The Orientalists unleashed a host of spurious lies and fabrications  to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of Muslims regarding the Islamic System.It is imperative that we understand these issues for the sake of our revival.The lies and fabrications are summarized below.

1.After the 4 Khalifahs the Islamic State were ruled by monarchs.This is exactly what the West experienced under the Christian rule.

2.Islam was never implemented for 1300 years.

3.Islam oppresses and discriminates non-Muslims.

4.Islamic Empire was a tyrannical state

Let us address some points that may hopefully clear up some confusion:

Monarchy

First, we have to define what is a monarchy system. In order for a monarchy to exist, two things must be present: The sovereignty must belong to the monarch, and the monarch declares himself to be a sovereign. What I mean by sovereign is the one who legislates, or the one who makes the law, as opposed to ''authority,'' which is merely the power to implement or apply the laws and codes decided by the sovereign. Thus, the one in authority implements the laws, but the sovereign is the one who actually makes the law. In Islam, it is very clear that sovereignty belongs only to Allah, in the sense that only Allah can make the law and only Allah can set the standard. The Muslim Ummah has only the authority to understand the laws and legislation decided by the sovereign, and to implement them.

Now the question is: How did Islam instruct the Muslim Ummah to exercise this authority of implementing the Shariah ? Islam ordered the Muslims to exercise this authority by selecting one individual (the Khalifah), and once this individual is selected, a contract (Bay'ah) is formed between the Khalifah and the Muslims, in which the Muslims pledge full obedience and the Khalifah pledges to implement Islam in the best possible manner. And like any contract, both parties are obliged to fulfill the terms and obligations required from each party.

Therefore, the Khilafah cannot be considered a monarchy because the Khalifah is as bound by the Shariah as anybody else. The Khalifah only has the authority to implement the laws of the sovereign, and this authority is something that is given to him by the Muslims, and the Muslims obey the ruler only if the ruler fulfills the conditions. Thus, even the obedience to the ruler is conditional, and if the Khalifah violates these conditions, then he must be removed. Because the reference is fixed and immune to change, then this saves the society in Islam from any individual, group, or institution being ''above the law,'' and anybody (including the Khalifah) can be held accountable before the law.

Islam was never implemented for 1300 years ?

This is not true because there is a difference between the existence of the Islamic system and its application. Nowadays, the Islamic system is neither applied nor does it exist. However, in the past, the Islamic system did exist in the sense that all the rules, systems and regulations applied upon the society were derived from Islam and from the Islamic legislative sources, and no system, code, law, or rule was extracted from an outside source such as the Roman or Greek law. However, the strength of the application of these rules and systems will vary depending upon the human beings who are applying them, their level of knowledge, their political astuteness, and other factors. The Islamic system is a mechanism; how well this mechanism is used depends upon the operator. But nowadays, the mechanism does not even exist, even in societies that claim they are Islamic.

An example to illustrate this is the Bay'ah, which is the contract that is formed between the Khalifah and the Muslims. In Islam, sovereignty belongs to Allah in the sense that Allah is the only one who can legislate. This saves the Islamic society from any individual or institution being ''above the law'' because sovereignty (the ability to design the law) cannot be given to anyone and nobody can alter or change the Islamic text. However, Allah gave the authority to understand and implement the legislation to the Muslims, and the Muslims discharge this duty by selecting an individual and pledging full obedience to that individual. In return, that individual pledges to implement Islam fully and in the best possible manner, and when both parties agree to their terms, the Bay'ah is given to the Khalifah. No Khalifah can become legitimate unless the Bay'ah is given, and this rule must be implemented always. Anybody who assumes the post of Khalifah without the Bay'ah or tries to take the Bay'ah by force must be removed. Now, after the Khalifah dies or is removed, the Bay'ah to the next Khalifah could be given to his son, and the Bay'ah to the Khalifah after that can be given to his grandson. This would be an example of the rule in Islam being applied, but not in the best manner (hence, a misapplication), because if this becomes a pattern, then it will restrict the post of Khalifah to one or a few families, which will have long term consequences on the Muslims.

On another note, just because the Khalifah's son assumes office, this does not mean that a monarchy exists, because both the Khalifah and his son must be selected, both must be given the Bay'ah, and both are bound by the conditions of authority stipulated by Islam. Similarly, George Bush became president, and his son assumed the presidency afterwards; this does not mean that one has a monarchy because both presidents assumed their posts only after being elected and going through the voting(corrupt) process. In a true monarchy, the heir will assume the throne simply by virtue of being born to the presiding monarch.

Nowadays, what exists is not misapplication, but NON-APPLICATION. Nowadays, the rulers of the Muslims are not selected by the people but are imposed upon the people by force, and in many instances by an outside power, and the Bay'ah is not even a consideration. Furthermore, none of these rulers apply Islam, and even if one of them did, the fact that we have over 50 independent political entities presiding over the Muslims is by itself a violation.

Khilafah system is similar to the tyranny of the Christian rule ?

While the West progressed when they abandoned ''religion,'' we cannot generalize this historical condition to include the Muslims. What worked for the West does not necessarily work for the Muslims because both the West and the Muslim world faced their own unique historical experiences, which produced different outcomes. The ''rule of religion'' that existed in the West was a theocratic rule based on what remained of Christianity, and therefore, it was doomed to fail from the start. In fact, the opinions of the clergy and not the Christian doctrine was the reference, and supposing that they applied the pure Christianity as it was revealed to Jesus, this would not work because the message of Jesus was meant only for his people. Allah (swt) only gave Islam the comprehensiveness to address the issues of all humanity for all time and place because Islam was the final message to humanity.

After abandoning Christianity, the West experienced some progress while Muslims declined after abandoning Islam. Any credible historian will mention that the strength and power of Muslims, and the level of progress they experienced, was directly related to their adherence to Islam. And while Europe was squandering in the Dark Ages under the theocracies of the clergy, the Muslims were the pinnacle of civilization under the implementation of the Islamic system, and both Muslims and non-Muslims flourished under the application of the Shariah. This shows that Christianity and Islam are very different, as evidenced by the sharply contrasting experiences of Europe under ''Christian rule'' and of the Muslim world under Islamic rule.

Islamic State was a tyrannical empire ?

As for the Islamic State being an ''Empire,'' this description is a misnomer because there is no imperialism in Islam. In the Imperialistic model, a state exploits other nations for its wealth and resources, and those other nations become colonies. The residents of those colonies are regarded as second-rate citizens, while the citizens of the Imperial state are afforded a special status. However, when the Islamic State expanded to new lands, those lands became part of the state, and the people residing in those territories became citizens of the state, with all the rights and privileges of a citizen living in the State's capital. And the very same system that was applied on the State's capital was also applied on those territories. Such a scenario is analogous to the US designating Jordan and Iraq as states like California and Nevada, thereby making every Jordanian and Iraqi into a US citizen. However, this will not be possible because the US is a Capitalist state, and such a scenario will run counter to the interests of those major Capitalists. Designating every Egyptian and Iraqi as a US citizen means goodbye to cheap labour and friendly dictatorships, and hello to EPA regulations, Workers Compensation, OSHA (Occupational Health and Safety) standards, among other things. It is much easier, in the name of profit, to just take the wealth and resources rather than taking responsibility for the people and the land.

In fact, even the Islamic State's capital moved to these newly conquered territories, and those people who were ''conquered'' became the rulers of the Muslims. It would be unheard of for the British to move their capital from London to New Delhi or even to Ireland, and it would be equally unheard of for the British to accept a parliament composed of Indians. But this was not a problem for the Muslims. After the Mongols sacked the city of Baghdad, the Capital of the Muslim world relocated temporarily to Cairo, and the Mamluks took charge of ruling the Muslims and saving the Muslim world from further invasion. The Mamluks were ex-slaves, yet they assumed the authority, and the Muslims did not protest this.

Islamic States oppresses and discriminates Non-Muslims

The Shariah is applied upon everyone in the State without any discrimination based on religion, gender, ethnicity, or any other factor. For example, if a Muslim murders a non-Muslim citizen, then he will be subjected to the same legal proceedings as a non-Muslim who murders a Muslim or even another non-Muslim, and if found guilty, both would receive the same punishment. Now, there are certain rules that apply specifically to Muslims and other rules that apply specifically to non-Muslims, but these rules are not based on discrimination. Allah (swt) is above and beyond the capacity to discriminate. For example, Allah (swt) gave certain rights and obligations to Muslims and other rights and obligations to non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic State. Some may seem fair on Muslims, and some may seem fair towards the non-Muslims and unfair to Muslims. The non-Muslims are obligated to pay the jizya, but the Muslims are obligated to pay the zakat.The non-Muslims can practice their religion as they like, but the Muslims are obligated to pray, and there are legal actions that must be taken if it is discovered that a Muslim is not praying. The non-Muslims do not participate in selecting the ruler, but they do not have to serve in the Islamic army (unlike Muslim men), yet they get the full protection of the Islamic army, and the Islamic state can declare war against another state that threatens the non-Muslim citizens.We do not have the mentality that ''Since the infidels are going to burn in hell anyway, what difference does it make if we burn them on Earth.'' The status of the Kuffar on the Day of Judgment is one thing, and in this regard, Allah (swt) gave all human beings the choice, and they will be held accountable for this choice. However, in this life, the Kuffar are to be treated as human beings, and Islam has rules and regulations that govern how we treat non-Muslim.One example will be sufficient in this regard.One of the areas that the Muslims conquered (I believe it was during the Ummayyads) was a Christian town in close proximity to the Roman Empire at the time. The Muslims were unable to defend the territory from the Romans, so they retreated and gave the Jizya that they took back to the people. The Jizya is the tax that non-Muslim citizens pay to the State, and in return, they receive protection from the Islamic State. When the State was unable to perform this obligation, then it returned the Jizya back to the people. The people in the town were shocked because, according to ''conventional'' standards, an army that retreats typically plunders and pillages the area they conquered, and no army would return the money they took from the people. As a result, the people of the town embraced Islam by surrounding the city and declaring the Shahadah in unison.


As for the non-Muslims not taking part in selecting the Khalifah, this has nothing to do with whether they were ''conquered'' or not. A non-Muslim who was born in the Islamic State's capital would not be able to take part in this process as well because the Bay'ah is given to the Khalifah on the pledge that he will promise to rule by the Qur'an and the Sunnah. And because non-Muslims do not believe in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, then they cannot take part in this process. However, the outcome of this process, which is the implementation of Islam, will apply equally to both Muslims and non-Muslims, except for those areas where certain rules apply to Muslims and certain rules apply to non-Muslims.