzumining shakli imperik emas va imperializmga mutlaqo zid. Islom tuzumi ostida boshqariladigan hududlar, turli millat va irqlardan iborat bo‘lib, ular haqiqatan ham bitta markaziy joyga bog‘langan, ammo ular imperiyalarda uchraydigan tizimga mutlaqo zid tarzda boshqariladi. Imperiya tizimi turli irq va millatlarga ega hududlarga teng munosabatda bo‘lmaydi. Aksincha, u boshqaruv, moliya va iqtisodiyot jihatidan imperiya markaziga imtiyozlar beradi. Islomiy boshqaruv usuli davlatning barcha hududlarida fuqarolar o‘rtasida tenglikni yaratishga qaratilgan. Islom qabilachilikni rad etadi va fuqaroligi bo‘lgan g‘ayrimusulmonlarga ilohiy qoidalarga muvofiq to‘liq huquq va majburiyatlarni beradi. G‘ayrimusulmonlarga berilgan adolat musulmonlarga berilgan adolat bilan teng bo‘lishi kerak va ikkala guruh ham qonun oldida bir xil javobgardir. Har bir fuqaro, e’tiqodidan qat’i nazar, davlat tomonidan berilgan huquqlardan foydalanadi. Aksincha, Islom davlatining fuqaroligiga ega bo‘lmagan, chet elda yashovchi musulmon bu huquqlardan foydalanmaydi. Ushbu tenglik tufayli Islom tizimi mustamlakachilikdan butunlay farq qiladi. Mustamlakachi davlatlar koloniyalar barpo etadi va o‘zlari nazorat qiladigan hududlardagi boylik manbalarini o‘zlashtirib, imperiyaning markaziy quvvat bazasini boyitadi. Islom tizimi koloniyalar barpo etmaydi va boylikni markazga oqizmaydi. Aksincha, u davlatning barcha qismlarini, ular bir-biridan qanchalik uzoqda bo‘lishidan va irqlari qanchalik farq qilishidan qat’i nazar, teng ko‘radi. U har bir hududni davlatning ajralmas qismi deb hisoblaydi va uning fuqarolari markaziy hududdagi fuqarolar bilan bir xil huquqlardan foydalanadi. Shuningdek, u boshqaruv hokimiyatini, uning tizimini va qonunchiligini davlatning barcha hududlarida bir xil qiladi.

Xilofat tizimi federatsiya emas, unda avtonom hududlar bor va birlik faqat umumiy hukmronlikda namoyon bo‘ladi. Bu, aksincha, birlik tizimi bo‘lib, unda G‘arbdagi Marrakesh Sharqdagi Xurosonga teng hisoblanadi, Al-Fayum viloyati esa, hatto u Islom poytaxti bo‘lsa ham, Qohiraga teng hisoblanadi. Barcha hududlarning moliyasi bir xil bo‘ladi, byudjeti ham shunday. Barcha hududlarning byudjetlari adolatli asosda hisoblanadi. Masalan, agar bitta viloyatdan yig‘ilgan soliqlar uning xarajatlaridan ikki baravar ko‘p bo‘lsa, sarflanadigan mablag‘lar faqat viloyat ehtiyojlarini qoplashga yetadigan miqdorda bo‘ladi, soliq tushumidan qat'i nazar. Agar boshqa bir viloyatning soliqlari xarajatlarini qoplamasa, o‘sha viloyat ehtiyojlarini qondirish uchun umumiy byudjetdan mablag‘ ajratiladi, yana soliq tushumidan qat'i nazar.

The Khilafah system is not federal where there are autonomous regions and unity only in general ruling. It is rather a system of unity, where Marrakesh in the West is considered to be the same as Khurasan in the East and the province of Al-Fayum is considered to be the same as Cairo, even if it were the Islamic capital. The finance of all the regions will be the same, as will their budget. Budgets for all regions will be calculated fairly. For example, if the taxes raised from one Wilayah were double its expenditure, the funds spent would be those required to cover the Wilayah’s requirements regardless of its tax revenue. If another Wilayah’s taxes fell short of its expenditure, funds would be provided to meet that Wilayah’s needs from the general budget, again irrespective of its tax revenue.

Xilofat tizimi respublika emas. Respublika tizimi monarxiyalarning zulmiga javob sifatida paydo bo‘lgan. Unda shohlar mamlakatlarini va xalqini xohishlariga ko‘ra boshqarar edilar. Shunday qilib, shoh qonunlarni o‘zi xohlagancha joriy qilardi. Respublika tizimi esa egemenlik va hokimiyatni demokratiya orqali xalqqa topshirishga harakat qildi. Shunda xalq qonun chiqara boshladi va o‘zi xohlagan narsani ruxsat berishi yoki taqiqlashi mumkin bo‘ldi. Amaliy hokimiyat respublika prezidentining, uning vazirlar mahkamasining va respublika vakillar palatasi vazirlarining qo‘liga o‘tdi. Ba’zi monarxiyalarda ham hokimiyat bosh vazirga va uning vazirlar mahkamasiga topshirilgan holatlar bor; bunday hollarda shoh yoki malika faqat ramziy shaxsga aylanadi.

The Khilafah system is not republican. The republican system emerged as a reaction to the tyranny of monarchies, where Kings governed their countries and people as they wished. So a king would implement laws as he liked. The republican system attempted to transfer sovereignty and authority to the people through democracy. So the people began to legislate and could permit or forbid whatever they liked. Practical authority was transferred to the hands of a republican president, his cabinet and the ministers of a republican house of representatives. There are also cases where authority was handed over to a first minister and his cabinet in some monarchies in which case the King or Queen becomes a figure head only. .

Islom bu tizimlarning hech birига ўхшамайди. Исломда қонун чиқариш ҳуқуқи халққа тегишли эмас. У фақат Аллоҳга тегишлидир ва Аллоҳдан бошқа ҳеч ким нимани ҳалол ёки ҳаром қилиш ҳуқуқига эга эмас. Қонун чиқариш ҳуқуқини халққа бериш Исломда катта гуноҳдир. Аллоҳ Қуръонда шундай дейди: {Улар Аллоҳни қўйиб, ўз раввинлари ва роҳибларини худолар қилиб олдилар}. [TMQ 9:31]

Islam is distinct from all of these systems. In Islam, the right of legislation is not for the people. It is rather for Allah alone, and nobody other than Allah has the right to allow or forbid anything. Giving the right of legislation to people is a great crime in Islam. Allah says in the Quran: (They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks), [TMQ 9:31] .

Rasul ﷺ bu oyatni tushuntirib berdilar: odamlar ravvinlar va rohiblarga, ular nozil qilingan kitobga zid ravishda hukm chiqarishga ruxsat berdilar, ularga itoat qildilar, ular biror narsani halol yoki harom deganda ularga bo‘ysundilar. Ravvinlar va rohiblarni Allohdan tashqari Rab qilib olish ma’nosi ana shudir. Islomda Allohdan boshqasini Rab deb olish shirk deyiladi va u eng katta gunohdir.

The Messenger explained this verse (ayah) describing that the people allowed rabbis and monks to legislate contrary to what Allah had revealed in the scripture sent to them, where they obeyed them when they allowed and forbade things and obeyed them. This is the meaning of taking them (the rabbis and monks) as Lords besides Allah . In Islam, taking anyone other than Allah as Lord is called shirk and is the greatest of crimes. .

Shu sababli, bu Allohni tark etib, qonun chiqaruvchi (o'z qoidalarini yaratuvchi) kishilarga ergashishning katta gunoh ekanini ko'rsatadi. At-Termiziy Odiy ibn Hotim (roziyallohu anhu) orqali rivoyat qildi, u aytdi:

Therefore, this indicates the great crime of following people who legislate (making their own rules) instead of following Allah . Tirmidhi reported through Adi ibn Hatim who said: .

“Men Payg‘ambarning huzuriga bo‘ynimda oltin xoch taqib bordim. U zot dedilar: “Ey Adiy, bu butni tashla.” [Termiziy, Sunan, #3095]. Men U zotning Bara’a surasidan tilovat qilganlarini eshitdim: (Ular Allohni qo‘yib, o‘z ruhoniylarini va rohiblarini xudo qilib oldilar.) U zot (Payg‘ambar ﷺ) dedilar: “Ular ularga sig‘inmadilar, lekin ularga harom qilingan narsani ular halol qildilar, halol qilingan narsani esa harom qildilar.”.”

“I came to the Prophet wearing a cross of gold on my neck. He said: “O Adi, throw away this idol.” [Tirmidhi, Sunan, #3095]. And I heard him read from surah of Bara’ah: (They took the rabbis and monks as lords beside Allah.) He (the Prophet) said: “They did not worship them, but what was forbidden for them they permitted and what was made lawful for them, they prohibited”. .

Islomda bu tizim vazirliklar hukumati orqali emas, balki majburiy vakolatlarga va alohida byudjetlarga ega bo‘lgan vazirliklar orqali amalga oshirilmaydi. Bunday tizimda bir vazirlikdagi ortiqcha mablag‘ning boshqa vazirlikka o‘tkazilishiga ko‘pincha shunchalik ko‘p “qog‘ozbozlik” to‘sqinlik qiladiki, bu davlat fuqarolarining ishlarini boshqarishga salbiy ta’sir ko‘rsatadi. Bundan tashqari, bir masala bo‘yicha ko‘plab vazirliklarning aralashuvi yanada murakkabliklarni keltirib chiqaradi, bu muammolarning oldini barcha xalq ishlarini yagona ma’muriy tizim ostida birlashtirish orqali olish mumkin.

In Islam is not through a cabinet of ministers with ministries that have mandatory powers and separate budgets. In such a system, there is often so much “red-tape” preventing surplus funds from one ministry being transferred to another, that it adversely affects how the affairs of the states citizens are managed. Further complications occur due to the interference of many ministries on a single issue and these problems can be avoided by putting all the affairs of the people under one administrative system. .

Respublika tizimida hokimiyat vazirliklar o‘rtasida taqsimlanadi, har bir vazirlikdan vazirlar bir hukumat — kabinet — tarkibida birlashadi va u jamoaviy tarzda boshqaradi. Islomda esa jamoaviy boshqaradigan vazirlar kabineti yo‘q. Aksincha, Xalifaga ummat tomonidan bay’at beriladi, u uni Allohning Kitobi va Uning Rasuli ﷺ sunnati bilan boshqarishga majbur bo‘ladi. Xalifa khilofat yukini yengillatish uchun o‘ziga yordamchilar tayinlashi mumkin. Ular so‘zma-so‘z uning yordamchilari bo‘lib, unga o‘zlariga topshirilgan masalalarda yordam beradilar.

In the republican system ruling is divided between its ministries and ministers from each ministry combine in a cabinet that then governs in a collective way. In Islam there is not a cabinet of ministers that collectively governs. Rather, the Khalifah is given a pledge by the Ummah to govern her by the book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. The Khalifah can appoint delegated assistants that help him in carrying the burdens of the Khilafah. They are literally his assistants and aid him in those issues delegated to them. .

Islamda hukmronlik tizimi demokratik emas, chunki unda qonun chiqarish huquqi xalqqa berilmaydi, xalq xohlaganicha halollashtirish, harom qilish, maqtash va qoralash huquqiga ega bo'lmaydi. Demokratik tizim ilohiy hukmlarga umuman bog'lanmaydi, balki erkinlikni o'zining asosiy tamoyili sifatida oladi. Kofirlar musulmonlarning demokratiyani o'zining haqiqiy shaklida qabul qila olmasligini biladi. Shu sababli mustamlakachi kuchlar, ayniqsa Amerika, uni musulmon yurtlarida targ'ib qilishga harakat qiladi, demokratiya shunchaki hukmdorni saylash vositasidir, deb da'vo qilib. Shu tariqa ular ummatni aldashga va demokratik tizimni qabul qilishga undashga urinadi. Musulmon yurtlari haqiqiy shohlarning yoki "respublika" diktatorlarining zulmi ostida ezilayotgan, xalqning his-tuyg'ulari bostirilayotgan va ovozi o'chirilayotgan ekan, bu yurtlarda demokratiyani yangi hukmdorni saylash vositasi sifatida targ'ib qilish oson bo'lgan! Shunday qilib, ular demokratiyaning ancha muhim jihatini, ya'ni qonun chiqarish huquqini Yaratuvchidan emas, balki xalqqa berish masalasini ehtiyotkorlik bilan chetlab o'tishgan. Afsuski, bu aldovga hatto ba'zi islomchilar, shu jumladan ba'zi ulamolar ham, yaxshi niyat bilan yoki yomon niyat bilan, aldanib qolgan. Ulardan demokratiya haqida so'rasangiz, ular uni xalq hukmdorni saylaydigan vosita, deb aytishadi. Musulmonlarni aldamoqchi bo'lganlar, xuddi kofirlar kabi, uni targ'ib qilganda demokratiyaning haqiqiy ma'nosidan doimo qochadi. Ular demokratiyalarda hokimiyat xalqning qo'lida ekani, qonun chiqarish esa ko'pchilik fikriga ko'ra amalga oshirilib, xalq xohlaganicha halollashtirgan, harom qilgan, maqtagan va qoralagani haqida gapirishdan bosh tortadi, balki uning tarafdorlari o'ylab topgan "saylovlar o'tkazilishi" ma'nosiga yopishib oladi.

The ruling system in Islam is not democratic, in terms of giving the right of legislation to the people, where they permit, forbid, praise and rebuke as they see fit. A democratic system is not committed to divine rules at all and instead taking freedom as its core principle. The disbelievers realise that Muslims could not accept a democracy in its true form. Therefore, the colonial powers, particularly America, try to promote it in Muslim lands, by claiming that democracy is simply a means for electing the ruler. In this way they attempt to deceive the Ummah and tempt them to accept a democratic system. Since Muslim lands are suffering under the oppression and tyranny of true monarchs or “republican” dictators in which the sentiments of the people are suppressed and silenced it has been easy to promote democracy in these lands as a means to elect a new ruler! In this way they have carefully avoided discussing the more important aspect of democracy, which is giving the right of legislation, to the people rather than to the Creator. Unfortunately even some Islamists including some scholars have fallen for this deceit, whether with good or bad intention. If you ask them about democracy they say it is a means by which the people elect the ruler. Those that intend to deceive Muslims, like the disbelievers, answer avoiding its real meaning always avoid the real meaning of democracy when they advocate it. They prefer to avoid discussing the fact that in democracies sovereignty is in the hands of the people, and legislation is according to the opinion of the majority, permitting, forbidding, praising and rebuking as they like, instead sticking to the meaning coined by its advocates that it is about having elections. .

Demokratiyada shaxs o‘zi xohlagancha harakat qilishi erkin bo‘lishi kerak (tarjimon izohi: aks holda xalq hokimiyatga qanday ega bo‘la olardi). Shunday ekan, u alkogol ichishi, zino qilishi, dindan qaytishi va muqaddas narsalarga tahqir qilishi mumkin (tarjimon izohi: ilohiy hukmdan qat’i nazar, ko‘pchilik fikriga ko‘ra jazosiz qolgan holda). Bularning barchasi demokratiya va uning erkinliklari doirasida ruxsat etilishi mumkin. Bu demokratiyaning haqiqiy mohiyati va ma’nosidir. Islomga ishongan musulmon buni anglagandan so‘ng, qanday qilib demokratiyaga ruxsat berilgan yoki u Islomdan deb ayta oladi?

In a democracy the individual must be free to act as he wishes (translator’s note: as how else could the people hold sovereignty) Thus, he can drink alcohol, commit adultery, apostasise and insult sacred matters (translator’s note: with impunity according to the opinion of the majority, irrespective of the divine rule._ All of this can be permitted under a democracy and its freedoms. This is the true reality and meaning of democracy. How is it possible for a Muslim who believes in Islam to say that democracy is allowed, or that it is from Islam after realising this? .

Islom xalifani saylash uchun Ummat tomonidan aniq belgilangan tartibni joriy etgan. Shariat hokimiyati uchun bo‘lsa-da, Ummat tomonidan xalifaga bayʼat berilishi uning xalifa bo‘lishi uchun asosiy shart hisoblanadi. Xalifaning saylanishi Islomda milodiy VII asrning boshlaridan beri amalga oshirilib kelinmoqda, dunyoning qolgan qismi esa diktatura zulmati va shohlar zulmida yashayotgan paytda. To‘g‘ri yo‘lga boshlangan xulafo‘i rоshidinlar — Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Usmon va ‘Ali (roziyallohu anhum) saylanishini o‘rganilsa, bayʼat Ummatning nufuzli kishilaridan va musulmonlar vakillaridan olinganligi, shu tufayli ularning har biri itoat qilinishi lozim bo‘lgan xalifa bo‘lganligi juda aniq ko‘rinadi. ‘Umarning xalifalik muddati tugashiga yaqinlashganda, ‘Abdurrahmon ibn ‘Avf (roziyallohu anhu) musulmonlar vakillarining (o‘sha paytda Madinа aholisining) fikrini bilish uchun vakil etildi. U Madinadagi musulmonlar xalifalikka kimni nomzod qilishni xohlashlarini aniqlash uchun ko‘plab uylarga bordi. U erkaklardan ham, ayollardan ham kimni xalifa qilib saylashlarini so‘radi va natijada umumiy kelishuv ‘Usmon foydasiga ekanligiga ishonch hosil qildi. Shundan so‘ng ‘Usmonga bayʼat berildi.

Islam has laid out a specific mechanism for the election of the Khalifah by the Ummah. Though sovereignty in Islam is for the shara’, enacting the pledge to the Khalifah by the Ummah is a fundamental condition for him to become a Khalifah. The election of the Khalifah has been occurring in Islam since the early 7th century C.E., while the rest of the world lived in the darkness of dictatorships and the tyranny of kings. If one were to study the election of the rightly guided khulafa’, Abu Bakr, ‘‘Umar, ‘‘Uthman and ‘Ali (ra), it is very clear that the pledge was taken from the influential people of the Ummah and from the Muslims representatives so that each one of them became a Khalifah to whom obedience became incumbent. Nearing the end of ‘Umar’s term, ’Abd al-Rahman ibn ’Awf (ra), was delegated to find out the opinion of the representative of the Muslims (at that time, the people of Madinah). He set out to gauge who the Muslims in Madinah thought should be nominated for the post of Khaleefah and visited many houses in that process. He asked the men and women who they would select as Khalifah until he concluded that the overall consensus was in favour of ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman was then given the pledge (bayah). .

Xulosa qilib aytganda, demokratiya kufr tizimidir. Bu hokimni saylash tarafdori bo'lgani uchun emas, chunki bu asosiy masala emas. Balki har qanday demokratiyaning asosi qonun chiqarish huquqini olamlar Rabbisi emas, balki xalqqa berishdir. Alloh taolo aytadi:

In conclusion, democracy is a system of kufr. This is not because it advocates the election of the ruler, for this is not the main issue. It is rather because the foundation of any democracy is giving the right of legislation to the people and not to the Lord of the worlds. Allah says: .

(Albatta, hukm faqat Allohga xosdir) [TMQ 12:40].

(Indeed, ruling belongs to Allah) [TMQ 12:40]..

Yo'q, Parvardigoringiz haqqi, ular o'rtasida yuzaga kelgan barcha nizolarda sizni hakam qilmaguncha, so'ngra sizning hukmingizdan ko'ngillarida hech qanday qarshilik topmay, to'liq taslim bo'lib qabul qilmaguncha, haqiqiy iymonga ega bo'la olmaydilar. {4:65}

(But no, by Your Lord, they can have no (real) faith until they make you judge in all disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest submission) [4:65]..

Qonun chiqarish faqat Allohga xos ekanini tasdiqlovchi ko'plab mashhur dalillar bor.

There are many famous evidences that confirm that legislation is for Allah alone. .

Bundan tashqari, demokratiya shaxsiy erkinlikni tan oladi, bunda erkak va ayol halol va haromga rioya qilmasdan xohlagan ishini qila oladi. Demokratiyada diniy erkinliklar cheklovsiz murtadlikka va dinni o'zgartirishga ruxsat beradi. Bundan tashqari, mulk erkinligi kuchlilarga korrupsiya va aldov yo'llari orqali zaifларни ekspluatatsiya qilish imkonini beradi, shu tariqa boylarning boyligini oshirib, kambag'allarni yanada qashshoqlashtiradi. Fikr erkinligi haqiqatni ifodalash uchun emas, balki Ummaning muqaddas qadriyatlarini haqorat qilish uchun ishlatiladi, to'g'rirog'i, erkinlik niqobi ostida Islomga hujum qiladiganlar o'tkir aqlli deb hisoblanadi va ularning sa'y-harakatlari mukofotlanadi. Bularning barchasi Islomdagi hukmron tizim (Xilofat) monarxiya, imperiya, federatsiya, respublika yoki demokratiya emasligini aniq ko'rsatadi.

To compound matters further, democracy acknowledges personal freedom, where a man and woman can do whatever they like without observing halal and haram. In a democracy, religious liberties allow apostasy and change of religion without any restriction. Furthermore, freedom of ownership allows the strong to exploit the weak through corrupt and deceptive means thus increasing the wealth of the rich and impoverishing the poor. Freedom of expression is not advocated to express the truth, rather it is used to insult the sanctities of the Ummah, to the point that those who attack Islam under the guise of freedom of expression are considered to have a keen intellect and are rewarded for their efforts. All of this clearly demonstrates that the ruling system in Islam (the Khilafah) is not Monarchical, Imperial, Federal, Republican or Democratic. .

3. Xilofat davlatining davlat muassasalari hozirgi amalda bo‘lgan boshqaruv tizimlarida ma’lum bo‘lgan muassasalardan farq qiladi, garchi ayrim qismlari o‘xshash ko‘rinsa ham. Xilofat davlatining muassasalari Makkadan hijrat qilganlaridan so‘ng, al-Madinat al-Munavvarada Allohning Elchisi ﷺ tomonidan tashkil etilgan birinchi islom davlatining muassasalaridan kelib chiqqan. Bu boshqaruv tizimiga ulardan keyin davlat rahbarlari sifatida kelgan to‘g‘ri yo‘lga boshlangan xalifalar amal qilganlar.

3. The governmental institutions of the Khilafah state differ from those known in currently applied ruling systems, even though some parts may appear to be similar. The institutions of the Khilafah state are derived from the institutions of the first Islamic State established by the Messenger of Allah in al-Madinah al-Munawwarah after his emigration from Makkah. . This ruling system was followed by the rightly guided khulafa’ who succeeded him as heads of state. .

Islomiy matnlarni diqqat bilan tekshirish shuni ko'rsatadiki, Xilofat davlati quyidagi institutlardan iborat:

Careful examination of the relevant Islamic texts reveals that the Khilafah state comprises the following institutions: .

1. Xalifa.

1. The Khalifah .

2. Vakolat berilgan yordamchilar.

2. The delegated assistants .

3. Ijroiya yordamchilari.

3. The executive assistants .

4. Hokimlar (Wulat)

4. The governors (Wulah) .

5. Jihod amiri.

5. The Amir of Jihad .

6. Ichki xavfsizlik boshqarmasi.

6. The department for internal security .

7. Tashqi ishlar bo‘limi.

7. The department of foreign affairs .

8. Sanoat boshqarmasi.

8. The department for industry .

9. Sud tizimi 10. Xalq ishlari boshqarmasi 11. Bayt al-mol (davlat xazinasi) 12. Axborot boshqarmasi (I’lam) 13. Ummat kengashi Ushbu kitob bu muassasalarni batafsilroq bayon etishga hamda ular kelib chiqadigan islomiy dalillarni tahlil qilishga qaratilgan. Biz Allohdan bizni Uning g‘alabasi bilan sharaflashini va ikkinchi Rashidiy xalifalikni barpo etishimizga yordam berishini so‘raymiz, shunda Islomning va musulmonlarning qudrati qaytadi, kufrning va kofirlarning xo‘rligi yuzaga chiqadi, butun dunyoga xushxabar va adolat tarqaladi.

9. The judiciary 10. The department for people’s affairs 11. The bayt al-mal (state treasury) 12. The department of information (I’lam) 13. The Ummah’s council This book aims to describe these institutions in more detail with analysis of the Islamic evidences from which they arise. We ask Allah to honour us with His victory and help us to establish the second Khilafah rashidah, thus bringing back the might of Islam and the Muslims, the humiliation of kufr and the unbelievers, and the spreading of glad tidings and justice to the entire world..

(Albatta, Alloh O'z amrini amalga oshiradi. Alloh har bir narsaga o'lchov belgilab qo'ygan.) [65: 3].

(Indeed Allah brings His Command to pass. Allah has set a measure for all things.) [65: 3] .

14-Zulhijja 1425 H. 24.01.2005

14th Dhul Hijjah 1425 H. 24/01/2005

The shape of the Khilafah system is not monarchical. It neither agrees with the monarchical shape of government nor resembles it. This is because in the monarchical system the son becomes a king through inheritance without the Ummah having any say in it whereas in Islam the method of appointing a Khalifah is through the enactment of the bay’ah. The monarchical system allows the monarch special privileges and he has rights exclusive to him which place him above the law. In some monarchical systems, the monarch becomes the symbol of the nation so he owns but, does not rule. In others he owns and rules, and thus runs the country and the people as he wishes. In both situations he is immune from being accounted by the people, no matter how severe his oppression and mistreatment of them. In contrast, the Khilafah system does not assign to the Khalifah any special privileges over or above those afforded to his citizens. Neither does the Khalifah have any special rights that distinguish him from the common man before the judiciary. The Khalifah is not the symbol of the Ummah as in monarchies. Rather, he is a representative of the Ummah in ruling and power, meaning that the Ummah selects him and gives him the pledge of allegiance willingly so as to implement the Law of Allah upon her. He is restricted in all of his actions, judgments and in looking after the interests and affairs of the Ummah by the divine rules. The shape of the Islamic Ruling System is not imperial, and is completely inconsistent with imperialism. The regions ruled under an Islamic system, which comprise various nationalities and races are indeed linked to one central place but are governed in a manner completely contradictory to that found in empires. The imperial system does not treat the regions of different races and nationalities equally. Instead it gives privileges, in ruling, finance and the economy to the centre of the empire. The Islamic way of ruling aims to create equality between citizens in all regions of the state. Islam rejects tribalism, and grants non-Muslims who hold citizenship full rights and duties in accordance with the divine rules. Fairness afforded to non-Muslims must be equal to that afforded to Muslims and both are similarly accountable to the law. Every single citizen, regardless of his or her creed, enjoys the rights afforded by the state. Conversely a Muslim living abroad who does not hold citizenship in the Islamic state does not enjoy those rights. Due to this equality, the Islamic system is completely different from imperialism. Imperial states establish colonies and exploit sources of wealth from areas it controls to enrich the imperial power base centrally. The Islamic system does not establish colonies or funnel wealth back to its centre. , Rather it considers all parts of the state equally, no matter how far apart they are, and no matter how different their races are. It considers every single region a part of the state and its citizens enjoy the same rights as those in the central region. It also makes the ruling authority, its system and its legislation the same in all its regions. .