Monday, August 25, 2014

Article 28 & 29, Explanation of the Draft Constitution of the Khilafah

The following is from the draft english translation of the Arabic book مقدمة الدستورأو الأسباب الموجبة له (Introduction to the constitution and the evidences that make it obligatory) published by Hizb ut-Tahrir 1382 Hijri (1963 CE). Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings. Please note some of the adopted opinions of the Hizb have changed since the time the book was published so any of the adopted literature published after this book which contradicts what is mentioned in this book abrogates those specific points

Click Here for previous article

Article 28
No one can be Khalifa unless the Muslims appoint him, and no one possesses the mandatory powers of the leadership of the State unless the contract with him has been concluded according tothe  Shari’ah, like any contract  in Islam.

The evidence is that the Khilafah is a contract upon satisfaction and consent, since its reality as a contract means it is not contracted except through two contracting parties, and therefore no one is the Khalifah unless he was appointed to it by those whose agreement completes the conclusion of the contract according to the Shari’ah. So if someone appoints himself Khalifah without the pledge from those whom the Khilafah is contracted through, then he would not be a Khalifah until his pledge occurs with choice and consent from those whom the conclusion of the contract takes place. So the fact that the Khilafah is a contract necessitates the presence of two contracting parties, with each of them having the necessary Shari’ah qualifications to be entrusted with the contract and conclude it.
If a conqueror came about and took the ruling by force he does not become a Khalifah by that, even if he announces himself as Khalifah of the Muslims, since the Khilafah was not contracted to him by the Muslims. If he took the pledge of allegiance from the people by force and compulsion, he does not become the Khalifah even if he was given the pledge, since the pledge given through compulsion and force is not considered and so the Khilafah cannot be contracted by it. This is because a contract of choice and consent cannot be completed through compulsion and force, and so it is not contracted except through a pledge given with satisfaction and consent. However, if this conqueror managed to convince the people that it was in the benefit of the Muslims to give him the pledge, and that the implementation of the Shari’ah would be complete through giving the pledge to him – and so the people became convinced and satisfied with that and gave him the pledge of allegiance on that basis with their own choice, then he would become the Khalifah from the moment that he was given that pledge by the people freely even though he took the authority through force and power. Therefore, the condition is the contracting of the pledge, and this is only reached through consent and choice, irrespective of whether the one who reached it was the ruler and leader, or wasn’t.

Article 29
It is stipulated that the authority of the region or the country that gives the Khalifah a contracting pledge is autonomous dependent upon the Muslims alone, and not upon any disbelieving state; besides the security of the Muslims in that country, both internally and externally, is by the security of Islam not the security of the disbelief. With respect to the pledge of obedience taken from other countries, there are not such conditions.

The evidence is the forbiddance of the disbelievers having authority over the Muslims, in accordance with the His (swt) words “Allah will never grant to the disbelievers a way over the believers” (TMQ 4:141), so if the authority of the disbelievers over the Muslims is present in any part of the Islamic lands, then that land would not be suitable to establish the Khalifah, since the establishment of a Khalifah is simply the establishment of an authority. Since that land does not possess the authority it therefore cannot give it. Also its authority is an authority of disbelief, and the Khalifah is not established with the authority of disbelief.

This is from the angle of the authority; as for the issue of security, its evidence is the evidence for Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Kufr, since the establishment of the Khalifah would make the abode into an abode of Islam, and it is not possible for an abode to be an abode of Islam simply by establishing the rule of Islam but rather it is imperative that its security is by the security of Islam and not that of disbelief, since the conditions for the abode to be considered an abode of Islam are: firstly, to be ruled by Islam and secondly, for its security to be the security of Islam and not the security of disbelief.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Q&A: Paying Zakat before it's due

Assalamu alaikum our sheikh, May Allah cherish you with Islam and cherish Islam with you. I pray to Allah that I will be among those who will give you the Bayah for the Khilafah on the method of the Prophethood, for He is the One Able of everything.
I have a question about Zakat, Zakat on trade deals or money; is it acceptable to give Zakat on them or part of them before a full year (al-Hawl) passes on them, and is the completion of (al-Hawl) a condition to pay Zakat on them?
May Allah help you with what is good for Islam and Muslims in this world and the Hereafter, Wa Assalam Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.
From Imad M. Sa'ad

Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
The completion of al-Hawl is a condition for the reason of paying Zakat, which is "the quorum" (Nisab). If the condition is met, that is al-Hawl has passed based on the reason of "quorum" without decreasing it, then Zakat becomes obligatory. However, if it is given out before it is due then this giving is permissible, according to the Shariah evidence, which include the following:
- Al-Bayhaqi extracted in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra from Ali:
«أَنَّ الْعَبَّاسَ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ سَأَلَ رَسُولَ اللهِ فِي تَعْجِيلِ صَدَقَتِهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ تَحِلَّ فَأَذِنَ لَهُ فِي ذَلِكَ».
"That Al Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, asked the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم if he can hasten in paying his Sadaqa before its Hawl has completed, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم granted him permission".
- Al-Darqitni extracted in his Sunan from Hujr Al-Adawi from Ali that he said: The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said to Omar:
«إِنَّا قَدْ أَخَذْنَا مِنَ الْعَبَّاسِ زَكَاةَ الْعَامِ عَامِ الْأَوَّلِ»
"We took the Zakat of the year from Al-Abbas in the first year".
- Also Al-Darqitni extracted from Musa bin Talha from Talha that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
«يَا عُمَرُ أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّ عَمَّ الرَّجُلِ صِنْوُ أَبِيهِ؟ إِنَّا كُنَّا احْتَجْنَا إِلَى مَالٍ فَتَعَجَّلْنَا مِنَ الْعَبَّاسِ صَدَقَةَ مَالِهِ لِسَنَتَيْنِ».
"O Omar did you not know that the Uncle of the Man is the twin of his father? We needed money so we took Sadaqa from the money of Abbas for two years earlier".
There was a disagreement in the Isnad of Al-Hakam and the correct is from Al-Hasan ibn Muslim which is Mursal (transmitted).
Accordingly, it is permissible to hasten the giving of Zakat before it becomes due.
For your information, most scholars say this as well.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
11th Shawwal 1435 AH
07/08/2014 CE
The link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page:

Q&A: Treatment of Non-Muslims in matters of foodstuff and clothing according to their faiths

Answer to the Question: Treatment of Non-Muslims in Matters of Foodstuff and Clothing According to Their Faiths 
To: Adnan Khan

Salaams Sheikh
My question is on an article in the Constitution. In article 7, clause 4 or clause D from the English translation of the second edition 2010, it is stated: “The non-Muslims will be treated in matters related to foodstuffs and clothing according to their faith and within the scope of what the Shari’ah rules permit”. My question is related to clothing.
Will non-Muslim women be allowed to wear any clothing as long as it covers the bodies and is modest, such as long dresses or trousers and a shirt? Or will they be required to wear Khimar and Jilbaab like the Muslim women?
How was the non-Muslim women’s dress dealt with throughout Islamic history? i.e. were they allowed to wear what they wanted or was the Islamic dress enforced upon them.
May Allah reward you
From your Brother Adnan from the UK

Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
Item "d" of the previous article, which you asked about, is as follows: “The non-Muslims will be treated in matters related to foodstuffs and clothing according to their faith and within the scope of what the Shari’ah rules permit”. Since you asked about the clothing, the answer is:

The above item identified two restrictions for clothing:

The first restriction: "According to their faith”, so they are allowed to wear clothing according to their religion; and clothing according to their religions is the clothing of their religious men and women, i.e. the clothes of priests and monks, etc… and nuns’ clothes. This is the clothing determined by their faith, so their men and women are allowed to wear these clothes. This is for the first restriction.

The second restriction: “Within the scope of what the Shari’ah rules permit”, these are the rules that govern the public life which includes all citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women.

•The exception is for the clothing according to their faiths.

•As for clothing that is not by their faiths, the Shari’ah rulings are applied upon them with regards to public life. This is for both 
men and women.

This dress code is specified in detail in the Social System, which applies to all individual citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims. There is no exception for non-Muslims except in clothing according to their faiths, as mentioned above. Other than that, women are obliged to cover their private parts (Awrah) and not to be in the state of revealing their beauty (Tabarruj), and must be wearing the Jilbab and Khimar. Since wearing trousers is considered Tabarruj, it is not permissible for a woman to wear it in public life, even if it is covering (Saatir).

As for historical facts; throughout the era of the Khilafah, women, whether Muslim or non-Muslim women, wore the Jilbab, a wide wrap over their (home) clothes, and covered their heads. There were some villages in which Muslim and non-Muslim women lived together and were not distinguished from each other in their clothing... 
Even after the abolishment of the Khilafah, the effects of that remained to some extent. 

Thus, if you ask the elderly, aged over seventy or eighty years old, they would tell you about their observations in some of the Palestinian villages, and how they used to see Christian and Muslim women dressed in similar clothing in those villages...
I hope this sufficiently answers your question. 

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

22nd Shawwal 1435 AH - 18/08/2014 CE

النسخة العربية