Monday, April 21, 2014

Explanation of At-Takattul al-Hizbi (Party Structuring) - Part 14

Sharh At-Takattul Al-Hizbi (Explanation of Party Structuring) by Sheikh Mohammad Al-Hawarey (rh). 





This is a translation from Sheikh Hawarey's explanation of the unique book by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani. 



To access part 13 click here



Alongside the Islamic, nationalistic and patriotic movements, communist movements were established and they were established upon the basis of matter. These movements followed the communist movements in Russia and were directed by them. Their method was destruction and subversion or sabotage. Its objective, other than establishing communism in the country, is to disrupt the western colonialism in favour of the eastern bloc by describing those who are in charge of the lands as agents of colonialism. It is not the place here to examine communism being established upon materialism or matter however I will briefly state that communism was established upon the Aqueedah of materialism i.e. that there is no deity (creator) and that life is matter. This means that they believed that matter is eternal and that all that exists has come into being by way of material evolution. This includes the existence of the human and other creatures which were in their view the result of the evolution of matter and its transforming from one condition or state to another better one. Therefore for them matter is the basis of everything and the ‘Aql (mind) is merely one condition from amongst the conditions of the matter and indeed it represents the highest evolution of matter. The systems of the human in life and his laws are only a result of matter. This then is the meaning of the statement that communism is established upon the thought of matter.

This is in regards to its thought. As for its method then they say that everything in existence is established upon contradictions and in order to speed up the evolutionary process it is necessary to stir up the contradictions in life. As such these movements were established upon a thought and a method (Fikrah and Tareeqah) regardless of the validity or falsehood of this thought. Nevertheless we are able to state that they did put down a Fikrah and a Tareeqah. However this thought of theirs was not clearly defined and their method was also not clear. Despite this we do not deny the presence of an ideological thought amongst them and a method that was from the same type of the thought, and that these movements possessed a defined aim which was the establishment of communism within the land. However this aim was a long-term objective and it was preceded by generating disruption against the western colonialism that was present in the Islamic world. Upon this we say that the objective was not evidently clear because it proceeded in accordance to the wishes of Russia and according to its direction and instruction and not in accordance to what the method of the ideology necessitates and what it dictates in terms of thoughts and actions. Destruction and subversion were prominent amongst their actions in addition to generating antagonism and hatred between the workers and their bosses and between the farmers and the land owners. They were very successful in regards to this point specifically and I mean the generation of hostility and hatred between the people in their relationships. They were able on many occasions to mobilise the Ummah against the western thoughts and interests although it was in service to Russia and not an implementation of its thought and its method. As such we able to decisively state that those who were responsible for these movements did not have any feelings or sentiments towards this Ummah because they had become agents to Russia proceeding according to her orders and not according to what the thought and method dictated.

For this reason the Ummah did not respond to these movements and no effect was left that needs to be mentioned with the exception of what we have already indicated. Their failure was a natural matter and that is for the following reasons:

1) That went against the Fitrah (inherent nature) of the human: This is because the human has been created upon elements of nature that are present within him and dealing a decisive blow against these elements is impossible because they are part of his make-up and composition. The effort to repress or suppress it to remove it will only lead to the misery of the human. And it is noted that this Aqueedah does not accept the existence of the matters that make up the nature of the human. Rather they consider the elements of this nature as matters that are acquired from the society that the human being lives in. So sanctification and religiosity is not part of the nature of the human but rather it is an attribute that is acquired or an idea that he has been indoctrinated with when he was young. Therefore they do not accept its existence and they consider the existence and worship of a deity to be an invention of the mind. This is in relation to sanctification but the matter did not end with that but rather extended to other instincts that are naturally present within the human like the instinct related to ownership or said differently the manifestation of ownership and possession within the survival instinct. They also say that the love or desire to possess or own is not from the nature but rather this has been dictated to him by the life of people in the capitalist society and that they thoughts are indoctrinated in the individual from his early days and as a result of that they have taken a form as if they are from the Fitrah (inherent nature). This is despite this statement representing a negation of the true reality and a clear and obvious mistake for all to see. So the child is not indoctrinated with any thought and has not yet acquired any information. We find that he screams when you try to take something from his possession and he attempts to take possession of everything that catches his attention. Did none of them ever witness their son or brother when they were at this age and how they screamed if we were to remove him from the breast of his mother or milk bottle? Despite all of this they insist that they are acquired thoughts in a display of pure arrogance from them. 

2) Because contradicts the Aqueedah of Islaam: In other words it contradicted the Aqueedah of the Ummah and for this reason these political parties were not able to be open about their Aqueedah. Indeed most of the time and if not always they did not address the people with what they held inside of them. They spoke most about socialism and its economic solutions. They targeted the vulnerability of the youth and some of the people by declaring their animosity to the west which was the number one enemy of the people and they would address some of the Russian positions which was in opposition to the west and competing with it to dominate over the lands. As for openly declaring their atheism and their hostility towards Islaam then this was a matter that they did not dare to do. In fact they did more than that when they made the claim that they respected the religions and accept Islaam. And it was from among the strangest of matters that the communist party in Sudan used to begin their gatherings with the recitation of the Qur’aan Al-Kareem. In this state of affairs it was only natural that these movements would fail.

3) Their adoption of the nationalistic issues: These political parties were not branches of one single political party or communist movement but rather the nationalistic description and the problems facing the region they appeared in was the most prominent characterization or description for every political party. The communist party in Lebanon had an independent leadership as did Syria and in every region from the Islamic lands the communist party had its specific leadership and there was no political relationship between one communist party and another. Each of these parties adopted the national problems and began to work upon their premise and this set up and status quo would obviously not provide it with any influence as a communist party within the Islamic world. 

For this reason the presence and existence of communist movements within the Islamic world were a knot that added to the other knots that the society suffered from and which the correct party structure or bloc would suffer from once it came into existence.

To be Continued, Insha'Allah...

Q&A: Regarding Hadith- "Whoever Prevented it then we will take it plus half of his wealth"






Bismillahi Al-Rahman AlRaheem

The Answer to the Question
Regarding the Hadeeth: «.... وَمَنْ مَنَعَهَا فَإِنَّا آخِذُوهَا وَشَطْرَ مَالِهِ» 
“….Whoever prevented it then we will take it plus half of his wealth”

To: Duaa AlFurqan

(Translated)


Question:
Our Dear Ameer, Assalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh, may Allah give victory through you. It is mentioned in the book, The Funds in the Khilafah State (Al-Amwal), on the subject of fines, page 104 (English edition), “Similarly, a fine is taken from the abstainer of paying Zakat half of his wealth as chastisement above the Zakat obliged upon him, due to the Prophet (saw) saying:
«وَمَنْ مَنَعَهَا فأنا آخذها وشطر ماله»

“….Whoever prevented it then I will take it plus half of his wealth” narrated by Abu Dawood and Ahmad).
It appears from what is stated that the adopted opinion is the permissibility of imposing fine on the abstainer of paying Zakat as a chastising punishment “Ta’ziria”, despite many differences between the scholars on its legitimacy, but what I would like clarification on is:
1. The Hadeeth that is inferred in full, in terms of the chain of transmission (sanad) and the text (matn), since I have searched for it and I did not find except the Hadith of Bahz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather said:

«فِي كُلِّ إِبِلٍ سَائِمَةٍ. فِي كُلِّ أَرْبَعِينَ ابْنَةُ لَبُونٍ. لَا تُفَرَّقُ إِبِلٌ عَنْ حِسَابِهَا. مَنْ أَعْطَاهَا مُؤْتَجِرًا فَلَهُ أَجْرُهَا، وَمَنْ مَنَعَهَا فَإِنَّا آخِذُوهَا مِنْهُ وَشَطْرَ إِبِلِهِ عَزْمَةً مِنْ عَزَمَاتِ رَبِّنَا لَا يَحِلُّ لِآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ مِنْهَا شَيْءٌ».

“For pasturing camels, every forty, one female milk-bearing camel ‘Bint Labun’ is to be given. No camel is to be separated from the rest of the camels. He who pays Zakat with the intention of getting reward will be rewarded. And whoever prevented it then we shall take it plus half (Shatra) of his camels, as a due from the dues of our Lord, the Exalted. There is no share in it (Zakat) for anyone from the family of Muhammad (saw)”. Narrated by Ahmad.

And in Sunan Abu Dawood: Bahz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

«فِي كُلِّ سَائِمَةِ إِبِلٍ فِي أَرْبَعِينَ بِنْتُ لَبُونٍ، وَلَا يُفَرَّقُ إِبِلٌ عَنْ حِسَابِهَا مَنْ أَعْطَاهَا مُؤْتَجِرًا - قَالَ ابْنُ الْعَلَاءِ مُؤْتَجِرًا بِهَا – فَلَهُ أَجْرُهَا، وَمَنْ مَنَعَهَا فَإِنَّا آخِذُوهَا وَشَطْرَ مَالِهِ، عَزْمَةً مِنْ عَزَمَاتِ رَبِّنَا عَزَّ وَجَلَّ، لَيْسَ لِآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ مِنْهَا شَيْءٌ»

“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: For every forty pasturing camels, one female milk-bearing camel ‘Bint Labun’ is to be given. No camel is to be separated from the rest of the camels. He who pays Zakat with the intention of getting reward will be rewarded. And whoever prevented it then we shall take it plus half (Shatra) of his wealth, as a due from the dues of our Lord, the Exalted. There is no share in it (Zakat) for anyone from the family of Muhammad (saw)”.

As for the Hadeeth with the wording,

"فأنا آخذها وشطر ماله" “

I will take it plus half of his wealth”, I have not found it.

2. What is meant by half (Shatra) of his wealth? Is it half of his whole wealth? Or is it half of his wealth which he prevented its Zakat? Or is it half of the value of Zakat that he was obliged to pay on his wealth? Or is it based on some opinion that his wealth is split into two halves and the Zakat collector selects the best half and takes it for Sadaqah as penalty for preventing it? Baraka Allahu Bika and Feeka wa Jazzak Allahu Khairan.

Answer:

Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,

As for the Hadeeth you mentioned

«فإنا آخذوها وشطر ماله»

“then we will take it plus half of his wealth”:

1. Abu Dawood reported from Bahz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

«فِي كُلِّ سَائِمَةِ إِبِلٍ فِي أَرْبَعِينَ بِنْتُ لَبُونٍ، وَلَا يُفَرَّقُ إِبِلٌ عَنْ حِسَابِهَا مَنْ أَعْطَاهَا مُؤْتَجِرًا - قَالَ ابْنُ الْعَلَاءِ مُؤْتَجِرًا بِهَا - فَلَهُ أَجْرُهَا، وَمَنْ مَنَعَهَا فَإِنَّا آخِذُوهَا وَشَطْرَ مَالِهِ، عَزْمَةً مِنْ عَزَمَاتِ رَبِّنَا عَزَّ وَجَلَّ، لَيْسَ لِآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ مِنْهَا شَيْءٌ»

“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: For every forty pasturing camels, one female milk-bearing camel ‘Bint Labun’ is to be given. No camel is to be separated from the rest of the camels. He who pays Zakat with the intention of getting reward will be rewarded. And whoever prevented it then we shall take it plus half of his wealth, as a due from the dues of our Lord, the Exalted. There is no share in it (Zakat) for anyone from the family of Muhammad (saw)”.

2. It was also reported by Ahmad and An-Nisaa’i, and the wording is of Ahmad, from Bahz ibn Hakim, from his father, from his grandfather said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say,

«فِي كُلِّ إِبِلٍ سَائِمَةٍ. فِي كُلِّ أَرْبَعِينَ ابْنَةُ لَبُونٍ. لَا تُفَرَّقُ إِبِلٌ عَنْ حِسَابِهَا. مَنْ أَعْطَاهَا مُؤْتَجِرًا فَلَهُ أَجْرُهَا، وَمَنْ مَنَعَهَا فَإِنَّا آخِذُوهَا مِنْهُ وَشَطْرَ إِبِلِهِ عَزْمَةً مِنْ عَزَمَاتِ رَبِّنَا لَا يَحِلُّ لِآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ مِنْهَا شَيْءٌ».

“For pasturing camels, every forty, one female milk-bearing camel ‘Bint Labun’ is to be given. No camel is to be separated from the rest of the camels. He who pays Zakat with the intention of getting reward will be rewarded. And whoever prevented it then we shall take it plus half of his camels, as a due from the dues of our Lord, the Exalted. There is no share in it (Zakat) for anyone from the family of Muhammad (saw)”.

• The Fuqahaa’ (Islamic jurists) differed in the understanding of this Hadeeth:

Some of them say on the pretext of abrogation, so nothing else to be taken but the Zakat, and some say that the word “Shat’ra" meaning half in the narration is not so, rather it is "Shott’ira", in a passive tense, meaning his wealth is split into halves and the Zakat collector selects any of the two halves to take. While some of them say that the narrator had deluded, for it is "فإنا آخذوها من شطر ماله" “then we will take it from half of his wealth” or "من شطر إبله" “from half of his camels”…

• My most preponderant view in this matter is the following:

A. As for the issue of passive voice (al-maj’houl), the issue of the illusion (al-wahm), and the issue of abrogation (an-naskh); I rule out all of these:

Thus passive voice is ruled out because the word "Shat’ra" in all the considered Hadeeth narrations is mentioned without the passive voice...

The issue of illusion, as well is unlikely, because the narration is not,"فإنا آخذوها منه شطر ماله" “Fa Inna Akhithooha Minhu Shat’ra Malihi” to say that the letter "H" in the word "Minhu" is an illusion from the narrator. Even then, the illusion here cannot be as well, because it is ruled out that the narrator who knows Arabic to say “Minhu Shat’ra Malihi” How then if "Minhu" is followed by the letter "Wa", to say that he deluded and he said “Minhu Wa Shat’ra” instead of "“Min Shat’ra "? This is unlikely....

This is with regards to passive voice and illusion. As for the issue of abrogation, it is also unlikely because the date is unknown, their evidence to support abrogation is not clear, and because the general evidences of Zakat do not abrogate the specific evidence of Zakat concerning the punishment of the abstainer from giving Zakat...

B. The most preponderant to me is that the first Hadeeth:«فَإِنَّا آخِذُوهَا وَشَطْرَ مَالِهِ» “then we shall take it plus half of his wealth” stating that the Zakat is taken by force from the Zakat abstainer, and is fined half of his wealth. It is also possible to understand from it, half of all his wealth, i.e. the wealth that is due for Zakat and other funds that have not yet reached the amount of Zakat of Gold, silver, cattle, camels, sheep, wheat, barley, dates, raisins, and trade goods.

C. In the other Hadeeth:«فَإِنَّا آخِذُوهَا مِنْهُ وَشَطْرَ إِبِلِهِ» “then we shall take it plus half of his camels” came after mentioning Zakat of camels «فِي كُلِّ إِبِلٍ سَائِمَةٍ...» “In every pasturing camels...”. It means that the word “Shat’ra” is added to the camel owned by him, so it is taken from him Zakat of the camel and half the camel. More clearly, if he has forty pasturing camels, then one female milk-bearing camel ‘Bint Labun’ is taken from him as Zakat, then another fine is taken from him which is half of the forty camels.

D. Hence, the second Hadeeth is specifying the earlier Hadeeth. That is, he is not fined half of all his wealth, but half the wealth that is due for Zakat.

E. As for the meaning of the word “Shat’ra” is it half or part; it is mentioned in the dictionary “Al-Muheet” (Shat’ra: half a thing and part of it). Thus this is left to the adoption of the Khalifah regarding the abstainer of giving the Zakat: either to take from him the Zakat and half of his wealth that is due for Zakat, or to take the Zakat and part of his wealth that is due for Zakat, as to fine him for preventing Zakat... Although I am inclined to the half, because it is fine and the fine carries the meaning of punishment and severity... and Allah knows best and He is All-Wise.

For your information we have mentioned this topic in the evidences for imposing fines, which means taking half of the wealth is fine, as stated in the book of “Al-Amwal” (The Funds in the Islamic State), and the book of “Nidham ul-Uqoobat” (The Penal Code).

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

17 Jumada II 1435 AH
17/04/2014 CE



Link to  the answer from the Ameer's page on facebook:

Monday, April 14, 2014

Q&A: Ruling related to Covering the feet & Statement of Sultan of Brunie on implementing Shari'a


Bismillahi Al-Rahman AlRaheem

Answers to the Questions:
1. Ruling related to Covering the Feet
2. Statement of Sultan of Brunei that He Intends to Implement the Shariah
To Ahmad Uais



Question: 
Asalamu Alaikum our honourable Sheikh, Please when you have time, could you answer my questions? Barak Allah feek.
First Question: From the book An-Nitham Al-Ijtima’i fil Islam [The Social System in Islam]
1. It is mentioned in the book on page 50 (English version)… “And there is no need to cover the feet since they are already covered”.
Does this statement mean that it is not an obligation to wear something that covers the Awra(feet) underneath the public life dress (Jilbab)?
2. On page 50 in the same book (English version)… “Because the loose and draping dress down to the feet is an obligation”.
The word “to” does it not indicate that the feet are not included to be covered by the Jilbab? From the linguistic sense, otherwise the previous paragraph confirms the obligation for it to be covered; for the precision of the language, isn’t it better to say;” to drape below the feet”?
Second Question: There are news reports on the Facebook that the Sultan of Brunei stated that he intends to implement Shariah and that he is making alterations in the constitution for this purpose.
What is the truth of this matter? May Allah Bless you our Ameer.

Answer:

Wa Alaikum us Salaam Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakaatuhu

First: Question regarding the feet.

1. The first statement in your question:

”And there is no need to cover the feet since they are already covered”.

Yes, it means that there is no need for the woman to wear something that will cover her feet underneath the public life dress, if the dress is draping to the floor by a hand span or an arm span and not more as what was mentioned in the whole paragraph which you copied the first statement from in your question.

2. The second statement in your question: “Because the loose and draping dress down to the feet is an obligation”. It means if the feet were covered by socks or something similar, then it is sufficient that the public life dress reaches the feet without draping down below the feet. By this, the draping mentioned in the verse is achieved. This is also clear from the whole paragraph that you copied your statement from in your question.

3. In order to make the matter clearer, I will repeat to you the Answer to the previous question:

(a. In the past, women and specially the Bedouins used to walk barefoot or wore slippers or similar footwear that did not fully cover the feet; women’s feet were exposed except when they wore dresses that drape down to the floor, to cover the feet when they walked.

When the Prophet (saw) prohibited draping the dress out of pride, Umm Salama (ra) concluded that if women do not drape their dresses (Jilbab) to the floor their feet will show when they walk, because they walked barefoot or wearing slippers that do not cover their feet fully. She asked the Prophet (saw): “What should women do regarding the draping of their dresses?” this is because their Jilbabs and Abayas draped to the floor to cover their feet.

The Prophet (saw) allowed the women to lengthen their dresses by a hand span or an arm span from the feet so that their feet are covered when they walk; which is possible as long as the dress (Jilbab) drapes down to the floor.

The subject was (the draping of the dress (Jilbab) to cover the feet) i.e. the question was to cover the feet, in other words draping the Jilbab on the floor below the feet was for the purpose of covering the feet.

The I’la (divine reason) in draping of the dress to the floor with the extra length is to cover the feet. The rule revolves with the I’la in its presence or absence. If the feet are covered, then the dress is not draped to the floor, it is sufficient to achieve the meaning of Idraa’ i.e. draping which is mentioned in the verse:

(يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ)

“... to bring down (drape) over themselves[part] of their outer garments” [Al-Ahzab: 59]

i.e. to drape the dress to cover the feet.

b. As for the place from which the dress should be lengthened that Umm Salama inquired about to add a hand span or an arm span to: the subject was the draping of the dress.

The issue that Umm Salama (ra) was inquiring about was” the draping of the dress (Jilbab) to the floor”. 

As she realised if the dress (Jilbab) does not drape to the floor below the feet the women’s feet will be exposed when they walk. This is true, if the dress is not draping to the floor, the feet will show during walking if the women are barefoot or wearing footwear that does not fully cover the feet.

So the Prophet (saw) gave her permission to drape the dress (Jilbab) a hand span down to the floor. In the hadeeth to drape a hand span to the floor, The word “drape” means to the floor; indicating that the hand span drapes to the floor i.e. below the feet.

I repeat this is for the purpose of covering the feet during walking. If the feet of the woman are covered with socks or something similar, it is sufficient for the Jilbab to reach the heels as long as the rest of the feet are covered) end.

Second: The Subject of Brunei:

Yes, the news reported in your question is accurate.

Implementing the rules of Islam is not by establishing fixed borders. It should be a correct implementation by a State that adopts the whole of Islam as a system, State, and society. It implements Islam internally and externally and propagates it to the world by Dawah and Jihad and its security is by the hands of the Muslims and is free from the Kuffar and the colonial influence.

Brunei is missing the above, even the implementation of Hudood that they declared will be on Muslims only, non-Muslims who live on its land will be excluded. It is well known that Brunei is widely open for the Kuffar. Its security is not in its hands, it is controlled by the West especially by Britain. This is why the matter is not more than a provision of a vent to the feelings of Muslims out there.

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

12 Jumada II 1435 AH 
12 April 2014 CE

Link to the answer from the ameer's facebook page